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

Cause and Effect


Displaying posts 151 - 180 of 210 in total
Fri, 04 Aug 2017 #151
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3555 posts in this forum Offline

Olive B wrote:
Clive, are you saying that there is the human consciousness separate from consciousness? Are they two different consciousnesses?

Tentatively, I would say that. It certainly ACTS as if it is separate.

Olive B wrote:
Is the human consciousness located in consciousness?

That's an interesting question. I don't know.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 05 Aug 2017 #152
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3555 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Do you not KNOW you are breathing?

Probably not. I know that I breath, and I know that I was breathing.

Is this knowledge of or from the past or is it awareness?

Yes, by “know” I mean “having knowledge”, ans this is from the past, it is closely related to having had an experience.

I see awareness as something different. I may be aware of breathing, of breath moving through the body, and this is different from having knowledge, it is free of recognition.

Is this how you use the terms, Huguette?

Is it merely a conclusion, theory, idea or belief? Is the brain (you, me) afraid that it will stop breathing if thought doesn't constantly remind itself that it is through will and effort?

I don't know that thought has ever really considered this. Clearly it is not generally on the brain's threat list, unless there is signs of disease that it recognises.

Is the brain actually afraid that it will die if thought is silent?

This is another matter. I think implicitly this is so. What can be seen is that once the brain finds an occupation, part of it turns to finding another occupation ready for when the first one is finished. It is definitely afraid of the prospect of being unoccupied, this is very noticeable, and it seems to equate “unoccupied” with “non-existence”

Does the word "knowledge in "self-knowledge refer to knowledge of the past?

That's how I am using it, Huguette. I have written about this before, how I find it hard to understand why K used the phrase “self-knowledge”, when he explains so carefully what knowledge is …. accumulated experience, memory, etc. Surely he meant self-KNOWING, or self understanding? Something in the active present? Awareness of the workings of the mind? Of course sometimes he does use the phrases self-knowing and self understanding.

It seems to introduce so much confusion, to use the word “knowledge” in two, practically diametrically opposed, ways.

Or are you (the brain) saying that one absolutely cannot "know" that one is actually breathing;

Perhaps so, when I use the word 'know' as part of 'knowledge'. One senses that one is breathing, one may be aware of it, without words.

that one can put one's hand in boiling water and not know it?

Obviously the body responds in such a case. I don't think a process of intellectual recognition is gone through before the body reacts. And after one is burnt, one “knows it”, as well as feeling it. But one might feel the pain without the knowledge of its cause being in the conscious mind.

I'm not saying you ARE breathing. Maybe you're not.

What?

As for me, I know I'm breathing and I know - understand - that nothing or no one dies when thought is silent.

Intellectually I “know” that also. I may “tell myself” that. But I am not sure that thought behaves as if …. it is cognisant of that fact. I find this a strange discrepancy, incongruity,that apparently exists between 'me' and 'the brain'. Do you understand?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 05 Aug 2017 #153
Thumb_rodin_de_denker Olive B Netherlands 238 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
which points to an interesting connection between awareness and thought. This is unexpected to me, and makes me wonder if I have a wrong idea of awareness

Re#150

K:"To become aware, you must think wholly and intensely"

http://www.incoincident.com/selected2.pdf

K is obviously not pointing to infinite everpresent awareness (textlink). He points to “become” aware of an object and that is still mind/thought.

So yes at that “level of understanding”there is a connection between awareness and thought.

But what does K mean by ‘Become” aware? It assumes that there is time involved.

Experience alone must be the test of reality.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 05 Aug 2017 #154
Thumb_rodin_de_denker Olive B Netherlands 238 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
What is is in constant flux, so it cannot be defined, described, held down. It is not an image. I am not trying to be mysterious in saying that. It is the fact of what I am from moment to moment.

Re#163

Clive: #163” What is …..It is the fact of what I am from moment to moment.”

Clive #149 “We, the brain…….. and I assume that I am the brain…..”

What you say in #163 is in my opinion in contradiction to what you say in #149.

Or are you saying that “What is” is the brain?

