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

Being what you are


Displaying posts 31 - 60 of 95 in total
Fri, 27 Oct 2017 #31
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 590 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
What do you mean by an "impossible question", Wim?
Do you mean a wrong question? A contradiction?

No, It was just the observation of what was seen
because all was in the question itself !!

even the remark:

Wim Opdam wrote:
I know, I asked too many questions !!

was the answer on your question, which has no answer and rereading the reply
relizing that according to K. is such a thing a right question, nothing wrong with it.

In awareness that our senses and there extensions
are far too shortcoming for any rightfull answer.

as in quantum theory something can be a particle as well as a wave,
depending on how one looks at it.

We may be both the question and the answer
and lays the solution in recognizing that, all the time !!

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 Fri, 27 Oct 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 28 Oct 2017 #32
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3818 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
There's an analogy that K used. I think it goes something like this...If you're aware that there's a poisonous snake in the room you become alert to its every movement. Can thought be anything other than 'poisonous' when it enters the 'psychological' realm?

Probably not. Perhaps I was enquiring into the possibiity of thought being uncontaminated by the psyche, the self. If it cannot we are surely doomed.

I am not suggesting that "I" can clean up thought, bring order to thought. Such a movement would origniate IN the contamination, and so it must continue, further the contamination. I think that is clear.

So one is left with this poisonous snake 'in the room'. Yes, I find it an appropriate analogy. And perhaps precisely because one is no longer wasting energy in trying to "do something about" the snake, thought, realising the futility of such so-called action, then that energy goes into observation.

But seeing now if the observation has a purpose, if at some level it is still trying to "solve the problem of thought", then that observation is also contaminated. The contamination is basically time, isn't it?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 28 Oct 2017 #33
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2040 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
And perhaps precisely because one is no longer wasting energy in trying to "do something about" the snake, thought, realising the futility of such so-called action, then that energy goes into observation.

But seeing now if the observation has a purpose, if at some level it is still trying to "solve the problem of thought", then that observation is also contaminated. The contamination is basically time, isn't it?

That's it, Clive. That's how I understand it as well.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 30 Oct 2017 #34
Thumb_img-0590 Mina Martini Finland 162 posts in this forum Offline

Dear Wim ,

I came across this precious posting of yours, sharing the energy of it, the seeing that it is.

Clive is asking:>WHY CAN'T WE JUST BE WHAT IS ?

Wim: Is this not an impossible question ??

It does imply that one knows we aren't 'WHAT IS'
and at the same time have an idea of 'what is' 'IS'!

Mina: It is exactly the observer separate from the observed that is shining through Clive's question, transformed into pure light in the understanding of it fully.

The division/contradiction is INHERENT in EVERY THOUGHT that comes from an observer/observed.

The both sides of the coin are there, even if only one side would seem visible TO AN OBSERVER (the observer is always one or the other side, never seeing it is both),

So, if we do not understand through INSIGHT, not thought, the duality contained in the question, ANY ANSWER, (unless there is again insight into the duality of the answer of course) will only give more life to division.

It is the understanding wholly of any question that is the dissolution of both the questioner and the question, which indeed are one.

This post was last updated by Mina Martini Mon, 30 Oct 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 31 Oct 2017 #35
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3818 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
It does imply that one knows we aren't 'WHAT IS'
and at the same time have an idea of 'what is' 'IS'!

Mina's response above reminded me I had not come back to your post, Wim, after taking up some side issues.

Can one take a fresh look at the question I posed:

"Why can't we just be what is".

It may well be, as Mina and K have pointed out, the answer lies in the question. And perhaps the question needs 'unravelling'.

So you said, Wim, this question implies we know we aren't what is. I would say the impetus behind the question lies in the recognition that duality exists. Or in K's terminology, there is, or seems to be, a separation between the thinker and the thought, the observer and the observed. Maybe this separation does not exist for you, Wim,or for Mina, I cannot say. But here it is observed as a fundamental movement of the mind. It seems to have been recognised as such throughout the ages.

