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

Creation and destruction as one


Displaying posts 31 - 54 of 54 in total
Thu, 28 Sep 2017 #31
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 594 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote at 41:
Why are you dividing life between ugly and beautiful?

Juan,

I'm not dividing life. I'm saying life is the totality, not a part. To admit beauty and deny ugliness is dividing life, as I see it. Can beauty be understood by exclusing ugliness?

Can't we be simple about it? "You" are talking to "me", not to yourself. "I" am listening to "you", not to "life". Saying so is not duality, in my view. Apples and oranges are not duality. We eat apples, not mud. We cuddle babies, not barbed wire. These distinctions or differences are not duality.

It is the heart which says - without the shadow of a word - "beautiful" or "ugly". The heart responds to life and the word is not needed for that response to happen. That response cannot be prevented but it can be twisted by the cunning word. If everything is everything, is nothing is anything, if there is no distinction between this and that, we are brain and heart dead, it seems to me.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 28 Sep 2017 #32
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2256 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
These distinctions or differences are not duality.

It is the heart which says - without the shadow of a word - "beautiful" or "ugly". The heart responds to life and the word is not needed for that response to happen. That response cannot be prevented but it can be twisted by the cunning word.

Right....that's why K can talk of the ugliness that caused his tears, and also of the immense beauty. No duality there. One moment he was overwhelmed by the ugliness. Later the beauty returned. Yet, when K speaks of ugliness, we say it's OK, but if one of us on the forum talks of it, it's blamed on our false way of looking. Mina did in fact say that life is beautiful....life is joyous. She was feeling that, I'm sure, yet it would be an abomination to utter those words to someone who suffers with racial slurs and racist threats on a daily basis, right? Or to one of the Jews who were persecuted....and eventually exterminated ...by the Nazis.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Thu, 28 Sep 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 28 Sep 2017 #33
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2256 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
Huguette . wrote:

So it is no good telling me life is beautiful. Help me find the way to see it.
OK, this is what i say "Stop looking and delighting yourself in the 'ugliness' of your life and just look at life without any division" .

How patronizing it would be to say 'delighting yourself..' to the man who faces racism or some other persecution every day. We're K's tears in the excerpt I posted twice now a result of your "delight"...or were they a result of acute awareness...direct perception of the ugliness? He could leave the filthy streets at the end of the day and return to some rich person's house. Those who lived there could not. The child who suffers abuse or neglect cannot escape the ugliness..,the horror. Well, they do often escape into a fantasy world of their own. Do you say 'delighting yourself...' to the man who suffers deep depression or poverty? Who must watch his children go hungry at night?

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Thu, 28 Sep 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 28 Sep 2017 #34
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 594 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote at 42:
...life is really completely unknown, whole, and in that wholeness utterly beautiful, (utterly 'what is', which is what is desribed in essence! This person uses the word 'beautiful' as a synonym to 'whole, holy', and she does not mean some label with it, the opposite of which would be the label of the 'ugly'. She means neither, no label at all!!) beyond the apparent limitations that any static definitions could ever capture of course!

Mina,

I think you're complicating things greatly (still realizing I can be mistaken).

What do you mean by "in that wholeness"? Life IS its wholeness, isn't it? I CAN look at a part of life, but that part cannot be confused with life which is whole and cannot be arbitrarily fragmented. The "wholeness" of life does not exist on its own, separate from life. If you say that "beautiful" to you is a synonym for "whole", then aren't you saying that "in that wholeness life is utterly whole" ... which ends up being meaningless, no?

It seems to me you are moving the conversation away from self-understanding by insisting that "life is beautiful". Can the person who is ignorant of the workings of his mind see beauty, other than as an idea? Doesn't the very question of self-understanding surface because there IS suffering? If there is just beauty and no suffering, life is not questioned, is it? There is beauty, ugliness, suffering, passion, despondency - all that is life. We don't question suffering as a means to ending it. Suffering is part of life, isn't it? It can't be eliminated, as I see it. Sorrow is the artificial prolongation of suffering through time. It is self-inflicted. No?

Isn't self-understanding crucial for the human being - so that he may live intelligently, not necessarily happily? [Added: ... and if he lives intelligently, will he contribute to the suffering?]