Experience alone must be the test of reality.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 05 Aug 2017 #155
Thumb_rodin_de_denker Olive B Netherlands 238 posts in this forum Offline

CLIVE Re#164

Olive:”Is the human consciousness located in consciousness?”

Clive:”That's an interesting question. I don't know.”

It is not only an interesting question but it is a fundamental question.

Experience alone must be the test of reality.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 06 Aug 2017 #156
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3555 posts in this forum Offline

Olive B wrote:
But what does K mean by ‘Become” aware?

For myself, I don't feel that concerned with the use of a word here and there. K had to use the English language when communicating, and so was subject to its limitations, as we all are. At other times he talks of the danger of psychological becoming. I think he could just as well have said "be aware".

I was listening to a session when some told him he kept changing between "mind" and "brain", and he replied "it was just a slip of the tongue"

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 06 Aug 2017 #157
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3555 posts in this forum Offline

Olive B wrote:
Clive: #163” What is …..It is the fact of what I am from moment to moment.”

Clive #149 “We, the brain…….. and I assume that I am the brain…..”

What you say in #163 is in my opinion in contradiction to what you say in #149.

Or are you saying that “What is” is the brain?

First of all, I would say there are plenty of contradictions to be found in my words, if one tries to put different elements together. Thought certainly plays a part in communication, rightly or wrongly, and thought IS contradictory, isn't it? Because it is fragmentary, and those fragments come into conflict, contradiction. The ultimate manifestation of this is war, no? This issue of fragmentation of the mind is the essence of the human problem, wouldn't you say. I may carefully choose my words, try hard to be consistent, but such action in no way transcends fragmentation.

But in the example you say, I don't see contradiction. By what is I mean anger, when anger arises, I mean sadness, when sadness is there, I mean hatred, affection, fear ....... I take it that this states are all produced by the brain, so while being anger I am also being the brain.

Do you want to explain the contradiction as you see it, Olive?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 06 Aug 2017 #158
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3555 posts in this forum Offline

Olive B wrote:
Olive:”Is the human consciousness located in consciousness?”

Clive:”That's an interesting question. I don't know.”

It is not only an interesting question but it is a fundamental question.

I don't know. K said that a fundamental question was one that did not have an answer.

What's your take on it?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 06 Aug 2017 #159
Thumb_rodin_de_denker Olive B Netherlands 238 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Do you want to explain the contradiction as you see it, Olive?

Re#170

Clive: #163” What is …..It is the fact of what I am from moment to moment.”

You say “What is …is what I am….”

Olive:

What/who is “I” in this sentence? Is “I” infinite everpresent awareness? Or is “I” separate entity?

I ask this question because in #149 you say :

Clive #149 “We, the brain…….. and I assume that I am the brain…..”

You say: We,/“I” am the brain.

“I” in this sentence is separate entity.

Olive:

So do you think and feel you are infinite everpresent awareness/consciousness (as in #163), or do you think and feel you are the brain/separate entity(as in#149)?

Experience alone must be the test of reality.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 06 Aug 2017 #160
Thumb_rodin_de_denker Olive B Netherlands 238 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
fundamental question

Whether awareness/consciousness is infinite or finite is fundamental.

If/When, what you/K call human consciousness is –in-- what is called infinite consciousness, then infinite consciousness is not infinite .

Consciousness then shares the limites of objects/selves.

So then there is no reality to consciousness/awareness!

Experience alone must be the test of reality.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 06 Aug 2017 #161
Thumb_rodin_de_denker Olive B Netherlands 238 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
fully aware

Re#154

http://www.incoincident.com/selected2.pdf

In the next sentence K says:

“…..The conflict of the opposites continues to exist; whereas if you become wholly aware of the cause of fear, then fear itself disappears,….”

It is impossible to become wholly aware of (in this case)the cause of fear.

If you are wholly aware of (in this case)the cause of fear it doesn’t exist.

Experience alone must be the test of reality.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 06 Aug 2017 #162
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 1826 posts in this forum Offline

Olive B wrote:
If/When, what you/K call human consciousness is –in-- what is called infinite consciousness, then infinite consciousness is not infinite .

