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

What you ARE, you are not...(to Dan/all)


Displaying all 25 posts
Page 1 of 1
Sat, 30 Sep 2017 #1
Thumb_img-0590 Mina Martini Finland 97 posts in this forum Offline

Dan says in another thread:

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.

Mina: Right, there is no part, no corner in this divided mind that would not be the creator, and in that sense totally responsible, for ALL its manifestations.

The mind itself, all of it, is conflict, a creation of conflict appearing as the observer separate from the observed.

But interestingly, to understand the meaning of the above statement is only possible in a 'place' where no division exists! The understanding of the whole of the human mind can only happen in its absence, in the absence of division!

So, when it is seen that you ARE the division, in that realisation lies its transformation, because you cannot be that from which you exist in any distance from. So, the divided mind is maintained and fed in anyone exactly because it is not fully seen that we ARE it.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 30 Sep 2017 #2
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 396 posts in this forum Offline

Mina,

Where is the “'place' where no division exists” and how do I get there from here? Here division IS. I AM the 'place' where division exists, as you say. But I cannot see that I am division unless I first acknowledge or face that I do lie, that I am confused and lost, that I am afraid, that I am cunning, that I do not love, that I am unkind where it makes me feel better, that pleasure is more important to me than understanding truth, and that I pretend NOT to be all that. It is in the moment that I stop pretending "not to be what I actually am" that I see the division between what-is and what should be, isn’t it?

Isn’t awareness the “pathway”, if I dare to call it that? K didn’t call it that for then his listeners would surely immediately try to “practice” awareness ..... and clearly, practicing awareness instantly chases awareness away. Awareness cannot be reached through practice.

But I can understand what thought is in all its guises by observing all its manifestations in myself - psychological time, fear, anger, jealousy, pretense, conceit, conflict, ambition, self-blame, intention, subtle or vague intimations of “something”, can’t I? Then don’t I simultaneously understand that awareness is not thought and that understanding is not thought? In one movement, I see-learn-understand about the nature of thought, awareness and understanding, it seems to me. So instead of practicing awareness, I understand what humble awareness is and how fragile it is. Then when I lie, I stop pretending that I am NOT, and just be aware of the lying. Then I see the division. Nothing more. No?

Added:

Group Discussion 30th December, 1947,
Madras, India [today’s QOTD]

Your problem is to be that which you
are. If you are stupid, cunning,
black-marketing, be that. Be aware of
it. That is all that matters. If you
are a liar be aware that you are a
liar; then you will cease to lie. To
acknowledge and to live with 'what is'
is the most difficult thing. Out of
that, comes real Love, because that
sweeps away all hypocrisy. Try it in
your daily life; be what you are,
whatever it is; and be aware of that.
You will see an extraordinary
transformation taking place
immediately. And from that, there is
freedom because, when you are nothing,
you do not demand anything. That is
liberation. Because you are nothing
and you are free, there is real
opening and no barrier between you and
another. Though you are married and
though you love one, there is no
enclosure. If you love one completely,
you love the whole because one is the
whole.

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

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Sat, 30 Sep 2017 #3
Thumb_de4 Dan McDermott United States 789 posts in this forum Offline

K."Try it in your daily life; be what you are, whatever it is; and be aware of that." (from the QOTD)

During an exchange with Mina, Juan, Tom, I had a glimpse I feel of what was being said during the ugly/beauty discussion. It was a very clear moment and I later tried to express it in the quote above that Mina posted. A couple of times since, 'thought' has tried to retrieve what was seen and you could say, bring it into the known. But it knows that it can't and so it stops trying. Period. That seeing or 'glimpse' is now 'myth'. And as was said in the other thread recently, it is not the 'actual'. The "conflict" occurs in trying to make the 'myth' into the actual. There is nothing to be held onto, nothing 'sacred'...only the 'actual', only "what you are".

