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

Donald Trump's responses to the recent massacre


Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 42 in total
Tue, 03 Oct 2017 #1
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4327 posts in this forum Offline

President Trump's words after the shooting massacre in the USA:

“It was an act of pure evil”

So there we are, that is the explanation. The causes were nothing to do with the state of society, nothing to do with the education young people receive, the values they are raised in, nothing to do with the propaganda bombarding us from all sides ….... the cause was supernatural, visited upon us. Nothing to do with the state of human consciousness at all.

Nothing, even, to do with the availability of such terrible weapons in the US, or the industry based on selling weapons. It was just “the devil's” fault.

So we don't need to look further. We don't need to examine a society entrenched in division and inequality, in exploitation of each other, of all the brainwashing that goes on, of the ruthless competition encouraging hatred of one's one's fellow man. We don't need to question ourselves at all, if perhaps we have any responsibility for the gunman's actions. No need to ask what sort of human beings the education system is producing.

So we can relax, and carry on in the established status quo.

We don't even have to look what we should do about this “evil” that was supposedly the cause of the massacre. Because there is another supernatural entity working on the problem for us – an entity called “God”. But no, I am mistaken, we have to pray to this entity, to supplicate, to encourage him to get a move on.

“To the families of the victims, we are praying for you and we are here for you. And we ask God to help see you through this very dark period”.

Scripture teaches us the Lord is close to the brokenhearted and saves those who are crushed in spirit. We seek comfort in those words, for we know that God lives in the hearts of those who grieve. To the wounded who are now recovering in hospitals, we are praying for your full and speedy recovery”

After the presidents words get even more fanciful”

“We call upon the bonds that unite us, our faith, our family, and our shared values.”

And of course finally, traditionally, God is called upon to “bless America”. Never mind the other 7 billion human beings.

I am finding the insanity of the world rather difficult to live with at the moment.

Thought has built such a solid, impregnable wall around itself. It has “all the answers” - while really having no solutions at all to the dreadful problems it has created. Those answers are its prison. I see this in people I meet – no matter if they are suffering terribly, lost to conflict, they still, apparently, “have the answers”. It just takes time. Apparently.

“If a madman had designed the world, he could not have done a better job”
….K

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 2 readers
Back to Top
Tue, 03 Oct 2017 #2
Thumb_img-0590 Mina Martini Finland 234 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Only love can be "pure", never evil. Evil is the absence of love. K has called the 'self' "evil", I suppose because it is partial, ignorant, fearful,...it blocks the 'light'. From my experience, I see that the 'self', the 'me sensation' can never really be at peace. It has to be understood in myself for what it is. Not intellectually, (which is no understanding at all) but as Huguette put it in John's forum, I have to come "face to face " with it. That is what I see as the challenge in me, my challenge to myself: to be whatever I am and to be aware of it. As long as I continue along the same worn out psychological path, I am responsible for the 'shooters', the police brutality,... the whole sorrowful mess.

Mina: Yes.

-In his post Clive is intelligently pointing out the limitation, the pretence, the projection, the dishonesty, the division, the outright evil which seems at work in the very judgement of saying that it is at work 'elsewhere'. In short, the limitation of thought is being pointed out.

However, for this person this is not enough...one need's to go deeper in oneself, to the root of all projection, all violence, letting this world of division thought is creating, keep ending in oneself, through awareness of the subtlest form of division in myself, if and when such energy tries to take form.

This is something very very peaceful, because reaction from thought is not participating in it, only observation is. The mind is not agitated, but it is "kept embedded in the Heart", as a friend has expressed it so beautifully.

If we want violence to end, we must be peace ourselves. And, with all the workings of all madmen on earth, this fundamental need of responding fully, and not within the limitations of thought again, should only increase in all of us.

This post was last updated by Mina Martini Tue, 03 Oct 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 03 Oct 2017 #3
Thumb_img-0590 Mina Martini Finland 234 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
Yes this is key Dan, sadly this requires the world to stop which i'm afraid that it will not happen and we all will continue along the same worn out psychological path as usually.

