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

Thw whole of consciousness is conflict


Displaying all 16 posts
Page 1 of 1
Mon, 28 Aug 2017 #1
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3844 posts in this forum Offline

Whether one is aware of it or not, the whole of consciousness, the whole of what we call thought, is conflict.

This is such an uncompromising statement. Listening to it, as for the first time, it comes as a great shock. But I will not mitigate that shock with words now.

The words are from Saanen 1963 talk 2

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 29 Aug 2017 #2
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 597 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
This is such an uncompromising statement. Listening to it, as for the first time, it comes as a great shock.

Why is it a great shock, Clive ??

Did you thought otherwize or wanted to be something else
and how could you do that without consciousness of what ??

The confrontation between 'what is'
and the whole of consciousness or one part of it with another part.

Conflict only occurs between two falses, not between a false or true !

it seems to me there's nothing to mitigate

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
Tue, 29 Aug 2017 #3
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3844 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
Why is it a great shock, Clive ??
Did you thought otherwize or wanted to be something else
and how could you do that without consciousness of what ??

It comes as a great shock when one sees it as for the first time. The WHOLE of human conscousness - just conflict! Is it not shocking, Wim? Not shocking because one has ideas of it being otherwise. Shocking because of the enormity of it.

Millions of years of evolution, of development of the brain - and the outcome is ..... just conflict. Conflict with its violence, its barbarism, it immense suffering.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 29 Aug 2017 #4
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 597 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
It comes as a great shock when one sees it as for the first time.

does it really matter if it is for the first time or not, to come to any shock there must be an inherent known or unknown content of consciousness confronted with what consciousness should be, isn' 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
Tue, 29 Aug 2017 #5
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2045 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
to come to any shock there must be an inherent known or unknown content of consciousness confronted with what consciousness should be, isn' it ??.

I think I see the point you're making Wim. The conflict is between our belief and with what K is saying. We believe consciousness is trying to create some kind of order in our life and K is basically saying, "NO, it cannot!" We think we are making progress towards order...that we will in the future achieve understanding. K is saying that this thinking is part of the chaos of consciousness...time....achievement...goals, etc. That any movement of consciousness is a movement of disorder...will create further disorder...conflict.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Tue, 29 Aug 2017.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Wed, 30 Aug 2017 #6
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3844 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
oes it really matter if it is for the first time or not,

Yes, I would say it matters enormously. To see something as if for the first time means no comparison is involved (there is nothing to compare to). There is no "what should be" involved at all. There is only the freshness, the newness, of pure perception. One just sees 'what is', beyond any knowledge of what is. Then what is seen is truly FELT, although that word is not at all adequate.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 30 Aug 2017 #7
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 597 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
I think I see the point you're making Wim.
The conflict is between our belief and with what K is saying.

Hi Tom,

It's not what you describe is wrong but that was not what I wanted to convey.
See also the answer to Clive.

Clive Elwell wrote:
To see something as if for the first time means no comparison is involved

Hi Clive,

To me it means something else. I can't deny I've seen it earlier so it would be dishonest to the fact to see something as if.

Wim Opdam wrote:
to come to any shock there must be an inherent known or unknown content of consciousness confronted with what consciousness should be

Let me refrase the sentence, may be you see the fact.

any person interested in how the mind is working and seeing what is going on in the world could only be shocked if he compares the state of the world with what he thought of it.

The shock is within the consciousness and you don't have to have knowledge of K. Teaching to see the fact.

and yes your reply #6 describing the situation without the shock seems to be accurate.

If something is really deeply seen it is always for the first time and one can never go back to not seen it, that's only possible if you haven't really seen it but made a thought out of 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
Thu, 31 Aug 2017 #8
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3844 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
any person interested in how the mind is working and seeing what is going on in the world could only be shocked if he compares the state of the world with what he thought of it.

Isn't the trouble, Wim, or at least one of the troubles, that we get used to things? Do you know that phrase in English? It seems to be a characteristic of human beings that they can adjust themselves fairly easily, get used to all sorts of things, and carry on living as if the things were normal, acceptable. We adapt, adjust, habituate. The daily news of violence, stupidity, horror, cruelty, inhumanity, insanity, becomes “normal” to our ears, we accept it without much comment, without much reflection, without question.

Even our indifference becomes the norm to us.