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sat, 30 Sep 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 30 Sep 2017 #4
Thumb_img-0590 Mina Martini Finland 97 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
K."Try it in your daily life; be what you are, whatever it is; and be aware of that." (from the QOTD)

Mina: Yes beautiful. That is when the observer is let to be the observed, through not trying to change or act upon WHATEVER is felt/lived, just living it fully.

Dan:>During an exchange with Mina, Juan, Tom, I had a glimpse I feel of what was being said during the ugly/beauty discussion. It was a very clear moment and I later tried to express it in the quote above that Mina posted

Mina: The quote carries the wisdom in which it was born, timelessly, no matter if you are under the impression it is no longer there. :-) Love.

P.S Nice to see your picture! Good feeling looking at you!

This post was last updated by Mina Martini Sun, 01 Oct 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 30 Sep 2017 #5
Thumb_de4 Dan McDermott United States 789 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Where is the “'place' where no division exists” and how do I get there from here?

Hi Huguette

Pardon my 'chiming in here, but isn't the "place" where 'no division exists', the place where there is no movement away from what you or I are, whatever that is? Is it as 'simple' as that?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 30 Sep 2017 #6
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 1992 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
Dan says in another thread:

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.
Mina: Right, there is no part, no corner in this divided mind that would not be the creator, and in that sense totally responsible, for ALL its manifestations.

Doesn't that statement in bold by Dan lead to an incredible guilt trip if not understood? It would just be reinforcing a negative self image....the feeling that 'I am sinful, bad, evil incarnate, inferior(to the enlightened ones), guilty as charged, awaiting punishment)? I mean the feeling that I am responsible for ALL the 'evil' in the world....including the Holocaust and all the genocides, etc? Mina, you put it a little differently, saying that the mind is responsible....thought which is creating the 'me' and all the other images and ideals and beliefs. All the dividing thoughts arise spontaneously on their own....no separate thinker.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Sat, 30 Sep 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 30 Sep 2017 #7
Thumb_img-0590 Mina Martini Finland 97 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette,

Where is the “'place' where no division exists” and how do I get there from here? Here division IS.

Mina: The 'place' is no location, no thing created by thought. So, it is actually in no distance from you, only thought creates the idea and experience of distance by creating the idea of yourself. See that, and the 'how' drops also, since there is no 'here' and 'there', no observer and observed in other words, so no need to get from one imaginary place to another imaginary place by an imaginary entity.

Huguette: I AM the 'place' where division exists, as you say. But I cannot see that I am division unless I first acknowledge or face that I do lie, that I am confused and lost, that I am afraid, that I am cunning, that I do not love, that I am unkind where it makes me feel better, that pleasure is more important to me than understanding truth, and that I pretend NOT to be all that. It is in the moment that I stop pretending "not to be what I actually am" that I see the division between what-is and what should be, isn’t it?

Mina: Fundamentally I cannot see that I am division for as long as I exist as an observer separate from the observed. It is only through observation without an observer, or in awareness in other words, that it is possible to observe oneself in any expression (like in expressions you describe in the above paragraph)wholly without any interference of the mind as judgement, so without any division. This is when one discovers oneself as awareness itself, and not a thinker (always separate from thought).

HUguette:>Isn’t awareness the “pathway”, if I dare to call it that? K didn’t call it that for then his listeners would surely immediately try to “practice” awareness ..... and clearly, practicing awareness instantly chases awareness away. Awareness cannot be reached through practice.

Mina: Yes, it is only awareness, or observation without an observer, that can understand the divided mind fully, and when that happens, the mind/division is not there, only fullness is. Of course no possibility of practice, how could that which is always new and timeless be 'practiced'?

HUguette:>But I can understand what thought is in all its guises by observing all its manifestations in myself - psychological time, fear, anger, jealousy, pretense, conceit, conflict, ambition, self-blame, intention, subtle or vague intimations of “something”, can’t I?

Mina: Clear. This is a living reality, not some theory. It is already happening.

Huguette:Then don’t I simultaneously understand that awareness is not thought and that understanding is not thought?

