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

Love


Displaying posts 31 - 60 of 115 in total
Thu, 13 Jul 2017 #31
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 554 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
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

Hi Clive,
Knowing how wil not set one free but seeing the self being active does..

Because 'TRUTH' is a country without paths and borders it is also present everywhere but covered under or behind the coloration, the clothing by the 'SELF'.

Let me try to formulate differently:
Truth is harmless but painful to the ego
The function of thought is self-defense and works harmlessly in the material world,
but in the intangible world it works harmful and thus untruthful.

It is not the duration of the untruth that settles but not seeing the truth does dismantled it.

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
Fri, 14 Jul 2017 #32
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3743 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
Truth is harmless but painful to the ego

Does not truth dissolve the ego?

Wim Opdam wrote:
It is not the duration of the untruth that settles but not seeing the truth does dismantled it.

Would you like to rephrase this, Wim? Cannot quite grasp it.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 14 Jul 2017 #33
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3743 posts in this forum Offline

To come back to my basic question, which is, why is there no deep, abiding, love in me? Why is love not the basis of my actions?

It is not at all easy to ask this question. It is very disturbing if I REALLY ask it, not just discuss it theoretically. And it is not easy to ask because there is so much pretence about love. Just about everyone claims to love. They claim to love their family, their husband, wife, parents, children. But is it love when there is attachment, identification, possessiveness, jealousy? And can love be limited in this way? Is love reserved for the few? Can one love one and not another?

As I say it is not easy to ask why there is no true love in oneself, it makes one appear as a freak, with everyone claiming to love. But if everyone has love in their hearts, why is the world in the dreadful state that it is?

Clearly one cannot choose to love. One cannot switch it on at will. One can go through the motions, one can approximate one's actions to the generally accepted idea of what love is, but that is not love, it is essentially pretence. How is there to be love in one's heart, how is one to come upon this flame without smoke? This may be the only answer to all our problems.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 16 Jul 2017 #34
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3743 posts in this forum Offline

Given the fact of the acid attacks and “knock-downs” mentioned in the “Effort” thread, given the almost unbelievable levels of violence, cruelty, that we hear and see daily reported, government-approved torture, the callousness of economic inequity, starving children (was talking to someone with a personalised car registration plate worth $10,000, and I have read of people paying over one million) …... given so much more, it seems odd to be asking “what is love?”. Yet somehow one continues to do that.

“Love is a strange thing, and how easily we lose the warm flame of it! The flame is lost, and the smoke remains. The smoke fills our hearts and minds, and our days are spent in tears and bitterness. The song is forgotten, and the words have lost their meaning; the perfume has gone, and our hands are empty. We never know how to keep the flame clear of smoke, and the smoke always smothers the flame. But love is not of the mind, it is not in the net of thought, it cannot be sought out, cultivated, cherished; it is there when the mind is silent and the heart is empty of the things of the mind”

K

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 16 Jul 2017 #35
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2003 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
it seems odd to be asking “what is love?”. Yet somehow one continues to do that.

But you quote K saying the following:

Clive Elwell wrote:
But love is not of the mind, it is not in the net of thought, it cannot be sought out, cultivated, cherished; it is there when the mind is silent and the heart is empty of the things of the mind”

This seems to point us back to the topic of 'effort' that we discussed in another thread. If it's not of the mind and cannot be cultivated, then there's nothing one can do to approach it. Perhaps we can understand what love is NOT? Looking at how we are attached to the things of the mind....the things created by thought. Seeing how this attachment to and identification with thought is responsible for the state we're(humanity is) in.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 16 Jul 2017 #36
Thumb_de4 Dan McDermott United States 740 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
If it's not of the mind and cannot be cultivated, then there's nothing one can do to approach it.(Love)

It can't be found through 'intention'..Thinking about Tom's describing getting punched, what that boy had in his mind and heart was hatred for a symbol, in this case white skin. He didn't see another human similar to himself but a symbol of his hate. Now that boy could pursue 'love' all his life, but while that symbol abides in him, real love could have no place. It is I think about emptiness and silence. Negation of what's there. As 'bliss' is the absence of conflict, you could say love is the absence of hate. Not something you 'get' but something that is there as K. said: "when the mind is silent and the heart is empty of the things of the mind”

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 17 Jul 2017 #37
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3743 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
This seems to point us back to the topic of 'effort' that we discussed in another thread. If it's not of the mind and cannot be cultivated, then there's nothing one can do to approach it.

