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

Can conflict actually end


Displaying all 25 posts
Page 1 of 1
Wed, 27 Sep 2017 #1
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3844 posts in this forum Offline

There have been several threads on the topic of “conflict” in the past. Since I find the matter has not been quite resolved in myself { :-) } I am bringing it up again. Also I have initiated a series of video/dialogues here in my home city, and Conflict is to be the first topic.

But more than this consideration, it is a burning issue for me. Conflict is THERE, in the brain, in thought. It is the very essence of how thought behaves, it seems. In the guise of the thinker, thought criticises itself, condemns itself, corrects itself... . The more one is sensitive to this movement, the more it appears to happen.

Of course it goes without saying that this mind in conflict has created a society, a civilisation that is perpetually in conflict. So much so that it threatens to destroy mankind, and perhaps most life on Earth.

So it is natural, and I would say healthy, to ask “Can conflict end?” Although it is not healthy if this only a theoretical question, one satisfied by some verbal answer or analysis. It has to ACTUALLY end.

When it is apparent, immediately, that there is no effort one can make to end conflict (effort being the continuation of conflict obviously) then one sees that there is an absolute necessity to observe the conflict in the the brain, as it happens, the mechanism of it. And it also become apparent that if one is to observe it, there must be no condemnation of it. And also it is apparent that there is no end to conflict by creating some ideal of peace and pursuing that.

So basically there is nothing that one can do about conflict (this is not a statement of despair, but a factual observation as part of the enquiry). Or is there?

Here is a question that Pupul Jayakar posed:

There is no fixed consciousness. It is constantly moving, constantly changing. It reveals itself because one has divided the person who perceives and that which is perceived. The contradiction arises if you hold on to them. Then you are stuck and the world has moved on. Movement is on. What is has continually changed but you are stuck with what was, and therefore, with an illusion.
Therefore, can one pose that question and remain with it relentlessly. Is it possible to remain at the same speed as thought so that the division between ego and thought for that instant ceases?

I think the same sort of question arose in me in the night. The question in bold type, is that the key to the ending of conflict?

Does this mean anything to anyone?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 27 Sep 2017 #2
Thumb_img-0590 Mina Martini Finland 162 posts in this forum Offline

Is it possible to remain at the same speed as thought so that the division between ego and thought for that instant ceases?

Mina: Interestingly said! To 'remain at the same speed as thought' feels here to be describing its movement without identification with it. It is the identification that is the creation conflict and of time, and not the unfolding and appearing and disappearing thoughts themselves...Identification would still be at work of course, if there was a separate entity to remain at the same speed as thought!

It is only in awareness, (in the lack of identification in other words) where thoughts come and go, but do not look back at themselves, to create the looker!

Yes, beautiful...then there is 'moving at the same speed as thought', never looking back.

A rolling stone gathers no moss. :-)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 27 Sep 2017 #3
Thumb_img-0590 Mina Martini Finland 162 posts in this forum Offline

Something came to be seen..

In the creation that is the very nature of life, also thoughts are constantly unfolding. But that is the only 'direction'. Thought folding back on itself is thought creating a thinker, an experience of isolation. Thought protecting itself from itself. The birth of duality, of hurt.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 27 Sep 2017 #4
Thumb_img_1496 Per . Sweden 96 posts in this forum Offline

The ongoing Big Bang.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 27 Sep 2017 #5
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 765 posts in this forum Offline

Thought is fear. It has made itself 'respectable'. But the falseness of it is seen when you look at yourself and reflect on the societies it has created. Thought has clung to its construction of a 'personal' identity and now if there is to ever be for man an end to conflict, it must be seen for what it is, fear. Its place is in the practical where linear 'time' is necessary and has to be considered and planned for. But in the psychological, it has no place. In the psychological, it is fear at work. The 'thinker' is a creation of fear.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Wed, 27 Sep 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 28 Sep 2017 #6
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 410 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
The more one is sensitive to this movement, the more it appears to happen.

Once, someone went to see a buddhist lama just to tell him "I can't meditate because when i begin meditation my mind starts chattering without an end. This didn't happened to me before!" ... The lama, laughing out loud, said to him "Oh, this happened to you before too, the only difference is that now you're becoming aware of it!"