Mina: No, objection! I am not going to go along with that, no beliefs, no predictions, no psychological paths. (And of course do not mean any self-image here but total response to the challenge of of life, which is indeed in the ending of the world in oneself!)

You are the world. So, you are saying that you are continuing along the same worn out psychological path?? You can do better than that, with the passion and intelligence living in you!

Love, uncompromised

m

This post was last updated by Mina Martini Tue, 03 Oct 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 04 Oct 2017 #4
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4327 posts in this forum Offline

Is it not a frightening thing, that the president of the most powerful and warring nation on earth, and apparently all of its rulers, its politicians are as steeped in primitive religious belief every much as ISIS, the Taliban, The princes of Saudi Arabia, etc? They all blindly follow “the scriptures” as a guide for action. Instead of using intelligence, they follow tradition. Their responses to a crisis is to PRAY. To expect some imaginary supernatural being to solve our problems for us. And as we have discussed, to also blame the human situation not on ourselves, but another supernatural being or force.

So we have such primitiveness, and at the same time these rulers have at their command nuclear weapons capable of destroying all life on earth many times over. Nuclear weapons (any weapons) and abject superstition are not good bed-fellows.

I believe President Trump at any moment is in the position to order the launch of America's nuclear missiles, without having to consult a single person. He has been handed that power.

It hardly bears thinking about.

But actually I question if these politicians DO believe in the religion that they profess? Or is it a convenient tool, a way of manipulating others, a way to present a respectable and moral front to the world? A way to get votes. A convenient way to disguise their actual actions, which are the actions of selfishness, of greed?

In any case, the hypocrisy of these so-called Christians is beyond belief.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 04 Oct 2017 #5
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4327 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
However, for this person this is not enough...one need's to go deeper in oneself, to the root of all projection, all violence, letting this world of division thought is creating, keep ending in oneself, through awareness of the subtlest form of division in myself, if and when such energy tries to take form.

As I was writing what I did, I felt sure, Mina, you would respond in such a way. When you say "for this person this is not enough", the implication seems to be that for me it IS enough.Well, it isn't. Of course one can always go deeper into oneself, of course all that one observes in the world around one points to the same movement in the human brain, in each one of us.

You are welcome to do exactly that, Mina, on the forum or off (generous, aren't I, as well as my "intelligently pointing out things :-) ). But you often give the impression, Mina (perhaps better to say I have taken that impression) that it is somehow wrong to examine the world, society, what is happening out there. I can accept that it is ultimately incomplete, but not that it is wrong (whatever that means) to be aware of "the tide going out" as K put it. In fact I think he observes that it is from the observation of the outer that one moves inwards.

To save you from pointing it out, I will say here the inner is the outer, that is understood. I don't think there is any question about that.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 04 Oct 2017 #6
Thumb_img-0590 Mina Martini Finland 234 posts in this forum Offline

Jean,

Mina:>So, you are saying that you are continuing along the same worn out psychological path??

Juan:I would like to know what have you felt in my words that made you put this question to me ...

Mina: Yes, ...thanks...understandable that you could not realise the state of mind at this end when writing...

At the moment of reading your words here yesterday saying that "you are afraid that we will all continue along the same worn out psychological path", there was just this very strong realisation that you ARE the world, each is the whole world, and that if you say such a thing, it is the reality you are creating for yourself and all humanity.

Because I see only you and me or whomever, as the whole of humanity, (which cannot be seen for as long as image, fragmentation and separation, looks at this) and that implies tremendous responsinsibility, beyond the personal, because the personal does not even exist in this realisation.

This is why I asked you 'personally', not addressing your self-image but the whole of humanity and its fate on earth when asking you, if you are continuing along the same old psychological path. There is indeed no separate existence. The fate of all mankind lies in each.

Mina Martini wrote:

You can do better than that, with the passion and intelligence living in you!

Juan:... and also give me this advice.

Mina: Yes, it was not quite 'an advice', but more like some 'choiceless cry' that burst out on its own, since one has felt the passion and intelligence in you, and was perhaps concerned at that moment that no compromise at any level with the world of thought/sorrow, is being made within you, when saying what you said about continuing in the same old path...

