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

Love


Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 115 in total
Fri, 07 Jul 2017 #1
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3743 posts in this forum Offline

Dear Mina

You often, if not almost always, write about love. Usually people do not respond, at least directly on this issue. So I thought I would dare for once. In all honesty. In fact I was on the verge of bringing the matter up myself.

It is not that you write ABOUT love, you give the impression, at least to me, that love is the place you are writing from.

Speaking for myself, I do not 'know' that love. “Know” must be a totally wrong word, if it exists it cannot be a thing of knowledge. I do not think that I experience this love of which you, and many others, speak. You might say it is not a matter of experience either.

Sometimes there is affection. Sometimes there is caring, sympathy, sometimes a little empathy. There can be compassion, understanding. I would not deny that these touch one sometimes. But I question if these are the love that K speaks of, or that you speak of. "When there is love, then you can do no wrong, do what you will", writes K. But I see wrongness happening, manifesting in myself. I see the attachment, possessiveness, the comparison, the jealousy...... this is what is. What I experience is the smoke, whereby K speaks of love as the flame without smoke.

So on the forum I write of the smoke. I watch the smoke inside myself, the smoke all being different flavours of the self. I see that it is the self that can hide under every stone, not love. I say again that I am speaking for myself, I cannot speak for you, Mina, or anyone else. I am writing simply, honestly – and in doing that, in honestly facing what is, one feels something different arising. But I will not give that feeling a name, once named it would not be true.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 07 Jul 2017 #2
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2003 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
So on the forum I write of the smoke

And K often did the same. Speaking about the disorder in man..the smoke.

Clive Elwell wrote:
I am writing simply, honestly – and in doing that, in honestly facing what is, one feels something different arising.

Indeed....facing what actually is. We can't face what is NOT after all. Can you say what this 'something different' might be? Intelligence? I always appreciate your honesty here on the forum Clive

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 07 Jul 2017 #3
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3743 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
We can't face what is NOT after all

Perfectly true, and an excellent point, Tom. So if we hold on to the illusion of love, as so many do (I am not pointing at Mina or anyone in particular in saying that), we cannot face what is - our lack of love, the prevalence of the self.

Tom Paine wrote:
Can you say what this 'something different' might be? Intelligence?

All I can say is quietness, a certain sense of peace.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 08 Jul 2017 #4
Thumb_stringio Mina Martini Finland 614 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Clive Elwell wrote:
Tom:We can't face what is NOT after all

Clive:Perfectly true, and an excellent point, Tom

Mina: Yes, an excellent point. It is the facing itself (the observer looking directly at the observed, which means there is neither, no thought, because the illusion of both IS the illusion of separation, of 'not facing something') that is the 'what is', fundamentally. And that is love, (call it what you want, it is no word, no thought.)

Yes, Clive has always been very honest in describing the human feelings that can appear in all of us..

But the danger with these descriptions of oneself as 'smoke' for example, as anything, however, lies in the subtle formations of self-images..Yes? So, we could say that we cannot be truly and wholly honest for as long as we exist as any belief of ourselves as this or that..

For as long as we see ourselves AS ANYTHING, we are not fully facing ourselves, fully seeing ourselves as we ARE, but remain at the level of 'facing' what we THINK we are.

This post was last updated by Mina Martini (account deleted) Sat, 08 Jul 2017.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Sat, 08 Jul 2017 #5
Thumb_stringio Mina Martini Finland 614 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Clive Elwell wrote:
Clive:>So if we hold on to the illusion of love, as so many do (I am not pointing at Mina or anyone in particular in saying that), we cannot face what is - our lack of love, the prevalence of the self.

Mina: The facing of our 'lack of love' (thought domination in us, which, being based on illusion, creates the illusion of everything, including of love of course) directly IS love, IS 'what is'. When I say directy, timelessly, I mean without thought.

Would you 'agree' love?

This post was last updated by Mina Martini (account deleted) Sat, 08 Jul 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 08 Jul 2017 #6
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2003 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
But the danger with these descriptions of oneself as 'smoke' for example, as anything, however, lies in the subtle formations of self-images..Yes? So, we could say that we cannot be truly and wholly honest for as long as we exist as any belief of ourselves as this or that..

It's not a matter of belief or self image to say that I often get angry or feel afraid or confused. We're not taking the description for the described. We're simply using words to point to the fact of conflict and suffering. I don't simply believe I'm an alcoholic (just giving an example) or a drug addict. This is not a simple matter of self image. My drinking may be destroying myself and my family. Conflict is a fact for many of us that we're addressing. What Clive called the 'smoke'.

Mina: For as long as we see ourselves AS ANYTHING, we are not fully facing ourselves, fully seeing ourselves as we ARE, but remain at the level of 'facing' what we THINK we are.

