Dear Juan and all,

Beginning this as a new thread, as it developed from the Trump-thread, because I felt it needed more attention to share together.

Juan: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: The world created and maintained by thinker can only continue along the same path that it itself is. That is simply its nature. It cannot do anything else. This is why it is absolutely urgent and choiceless, for the one feeling the absolute necessity which is its own action, to be the void in which this insane world cannot continue.

In the void that one is, there is no world, no psychological path. There is no reality to the utterance "we all will continue in the same worn out psychological path as usually". But yes, as far as the reality created and lived by thought is concerned, there is only continuing in the same old paths.**

Where are you (anyone), or who are you, in all this?

(By the question, I am not inviting you to put yourself in any category, to choose between imaginary realities, but it is rather an invitation for observation together.)

This post was last updated by Mina Martini Mon, 09 Oct 2017.

Dan McDermott wrote:
Is there some mental 'trick', I've overlooked or does it come back to just 'not wanting' ("craving") anything?

No more mental tricks, please! :) That's what got us into this mess....the thinker trying to DO Something....to achieve something or other...the thinker thinking he is separate from the thought....observer separate from observed. Maybe it comes down to observing ourselves 'as we are' in the course of daily living...in the 'mirror of relationship', to use K's words.

Let it Be

Dan McDermott wrote:
So it comes down to taking someone else word for it, that 'the outer and inner are one' or that "you are the world"?

No, of course not. If we don't see it ourselves, we don't see it. That not seeing is the fact....'what is'. If we are blind to what K was telling us, we are blind.

Dan McDermott wrote:
How do we know that it's 'true', if we don't see it that way now?

We don't. Are you implying we 'should' see or be something?

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Mon, 09 Oct 2017.

Dan McDermott wrote:
Tom Paine wrote:

. Are you implying we 'should' see or be something?
Isn't that implicit in all those years of reading, and watching K. that you "should" see or "be" something that you're not?

Not for me, Dan. I suffer....I feel conflict....and I ask what is the cause. I want to investigate it....in 'myself'(consciousness...thought, feelings)...but not in isolation...in relationship....with my wife, my friend, my boss, the beggar, the neighbor....with tv, sports, entertainment, smoking or drinking, and so on. My life...my daily living.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Mon, 09 Oct 2017.

Dan McDermott wrote:
That is 'what I am'. (Greedy for what I want.)

I want to 'really' see that 'I am the world', not as a slogan but to 'live' it

The universe doesn't care about what you or I want ;) OK, you admit you are greedy. That's another issue. At the root of greed is suffering. Suffering makes me greedy for what I don't have. I don't know....does that make sense?

Let it Be

Dan McDermott wrote:
How do we know that it's 'true', if we don't see it that way now?

Dan and Tom, yes, if we do not see it as true right now in ourselves, through our own perception which is not dependent on what ANYONE ELSE has ever said about it, then we talk about mere beliefs, in time.

This post was last updated by Mina Martini Mon, 09 Oct 2017.

Dan McDermott wrote:
OK but for me behind all this investigation is the desire for the end of suffering, of conflict, of fear and confusion...to be free of it and to see the world and myself as K. and others here have spoken about it. That is my 'motive' and interest in all this. That is 'what I am'. (Greedy for what I want.)

I want to 'really' see that 'I am the world', not as a slogan but to 'live' it.

Mina: Beautiful, thank you! And if I really 'want to see', with the whole of my being, so much so that there is nothing else than this burning desire, that very energy is already of different nature, it is already opening your heart wide, burning away the limited desires of thought, burning away all motive, burning your self away..That is the living it, the being it...

Dan McDermott wrote:
what I'm seeing (being seen?) is that 'total awareness' (being as 'nothing') dispels identification. If 'what I am" is seen with total awareness, identification with that state ends. The 'state' is transformed.

M: Only shivers of wonder, going through the body, also in the brains themselves, when reading these powerful words of wisdom, of truth!!! Thank you!!!

You are describing what this writer put into the words 'What you are fully, you are not'..Awareness transforming all states that are created by thought, into awareness...This is the 'polluted waters being cleansed when they enter the purity and vastness of the ocean'..

in silence empty of content and full of passion, m.

Mina Martini wrote:
And if I really 'want to see', with the whole of my being, so much so that there is nothing else than this burning desire, that very energy is already of different nature, it is already opening your heart wide, burning away the limited desires of thought, burning away all motive, burning your self away.