Seen in this light, the question I posed "why can't we be what is" is a way of asking, "can duality end?" Which seems to me to be the same as asking "can conflict in the mind end".

You also say, Wim the question I posed implies that ....... well, I am not quite , your words were "and at the same time have an idea of 'what is' 'IS'!" Anger, to take that as an example, is not just an idea, is it? It actually exists in the body/mind. But it is usually (?) accompanied, or followed, by an idea, an ideal, of not being angry, and this does not have any actual existence.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 31 Oct 2017 #36
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 590 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Maybe this separation does not exist for you, Wim,or for Mina, I cannot say. But here it is observed as a fundamental movement of the mind. It seems to have been recognised as such throughout the ages.

Clive,

Neither I did say it doesn't exist !
if K. speaks about joining those two components, he also indicates that they both exist !

The distinction is totally different from separating or denying, right ??

Seeing that most of the time I'm living in this duality but still there are moments where the separation doesn't exist, or correcter said didn't exist,
because at those moments "I" was out of order, was not active!

There's really nothing "I" can do to activate that state of being,
it's really donated and only afterwards
"I" realize the particularity of that moment, that period or that event .....

Giving examples getting the character of persuading or relativating,
and for yourself it can raise pride,
and that's what you're seeing happening, it ruined the event ....

it's a matter of and .... and ....., instead of one or the other !!

Or as the quote of K. used in the thread: "Subtlety" explain:

There is no abstract truth. But truth is very subtle.
It is the subtlety that is difficult to follow. It is not abstract.
It comes so swiftly, so darkly, it cannot be held by the mind.

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 31 Oct 2017 #37
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 590 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Seen in this light, the question I posed "why can't we be what is" is a way of asking, "can duality end?" Which seems to me to be the same as asking "can conflict in the mind end".

Yes it can end, but does it prefent coming up again on another matter ??
If all is flux this must also being possible !!

Clive Elwell wrote:
You also say, Wim the question I posed implies that ....... well, I am not quite , your words were "and at the same time have an idea of 'what is' 'IS'!"

Anger, to take that as an example, is not just an idea, is it?
It actually exists in the body/mind.
But it is usually (?) accompanied, or followed, by an idea, an ideal,
of not being angry, and this does not have any actual existence.

in the course of the day - keeping this question in mind - there came several suggestions above, which may clarify something about the nature of this event.

The horizon is real, but trying to enter her is energy loss, because your physical can never reach that, on the other hand, that horizon reveals itself to you and makes a real move in your brain, at least if you observe her, being aware of her.
Both are real, seems to me !!

The same with an echo, which is not caused by you physically but by the awkward environment in which you produce a sound.
As well as your producing the sound as well as well as your hearing the sound courses brainwaves.

Another event is: Try not to think of Paris !!
The moment you here that question, you are thinking of Paris, isn't it.

This doesn't mean you should take a plain to go there,
or not to go there, or to long for going there.

It seems to me that there is a search ...... as if there is a definitive solution,
but it appears all possibilities are ready to bring you to..... or keep you from ..... Wisdom !

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 31 Oct 2017 #38
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3818 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:

if K. speaks about joining those two components, he also indicates that they both exist !

I don't think that K ever spoke in such terms. If he did I would be curious to hear the quote. For joining, there would have to be 'a joiner', would there not? which implies more separation, more observer/observed, actor and acted upon. So it seems to me that 'integration' of the two poles of duality is not a possibility.

Wim Opdam wrote:
Seeing that most of the time I'm living in this duality but still there are moments where the separation doesn't exist, or correcter said didn't exist,
because at those moments "I" was out of order, was not active!

I was pondering something similar. Moments, extended moments, of peace, or relative peace, of the absence of duality are not that uncommon, are they? They are pleasant, a sense of harmony - without indicating a state of complete transformation. Would you say that in such states the self is in a state of temporary abeyance?