Love

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 04 Oct 2017 #7
Thumb_img-0590 Mina Martini Finland 234 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
There can be no peace as long as it perpetuates the image of a separate self that defends against, or escapes from, anything or anyone that it imagines is a psychological threat. (which makes us all "madmen" in a way.)

Mina: Absolutely! The 'madman' is the separation between observer and observed. It is only that imaginary separation that can create the impression of 'me' and 'not me', of 'me' and 'the outer world' . What the self imagines as a threat to it, is really its own projection. For as long as this is not fully (in awareness which means the absence of thought) seen, psychological fear, which is self, persists.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 04 Oct 2017 #8
Thumb_img-0590 Mina Martini Finland 234 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
One day, during a walk, i met his sister and i asked her "Do you know the exact address of your brother because i would like to write him?" ... She didn't knew it for sure and told me that she will call him to know it ... After some days i met her again and asked her if she already knew the address ... She said yes, but she said also: "I asked him also what had happened to your friendship for years, and he said to me that 'Because juan says things that we don't want to listen'".

Mina: Beautiful! May you be going on saying things that the mind does not want to listen but the Heart is yearning for!

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 04 Oct 2017 #9
Thumb_img-0590 Mina Martini Finland 234 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Is it a 'stream' that we all are in and unless there is 'awareness' that we are in it, it just carries us on and on? But when there is this 'awareness', we are out of 'it'?

Mina: What makes you put that question mark there?

If something is seen and lived as an absolute fact (anything absolute cannot be a creation of relative thought), there is no question, no doubt, no thought about it.

Yes, in awareness 'we as images' are not, the mind is not, the consciousness that is put together by knowledge, is not. The stream of sorrow which is this consciousness in action, is not. In awareness only awareness is. So no one in or out of it, but only IT.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 04 Oct 2017 #10
Thumb_img-0590 Mina Martini Finland 234 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
You are welcome to do exactly that, Mina, on the forum or off (generous, aren't I, as well as my "intelligently pointing out things :-) ). But you often give the impression, Mina (perhaps better to say I have taken that impression) that it is somehow wrong to examine the world, society, what is happening out there. I can accept that it is ultimately incomplete, but not that it is wrong (whatever that means) to be aware of "the tide going out" as K put it. In fact I think he observes that it is from the observation of the outer that one moves inwards.

Mina: Here, for this person, it has just happened that the observations of the outer world with all the sorrow, contradiction, dishonesty, suffering, pretence, all of it, started very intensily from an early age, even before adolescence, and of course led to moving inwards, to the core of one's own being which is the only 'place' where the whole of anything can be fully understood in the absence of any word, any image, any world.

For me what I wrote to you, was an expression of there being no going back to the direction from where one has come from. When the world has been seen for what it is, there is no going back to talking about that which does not exist for one.There is only a movement deeper into this essence , into this one Heart of all. I cannot therefore personally go back into discussing the horrors of the world created by division and lack of self-knowing, it just does not work here that way. It does not mean that it is judged wrong for anyone else feeling the need, to do it!

I just feel i am out of it, somehow. It would be unnatural and violent to pretend otherwise.

Have always only started finding things interesting when they start moving the whole of our beings, when the Heart catches fire and the mind and the world it has created, is being burn to ashes!!! 'I' need to go only deeper into that 'direction', only, there is no other interest for me, that is how my heart feels i need to be doing....

Hope this will not be interpreted to mean something that it does not mean...

Apologies if I came across arrogant, it was not something that was felt..what was felt was this all-consuming fire of attention, that cannot make any compromise within...it is very strong and it has a certain austerity in it, can feel it when writing, but it is not ME, can feel that too....

Love always, beyond any thing, beyond all convention and limit

This post was last updated by Mina Martini Thu, 05 Oct 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 05 Oct 2017 #11
Thumb_img-0590 Mina Martini Finland 234 posts in this forum Offline

Dan,

I see the question mark has been deleted. Good! :-)

This post was last updated by Mina Martini Thu, 05 Oct 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 06 Oct 2017 #12
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4327 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
It does not mean that it is judged wrong for anyone else feeling the need, to do it!

