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

The ending of content of consciousness IS the ending of consciousness


Displaying all 23 posts
Page 1 of 1
Fri, 03 Nov 2017 #1
Thumb_img-0590 Mina Martini Finland 162 posts in this forum Offline

Dear Clive and all,

Taking up a part of another thread as a new one, to give it again more space, because of the absolute importance of returning back to innocence which is our true nature.

Clive says in another thread: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.

Mina: That very recognition you mention in your last sentence IS the creation of the duality! -Do not step apart from it to look at it as if separate, do not create it! That is why it is created! And when I say 'do not step apart from it', I do not talk to ANY part of the consciousness in you, put together and held together by knowledge.

Clive:*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'

Mina: Yes, it is clear that all those questions above mean the same. But this is still on the surface.

They 'mean the same' means that they share the same CONTENT more or less, yes? The question come from the content of consciousness, yes, so they express content.

To whom or what is this content important?

Who is asking all these questions you pose?

Content wondering if content can end, yes?

What has actually happened when asking those questions?

Has not the limitation taken one more step, by the very asking of the questions concerning its own ending?

Has it not deceived itself by continuing, even if appearing contentwise as if it was interested in its own ending?

What happens if we do not give ANY attention to the limited content? Can the content, which IS the consciousness, survive that total attention?

(no it cannot. but each must discover for themselves.)

Content/consciousness exists only TO an idea of someone, only when the thinker and thought appear separate.

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 03 Nov 2017 #2
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2040 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
Has it not deceived itself by continuing, even if appearing contentwise as if it was interested in its own ending?

Yes...to that and the above few sentences.

Mina Martini wrote:
What happens if we do not give ANY attention to the limited content? Can the content, which IS the consciousness, survive that total attention?

That's a big 'if', as the saying goes. The content pops up, right? Now, are you implying it can be ignored? Not sure what you're saying in the first sentence, Mina. How did 'total attention' come in when the content was active....a moment of craving or worry or anger, for example? Hope you don't mind my questions.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 04 Nov 2017 #3
Thumb_img-0590 Mina Martini Finland 162 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
What happens if we do not give ANY attention to the limited content? Can the content, which IS the consciousness, survive that total attention?

Tom:That's a big 'if', as the saying goes. The content pops up, right? Now, are you implying it can be ignored? Not sure what you're saying in the first sentence, Mina. How did 'total attention' come in when the content was active....a moment of craving or worry or anger, for example? Hope you don't mind my questions.

Mina: Not minding your questions, and that really means profoundly and fundamentally that the mind/thought is not getting involved with them. It is the mind/thought/consciousness and its content, that is asking them.

This does not mean rejection or arrogance, but it means exactly what was said about not giving ANY attention to the limited content. This is the same as the total attention that is talked about.

(if there was any rejection, arrogance, any reaction, any ignoring something, that would be the content already, the thinker and the thought creating themselves and this is not what is talked about)

Can we please not take any step in the world of belief so that it is not created at all?

Can the total attention be let to come in, instead of the acitivity of the mind?

(this is no theoretical question really, no question in time, it expects no answer from the mind, but only acts as a living invitation to really being that attention)

(you ask 'how did total attention come in when the content was active, but instead of being this attention, you are turning it into more mind and time and speculation, let us do it instead)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 04 Nov 2017 #4
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2040 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
Can we please not take any step in the world of belief so that it is not created at all?

Not sure how you're using the word belief, Mina? Possibly you are including conclusion...knowledge...opinion...as well. That's the only way to observe (in the sense that K uses the word) ANY problem or conflict...to learn about it free of conclusions. Otherwise one is only thinking about it...imposing one's ideas onto it, like the parent trying to control or shape the child to go into a certain direction. 'Me' vs the problem....observer divided from observed....thinker from thought.

Mina Martini wrote:
Can the total attention be let to come in, instead of the acitivity of the mind?

