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

Creation and destruction as one


Displaying posts 31 - 60 of 80 in total
Wed, 27 Sep 2017 #31
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 388 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
at least(unless?)

Thanks a lot for correcting my english! :-) Yes, 'unless'

Tom Paine wrote:
But you are giving life to the me by these words! Don't you see that?

I need more feedback to see what you mean.

"When i talk to audiences, they know what i'm talking about ... another thing is that they do something about it" - K. Brockwood Park (Making ideas of the Teaching)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 27 Sep 2017 #32
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 388 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Yet K was able to speak of the ugliness, right? The filth, the horrible poverty, tge misery, the squalor... the ugliness of life in the big city.

It is written in a buddhist treatise by Nagarjuna (70 stanzas on Emptiness):


  1. Duration, origination, destruction, existence,
    non-existence, inferiority, mediocrity and superiority
    were taught by the Buddha in accord with conventional usage,
    not by the power of the real.

Living aside any possible aversion to any kind of -ism one may have, i've taken the freedom to quote this just to say that one has to explain things to dual minds in some way ... the problem is that for the dual mind is very difficult to go beyond words and concepts to understand what those words really try to convey ... So, dual minds get caught most of the times in those very words, evolving all the time around them (not talking about you here, but in general) to try to understand what they mean.

Is there any other way to listen to them? ... Yes!

When your heart is full, then you will listen to the teacher, to the beggar, to the laughter of children, to the rainbow, and to the sorrow of man. Under every stone and leaf, that which is eternal exists. But we do not know how to look for it. Our minds and hearts are filled with other things than understanding of "what is". Love and mercy, kindliness and generosity do not cause enmity. When you love, you are very near truth. For, love makes for sensitivity, for vulnerability.


Krishnamurti - The Collected Works vol. IV, p 200

"When i talk to audiences, they know what i'm talking about ... another thing is that they do something about it" - K. Brockwood Park (Making ideas of the Teaching)

This post was last updated by Juan E Wed, 27 Sep 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 27 Sep 2017 #33
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 388 posts in this forum Offline

Going to sleep, 'til tomorrow ...
Really good points to observe in bed until falling sleep
Good night to you all, specially to Mina :-)

"When i talk to audiences, they know what i'm talking about ... another thing is that they do something about it" - K. Brockwood Park (Making ideas of the Teaching)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 27 Sep 2017 #34
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 1992 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
We are caught in words, Tom ... Just look to what she's saying by going beyond the words, with your heart

'Life is beautiful.'(Mina) How is that the same as what you said, Juan: "K here is simply saying "look at the world without the division of beautiful and ugly labels ... "

I don't know what that means, 'look with your heart'. Sorry, just being honest. I understand what look/listen with an open mind means, however. How does one look at the sentence 'Life is beautiful' with one's heart? Life is not beautiful if one is enslaved or beaten because of the color of one's skin or religion. Life is BOTH....the ugliness, the war, the poverty, the suffering, as well as the beauty. I don't see beauty in what Hitler did....in war. Sorry. Is it because of my way of looking, as Mina would probably say? I don't think so. K once said, and I paraphrase, "If there is a God he must be insane to create such misery and suffering for so many." Is he saying, "Life is beautiful" do you think? (rhetorical question)

Let it Be

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

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Thu, 28 Sep 2017 #35
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 1992 posts in this forum Offline

Once more for Juan....in case you missed it. You see how when K says it, it's perfect, yet if one of us points it out, we're told that we're creating the ugliness with our way of looking.

From Krishnamurti's Notebook (209) 11th

The dirty street was terribly crowded; it was more dirty than ever; they spat all over the place; the narrow pavement was incredibly filthy, never swept and it would be many months before the torrential rains would come and wash away the brutal ugliness of an overcrowded and callous city. The sea was just on the other side of the road. The purifying tide was coming in, covering the black rocks and the sands made dirty by man. Wherever he went there was dirt, brutality and a terrifying indifference to everything, and those who cared a little soon became social workers or those undying politicians. The hideous posters on the walls were telling the world what marvellous things they would do if you only elected them and nobody else. Every dog left a mark on that road where you walked; no incoming tide would wash the street clean; the mind was tired and the heart had withered and a small girl was using the street as her toilet. You wept and out of the car a man threw the butt of a cigarette and before a man could pick it up, the tyres of a car went over it; it was a half-smoked cigarette too.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 28 Sep 2017 #36
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 396 posts in this forum Offline

For beauty to come into being, the
mind must be choicelessly aware of its
own pettiness; there must be an
awareness in which comparison has
wholly ceased.