The birth of the self, the observer, IS the birth of conflict, is it not?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 31 Oct 2017 #39
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3818 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
It seems to me that there is a search ...... as if there is a definitive solution,
but it appears all possibilities are ready to bring you to..... or keep you from ..... Wisdom !

I am that obstruction to wisdom. Every time I am born, every time I am created (by thought) that completely determines the perspective, which is always limited - which I think Mina was expressing above. This birth of the me is the birth of duality, is it not? No matter what the content of that me is.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 01 Nov 2017 #40
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 590 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:

Wim Opdam wrote:
if K. speaks about joining those two components, he also indicates that they both exist !

I don't think that K ever spoke in such terms.
If he did I would be curious to hear the quote.
For joining, there would have to be 'a joiner', would there not?
which implies more separation, more observer/observed, actor and acted upon.
So it seems to me that 'integration' of the two poles of duality is not a possibility.

You're right I think that are not the words of K. but mine.

I can only say I'm not working to translate K.'s words into my own vocabulary, but that my own vocabulary is used to express what is understood.

If that word 'joining' leads to your confusion, don't mind, it is rarely understood what is spoken of in these matters.

For me, the disappearance of seperation is a joining and it is not necessaryly in need of a joiner.
For example, in a playground, two or more children meet each other and go spontaneously together up in a game, no one arranges for it just happen.
Yes, I know, every example berries its shortcoming in it and can be countered, but isn' that the way ego is working ??

Clive Elwell wrote:
The birth of the self, the observer, IS the birth of conflict, is it not?

that's my point: this birth, also called the wrong turn, is always a possibility in the present.

Temporary abeyance is the same as overruled by the presence of a higher order called 'Awareness'.

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
Thu, 02 Nov 2017 #41
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3818 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
For example, in a playground, two or more children meet each other and go spontaneously together up in a game, no one arranges for it just happen.
Yes, I know, every example berries its shortcoming in it and can be countered, but isn' that the way ego is working ??

This is an interesting point. Of course we are talking of something more fundamental than the contact made between two children, as you are aware. Can the thinker be integrated with his thoughts? I am now using that word 'integrated'. I think K once used the term "fused". And does integration imply that an integrator is necessary, some other agency? If the agency is the thinker, then we just carry on in duality. But what other agency could there be? And does this process of integration - if it exist - imply effort or direction?

The fact is I do not KNOW how to integrate thinker and thought. It does not see possible.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 02 Nov 2017 #42
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 590 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
The fact is I do not KNOW how to integrate thinker and thought. It does not see possible.

Clive,

I do not know if you are familiar with the phrase:
"The whole is more than the sum of the parts !"
To me it raises the question: where does this unknown something come from ?

The example of the children has also other angles that could throw light on the case.

if one of the playing children feels unwanted, that means the end of joining,
the same applies if one of the children feels excited above the rest !
So there must be a balance in the weakness and strenght of all the playing parts !

When I was describing reply # 40 I used the word 'fusion'
and only by rereading saw that I original used 'joining'.

If the referenced expression is applied to this,
there is an unknown factor that makes 1 plus 1 not 2 but a total other one.

By the way, are you familiar with the first three chapters of 'Truth and actuality'
wherein K. and Bohm searching for the relation between those two
as well as 'Real and Reality' ? It is very worthfully !!

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, 02 Nov 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 03 Nov 2017 #43
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3818 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Thought seems to depend on this duality of a separate thinker to continue unabated with its usual patterns.

Yes, is this not the whole reason thought creates the thinker – to give itself the illusion of continuity? Thought on its own is non-continuous, impermanent, transient – which is far too limited for many of things thought needs or wants to do. So it simply creates the idea of continuity, which is called the self. Isn't this so?

Dan McDermott wrote:
But in the 'light' of awareness the 'thinker just disappears...there is no effort.