That's a question that the mind can't answer, obviously. If one is obsessed with a particular question or challenge, the mind may indeed be active, right? If there's some crisis, for example. My car won't start and I need to go to work. Obviously the mind is active, thinking 'what can I do? If I miss another day of pay, I'll not have enough money for rent.' Or if I get fired from my job and will not have money for next month's rent. Similarly, if my wife suddenly decides to leave me, my mind may indeed be VERY active...my emotions churning. Can attention be 'let to come in'? you ask. And I asked above in another post: "How did 'total attention' come in when the content was active....a moment of craving or worry or anger, for example?" In such a situation that would perhaps be just another thought. "I need this attention that Mina spoke of so I can solve my emotional crisis", one may say to oneself. In such moments that attention usually alludes us because it's just an idea. Perhaps, like I often did when younger, I just go outside for a smoke...or turn on the TV to get some respite from my internal strife. Just telling what my life experience has been. I'm sure others can relate similar experiences. When the mind/emotions are churning one often takes the nearest escape route because one only knows struggling against the problem...trying to overcome it or solve it by thinking and more thinking, which wears one out....exhausts one. You're saying that there's another way. All the old ways have failed us. The mind normally makes this into just another effort to make...another goal in time...a struggle. "I must strive to be attentive." Can we be aware of the ways of our own thinking? Of the ways in which thought looks for answers as if it/I can be objective...an objective analyzer separate from the problem? Always moving within it's own limited experience and memory...the limited content of 'psychological' knowledge...the known...belief, opinion, conclusion?

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Sat, 04 Nov 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 04 Nov 2017 #5
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2040 posts in this forum Offline

Good questions, Dan in #5. Will come back to this later, time permitting.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 05 Nov 2017 #6
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2040 posts in this forum Offline

In response to Dan's post #5 I came across this today on the QOTD from K. Perhaps I'll start a new thread with it, time permitting. Here's the excerpt:

"We [also] discussed why we do not see the depth of such a serious problem as the thinker and the thought are one, whether it is because we are asleep, or because we don't want to go deeply into the matter, as, if we do it will mean a revolution in thinking and therefore in action. If the thinker and the thought are one, the thinker has to alter himself fundamentally, and not merely the frame of his picture which is thinking. So, the thinker plays an insidious and clever trick on himself and separates himself from the thought and then does something about thought.

To discuss this, you must find out what desire is and how desire or craving arises. Desire comes through perception, contact, sensation and identification. So there is the 'me', the person who chooses(one thought over another). The 'me', the thinker, is born our of desire, and he does not exist previous to desire. In your everyday experience, the thinker is separate from the thought, i.e. the thought is outside you as it were, and you can do something about it, you can modify it and recondition it. Is the thinker really separate from the thought?"

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Sun, 05 Nov 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 05 Nov 2017 #7
Thumb_img-0590 Mina Martini Finland 162 posts in this forum Offline

Mina:>What happens if we do not give ANY attention to the limited content? Can the content, which IS the consciousness, survive that total attention?

Dan:Mina I take it that you meant, can it survive a total lack of attention?

Mina: "What happens if we do not give ANY attention to the limited content", in other words, perhaps clearer ones, is to say: "What happens to the mind when the mind is absolutely still, makes no move." (it disappears) This is the same as 'no attention of the limited kind, which is thought focused on thought, makes a move.'

So, the total attention that is talked of, IS the total lack of the limited attention of thought. So, only attention (no mind, no content, no consciousness, no stream) is there at such a timeless moment.

Dan:>Something related? This "content of consciousness" which we feel is our own isn't actually is it?

Mina:No, it isn't. The seeing that it is not our own, that nothing is our own, that there is no owner or thinker, is the ending of that limited concsciousness since it exists only AS an illusion of the ME and MY OWN. So, when the identification with the content or past ends, the whole stream ends in essence, not just a part. The spiritual awakening to this Reality is therefore always a universal awakening, affecting and regarding all. It is the very realisation that one IS all. No separation between observer and observed, therefore no observer or observer which can only exist in separation.

Dan: Though it is made up of the memories and experiences of 'one', the 'me', the content/consciousness is similar, the same, as that of everyone. The analogy was of a "river" or "stream". The 'personalized' content creates the illusion of an 'individual' separate from the others... Unless the identification with the content or past ends (dying to the known?) the 'stream' continues.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 05 Nov 2017 #8
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 399 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
Hope you don't mind my questions.

I would like to know, if you don't mind, what feeling made you to add this sentence at the end of your post ... please.

"When i talk to audiences, they know what i'm talking about ... another thing is that they do something about it" - K. Brockwood Park (Making ideas of the Teaching)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 05 Nov 2017 #9
Thumb_img-0590 Mina Martini Finland 162 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
This moves you right into the 'lion's mouth' and you are there, right in the middle of whatever, whoever you are in that moment.