Please forgive me if I'm harsh. Can we understand each other - heart to heart, mind to mind, the wholeness of you and me? Maybe, maybe not.

[Added: I just noticed the QOTD - "To have right relationship, this barrier of psychological enclosure around each one of us has to be pulled down. Obviously, as I cannot do anything with others, I must first start with myself and set about to pull down the enclosure which I am putting up around me for self-protection." Can we, in our exchanges, "set about to pull down the enclosure"?]

This post was last updated by Huguette . Thu, 28 Sep 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 28 Sep 2017 #35
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2256 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
You see Tom, what is K saying here after having talked about ugliness?

See my post, # 45.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 28 Sep 2017 #36
Thumb_open-uri20180717-8420-135f99u-0 Mina Martini Finland 236 posts in this forum Offline

Dear Huguette!!

No offence taken, do not worry about 'being harsh', I do not feel such a thing at all!

Mina,

I think you're complicating things greatly (still realizing I can be mistaken).

Mina: :-)

Huguette:>What do you mean by "in that wholeness"? Life IS its wholeness, isn't it?

Mina: yes...was simply meaning that life is unknown=whole='what is'. The phrase 'in that wholeness' was not meant to separate anything from anything, if that was the impression you got.

Huguette: I CAN look at a part of life, but that part cannot be confused with life which is whole and cannot be arbitrarily fragmented.

Mina: Yes, and when wholeness is looking, the part is really an inseparable part of the whole, the part does not become detached or separate from the whole. But when parts looks at parts, fragments at fragments, it is then that we move in the arbitrary world, as the thinker separate from thought.

(not sure by the way what in my previous post made you say what you said above, but it does not matter. Just writing what is coming to be seen when reading your reply)

Huguette: The "wholeness" of life does not exist on its own, separate from life.

Mina: Oh, this sentence reveals the fact that you have misunderstood my words, yes, WORDS, or the wording. Yes, that is the level where misunderstandings can occur.

Wholeness means there is only wholeness, of course.

If it was thought to be separated from something, then of course it would not be wholeness!

Huguette:If you say that "beautiful" to you is a synonym for "whole", then aren't you saying that "in that wholeness life is utterly whole" ... which ends up being meaningless, no?

Mina: :-) :-) I love the above! :-) :-) I will come back to this specific point again if something more comes to be said..

Huguette:>It seems to me you are moving the conversation away from self-understanding by insisting that "life is beautiful".

Mina: This is not true and it is your interpretation. I do not insist on anything particular, at all, that would mean there is some idea in the mind already that is then being insisted on or defended. When living wholly, there is no waste of energy into resistance, and that is most often lived as great joy, great energy, great beauty. Without self-understanding this would not be possible.

HUguette:Can the person who is ignorant of the workings of his mind see beauty, other than as an idea? Doesn't the very question of self-understanding surface because there IS suffering? If there is just beauty and no suffering, life is not questioned, is it? There is beauty, ugliness, suffering, passion, despondency - all that is life. We don't question suffering as a means to ending it. Suffering is part of life, isn't it? It can't be eliminated, as I see it. Sorrow is the artificial prolongation of suffering through time. It is self-inflicted. No?

Mina: In the full understanding of the things you describe above, is the ending of suffering, of sorrow, of self, of time, of contradiction, of mind.

Huguette:>Isn't self-understanding crucial for the human being - so that he may live intelligently, not necessarily happily? [Added: ... and if he lives intelligently, will he contribute to the suffering?]

Mina: Absolutely! Living wholly, living intelligently, this is what is happening. No, a realised person (I do NOT mean any self, any state, any identity by it!!)does not contribute to the suffering created by the false belief of individual separate existence.

Huguette:>Please forgive me if I'm harsh. Can we understand each other - heart to heart, mind to mind, the wholeness of you and me? Maybe, maybe not.

Mina: I see no real obstacle for that Huguette, other than mind-made ideas which are thin air anyway!

[Added: I just noticed the QOTD - "To have right relationship, this barrier of psychological enclosure around each one of us has to be pulled down. Obviously, as I cannot do anything with others, I must first start with myself and set about to pull down the enclosure which I am putting up around me for self-protection." Can we, in our exchanges, "set about to pull down the enclosure"?]