[Commentaries on Living Series I,
Chapter 53, Spontaneity]

Mina and Juan,

For the person who does NOT experience beauty, who does not love, isn't it meaningless to be told that life is beautiful? If my mind IS petty, if I'm jealous, angry, bitter, despondent, afraid, ambitious, lonely, can I experience beauty or love?

K didn't say life is beautiful. He said (paraphrasing), “Your mind is petty and THAT stands in the way of beauty”. But is it a fact? And if it is, am I ready to face myself as I am? "Facing myself", meaning awareness, attention, observation - just that. So it is no good telling me life is beautiful. Help me find the way to see it.

And isn’t stating that “life is beautiful” a label, just as saying “life is ugly” a label? A label tells you something is this or it is that, fixed, unchanging. Life is not restricted to just one attribute, it is not just one way, it is not static. Life is beautiful AND life is ugly, cruel, kind, known, unknown, peace, upheaval, laughter, tears, love, evil ..... not as opposites, as facts, as constant movement. Life is not just “my life”. It is all of life. No?

I might be mistaken.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 28 Sep 2017 #37
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 388 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
You see how when K says it, it's perfect, yet if one of us points it out, we're told that we're creating the ugliness with our way of looking.

I see that you stopped reading the quote you wrote down, getting caught by the word 'ugliness' ... But if one continues reading the text, just after that one finds ... Oh surprise! ... this words:

Don’t ever withdraw or isolate yourself; don’t retreat into corrupting family or into the dead ashes of ideas, beliefs and the cheap gods of your mind. There is no love there. But if you just went away, not knowing where, not planned, not cunningly plotted out, then you can walk in that filthy street, with dead men and you would know love. As you walked, pushed around by cars and people, you would meditate, with delight; then meditation became an ecstasy, a movement of infinite tenderness and you held the hand of a passing child. Then you would give the garland of fragrant jasmine that had just been given to you to that passing beggar and you would see his immense surprise and delight. Then you would know that the everlasting was always there, round every corner, under that dead leaf and the fallen flower.


Krishnamurti's Notebook

You see Tom, what is K saying here after having talked about ugliness?

"When i talk to audiences, they know what i'm talking about ... another thing is that they do something about it" - K. Brockwood Park (Making ideas of the Teaching)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 28 Sep 2017 #38
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 388 posts in this forum Offline

BTW, good morning!

"When i talk to audiences, they know what i'm talking about ... another thing is that they do something about it" - K. Brockwood Park (Making ideas of the Teaching)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 28 Sep 2017 #39
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 552 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
if I'm jealous, angry, bitter, despondent, afraid, ambitious, lonely, can I experience beauty or love?

Hi Huguette,

I don't feel you are mistaken
but in addition to the above despite of their state of being one still can Love them.

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 Thu, 28 Sep 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 28 Sep 2017 #40
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 552 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
BTW, good morning!

Good morning to you too and thanks for this addition of the quote #37 which I read after posting my #39 what a joy !

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, 28 Sep 2017 #41
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 388 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Mina and Juan: For the person who does NOT experience beauty, who does not love, isn't it meaningless to be told that life is beautiful?

Did i said life is beautiful, or on the contrary i only said that life is neither ugly nor beauty, but just life? ... Why are you dividing life between ugly and beautiful?

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" ... And your answer will be: "But how can i look at life without division when i have all this struggle with life?" ... And i will say: "What prevents you from looking at that struggle without any division or label?" ... And you will say: "I don't know, help me on that" ... And i will say: "Find out yourself!"

But one does not want this kind of help ... K said somewhere "If i were a psychiatrist and i tell you 'find out yourself!', you'll leave me to look for another psychiatrist that tells you what to do"

Of what kind of help are we talking about, Huguette?