I do not know if it is a "need" or otherwise. I do know that when I look at what is going on in the world, all the horrors that people are up to, I see myself in their actions. So really this looking at the world, reporting on the world, is an integral part of understanding oneself.

By understanding I do not mean drawing conclusions, but an ongoing process of knowing oneself, without accumulation.

Of course there is actually no 'their self" and "my self", there is only the human self. And if there is a “need”, it is the need to see this, to fully understand this, as it goes against the grain of all that we have been taught, it is contrary to all that society is built on.

Probably I will continue to “report” on the events and trends of the world. I ask myself if I prefer to know how the world is collapsing, how we are destroying the environment (and I mean 'we) so it will no longer be able to support the lives of our children, how violence is engulfing society, and ill health, physically and mentally, is engulfing us, ….. all the rest of it ….. or not? And the answer has to be yes. To close one's eyes to it, to not feel it, does not seem to be an option, even if the collapse cannot be diverted.

Just pointing out, Mina, because one is concerned with the outer does not mean a lack of concern with the inner.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 06 Oct 2017 #13
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4327 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Is it a form of 'entertainment' or 'amusement' or 'distraction', this focusing on what we have wrought? "Collapse" is imminent isn't it if we don't discover in our selves what the 'problem' is: that we can not "be what we are, and be aware of it, whatever it is"?

That indeed is a good description of the problem, the challenge.

Does looking at the issues of the world constitute a form of 'entertainment' or 'amusement' or 'distraction'? There can be an impulse of going to the news as a way of moving away from the void, when one's energy is low. But one's responses/reactions to what one reads and sees are often too deepy disturbing to be called entertainment/amusement.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 06 Oct 2017 #14
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4327 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
what passes for entertainment and amusement is more and more just that

Not quite following you, Dan. Just what?

Is not the focusing on "entertainment", no matter how bizarre, an indication that people are not attending to the state of the wider world?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 06 Oct 2017 #15
Thumb_img-0590 Mina Martini Finland 234 posts in this forum Offline

Wow, Clive, this reply is going to be all about the LIVING fact of the inner being the outer! :-)

(I am afraid 'the inner is the outer' or 'the observer is the observed'- utterances easily end up intellectual acknowledgedments without the Living quality of really understanding the depth of what is pointed out with them! They are not to be written casually as post-scripts, 'ok. i forgot, of course the inner is the outer')

I do not know if it is a "need" or otherwise. I do know that when I look at what is going on in the world, all the horrors that people are up to, I see myself in their actions. So really this looking at the world, reporting on the world, is an integral part of understanding oneself.

MIna: Right, beautiful, there is actually NO DIFFERENCE between the outer and the inner! BUt the thing is, for as long as this looking happens FROM thought, it happens IN the separation between the inner and the outer! Actually, it is the very looking from thought that creates both the inner and the outer!

So, I was saying earlier to you, as a reply to your post, that 'this is not enough'. It is not enough because such looking from the mind has not gone to the root of understanding what the mind is!!! It deals with the world as if one was not the world. The distance is created by thought, even when it thinks it is looking the inner and the outer as one. It is not!!!

Clive:>By understanding I do not mean drawing conclusions, but an ongoing process of knowing oneself, without accumulation.

Of course there is actually no 'their self" and "my self", there is only the human self. And if there is a “need”, it is the need to see this, to fully understand this, as it goes against the grain of all that we have been taught, it is contrary to all that society is built on.

Mina: If it is seen that there is not my self or your self as separate, there remains no 'human self' as an outcome of this, seeing has no leftovers, it is whole. The 'human self' is created by the individual self that thinks it is separate from the human self. The individual self IS the collective self. But thought sees that the collective self is a collection of individual selves. This is not so, or it is so only when looked from the self, from fragmentation.

Clive:>Probably I will continue to “report” on the events and trends of the world.

Mina: You are free to do so, on and off the forum...:-) :-) (hope we can laugh together at this...)

Clive:>Just pointing out, Mina, because one is concerned with the outer does not mean a lack of concern with the inner.