Then, for some unknown reason, the scales fall from our eyes. We suddenly see things as they actually are. We see our relationships are trivial, or based on convenience, on exploitation. We see that comfort, the pursuit of pleasure, has become the basis of our lives. We see we that are living in various forms of self-deception.

I don't think "having seen before" comes into this. We are suddenly seeing NOW.

Are not such discoveries a shock to us? And if not, why not?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 01 Sep 2017 #9
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 597 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
It seems to be a characteristic of human beings that they can adjust themselves fairly easily, get used to all sorts of things, and carry on living as if the things were normal, acceptable. We adapt, adjust, habituate.

Yes, that's our failure to life as if nothing is wrong, but the fact is different
and a burden for those who are seeing it, realize one can do nothing only not attribute to it !!

Clive Elwell wrote:
Are not such discoveries a shock to us? And if not, why not?

I found a quote which describes the source and our daily escape.

Commentaries On Living, Series 3 | Chapter 36

"Sorrow is the result of a shock, it is the temporary shaking up of a mind that has settled down, that has accepted the routine of life. Something happens - a death, the loss of a job, the questioning of a cherished belief - and the mind is disturbed. But what does a disturbed mind do? It finds a way to be undisturbed again; it takes refuge in another belief, in a more secure job, in a new relationship. Again the wave of life comes along and shatters its safeguards, but the mind soon finds still further defence; and so it goes on. This is not the way of intelligence, is it ?"

It seems to me in accordance with our observations.

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 Fri, 01 Sep 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 02 Sep 2017 #10
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3844 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
realize one can do nothing only not attribute to it !!

Do you mean not contribute to it, Wim?

Wim Opdam wrote:
It seems to me in accordance with our observations.

Thanks for finding that quote, Wim.
Yes, the mind tries to turn everything into knowledge. It seems to find security in that – well, relative security. Actual living is not secure.

The following quote is from the 5th chapter of “The Ending of Time” “That” refers to the Ground of All Things.

K: And I realize at the end of it all there is no relationship between me and truth. And that's a tremendous shock to me. It is as if you have knocked me out, because my million years of experience say, go after that, seek it, pray for it, struggle for it, cry, sacrifice for it. I have done all that. And suddenly it is pointed out that I cannot have relationship with that.

I have shed tears, left my family, everything, for, that. And that says, No relationship'. So what has happened to Me? This is what I want to get at. Do you understand what I am saying - what has happened to me? To the mind that has lived this way, done everything in search of that, when that says,You have no relationship with me'. This is the greatest thing...

Q: It is a tremendous shock to the `me', if you say that.

K: Is it to you?

Q: I think it was, and then...

K: Don't! I am asking you, is it a shock to discover that your brain, and your mind, your knowledge, are valueless? All your examinations, all your struggles, all the things that you have gathered through years and years, centuries, are absolutely worthless? Do you go mad, because you say you have done all this for nothing? Virtue, abstinence, control, everything - and at the end of it, you say they are valueless! Do you understand what this does to you?

{ cut }

K: The ground says, whatever you have done `on earth' has no meaning. Is that an idea? Or an actuality? Idea being that you have told me, but I still go on, struggling, wanting, groping. Or is it an actuality, in the sense that I suddenly realize the futility of all that I have done. So, one must be very careful to see that it is not a concept; or rather that one doesn't translate it into a concept or an idea, but receive the full blow of it!

But generally we do not receive the full blow of anything, do we? All our education, our condition, is to escape from that full blow, to avoid disturbance. So we go to the doctor's, the psychologist, take a pill, are given concelling.

So we hardly live at all.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 04 Sep 2017 #11
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 597 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Do you mean not contribute to it, Wim?

Looking back for translation I got for "attribute" synonyms like:
ascribe, assign, blame, impute, refer

and for "contribute: conduce, concur, confer help, assist, aid, serve, avail, co-operate.

Seeing this: attribute from itand also contribute to it would both be right, isn't it ?

Clive Elwell wrote:
So we hardly live at all.

I'm pretty familiar with "the ending of Time" every time reading it found deeper meaning of the same words, strange feeling !!

We Live but not in that sense with that intensity, it seems,
but could we be sure of that ??

The ground is that what makes us live and is staying curious
what's all about not of that essence ??

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, 04 Sep 2017 #12
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3844 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
Seeing this: attribute from itand also contribute to it would both be right, isn't it ?

Gramatically both are possible, Wim. I realised that you could be saying either of the two things, that is why I inquired of you.