Clive Elwell wrote:
When it is apparent, immediately, that there is no effort one can make to end conflict (effort being the continuation of conflict obviously) then one sees that there is an absolute necessity to observe the conflict in the the brain, as it happens, the mechanism of it

Once, while living in Switzerland, i had a conversation with an old woman that shared the flat with my girl-friend at the time ... As i was living in a Buddhist Monastery there studying buddhist, he put me this direct question to me thinking that i was buddhist: "What does buddhist thing that one must do against the disorder in the world" ... I told her "I'm not buddhist, but my view is that one should observe the conflict and its real causes very deeply before performing any action to cure the disorder" ... She said: "You (not me, but in general) are always disposed to talk endlessly while others are dying of starvation, and so on"...

This is the view of most people in the world ... Very very few people are disposed to stop and look deeply and empty to "the conflict in the brain, as it happens, the mechanism of it" empty of any acquired concept about that disorder.

Clive Elwell wrote:
So basically there is nothing that one can do about conflict (this is not a statement of despair, but a factual observation as part of the enquiry). Or is there?

No, it is not a statement of despair ... Your words talk about truth (at least to me), one must stop to look at conflict, even if one is amidst of the normal struggles of life, which doesn't mean that one has to stop earning a life (food, clothes, and shelter).

Clive Elwell wrote:

Pupul Jayakar said:
Is it possible to remain at the same speed as thought so that the division between ego and thought for that instant ceases?

I think the same sort of question arose in me in the night. The question in bold type, is that the key to the ending of conflict? ... Does this mean anything to anyone?

Yes, it means a lot to me ... Precisely this is what we are trying to look at in the thread "Creation and Destruction as one" started by Mina ... I say it is possible, but it requires a great effortless attention as thought will try to escape all the time from that 'order', trying to cause problems ALL THE TIME.

"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 #7
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 410 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
To 'remain at the same speed as thought' feels here to be describing its movement without identification with it

That's it!
An effortless attention of what is happening without any identification is the key to it

"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 #8
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 410 posts in this forum Offline

Per . wrote:
The ongoing Big Bang's

Season 2 ;-)

"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 #9
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 410 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
The 'thinker' is a creation of fear.

Interesting point! ... But there's something that do not fit to me in this statement ... If the thinker is the 'me', who felt fear before fear itself had created the 'thinker'? ... Interesting point, isn't it?! ;-)

"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 #10
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 765 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
If the thinker is the 'me'

Do you question that ?

Juan E wrote:
who felt fear before fear itself had created the 'thinker'?

Not a "who" Juan, I'd say it was the brain in its search for security that created the 'I' process. Which was the duality between a 'thinker' apart from the 'thought' process. The thinker embodies the concept of 'me' and 'mine'. It was an attempt at a sort of 'immortality' because death was an unknown and was to be avoided at all costs, not only physical but for the 'thinker' as well. Hence: heaven and hell, 'life after death', 'Books of the dead' etc. But all the result of 'fear'.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 29 Sep 2017 #11
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 410 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Do you question that ?

No, on the contrary i agree that the 'me' is the 'thinker'.

Dan McDermott wrote:
I'd say it was the brain in its search for security that created the 'I' process.

There's a very interesting dialogue between Dr. Bohm and K in which Dr. Bohm asks some very interesting questions that could be related to that ... They are talking about why thought is fragmentary, but i think that those question could be applied well here to what you're saying:


  • DB: But you say thought is mechanical, that’s why i’m saying why should a mechanism seek security? A machine does not seek security! Why should any mechanism want to be secure?

  • K: Sir, a mechanical thing doesn’t get hurt

  • DB: No, it just functions

  • K: Functions, it doesn’t get hurt. It stops working but that doesn’t mean that it is hurt.


Krishnamurti and Dr. Bohm - Truth and Actuality, part 8 of 12 (min 15:30 on)

So, the question is why the brain should seek security? ... Is it because it doesn't realize it's just a machine as they question together in that dialogue regarding to thought not realizing it is mechanical?

Dan McDermott wrote:
Which was the duality between a 'thinker' apart from the 'thought' process. The thinker embodies the concept of 'me' and 'mine'. It was an attempt at a sort of 'immortality' because death was an unknown and was to be avoided at all costs, not only physical but for the 'thinker' as well.

All this is clear, but this still doesn't answer why brain, which is a machine, had any need for security ... Unless the brain is an autonomous entity with its own thinking that has nothing to do with the 'me'/'thinker' it created according to what you say ... Which would convert it in a kind of 'Matrix' (using the simile of the movie) to which it had connected the present 'me'/'thinker', to protect itself...