Do you really believe this Mina? A man....you, me, the drug addict or alcoholic, politician, priest, anyone,...who is full of confusion, craving, fear, anger, depression, inner conflict.... can somehow wish(desire...thinking) this(and a lifetime of conditioning and belief) all away? A partial excerpt from today's QOTD:

"As a drawer is useful only when empty so the mind must be free of all its accumulations for only then can there be that openness to wisdom and the ecstasy of the Real. Tranquillity of wisdom is not the result of an act of will, it is not a conclusion, a state to be achieved. It comes into being in the awareness of understanding."

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Mon, 09 Oct 2017.

Tom Paine wrote:
Do you really believe this Mina? A man....you, me, the drug addict or alcoholic, politician, priest, anyone,...who is full of confusion, craving, fear, anger, depression, inner conflict.... can somehow wish(desire...thinking) this(and a lifetime of conditioning and belief) all away? A partial excerpt from today's QOTD:

M: Your own interpretations and reactions..nothing to do with what this person was saying. You keep getting so caught in words.

K:>"As a drawer is useful only when empty so the mind must be free of all its accumulations for only then can there be that openness to wisdom and the ecstasy of the Real. Tranquillity of wisdom is not the result of an act of will, it is not a conclusion, a state to be achieved. It comes into being in the awareness of understanding."

M: Yes, absolutely so. This person is not saying anything contrary to the above.

Any experienced contradiction is born by experience which is also the experiencer. (thinker is thought)

Mina Martini wrote:
M: Your own interpretations and reactions..nothing to do with what this person was saying. You keep getting so caught in words.

But the words can be misleading, right? Your use of words...your understanding of the meaning of certain words...must be somewhat different than mine. The K. quote we were discussing had nothing whatsoever to do with desire. Understanding has nothing to do with desire....even a burning desire for the truth....does it? It would be like desiring God. How can we desire what we don't know....the unknown? The known has to end. Can I (the known) desire my own ending? We only desire what we know, right? Can you clarify what you're trying to say here? "And if I really 'want to see', with the whole of my being, so much so that there is nothing else than this burning desire, " That's the part that sounds so misleading. Sorry, but that's how it appears to me and I wouldn't want to pretend otherwise. K talks about emptiness and openness. Is desire going to empty the 'drawer'?

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Mon, 09 Oct 2017.

Dan McDermott wrote:
if there is "understanding" (total awareness) of the state of 'what I am' at any moment, that "awareness" itself transforms the state.

I wasn't questioning that point dan...only the part of Mina's post which I quoted above in #17.

Let it Be

Dan McDermott wrote:
Isn't that implicit in all those years of reading, and watching K. that you "should" see or "be" something that you're not? (Free?)

Well certainly K has not said this. His teachings were not concered with the 'should be”. What he has said, it seems to me, is that there is a real possibility of freedom. Freedom from the known. Not just said, but it appears that he lived this. although one could not prove this absolutely.

The "should be" is basically always an image, is it not? And so can be seen as such.

Dan McDermott wrote:
OK but for me behind all this investigation is the desire for the end of suffering, of conflict, of fear and confusion...to be free of it and to see the world and myself as K. and others here have spoken about it. That is my 'motive' and interest in all this. That is 'what I am'. (Greedy for what I want.)

Is that really your motive, Dan? Your driving force? Or is it discontent with what is? A discontent that cannot be assuaged?

Tom,

Tom:> Can you clarify what you're trying to say here? "And if I really 'want to see', with the whole of my being, so much so that there is nothing else than this burning desire, " That's the part that sounds so misleading. Sorry, but that's how it appears to me and I wouldn't want to pretend otherwise. K talks about emptiness and openness. Is desire going to empty the 'drawer'?

Mina: The way I used the word 'desire' has nothing to do with the desires that come from the mind/thought/thinker. I used the word to describe an energy within a human being, which is love for what is true, and by itself it surpasses the energy of thought. In essence this energy does not have to do with ANY WORD, be that word 'desire, emptiness, openness' etc. Words are only pointers and descriptions. For as long as we live as experiencers, thinkers, we live IN THE WORLD OF WORDS, and that is when we get confused with them. But I am talking about THE EMPTY DRAWER which is the mind without content. That is what I mean by desire that fills up your whole being. That is the same as emptying the drawer!