Mina: Wonderful. Let us all be guided to the lion's mouth, to places and people where any possibly hidden corners of the mind as past, as hurt, as fear, as judgement, as guilt, as any psychological continuation and accumulation which is neurosis, will be exposed to the light of full awareness. Let us be the silent awareness and witness of this healing process, for all. This has been my prayer these times, for oneself and all inseparably.

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 05 Nov 2017 #10
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 399 posts in this forum Offline

I would like to know, if you don't mind, Mina ...

What is the difference in the entity that put this question:

Mina Martini wrote:
Can the total attention be let to come in, instead of the acitivity of the mind?

And the one that put these other questions?

Clive Elwell wrote:
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'

What makes you think/feel/perceive that one is posed beyond mind and its content as thought while the others are in the field of mind and its content as thought?

"When i talk to audiences, they know what i'm talking about ... another thing is that they do something about it" - K. Brockwood Park (Making ideas of the Teaching)

This post was last updated by Juan E Sun, 05 Nov 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 05 Nov 2017 #11
Thumb_img-0590 Mina Martini Finland 162 posts in this forum Offline

Tom to Mina:

Hope you don't mind my questions.

Juan:I would like to know, if you don't mind, what feeling made you to add this sentence at the end of your post ... please.

Mina: Tom said those words to me, right? I was also wondering about what feeling was behind them, they felt odd. Was there perhaps fear behind? (hopefully not!) Tom can say more..

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 05 Nov 2017 #12
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 399 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
"How did 'total attention' come in when the content was active

This is really a fundamental question to go into ... There's everything included in it.

"When i talk to audiences, they know what i'm talking about ... another thing is that they do something about it" - K. Brockwood Park (Making ideas of the Teaching)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 05 Nov 2017 #13
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 399 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
Tom said those words to me, right?

Right, but it was him who said it, so i asked to him alone.

Mina Martini wrote:
I was also wondering about what feeling was behind them, they felt odd.

Why then, you didn't started your next answering post asking him the why of that sentence before you continued with the rest of your post ... Would not be that, a real empathy with the person with whom you're talking? ... Would not be more important to know what was the feeling behind before talking about "Not minding your questions..." and all the rest?

"When i talk to audiences, they know what i'm talking about ... another thing is that they do something about it" - K. Brockwood Park (Making ideas of the Teaching)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 05 Nov 2017 #14
Thumb_img-0590 Mina Martini Finland 162 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
What makes you think/feel/perceive that one is posed beyond mind and its content as thought while the others are in the field of mind and its content as thought?

Mina: But I do not feel such a thing! :-) You say that I am feeling that, but I am not! :-)

Look...wow, I love this, this is interesting, this is passion...

wait

It is thought/mind/consciousness/content/image that IS the experience of division. Only in this limited experience, which IS division, is there 'you' and 'others' as separate. Only in this division is it possible to think that "what i write is beyond the mind" but "what clive says is in the mind." Of course none of such dividing nonsense is true!

For and in intelligence there is no me or others to begin with, as psychologically separate. This does not mean that there would be no seeing or undretanding of how the mind/content works, in oneself or others. In this understanding again the observation of oneself and others is undivided, one.

Do you see the implications, the assumptions of division, that are in your very question?

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 05 Nov 2017 #15
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 399 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
But I do not feel such a thing! :-) You say that I am feeling that, but I am not! :-)

I used three options in my question, why do you decided to get this one and discard the other two to answer my question?

Mina Martini wrote:
Do you see the implications, the assumptions of division, that are in your very question?

And you in yours?!

"When i talk to audiences, they know what i'm talking about ... another thing is that they do something about it" - K. Brockwood Park (Making ideas of the Teaching)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 05 Nov 2017 #16
Thumb_img-0590 Mina Martini Finland 162 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
Mina:>Tom said those words to me, right?

Juan:Right, but it was him who said it, so i asked to him alone.

Mina: Hey Juan, now realising that you have probably misunderstood my sentence above! It was a purely factual observation, not any personal involvement in it, as 'it was TO ME that Tom said...'..:-) :-) Just a matter of factual clarity!

Mina Martini wrote:

I was also wondering about what feeling was behind them, they felt odd.

Juan:Why then, you didn't started your next answering post asking him the why of that sentence before you continued with the rest of your post ... Would not be that, a real empathy with the person with whom you're talking? ... Would not be more important to know what was the feeling behind before talking about "Not minding your questions..." and all the rest?