Consciousness then shares the limites of objects/selves.

So then there is no reality to consciousness/awareness!

This is exactly what K was pointing out. Human consciousness is limited by it's/my beliefs, ideals, conclusions, etc. Thought is limited. Our human consciousness is limited by conditioned thinking...our background, education, our religious brainwashing, politics, economics, our experience, knowledge, has conditioned consciousness.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 06 Aug 2017 #163
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 348 posts in this forum Offline

149:

Clive Elwell wrote:
So this is not “clear to the brain”. It's odd, because “I” would say it was clear, and I assume that I am the brain. But manifestly, it is not clear to the brain.

So what will make it clear to the brain? Is there anything?

Clive,

Even in the dictionary, “knowledge” has a variety of meanings and nuances.

Wherever there is information, knowledge, reasoning, fear, jealousy, anger, greed, conceit, disease, contradiction, effort, pleasure, and so on… the presence of those movements in the brain is clear to “me”, the thinker, the brain, the mind, thought (however or whatever you want to call it).

We talk about observation. “Clear to me” means there is observation of something, something is being observed. Saying, I “know” when I’m angry, greedy, envious, confused, afraid, conceited, reasoning, comparing, measuring, working, playing, and so on, is a way of expressing that there is observation of it. So it is clear to me. Surely this observation is not denied, is it? That is, “I know” I’m angry or reasoning in the sense that I’m aware (there is awareness) or in the sense that I’m experiencing it, observing it (there is experiencing, observing it) in the immediate present, not in the sense of remembering an experience or information. And also, “I know”, not meaning that the self, the thinker, the observer the “me”, the past, “knows” it, not in the sense that self is active in the observation but again in the sense that the movement is being observed or is being experienced by the living being (me but not me).

So the presence of these (anger, reasoning, knowledge, etc.) is clear to the brain, isn’t it? In this sense, the brain "knows" anger, knowledge, reasoning, etc. as it is being experienced.

But when it comes to death (or it could be something else), you say it is unclear if “the brain” or “the mind” KNOWS about death, if the brain UNDERSTANDS that it is not going to physically die if thought is silent. Who can tell us then? Is there no way to know if the brain understands that the ending of time is not the death of the brain? If I know something, doesn’t the brain know it - and vice-versa? If something is clear to me, it is clear to the brain/mind, isn’t it? Can “I” know something the brain does not know - and vice-versa? Can “I” understand something the brain does not understand?

The dictionary does not have a variety of meaning or nuances for “death”. Still, leaving the dictionary aside, even if death is used in an abstract sense - the death of an era, the death of a dream, the death of a hope - it is not actual death. It is clear to ME - however you want to interpret this “ME” - that the brain understands that the ending of time, that the silence of thought, is not physical death but the death of the psyche. If it is clear to me, it is clear to the brain/mind, no? It is clear to me that the “death of the psyche” is not actual death. I know I’m going to die - the organism, the brain, the body is going to die. There is no alternate reality or new age thinking that has shown me otherwise. Can I say I don’t know if the brain knows it? Can the brain not know it if I know it?

Some say (perhaps even K said it) that the self/mind/brain is afraid to die and that this is one reason why it continues going north instead of changing directions. There is certainly such a thing as fear of death, among other things, but I don't think that fear of death is keeping self alive. Still, I don't say I'm right or that what I say matters.

This post was last updated by Huguette . Sun, 06 Aug 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 07 Aug 2017 #164
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3555 posts in this forum Offline

Olive B wrote:
What/who is “I” in this sentence? Is “I” infinite everpresent awareness? Or is “I” separate entity?

it is a convenient fiction (which is often very inconvenient). When one examines it, one starts to see it is actually illusory. Something that language practically pushed us into, if we are not aware.

This post was last updated by Clive Elwell Mon, 07 Aug 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 07 Aug 2017 #165
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3555 posts in this forum Offline

Olive B wrote:
So then there is no reality to consciousness/awareness!