Let us forget about what K says about this or that. You said you wanted no more tricks, so please, let us look together, like two empty drawers ....let us not put a single thing in the drawer...and all the things are thought-interferences into pure observation..

Suddenly a wave of love for you Tom...came from nowhere...did not seem to take it out of the drawer...:-) Be careful when opening those tins of sardins every day..not to hurt your fingers..you are a musician also aren't you...

Realising that in the emptiness of the drawer (mind) is love...

Do you remember when Dan said in another thread...something like.."Mina and Tom seem to be looking from different perspectives"..and something like..."how are they to meet"....(not exact words)...and it came to me suddenly that we meet in compassion, and that is all that is ever needed to reach out to each other..

This post was last updated by Mina Martini Tue, 10 Oct 2017.

Mina Martini wrote:

Mina: The way I used the word 'desire' has nothing to do with the desires that come from the mind/thought/thinker. I used the word to describe an energy within a human being, which is love for what is true, and by itself it surpasses the energy of thought.

Obviously human beings don't love what is true, Mina. Mostly we are caught up in loving what is false, though we often get hurt by the 'false' as well. That's what got us into this mess in the first place.
I just wanted to to point out that a word like 'desire' or 'want' has a commonly understood meaning. When you use it the way you do, with a totally different meaning, you're going to be misunderstood by those who read the common meaning into your words, I notice this a lot when reading your posts which often seem to be pointing in the opposite direction to my own understanding....to what I've see for myself.. .understood about human consciousness..behavior. Then you come back to explain that I'm lost in the words ;) But your use of those words is not the common usage. Of course it's going to get people lost and confused about what in the world you're actually saying.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Tue, 10 Oct 2017.

Tom,

Obviously human beings don't love what is true, Mina.

Mina: Well I do!! And I guess I am a human being..:-)

(not talking about image of oneself, or of you, love for what is true is not made up of image)

Do you Tom? Are you not also a human being?

Do not start talking about 'others', they are all here.

We are infinitely more than mere images of ourselves. We are iinfinitely more that the whole of human consciousness that is put together and maintained by image.

The human consciousness is like a glacier put together by hardened hearts..the glacier is not the same thickness throughout, but there are places where the ice is very thin, where there is increased sensitivuty, and there are also place where the ice has melted altogether and only the ocean is left...We do not need to go to the thick and dense parts, let us focus there where the ice is thin, or melted away...Giving this image to shed light on the fact that we are doing this for the sake of all, we are all one. Love for what is true acts like digging holes in the glacier for more water to come in and melt the rest of it also. The one who can do it, MUST do it, to the very end. It is not a personal affair but always a matter of all.

Tom: Mostly we are caught up in loving what is false, though we often get hurt by the 'false' as well. That's what got us into this mess in the first place.
I just wanted to to point out that a word like 'desire' or 'want' has a commonly understood meaning. When you use it the way you do, with a totally different meaning, you're going to be misunderstood by those who read the common meaning into your words,

Mina: Yes, understand. But fundamentally, this person is always talking about pure observation and undertanding in which ALL OR ANY WORDS are being negated, undone, and this happens when a word is not given ANY MEANING AT ALL by other words, common or uncommon!

Tom:I notice this a lot when reading your posts which often seem to be pointing in the opposite direction to my own understanding....to what I've see for myself.. .understood about human consciousness..behavior. Then you come back to explain that I'm lost in the words ;) But your use of those words is not the common usage. Of course it's going to get people lost and confused about what in the world you're actually saying.

Mina: :-) :-) What I am actually saying is understood in a place where no words come. Me or you, as word, as image, do not come there. Yes, definitely, I use no word at all with a 'common usage'. The common usage refers to, fundamentally, how the mind has explained or defined the meaning of a word, which is always in duality, not complete!

This post was last updated by Mina Martini Tue, 10 Oct 2017.

#2:

Dan McDermott wrote:
I want that vision rather than this 'stale' old one of me here and the rest, there. That vision sounds like what the word 'enlightenment' is all about. I want it. So the 'search' for the 'holy grail' begins and only luck (and karma?) knows in whose 'hands' you'll wind up.

#4:

Dan McDermott wrote:
So it comes down to taking someone else's word for it, that 'the outer and inner are one' or that "you are the world"? How do we know that it's 'true', if we don't see it that way now? Is it like a 'belief', that if we 'do' this or 'don't' do that it will happen, this new way of seeing...?