Mina: And if the concern comes from the whole of your being, both the inner and the outer are bound to collapse within you.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 06 Oct 2017 #16
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 578 posts in this forum Offline

23:

Dan McDermott wrote:
Is it a form of 'entertainment' or 'amusement' or 'distraction', this focusing on what we have wrought? "Collapse" is imminent isn't it if we don't discover in our selves what the 'problem' is: that we can not "be what we are, and be aware of it, whatever it is"?
That indeed is a good description of the problem, the challenge.

Clive Elwell wrote:
Does looking at the issues of the world constitute a form of 'entertainment' or 'amusement' or 'distraction'? There can be an impulse of going to the news as a way of moving away from the void, when one's energy is low. But one's responses/reactions to what one reads and sees are often too deepy disturbing to be called entertainment/amusement.

It occurs to me that what is needed in order for understanding and undivided action to flower is a critical eye, by which I don’t mean criticism. By “critical eye” I mean NOT to approve-accept what is observed hook, line and sinker, NOT to meet it with resistance, criticism or disapproval, and NOT to attempt to escape or ignore it. I mean observing, passively but attentively, without interpreting what is seen. Such “passive” observation is negative action, action in which the observer is NOT, therefore without division. Whereas approval, criticism and avoidance are all the activity of the thinker, aren’t they?

Criticism is divisive - even where it is not expressed out loud but only internally. Criticism is positive action, action in which the self IS. That is, it is reaction.

To SEE Donald Trump’s responses with a critical eye is the action of intelligence, not of the observer, it seems to me. And it is necessary to see with a critical eye, it seems to me. We cannot avoid seeing it, can we? We can try escaping it, but just the actual seeing of it is not entertainment, is it? And just the seeing of it engenders action - not reaction - whatever that action is. Just as the seeing of a child in the middle of the road engenders action that does not come from the self-centre.

Just to SEE it negatively is not a blank look, devoid of intelligence. It is action that is devoid of self.

And it is also necessary to be on the lookout for self, aware.

This post was last updated by Huguette . Fri, 06 Oct 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 06 Oct 2017 #17
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2251 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
Clive:>Just pointing out, Mina, because one is concerned with the outer does not mean a lack of concern with the inner.

Mina: And if the concern comes from the whole of your being, both the inner and the outer are bound to collapse within you

How did that 'whole of your being' get into the picture, Mina? Many of us are deeply concerned, but as long as there's identification with any of the fragments....and without understanding anything about the fragmentation... this 'whole' is just an idea.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Fri, 06 Oct 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 06 Oct 2017 #18
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4327 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
Wow, Clive, this reply is going to be all about the LIVING fact of the inner being the outer! :-)

Mina, there is no dispute, no question, that the inner is the outer. But of course seeing the truth of something always needs to be fresh, it is not something to be accumulated. My issue is that whenever I reflect on the forum about things that are happening in the world there seems to be inevitably from you some sort of implied criticism that someone dares to turn his gaze "outwards". This to me is a distortion, a limitation in itself.

Mina Martini wrote:
So, I was saying earlier to you, as a reply to your post, that 'this is not enough'.

Yes Mina, I know it is not enough, I know it is incomplete. I said that. All thought is incomplete, and thought is the medium of communication used on the forum, and between all human beings.

Mina Martini wrote:
: And if the concern comes from the whole of your being, both the inner and the outer are bound to collapse within you.

What does this mean, that the outer "collapses within oneself"? I can see that one might "not mind what happens", I can understand that with understanding the psychological movements of the self that are the food for the catastrophic happenings in the world may no longer be given sustenance in oneself. And perhaps that is all that one can do (not deliberate doing).

This is a question that arose in me yesterday, but I did not post:

Is not such attention to the the world – the world which is the outer manifestation of the human mind – really part of awareness?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 06 Oct 2017 #19
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4327 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Watching the "state of the wider world" IS a form of entertainment,

Well I think you said that, Dan, but I can't actually find it now. Apologies if I am mistaken.