Perhaps, but neither can one give up on the inquiry. Just because there appears no answer, does that mean that one should give up on the question?

On the other hand, it may be that "giving up" is just what is needed. Not giving up in frustration, in despair, but simply letting go (thought letting go of itself), seeing that thought has nothing useful to contribute.

Tom Paine wrote:
Perhaps we can understand what love is NOT?

This was always K's 'approach', wasn't it? And it seemed at the end of all the negation, he found the positive. But not sure if many of the listeners went through the same process.

But yes, it is clear that thought cannot pursue love. Thought cannot pursue anything real, in fact - whatever it pursues must be its own creation, no? It must be merely an image of the real, and so not the real.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 17 Jul 2017 #38
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3743 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
He didn't see another human similar to himself but a symbol of his hate.

This is the situation with practically all the world, is it not? This is why there is no real relationship with people, because we are not in contact with the person, all we we have are images. And this may be why there is so little true love.

I don't know why this is not seen. Talking to people, reading widely articles on the web, and especially reading the commentries from the public which follow those articles, it is apparent that it is not seen. Perhaps if it was, people would have to give up their identifications, which are their identities, their very life, as far as thought is concerned.

So much could be described, analysed, but in the end the only valid question is: can I myself drop all images of others?

It seems the answer is no, images arise unbidden to the mind, and so one asks: can one be choicelessly aware of this process?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 17 Jul 2017 #39
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2003 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
all we we have are images. And this may be why there is so little true love.

I don't know why this is not seen.

Because the image is taken to be the person. I 'know' my wife or my child, after all. That knowledge is just images....memories...thoughts...ideas...emotions. There is no love in relating through the image....only 'me' seeking pleasure or satisfaction or security...fulfillment in the image, right? Or am I being too harsh?

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Mon, 17 Jul 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 17 Jul 2017 #40
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 554 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:

Wim Opdam wrote:
Truth is harmless but painful to the ego

Does not truth dissolve the ego?

That's precise the reason why it is painful !!
Ones whole private collection appears to be worthless

Clive Elwell wrote:

Wim Opdam wrote:

It is not the duration of the untruth that settles but not seeing the truth does dismantled it.

Would you like to rephrase this, Wim? Cannot quite grasp it.

by introducing the past as the cause you introduce time which is limiting
while seeing truth is the dismantling act.

PS: very interesting replies from Dan, Clive and Tom but at the moment short of time to respond.

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, 17 Jul 2017 #41
Thumb_de4 Dan McDermott United States 740 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
There is no love in relating through the image....only 'me' seeking pleasure or satisfaction or security...fulfillment in the image, right? Or am I being too harsh?

It sounds "harsh" but logically at least, it's 'inescapable', isn't it? There is a central image that is 'me'. It is like a psychological 'interface' between the body/brain and the world. It is a protective mechanism. So as long as it is there. all relationship with the 'outside' world is filtered through it. So there is no 'direct' relationship with anything or anyone as long as this 'self' image is present. And so with this knowledge, the pretense (false impression) that I am in direct contact can give way and allow there to be observation of how this self-interface actually works, how it protects itself, escapes from 'what is, how it pursues pleasure, rewards etc., all the aspects and facets of it...this is unknown country.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Mon, 17 Jul 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 17 Jul 2017 #42
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2003 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
. So there is no 'direct' relationship with anything or anyone as long as this 'self' image is present

Not just the self image, but the whole content of consciousness...the should's and should not's, good vs. bad, right vs. wrong, the image/memory of 'you'/wife/child/friend/enemy.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 17 Jul 2017 #43
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2003 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
Clive Elwell wrote:
Wim Opdam wrote:
Truth is harmless but painful to the ego

Clive: Does not truth dissolve the ego?