Mina:

There is no real enclosure. In the seeing of the truth of it together, it is not only being pulled down, but rather discovered as never having been there.

In love and respect
Mina

This post was last updated by Huguette . 2

This post was last updated by Mina Martini Thu, 28 Sep 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 28 Sep 2017 #37
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2256 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
Let me say with all my sincere respect to you, that you are very wrong on that, Tom ... We (at least me) are talking together trying to look at things, i'm not blaming you of anything at all as you can observe in my post

No blame, ok...just misunderstanding. You're not getting my meaning all. Sorry. Maybe I'll try again later, but you talk of listening, yet did you really listen(of course I mean 'read'....but read as if you're listening to a friend....or K. Not that I'm k., but if he was talking, then you might LISTEN :)) to what I was trying to get across? It seems to me you didn't.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 28 Sep 2017 #38
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2256 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
. I'm very sorry if you felt blamed by my words at any time

No I didn't, not personally. No apology necessary. This is just a problem with words being the source of confusion here. I never meant to accuse you of blaming me. Perhaps judging the one who is seeing ugliness....any such one. Judging instead of listening to them.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 28 Sep 2017 #39
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2256 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
Let me doubt that the ugliness K verbalized on what he was seeing is the same ugliness we say to see.

Why? Because you already have formed an image of Tom....and an image of K?

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 28 Sep 2017 #40
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2256 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
There's no beauty divided from ugliness, because ugliness is contained in beauty and beauty in ugliness ...

Really? Ugliness in the smile of a little child? Beauty in child abuse? What language are we speaking? Sorry, not meaning to be harsh, but you can't be meaning what you are saying here.

Buddha said (and i don't use him as an authority because what he said was true to me long before i could read the words he said), he said "Suffering pervades everything", which means that when you look at that beautiful tree, or colorful bird, or whatever can be felt as beautiful and watched as living apart from that ugly world, suffering, ugliness is there too ... but we don't see it because our duality in observing this world and ourselves...

I'm speaking of observing free of duality! When I accidentally came across a book on the Holocaust lying on a table in a book store, I opened to a page with a photo of Nazis lining Jews up against a wall to be shot and I had to fight back tears. There was no me involved....just the perception of man's insanity and cruelty. Same when I used to walk in nature and disappear in the observing....the beauty...the nowness. No duality was present. No ME was present! Of course you are free to doubt or question.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Thu, 28 Sep 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 28 Sep 2017 #41
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 893 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Ugliness in the smile of a little child? Beauty in child abuse?

Of course not. The two words are descriptive, ugly and beautiful. They describe different scenes. One the mountain stream the other the homeless person sleeping in filth...they are what they are. You would not say the stream should be different but if you were decent you would say the homeless scene should be. And the same for all beauty/ugly scenes, one should be and the other shouldn't. But beside just saying "shouldn't", there needs to be also an awareness that the effect is the lawful result of the cause. What is, is the result of what was. Beauty attracts and ugliness repels. Ugliness is the absence of beauty. And both exist. They are not words...ugliness abounds in the world and we are here looking to discover the causes of it in ourselves.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 28 Sep 2017 #42
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 893 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
In which way are we looking at that ugliness that abounds in the world?

With revulsion, with sadness that it is so , with pity, with the wish it could be different?

Juan E wrote:
in which way are we looking at that beauty that abounds in the world too?

We delight in it, thrilled by it, thankful for it?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 28 Sep 2017 #43
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2256 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
If ugliness is beauty and beauty is ugliness, is there any inherent beauty, or ugliness in anything? ...

But I never said that , Juan. I think there's a language barrier. Love is not hate...false is not true. Sanity is not insanity. Order is not chaos or disorder. Truth is not illusion. Beauty is not the immense ugliness of the Holocaust or slavery.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Thu, 28 Sep 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 28 Sep 2017 #44
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2256 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
False is not true when there exist 'true' and 'false', which is duality...

Adolf Hitler: The Jews are an evil and inferior race.

Hitler's followers: This is true derr fuhrer.

Racist: Blacks are lazy and not as intelligent as Whites.

Are those statements true or false, Juan?

