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

Who are the 'we continuing in the same path'? (to Juan and all)


Displaying posts 31 - 60 of 107 in total
Wed, 11 Oct 2017 #31
Thumb_de4 Dan McDermott United States 789 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
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.

Mina, Huguette, Tom, Clive, all

Mina isn't what you are describing here an example of 'different' states of consciousness? There is the state of consciousness in deep sleep and then another very different state with dreams which has certain characteristics (which we all know) and then there is the state of 'waking' consciousness (our normal state) where 'self-centered thought' is in control, where there is the 'me' and the 'other' the personal sense of 'me' and 'mine', here is all the desire, jealousy, fear, violence, chaos etc... Then there is another, it seems, the state of consciousness where the separation of 'outer' and 'inner' disappears, where the 'observer is the observed', 'freedom from the known', Love, Intelligence, Compassion...

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'. And as you rightly say, the very desire for something other than what is, keeps it in the 'waking' state. So k.'s suggestion to try in daily life (waking consciousness?) to "be what you are, whatever you are and be aware of it" contains the possibility to move from that state (the 'waking') to another, to discover the transformation that is possible when one is fully aware of 'what one is' without escape. Here is how he put it way back before I was born:

"As long as there is not the comprehension of oneself, there can be no fulfilment. Fulfilment is not a process of rationalization, nor the mere gathering of information, nor does it lie through another, however great. It is the fruition of deep comprehension of your own existence and actions."

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Thu, 12 Oct 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 11 Oct 2017 #32
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 1992 posts in this forum Offline

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.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 11 Oct 2017 #33
Thumb_de4 Dan McDermott United States 789 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
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?

No I don't think there is...and its this constant 'moving away' from my actual state that keeps the 'ball rolling', that keeps thought operating. But the exercise isn't easy, it's "arduous" as he says. 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...but whatever, nothing is out of bounds. I've created in myself a structure with certain boundaries for a sense of safety and security. There are lines I don't want to go outside of..that will make me uncomfortable so I try to stay within them. (This is the 'pedestal' K. says I've placed myself on to look up at or look down on but it's 'artificial') But truly, even with the 'restraints', I can't 'know' what I will do next, be next, think next etc. all 'I' can do is to try to be aware of whatever it is, whatever I am.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Wed, 11 Oct 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 11 Oct 2017 #34
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 1992 posts in this forum Offline

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.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 12 Oct 2017 #35
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 1992 posts in this forum Offline

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.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 12 Oct 2017 #36
Thumb_de4 Dan McDermott United States 789 posts in this forum Offline

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!".

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Thu, 12 Oct 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 12 Oct 2017 #37
Thumb_de4 Dan McDermott United States 789 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
When K spoke of fear or desire or violence or want, we all know exactly what he's referring to.

Don't forget that in California he allegedly said: "No one has the foggiest idea of what I'm talking about"

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 12 Oct 2017 #38
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 552 posts in this forum Offline

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.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 12 Oct 2017 #39
Thumb_img-0590 Mina Martini Finland 97 posts in this forum Offline

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!

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 12 Oct 2017 #40
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 1992 posts in this forum Offline

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.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 12 Oct 2017 #41
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 552 posts in this forum Offline

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.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 12 Oct 2017 #42
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 1992 posts in this forum Offline

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.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 12 Oct 2017 #43
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3729 posts in this forum Offline

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?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 13 Oct 2017 #44
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 1992 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
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?

Clive: But some of the words they utter contain truth.

We don't know this do we? not until we listen, as you say. The same could be said about the words of our neighbor, the beggar on the corner, the politician, the priest or rabbi or mullah, the Nazi, the man I have some conflict with. Any of those people may utter something that has some truth in it. But don't we know when someone says something that is totally false? If a so called spiritual teacher tells us to recite a mantra a thousand times a day, we might say, nonsense! And some of what is said by a politician or a priest...or Trump... for example, we know right away is nonsense, right?

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 13 Oct 2017 #45
Thumb_img-0590 Mina Martini Finland 97 posts in this forum Offline

Wim,

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

Wim: 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 ;-()

Mina: Ha!!! :-) I have a far greater suggestion to what you say above! :-) We will be using that which the ego is tempted to take personally, (what else can it do but take everything personally by the way, since it is an idea of a person!) to help it in its own dying!! How? :-)

It is especially with compliments etc, which are so directly addressed to the ego, that there appears an excellent opportunity to observe what happens in oneself, an opportunity for awareness to be there and the ego not!! So, what I am saying is that EVERYTHING, WHATEVER happens, is really a Gift, when observed in awareness, stillness. Only awareness can survive in awareness, everything else (the world put together by thought) cannot.