Mina: Clear. When something is clear, not for and in relative thought, but in the absolute clarity of awareness, there is no need to go back to imagining that there is something unclear.

Huguette: In one movement, I see-learn-understand about the nature of thought, awareness and understanding, it seems to me. So instead of practicing awareness, I understand what humble awareness is and how fragile it is. Then when I lie, I stop pretending that I am NOT, and just be aware of the lying. Then I see the division. Nothing more. No?

Mina: Yes, choiceless awareness of oneself, no matter how one might manifest at any given moment, is intelligence in action.

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 30 Sep 2017 #8
Thumb_de4 Dan McDermott United States 789 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Doesn't that statement in bold by Dan lead to an incredible guilt trip if not understood?

Hi Tom, yes it would if not "understood". I did just now have another taste of that understanding and no there is no guilt. I would try to explain it like this: 'My' cravings are no different that anyone else's... only the objects of the cravings are different. Hitler craves one thing, Mother Theresa another, and me something else. And while the consequences of what is 'craved' can result in 'good' or in 'horrible' outcomes, what we, all of us share in common, is this process of 'craving'. (the wanting of something other than what is.) If this 'craving', or 'wanting' is to satisfy one's basic needs for survival, (or to help someone else in need?) it is healthy, sane, necessary....but when it moves into the psychological as it has throughout our history, it can result in good as well as horror. So as a human with 'cravings' I am responsible for all that has gone before and what is to come as a result of it , if I perpetuate the process. The question is why do I crave more than I need? Only I can find out about that in myself. By not moving away from what I am, whatever that is.

As an afterthought, I think K. was alluding to this when he said that each us contains the entire book of humanity in us, if we know how to read it.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sat, 30 Sep 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 30 Sep 2017 #9
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 396 posts in this forum Offline

#5:

Dan McDermott wrote:
Pardon my 'chiming in here, but isn't the "place" where 'no division exists', the place where there is no movement away from what you or I are, whatever that is? Is it as 'simple' as that?

Yes, it seems so to me, Dan. This “no movement away from what I am” IS awareness of “what I am”, isn’t it? The beautiful simplicity of awareness.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 30 Sep 2017 #10
Thumb_de4 Dan McDermott United States 789 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
This “no movement away from what I am” IS awareness of “what I am”, isn’t it? The beautiful simplicity of awareness.

Yes. Not 'yours' or 'mine'.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sat, 30 Sep 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 30 Sep 2017 #11
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 1992 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Tom Paine wrote:

Doesn't that statement in bold by Dan lead to an incredible guilt trip if not understood?

Hi Tom, yes it would if not "understood".

There you go. Since most of us will not understand, there's a guilt trip almost guaranteed. Especially if we've been raised with the notions of sin and salvation ...good vs evil...and all the Jewish, and especially Catholic, brainwashing. I liked the way you explained this problem, however, Dan. When we look at it as the human mind...not just my mind....then there's not such a focus on 'me'. There's the universal factor of craving, yes, but let's not neglect fear due to thousands of years of authority handing out punishment (often severe) as well as rewards.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Sat, 30 Sep 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 01 Oct 2017 #12
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 396 posts in this forum Offline

Tom,

We have seen and said here many times that inner fragmentation or psychological conflict causes environmental conflict, and vice-versa. We have said and seen that “I” and “the world” are 2 aspects of relationship - the inner state impacting the outer and the outer condition, the environment, impacting the inner.

One may think that what goes on in the inner sanctum of one’s mind is “no one else’s business but mine”. One may also think that one can psychologically isolate and shield oneself from the chaos in “the world” and remain relatively unscathed by it. But, after all, we see that the condition of “my” mind shapes all my relationships, and the condition of “the world” shapes the condition of my mind. No?

Which is to say that psychological division in “me” shapes “the world” just as the chaotic world shapes “me. In this sense, I am responsible for the chaotic state of the world. I may not be as brutal as the dictators and abusers of all stripes, but isn’t it a matter of degree, not of substance? And as long as there is fear, conceit, pretense, deceit, manipulation, greed, hate, cruelty, and so on, in ME, I’m not “innocent”.

