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

Being what you are


Displaying posts 91 - 95 of 95 in total
Thu, 09 Nov 2017 #91
Thumb_img-0590 Mina Martini Finland 162 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:

Mina to Clive:>We can still realise we are talking about the same.

Clive back to her:This may be a bit optimistic, Mina.

mina:-It is coming now that indeed it is only ideas that create obstacles and time between people. The realisation that we are already one, in ourselves and with others inseparably, is not a thing of thought/time, and cannot be related to from thought, judgement...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 10 Nov 2017 #92
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3818 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
Mina: Yes. So the 'what is' is only partially seen for as long as we mean a mere experience by it,

Experience always implying an experiencer, and so still in the realm of duality.

Mina Martini wrote:
This is why the 'what is' created by thought is not the essence of 'what is'

This is what has concerned me about your earlier posts in this thread. And other posts perhaps. The immediate suggestion, or at least implication, that there is something beyond what is, deeper that what is in the what is. The may be, but that is irrelevant, I feel. Or worse that irrelevant misleading, or distraction. How can there be the complete living of what is if part of the mind is concerned with what is "beyond it".

The appearance of what is, is what is.

I cannot say what is for another person. No one can say what is for me. In fact I cannot say what is for myself, although I might describe, in a limited sort of way (the word not being the thing) what WAS.

The attempt to describe what is for myself or another actually only produces image, does it not?

So this is why I question some statements you have made, Mina.

Another issue is that to claim to describe what is is to ascribe some sort of absoluteness to it. Rather than it existing only in a particular time, a particular space, and perhaps in a particular brain (although similar 'what is''s appear in all brains, like frustrations, pleasures, desires. . . . Is there an absolute “what is”? That is a different question which I will not take up here, but when thought THINKS there is an absolute what is, it compares itself to that, which brings about all sorts of problems.

I wrote the above earlier, and now when I look at it, I cannot quite grasp what I was getting at.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 10 Nov 2017 #93
Thumb_img-0590 Mina Martini Finland 162 posts in this forum Offline

Dear love Clive,

Very good feeling after reading your post. Such joy came about that I had to go and play a little with our dog, whom you know, before coming here again to reply to you. Was feeling how the whole of the universe, the whole of life, is knocking at your heart's door..and it is all the time knocking on all hearts' doors, but because of the density of the mind and indetification, to lesser or greater degrees in human beings usually, this knocking is not heard, let alone the door opened. And the knocking does not come from outside to come inside, no, it comes already from the inside, from within you, and the opening is also within you, and when the door opens, you discover there never was a door even, you discover yourself as the whole of the universe, and there is no pride, no arrogance, no magalomania :-) in this, because there is no separate experiencer which is in any state of pride for example. :-) What I am talking about is exactly the ending of this illusion of pride, of any state, of the experiencer, of the self.

I think I will post this first separately, the reply is otherwise becoming too long and you may be tempted to skip lines...:-) Joking love, heart just so light in the wonder of all this and in the possibility of sharing it with you...

This post was last updated by Mina Martini Fri, 10 Nov 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 10 Nov 2017 #94
Thumb_img-0590 Mina Martini Finland 162 posts in this forum Offline

Dear Clive,

Mina: Yes. So the 'what is' is only partially seen for as long as we mean a mere experience by it,

Clive:Experience always implying an experiencer, and so still in the realm of duality.

Mina: Yes, together so far. :-) (and always, in essence, of course)

Mina continuing the sentence in the quote-box above as follows...This is why the 'what is' created by thought is not the essence of 'what is'

Clive to this:This is what has concerned me about your earlier posts in this thread. And other posts perhaps. The immediate suggestion, or at least implication, that there is something beyond what is, deeper that what is in the what is. The may be, but that is irrelevant, I feel. Or worse that irrelevant misleading, or distraction. How can there be the complete living of what is if part of the mind is concerned with what is "beyond it".

Mina: This love is the crucial point. It is so crucial, so absolutely passionate that can only pray that some words can come, which never cover the whole, as a reply to this...

ok..