Watching the world, watching how violence is engulfing us, how close we are nuclear war which will wipe away most life on Earth, watching the lies, the deceptions, how one cannot rely on the utterances of politicians, even of news channels, reading about the invisible onslaughts on our health, the corruption of our food, even our water, understanding how how technology and the internet, is changing the state of our consciousness, and the consciousness of our children ….... and so much more; these are deeply serious matters. I do not see how such watching – can be dismissed as “a form of entertainment”, Dan.

Is not such attention to the the world – the world which is the outer manifestation of the human mind – really part of awareness?

This post was last updated by Clive Elwell Fri, 06 Oct 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 07 Oct 2017 #20
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 719 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Is not such attention to the the world – the world which is the outer manifestation of the human mind – really part of awareness?

Amsterdam is crying where it once was laughing
and with her the whole country even the other city Rotterdam
from left to right from high to low from diplomat to criminal
from native to immigrant, from heterosexual to gay
a mayor died and a show of unprecedented togetherness

also that exists in a world like ours !!!

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
Sun, 08 Oct 2017 #21
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4327 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
Amsterdam is crying where it once was laughing
and with her the whole country even the other city Rotterdam
from left to right from high to low from diplomat to criminal
from native to immigrant, from heterosexual to gay
a mayor died and a show of unprecedented togetherness

also that exists in a world like ours !!!

You seem to be referring to an incident of which I am not aware, Wim. But it came to me and this is a tangent) if you take away the last line, the poem has quite a different meaning. A more universal one, reflecting the basic sorrow of humankind.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 08 Oct 2017 #22
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4327 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
. I'm only saying that to listen to the "truths" or facts that K, or Buddha (among some others), pointed out, trying to understand them from our duality can only lead to more duality (therefore more conflict) if we are not able to see that the only root of ugliness as well as beauty is our ignorance of not seeing what lies truly behind them.

Yes. or to listen to the truths of Juan:-) Just joking. This to me is seeming the essence of problem, as has been pointed towards in many threads lately. I am the problem. In whatever I (=the self) attempt to do, see the truth, correct the mistake, clear up the confusion ..... I actually am continuing the problem.

Which points towards what? Towards the dying of thinker/thought structure, which is the duality of which you speak, is it not?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 08 Oct 2017 #23
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4327 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
I don't know in another countries, but here in spain there are many TV shows in many TV stations that make jokes with all those watchings you mention in #30, and people laugh out loud with them ... which means that in fact they are laughing at their own suffering, insecurities, fears and so on as an entertainment.
And would you like to know what they say when you point that to them?
Well, judge by yourself: "What are going to do, at least we can laugh before all what's happening in the world" ... That is, we use our own suffering as an entertainment to escape from it! ... What have you to say on that?

I don't watch such TV programs, any TV programs in fact. So I don't understand exactly what you are saying. Do you mean people turn the crises in the world into the butt of jokes?
Can you elaborate?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 08 Oct 2017 #24
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4327 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Entertainment is not just about laughing, it's also about crying, commiserating, feeling sad, frightened, enthralled, outraged, etc. It is all a form of 'stimulation' isn't it?

Yes. It is an artificial stimulation of sensation, in a semi-controlled sort of way. And in a strange way it "takes us out of ourselves" So it is very similar to taking drugs. And as with all drugs, it makes our senses less sensitive, so that we need more and more stimulous to make it work.

You mentioned the Roman circus.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 08 Oct 2017 #25
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 578 posts in this forum Offline

re 47:

Clive,

Maybe Juan is talking about shows like "Jerry Springer" in the U.S., if you're familiar with that one.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 08 Oct 2017 #26
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4327 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Maybe Juan is talking about shows like "Jerry Springer" in the U.S., if you're familiar with that one.

I had never seen it, but I just searched on youtube and watched a couple of excerpts.

Hmmm, it gives new depths to the word “vulgarity”.

But it is clear that the situations are not “reality” as is claimed, it is all very contrived, orchestrated. I don't know if the audience know this, at least with part of their mind. Very similar to the “sport” of wrestling, which is pure show, and is now known as WWE, World Wrestling Entertainment.

