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

is it the same?


Displaying all 27 posts
Page 1 of 1
Tue, 07 Nov 2017 #1
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3818 posts in this forum Offline

When Krishnamurti says:

"At the moment of anger there is no you, there is only anger"

is it the same as his saying:

"You ARE anger" ?

or fear, or jealousy, or greed, etc.

This post was last updated by Clive Elwell Tue, 07 Nov 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 07 Nov 2017 #2
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 590 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
When Krishnamurti says:

"At the moment of anger there is no you, there is only anger"
is it the same as his saying:
"You ARE anger" ? ...................
or fear, or jealousy, or greed, etc.

To me it is the same as: You are the world, all the possible expressions of the humankind.

The big questions, however, are, on what is this based .... and is this a necessity ??

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 07 Nov 2017 #3
Thumb_img-0590 Mina Martini Finland 162 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
"At the moment of anger there is no you, there is only anger"

is it the same as his saying:

"You ARE anger" ?

or fear, or jealousy, or greed, etc.

Mina: The same. Also the same as 'the observer is the observed' or 'you are the world' or 'the thinker is the thought' or 'the experiencer is the experienced'.

All these expressions try to point to the unity, to the oneness, and NOT to a 'you' who IS anger, who is the world, who is the thought, which is also in duality. Thought/mind/consciousness can only understand dualistic meanings, and never the essence of what the expressions point to.

What the above sentences really mean is only possible to realise when there is neither the observer nor the observed, no mind, no consciousness, because only then they are really one, in their very absence!

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 07 Nov 2017 #4
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 590 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
All these expressions try to point to the unity, to the oneness, and NOT to a 'you' who IS anger, who is the world, who is the thought, which is also in duality. Thought/mind/consciousness can only understand dualistic meanings, and never the essence of what the expressions point to.

What the above sentences really mean is only possible to realise when there is neither the observer nor the observed, no mind, no consciousness, because only then they are really one, in their very absence!

Mina,

Those expressions are the expressions of oneness and there is no trying in it.
As it's seen here: Its is a one way energy from oneness to diversity and what we
( the diversity in all its forms) are doing is swimming against the is stream,
which is the course of turbulence !

Another expression which could be valid is: You are LOVE,
and we are the stones in the river who prevent this expression !!

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 Tue, 07 Nov 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 07 Nov 2017 #5
Thumb_img-0590 Mina Martini Finland 162 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
Mina,

Those expressions are the expressions of oneness and there is no trying in it.
As it's seen here: Its is a one way energy from oneness to diversity and what we
( the diversity in all its forms) are doing is swimming against the is stream,
which is the course of turbulence !

Another expression which could be valid is: You are LOVE,
and we are the stones in the river who prevent this expression !!

Mina: Beautiful reply! Yes! Thank you!

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 08 Nov 2017 #6
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3818 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
The big questions, however, are, on what is this based .... and is this a necessity ??

Not understanding this, Wim.On what is WHAT based? And is WHAT a necessity? The question?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 08 Nov 2017 #7
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3818 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
What the above sentences really mean is only possible to realise when there is neither the observer nor the observed, no mind, no consciousness, because only then they are really one, in their very absence!

So what was the point in K repeatedly making such statements? Presumably he was talking to audiences who were part of the thinker/thought duality. If they could only realise the truth when they were not in that duality then it had no meaning to talk of it. Yet K did talk of it, over and over again, in the minutest details. He must have considered there was some chance of people seeing through the illusion, with the help of his words.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 08 Nov 2017 #8
Thumb_img-0590 Mina Martini Finland 162 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
So what was the point in K repeatedly making such statements? Presumably he was talking to audiences who were part of the thinker/thought duality. If they could only realise the truth when they were not in that duality then it had no meaning to talk of it. Yet K did talk of it, over and over again, in the minutest details. He must have considered there was some chance of people seeing through the illusion, with the help of his words.

Mina: I am not saying that 'there is no point in making such statements'. No conclusion, no idea is drawn.

"If they could only realise the truth when they were not in that duality then it had no meaning to talk of it", you say. -That, for me, sounds like a conclusion, an idea.