Mina: :-) The reply to Tom wrote itself, at the moment of being about to say that of course I do not mind any questions, there came a powerful insight from that very 'I hope you do not mind my questions', which had to do with the act of minding things, reacting to things with the mind. The power of that insight was all there was and it wrote itself to be shared fully with others, going to the core of it. Of course there is no minding the questions, they have to be posed. for as long as questions arise, and undone, negated, in understanding. That is the work in the human consciousness that we are doing together.

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 05 Nov 2017 #17
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2040 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
Tom can say something perhaps..

It was nothing to be taken too seriously...my 'hope you don't mind'. If felt at times like you brushed aside some questions posed...don't really go deeply into them...don't really give your whole attention to the question posed, that's all. 'Not minding' was a poor choice of words.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 05 Nov 2017 #18
Thumb_img-0590 Mina Martini Finland 162 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
But I do not feel such a thing! :-) You say that I am feeling that, but I am not! :-)

Juan:I used three options in my question, why do you decided to get this one and discard the other two to answer my question?

Mina: It was no choice as such at all. You used perceive/think/feel as synonyms, right? and I meant all the three even if I used only one of the three words, sorry. So, in my reply the meaning is THOUGHT. (in case you use the three words differently.)

Mina Martini wrote:

MIna:>Do you see the implications, the assumptions of division, that are in your very question?

Juan:And you in yours?!

Mina: Look...when i say 'the assumption in YOUR question', that 'your' has no reality for this person, as an image, as you separate from me. It is not posed to YOU, it is only posed, to be shared as one.

Therefore it is odd that it is followed by 'and you in yours', as if the question to you had been posed from some separation..

The question is, can we see together where and when assumption, duality, psychological knowledge is born.

This is the real question! Not yours or mine, not you or me. Something completely shared, as one. And it is seen at the moment, that in this total sharing without any distance created by image, IS the ending of psychological knowledge.

In awe with all this

Love

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 05 Nov 2017 #19
Thumb_img-0590 Mina Martini Finland 162 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
It was nothing to be taken too seriously...my 'hope you don't mind'. If felt at times like you brushed aside some questions posed...don't really go deeply into them...don't really give your whole attention to the question posed, that's all. 'Not minding' was a poor choice of words.

Mina: Tom, this is what I suspected..did not feel anything 'serious' behind it...

No time for more, may come back with the 'brushing aside'-subject :-)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 05 Nov 2017 #20
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 399 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
It was no choice as such at all. You used perceive/think/feel as synonyms, right?

Not right, but absolutely wrong ... sorry :-) ... "/" was used as "or"

Mina Martini wrote:
The question is, can we see together where and when assumption, duality, psychological knowledge is born.

Perhaps if you had put this question from the very beginning all misunderstandings would have been non-existent ... think that i cannot see your face, nor listen to your voice when talking through this media and that the only fact is what we write, and 'you' has a meaning if it is only written and the other variables are lacking (and the same happens to you).

So, maybe you'll keep this in mind next time ;-)
More than anything, to avoid misunderstandings not only in those who read you but also in you reading others.

Respect

"When i talk to audiences, they know what i'm talking about ... another thing is that they do something about it" - K. Brockwood Park (Making ideas of the Teaching)

This post was last updated by Juan E Sun, 05 Nov 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 06 Nov 2017 #21
Thumb_img-0590 Mina Martini Finland 162 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
think that i cannot see your face, nor listen to your voice when talking through this media and that the only fact is what we write, and 'you' has a meaning if it is only written and the other variables are lacking (and the same happens to you).

Mina: Yes, there is extra challenge with the above, understood, but even without being together in body, it is completely possible to fully share with another, exactly because this is not about sharing bodies or minds, but meeting in that which is beyond both. Meeting in pure Love!

What you say above, prompts me to warmly invite you to a little gathering I organise in my home in the Turku of Finland from the 1st till the 3rd of December. (The invitation is for all honourable members of this forum of course also and it is mentioned in the event-section on this site)

m

This post was last updated by Mina Martini Tue, 07 Nov 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 07 Nov 2017 #22
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3818 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
The invitation is for all honourable member of this forum of course

Wondering about the dishonourable members

:-)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 07 Nov 2017 #23
Thumb_img-0590 Mina Martini Finland 162 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
The invitation is for all honourable member of this forum of course

Clive:Wondering about the dishonourable members

:-)

M: There are none for me!

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying all 23 posts
Page 1 of 1
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.)