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

Leaving sorrow behind me, yeh yeh.


Displaying all 6 posts
Page 1 of 1
Wed, 04 Oct 2017 #1
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3851 posts in this forum Offline

I happened to over hear a song on someone's radio this morning. Just a snippet. It was about “leaving sorrow behind me” I gather the guy in the song was going to leave town (probably leaving some woman behind :-). Common enough lyrics, and the usual sentimental stuff. But it came to me that this represents the very essence of the myth of the human mind.

It implies, doesn't it, that “I” am somehow separate from sorrow. So that I am able to “leave it behind”, separate myself from it. And it also implies that sorrow is brought about through circumstances, and if I change the circumstances, I can overcome sorrow. It denies the fact that sorrow is part of the human mind, and you cannot “leave it behind”. You might change a circumstance, change a particular relationship, bring about a short term, limited sort of change of emotions – but you do not leave sorrow behind, Wherever you go, you take it with you, it is so obvious – and yet one has to say that it is not generally seen in the world. Society is not based on the fact, it is based upon escaping sorrow, on trying to overcome sorrow. It is based on me being separate from sorrow. That is the way we are educated, raised.

Of course this doesn't just apply to sorrow. It applies to conflict, to hurt, every sort of pain, misery, unhappiness, neuroticism, depression ..... They are all regarded as separate from me. So I am expected to “do something about them”

And so we are stuck. As long as we don't see the real origin of sorrow, etc, we can't move from there. We can't overcome that space, distance (can't overcome it because it isn't real). Whenever we try to overcome it, we are creating it.

I AM THE PROBLEM. This is the fact at the deepest level of consciousness, and it has to be seen, absolutely. The very first stirring of the thinker, that is the problem – not what the thinker thinks it is.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 04 Oct 2017 #2
Thumb_img-0590 Mina Martini Finland 162 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
I AM THE PROBLEM. This is the fact at the deepest level of consciousness, and it has to be seen, absolutely. The very first stirring of the thinker, that is the problem – not what the thinker thinks it is.

Mina: Yes, beautiful! Love the last sentence! And the seeing of this, which is absolute by nature, is the dissolution of 'me' and 'the problem', because they could only survive under the illusion of separation between the two, as 'thought thinking about itself'.

This post was last updated by Mina Martini Wed, 04 Oct 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 05 Oct 2017 #3
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3851 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
And the seeing of this, which is absolute by nature, is the dissolution of 'me' and 'the problem', because they could only survive under the illusion of separation between the two, as 'thought thinking about itself'.

This seems to be so. In the moment of course.

I was thinking that there is fundamental contradiction, separation, in the very word “I”, the very thought of 'me'. Because that is not actually me, the me is actually the thought that is creating the word. Gosh, it sounds complicated, but its not really.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 05 Oct 2017 #4
Thumb_img-0590 Mina Martini Finland 162 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Clive:This seems to be so. In the moment of course.

Mina: When 'something absolute' is seen (and of course it is only the Absolute at work then), its quality is always timeless because there is no past of future, no thought, in it, but it never changes also. It is not 'now something' and the next moment 'something else'. It is beyond the impermanent and the changing.

It is coming now that all change that thought experiences, from one thing to another, one state to another, which is a 'change' within its imaginary movement of its own existence, is not real, only apparent. The impermanent is apparent, not real.

This is why I wonder what meaning you gave to the 'in the moment of course'.

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 06 Oct 2017 #5
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3851 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
It is not 'now something' and the next moment 'something else'.

I was not actually implying this.

I think I was saying that there is only the moment. And when there is the perception of that truth, there time can never enter into things. Can never gain traction.

Mina Martini wrote:
The impermanent is apparent, not real

It comes that to even speak of the impermanent implies the existence of the speaker, who has the quality of the permanent. Something above the impermement, some thing thing that can "look down" and judge what is impermanent or not. Which is another anifestation of what we were discussing above. The thinker always with the pretence of being other than it is.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 06 Oct 2017 #6
Thumb_img-0590 Mina Martini Finland 162 posts in this forum Offline

Clive:>It comes that to even speak of the impermanent implies the existence of the speaker, who has the quality of the permanent.

M: If we take ' speaking of the impermanent' (or of anything else at all) to imply what you say above, then it will! :) In whole attention the words do not imply anything that would stand in any separation from them. In other words they do not create the division between thinker (speaker) and thought (spoken) or represent some idea.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying all 6 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.)