Of course the reason that these fundamental issues are being expressed in words or talk, (talking how it is here for this person) is in order to spread it in human consciousess. When I say 'in order to', I do not mean any intention separate from the expression itself. So, in other words, I do not mean any thinker doing something.

We are talking of understanding the nature of our minds, which are in duality, and that is the realisation of truth. So, "duality" and "truth" are not really separate, and that exactly is what self-realisation is about. You talk of them as if separate, and that is exactly because of the division between the observer and the observed.

So, since at the heart of duality itself lies oneness which only is real, there can be a profound transcendental meaning in the 'talking to people who are in duality'.

This post was last updated by Mina Martini Wed, 08 Nov 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 08 Nov 2017 #9
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 590 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:

Wim Opdam wrote:

The big questions, however, are, on what is this based .... and is this a necessity ??

Not understanding this, Wim.
On what is WHAT based? And is WHAT a necessity? The question?

Hi Clive,

Yes this is the difficulty with using one-liners.
So let me try to explain it with more words, which are very shortcoming as a tool
to explain and so will may be lead to more or less misunderstanding.

Hearing this one-liner all we have is interpretation

It’s clear that oneness is based on ‘Nothing’ so anything
what is used to explain is thin air, so to speak.
My question: 'on what is this based ?' is on the interpretation and the necessity
follows from there... with all the possibilies of thought involved in it...
however subtle.....

Even those words: ‘ You are the world’ could be based on forming an idea.

Take for example the one who take it personally and have an idea of what it means
- makes it into a personal thing: ‘I am the World’.
BY and At that very instance, duality is coming in, splitting it up in ‘ I / WE ‘ and ‘Them’.

The word ‘You’ as well as ‘The World’ are used as well as for the ‘physical’
as well as for the ‘mental’ order, but in those different orders have
total different meanings.
The subtlety is in seeing those differences while listening without interfering.

So everything what is said can be understood on different levels, personal,
intellectual, mentally or ‘as a whole’…..
as well as misunderstood !.

Is seeing and accepting that in every communication,
is that not very subtle changing the world also without even a goal in sight ??

So a proper interpretation needs a solid foundation
and it is necessary to get in touch with the truth.

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 08 Nov 2017 #10
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 590 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Yet K did talk of it, over and over again, in the minutest details. He must have considered there was some chance of people seeing through the illusion, with the help of his words.

I'm very doubtful about this interpretation, Clive

Once K. was asked: ' What is the use of his Teaching ,', and replied with:
' What is the use of a flower, you see the beauty,
smell the sense of it.... or not.

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 Wed, 08 Nov 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 08 Nov 2017 #11
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3818 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote, in the "Is it the same" thread:
"If they could only realise the truth when they were not in that duality then it had no meaning to talk of it", you say. -That, for me, sounds like a conclusion, an idea.

Perhaps this point should be cleared up first. In fact I see it as so important that I will start a new thread on it, entitled "There are no conclusions"

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 09 Nov 2017 #12
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3818 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
So let me try to explain it with more words, which are very shortcoming as a tool
to explain and so will may be lead to more or less misunderstanding.

Indeed Wim :-). But let us persevere. If we both see how limited words/thoughts are, this in itself is shared understanding.

Wim Opdam wrote:
Even those words: ‘ You are the world’ could be based on forming an idea.

There are indeed many possible interpretations, and I have probably been involved in most of them in the course of my life.

Wim Opdam wrote:
So everything what is said can be understood on different levels, personal,
intellectual, mentally or ‘as a whole’…..
as well as misunderstood !.

Is there any ultimate judge of what is misunderstanding and what is understanding? Of right or wrong understanding? Any "judge-er" is the birth of yet more duality, is it not? And all judgements are from the past, and so limited, and so inadequate.

Wim Opdam wrote:
So a proper interpretation needs a solid foundation
and it is necessary to get in touch with the truth.

