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

Freeing the Unconscious Mind


Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 51 in total
Sat, 21 Oct 2017 #1
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3818 posts in this forum Offline

Tom wrote, on another thread:

Can you give a real world example, Clive? I see it as inner conflict and division...one fragment... the conscious thought (be 'good')... opposing the unconscious fragment/thought/feeling (what I consider 'bad', be it anger or selfishness, or...).

It is conflict, Tom, yes. The desire of the unconsciousness versus the desires of the consciousness. The former is much deeper, stronger, persistent, it seems to me. Although the conscious mind can use rationality, argument, it has subtlety on its side.

You ask for a “real world example” Not quite sure what you mean – I was talking about this movement, this conflict, as something I observe in myself, rather than “out there”, although I am sure it is the same for all human beings.

I guess the sexual desire is one of the strongest urges of the unconscious mind, at least in males. K has said how dominant it is, and it starts at a very young age (I don't know if it eventually ends, dies). Hmm, knowing that I am “stalked” on this forum, perhaps I should be careful with my words, my PM inbox will start to glow :-). Look at all the cases of “sexual misconduct” being discovered daily, among the priesthood of all the religions, the gurus, the rich and famous – and of course it is there among ordinary individuals, at least distorting men's approach to women. The is the terrible violence of rape, and all sorts of perversions, distortions, obsessions. Does this not all stem from men's subconscious drive – which ultimately can be traced back to our animal instincts.

Of course this fundamental drive has been very influenced, modified by the conscious mind, through image forming. And the conscious mind is the source of “what should be”, which perhaps is the source of all conflict. I doubt if animals experience that.

So yes Tom, I would go along with what you say”

“When the topic of 'being what you are' comes up, I think the issue of the unconscious vs. the conscious fragmentation must be taken into account. The conscious mind is resisting the unconscious feelings, urges, fears, etc.”

So where do we go from here? Is it enough to talk about “just being aware of things”? I started a new thread with this, because I want to post something from K (next post). The last paragraph is obviously highly relevant, but I will copy the whole section

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Sat, 21 Oct 2017 #2
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3818 posts in this forum Offline

Freeing the Unconscious Mind

Education? What do we mean by it? We learn to read and write, acquire a technique necessary for a livelihood, and then we are let loose on the world. From childhood we are told what to do, what to think, and inwardly we are deeply conditioned by social and environmental influence.

I was thinking, can we educate man on the outside but leave the centre free? Can we help man to be free inwardly and be always free? For it is only in freedom that he can be creative and so be happy. Otherwise, life is such a tortuous affair, a battle within and so without. But to be free inside needs astonishing care and wisdom, but few see the importance of this. We are concerned with the outer and not with creativity. But to change all this, there must be at least a few who understand the necessity of this, who themselves are inwardly bringing about this freedom. It is a strange world.

What is important is a radical change in the unconscious. Any conscious action of the will cannot touch the unconscious. As the conscious will cannot touch the unconscious pursuits, wants, urges, the conscious mind must subside, be still, and not try to force the unconscious, according to any particular pattern of action. The unconscious has its own pattern of action, its own frame within which it functions. This frame cannot be broken by any outward action, and will is an outward act. If this is really seen and understood, the outward mind is still; and because there is no resistance, set up by will, one will find that the so-called unconscious begins to free itself from its own limitations. Then only is there a radical transformation in the total being of man.

Jiddu Krishnamurti Letters to a Young Friend 

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Sat, 21 Oct 2017 #3
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2040 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
You ask for a “real world example” Not quite sure what you mean – I was talking about this movement, this conflict, as something I observe in myself, rather than “out there”, although I am sure it is the same for all human beings.

I was thinking of the priest or nun who feels like(believes) that they're being kind to the poor and needy, but in the unconscious may be feelings of anger or resentment which get automatically repressed. Does that make sense? They may have a lot of resentment towards the church dogma and practices, but not admit it to themselves because they feel they must obey God willingly. I just recalled my childhood friend who told me recently ....40 plus years after the fact....that he didn't admit to himself that he was gay until he was in his early twenties, though he felt somehow 'different' even as a young child. He even got married...to a woman...later to realize he really wanted a man....always was attracted to males.