Yes, awareness reveals this basic illusion, so it cannot continue.

Dan McDermott wrote:
It seems to be completely up to thought whether it will at any time become aware of itself.

Can we go into this? What does “up to thought” mean?

It is not that I am pushing the idea of an integrator, but the issue has been raised, and I am inquiring into it. You say, Dan, that there is “no other factor” than thought. But you talk of thought which is aware of itself, and thought that is unaware of itself. Does this not suggest another factor – the factor of some force or energy we call awareness?

Sorry, I am rather tired at the moment of writing this, and feel I am not doing the enquiry justice.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 03 Nov 2017 #44
Thumb_img-0590 Mina Martini Finland 162 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Can we go into this? What does “up to thought” mean?

It is not that I am pushing the idea of an integrator, but the issue has been raised, and I am inquiring into it. You say, Dan, that there is “no other factor” than thought. But you talk of thought which is aware of itself, and thought that is unaware of itself. Does this not suggest another factor – the factor of some force or energy we call awareness?

Sorry, I am rather tired at the moment of writing this, and feel I am not doing the enquiry justice.

Mina: Wow, Clive, love, just when you were writing this, I was writing about exactly all that you point to, or suggest, or wonder above. How beautiful! What a beautiful getting together!! Amazing! -No, you are perfect in your tiredness, that is a perfect place to be, no 'separate inquiry' needed. My heart is so fully with you while writing this, no words.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 05 Nov 2017 #45
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3818 posts in this forum Offline

Yesterday there was a Krishnamurti-related meeting that I organise fortnightly. There were several new people present, including young people, and it was quite an animated discussion. People seemed to speak openly and honestly, and there was an acceptance that we DO have problems. It was certainly interesting to listen to everyone, and to reflect on what one heard. Although initially I had no intention of raising the issue of “being what is”, it became apparent how very deeply the movement to AVOID what is was embedded in their lives

In our discussion, we mostly used the example of anger (the title of the video watched was “The Violent Self”). In just about all of people's comments, one could see the movement to escape their problems by creating an imaginary opposite. The main obstacle that I saw was that people immediately IMAGINE what it is like to “fully be anger”; they assume it means that anger assumes huge proportions; goes completely “out of control”

And I found it hard to communicate the fact that we ARE anger, and when that is seen, the problem of anger really evaporates. It is almost instinctive, it seems, to separate oneself from anger, as a means of overcoming anger. Is this a result of the conditioning we received as children?

It seems that the human mind is just about incapable of meeting 'what is', of examining the actual issues that confront us. And I wonder if this incapacity has been brought about precisely because the mind is so deeply conditioned to turn to (to escape really) into ideas. People are certainly very rich in ideas! I see that imagination was the basic evolutionary tool that gave mankind its superiority of survival. It is still essential in practical living, is it not? But applied psychologically, it is a disaster. It is the very root of fear.

I am reminded of K's words: “We turn to what should be because we do not know how to meet what is” Surely there is no solution to mankind's problems in the realm of the imaginary, no matter how refined, how sophisticated, how esoteric, those ideas are? But what will make us face the what is of our daily problems?

Looking inwards, It seems that it is the very separation of the observer and the observed that is the avoidance of what is, the escape from what is.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 05 Nov 2017 #46
Thumb_img-0590 Mina Martini Finland 162 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Looking inwards, It seems that it is the very separation of the observer and the observed that is the avoidance of what is, the escape from what is.

Mina: It came to me after reading your words, that anger for example, or any expression of the reality created by the observer separate from the observed, is not 'what is', but 'what appears to be'. The observer/observed creates a world of appearance, of a mirage. Now, exactly because it is an illusion, the 'what is' is always there, in the pure essence of anger also, of whatever appears. Therefore i is right to say that no matter what, fundamentally there is always only 'what is´, and all else is illusion. This means that also avoidance and escape of what is, are illusory and apparent, not real.