Well, I would like to hear more about what you consider a solid foundation, and what it means to get in touch with 'truth', whatever truth may be. Perhaps you would start a new thread for this, unless you see the issue as being directly related to my original question on this thread, I see the 'what is' of thought/feeling, or rather I AM the what is. Is this a foundation? The falseness of the thinker/thought duality is continually seen, is this a foundation? if so, foundation for what?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 09 Nov 2017 #13
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3818 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
To me it is the same as: You are the world, all the possible expressions of the humankind.

I AM conditioning. Conditioning is ME.

The enormity of this suddenly hits me. It means that there is no me that is conditioned.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 09 Nov 2017 #14
Thumb_img-0590 Mina Martini Finland 162 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
I AM conditioning. Conditioning is ME.

The enormity of this suddenly hits me. It means that there is no me that is conditioned.

Mina: Wow, yes!!! There is no you in any state, there is no observer and observed!

There is really no conditioning, no world created by it, in the seeing of this!

This post was last updated by Mina Martini Thu, 09 Nov 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 09 Nov 2017 #15
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 590 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
I AM conditioning. Conditioning is ME.

The enormity of this suddenly hits me.
It means that there is no me that is conditioned.

I can't help myself to make a joke first. Was it very painful ?? ;-)

Perhaps it's the mustard after the meal, but I still want to explain # 12.

Clive Elwell wrote:
If we both see how limited words/thoughts are, this in itself is shared understanding.

'In itself is Shared Understanding' that sounds much better than mutual understanding, isn't it !

Clive Elwell wrote:
Is there any ultimate judge of what is misunderstanding and what is understanding? Of right or wrong understanding? Any "judge-er" is the birth of yet more duality, is it not? And all judgements are from the past, and so limited, and so inadequate.

Methinks, if there is one, one is fallen back in the old trail of duality

Clive Elwell wrote:
Well, I would like to hear more about what you consider a solid foundation

To me the solid foundation isn't solid at all but very fragile and humble. Be aware of every trick thought can do to all the time.

I Go on later, diner is ready !!

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 09 Nov 2017 #16
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 590 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
and what it means to get in touch with 'truth', whatever truth may be.

This sounds as if one can do something to come in touch, but what was ment that Truth can touch you and after #13 this is as obvious as it can be but at the same time as vunrable as it can be, because by holding it you're back in the old track of conditioning or theoreticalization or .....

Clive Elwell wrote:
I see the 'what is' of thought/feeling, or rather I AM the what is.

It's taken that by using the capital letters ' I AM ' you're distinguish this psychological from the physical.

Is this a foundation? The falseness of the thinker/thought duality is continually seen, is this a foundation? if so, foundation for what?

I would put it different; the being aware of the danger of anything that throw you back in the duality: Thinker/thought, but maybe you ment te same.

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 09 Nov 2017 #17
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 590 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:

Clive Elwell wrote:

I AM conditioning. Conditioning is ME.
The enormity of this suddenly hits me.
It means that there is no me that is conditioned.

Mina: Wow, yes!!!
There is no you in any state, there is no observer and observed!

There is really no conditioning, no world created by it, in the seeing of this!

It really needs from my heart, but .......

Are these types of reactions not a sign as if something has been achieved ??

For ' Truth ' any confirmation and/or explination is superfluous, seems to me.

Feeling this like really very annoying to have this to say!

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

This post was last updated by Wim Opdam Thu, 09 Nov 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 09 Nov 2017 #18
Thumb_img-0590 Mina Martini Finland 162 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
Mina: Wow, yes!!!

There is no you in any state, there is no observer and observed!
There is really no conditioning, no world created by it, in the seeing of this!
It really needs from my heart, but .......

Wim:>Are these types of reactions not a sign as if something has been achieved ??

M: Words, whatever they are, that are uttered from time/thought/state/achievement/observer, carry such an implication that you say..but in timelessness there is no one to achieve anything ever, no matter what words timelessness speaks..

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 09 Nov 2017 #19
Thumb_img-0590 Mina Martini Finland 162 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
For ' Truth ' any confirmation and/or explination is superfluous, seems to me.

M: Right, all confirmation and explanations are by done thought, for thought.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 10 Nov 2017 #20
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3818 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
There

Mina Martini wrote:
There is really no conditioning, no world created by it, in the seeing of this!