The way that I use the words, reality is exactly what is produced by human consciousness. It is not truth, it is not actuality.

Is it a fundamental question, whether human consciousness is part of the Universal consciousness? Probably it is a part - but the issue is, how do I (not I) meet this consciousness which is operating everyday, dictating my actions, my feelings, creating my reality? This is not some theoretical question. And the words are only the starting point of an inquiry, they are not looking for an answer, or a method.

Actually there is no "I" separate from the consciousness, so in a way it is a wrong question.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 07 Aug 2017 #166
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3555 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Even in the dictionary, “knowledge” has a variety of meanings and nuances.

Wherever there is information, knowledge, reasoning, fear, jealousy, anger, greed, conceit, disease, contradiction, effort, pleasure, and so on… the presence of those movements in the brain is clear to “me”, the thinker, the brain, the mind, thought (however or whatever you want to call it).

We talk about observation. “Clear to me” means there is observation of something, something is being observed. Saying, I “know” when I’m angry, greedy, envious, confused, afraid, conceited, reasoning, comparing, measuring, working, playing, and so on, is a way of expressing that there is observation of it. So it is clear to me. Surely this observation is not denied, is it? That is, “I know” I’m angry or reasoning in the sense that I’m aware (there is awareness) or in the sense that I’m experiencing it, observing it (there is experiencing, observing it) in the immediate present, not in the sense of remembering an experience or information. And also, “I know”, not meaning that the self, the thinker, the observer the “me”, the past, “knows” it, not in the sense that self is active in the observation but again in the sense that the movement is being observed or is being experienced by the living being (me but not me).

Clive: Ok, Huguette, I think I follow all the above. But (and sorry to be tedious) would it not be simpler, clearer, if people just used the word “aware” when that is what is happening, in the active present. And reserve the words “knowledge” and “know” to that which happens when memory is playing a part; when recognition is involved? After all, as soon as recognition kicks in, awareness has ended, has it not?

But perhaps this is not worth pursuing any more?

So the presence of these (anger, reasoning, knowledge, etc.) is clear to the brain, isn’t it? In this sense, the brain "knows" anger, knowledge, reasoning, etc. as it is being experienced.

But when it comes to death (or it could be something else), you say it is unclear if “the brain” or “the mind” KNOWS about death, if the brain UNDERSTANDS that it is not going to physically die if thought is silent. Who can tell us then? Is there no way to know if the brain understands that the ending of time is not the death of the brain? If I know something, doesn’t the brain know it - and vice-versa? If something is clear to me, it is clear to the brain/mind, isn’t it? Can “I” know something the brain does not know - and vice-versa? Can “I” understand something the brain does not understand?

Clive: This is exactly what is puzzling me. There are many things that seem clear “to me”, clear in the sense that I would not dispute them. “Things” meaning illusions, like the apparent separation between thinker and thought – but the brain keeps carrying on in this. Am I making myself clear? So it appears that I understand something, and the brain does not. This on the face of it seems ridiculous.

The dictionary does not have a variety of meaning or nuances for “death”. Still, leaving the dictionary aside, even if death is used in an abstract sense - the death of an era, the death of a dream, the death of a hope - it is not actual death. It is clear to ME - however you want to interpret this “ME” - that the brain understands that the ending of time, that the silence of thought, is not physical death but the death of the psyche.

Clive: So for you the brain is not afraid to die to itself, and it does this easily, smoothly …. don't know what words to use. Is that right? What does this actually mean in your life, Huguette? I am feeling rather lost now, because I certainly don't deny that the thinker (here) does keep dying – sometimes more intensely, sometimes less. But I don't think the reason for this is because the brain feels secure to do so – rather because it is in the very nature of the self itself. It cannot help but do so. And it keeps being reborn, apparently unnecessarily so.

If it is clear to me, it is clear to the brain/mind, no? It is clear to me that the “death of the psyche” is not actual death. I know I’m going to die - the organism, the brain, the body is going to die. There is no alternate reality or new age thinking that has shown me otherwise. Can I say I don’t know if the brain knows it? Can the brain not know it if I know it?

