Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
A Quiet Space | moderated by Clive Elwell

new threads


Displaying all 12 posts
Page 1 of 1
Fri, 16 Jun 2017 #1
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3742 posts in this forum Offline

Again a new thread by me! :-(

As I look at the list of threads, I become rather embarrassed, when I see that almost all of them have been started by me. It gives the impression that this is a one man show! Which is obviously not so, so why is it mostly me who starts the threads?

Any answers to this? Are people somehow reluctant to show initiative in this matter?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 16 Jun 2017 #2
Thumb_rodin_de_denker Olive B Netherlands 238 posts in this forum Offline

Clive, I would love to begin a ton of new threads, but I have a slightly different point of view than K , as you well know, and that, I think, will give a huge communication barrier between me and the rest of the forum members. So for the sake of the K teachings I wait for you or any one else to start a thread. So it is not because I have nothing to say.

May be this is a good place/time to say something about the threads.

I have noticed that every thread has more or less the same unsatisfactory outcome.
I like to suggest to investigate more to the source, otherwise we will be left with no answers, only question.

For instance the thread “the flowering of thought”

K:Thought is born of experience and knowledge,

Olive:No one is questioning what K is meaning by experience, or ask themselves if K is meaning that thought exist out of 2 elements: experience +knowledge.

K:Thinking is materialistic, it is a process of matter.

Olive:Is it true that thinking is made out of matter?

Did scientists yet found the stuff called matter, and if so is it realy inert and dense?

Experience alone must be the test of reality.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 16 Jun 2017 #3
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3742 posts in this forum Offline

Olive B wrote:
Clive, I would love to begin a ton of new threads, but I have a slightly different point of view than K , as you well know, and that, I think, will give a huge communication barrier between me and the rest of the forum members.

Thanks you for your reply, Olive.

I have previously stated, in my moderator hat, that I have no objection to the words of other “teachers” being brought in discussions – I am including “other teachers” in your"different points of view", although sorry, these points of view may be original to yourself. This is because I primarily see the forum as about self-inquiry, rather than about K's teachings ( I might get into trouble with the Kinfonet administration with that comment :-) )

In any case I want to say that K does not represent a philosophical approach to life. One cannot be a “Krishnamurti-ite”.

I also see it healthy that are people are on the forum who are – shall we say “exploring a variety of approaches to learning about life”. To endlessly quote K to ourselves can be rather sterile – although I recognise that people often put up quotes because they have been so deeply moved by them.

Olive B wrote:
I have noticed that every thread has more or less the same unsatisfactory outcome.
I like to suggest to investigate more to the source, otherwise we will be left with no answers, only question.

Are you saying, Olive, that we tend not to follow through on discussions, we do not stick to the original issue, and wander off on various tangents. I do agree with you. Repeatedly I have tried to stick to an issue, and have been foiled, or have foiled myself! I recognise that this is extremely difficult matter, and it is often not clear if bringing in an issue IS diverging from the original or NOT.

I muse over various approaches.

As for your comment about thought:

Olive B wrote:
Olive:Is it true that thinking is made out of matter?

Here is a case in point about the difficulty in deciding whether to start new threads or not. Clearly to discuss this is tangential to the subject of the thread- and yet one doesn't want to take away all spontaneity, one doesn't want to formalise the discussion. I have looked at this for a long time, and feel there are no definite answers. Perhaps we should give up the idea of separate threads altogether, since all inquiry really points towards the same place.

Anyway, I will comment, and if you want to reply on this issue, perhaps you would start a new thread/

This issue has often come up in discussions between Bohm and K. Usually K starts by making the statement “Thought is matter”. Bohm objects to this, and suggests that “thought is a material process” is a more appropriate description. It is a process IN matter. He says most scientists would accept that.

An analogy that has been used is that of a wave in the sea. The wave IS water, but it is also a process in the water. But all analogies are suspect, and break down eventually. I myself, from other reading, and from some observations in myself, feel that thought can and does extend outside the substance of the brain. It has ORIGINATED as a process in matter, perhaps.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 16 Jun 2017 #4
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2000 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
This issue has often come up in discussions between Bohm and K. Usually K starts by making the statement “Thought is matter”. Bohm objects to this, and suggests that “thought is a material process”

I'm not sure that this is even an important issue. Man lives with terrible conflict and suffering. W
Determining whether thought is matter or comes from somewhere beyond will have no effect on our suffering, I don't think. What’s important, imo, is to see how thought leads inevitably to inner and outer conflict and division...to suffering. I'm speaking of thought in the psychological dimension.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Fri, 16 Jun 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 16 Jun 2017 #5
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3742 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Determining whether thought is matter or comes from somewhere beyond will have no effect on our suffering, I don't think.

I'm not sure about this, Tom. Would you not say to see thought as a material process gives the right perspective? Does not that imply that thought is then not seen as some absolute reality, where everything thought says is the truth?