My perception was that there is ONLY conditioning. But no entity who is conditioned. No entity in any way separate or distant from the conditioning. Conditioning being a state of the brain cells, following registration of experience.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 10 Nov 2017 #21
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3818 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
Perhaps it's the mustard after the meal,

Obviously a curious Dutch expression :-)

Wim Opdam wrote:
'In itself is Shared Understanding' that sounds much better than mutual understanding, isn't it !

Yes, ok.

Wim Opdam wrote:
To me the solid foundation isn't solid at all but very fragile and humble. Be aware of every trick thought can do to all the time.

Yes Wim, this is the essential basis of understanding. Understanding being an ever living thing, never knowledge. This awareness keeps us in the present moment.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 10 Nov 2017 #22
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3818 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
It's taken that by using the capital letters ' I AM ' you're distinguish this psychological from the physical.

No, I use capitals for emphasis, to indicate how I might speak the words. I will stick to bold italics in the future, like this

Wim Opdam wrote:
I would put it different; the being aware of the danger of anything that throw you back in the duality: Thinker/thought, but maybe you ment te same.

It becomes irrelevant how I meant things, truth (what is so) has to be continually seen afresh, no?

This post was last updated by Clive Elwell Fri, 10 Nov 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
2 days ago #23
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 399 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
When Krishnamurti says:

"At the moment of anger there is no you, there is only anger"

is it the same as his saying:

"You ARE anger" ?
or fear, or jealousy, or greed, etc.

I've read the whole thread, and ... how is it that nobody, before trying to answer Clive's question, seems not to have asked him/herself if there's any 'anger' divided from 'you' at all? ... I mean, if at the moment of anger there's no you, how is it that there's anger? ... Therefore, "you are anger" is merely an illusory image in which thought, as 'you', entertains itself believing that it is experiencing whtat those words seem to expres ... when it is just living an illusion ... Simply because if there's no you at the moment of anger, 'you' cannot be anger at all.

"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
2 days ago #24
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3818 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
I've read the whole thread .......,

Thanks for coming in on this one, Juan.

Is it that in:

"At the moment of anger there is no you, there is only anger"
and
"You ARE anger" ?

the word “you” is carrying two different meaning? I may well be wrong, but let us explore a bit.

There is “you”, “me”, as a concept, a concept carried by the word. This concept is implied, as you write in your post, in the words “I am angry” It implies a separate and permanent “me” that has changing properties, experiences. The feelings like anger, jealousy, greed come and go, but the self endures – this is the generally accepted idea. However I don't see any evidence that it is true. All there really is, is the feeling of anger, greed, jealousy, a technical thought, a perception, arising and falling.

And this is the second meaning of “you”, contained in the phrase: “You are anger”. It refers to whatever is occupying the mind at any moment. This is an actuality, not a concept at all. This occupying thing/experiencing, gives the impression of "you-ness". No, impression is not the right word. The existence?

Does what I write here have any meaning at all?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
2 days ago #25
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 399 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Does what I write here have any meaning at all?

Of course!

Clive Elwell wrote:
The feelings like anger, jealousy, greed come and go, but the self endures – this is the generally accepted idea. However I don't see any evidence that it is true.

The evidence is the experiencer, otherwise there would be nobody talking about anger, jealousy, greed, and so on ... The experiencer is always there trying to identify (and deal with) the feeling felt: "this is anger and not jealousy", "This is neither jealousy nor anger, but greed", and so on ... Being sure that each one of those feelings have its own antidote: "This 'pill' for jealousy", "This one for anger", and so on ... But the experiencer is always there chattering, saying: "I'm angry", "I'm jealous", and so on ...

Now what K says is that there's experience but no experiencer identifying itself with such experience ... And thought, not understanding what this means, asks: "How can i look at experience without an experiencer?" ... And K's simple answer is: "There's no experience to look at because you're already this experience" ... But the thought, being even more puzzled with this answer, eventually invents the labels and the division between those labels, thinking that in this way it will be able to look at anger, jealousy, and so on and therefore to be eventually free of all those afflictions ... However, the fact is that it never becomes free of them because it is always giving them an existence divided from itself ... Hence conflict is always there, thought being incapable of ending it because that division.