Juan E wrote:
OK! ... Is there another way to look at life other than through two opposite labels (whichever they may be)? ... Because if there's no other way we are condemned to be in perpetual conflict

There's no conflict when we see that war is ugly, not beautiful. There's no conflict when we see the beauty in the smile of a young child.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 29 Sep 2017 #45
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2256 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
Tom Paine wrote:

Are those statements true or false, Juan?
Why are you forcing me to look at them as true or false, Tom?

No one can force you, Juan, if you don't want to see the fact...face the reality that the mind creates all the false images of Blacks being inferior or superior....or Jews being evil or good/better.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 29 Sep 2017 #46
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 893 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
It's because we are not able to see that (or perhaps because we are afraid to acknowledge that it is the only reality, also of ourselves) that we've created the beauty of the rose, and the ugliness of a withered rose, still living in that duality trying to make the beautiful rose immortal when this is impossible ... But if we were able to see the actuality of the rose, we would be able to see also the beauty of a withered rose and not just its ugliness.

I see no ugliness in any stage of a rose's existence. But I do see the 'ugliness' that man has created.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 29 Sep 2017 #47
Thumb_open-uri20180717-8420-135f99u-0 Mina Martini Finland 236 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
Then, perhaps you should stop talking about man and just say "I do see the ugliness that I have created" and go on from there, forgetting about any other human being other than yourself ... But if one divides oneself from others (as we use to do all the time when we talk about 'man doing this or that'), if one thinks even for a moment "I have nothing to do with the ugliness man has created, with the Holocaust and so on", one is living in that very same duality that created that ugliness he is pointing out, thinking illusory that he is out of it ...

Mina: Yes, exactly. This is why unless it is directly seen that the observer IS the observed or in other words that you ARE the world of division that you seem to be talking about as if it was at some distance, (and you do so because it is the very division and distance in you then talking and looking) you are adding to that brutality, to that ugliness that you then may be persistently talking about, as if independent of your own inner state.

It is the world of division that is the ugliness itself, in the very concepts of ugly/beautiful (all opposites psychologically which are the creation of the observer separate from the observed) lies the only ugliness, the wrongness, because it divides man from man and is responsible for all the suffering of all.

When you see that you ARE the world, directly, and no thought can see directly without the twist of the observer and the observed, this division is not in the seeing!

You can still see the brtualities the divided mind is creating, when you come into contact with the energy of it, but since you are not looking from the place where division is born and maintained, there is nothing in you that resonates with that energy level, so it does not continue in you. This is not indifference, not that 'one does not care about the world', it is on the contrary the ultimate caring which can be fundamentally nothing other but the division ending in oneself.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 29 Sep 2017 #48
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 893 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
It is the world of division that is the ugliness itself, in the very concepts of ugly/beautiful (all opposites psychologically which are the creation of the observer separate from the observed) lies the only ugliness, the wrongness, because it divides man from man and is responsible for all the suffering of all.

Yes, the division (of a self-image separate and apart) is the same now as it was a thousand years ago. As long as I maintain and perpetuate it, I am it and as such am responsible for everything that has been done as a result of that division.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Fri, 29 Sep 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 29 Sep 2017 #49
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2256 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
if one thinks even for a moment "I have nothing to do with the ugliness man has created, with the Holocaust and so on", one is living in that very same duality that created that ugliness he is pointing out, thinking illusory that he is out of it ...

Pointing out the ugliness of racism and Nazism, and authoritarianisn is not necessarily separating oneself, is it? K talked about those 'ugly' factors that destroy life, didn't he? We are not saying 'we' are out of it....above it. Unconsciously I may feel "It's not me....I'd never do that." Yet we may accept subtle forms of authoritarianism in ourselves....conform to it inward or outwardly. Force it on our spouse or child. I see that. K often spoke of beauty. The beauty of the natural world that he often observed on his daily walks. I don't see why you feel it's false or misleading to speak of beauty and false to speak of ugliness... the ugliness of the sweat shop or the factory....the exploitation and the misery of the workers. In Mary Zimbalist's diary she told of having dinner with K in a hotel restaurant when they were traveling and K being repulsed by the 'ugliness'(my word) of the diners stuffing themselves with plates full of large portions of meat. Well he found it quite repulsive, so I assume I can use the word ugly to mean essentially the same.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Fri, 29 Sep 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 29 Sep 2017 #50
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2256 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
It is the world of division that is the ugliness itself,

It is the cause of the ugliness, yes. Division in myself and between man and his fellow man. But you're using the word that Juan says we must not use...ugliness... because it divides. Best to just say division is 'what is' and look into the factors that bring it about. Look at it objectively without any labels.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Fri, 29 Sep 2017 #51
Thumb_open-uri20180717-8420-135f99u-0 Mina Martini Finland 236 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
It is the cause of the ugliness, yes. Division in myself and between man and his fellow man. But you're using the word that Juan says we must not use...ugliness... because it divides. Best to just say division is 'what is' and look into the factors that bring it about. Look at it objectively without any labels.