But even then, for the brain to perform what you're saying it had to have a previous 'thinker' or what's the same, some kind of consciousness in it about itself that make it feel insecure long before it created this other 'thinker' that it is supposed to be our present 'me', to protect itself from that insecurity you mention ...

But if that where so the following question arises, why the need to create another 'thinker' when there's already one? ;-)

Buff, 1 hour since i said in the other thread that i was going to bed!
Anyway 'til tomorrow, Dan! :-)

"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 Fri, 29 Sep 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 29 Sep 2017 #12
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3844 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
It was an attempt at a sort of 'immortality' because death was an unknown and was to be avoided at all costs, not only physical but for the 'thinker' as well.

Are you talking about before the thinker evolved in human consciousness (evolved = put together by thought) or after that, Dan?

But yes, thought on its own, without the illusion of the thinker, is dying all the time. In fact WITH the illusion of the thinker thought is still dying all the time, isn't it? - but at the same time it tries to pretend that it doesn't.

Perhaps this pretence is the origin of all conflict.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 29 Sep 2017 #13
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2045 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Perhaps this pretence is the origin of all conflict.

This is a point worth going into, I think. The effort to keep the past alive...to hold on to the known....pleasures, ideas, knowledge, security, everything that makes up 'me'....is obviously creating conflict.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 29 Sep 2017 #14
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 765 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
WITH the illusion of the thinker thought is still dying all the time, isn't it? - but at the same time it tries to pretend that it doesn't.

When thought realizes that the image it has created of a personal self , a 'me' apart from everything...when it realizes that it is a conflict-creating, sorrow-breeding, divisive invention brought about in ignorance of its 'true' self, out of a desire for permanence and a fear of death, it can cease. That would be freedom from the known. That would be the realization that "you are the world". That would be the end of the duality between the "observer and the observed". That realization can only take place now, not in the 'future'.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Fri, 29 Sep 2017 #15
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3844 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
The effort to keep the past alive...to hold on to the known....pleasures, ideas, knowledge, security, everything that makes up 'me'....is obviously creating conflict.

"Conflict is between the actual and the myth" - K

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 29 Sep 2017 #16
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3844 posts in this forum Offline

Of late I have been 'focusing' on this issue of conflict, especially the conflict in the human mind. Seeing things in the light of conflict. I mean here, as it manifests in me. Although as a friend insightfully said to me yesterday:

“We are all together in this. This conflict is not yours or mine . We all seem to share it, are equally lost in it”.

The more one focuses on it, the more conflict continues. Conflict cannot possible end through volition, by will. “Any form of volition, desire, motivation,, wanting to end conflict, breeds further conflict”. I feel I see this as an absolute fact. No, better to ask this as a question - “Do I see this as an absolute fact?”

As long as there is division there is conflict. That is so obvious in the external world, and it is also clear in the inner world. Opposing demands, opposing desires, wanting something while also no wanting it, individual urges, feeling one shouldn't have …...... And isn't the basis of all this division the separation of thought into thinker and thought? I put a question mark, but it is so.

Seeing this has its own effect, its own action.

"[Division] can only end if one is capable - I won't use the word 'capable', sorry - if one can observe. Observe conflict, not try to end it, not try to transform into another form of conflict, but to observe it. Which means, to be aware, to give our attention completely to what is conflict and how it arises, which is the dualistic opposing drives of energy; just to observe it"

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 30 Sep 2017 #17
Thumb_img-0590 Mina Martini Finland 162 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
"Conflict is between the actual and the myth" - K

Mina: This is not really fundamentally so.

Conflict exists in the imagined distance between observer and observed or thinker and thought. So, it exists between the relationships of myths (myths as concepts, ideas, images) and not between the actual and the myth(thought). Conflict is altogether a creation of thought.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 30 Sep 2017 #18
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3844 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:

"Conflict is between the actual and the myth" - K

Mina: This is not really fundamentally so.

Conflict exists in the imagined distance between observer and observed or thinker and thought. So, it exists between the relationships of myths (myths as concepts, ideas, images) and not between the actual and the myth(thought). Conflict is altogether a creation of thought.

I was also pondering this. Certainly when one observes the outer word, much conflict seems to be between myth and myth. Between ideology and ideology. Between two nations, two religions, which are fundamentally myth.

Mina Martini wrote:
Conflict is altogether a creation of thought.

I don't think that this is in question

Mina Martini wrote:
and not between the actual and the myth(thought).

And yet .... one sees, for example, how one has behaved selfishly. And then thought comes in with its "should not be", which is clearly a myth. But the selfish behaviour was actual, was it not?