Clive Elwell wrote:
And this is the second meaning of “you”, contained in the phrase: “You are anger”. It refers to whatever is occupying the mind at any moment.

I was going to comment on that, but i stopped writing and deleted everything i had written because the inside brought this question that i think summarizes everything i was writing: Can the experiencer look at its own experience? ... What do you think?

Time to go to bed ... Listen to you tomorrow.

"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 2 days ago.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
18 hours ago #26
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3818 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
Can the experiencer look at its own experience? ... What do you think?

This would only be possible if the experiencer had an existence separate from what it experiences. Does it? I will be definite and say NO!. Decades of observation have gone into seeing this truth. And one continues to observe.

But there one goes again - "one continues to observe". There is no "one" who observes. The very nature of human language, which is an integral part of thinking, presupposes the duality of subject-object relationships.

No amount of quoting others will “prove” this fact, it has to be discovered for oneself, and that is hard work. But it is interesting to see that others have tried to express this truth:

“Thought is the thought of thought”
…....... James Joyce, in “Ulysses”

“A thought comes when 'it' wants to, and not when 'I' want it to; so it is falsifying the fact to say the subject 'I' is necessary to the verb 'think'. We should not corrupt the actual way our thoughts come to us”
…........ Nietzsche

“We think we act, we think we think, but it is another or others who think or act in us: that is to say, timeless habits, archetypes, which passed on from one generation to the next, carry an enormous power and control from 'the well' of the past”
…....... Milan Kundera

I wonder if seeing this simple, fundamental fact, transformed the lives of these people? And if not, why not? It feels to me one can never be the same after seeing the truth that the observer is the observed, not separate from the observed.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
14 hours ago #27
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3818 posts in this forum Offline

Some very pertinent words from K on this issue:

     The questioner also wants to know who is aware. When you have a profound experience of any kind, what is taking place? When there is such an experience, are you aware that you are experiencing? When you are angry, at the split second of anger or of jealousy or of joy, are you aware that you are joyous or that you are angry? It is only when the experience is over that there is the experiencer and the experienced. Then the experiencer observes the experienced, the object of experience. At the moment of experience, there is neither the observer nor the observed: there is only the experiencing. Most of us are not experiencing. We are always outside the state of experiencing and therefore we ask this question as to who is the observer, who is it that is aware? Surely such a question is a wrong question, is it not? The moment there is experiencing, there is neither the person who is aware nor the object of which he is aware. There is neither the observer nor the observed but only a state of experiencing. Most of us find it is extremely difficult to live in a state of experiencing, because that demands an extraordinary pliability, a quickness, a high degree of sensitivity; and that is denied when we are pursuing a result, when we want to succeed, when we have an end in view, when we are calculating - all of which brings frustration. A man who does not demand anything, who is not seeking an end, who is not searching out a result with all its implications, such a man is in a state of constant experiencing. Everything then has a movement, a meaning; nothing is old, nothing is charred, nothing is repetitive, because what is is never old, The challenge is always new. It is only the response to the challenge that is old; the old creates further residue, which is memory, the observer, who separates himself from the observed, from the challenge, from the experience.

     You can experiment with this for yourself very simply and very easily. Next time you are angry or jealous or greedy or violent or whatever it may be, watch yourself. In that state, `you' are not. There is only that state of being. The moment, the second afterwards, you term it, you name it, you call it jealousy, anger, greed; so you have created immediately the observer and the observed, the experiencer and the experienced. When there is the experiencer and the experienced, then the experiencer tries to modify the experience, change it, remember things about it and so on, and therefore maintains the division between himself and the experienced. If you don't name that feeling - which means you are not seeking a result, you are not condemning, you are merely silently aware of the feeling - then you will see that in that state of feeling, of experiencing, there is no observer and no observed, because the observer and the observed are a joint phenomenon and so there is only experiencing.

From “the First and Last Freedom” pp 172-176

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying all 27 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.)