"What is important is a radical change in the unconscious. Any conscious action of the will cannot touch the unconscious. As the conscious will cannot touch the unconscious pursuits, wants, urges, the conscious mind must subside, be still, and not try to force the unconscious, according to any particular pattern of action."(K)

I'm having some difficulty getting K's point, other than that somehow the conscious mind must subside.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Sat, 21 Oct 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 21 Oct 2017 #4
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3818 posts in this forum Offline

First, I would just expand a bit on my past comment:

"I often see even as I am saying "do X", I am actually doing Y, as that is what the unconscious is prompting, insisting on"

X may well be in contradiction to Y. But X stems from the conscious mind, which is superficial, and is it not always based in ideas only? And those ideas stem, do they not, from fairly recent experience sensation and experience. But Y is like an enormous river that has been flowing for millions of years, deepening itself, widening itself, strengthening itself. It has enormous strenghth and momentum.

But looking at the examples you give, Tom, I would not say that every coflict that is experienced is between the unconsciousness and the consciousness. Not sure about this. We repress things, we push them down ..... is that down into the SUB-conscousness? I need to consider the difference between the UN concious and the SUB conscious.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 21 Oct 2017 #5
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3818 posts in this forum Offline

First, I would just expand a bit on my past comment:

"I often see even as I am saying "do X", I am actually doing Y, as that is what the unconscious is prompting, insisting on"

X may well be in contradiction to Y. But X stems from the conscious mind, which is superficial, and is it not always based in ideas only? And those ideas stem, do they not, from fairly recent experience sensation and experience. But Y is like an enormous river that has been flowing for millions of years, deepening itself, widening itself, strengthening itself. It has enormous strength and momentum.

But looking at the examples you give, Tom, I would not say that every conflict that is experienced is between the unconsciousness and the consciousness. Not sure about this. We repress things, we push them down ..... is that down into the SUB-consciousness? I need to consider the difference between the UN conscious and the SUB conscious.

This post was last updated by Clive Elwell Sat, 21 Oct 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 21 Oct 2017 #6
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3818 posts in this forum Offline

My brief researches show me that there are no exact definitions of the unconscious and the subconscious. So I will attempt my own :-)

The subconscious is part of the mind, anything that we are not aware of in the moment

The unconscious is part of the mind, it is identical to what K has referred to as stream of human consciousness, the river. As I see it, it is a vast reservoir of ALL human experience, memory, thought, feelings, that has been accumulated in the brain over many thousands, millions of years.

So with these definitions, the subconscious includes the unconscious. But both subconscious and unconscious may rise into consciousness at any time. And at any time, the subconscious and the unconscious are affecting the conscious mind, probably profoundly.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 21 Oct 2017 #7
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3818 posts in this forum Offline

K wrote:
What is important is a radical change in the unconscious. Any conscious action of the will cannot touch the unconscious. As the conscious will cannot touch the unconscious pursuits, wants, urges, the conscious mind must subside, be still, and not try to force the unconscious, according to any particular pattern of action. The unconscious has its own pattern of action, its own frame within which it functions. This frame cannot be broken by any outward action, and will is an outward act. If this is really seen and understood, the outward mind is still; and because there is no resistance, set up by will, one will find that the so-called unconscious begins to free itself from its own limitations. Then only is there a radical transformation in the total being of man.

I am examining again this text, in the light of (or confusion of) my rough definitions. It is very clear that that the conscious mind cannot affect the unconsciousness - at least it seems that way to me. No amount of effort will bring about any change. The unconsciousness is THERE, or rather HERE, the basic drive for most of our actions, desires, fears...... And it is also clear that something needs to CHANGE in this status quo.