Only awareness does not feed an ego, but all that happens WITHIN the limitation of the observer and observed, in the thought-world, feeds egos, because the very division between the observer and the observed IS the ego!!! And clearly, whatever it does, feeds that limited structure.

Love
m

This post was last updated by Mina Martini Fri, 13 Oct 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 13 Oct 2017 #46
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 1992 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
It is especially with compliments etc, which are so directly addressed to the ego, that there appears an excellent opportunity to observe what happens in oneself, an opportunity for awareness to be there and the ego not!! So, what I am saying is that EVERYTHING, WHATEVER happens, is really a Gift, when observed in awareness, stillness. Only awareness can survive in awareness, everything else (the world put together by thought) cannot.

This part in bold is the difficult one, isn't it? Do you really feel this when 'sh*t' happens, Mina? Does anyone? does anyone feel this when their child has a deadly disease? That it's a gift? I'm not saying you're wrong...or right. But seriously, I have anxiety about the health of a loved one, let's say. How can I see their illness and suffering as a gift when I don't? Is there some mental 'trick' to change the fact...'what is'....my reaction to their suffering...and change it to acceptance? When I lose my job and can't pay my rent and get evicted from my apartment, is there some mental (or spiritual) exercise I can do to say to myself....to feel... "yes, this is really a gift"?

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Fri, 13 Oct 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 14 Oct 2017 #47
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 396 posts in this forum Offline

#36:

Tom Paine wrote (to Mina):
But, it's your 'uncommon' usage of simple common words which is adding confusion....not clarity ...to our discussions here, as I see it.

Dan McDermott wrote:
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!".

What do you mean “listen as if”, Dan? “As if” complicates things greatly, as I see it. It is a movement away from listening. Why not just listen? Listening doesn’t mean just hearing. It includes sensitivity, awareness, attention, doesn’t it?

But if I say to you “You’re dreaming” in a language you don’t know, you won’t understand it. Or if I were to say to you something like, “Up is down” to mean “You’re dreaming”, you won’t understand it.

Since we do not have a direct connection to each other’s perceptions, we must use words as clearly as we can to understand each other. What are words for if not to communicate (or “commune”)? The underlying meaning cannot be understood if the actual words are not understood.

K took care to speak with clarity, didn’t he? He surely found it difficult to find the “right” words at times. And where we do not immediately understand what he is pointing to, it is not the words themselves that muddy his meaning. Not that we must emulate K, but isn’t it important to be as clear as possible? And isn’t the responsibility for communicating clearly shared equally by speaker and listener?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 14 Oct 2017 #48
Thumb_de4 Dan McDermott United States 789 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
When I lose my job and can't pay my rent and get evicted from my apartment, is there some mental (or spiritual) exercise I can do to say to myself....to feel... "yes, this is really a gift"?

I'm looking at this question you pose Tom in this way. K said he came not to teach but to "awaken". Awaken from what? Isn't it from this dream where we see the world as something other than us? That we are apart from it? That we are all alone in it, maybe its victim, clutching to this or that person, thing, for solace, for security? Fearful of this or that happening to us, to those around us? And in this state of being, we've created societies, crazy, mad, violent things...The 'I' process as K calls it has made a hell for us here. It only understands "gift" as what is beneficial to it or someone or something it cares about. It could never understand, that "everything, whatever happens" is really a gift. But as Mina put it, only "when observed in awareness, stillness". That is, life not observed through the limited, narrow, conditioned prism of the 'self'.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sat, 14 Oct 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 14 Oct 2017 #49
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 1992 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
It only understands "gift" as what is beneficial to it or someone or something it cares about. It could never understand, that "everything, whatever happens" is really a gift

How are you using the word 'gift', Dan, other than as something beneficial? Would something harmful be considered a gift, in your mind? Like the diagnosis of cancer for my child? Not trying to be negative, but if we are saying everything is a gift, then war or famine is a gift too? Just as an aside....when K's brother died unexpectedly back in the 1920's, K was in such a state of shock that he went unconscious for three(not totally sure here about how many) days.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Sat, 14 Oct 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 14 Oct 2017 #50
Thumb_de4 Dan McDermott United States 789 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
How are you using the word 'gift', Dan, other than as something beneficial?

Could it be that everything that is 'given' to us, 'good' or 'bad', has to (can) be 'transformed' through wisdom and awareness and compassion?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sat, 14 Oct 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 14 Oct 2017 #51
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 1992 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
>Could it be that everything that is 'given' to us, 'good' or 'bad', has to (can) be 'transformed' through wisdom and awareness and compassion?

And how does this wisdom enter the picture if I'm NOT wise? "Could it be...?" What you wrote sounds like pure speculation.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 15 Oct 2017 #52
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 396 posts in this forum Offline

re 48 and 50:

Random (and possibly nonsensical) thoughts:

Dan,

Dan McDermott wrote at 48:
K said he came not to teach but to "awaken".