Some say (perhaps even K said it) that the self/mind/brain is afraid to die and that this is one reason why it continues going north instead of changing directions. There is certainly such a thing as fear of death, among other things, but I don't think that fear of death is keeping self alive.

Clive: So can you see what is keeping the self alive? Or put it this way, why the self keeps being reborn after dying? Is it simply inertia, a huge momentum built up over thousands of years?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 07 Aug 2017 #167
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 348 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:

Even in the dictionary, “knowledge” has a variety of meanings and nuances.
Wherever there is information, knowledge, reasoning, fear, jealousy, anger, greed, conceit, disease, contradiction, effort, pleasure, and so on… the presence of those movements in the brain is clear to “me”, the thinker, the brain, the mind, thought (however or whatever you want to call it).

We talk about observation. “Clear to me” means there is observation of something, something is being observed. Saying, I “know” when I’m angry, greedy, envious, confused, afraid, conceited, reasoning, comparing, measuring, working, playing, and so on, is a way of expressing that there is observation of it. So it is clear to me. Surely this observation is not denied, is it? That is, “I know” I’m angry or reasoning in the sense that I’m aware (there is awareness) or in the sense that I’m experiencing it, observing it (there is experiencing, observing it) in the immediate present, not in the sense of remembering an experience or information. And also, “I know”, not meaning that the self, the thinker, the observer the “me”, the past, “knows” it, not in the sense that self is active in the observation but again in the sense that the movement is being observed or is being experienced by the living being (me but not me).

Clive:

Ok, Huguette, I think I follow all the above. But (and sorry to be tedious) would it not be simpler, clearer, if people just used the word “aware” when that is what is happening, in the active present. And reserve the words “knowledge” and “know” to that which happens when memory is playing a part; when recognition is involved? After all, as soon as recognition kicks in, awareness has ended, has it not?

Clive, don’t be sorry. Maybe I’m the one who’s being tedious. Or maybe “tedious” loves company.

I think there’s a place for using “know” where it makes a thought clearer and perhaps more accurate than “aware”. For example, I know I’m going to die. There are 2 parts to this “knowing” aren’t there? One is that I have been told about it, overheard it, remember seeing it in people, plants and animals. So one part of knowledge is memory, and this is how we usually mean that word "knowledge", isn’t it? Another part is that I really truly deeply understand the fact of it. The body and brain will die, there is no argument about it. I know/understand it intimately, as I know/understand someone intimately if I love and observe them.

Can I say I’m aware that I’m going to die? “I’m going to die” is image and time, isnt it? I can be aware of the image. Perhaps I can be aware of the fact that not only am I living in this moment, I AM dying… Perhaps in this sense, I can be aware of dying? But even then, it seems to me to have an element of memory in it.

I don’t want to go further into tediousness but just to say that “knowing” does seem to me to be more appropriate at times.

More importantly, I think that if we listen we care and attention to each other, we can overcome these difficulties of language. Even K used words in a way that he would at other times bristle at if one of his listeners used them in the same way. But if we make words into a kind of orthodoxy, we can never get past the words, past the entanglement of the words themselves, can we?

And still, we must use words with care and attention, just as we must live with care and attention. So these 2 aspects must be balanced and this balance can come through care and attention, can’t it? Am I weaving an entanglement with these words?

This post was last updated by Huguette . Mon, 07 Aug 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 07 Aug 2017 #168
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 348 posts in this forum Offline

179:

Clive Elwell wrote:
So the presence of these (anger, reasoning, knowledge, etc.) is clear to the brain, isn’t it? In this sense, the brain "knows" anger, knowledge, reasoning, etc. as it is being experienced.

But when it comes to death (or it could be something else), you say it is unclear if “the brain” or “the mind” KNOWS about death, if the brain UNDERSTANDS that it is not going to physically die if thought is silent. Who can tell us then? Is there no way to know if the brain understands that the ending of time is not the death of the brain? If I know something, doesn’t the brain know it - and vice-versa? If something is clear to me, it is clear to the brain/mind, isn’t it? Can “I” know something the brain does not know - and vice-versa? Can “I” understand something the brain does not understand?