So what is K saying, what is he suggesting will bring about such change? When the conscious ("outward") mind is still, he says, when there is no resistance. This is not clear to me - perhaps because the conscious mind is NOT still. Most people would say without the "restraining" influence of the conscious mind, there would be absolute chaos. I am not saying that, I am just saying I don't see what K is saying (and of course we have already great chaos in the status quo battle of conscious/unconscious.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 22 Oct 2017 #8
Thumb_leaping_fire_frog_by_sirenofchaos natarajan shivan India 83 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell quoting 'K' wrote:
What is important is a radical change in the unconscious. Any conscious action of the will cannot touch the unconscious.

The conscious action of will is the part of the same movement as unconscious, only that it is directed outwards. For this reason, it can't do anything with the unconscious but can only limit it by an attempt to control it, i.e. will.
As the perception without judgement is ongoing, we don't split it as conscious and unconscious but let it flow as a single continuum. It is then that the personally imposed limitation to the unconscious disappears and along with it the happening of a radical change (which is the ever readiness to meet life in awareness) in it's mode of operation. As I see it.

Clive Elwell wrote:
Is it enough to talk about “just being aware of things”?

Yes

contraria sunt complementa

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 22 Oct 2017 #9
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2040 posts in this forum Offline

natarajan shivan wrote:
The conscious action of will is the part of the same movement as unconscious, only that it is directed outwards.

Excellent point...thanks. It's the same conditioning....the same consciousness...the same 'me'. K. said something similar, I think, but in different words.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Sun, 22 Oct 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 23 Oct 2017 #10
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3818 posts in this forum Offline

natarajan shivan wrote:
The conscious action of will is the part of the same movement as unconscious, only that it is directed outwards.

I am not sure about this, Natarajan.

First of all, can you enlarge somewhat on your words above?

Also you write:

natarajan shivan wrote:
It is then that the personally imposed limitation to the unconscious disappears and along with it the happening of a radical change

Again, can you explain this phrase "personally imposed limitation”. I am understanding from K's words that the personal – which I take to be a construct of the consious mind – cannot impose on the unconscious? No?

And finally, what do you say to this example: The unconscious expressed hunger, diffused throughout the body. The conscious says “Which restaurant shall I go out to?”

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 23 Oct 2017 #11
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2040 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
natarajan shivan wrote:

The conscious action of will is the part of the same movement as unconscious, only that it is directed outwards.

Clive: I am not sure about this, Natarajan.

Aren't pretending to be brave/courageous and the unconscious fear one may be repressing two sides of the same coin?

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Mon, 23 Oct 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 24 Oct 2017 #12
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3818 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Aren't pretending to be brave/courageous and the unconscious fear one may be repressing two sides of the same coin?

I will wait for Natarajan to respond to my questions to him, if you don't mind, Tom, before responding to this.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 24 Oct 2017 #13
Thumb_leaping_fire_frog_by_sirenofchaos natarajan shivan India 83 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
First of all, can you enlarge somewhat on your words above?

The so called conscious action of will is the separation as observer in the act of perception who tries to direct and control the outward action, and therefore limit the free flow of unconscious based on the value system it thinks is desirable. This separation as observer is bound to lose its continuity in time (for the reason that it’s a part of the free flow of unconscious) and therefore there is always this struggle in trying to become aware all the time.

Clive Elwell wrote:
Again, can you explain this phrase "personally imposed limitation”. I am understanding from K's words that the personal – which I take to be a construct of the consious mind – cannot impose on the unconscious? No?

The imposed limitation is the attempt to constrain and therefore direct the unconscious (bottleneck so to speak) by a part of itself, and in that process there is no radical change in the content of the unconscious (but only in the shape it assumes with the induced separation as a conscious will/observer) other than the making of a continual effort in trying to be aware.

contraria sunt complementa

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 24 Oct 2017 #14
Thumb_leaping_fire_frog_by_sirenofchaos natarajan shivan India 83 posts in this forum Offline

Dan, to respond to the post you deleted recently, the key is what happens in the real time; at the moment of happening, 'the judger is the judged'; and as it is recalled the next day, 'the actor then is the rememberer now. As I see, what we call as conscience, with all it's honesty can go only that far, and when we persist in staying around such a knowing process without gathering all the energy, it will immediately transform alternately between an acknowledgement of suffering and an acknowledgement of self righteousness. The key is to instantly see what such an insight demands of us in the real time.

contraria sunt complementa

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 24 Oct 2017 #15
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 756 posts in this forum Offline

natarajan shivan wrote:
The key is to instantly see what such an insight demands of us in the real time.