This post was last updated by Mina Martini Sun, 05 Nov 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 05 Nov 2017 #47
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3818 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
that anger for example, or any expression of the reality created by the observer separate from the observed, is not 'what is', but 'what appears to be'

There are chemicals coursing through the brain, various reactions in the body, you can see the expression on my face, my whole body language ... so in what way is anger not 'what is', when it is?

This post was last updated by Clive Elwell Sun, 05 Nov 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 05 Nov 2017 #48
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3818 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Looking inwards, It seems that it is the very separation of the observer and the observed that is the avoidance of what is, the escape from what is.

That very separation from what is, IS the self, is it not? This is exactly how the self is created, no?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 05 Nov 2017 #49
Thumb_img-0590 Mina Martini Finland 162 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
That very separation from what is, IS the self, is it not? This is exactly how the self is created, no?

Mina: What 'my point' was, is that there can never be any real separation from ´what is, because the separation, the self, is altogether a creation of illusion.

This post was last updated by Mina Martini Sun, 05 Nov 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 05 Nov 2017 #50
Thumb_img-0590 Mina Martini Finland 162 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
There are chemicals coursing through the brain, various reactions in the body, you can see the expression on my face, my whole body language ... so in what way is anger not 'what is', when it is?

Mina: The 'what is', is the unmanifested source of all manifested, of all expression. This is why it is wrong to take the mere expression, like anger that you mention, for 'what is'.

This does not mean that there is any separation between the unmanifested and the manifested, there is not. But to look at the manifested only and call it 'what is', is partial. The manifested (thought is also that of course) is 'what appears to be', in the heart of which lies the Unmanifested.

This post was last updated by Mina Martini Mon, 06 Nov 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 06 Nov 2017 #51
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2040 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
Clive Elwell wrote:

That very separation from what is, IS the self, is it not? This is exactly how the self is created, no?
Mina: What 'my point' was, is that there can never be any real separation from ´what is, because the separation, the self, is altogether a creation of illusion.

Thought does divide however. And this division is very real. My image of the Arab or the Jew divides me from the actual living human being. My image of my wife or child divides me from the person as they actually are.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 06 Nov 2017 #52
Thumb_img-0590 Mina Martini Finland 162 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
My image of my wife or child divides me from the person as they actually are.

Mina: Yes, understood, but the division can only end in the realisation that it is not there really at all and has never been and will never be. This is the essence. At the moment this division is believed in, it becomes 'real' for you/anyone. So, even when you say that 'my image of my wife divides me from her', you have already taken steps in that reality. If you do not do that, you have nothing to say about division and instead you express the lack of it in your life, with your wife, and all. That is beauty.

This post was last updated by Mina Martini Mon, 06 Nov 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 06 Nov 2017 #53
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2040 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
At the moment this division is believed in, it becomes 'real' for you/anyone. So, even when you say that 'my image of my wife divides me from her', you have already taken steps in that reality.

It's not a matter of believing or not believing is it, Mina? The image is there. That's a fact. It I have an image of the Muslim or the Jew or the Democrat or Republican, the image is a fact. And the image itself is the dividing factor. There's no separate person there holding an image and believing in the image. I AM that image. Without the image(including the self image) where am I as a separate entity?

So, even when you say that 'my image of my wife divides me from her', you have already taken steps in that reality. If you do not do that, you have nothing to say about division and instead you express the lack of it in your life, with your wife, and all.

K talked endlessly about division.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Mon, 06 Nov 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 06 Nov 2017 #54
Thumb_img-0590 Mina Martini Finland 162 posts in this forum Offline

Tom>It's not a matter of believing or not believing is it, Mina? The image is there. That's a fact.

Mina: You want to call image a fact, ok. Image is a fact created by belief. (image IS belief, idea). Image IS a matter of believing in it, because it can only exist when the believer and believed are separate, in duality, in mind, in consciousness. This is the same as the observer appearing separate from the observed.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 06 Nov 2017 #55
Thumb_img-0590 Mina Martini Finland 162 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
So, even when you say that 'my image of my wife divides me from her', you have already taken steps in that reality. If you do not do that, you have nothing to say about division and instead you express the lack of it in your life, with your wife, and all.