Clive: This is exactly what is puzzling me. There are many things that seem clear “to me”, clear in the sense that I would not dispute them. “Things” meaning illusions, like the apparent separation between thinker and thought – but the brain keeps carrying on in this. Am I making myself clear? So it appears that I understand something, and the brain does not. This on the face of it seems ridiculous.

But what ARE “you”, what IS “me”? Aren’t we a construct of the brain via the function of thought? Or are we not a construct? Are “we” (who again?) making a huge mistake? If it is “clear” to you that death is part of life, who is “you”, where is that situated?

So there is fragmentation, division, contradiction in the brain. Isn’t that the crux of it? There is no “me” understanding and “the brain” not understanding, is there? This disorder is observed through observation, awareness, attention, isn’t it? And in that observation, no attempt is made to correct anything.

“I know” and “I don’t know”, anger, fear, pleasure, happy memories, desire for happiness and eternal life, and so on, are part of consciousness, aren't they? Whatever understanding there is, is precious. It is not cumulative. It cannot be exploited to go "farther", can it? Or if an attempt is made to exploit it, can this simply be watched, without trying to repress or fight the attempt?

I thought that if I understood, all conflict, division, uncertainty, depression, would instantly end. But it didn’t. I thought I had reached the end of understanding, but the struggle continues. Awareness, observation, learning is taking place, isn’t it? There is no end to this, is there?

Whatever truth is seen, is seen. Whatever understanding there is, is there. In spite of any conflict that there is, where the nature of self, time, conflict, consciousness is seen/understood, doesn’t that have a “tremendous” effect? Then even our suffering is seen in a different light, isn't it?

This post was last updated by Huguette . Mon, 07 Aug 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 07 Aug 2017 #169
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 348 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Clive: So can you see what is keeping the self alive? Or put it this way, why the self keeps being reborn after dying? Is it simply inertia, a huge momentum built up over thousands of years?

Can it be fear and the desire for pleasure, and above all inattention?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 07 Aug 2017 #170
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3555 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
And still, we must use words with care and attention, just as we must live with care and attention. So these 2 aspects must be balanced and this balance can come through care and attention, can’t it? Am I weaving an entanglement with these words?

Clive: We move from one to another, don't we? Which is to say, we move in and out of time, like some amphibious creature moving in and out of the water. Only it is clear that one spends far more time IN time, in knowledge, than is necessary, than is needed.

That is a very particular example that you have used - “We know we are going to die”. That is the only certainty that is in knowledge, isn't it? But the mind is already questioning that statement – I guess we know that we were born. And perhaps we could add Peter's statement of fact: “all we know with certainty is that there is not nothing”.

More importantly, I think that if we listen we care and attention to each other, we can overcome these difficulties of language. Even K used words in a way that he would at other times bristle at if one of his listeners used them in the same way.

Clive: Smiling at this “bristle”. Yes, he he would ask “can you NOT KNOW your wife?”, and in the next sentence say how important it is to know oneself.

But if we make words into a kind of orthodoxy, we can never get past the words, past the entanglement of the words themselves, can we?
And still, we must use words with care and attention, just as we must live with care and attention. So these 2 aspects must be balanced and this balance can come through care and attention, can’t it? Am I weaving an entanglement with these words?

Clive: Well, certainly that is easily done. And it has become a profession, a profession of deceit. Not only entanglement, but enchantment. I refer to the “spin doctors” of our time, who can demonstrate that black is white, and bad is good, who “understand” the ways of the self only too well, and use that knowledge to brainwash the population. This is what happens when there is no care, yes.

Balance is an interesting term, Huguette, worth exploring perhaps

This post was last updated by Clive Elwell Mon, 07 Aug 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 07 Aug 2017 #171
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3555 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:

But what ARE “you”, what IS “me”? Aren’t we a construct of the brain via the function of thought

Clive: Yes

Or are we not a construct?

Clive: We are.