Thanks for the comments natarajan.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 24 Oct 2017 #16
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3818 posts in this forum Offline

natarajan shivan wrote:
The so called conscious action of will is the separation as observer in the act of perception who tries to direct and control the outward action, and therefore limit the free flow of unconscious based on the value system it thinks is desirable.

Ok, got this. Have been watching this greatly, and in fact yesterday I have asked why this happens on the thread "Being what you are"

It certainly is a struggle for the observer/self to maintain its continuity - for the simple reason that it is not continuous. It is composed of thought, which is discontinuous. It seems to me thought has been trying to maintain the fiction of a permanent self since time immemorial, and it can never succeed. So why does it continue to try, one asks?

natarajan shivan wrote:
This separation as observer is bound to lose its continuity in time (for the reason that it’s a part of the free flow of unconscious) and therefore there is always this struggle in trying to become aware all the time.

The struggle is not limited to “trying to be aware all the time”, is it? Seems to me the self is intrinsically a struggle. It arises in the act of resistance, does it not?

natarajan shivan wrote:
The imposed limitation is the attempt to constrain and therefore direct the unconscious (bottleneck so to speak) by a part of itself, and in that process there is no radical change in the content of the unconscious (but only in the shape it assumes with the induced separation as a conscious will/observer) other than the making of a continual effort in trying to be aware.

I am not sure that I fully grasp this. Are you saying the unconscious is making a continual effort to become conscious?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 24 Oct 2017 #17
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3818 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Aren't pretending to be brave/courageous and the unconscious fear one may be repressing two sides of the same coin?

Yes, the reaction to the unconscious fear is to deny it, to pretend to be the opposite. Yes another example of reacting to the what is, as discussed on the "being what you are"" thread. So I ask, as I did on that thread, why is this movement so deeply, deeply conditioned into us?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 25 Oct 2017 #18
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2040 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
So I ask, as I did on that thread, why is this movement so deeply, deeply conditioned into us?

An important question, for sure. It may be that this movement is the 'wrong turn' that K. spoke of. It's obviously so destructive of our inner sanity... as well as the outer sanity in the world/society, which is obviously INsane. It appears to me that the labeling and naming and measuring and comparing that is so important for our physical survival has somehow moved into the 'psychological' realm where we label ourselves and our neighbor as good or bad...right or wrong....inferior or superior.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Wed, 25 Oct 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 27 Oct 2017 #19
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 406 posts in this forum Offline

I'm taking the liberty of posting a lengthy extract from K's Fourth Talk in London, 1955, which I find perfectly addresses ALL the questions in this thread and more.

http://jkrishnamurti.org/krishnamurti-teachings...

"So, as I was saying, culture can only produce religions, not a religious man. And I think it is only the religious man who can really bring about a radical change within himself. Any change, any alteration within the conditioned mind of a particular culture is no real change; it is merely a continuation of the same thing modified. I think that is fairly obvious, if one thinks about it - that so long as I have the pattern of a Hindu, a Christian, a Buddhist, or what you will, any change I bring about within that pattern is a conscious change, still part of the pattern, and therefore no change at all. Then the question arises: Can I bring about a change through the unconscious? That is, either I start consciously to change the pattern of my living, the way I think, to remove consciously my prejudices - which is all a deliberate process of effort in the pursuit of a determined object, ideal - or I try to bring about a change by delving into the unconscious.