Wim: That's precise the reason why it is painful !!
Ones whole private collection appears to be worthless

I'm not so sure, Wim. Truth frees one from the bondage of the ego. Or am I missing your point? If one sees the truth that 'one's whole private collection' is worthless, one is free of it. However, if one is told that it is worthless, but one doesn't see the truth of that fact, then perhaps there is pain...a feeling of not being worthy...of being bad...guilt, perhaps.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Mon, 17 Jul 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 18 Jul 2017 #44
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3743 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
That's precise the reason why it is painful !!

I'm not so sure that the truth - I am using that word in the sense of 'seeing what is' - is painful. Is it not the RESISTANCE to seeing what is that is painful?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 18 Jul 2017 #45
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3743 posts in this forum Offline

This is the JKonline daily quote:

In a world of vast organizations, vast mobilizations of people, mass movements, we are afraid to act on a small scale; we are afraid to be little people clearing up our own patch. We say to ourselves, “What can I personally do? I must join a mass movement in order to reform.” On the contrary, real revolution takes place not through mass movement but through the inward revolution of relationship—that alone is real reformation, a radical, continuous revolution. We are afraid to begin on a small scale. Because the problem is so vast, we think we must meet it with large numbers of people, with a great organization, with mass movements. Surely, we must begin to tackle the problem on a small scale, and the small scale in the “me” and the “you”. When I understand myself, I understand you, and out of that understanding comes love.

I am wondering about those last few words: "out of understanding comes love". Can anyone throw light on them?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 20 Jul 2017 #46
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 554 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Is it not the RESISTANCE to seeing what is that is painful?

Clive,

Can love, seeing the truth what is, be painful? certainly not !!
But the volunteering of the ego, your precious collection,
showing your possession going up in smoke is painful for the ego but necessary.
A final convulsion of the dying ego.
Or indeed a flight in safety, in a continuation of what is not.

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
Thu, 20 Jul 2017 #47
Thumb_de4 Dan McDermott United States 740 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
K. When I understand myself, I understand you, and out of that understanding comes love.

When (and if) it is seen that the 'individual' self, the 'me' is a protective process put together and maintained through fear... that 'seeing' or "understanding" removes the barrier between us. This frees 'compassion' from the confines of narrow 'self-love'.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 20 Jul 2017 #48
Thumb_rodin_de_denker Olive B Netherlands 238 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
When I understand myself, I understand you, and out of that understanding comes love.

Re#45

In my opinion K is here too expanded, and therefore unnecessarily difficult.

When I understand myself…there is no other, there is Love.

Understanding, is knowing yourself as unlimited everpresent awareness/consciousness, and Love are not 2 different things.

So, Love is not coming from understanding, Love is understanding.

Experience alone must be the test of reality.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 20 Jul 2017 #49
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2003 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
But the volunteering of the ego, your precious collection,
showing your possession going up in smoke is painful for the ego but necessary.
A final convulsion of the dying ego.

I'm not understanding your use of the word 'volunteering' Wim. In normal usage that would imply will. You probably mean 'surrendering'? Though I don't see that as painful. When the false is seen as false it is dropped without pain or struggle. When we don't see the danger...the 'falseness' ...then there's struggle and holding on. I may be misunderstanding you, but that's my view.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 20 Jul 2017 #50
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2003 posts in this forum Offline

Olive B wrote:
Understanding, is knowing yourself as unlimited everpresent awareness/consciousness, and Love are not 2 different things.

Here's K on understanding oneself: "At the moment of fear, the person who experiences fear and the quality of fear are one" This is from an excerpt from today's QOTD. How do you see yourself in a moment of fear or conflict of some sort, Olive? Is the person acting violently out of fear(Tom or anyone) also LOVE?