Not much time for writing today

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 01 Oct 2017 #19
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2045 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Mina Martini wrote:

and not between the actual and the myth(thought).

Clive: And yet .... one sees, for example, how one has behaved selfishly. And then thought comes in with its "should not be", which is clearly a myth. But the selfish behaviour was actual, was it not?

But we don't normally see the actual selfish behavior....only our idea or concept of it....what we've been told ...conditioned to believe is....to label as 'selfishness'. So the conflict is between our idea of what actually is and our idea of what should be....between should and should not. Between two images, as Mina says. We never perceive what actually is.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Sun, 01 Oct 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 01 Oct 2017 #20
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3844 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
But we don't normally see the actual selfish behavior..

Really? Surely it is possible to see what is going on inside one? If I am angry, that anger can be see. If dislike of someone arises in me, that can be seen. It is a fact, not an idea, like hunger, or a sexual urge is a fact. These are not ideas, are they?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 01 Oct 2017 #21
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2045 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Tom Paine wrote:

But we don't normally see the actual selfish behavior..
Really? Surely it is possible to see what is going on inside one? If I am angry, that anger can be see. If dislike of someone arises in me, that can be seen.

Is it seen or only reacted to? Is it seen through a screen of ideas.... "I should't be selfish"... "I shouldn't be angry"? Is that seeing the anger or the selfishness? If there were real seeing wouldn't there be comprehension...understanding? Just questioning. 'Dislike' may arise but don't I immediately react in terms of condemnation or justification? is there any space for 'seeing' as K uses the word 'seeing'?

Clive Elwell wrote:
It is a fact, not an idea, like hunger, or a sexual urge is a fact. These are not ideas, are they?

Sure, anger is a fact, but the ideas about anger are also facts. And the ideas are a barrier preventing us from 'seeing' what anger is really all about. This is pretty much K 101, I think. Hope I'm not somehow missing your point, Clive.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Sun, 01 Oct 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 02 Oct 2017 #22
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3844 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Is it seen or only reacted to?

These are not mutually exclusive things, are they? Seeing can occur, but after the seeing our old friend thought can and does step in with its reactions.

Surely seeing can occur? If it cannot, if there is no possibility of seeing what is, then we really are lost, aren't we? Then there is absolutely no possibility of fundamental change, since it is seeing that brings about that change, is it not? Nothing else. Seeing is action.

I know this is no argument for "proving" that seeing exists. But really, doesn't plain common sense show us that there is seeing. It's not something mysterious. First of all, seeing with our eyes is the action that enables us to cross the street. And inside I see, I sense, fear arising, the physical sensations of it.

Looking deeper, I am now asking, as perhaps you are Tom, if there are psychological movements that are not associated with 'physical sensations'? Hmmm, looking at this. And I see that those psychological movements ARE sensations. And now I remember words of K that have long puzzled me "Thought is sensation".

So in the above, it seems to me that seeing has occurred. When I say it "has occurred" I am not saying "I" have done it. Rather seeing has somehow come, arisen. I think another word for this seeing is "insight".

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 02 Oct 2017 #23
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2045 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Tom Paine wrote:

Is it seen or only reacted to?
These are not mutually exclusive things, are they? Seeing can occur, but after the seeing our old friend thought can and does step in with its reactions.

I am angry, for example. I feel my muscles get very tense. I may hear my voice rise in reaction to something someone says to me. Sure there is perception of all that, but we don't know it's anger until thought labels it as such. So there is a basic animal level perception of the body's reaction, but that doesn't resolve the issue of anger at all. the issue of anger is related to thought, not just the body getting tense or the voice getting loud. This is a tough one, Clive and I have to shut down for the night. I'll have to come back to it tomorrow. Perhaps I'm not understanding what you're getting at.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Mon, 02 Oct 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 03 Oct 2017 #24
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3844 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Perhaps I'm not understanding what you're getting at.

All I was saying, Tom, is that there IS such a thing as seeing, independent of thought.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Tue, 03 Oct 2017 #25
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2045 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Tom Paine wrote:

Perhaps I'm not understanding what you're getting at.
All I was saying, Tom, is that there IS such a thing as seeing, independent of thought.

I understand. I was only questioning whether there's seeing when I'm angry about something my boss said to me, as an example. I'm not seeing the anger, except very superficially. My mind is absorbed in thoughts of being hurt, or how I should respond.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying all 25 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.)