But responsibility also means something altogether, something other than as a consequence of a divided mind, as I see it.

Like compassion, beauty, caring and affection, responsibility is not a matter of choice or will at all, but a spontaneous, unsought, FEELING (not an emotion). It is an immediate response which is not a reaction of thought-time-knowledge. If I see an abandoned baby lying on the street, I cannot just walk by thinking “someone else will take care of it”. If my own child is sick, isn’t there a natural, spontaneous response, a natural caring, which does not stem from thought, idea, belief, etc.? Isn’t that also responsibility? Not a duty which is an idea. Not “I should” which is an idea. Just a spontaneous feeling.

I don’t know if I’m expressing myself clearly.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 01 Oct 2017 #13
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 396 posts in this forum Offline

You can also have a look at K's 4th conversation with Dr Allan W. Anderson in San Diego, February 1974, starting at page 57 of "A Wholly Different Way of Living".

link text

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 01 Oct 2017 #14
Thumb_img-0590 Mina Martini Finland 97 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Pardon my 'chiming in here, but isn't the "place" where 'no division exists', the place where there is no movement away from what you or I are, whatever that is? Is it as 'simple' as that?

Mina: Just adding that when there is no movement away from what you are I are, then that anything that we may appear as, any state created by division (jealous for example, which is only possible in division), is being undone.

So again, what we fully ARE, we cease to be! And that is the transformation that is talked of from division into wholeness, not from one to the other because that would imply two things and would therefore be a movement in thought/duality, but through the negation of any state, any self, any division.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 01 Oct 2017 #15
Thumb_img-0590 Mina Martini Finland 97 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
each us contains the entire book of humanity in us, if we know how to read it.

Mina: Yes...this is why in the observation of oneself, in intelligence, lies the key to freedom FOR ALL. Any step away from this is a step in division between you and me, the creation of both, together with ALL the history of suffering and misery that duality has created on earth. In undretanding that one IS the whole world, not representing it, but really BEING IT directly, then again, one is out of the world of division. What one is, one is not.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 01 Oct 2017 #16
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 1992 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Which is to say that psychological division in “me” shapes “the world” just as the chaotic world shapes “me. In this sense, I am responsible for the chaotic state of the world. I may not be as brutal as the dictators and abusers of all stripes, but isn’t it a matter of degree, not of substance? And as long as there is fear, conceit, pretense, deceit, manipulation, greed, hate, cruelty, and so on, in ME, I’m not “innocent”.

Understood...well said. But let's not say to ourselves that "I am guilty" either. That would result in self condemnation... increasing the inner conflict we may be feeling. And reinforcing the feeling of a separate me.

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 #17
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 1992 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
You can also have a look at K's 4th conversation with Dr Allan W. Anderson in San Diego, February 1974, starting at page 57 of "A Wholly Different Way of Living".

Incredible dialog ....a must read, I might say....for anyone interested in this. Thanks for sharing, Huguette.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 01 Oct 2017 #18
Thumb_de4 Dan McDermott United States 789 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
And that is the transformation that is talked of from division into wholeness, not from one to the other because that would imply two things and would therefore be a movement in thought/duality, but through the negation of any state, any self, any division.

When there is (real) 'seeing', thought immediately takes it over and there is a 'delight' as it it 'chews' it over...but later when that feeling goes and thought tries to 'revive' it and take 'pleasure' in it, (and fails), it is then interesting to discover that you are again in the 'division'...but now with a 'sulking self' to be aware of!

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Mon, 02 Oct 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 02 Oct 2017 #19
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 396 posts in this forum Offline

re 16:

Huguette . wrote:
Which is to say that psychological division in “me” shapes “the world” just as the chaotic world shapes “me. In this sense, I am responsible for the chaotic state of the world. I may not be as brutal as the dictators and abusers of all stripes, but isn’t it a matter of degree, not of substance? And as long as there is fear, conceit, pretense, deceit, manipulation, greed, hate, cruelty, and so on, in ME, I’m not “innocent”.