Huguette . wrote:
Life is beautiful AND life is ugly,

Life is neither beautiful nor ugly, that's the problem of human kind.

The day humanity is able to look at life without such division, the problem will gone ... Until then life will continue being ugly and beautiful, with all the conflicts that this division entails.

"When i talk to audiences, they know what i'm talking about ... another thing is that they do something about it" - K. Brockwood Park (Making ideas of the Teaching)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 28 Sep 2017 #42
Thumb_img-0590 Mina Martini Finland 97 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
And isn’t stating that “life is beautiful” a label, just as saying “life is ugly” a label? A label tells you something is this or it is that, fixed, unchanging. Life is not restricted to just one attribute, it is not just one way, it is not static. Life is beautiful AND life is ugly, cruel, kind, known, unknown, peace, upheaval, laughter, tears, love, evil ..... not as opposites, as facts, as constant movement. Life is not just “my life”. It is all of life. No?

Mina: Right, 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!

And yes, when there is this constant flow, constant movement, timeless movement of life, thought is also unfolding in complete harmony and synchorinty with the totality of life, and is then unable to look back on itself to form an idea of a separate thinker. And it is only this false idea of a separate thinker that is able to believe that this is 'my life'.

ALL OF LIFE

And it is this ALL that takes one, (no one goes there, or only no one is there) to a place 'where everything is utterly beautiful, utterly 'what is'.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 28 Sep 2017 #43
Thumb_img-0590 Mina Martini Finland 97 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
What Mina is trying to say is that while we continue observing the world from duality ugly/beautiful there will continue existing Nazis/Anti-Nazis (using your example) and all the rest ... Mina is trying to say that in the observation of the world without labeling it ugly or beautiful there's the seeing of the real world ... That seeing brings about an action which is not in the field of "look how the world is, let's do something" ...

I understand the Mina's difficulty to share this feeling with another if the other in front is looking at the world through the duality of the beautiful/ugly labels ... That duality is the real and only prison that prevents world, with its pros and cons, to live a life without conflict.

Now, the person's in front next question will be: How can i look at the world without those two labels? ... And Mina's answer will be: i don't know but it is there somewhere, i only know that love exists only when this two labels are absent.

Mina: It was such a Gift to find your comments here this morning, to feel how you have resonated at the same level and intensity of energy, which is beyond all words. What a relief to meet there where everything is crystal clear and utterly simple, because no artificial complicatedness created by thinker/thought-division can enter there...

Thank you so much. And the gratitude and utter sense of humility comes from the realisation that THIS is our work on Earth, to spread this wild fire (and it is something totally other than 'the house of fire' with which K describes the divided consciousness!) in the meeting of Hearts.

If someone asked 'How can I look at the world without those labels?', I would probably point out, as I am doing now, that it is the label asking this, and that it is the label that needs to be totally still for something other to have a chance to emerge. But if the label (thought) tried to be still IN ORDER to gain some result, then again it would not be still, but perpetuating itself through the very effort. So, even that question of 'how' comes from the label and is driven by the limited desires of thought.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 28 Sep 2017 #44
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 396 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 #45
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 1992 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 #46
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 1992 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 #47
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 396 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 #48
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 1992 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 #49
Thumb_img-0590 Mina Martini Finland 97 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 #50
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 388 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
One moment he was overwhelmed by the ugliness. Later the beauty returned.

Have you re-read what you're saying here? ... Have you pondered it?

Anyone here, there, and everywhere would say that a beauty that has gone to later return, is a living duality ... 'Ugliness at one time while beauty at the other' you say, and then yourself say that there's no duality in that...

We use to say "that which i lived was ugly" or whatever negative words you want to use here, and add "but i have also moments of beauty and peace", or whatever positive words you want to use 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...

There's no beauty divided from ugliness, because ugliness is contained in beauty and beauty in ugliness ... But we divide everything; the moment K cries for what he sees of the world, and his later perceiving beauty returning ... We don't see, or are unable to see, that the two observations are not divided from one each other as we use to think...

Tom Paine wrote:
How patronizing it would be to say 'delighting yourself..' to the man who faces racism or some other persecution every day.