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 20 Jul 2017 #51
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 554 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
I'm not understanding your use of the word 'volunteering' Wim.

HI Tom,

I did used it in the meaning of : evaporate
and by your questioning it as a wrong use of the word !

I'm not always check my spontaneous translations.

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
Thu, 20 Jul 2017 #52
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2003 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
I did used it in the meaning of : evaporate

So one's precious possessions evapoate....one looses what he cherishes...his money or girlfriend, his job, his status, prestige...and it brings pain. The great athlete gets injured and can no longer compete at football. He is no longer a star...no longer has a career. The beautiful movie star ages and loses her great beauty. Is no longer worshipped by her fans. Is that's what you're getting at, Wim?

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Thu, 20 Jul 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 20 Jul 2017 #53
Thumb_de4 Dan McDermott United States 740 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
So one's precious possessions evapoate....one looses what he cherishes...his money or girlfriend, his job, his status, prestige...and it brings pain.

I think that you can keep the money and the girlfriend and all the rest...what needs to go is the psychological attachment and psychological dependance on them.(which is the 'individual' self.)

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Thu, 20 Jul 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 20 Jul 2017 #54
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 554 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
you can keep the money and the girlfriend and all the rest...what needs to go is the psychological attachment and psychological dependance on them.(which is the 'individual' self.)

Yes Dan,

all that without I Think that ;-)

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  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Thu, 20 Jul 2017 #55
Thumb_rodin_de_denker Olive B Netherlands 238 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
"At the moment of fear, the person who experiences fear and the quality of fear are one"

Re#50

When one experiences fear, then one must mistaken oneself for a limited separate self.

Tom Paine wrote:
Is the person acting violently out of fear(Tom or anyone) also LOVE?

A person either acts according his belief he is a limited separate self, or acts out of experience and knows himself as the unlimited everpresent awareness/consciousness/Love. (read his/her)

Experience alone must be the test of reality.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 20 Jul 2017 #56
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2003 posts in this forum Offline

Olive B wrote:
A person either acts according his belief he is a limited separate self, or acts out of experience and knows himself as the unlimited everpresent awareness/consciousness/Love. (read his/her)

Your phrase in bold is confusing me Olive. Can you explain what it means to act out of experience? I've had a pleasurable experience ...or a painful one...and I act to continue the pleasure or have it repeated. Or to distance myself from the pain. That would be acting out of experience, as I understand it.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 20 Jul 2017 #57
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2003 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
what needs to go is the psychological attachment and psychological dependance

That's what I meant by 'status' and 'prestige'.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 20 Jul 2017 #58
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2003 posts in this forum Offline

Olive B wrote:
"At the moment of fear, the person who experiences fear and the quality of fear are one" (K)
Re#50

When one experiences fear, then one must mistaken oneself for a limited separate self.

You seem to be saying something very different from what K is saying above. Here's more from the same excerpt:

"the correct approach to the problem is not how to get rid of fear but to realise that there will be fear as long as we are protecting ourselves with property, relationship, name, ideas, beliefs, etc. If we let go any of these, we are nothing; therefore, we are the property, the idea, etc. Thus, frightened of being nothing, we hold on to property, etc, and thereby create a lot of misery in the world. If we tackle our desire for self-protection, then, there will be a transformation, and property etc. will have altogether a different significance" (K)

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Thu, 20 Jul 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 20 Jul 2017 #59
Thumb_de4 Dan McDermott United States 740 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
all that without I Think that ;-)

I use that Wim because it 'softens' my statement...otherwise it would sound like I knew what I was talking about! :)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 20 Jul 2017 #60
Thumb_de4 Dan McDermott United States 740 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
If we tackle our desire for self-protection, then, there will be a transformation, and property etc. will have altogether a different significance" (K)

That's the source of the greed and the dependance etc., the "desire to self-protect". Which as I think Olive would agree, that desire is misplaced , in that there actually is nothing (no 'one') there to protect!

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Thu, 20 Jul 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 31 - 60 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.)