Are “we” (who again?) making a huge mistake? If it is “clear” to you that death is part of life, who is “you”, where is that situated?

Clive: It has to be memory

So there is fragmentation, division, contradiction in the brain. Isn’t that the crux of it?

Clive: it is the crux. Are you saying that one part of the brain understands, and other parts do not understand?

There is no “me” understanding and “the brain” not understanding, is there?

Clive: no, there can't be. So perhaps the issue is that the brain “knows” certain truths, but carries on in its merry way ignoring what it “knows”.

What do you say to this?

This disorder is observed through observation, awareness, attention, isn’t it? And in that observation, no attempt is made to correct anything.
“I know” and “I don’t know”, anger, fear, pleasure, happy memories, desire for happiness and eternal life, and so on, are part of consciousness, aren't they? Whatever understanding there is, is precious. It is not cumulative. It cannot be exploited to go "farther", can it? Or if an attempt is made to exploit it, can this simply be watched, without trying to repress or fight the attempt?
I thought that if I understood, all conflict, division, uncertainty, depression, would instantly end. But it didn’t. I thought I had reached the end of understanding, but the struggle continues. Awareness, observation, learning is taking place, isn’t it? There is no end to this, is there?

Clive: Well, the honest answer is that I don't know if there is an end to it or not. I suspect there is no end to learning, I hope that is the case, as learning (non-cumulative) seems to be an essence of living, and without it – well we see what life becomes without it.

Would like to look further, but some things have to be attended to.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 08 Aug 2017 #172
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 348 posts in this forum Offline

152:

Huguette . wrote:
Do you not KNOW you are breathing?

Clive Elwell wrote:Probably not. I know that I breath, and I know that I was breathing.

[...]

Huguette . wrote:
I'm not saying you ARE breathing. Maybe you're not.

Clive Elwell wrote:
What?

I just mean here, if you don't know or "probably" don't know you're breathing, who am I to tell you that you're breathing :-) I know I AM breathing ... I know, understand, observe it ... there is awareness of breathing.

What puzzles me is that you/I/brain/mind "knows" that it is angry, afraid, amused, etc.? No? It "knows" it - meaning memory, awareness, understanding play a part in the "knowing". Why balk at breathing, living, dying?

This post was last updated by Huguette . Tue, 08 Aug 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 08 Aug 2017 #173
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 348 posts in this forum Offline

166:

Clive Elwell wrote:
So can you see what is keeping the self alive? Or put it this way, why the self keeps being reborn after dying? Is it simply inertia, a huge momentum built up over thousands of years?

As I said earlier, I feel that fear, desire, inattention play a part. But I don't think this goes far enough.

Perhaps, knowing/understanding what it does about itself, the mind/brain/self is not ready to risk EVERYTHING - its security, such as it is; its habits, pleasures, attachments and comforts, such as they are.

When time ends, the known ends. When time is not the authority or basis for decision, choice, action, what happens THEN is unknown and the mind might prefer to stay with the devil it does know rather than risk encountering a new devil. This is also fear but is this fear fully observed or does it remain hidden under a rock? I'm still looking into this and sorry for the "unorthodox" wording.

I recently came across a phrase K used that struck me: "The self hides in many ways, under every stone". Maybe we are leaving stones unturned.

This post was last updated by Huguette . Tue, 08 Aug 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 09 Aug 2017 #174
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3555 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Why balk at breathing, living, dying?

Because these actions are in the present, and knowledge never is.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 09 Aug 2017 #175
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3555 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
I recently came across a phrase K used that struck me: "The self hides in many ways, under every stone". Maybe we are leaving stones unturned.

Yes, I quoted this to a friend today.

Can we ever know if all the stones have been unturned? And there are always potential new hiding places along this uncharted voyage called life. Only on-going vigilance will meet the challenge.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 09 Aug 2017 #176
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3555 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
What puzzles me is that you/I/brain/mind "knows" that it is angry, afraid, amused, etc.? No? It "knows" it - meaning memory, awareness, understanding play a part in the "knowing". Why balk at breathing, living, dying?