T: The label is not the thing of course. The label anger for instance prevents understanding what the anger is all about....'facing' the anger itself. It's based upon knowledge...conditioning aquired from one's parents, teachers, priests, nuns, psychologists, etc....and one's past experience being angry.

I just wanted to add that my girlfriend and I recently lost a friend to drugs....a heroin overdose. She was a young lady in her early 30's from town that we befriended. My girlfriend was devastated. Speaking of the 'smoke'....the 'wrong turn', to use a phrase K sometimes used.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Sat, 08 Jul 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 08 Jul 2017 #7
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3743 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
But the danger with these descriptions of oneself as 'smoke' for example, as anything, however, lies in the subtle formations of self-images..Yes? So, we could say that we cannot be truly and wholly honest for as long as we exist as any belief of ourselves as this or that..

For as long as we see ourselves AS ANYTHING, we are not fully facing ourselves, fully seeing ourselves as we ARE, but remain at the level of 'facing' what we THINK we are.

It is not really a matter of "what we are" (what we are is the world), but a matter of facing fact. Of facing, for example, the fact that possessiveness is not love. There is no image involved in this.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 09 Jul 2017 #8
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3743 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
Mina: The facing of our 'lack of love' (thought domination in us, which, being based on illusion, creates the illusion of everything, including of love of course) directly IS love, IS 'what is'. When I say directy, timelessly, I mean without thought.

You are saying that the facing of the absence of love in ourselves is, in fact, an act of love. Is that right?

I do not know, or do not remember, that I have ever seen things this way before. I am drawn to looking at it.

What does it mean, “to face”? It seems to imply the absence of judgment, the absence of condemnation. It seems to imply the dropping of all of our defences.

Putting aside, in fact, all the things that are obviously not love.

So the question remains, when all that is not love is put aside, let go of, is there then love?

Still looking at this. Thanks Mina

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 09 Jul 2017 #9
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3743 posts in this forum Offline

This is where I first came across the use of the word smoke - the smoke and the flame in fact. It is from Commentaries on living series 1. Hard to read still without tears.

"I am married and the mother of several children, but I have never felt love. I am beginning to wonder if it exists at all. We know sensations, passions, excitements and satisfying pleasures, but I wonder if we know love. We often say that we love, but there is always a withholding. Physically we may not withhold, we may give ourselves completely a gift; but even then there is a withholding. The giving is a gift of the senses, but that which alone can give is unawakened, far away. We meet and get lost in the smoke, but that is not the flame. Why is it that we have not got the flame? Why is the flame not burning without smoke? I wonder if we have become too clever, too knowing to have that perfume. I suppose I am too well read, too modern and stupidly superficial. In spite of clever talk, I suppose I am really dull."

But is it a matter of dullness? Is love a bright ideal, the unattainable which becomes attainable only if the conditions are fulfilled? Has one the time to fulfil all the conditions? We talk about beauty, write about it, paint it, dance it, preach it, but we are not beautiful, nor do we know love. We know only the words. To be open and vulnerable is to be sensitive; where there is a withholding, there is insensitivity. The vulnerable is the insecure, the free from tomorrow; the open is the implicit, the unknown. That which is open and vulnerable is beautiful; the enclosed is dull and insensitive. Dullness, like cleverness, is a form of self-protection. We open this door, but keep that one closed, for we want the fresh breeze only through a particular opening. We never go outside or open all the doors and windows at the same time. Sensitivity is not a thing you get in time. The dull can never become the sensitive; the dull is always the dull. Stupidity can never become intelligent. The attempt to become intelligent is stupid. That is one of our difficulties, is it not? We are always trying to become something - and dullness remains.

"Then what is one to do?"

Do nothing but be what you are, insensitive. To do is to avoid what is, and the avoidance of what is is the grossest form of stupidity. Whatever it does, stupidity is still stupidity. The insensitive cannot become the sensitive; all it can do is to be aware of what it is, to let the story of what it is unfold. Do not interfere with insensitivity, for that which interferes is the insensitive, the stupid. Listen, and it will tell you its story; do not translate or act, but listen without interruption or interpretation right to the end of the story. Then only will there be action. The doing is not important, but the listening is.

To give, there must be the inexhaustible. The withholding that gives is the fear of ending, and only in ending is there the inexhaustible. Giving is not ending. Giving is from the much or the little; and the much or the little is the limited, the smoke, the giving and taking. The smoke is desire as jealousy, anger, disappointment; the smoke is the fear of time; the smoke is memory, experience. There is no giving, but only extending the smoke. Withholding is inevitable, for there is nothing to give. Sharing is not giving; the consciousness of sharing or giving puts an end to communion. The smoke is not the flame but we mistake it for the flame. Be aware of the smoke, that which is without blowing away the smoke to see the flame.

"Is it possible to have that flame, or is it only for the few?"