To me, what you say here is crucial, Dan: to see “what I am", not to try to deny or hide it. And doesn't "what I am" include the desire and effort to become "what I should be", the fear of being seen "as I am", and so on? In the actual seeing, there is no desire, no fear and no effort, is there? The perception of desire, fear and effort is free of thought.

What IS “me”? What IS “the world”? Don’t both "me" and "the world" consist of a constantly-changing actuality - a merry-go-round of pain and suffering, pleasure, struggle, desire, conflict, anger, hate, fear and compulsion, violence, jealousy, ambition, addiction, corruption, dishonesty, and so on, and selfless moments of love, beauty and compassion where there is no feeling of separateness? Aren’t both the inner and the outer shaped by thoughts, emotions and occasionally by silence? Is it so or am I making a false connection between the inner and outer? Am I forcing a square peg into a round hole to make it “fit” an idea?

When we talk about the outer - the “world” - aren’t we talking about the totality or collectivity of all actions of all human beings, actions which are the outcome of the same mental processes which govern “my”actions? That collectivity IS the world, isn’t it? Or not?

So don't we see that “I am the world”, that the inner and outer are 2 aspects of a single movement? Isn't the fact unshakable, solid, not a conclusion or baseless explanation?

Still I could be confused or unbalanced. One can't be certain of anything, can one? I look at it again and again and the fact is seen. I AM “the world”, the inner and the outer ARE the same movement. I still can’t be sure. There is no certainty.

To SEE that the inner self and the outer world are the product of the same process of thought is clarity ... or maybe delusion. But is clear perception what you mean by "enlightenment"? Or is it the bliss mentioned by K that is desired? Do I actually NOT see the fact that “I am the world”? Or is it that I had assumed that the understanding of it would bring me happiness? And, since it did not, have I concluded that I must not be seeing it? Does it follow that seeing leads to happiness?

Submitted for your consideration.

Mina Martini wrote:
Tom,

Obviously human beings don't love what is true, Mina.
Mina: Well I do!! And I guess I am a human being..:-)

I wasn't speaking of you, Mina...the exception to the rule ;) I was talking of human nature. Does a violent man love his violence(which is the truth), or does he condemn it? Some may even enjoy expressing their violence(but that's not loving it). If I'm afraid, I(any 'I') don't love the fear right? Yet my fear is the truth. I guess we are speaking a different language. You're speaking about super humans...ideal humans. I was talking of every man....the ordinary man who is in conflict with himself....divided and fragmented....what we call human nature.

Do you Tom? Are you not also a human being?

Do not start talking about 'others', they are all here.

Well, not all the time. I don't feel love for the truth all the time, as far as I know. I sometimes get caught up in wanting something to be different than it is....or wishing I could overcome some perceived 'lack' in myself....like when I used to smoke and wanted to quit. I did't love the fact of my smoking...the truth. Sometimes I want to overcome some 'outer' situation that causes terrible anxiety....usually fear for a loved one.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Tue, 10 Oct 2017.

Dan,

Dan> So here is my question (I think) K. is saying "be what you are,and be aware of it". So I am aware that I am someone who wants what I don't have: this vision that I am the world Which in K.'s words is just more "becoming", I want what I see I don't have, could be money, could be fame but in my case it's wanting to see that the "inner and the outer" are one?. Is there some mental 'trick', I've overlooked or does it come back to just 'not wanting' ("craving") anything?

Mina: Wanting to see that 'the inner and the outer are the same', when/if that desire comes from thought which IS the division between inner and outer, is an absurd thing to want since the very wanting creates the inner and the outer and the division between them.

Could you elaborate on what you mean by the sentence I have posted in bold from your reply. It is not clear to me what you mean.

This post was last updated by Mina Martini Tue, 10 Oct 2017.

Dan McDermott wrote:
What you are pointing out above is the frustration (absurdity) of the normal 'waking' state of consciousness, craving, and desiring to 'have' the image it has of the next (higher?) state of consciousness which it knows only through flashes of 'insight'.

Hi Dan,
You're describing the frustration of craving, aren't you. You want what you don't have? Whether it's insight or higher consciousness or success in business or sports or your career, it's the same frustration....frustration with what 'I am' or with what 'I' have. Wanting more, or wanting to be more....is there a difference?

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Wed, 11 Oct 2017.

Dan McDermott wrote:
but whatever, nothing is out of bounds. I've created in myself a structure with certain boundaries for a sense of safety and security.