Mina: I used the word intentionally to point out that the 'ugliness' is in the act of division itself, like between the concepts of ugly and beautiful. So, the choice of word came from wanting to use the same word 'ugly', but NOT in any sense of label or judgement, not in a dualistic sense.

No word divides by itself, no, but only when identified with. There has to be an experiencer of division for any division to take place, which means a thinker separate from thought. By a mere act of using one word instead of another, we are not moving at the fundamental level, unless there is seeing beyond all words.

And no authorities please..."You are using the word that Juan says we must not use.." :-) This is not the reason not to use it. One has to see for oneself and act in that seeing, all else can go.

This post was last updated by Mina Martini Fri, 29 Sep 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 29 Sep 2017 #52
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2256 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
And no authorities please..."You are using the word that Juan says we must not use.." :-)

I promise I won't make Juan into an authority ;) Not sure I understand the rest of what you're trying to say. This thread has gone on too far with too many twists and turns for my brain to follow. If I find a strand that seems important to look into, I'll return. Otherwise it's gotten too confusing for my brain to sort through and make some sense out of. Poor Juan was up half the night trying to clarify his point/s, and I don't have his energy. May return later

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 30 Sep 2017 #53
Thumb_open-uri20180717-8420-135f99u-0 Mina Martini Finland 236 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
I promise I won't make Juan into an authority ;) Not sure I understand the rest of what you're trying to say. This thread has gone on too far with too many twists and turns for my brain to follow. If I find a strand that seems important to look into, I'll return. Otherwise it's gotten too confusing for my brain to sort through and make some sense out of. Poor Juan was up half the night trying to clarify his point/s, and I don't have his energy. May return later

Mima_ :-) It is not about Juan, or anyone else, being authority or not, even, (because one does not see Juan as separate from oneself in the first place and then ask not to make him into an authority, that would be division/thought talking) but just about what happens at the moment we replace our own understanding, own perception, with words of others. We can then no longer be authentic and EMPTY, as some ideas, (either our own or coming from others, makes no difference) are already occupying a corner in the house which is in order only when totally empty from content.

Good, very good if your brain cannot follow 'twists and turns' of thought or make sense of things at the verbal or intellectual level. No thought is needed to be given into this. What liberation, what relief! :-)

Yes, Juan did good clarifying work in the thread indeed!

Be well dear. I have understood you have some health issues and often suffer from low energy owing to that condition. You also have Donna to take care of, if I have understood correcty, and that is continuous work also without any breaks....hope you can get enough rest. At least in the kitchen you are saving energy with your..ehem...rather simplistic cooking...:-) Love...

m

This post was last updated by Mina Martini Sat, 30 Sep 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 30 Sep 2017 #54
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2256 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
hope you can get enough rest. At least in the kitchen you are saving energy with your..ehem...rather simplistic cooking...:-)

Haha...glad you understand :) And we're staying healthy too. I may purchase a juicer one day to make fresh vegetable juice. Donna has a problem chewing so I don't make salads. Used to eat them a lot when younger. Thank you so much for your kind and understanding post, Mina. I needed to read that today, being tired and rather worn out again this AM. Haven't had my tea yet, so that will help a bit. But it's a bit like beating a tired horse that needs rest, not stimulating. Good points about authority...whether of Juan, K, Mina, Tom, Buddha, Jesus..... words and ideas essentially, replacing understanding....looking...listening. Now if those words are pointing to something real, they may bring some understanding to the listener....no doubt about that. But that's not making an authority of the one who is pointing. As K once said, if you are lost on the road and someone points you in the direction to get to your destination, you don't put him up on a pedestal and worship him/her.

Love you, too.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 31 - 54 of 54 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.)