Suffering comes from thought, does it not? If thought is seen for what it is, I would say that changes altogether our experience of suffering.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 17 Jun 2017 #6
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 398 posts in this forum Offline

4:

Tom Paine wrote:
Determining whether thought is matter or comes from somewhere beyond will have no effect on our suffering, I don't think. What’s important, imo, is to see how thought leads inevitably to inner and outer conflict and division...to suffering. I'm speaking of thought in the psychological dimension.

I'm also not sure, Tom. Isn't important in the context of understanding the self, the "me"? If thought IS matter or is a process which is totally dependent on matter, doesn't this fact (if it is a fact) completely destroy the traditional notion of what self is? It seems to me that it does that. Does it?

Looking at it strictly technically, is thought/memory in the computer which is put together by thought any different than thought/memory in the marvelous living computer which is the brain which is not put together by thought? Just as it's not necessary to understand the complex (to me) and many details of how memory/thought operates in a computer in order to understand that there is no independent and separate self beyond the obviously material computer, I don't think it's necessary to understand the complex and many details of how memory/thought operates in the human brain to understand that there is no separate self beyond the material brain. But isn't it an important and relevant point to understand in our .... I don't even know what to call it ... "enquiry", even though it doesn't end our suffering?

I don't think that determining whether or not thought is matter can alleviate our suffering. But isn't understanding that nature of thought part of the self-understanding that we here are - it seems to me - all passionate about, even though we squabble. Isn't self-understanding clearly essential in order to live fully, vitally, without conflict or division, without being "tethered", bound, enslaved by the known, the fear, the habit, the routine, and so on? Realizing we may never understand fully or at all.

I may have misunderstood what you said, Tom. (And sorry, Clive. I'm very tired. You can move this elsewhere if you feel like it.)

This post was last updated by Huguette . Sat, 17 Jun 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 17 Jun 2017 #7
Thumb_rodin_de_denker Olive B Netherlands 238 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:

Clive Elwell wrote:

This issue has often come up in discussions between Bohm and K. Usually K starts by making the statement “Thought is matter”. Bohm objects to this, and suggests that “thought is a material process”

TOM:I'm not sure that this is even an important issue. Man lives with terrible conflict and suffering.

Re#4
If you go deep enough to the root of suffering you will find nothing there, because it is an illusion.

And because of that you can’t fight suffering.

If you make it your goal to get rid of suffering you pepetuate it.

That is why it is may be interesting to investigate also things like matter.

Matter is a concept invented by the Greeks 25000 years ago to account for that part of our experience that takes place outside consciousness/awareness.
‘matter’ was the name they gave to the stuff that seems to exists outside consciousness/awareness.

If we don’t cling to any belief in limitation regarding consciousness/awareness, then consciousness/awareness is allowed to be to show its true nature.

Experience alone must be the test of reality.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 17 Jun 2017 #8
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3742 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
(And sorry, Clive. I'm very tired. You can move this elsewhere if you feel like it.)

Oh Huguette, what are you apologising for? Have I come over as officious in talking about the use of threads? I do not mean to be controlling, it is just that I wonder at times what best facilitates inquiry, given the structures of the forum. I understand that often just replying to someone's post is the most natural thing to do, whatever the thread.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 17 Jun 2017 #9
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2000 posts in this forum Offline

Olive B wrote:
If you go deep enough to the root of suffering you will find nothing there, because it is an illusion.

And because of that you can’t fight suffering.

Why is suffering an illusion, Olive? Is war an illusion? Is the suffering of the abused child an illusion? Don't we feel pain ourselves when we read about the latest horror in the Middle East...or an abused child....the suffering of the poor? If suffering is an illusion then it matters not if we continue to ignore the poor...ignore the wars and the starvation(often with man made causes)....ignore the abused child..the homeless.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Sat, 17 Jun 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 17 Jun 2017 #10
Thumb_rodin_de_denker Olive B Netherlands 238 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Why is suffering an illusion,

Re#9

Because at the root of the suffering you find a non existing self.

There is nothing there to do anything to.

The very best you can do is explore suffering out of interest.

Suffering is already made out of resistance.

By going to war with it you are piling one resistance on top of an already existing resistance, you are making it worse.

Experience alone must be the test of reality.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Sat, 17 Jun 2017 #11
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2000 posts in this forum Offline

Olive B wrote:
By going to war with it you are piling one resistance on top of an already existing resistance

No one said anything about going to war with it. Only pointing out the fact of it....the obvious reality of war, starvation, etc. Saying it's an illusion will do nothing to alter the fact.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Sat, 17 Jun 2017.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Thu, 22 Jun 2017 #12
Thumb_stringio Mina Martini Finland 614 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Clive Elwell wrote:
Again a new thread by me! :-(

-m: It simply does not matter! :-) Do not take yourself personally! :-)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying all 12 posts
Page 1 of 1
To quote a portion of this post in your reply, first select the text and then click this "Quote" link.

(N.B. Be sure to insert an empty line between the quoted text and your reply.)