That's it in a nutshell isn't it? And it's that conditioning that looks....that judges or condemns, etc. Trying to get out of it is another action of IT/me.

And since there isn't a 'reward' connected with this 'being what you are and being aware of it', thought loses interest it until there is this "transformation" of 'what you are' that K. (and Mina) speaks about. Then thought picks it up and tries to re-create it and make a 'method' out of it.

Yes, that devil thought looking for MORE...for security.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Thu, 12 Oct 2017.

Mina Martini wrote:
Yes, definitely, I use no word at all with a 'common usage'. The common usage refers to, fundamentally, how the mind has explained or defined the meaning of a word, which is always in duality, not complete!

But that's how we understand one another...with the common understanding of what words mean.. When K spoke of fear or desire or violence or want, we all know exactly what he's referring to. And he also pointed out many times that the word is not the thing. But, it's your 'uncommon' usage of simple common words which is adding confusion....not clarity ...to our discussions here, as I see it. The common useage of common words worked fine for K., didn't it? Sorry if I'm missing what you're trying to point out, but I'm only telling it as I see it.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Thu, 12 Oct 2017.

Dan McDermott wrote:
"No one has the foggiest idea of what I'm talking about"

That would be an ideal position,
but unfortunately we did we have / and still have ideas about it !!

Truth will unfold itself for those who enquire their own actions and only to them and for them and to or for no one else.

This post was last updated by Wim Opdam Thu, 12 Oct 2017.

Wim Opdam wrote:
"No one has the foggiest idea of what I'm talking about"

Wim:That would be an ideal position,
but unfortunately we did we have / and still have ideas about it !!

Mina: Bravo Wim, exactly it!!! The fogginess is in the IDEAS of 'what K is talking about', nowhere else!

Dan McDermott wrote:
Tom Paine wrote:

But, it's your 'uncommon' usage of simple common words which is adding confusion....not clarity ...to our discussions here, as I see it.
But if Mina is looking at the world through a different 'unconditioned' lens, why not listen to it, as if someone in our 'dream' was whispering softly: "You're dreaming!".

That's a huge assumption you're making Dan....as they say, "That's a big if" :) I could say that about any of the so-called gurus proliferating on the Internet these days. A lot of what I've heard seems like total nonsense. Why not assume it's 'God inspired' nonsense? But
I didn't mean to imply that I never listen to Mina....or take her words seriously. I take all that is written here seriously. I'm only saying her words lately lead me to say 'I don't have the foggiest idea what you're talking about'. Occasionally, I feel they are totally misleading. I don't feel that when listening to a talk by K. Well, to be honest, sometimes I do, but often it's very clear what he's saying. Not 'foggy'. :)

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Thu, 12 Oct 2017.

Mina Martini wrote:

Wim Opdam wrote:

"No one has the foggiest idea of what I'm talking about"

Dear Mina: That was Dan quoting K. ( honors who deserve it !).

Wim Opdam wrote:
That would be an ideal position,
but unfortunately we did we have / and still have ideas about it !!

But are we also seeing that the same words do have a totally different meaning
and out of that realize that the meaning is outside the words and depending
on what is said on which occasion in which context ??

Bravo Wim, exactly it!!!
The fogginess is in the IDEAS of 'what K is talking about', nowhere else!

since my ego is deadly ill and since euthanasia is impossible
she is under palliative caring,
so I kindly ask you not to feed her with compliments,
because on that energy, she want to live again, you know ;-()

Truth will unfold itself for those who enquire their own actions and only to them and for them and to or for no one else.

This post was last updated by Wim Opdam Thu, 12 Oct 2017.

Wim Opdam wrote:
Dan McDermott wrote:

"No one has the foggiest idea of what I'm talking about"
That would be an ideal position,

That would make for a hell of a great discussion forum, if no one had any idea what anyone else was trying to say! ;) Just a joke, Wim....hope you don't mind. I understand what you're pointing to....listening free of ideas.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Thu, 12 Oct 2017.

Tom Paine wrote:
:) I could say that about any of the so-called gurus proliferating on the Internet these days. A lot of what I've heard seems like total nonsense. Why not assume it's 'God inspired' nonsense?

But some of the words they utter contain truth. I am not saying that we 'should' listen to them, but is it intelligent to close our minds, because we have prejudged people? (not saying that you are doing that Tom). But we need to listen to whatever comes into our ears, no? Is it not only in this listening that we can ascertain the truth or faseness of anything?