Wim Opdam wrote:
I'm pretty familiar with "the ending of Time" every time reading it found deeper meaning of the same words, strange feeling !!

I Often find this reading or listening to K. And I have pondered why it is so. Is it that his words - if one is really listening - open one up somehow, and so the next time the "same" words can penetrate more deeply? The word "same", in this context, does not feel appropriate, as there is eally no sense of anything being "the same". Although it might appear as if it is, to an outside observer.

Perhaps the issue here lies in the quality of the listening. Not in the interpretation of the words, in interpretation the phrase "the same" has meaning.

Wim Opdam wrote:
what's all about not of that essence ??

Sorry Wim, once again I cannot catch your meaning in these words. Can you rephrase?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 05 Sep 2017 #13
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 597 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Sorry Wim, once again I cannot catch your meaning in these words. Can you rephrase?

Let's try again:
Is curiosity to what's all about not one of the drives for living ?

Yes language is a handcicapt and strange tool and even with or without translations it always misses the point.

This weekend searching for something on the internet I found by coincidence
" David Bohm society" with this unpublished work.

"THE NEGATIVE APPROACH TO THE MEANING OF LANGUAGE
David Bohm

Words and their meanings are never more than abstractions, which cannot substitute for that to which they refer n(e.g. using the word for “dinner” and thinking about what it means to us cannot provide the kind of nourishment that comes from actually eating a meal ). Moreover, words cannot abstract all that is to be known about any given thing. Indeed, they do not even abstract all that is essential to the function of that thing
(e.g. the word “chair” abstracts what is essential for the function of supporting a person who sits on it,
but not what is essential to its functioning at the atomic or nuclear level). So, it is necessary to recognize that all language has essentially negative and partial relationship to that to which it refers.
A. Korsybski has put this relationship very succinctly in the assertion: “Whatever we say it is, it isn’t .”

This statement is not a metaphysical assertion about the basic nature of “ what is.“
Rather, it is a very deep challenge to the entire structure of our communications,
both external and internal ( which latter are called “thought”).

To understand this challenge, let us begin with the fact: “ We are always talking about it “ ( “ It “ refers to anything whatsoever). When we read Korsybski’s statement, our first response is to see that we have already begun to say something about “it” (whatever “it” may happen to be). And than, noticing that “it” is not
what we say, and that what we say is at most incomplete abstraction even from what is to be known,
we assume that “it” must be something else, as well as something more.
But “something else” and “something more” are also what we say “it” is.
As we do this for a while , we begin to be struck by the absurdity of the whole procedure.
For whatever we say it is it isn’t.

What is the appropriate response to such situation ?
Evidently, one has to stop saying anything at all, not merely outwardly, but also inwardly.
It is suggested here that if all the “chatter” of thought can really stop, then something new can happen.
But even to say this much may be going too far.
For if this means that “it” is will be something new, “ then the novelty that we say “it” is will be what “it” is not.
The paradox with which the reader has to be left is
“ What is it when there is no saying at all, neither outwardly nor inwardly ?”

So simple and to the point and yet one realizes " this are only the words "

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, 05 Sep 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 06 Sep 2017 #14
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3844 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
Is curiosity to what's all about not one of the drives for living ?

Yes, very much so, it seems to be a built-in function of all animals. I can vouch that it can lead one into unexpected situations!

Wim Opdam wrote:
Yes language is a handcicapt and strange tool and even with or without translations it always misses the point.

Again, yes indeed, I have a strong feel for this lately. I wrote a few days ago to a friend:

"Explanation is not understanding".

and later:

"In fact, perhaps explanations are the end of understanding"

Wim Opdam wrote:
"THE NEGATIVE APPROACH TO THE MEANING OF LANGUAGE
David Bohm

Thanks for posting this, Wim. I will look at it when I am at leisure, which is not today.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 08 Sep 2017 #15
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 597 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
I Often find this reading or listening to K. And I have pondered why it is so. Is it that his words - if one is really listening - open one up somehow, and so the next time the "same" words can penetrate more deeply?

Good it be Clive,
that the meaning of the words are flowering within or better said through us
if one stay out of 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, 08 Sep 2017 #16
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3844 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
{could} it be Clive,
that the meaning of the words are flowering within or better said through us
if one stay out of it ??

That sounds wholly possible, Wim.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying all 16 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.)