Surely, in both these approaches is involved the problem of effort. I see I must change - for various reasons, for various motives - and I consciously set about changing. Then I realize, if I think about it at all, that it is not a real change, and so I delve into the unconscious, go into that very deeply, hoping through various forms of analysis to bring about a change, a modification, or a deeper adjustment. And now I ask myself whether this conscious and unconscious effort to change does bring about a change at all? Or, must one go beyond the conscious as well as the unconscious to bring about a radical change? You see, both the conscious desire as well as the unconscious urge to change imply effort. If you go into it very deeply, you will see that in trying to change oneself into something else, there is always the one who makes the effort and also that which is static, that upon which the effort is exerted. So in this process of desire to bring about a change - whether it is conscious or unconscious - there is always the thinker and the thought, the thinker trying to change his thought - the one who says, ''I must change,'' and the state which he desires to change. So, there is this duality, and we are always, everlastingly, trying to bridge this gap through effort. I see in myself that there is, in the conscious as well as in the unconscious, the maker of the effort and that which he wishes to change. There is a division between that which I am and that which I wish to be. Which means there is a division between the thinker and the thought, and so there is a conflict. And the thinker is always trying to overcome that conflict, consciously or unconsciously.

We are quite familiar with this process; it is what we are doing all the time; all our social structure, our moral structure, our adjustments, and so on, are based on that. But does that bring about a change? If not, then must not a change come about at a totally different level which is not in the field either of the conscious or of the unconscious? Surely the whole field of the mind, the conscious as well as the unconscious, is conditioned by our particular culture. That is fairly obvious. So long as I am a Hindu, a Buddhist, a Christian, or what you will, the very culture in which I have been brought up conditions my whole being. My whole being is the conscious as well as the unconscious. In the field of the unconscious are all the traditions, the residue of all the past of man, inherited as well as acquired; and in the field of the conscious I am trying to change. Such change can only be according to my conditioning, and therefore can never bring about freedom. So transformation, obviously, is something which is not of the mind at all; it must be at a different level altogether, at a different depth, at a different height. So, how am I to transform? I see the truth - at least, I see something in it - that a change, a transformation, must begin at a level which the mind as the conscious or the unconscious cannot reach because my consciousness as a whole is conditioned. So, what am I to do? I hope I am making the problem clear. If I may put it differently: Can my mind, the conscious as well as the unconscious, be free of society? - society being all the education, the culture, the norm, the values, the standards. Because if it is not free, then whatever change it tries to bring about within that conditioned state is still limited and therefore no change at all. If I see the truth of that, what is the mind to do? If I say it must become quiet, then that very ''becoming quiet'' is part of the pattern; it is the outcome of my desire to bring about a transformation at a different level.

So, can I look without any motive? Can my mind exist without any incentive, without any motive to change or not to change? Because, any motive is the outcome of the reaction of a particular culture, is born out of a particular background. So, can my mind be free from the given culture in which I have been brought up? This is really quite an important question. Because if the mind is not free from the culture in which it has been reared, nurtured, surely the individual can never be at peace, can never have freedom. His gods and his myths, his symbols and all his endeavors are limited, for they are still within the field of the conditioned mind. Whatever efforts he makes, or does not make, within that limited field, are really futile in the deepest sense of that word. There may be a better decoration of the prison - more light, more windows, better food - but it is still the prison of a particular culture.

So, can the mind, realizing the totality of itself, not just the superficial layers or certain depths - can the mind come to that state when transformation is not the result of a conscious or unconscious effort? If that question is clear, then the reaction to the problem arises - how is one to reach such a state? Surely the very question ''how?'' is another barrier. Because the ''how'' implies the search for and practice of a certain system, a method, the ''steps'' towards that fundamental, deep, inevitable transformation at a new level. You understand? The ''how'' implies the desire to reach, the urge to achieve; and that very attempt to be something is the product of our society, which is acquisitive, which is envious. So we are caught again.

So, what is the mind to do? I see the importance of change. And I see that any change at any level of the conscious or unconscious mind is no change at all. If I really understand that, if I have grasped the truth of it - that so long as there is the maker of the effort, the thinker, the 'I' trying to achieve a result, there must be a division and hence the desire to bring about an abridgment, an integration between the two, which involves conflict - if I see the truth of that, then what happens?