Whether it is for the few or the many is not the point, is it? If we pursue that path it can only lead to ignorance and illusion. Our concern is with the flame. Can you have that flame, that flame without smoke? Find out; observe the smoke silently and patiently. You cannot dispel the smoke, for you are the smoke. As the smoke goes, the flame will come. This flame is inexhaustible. Everything has a beginning and an ending, it is soon exhausted, worn out. When the heart is empty of the things of the mind, and the mind is empty of thought, then is there Love. That which is empty is inexhaustible.

The battle is not between the flame and the smoke, but between the different responses within the smoke. The flame and the smoke can never be in conflict with each other. To be in conflict, they must be in relationship; and how can there be relationship between them? The one is when the other is not.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 09 Jul 2017 #10
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2003 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Putting aside, in fact, all the things that are obviously not love.

Who will 'put aside' that which he is? The best he can do is to possibly know/understand...not condemn, judge, or label... what he is. Oh, just read some of the excerpt from commentaries on living...."Whatever it does, stupidity is still stupidity. The insensitive cannot become the sensitive; all it can do is to be aware of what it is, to let the story of what it is unfold"

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Sun, 09 Jul 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 09 Jul 2017 #11
Thumb_de4 Dan McDermott United States 740 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Who will 'put aside' that which he is?

I don't think it's a "who" Tom, more like a state of mind? A "state of observation".

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sun, 09 Jul 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 09 Jul 2017 #12
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2003 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Tom Paine wrote:

Who will 'put aside' that which he is?

Dan: I don't think it's a "who" Tom, more like a state of mind? A "state of observation".

Right.... and there is no 'who' who will observe. We agree that I can't put aside what actually is...the fact of conflict, for example. I smoke or feel angry or depressed...or all of those. We can only observe. We don't normally observe free of the desire to change what we observe...to be rid of it(the anger or depression)...to achieve something else. this is where K eludes most of us I think...'where the rubber meets the road'.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Sun, 09 Jul 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 09 Jul 2017 #13
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3743 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
We don't normally observe free of the desire to change what we observe...

And is this because we actually believe, at some level, that it IS possible to change what we observe? Most people would be aghast at the idea one cannot change, do something to change. But is not the actuality that change is NOT pssible as long as it is based on the controller and the controlled.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 09 Jul 2017 #14
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2003 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
And is this because we actually believe, at some level, that it IS possible to change what we observe?

Yes, that seems correct. We believe in the 'me'...the image....separate from the anger or the craving. And we have an image of the future me...the ideal me... who will be free of violence or anger, etc. All this so called change is happening in images in the brain....however it's just image...not real.

Clive Elwell wrote:
change is NOT pssible as long as it is based on the controller and the controlled

It seems so, yes...as long as it's based upon thought.

Another great QOTD today: "The mind can deceive itself and fabricate anything it wishes. "

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Sun, 09 Jul 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 09 Jul 2017 #15
Thumb_de4 Dan McDermott United States 740 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
aghast at the idea one cannot change, do something to change.

Yes that would be thought to be 'rudderless', 'out of control', lacking 'willpower', 'moral fiber' etc. Interesting to recall in this context, K.'s "secret", that he didn't "mind what happens".

(To 'mind' has a lot of different meanings in english.)

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sun, 09 Jul 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 09 Jul 2017 #16
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3743 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Interesting to recall in this context, K.'s "secret", that he didn't "mind what happens"

Yes, this often comes to mind in me. It seems to imply that fear has no home in one, does it not?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 10 Jul 2017 #17
Thumb_stringio Mina Martini Finland 614 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Clive Elwell wrote:
Clive:Of facing, for example, the fact that possessiveness is not love. There is no image involved in this.

Mina: If there is no image involved, there can be no possessiveness (which is a construction of images) either. What is there then left to 'face'?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 10 Jul 2017 #18
Thumb_stringio Mina Martini Finland 614 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Clive Elwell wrote:
So the question remains, when all that is not love is put aside, let go of, is there then love?

Still looking at this. Thanks Mina

Mina: No, no questions remains...no theory, no mind remains...do not take the mind up again to continue anything...

Don't look at 'that', at some subtle conclusion...let us look at each other directly, instead...this is not some theoretical suggestion again...just suddenly longing to touch your heart completely..and it seems to be complete when fully shared...when we discover we are one, there is only One..

This post was last updated by Mina Martini (account deleted) Mon, 10 Jul 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 10 Jul 2017 #19
Thumb_stringio Mina Martini Finland 614 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Clive Elwell wrote:
Interesting to recall in this context, K.'s "secret", that he didn't "mind what happens"
Yes, this often comes to mind in me. It seems to imply that fear has no home in one, does it not?