Let's listen to what our beloved K, has to say about this:

Once a lady came to see me whose husband had died some years ago, and she said 'I would like to meet my husband again'. Please listen to this, I am not being cruel. I said, 'Which husband do you want to meet? The one who slept with you, the one who dominated you, the one who went to the office and cheated, or did what he was told, the one who was frightened? Whom do you want to meet?'


J. Krishnamurti Talks and Dialogues Saanen 1968 1st Public Talk 7th July 1968

Now, what was he saying to that woman, Tom?

Tom Paine wrote:
We're K's tears in the excerpt I posted twice now a result of your "delight"

Do you know the motive of his tears, Tom?
Let me doubt that the ugliness K verbalized on what he was seeing is the same ugliness we say to see.

Tom Paine wrote:
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.

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 ... A dialog is an exchange of views trying to find the truth or falsity of all of them ... You're questioning my views the same as i question yours ... This is not a battle to win, but an exchanging without a winner in a media with a lot of limitations compared to a normal dialog face to face ... I'm very sorry if you felt blamed by my words at any time ... Hope at least, that you'll continue correcting me in my bad english :) ... I wouldn't like to lose a friend due to a misunderstanding.

"When i talk to audiences, they know what i'm talking about ... another thing is that they do something about it" - K. Brockwood Park (Making ideas of the Teaching)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 28 Sep 2017 #51
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 1992 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 #52
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 1992 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 #53
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 1992 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 #54
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 1992 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 #55
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 388 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
did you really listen(of course I mean 'read'....but read as if you're listening to a friend....or K

Of course, do you doubt that?

Tom Paine wrote:
It seems to me you didn't.

Ah! i see ... I will not try to convince you of the contrary Tom, but if you're able to listen to yourself you'll find that this seems already a prejudice about the person with who it's suposded you're having a dialog, ergo it seems to me that there's no dialog at all.

Anyway, let's continue with this kind of dialogue ;-)

"When i talk to audiences, they know what i'm talking about ... another thing is that they do something about it" - K. Brockwood Park (Making ideas of the Teaching)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 28 Sep 2017 #56
Thumb_de4 Dan McDermott United States 789 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 #57
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 388 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
I never meant to accuse you of blaming me.

I know...

Tom Paine wrote:
Perhaps judging the one who is seeing ugliness....any such one. Judging instead of listening to them.

Again you're absolutely wrong (at least in my side), i don't know about others.

"When i talk to audiences, they know what i'm talking about ... another thing is that they do something about it" - K. Brockwood Park (Making ideas of the Teaching)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 28 Sep 2017 #58
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 388 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:

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?

Are you judging me, perhaps?

"When i talk to audiences, they know what i'm talking about ... another thing is that they do something about it" - K. Brockwood Park (Making ideas of the Teaching)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 28 Sep 2017 #59
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 388 posts in this forum Offline

Anyway, let's continue with our dialogue...

Tom Paine wrote:
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.

May i ask you something? ... If ugliness is beauty and beauty is ugliness, is there any inherent beauty, or ugliness in anything? ... In which way are we looking at life and living, Tom?

Tom Paine wrote:
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.Same when I used to walk in nature and disappear in the observing....the beauty...the nowness

How is it that you don't cry also while observing the beauty of something that is dying, the same as yourself, while you're in a walk in the nature, Tom? ... Is the sadness felt looking at the pictures on the book divided from the joy felt while walking in nature and vice-versa? ... Is order divided from disorder, or this is so only in a dual mind? ... Why did you had to fight back tears while looking at the pictures on the book?

"When i talk to audiences, they know what i'm talking about ... another thing is that they do something about it" - K. Brockwood Park (Making ideas of the Teaching)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 28 Sep 2017 #60
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 388 posts in this forum Offline

Hi Dan, glad to see you here sharing your views also! :-)

Dan McDermott wrote:
...ugliness abounds in the world and we are here looking to discover the causes of it in ourselves.

I would like to ask something apropos of this words...
In which way are we looking at that ugliness that abounds in the world?
And, in which way are we looking at that beauty that abounds in the world too?

"When i talk to audiences, they know what i'm talking about ... another thing is that they do something about it" - K. Brockwood Park (Making ideas of the Teaching)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 31 - 60 of 80 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.)