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

Freeing the Unconscious Mind


Displaying posts 31 - 51 of 51 in total
Tue, 31 Oct 2017 #31
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 756 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
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.

I don't see that there is anything "preventing" seeing, Tom...Awareness has no "bias". The "bias, concepts, ideals, opinions, beliefs", etc. are all there is to see, that is what we are. That is what I am, there is nothing else. There is no "objective" observer being prevented from seeing. That is a trick of thought. The 'observer' is 'what is'. The conditioning is total. Self-knowing is a movement with 'what is', with what you are, whatever you are....As I'm seeing it.

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 31 Oct 2017 #32
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2040 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
I don't see that there is anything "preventing" seeing, Tom...Awareness has no "bias".

My opinion or image of you(you are a dumb Republican or an 'inferior' Jewish or Black man, for example) is preventing me from seeing you as you are. It divides me from you...observer from observed. That's K 101, isn't it? In the same way I look at my anger through the screen of opinion and idea, and don't see the anger ....only react to it...try to get rid of it...overcome it.

Let it Be

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 31 Oct 2017 #33
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 756 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
My opinion or image of you(you are a dumb Republican or an 'inferior' Jewish or Black man, for example) is preventing me from seeing you as you are. It divides me from you...observer from observed. That's K 101, isn't it? In the same way I look at my anger through the screen of opinion and idea, and don't see the anger ....only react to it...try to get rid of it...overcome it.

Right, that's what 'you' are. If you're saying that you should be different than that, that you want to change all that, that's 'self-improvement' isn't it? That's all 'judgement'. That's the 'observer' disapproving of what he sees and wanting to change it.. That's the duality created by thought as I see it. That's the total 'conditioning'.

So it makes sense that only an absolutely 'choiceless' awareness can include and see everything. I think that though this is "hard work", "arduous" as K says, the "delight" that he mentioned in following the thoughts and feelings arises from the 'freeing' of the energy bound up and limited in the 'me' i.e., in the false duality of the 'I process'.

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 31 Oct 2017 #34
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2040 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
If you're saying that you (or anyone) should be different than that, that you want to change all that,

I didn't say that."Should" is only an image. There is just the fact of conflict, and'me' trying to do something about it. I feel I am separate from it, and can therefore act upon it. This separate 'me' is another image... part of the conflict.

Let it Be

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

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

I think there is an intrinsic frustration to the self. I experience this at times, irrespective of the content of thought. It is the realisation that it is only image. It has no actual existence. It thought it was real, it was acting as if it was real ..... then the realisation comes that it is not real, it it is impotent..... it cannot actually do a thing, except imagine something.

Shivers.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 01 Nov 2017 #36
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 756 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
."Should" is only an image.

I don't see "should" as an image...but as a desire that something be different than what it is.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 01 Nov 2017 #37
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 756 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote: (Edited by dan mcdermott)
It is the realisation that I am only image. I have no actual existence. I thought I was real, I was acting as if I was real ..... then the realisation comes that I am not real, that I am impotent..... I cannot actually do a thing, except imagine something.

I took the liberty to change your posting (changing "it" to "I") and now I sense a kind of freedom! Is this what you were feeling? I apologize if not.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Wed, 01 Nov 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 01 Nov 2017 #38
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2040 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Tom Paine wrote:

."Should" is only an image.
I don't see "should" as an image...but as a desire that something be different than what it is.

Desire is not based upon images? The desire for a better image? A better me....a better future....better job...happiness...fulfillment...enlightenment. just exploring here.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 01 Nov 2017 #39
Thumb_img-0590 Mina Martini Finland 162 posts in this forum Offline

Dan:I don't see "should" as an image...but as a desire that something be different than what it is.

Tom:Desire is not based upon images? The desire for a better image? A better me....a better future....better job...happiness...fulfillment...enlightenment. just exploring here.

Mina: You are both correct. Desire, when thought-based, is the very force that keeps the obverser/observed (ego) alive. It moves within the reality created by image/knowledge.Its experience of 'how things are' and its desire, idea, of 'how things should be', are both image-based. It can never BE 'what is', because the 'what is' is no state at all, and thought can only exprience states that are created by the illusion of division between observer and observed. (by illusion of the existence of division)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 01 Nov 2017 #40
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 756 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
The desire for a better image? A better me....a better future....better job...happiness...fulfillment...enlightenment.