Tom:K talked endlessly about division.

Mina:..yes, in his effort to point out, to help others see that division is an illusion..This is what is being done here also.

And why to mention K, as if someone separate?? Is there a subtle need to support what one is saying, by the idea of others having said the same? Just wondering.

I do not personally care what OTHERS (in any sense of separation from others, so in any sense that thought, which IS separation, can create) say, including of course Krsihnamurti in this limited sense that is being described. There is only needing to see for oneself. And this does not mean any separation, it means the natural need to BE the discovery oneself, and spread it in the being of it, not out of some arrogance or pride or selfishness, but out of a profound realisation that only through seeing for oneself can there be totality of understanding. All else are workings of the mind, which IS division and can only spread division.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 06 Nov 2017 #56
Thumb_img-0590 Mina Martini Finland 162 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
There's no separate person there holding an image and believing in the image. I AM that image. Without the image(including the self image) where am I as a separate entity?

Mina: (read my other replies to you as well, if you will, for the sake of clarity)

If what you say above is true for you, then there is no image, no believer and believed, no observer and observed. If it is just one more idea of 'being the image', it is a trick of the image itself upon itself, that continues itself.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 06 Nov 2017 #57
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 756 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
If it is just one more idea of 'being the image', it is a trick of the image itself upon itself, that continues itself.

Yes, the trick is that 'content' keeps projecting 'someone who is free' outside the perimeter (the 'box') of itself. So it goes until the realization that there is nothing outside. There is no 'outside'. Then it's not just the 'idea' that we are in a 'prison' but the realization that it is so. That is when it is seen that 'escape'(hope) is futile because there is nowhere to escape to. (only into projected images and beliefs). Then the description of our situation as a "prison' is also seen as false. It is only a prison when it is compared to our images of 'freedom'. It simply is 'what is'.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 06 Nov 2017 #58
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2040 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
Tom:K talked endlessly about division.

Mina:..yes, in his effort to point out, to help others see that division is an illusion..This is what is being done here also.

I may be mistaken, but I think K spoke about division in the effort to understand the way it works. Like taking apart a motor to see how it works. Saying it's an illusion is meaningless to the person who is lost in it...who believes in the illusion/s...or do you disagree? Most of the images are deep in the unconscious ...a product of a lifetime of 'this is right and that is wrong'...good vs bad...higher vs lower...etc....you should be this or that.

Mina Martini wrote:
And why to mention K, as if someone separate?? Is there a subtle need to support what one is saying, by the idea of others having said the same? Just wondering.

It's possible...I don't know. But being interested in the teaching as we all are here, naturally we'll discuss what K spoke of and how he described the workings of the human mind. However what I point out is based upon looking into the issue/s K discussed for myself and my own discovery of the truth or falseness of what he spoke about.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Mon, 06 Nov 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 06 Nov 2017 #59
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2040 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
So it goes until the realization that there is nothing outside. There is no 'outside'.

That's it. Thinker is thought...observer is observed. There is nothing 'I'(another image) can do about the image or images.

Dan McDermott wrote:
It simply is 'what is'.

Yes....and the fighting against any image ends. The inner battle ends. Good post(#57)! You described exactly what I've been seeing myself lately in looking at divisions in consciousness....images divided from other images.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 06 Nov 2017 #60
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2040 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
If what you say above is true for you, then there is no image, no believer and believed, no observer and observed. If it is just one more idea of 'being the image', it is a trick of the image itself upon itself, that continues itself.

Yes, it can indeed be just a 'trick'. At the moment of seeing that 'the observer is the observed', however, it was not. It was seeing the tricks one plays with the 'me' image battling against other images.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 31 - 60 of 95 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.)