Here is the problem: Do I see that any effort I make within the field of thinking, conscious as well as unconscious, must entail a separation, a duality, and therefore conflict? If I see the truth of that, then what happens? Then have I, has the conscious or unconscious mind, to do anything? Please, this is not some Oriental philosophy of doing nothing or going into some kind of mysterious trance. On the contrary, this requires a great deal of thought, penetration, and inquiry. One cannot come to it unless one has gone through the whole process of understanding the conscious as well as the unconscious, not by merely saying, ''Well, I won't think, and then things will happen.'' Things won't happen. That is why it is very important to have self-knowledge. Not self-knowledge according to some philosopher or some psychoanalyst, great or little - that is mere imitation; it is like reading a book and trying to be that book; that is not self-knowledge. Self-knowledge is actually discovering in oneself the process of one's thinking, feeling, motives, responses - the actual state in which we are, not a desired state.

That is why it is very important to have self-knowledge - of whatever we are: ugly, good, bad, beautiful, joyous, the whole of it - to know one's superficial conditioning as well as the deeper unconscious conditioning of centuries of tradition, of urges, compulsions, imitations, to know, to actually experience the whole totality through self-knowledge. Then I think we will find that the conscious as well as the unconscious mind no longer makes any movement to achieve a change, but a change comes about, a transformation comes about, at a totally different level - at a height, a depth, which the conscious as well as the unconscious mind can never touch. The transformation must begin there, not at the conscious or unconscious level, which is the product of a culture.

That is why it is very important to be free of society through self-knowledge. And I think then, when this whole process of recognition by society has ceased, when the mind is no longer concerned with reform of any kind - then there is a radical transformation which the conscious or the unconscious mind cannot touch, and from that transformation a different society, a different state, can be brought about. But that state, that society, cannot be conceived of - it must come from the depths of self-discovery. So it seems to me that what is important is this inquiry into the self, the 'me', and to know the self as it is, with its ambitions, envies, aggressive demands, deceptions, the division as the high and the low - to uncover it so that not only the conscious mind is revealed but also the unconscious, the storehouse of past tradition, the centuries of deposits of all kinds of experiences. Knowing the totality of that is the ending of it. Then the mind, not being concerned with society, with recognition, with reformation, even with the changing of itself, finds that there is a change, that there is a transformation which is not the outcome of a purposeful effort to produce a result."

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 27 Oct 2017 #20
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 756 posts in this forum Offline

K "Do not let us live through imagination in an anticipated future, but let us be conscious of our everyday struggles and fears." (QOTD)

Thank you for that posting Huguette. For me when reading it something became clear that was not realized before: That to be "free of society" refers not only to the 'outer' society with its norms, beliefs, patterns, etc. but freedom from the 'inner society' which is 'me'. I had never seen that what I am IS society. So any effort to change, to become this or that psychologically is the conditioned acquisitive pattern of society in myself. And the 'conditioning' is total.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Fri, 27 Oct 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 27 Oct 2017 #21
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 590 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
I'm taking the liberty of posting a lengthy extract from K's Fourth Talk in London, 1955, which I find perfectly addresses ALL the questions in this thread and more.

I'm very grateful for your extract, Huguette

A few days ago a nice sentence came by, which I would like to share:

The best slave is the one who thinks he's free !

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 #22
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3818 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
It appears to me that the labeling and naming and measuring and comparing that is so important for our physical survival has somehow moved into the 'psychological' realm

That's probably right. But it's more than naming, etc, it's trying to something about it, improve it, bring order, make complete, understand, control ....... Yes, all these movements could have been carried over from the outer world.

But strange this mistake has never really been seen for what it is. And so dropped.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 28 Oct 2017 #23
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3818 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
And the 'conditioning' is total.

This is the crucial point, isn't it? And in my discussions with others, I see that this is precisely what is not accepted. People insist that there is something in consciousness that is unconditioned, pure, uncontaminated, clear. And they have pinned their hopes on that. They have accepted some conclusion, some idea, some belief that they presuably think will solve the problem eventually.

All of which seems to me an escape from seeing the truth, seeing what is, that "I" am totally conditioned, and am completely unable to solve the problem.