Tom Paine wrote:
Understood...well said. But let's not say to ourselves that "I am guilty" either. That would result in self condemnation... increasing the inner conflict we may be feeling. And reinforcing the feeling of a separate me.

I agree, Tom. I'm not saying that we are responsible in the sense of "I'm guilty and must be punished", but in the sense of understanding, facing, acknowledging the fact that my inner reality, my conflicts, fears, beliefs, conclusions, ideas, greed, envy, conceit, pretense, my dogged pursuit of pleasure, etc. - which are "me", what I am - flow outward into "the world" and cause pain and conflict in relationship.

In this sense, it is a fact that I am responsible, just as mudslides, earthquakes, volcanoes, floods, viruses, and so on, are responsible for pain and desctruction. It is not blaming or an accusation of guilt.

Saying that we are responsible for conflict in the world is an acknowledgment of fact, as I see it. It is NOT ascribing blame or guilt. It's learning about the reverberations of thought's movements in relationship. It's observation, awareness, perception without the word. Words are used to communicate (or "commune"), not to blame or to judge myself or others.

So just to be clear, I see it as part of learning about self, conflict, thought, responsibility, relationship, etc., NOT blaming, NOT accusing.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 02 Oct 2017 #20
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 552 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
I don’t know if I’m expressing myself clearly.

Hi Huguette,

Thank you for your balanced and careful description of how you look at these issues.
Asking yourself if you are clear, is that not also a sign that you do not speak from knowledge but from a searching search for the right combination of words?

Lately, I often see more clearly the meaning not in what is been said by the words,
but in what is not been said or written.

Thanks for your input.

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 Mon, 02 Oct 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 02 Oct 2017 #21
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 396 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
Asking yourself if you are clear, is that not also a sign that you do not speak from knowledge but from a searching search for the right combination of words?

I had posted a reply but then I realized I had completely misunderstood what you said. Talk about being clear! :-)

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 02 Oct 2017 #22
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 1992 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Saying that we are responsible for conflict in the world is an acknowledgment of fact, as I see it. It is NOT ascribing blame or guilt. It's learning about the reverberations of thought's movements in relationship.

Right....it's understanding how thought is responsible for the conflict in the world...in relationships...not some image of a 'me' or 'you'(just more thought). It's the functioning of the human mind we are exploring...with its fear, cravings, guilt, pride, authorities, ideals, beliefs, etc

Let it Be

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 02 Oct 2017 #23
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 552 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
I had posted a reply but then I realized I had completely misunderstood what you said. Talk about being clear! :-)

It's been a while before I post a edited reply asking if this makes any sense and it's often decided that it's not so !

Are both actions not also possible intelligence acting ??

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, 03 Oct 2017 #24
Thumb_breaking_free Julius Fann United States 2 posts in this forum Offline

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.

One cannot align themselves with divinity of Soul as long as they believe their human mind is a source of reality. Consciousness is the only reality, and "mortality must be swallowed up of life. This is saying one must find their identity in divine Soul to become aligned not to who they think they are, but what they are, and as R.W. Emerson mentioned: "
“Though we should soar into
the heavens;
though we should sink into
the abyss,
we never go out of ourselves,
it is always our own thoughts
that we perceive.”

So thinking we are divided from ourselves in anyway leaves a void not only in ones understanding, which must be a part of consciousness, but discernment also. The only division is in mind consciousness which is as a two headed horse pulling a charioteer in two different direction simultaneous (Plato).

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 03 Oct 2017 #25
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3729 posts in this forum Offline

Julius Fann wrote:
. The only division is in mind consciousness which is as a two headed horse pulling a charioteer in two different direction simultaneous (Plato).

Is the division operation "simultaneously"? Or is one thought opposing another thought in succession?

Examining my own question.

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.)