As I see it, K’s concern was to awaken intelligence or love, not to awaken the dreamer.

Education and the Significance of Life:

Intelligence is much greater than
intellect, for it is the integration
of reason and love; but there can be
intelligence only when there is
self-knowledge, the deep understanding
of the total process of oneself.

The dreamer can be awakened from sleep, not from illusion. It is intelligence which ends illusion, no?

To me, a dream is the continuation during sleep of the fears etc. which were not faced (“stayed with” as recently talked about) during the waking hours. During the waking hours, self-ignorance - inattention - creates the illusion of "me". During the waking hours, the “dreamer” - self - is an illusion not a dream, isn’t he? Isn’t this a distinction that is important in terms of understanding what "I" actually am?

Dan McDermott wrote at 48:
The 'I' process as K calls it has made a hell for us here.

Doesn’t this imply that the “I process” and “us here” are 2 separate things?

Dan McDermott wrote at 50:
Could it be that everything that is 'given' to us, 'good' or 'bad', has to (can) be 'transformed' through wisdom and awareness and compassion?

“Everything (‘good’ or ‘bad’) is given to us”, to me, is clearly a concept, conclusion or idea. Sorry, I don't mean to be confrontational. The idea that everything is a gift to us cannot be observed directly as a fact, can it? It is the intellect's idea of what my perception "should be" when war, cancer, praise, etc. happens. It is not a spontaneous perception. Where pain is experienced, the mind does not perceive a gift, does it? Isn’t it thought which comes up with the idea of pain as a gift? Isn’t it thought which breaks down the wholeness of experiencing into separate fragments - “gifts” or “problems”?

But the feelings of fear, pleasure, anger are observed directly as they happen.

To whom are these “gifts” made and who is making them? There is in fact neither “giver” nor “givee, is there?, and no gift. There are events, movements, happenings in the environment and there is experiencing the feelings they evoke.

Are you saying that it is not awareness of the inner - of “what I am” - that is important, but awareness of the outer happenings? Doesn't awareness act on “what I am” - pain and fear where my child is sick, pain and fear where there is war, pleasure when I am praised, etc. Awareness does not act on the events which provoke what I am. It does not cure cancer, it does not end war, it does not prevent praise from being given. So the distinction between the inner and the outer - between the outer gifts and the inner reaction to the gifts - is in fact a distinction without a difference, isn't it?

It is the transformation of the inner, of what I am, which spontaneously transforms my perception, understanding and approach to the outer. It is not 2 separate actions. No?

Sorry for talking so much.

This post was last updated by Huguette . Sun, 15 Oct 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 15 Oct 2017 #53
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 1992 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
The idea that everything is a gift to us cannot be observed directly as a fact, can it? It is the intellect's idea of what my perception "should be" when war, cancer, praise, etc. happens. It is not a spontaneous perception

Indeed! You hit the nail on the head with this reply to some totally nonsensical beliefs and ideas about what 'should' be. Can we just deal with facts and not ideals, beliefs, and speculations?

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Sun, 15 Oct 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 15 Oct 2017 #54
Thumb_de4 Dan McDermott United States 789 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
And how does this wisdom enter the picture if I'm NOT wise? "Could it be...?" What you wrote sounds like pure speculation.

I think that 'it' enters the the picture when you become aware of yourself.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sun, 15 Oct 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 15 Oct 2017 #55
Thumb_de4 Dan McDermott United States 789 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
And how does this wisdom enter the picture if I'm NOT wise?

I don't think it can if you don't know yourself.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 15 Oct 2017 #56
Thumb_de4 Dan McDermott United States 789 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
The idea that everything is a gift to us cannot be observed directly as a fact, can it?

It can but not if the 'observer is not the observed' state.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sun, 15 Oct 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 15 Oct 2017 #57
Thumb_de4 Dan McDermott United States 789 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
It is the transformation of the inner, of what I am, which spontaneously transforms my perception, understanding and approach to the outer. It is not 2 separate actions. No?

Yes.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 15 Oct 2017 #58
Thumb_de4 Dan McDermott United States 789 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
As I see it, K’s concern was to awaken intelligence or love, not to awaken the dreamer.

No, it was to awaken the 'dreamer'.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 15 Oct 2017 #59
Thumb_de4 Dan McDermott United States 789 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Doesn’t this imply that the “I process” and “us here” are 2 separate things?

No, you are the 'I' process.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 15 Oct 2017 #60
Thumb_de4 Dan McDermott United States 789 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
During the waking hours, the “dreamer” - self - is an illusion not a dream, isn’t he? Isn’t this a distinction that is important in terms of understanding what "I" actually am?

No it is actually you.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 31 - 60 of 107 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.)