I guess “reality shows” are only an inevitable extension of what TV, radio, films, magazines, have been doing for some time (and books an even longer time), using human emotions, feelings, conflicts, as a source of entertainment, amusement (is there a difference between those two words?). And look at look at the old Greek symbol for theatre, the sad and happy face masks.

And one cannot avoid seeing similarities with the Roman Circus, which became, I believe, more and more brutal (and extravagant) as the empire collapsed.

Watching this “show”, and the occasional glimpses of TV in other people's homes, and newspaper headlines, it certainly brings home to me K's words “The crisis is in the human mind”. One tends to think of crises as being environmental, the dreadful damage man has wrought on the natural world. And also in terms of of the outwards manifestation of violence, war, terrorism, the enormous conflict between religions, ideologies. The vast inequality, deprivation. Of course one knows that all these things have their origins in the state of human conscious....... but watching this Springer circus really seems to directly expose the crisis, the deterioration, in the human mind.

And of course one sees the deterioration and vulgarity in "one's own mind", if indeed there is any such thing. And it is this inner seeing, rather than the outer awareness, that tends to bring about action, is it not?

This post was last updated by Clive Elwell Sun, 08 Oct 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 08 Oct 2017 #27
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2251 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
And of course one sees the deterioration and vulgarity in "one's own mind",

But what exactly causes this 'vulgarity' would you say, Clive? Isn't the basic cause inner conflict caused by the contradiction between 'what is' and the ideal...or the belief? Isn't that what's making us all at least somewhat crazy? I was reading Bruce Springsteen's autobiography, and he talks about his upbringing in Catholic school. Such unbelievable cruelty done to little children ...in the name of religion...God...no less....conforming to the ideals of the church. Total violence there. And that is certainly a kind of 'vulgarity', too, though vulgarity is way too mild a word for what was done to kids in Catholic schools in the U.S. in the 1950's when Springsteen was growing up.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Sun, 08 Oct 2017.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Mon, 09 Oct 2017 #28
Thumb_img-0590 Mina Martini Finland 234 posts in this forum Offline

Dan,

Dan:>In the same way, doesn't this apply to the way I should 'try' to look at the outer world: without expectation, without judgement, without bringing in my 'values', and just 'try' to observe it as it is?

Mina: Yes, and actually there is no difference between the observation of oneself (the inner) and another, or the world. (outer) They are not two things at all.

If it is real observation (by real i mean whole), there is neither the me or the world in it, because observation is not thought whereas the world is a creation of thought.

This is so utterly simple.

Neither you nor the world as images can survive the light of observation.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 09 Oct 2017 #29
Thumb_img-0590 Mina Martini Finland 234 posts in this forum Offline

Tom,

Clive:>Just pointing out, Mina, because one is concerned with the outer does not mean a lack of concern with the inner.

Mina: And if the concern comes from the whole of your being, both the inner and the outer are bound to collapse within you

Tom:How did that 'whole of your being' get into the picture, Mina? Many of us are deeply concerned, but as long as there's identification with any of the fragments....and without understanding anything about the fragmentation... this 'whole' is just an idea.

Mina: 'The whole of one's being' is an expression describing a total response, not a fragmented, from thought, response. The whole has no identification with anything because identification needs two at least supposedly separate parts and their relationship. Yes, true, not only words like 'the whoe of one's being', but EVERYTHING, one's whole life, remains only at the level of ideas, if there is no space in the mind for anything other, to happen.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 09 Oct 2017 #30
Thumb_img-0590 Mina Martini Finland 234 posts in this forum Offline

Juan and Clive,

Juan:The wise man or woman do not close their eyes to it, on the contrary they have their eyes wide open all the time, only that while "ordinary" people sees duality in conflict (ugly versus beautiful to use the example from another discussion) feeling impelled to act looking for one while rejecting the other, wise men or women don't see any duality but just ignorance in both of them (ugly/beauty) as well as in any action derived from that duality.

Mina: Yes, Juan, exactly. The wise man/woman has their eyes SO WIDE OPEN, beyond any measure, that no SEER can survive such look! No division in other words can survive such look! No thought, no world can survive!

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 42 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.)