You experience my words, as if I was immediately suggesting, or implying, that there is something deeper than what is, in the what is. This, by itself love, is an experience, interpretatuon, coming from thought, from the division between observer and observed. It always implies time, because it IS psychological time. First, and next and so on, cause and effect and so on. This is not what is happening here, however. For me, (and when I say 'for me', or 'happening here', I am not implying any separation from you or anyone, just describing the actuality in this being) this time that you describe, does not exist, but the complete living of the 'what is created by the mind' IS the 'going beyond'. This is what I am pointing out in my posts, one way or another, this is the core of it all, to be seen together! I cannot separate the two, talk about one, and leave the other out, because that again for me, would feel false. -So, in the full seeing of 'what is' which is created by the mind, NO PART OF THE MIND CAN BE CONCERNED WITH WHAT IS 'BEYOND IT', with anything, because the mind quietens in the process of living any thing created by the mind, fully...It is the fullness, emptiness, that is being exposed, with the simultaneous subsiding, dissolution of the mind.

Feel we are not quite in the core yet. The above is NOT meant to be a mere description of 'how things are lived here', but there is more, there is a passionate invitation to share the reality of it together, not as 'how it is seen here', but as seeing together.

Tears with this suddenly, such is the yearning to be together!

..

What is seen now, also in the light of what has been written above, is that when you ask 'how can there be the complete living of what is if part of the mind is concerned with what is 'beyond it', you are creating this reality for yourself, because it is not 'my' reality. (again, please, no separation from you while talking like this, it is only in the words, pronouns etc, that any such impression could be created, which is not true. For me all that is happening here is looking into the HUMAN MIND, not mine or yours). So, be completely attentive to any such movement in yourself, the mind creating ideas of 'beyond the mind'.

Another question arises: What is the origin, the place, of the distraction, that you describe above? Yes, here is the crucial point indeed, now it is unfolding itself here for both to see in words also. What is the origin of image/mind, where does it take its very first step? Is it ever in the other, fundamentally, OR, is it in us ourselves that it happens, and that the other, in any sense of separation from ourselves, IS a creation of this mind-movement in ourselves? (the latter, but we need to see together, not that I state something to you)

In the light of this, where is the origin of distortion, distraction? Can we go to the origin together?


Clive:>The attempt to describe what is for myself or another actually only produces image, does it not?

Mina: Yes, this is true, but only in the reality of image, of separate selves. But if a description comes in and from that which is universal, which is completely one with all, from the same essence in all, that is different. The problem may be that if we are not listening to each other in this essence, listening to this essence in each other, then everything is indeed turned into more image. But there has to be a mind, a self, into which image is gathered, otherwise it has no sticking points :), no home anywhere. That changes all communication between people radically, when it is shared.

Everything that is written here or elsewhere by this person, is only pointing to the completele undertanding of the origin or image-reality, of ourselves as images. It is not an act in separation, of being content with some state of 'one's own', but it is also a most profound invitation from heart for the other , who is also you, to fully share it. For as long as the other is reading from that separation, she/he cannot but experience what is being said, in terms of division. Even to see the fact of what has just been said, is clarity, is understanding.

P.S There was still some more in your post, concerning the absolute, but I will leave it for now, this is already so strong, such intensity, that the body needs a break now. Love you and thank you. Interesting to see what life is bringing to be lived, in this relationship also. Always open to the possibility of blooming together love. This is what life is trying to make us do, many times through experience and suffering, and that blooming is what we really are...

This post was last updated by Mina Martini Fri, 10 Nov 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 11 Nov 2017 #95
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3818 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
Mina: Yes, together so far. :-) (and always, in essence, of course)

There is no "of course", here. Tell me, what is the point (you will say "no point" so I will change that to what is the meaning) of saying we are together in essences when here and now, in the world, there is obviously division between us, or at least differences in perception? Sorry to keep hammering the point, but it is the what is of this division that needs to be enquired into, the immediate 'what is'. That is what is facing us. Or at least that is what is facing me. That is the barrier that needs to be dissolved. To make assertions about "the essence", "the absolute" leads no where, or so it seems to me.

Sorry, cannot write or even read anymore for now, feeling stale and need to be physical

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 91 - 95 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.)