The objects of these desires aren't the same. It seems to me that it is healthy, sane and necessary to 'desire' the best possible physical situation for oneself. A "better" job that enables you to live in a safe place, have enough good food to eat, proper clothing, have transportation etc. Also to not have the stress of an idiot boss...We all should have that, not only the 'elite', as the situation is now, and becoming worse. Completely different is the desire say, for "enlightenment"...this is the 'me's desire for an imagined ultimate 'security'. It is psychologically self-centered and creates 'time' and a 'future' when this imagined state will hopefully be reached. One of many of the 'fairy tales' we have been conditioned to believe in and to waste our life seeking.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 01 Nov 2017 #41
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2040 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
It seems to me that it is healthy, sane and necessary to 'desire' the best possible physical situation for oneself. A "better" job that enables you to live in a safe place, have enough good food to eat, proper clothing, have transportation etc

True enough, Dan. I was thinking of a desire to have a more prestigious job or a job that will make me a lot of money so I can buy more 'stuff' I really don't need for my physical well being....but only for my psychological well being. As far as the desire for happiness or a better future....well, that's just fantasizing....not saying it's wrong or will lead to conflict. It may possibly be an avoidance of facing our unhappiness however.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 01 Nov 2017 #42
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 756 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
It may possibly be an avoidance of facing our unhappiness however.

Well given that most of us have an unconscious 'stuffed' with the hurts and traumas of childhood. Not through mistreatment necessarily but just the desperate 'wanting' to 'fit in', to not 'stand out' in any way, physically or otherwise. Also the frightening enigma of death to the child's mind, seen as an 'ending'. The fear of being 'alone' etc., etc. All these repressed memories and fears being the unseen forces behind who we become as adults...I'd say that for real "happiness" to be, all of that has to be 'effortlessly' understood and 'negated'.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 02 Nov 2017 #43
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3818 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
I took the liberty to change your posting (changing "it" to "I") and now I sense a kind of freedom! Is this what you were feeling? I apologize if not.

Yes, I was implying freedom. I don't think this freedom has been fully explored as yet.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 02 Nov 2017 #44
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3818 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
It can never BE 'what is', because the 'what is' is no state at all,

What do you mean, Mina, by saying that 'what is' is no state at all? Please enlarge on this.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 03 Nov 2017 #45
Thumb_img-0590 Mina Martini Finland 162 posts in this forum Offline

Mina:It can never BE 'what is', because the 'what is' is no state at all,

Clive:What do you mean, Mina, by saying that 'what is' is no state at all? Please enlarge on this.

Mina: The thinker separate from thought, or the subject from object, is what is meant by the word 'state'. So, a state is always in duality. The thinker can only be in a state of duality, because that is its very nature. The thinker always appears as 'I am this or that', so there are already two components there, the experience of 'me' and an attribute to it. So the experiencer and experienced as separate. So, thinker/thought is a creation of a dualistic state, which is illusory in essence.

Beyond this illusory division put together by image, there is neither the experiencer nor the experienced. In other words there is no state, no image of limit. In the place of 'what is thought to be' (state), there is only 'what is'. The 'what is', is ONE, and since there is only one, you also ARE the One.

This post was last updated by Mina Martini Fri, 03 Nov 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 03 Nov 2017 #46
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 756 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
'what is' is no state at all?

'State' implies something that is static...I'd say that 'What is' is the 'glowing tip' of creation, the ever-present Now. The 'me' or 'thinker' can never 'experience' it because the 'me' or the 'thinker' or the 'experiencer' is the past. It can never 'capture' it. 'I' am an assemblage of past events, feelings, thoughts, hopes fears etc., given a name and sent out to do 'battle' in a cold brutal world. 'I' am thought's 'accumulator, as if that accumulation can keep it 'safe' from it's fear of the 'unknown'. Safe from the unimaginable endless movement/non-movement of the "sacred" 'what is'.

What I meant in saying that the freedom from the bondage of the 'thinker' is "up to thought" alone, is that the 'thinker', 'me' is thought's 'creation'. A creation of fear. With intelligence/awareness, it can perhaps understand the necessity for its own silence. Nothing but thought itself can see and understand the chaos that the false duality of the thinker/thought has created, not only the suffering and fear in itself but in the world.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Fri, 03 Nov 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 03 Nov 2017 #47
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 406 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote at #39:
Desire, when thought-based, is the very force that keeps the obverser/observed (ego) alive. It moves within the reality created by image/knowledge.Its experience of 'how things are' and its desire, idea, of 'how things should be', are both image-based. It can never BE 'what is', because the 'what is' is no state at all, and thought can only exprience states that are created by the illusion of division between observer and observed. (by illusion of the existence of division)

Dan McDermott wrote at #46:
'State' implies something that is static...

The word (desire, for example) is not “the” thing but desire IS some “thing” that is known and felt, an actual fact or truth beyond the word, an actual “thing” that is experienced in the living moment. Whatever we talk about - known or unknown - there is a “thing” underlying it. It may be a false thing put together by thought, or it may be a true thing that is beyond thought or the word. The importance of the word lies in its source, the actual fact it points to, which is beyond the word. The word in itself has no importance but, not being hermits, we need the word to communicate.