This post was last updated by Clive Elwell Sat, 28 Oct 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 28 Oct 2017 #24
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3818 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
I'm taking the liberty of posting a lengthy extract from K's Fourth Talk in London, 1955, which I find perfectly addresses ALL the questions in this thread and more.

Yes, it is crystal clear. Beautiful in its austerity.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 29 Oct 2017 #25
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3818 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
And the 'conditioning' is total.

Is this not the greatest. most pure, most complete (sorry to imply degree and comparison) insight possible?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 30 Oct 2017 #26
Thumb_img-0590 Mina Martini Finland 162 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Is this not the greatest. most pure, most complete (sorry to imply degree and comparison) insight possible?

Mina: Yes, the insight into the conditioning being the whole mind, that there is no place or corner in the mind that is not conditioned, is transformative, therefore 'the greatest'. The insight is tranformative because it does not come from any part of the mind. If it came from any part of the mind, it could not seen that the whole of the mind, ALL parts, are conditioning. The observer, one part, would then always be left out of the observation, and that would make seeing the whole, impossible.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 30 Oct 2017 #27
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 756 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
K-What is important is a radical change in the unconscious.

I recently watched my granddaughter of 3 years throw an intense 'temper tantrum". She had been denied continuing some amusement and was told it was bedtime. The force (and length) of her tantrum was amazing. I just yesterday witnessed a disappointment in myself, having been denied something I had wanted very much to do...There was the same rage in me that I saw in the child. It was startling to see such a reaction in myself, the raw unbridled anger. Animal-like in its ferocity. So is it always there in the 'unconscious' like a volcano ready to erupt? I was 'embarrassed' by it (how could an 'adult' have such a 'childish' reaction?) but also remembered that I was seeing and understanding something 'real' in myself, something that has caused so much misery and suffering in the world and here it was in me. I was it...And when it subsided I could see clearly that this was my responsibility, no matter who or what outside 'triggered it', it was me.

And the question that arose afterwards was, is the cause of this explosion simply related to 'want'? Wanting something in the 'future'? Wanting something to happen or not to happen? That as long as there is this psychological 'wanting' or 'craving',(or identification) must it not ultimately lead to conflict, pain, suffering and violence?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Mon, 30 Oct 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 31 Oct 2017 #28
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3818 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
And the question that arose afterwards was, is the cause of this explosion simply related to 'want'? Wanting something in the 'future'? Wanting something to happen or not to happen? That as long as there is this psychological 'wanting' or 'craving',(or identification) must it not ultimately lead to conflict, pain, suffering and violence?

I have been watching exactly the same thing in myself, Dan. The word I have been using to desribe what is going on is "Frustration". Yes, it is a huge force. I think it gets accumulated in the subconscious mind, and manifests in various ways. It may explain a lot of people's anti-social, violent, and self-destructive behaviour. And yes, it certainly can explode as you describe.

Is frustration an inevitable "other side of the coin" to desire?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 31 Oct 2017 #29
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 756 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Is frustration an inevitable "other side of the coin" to desire?

The image that comes to me is of 'trapped', 'perverted' energy... like those polluted "eddies" near the banks of a pure, swift flowing river. This is the 'me'/thought/time etc. It 'tries' to 'escape' but its very (circular?) movement keeps it in place. Isn't it "frustration"/desire itself?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Tue, 31 Oct 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 31 Oct 2017 #30
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2040 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Isn't it "frustration"/desire itself?

Frustration, desire, fear, escape, etc. Yes, but it is what it is and the effort to change it only perpetuates it...as you yourself say ("keeps it in place"). All the concepts and ideas we hold don't help to understand what's going on....the fact/actuality. We're so biased in our observations of ourselves that we never see 'what is' as it is. It's the concepts, ideals, ideas, opinions, beliefs that are preventing us from observing ourselves(frustration, or anger, or whatever is going on) objectively....or anything else for that matter. But this is probably all too familiar...it's basic K 101. But we can observe it as it's happening in ourselves as we struggle with some inner conflict or problem we're facing....just observing all the efforts to change 'what is'...all the barriers we create with our knowledge of 'what should be'.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Tue, 31 Oct 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 51 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.)