Is it relevant to bring in here a question K ever asked: Is it possible not to name the feelings that arise in one?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 09 Aug 2017 #177
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3555 posts in this forum Offline

The following is not a response to any particular post of yours, Huguette, but represents reflections on my living over the last 24 hours or so:

it is clear – I could wish for another word here, or perhaps better say “somewhat clear” or “partially clear” - that death, dying psychologically is actually very much part of living. This is lived on a day to day basis here, in an ongoing way. I balk at the phrase “continually”, since this dying is a denial of any idea of continuity. But all the observation points to the fact that this dying of the self-consciousness movement is here as part of my everyday life. It cannot be denied. It has to be integrated into relationship, into my action in this world. There is no choice in this matter.

But we have been discussing the question, is the self frightened to end? And a slightly different question arises for me: what is the relationship of this brain to this dying? My first reply is that it can have no relationship. If thought ponders its dying, it can only ponder a memory, can only think about an image it has formed of dying. It cannot meet the actuality. Death cuts off thought "with a very sharp knife".

It is not clear to me why I have not seen this movement of the self dying right through my life. Because the dying is built into the self. Self is not continuous. Self is constructed from thought. It depends on thought for its existence, and that thought is fragmented, broken up, discontinuous, impermanent. What kind of self deception is necessary for the self to convince itself that it is permanent, when it actually is based on the impermanent, the transient?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 09 Aug 2017 #178
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 348 posts in this forum Offline

174:

Huguette . wrote:

Why balk at breathing, living, dying?

Clive Elwell wrote:

Because these actions are in the present, and knowledge never is.

No but fear is in the present, isn't it, and do you say you don't know if you are afraid? Do you not know when you are afraid? ...know it intimately, in the sense that you are experiencing it, living it, are aware of it, it is not an idea ... there fear is.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 09 Aug 2017 #179
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 348 posts in this forum Offline

176:

Huguette . wrote:

What puzzles me is that you/I/brain/mind "knows" that it is angry, afraid, amused, etc.? No? It "knows" it - meaning memory, awareness, understanding play a part in the "knowing". Why balk at breathing, living, dying?

Clive Elwell wrote:

Is it relevant to bring in here a question K ever asked: Is it possible not to name the feelings that arise in one?

What can make it possible NOT to name anything? Can it be made possible through choice, effort, repression, will, desire, practice? I think it can’t be. Can it? If I say to myself, “Stop naming it”, it is already too late. It is named, it has been named. No?

So I get angry and I say, “I’m angry” - perhaps not using the word “anger”, but immediately recognizing the feeling. I can’t help it, I can’t stop myself from knowing it as “anger” (or jealousy, depression, pleasure, etc.).

The very naming and recognition of it does necessarily bring time into it. But the chain of events - the stimulus, the response of the past (as anger), the recognition from the past, the naming from the past - all happens instantly, doesn’t it? If it ended there, would it be a problem? I would say "I'm angry" and move on. But this is not what happens.

To me, the naming that matters is the "expanded" naming as blame, analysis, mentally connecting the past to the present and the future, making an image I hold onto, holding a grudge, wanting payback. This process involves effort, doesn't it? Doesn't self-understanding deny or negate that effort? The effort to dig up dirt from the past and review it, explain it, analyze it, the seeking of direction from the past, the choice of action made out of anger, replaying it over and over mentally, is negated by understanding the process of self, isn't it? Understanding/awareness/observation cannot retroactively prevent the immediate naming of my reaction as anger. But understanding/awareness/observation does put an end to the effort to blame or punish, doesn’t it?

So if I do not "pursue" naming by expanding on it, if I'm aware of the significance of it, there is just the immediate naming of it as anger and awareness of it but there is no idenfication with the anger or the naming of it as "me" getting angry. Then anger does not become a problem, does it? And also breathing, living, dying, pleasure?

I dunno. I might be completely mistaken.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 10 Aug 2017 #180
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3555 posts in this forum Offline

Unable to respond to you today, Huguette, will come to your questions soon

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 151 - 180 of 210 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.)