What is significant or important is the actual fact underlying the word. The fact or the source of the word is what gives the word its true meaning. Then can 2 people see the fact that lies beneath the word, look at the source together with the same intensity? Maybe not. I don't know.

So when we say the word is not the thing, we don’t have to discard the word as unimportant, do we? Words can be part of habitual patterns of thought. But they can also be an expression - not rooted in our conditioning - of "the thing" that is seen, can't they? If they cannot be such an expression, what is the point of all our words? That is, can the actual source, the actual fact of the word hang before 2 people so they both see it without misunderstanding between them?

How can we talk about desire if desire is known to me and unknown to you? When I speak of desire, how can I say that it is NOT what is? The mind observes it, the body and heart feel it, don’t they? Desire (etc.) is experienced, felt, in the living moment.

So yes, thought-based desire is what puts the observer together. I don't disagree with that. But this doesn't mean that there is no desire, no state or condition of desiring.

As I see it, “what is” is the totality, everything we can think of, and everything we can’t think of. It is the known and the unknown. It is the uncreated and the created. It is the image and the non-image. It is the abstract idea, the thought-based emotion and it is the silence that is empty of thought and emotion. “What is” is the “ changing state”, the state of flux, the state of uncertainty, the state of desire, the state of confusion, and so on. And it is the “unchanging state” - which only means that it is unchanging within a finite period of time. Like everything else, staticity does not last “forever”.

From Google:
STATE: the particular condition that someone or something is in at a specific time.
STATIC: lacking in movement, action, or change, especially in a way viewed as undesirable or uninteresting.

This post was last updated by Huguette . Fri, 03 Nov 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 03 Nov 2017 #48
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 756 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
What is significant or important is the actual fact underlying the word. The fact or the source of the word is what gives the word its true meaning. Then can 2 people see the fact that lies beneath the word, look at the source together with the same intensity?

Only if they have both seen the same fact. The word is a symbol of, or a description of a realization or seeing. The underlying experience is non-verbal. The words are an attempt to communicate what was seen but unless the other has had that same experience or realization, the words are received at a 'superficial' level, the level of thought? Can we ever know for sure whether someone else has seen what we have seen no matter how much agreement there is in our word descriptions?

When Mina says,"Beyond this illusory division put together by image, there is neither the experiencer nor the experienced." I can only 'understand' the words on an intellectual level because that 'seeing' that her words are describing has not been seen by me. I haven't seen the reality behind those words she says. When and if I do, I will also attempt to communicate it in words to others. But no words can 'help' us to 'see' but they can be useful to point out where we go 'wrong'.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Fri, 03 Nov 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 03 Nov 2017 #49
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 406 posts in this forum Offline

re 48:

You say, "Only if they have both seen the same fact". Yes, that is the question. Can we "know" whether we are seeing the same fact? Can I "know" whether I myself understand what I think I understand? Can I "know" whether I understand someone else or whether we are just forming a mutual admiration society or whether I'm just going along in conformity?

I think we can … but I could be totally mistaken. As I see it, there is an unsought flame, attention, passion, interest, energy which relentlessly drives the human being - “me” mind and heart - to understand himself/myself. That unsought energy, passion, attention, drives him/me to question the fear, conflict, sorrow, compulsions, obsessions, desires, which rule his/my life and darken his/my days. Why is life like this, he and I wonder. Is this man’s inevitable lot?

Whether or not the questioning is a fool’s errand, it is clear that the mind cannot through will terminate the energy - the drive - which gives rise to such questioning. It is not the energy of thought, of anger, of jealousy, fear or desire to become something. That energy is painful. This energy or flame of attention is not rooted in thought. It seems immovable, solid, to me but I can’t be sure. That’s how I see it. Is it just this particular mind which sees this? Is it an illusion, a fantasy? It is not a conclusion that is memorized or memorialized. It is looked at afresh “again and again”, without reference to time.

I think that we can look into any particular question and as long as the question is not understood, there remains something to be said about it, there remain disagreements, points of contention. But where there is mutual understanding, then no questions, disagreements or contention remain - expressed or unexpressed. Where no contention remains, is it that we each see our own understanding reflected by what the other says? Of course, we don’t have to question anything together ... but we do.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 03 Nov 2017 #50
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 756 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
You say, "Only if they have both seen the same fact". Yes, that is the question. Can we "know" whether we are seeing the same fact? Can I "know" whether I myself understand what I think I understand?

These are truly 'uncharted waters' Huguette. Discover what you can and share it if you care to. That is all we can do here with each other, I'd say...and that it is very important.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 04 Nov 2017 #51
Thumb_img-0590 Mina Martini Finland 162 posts in this forum Offline

Dan: But no words can 'help' us to 'see' but they can be useful to point out where we go 'wrong'.

Mina: Yes, very good!

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 31 - 51 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.)