M: The mind that is put together by thought/knowledge/limitation/relativity, can only mind about things within its limits. Actually this is the nature of self-concern, in all its manifestations. That which is not OF the mind, 'does not MIND what happens'. In other words, the mind is not interfering, or involved.

Yes, the personal mind IS psychological fear..

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 10 Jul 2017 #20
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 554 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
Mina: If there is no image involved, there can be no possessiveness
(which is a construction of images) either.
What is there then left to 'face'?

Hi Mina,

There is nothing left to face, the mind is in silence and love acts.

Truth will unfold itself for those who enquire their own actions and only to them and for them and to or for no one else.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 10 Jul 2017 #21
Thumb_stringio Mina Martini Finland 614 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Wim Opdam wrote:
There is nothing left to face, the mind is in silence and love acts.

Mina> Yes, absolutely so.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 11 Jul 2017 #22
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3743 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
. Interesting to recall in this context, K.'s "secret", that he didn't "mind what happens".

Whereas the normal state of the mind is that it minds just about EVERYTHING that happens.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 11 Jul 2017 #23
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3743 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Who will 'put aside' that which he is?

No, no one to put aside, no effort to do anything. Seeing of the fact is the putting aside, the action.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 11 Jul 2017 #24
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3743 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
If there is no image involved, there can be no possessiveness (which is a construction of images) either. What is there then left to 'face'?

This does not seem to allow for the movement, the state of flux that the mind is in. Possessiveness arises in the mind (which involves image, yes), the fact of possessiveness is seen, and that seeing (if it is free of any image of the see-er) has its action. And possessivness, which was previously there, has ended in the seeing.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 11 Jul 2017 #25
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3743 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
..just suddenly longing to touch your heart completely..

This seems to imply that you have heart, but you know that I have no heart, nothing that can be touched.

Me, I don't know.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 11 Jul 2017 #26
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3743 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
Yes, the personal mind IS psychological fear..

What is this personal mind, Mina? I am not convinced that there is any such thing. Just the common human mind, manifesting in you, in me, in everyone.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 11 Jul 2017 #27
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 554 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:

Mina Martini wrote:

If there is no image involved, there can be no possessiveness (which is a construction of images) either. What is there then left to 'face'?

This does not seem to allow for the movement, the state of flux that the mind is in. Possessiveness arises in the mind (which involves image, yes), the fact of possessiveness is seen, and that seeing (if it is free of any image of the see-er) has its action. And possessivness, which was previously there, has ended in the seeing.

Hi Clive

a few days ago you responded on a descrription:

Wim Opdam wrote:

Even the finding that I did not have anxiety to die,
can be wearing a trace of pride or having achieved something.

That's right, Wim, that's exactly how the self creeps in to everything,
corrupts everything.

is this not the movement of thought to clothing the naked truth ??

Clive Elwell wrote:

And possessivness, which was previously there, has ended in the seeing.

and 'can be wearing a trace' a description of
the seeing thought arising ended the movement of possession/attachment ?

So the seeing is the ending and no corruption takes place !!
Is this not also flux of the mind ??

Clive Elwell wrote:
What is this personal mind, Mina?
I am not convinced that there is any such thing.
Just the common human mind, manifesting in you, in me, in everyone.

No one should be convinced of anything !!!
If something happened in a particular mind, like K. , Mina or mine,
it could happen in everyones mind just because
it is "a common human mind".

Truth will unfold itself for those who enquire their own actions and only to them and for them and to or for no one else.

This post was last updated by Wim Opdam Tue, 11 Jul 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 11 Jul 2017 #28
Thumb_stringio Mina Martini Finland 614 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Clive Elwell wrote:
This seems to imply that you have heart, but you know that I have no heart, nothing that can be touched.

m: the longing that was talked of, does not know of division, (i am this and you are that and all the nonsense), it is an urge to meet with another truly, without any image coming in the way

but no more words about that, it either happens or not, between people...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 12 Jul 2017 #29
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3743 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
but no more words about that, it either happens or not, between people...

Is this saying "I don't want to talk about it any more"?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 12 Jul 2017 #30
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3743 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
is this not the movement of thought to clothing the naked truth ??

To be honest, Wim, I do not know why the self is so persistent. perhaps the human consciousness is saturated in it, after a million years of conditioning

Wim Opdam wrote:
So the seeing is the ending and no corruption takes place !!
Is this not also flux of the mind ??

Yes, I would say this is very much part of that flux.

Wim Opdam wrote:
No one should be convinced of anything !!!

Yes, it was just a figure of speech, Wim, loosely applied.

Wim Opdam wrote:
If something happened in a particular mind, like K. , Mina or mine,
it could happen in everyones mind just because
it is "a common human mind".

I have a very strong sense of this, Wim. In any circumstance that I find myself in, I see the usual, the common human responses to that circumstance, arising in 'me'.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 115 in total
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.)