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

What does it mean to deny and yet live with what is?


Displaying posts 31 - 60 of 88 in total
Fri, 15 Dec 2017 #31
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 430 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
it was just the brain making a mistake

I think that you're missing something here ... The senses can not identify a thing at all, they are like the child that asks his/her parents "what is this?" ... So, without a consciousnes (which impliy memory) you could not identify someone as your best friend (even if later it is a mistake) and run to meet him/her ... Therefore there's a who, which means that my questions still have not been answered ...

Clive Elwell wrote:
In the light of your example, it was never a fact the stranger was my friend

Until it was seen as a mistake it was a fact for that consciousnes, otherwise you would have not run to meet him/her to say "Hi!" ... It's the same with our whole life, in which we run after persons and objects until we become 'wise' (whatever this word may mean) and realize the mistake ... and they are not precisely because our senses or our brains (or at least, not only by them alone)

So, once again: who created the fact, and who realized the mistake?


P.S.: sorry for the dely in answering, but i think everybody knows its Xmas time, and this for a postman means plenty of hours at work which translates into a lack of energy when getting at home to sit down and answer in the forum ...

Thanks god the weekend is here again! ;-)

"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
Fri, 15 Dec 2017 #32
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 430 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
The question as I'm seeing it is, can there be 'real' life with 'him'?

Yes, as long as he is used functionally to relate to this world and not to become something in this world ... Nobody has said ever that you can not have a 'real' life with a mere functional 'me' (when needed).

"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
Sat, 16 Dec 2017 #33
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3921 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
I can't say what it means to me but this reminds me of a question K. posed somewhere: " Can the brain free itself from its self-created bondage?"

I asked Dan yesterday what it meant to him, to “be in the stream”. And in the night some sort of answer to my own question came. Whether that answer – which was more of a feeling, a response - can be put down in words is another matter. What can be captured by words is always FROM the stream, is it not?

The stream is the collective experience of mankind for thousands of years; at least that is my understanding of it. That experience, all those experiences have somehow been registered as knowledge/memory, perhaps in the brain itself, perhaps elsewhere. But the essential point is that the stream consists of knowledge (I am including feeling in that word).

So whenever we are operating from knowledge, responding from knowledge, we are acting from that stream. Whenever we are reacting TO knowledge, we are acting from that stream. One could say we are captured, held, by knowledge. By the past, since all knowledge is the past, is it not? Normally we live, breath, and have our being in knowledge, and so we of the stream.

So to “step out of the stream” …...... actually I would like to do away with that phrase, since it suggests some deliberate action. Let us talk of “being free of the stream” instead. So be free of the stream really means to be free of knowledge. This, I suggest, is the “Freedom from the Known” K has talked of. It implies not being caught up in human affairs. Not to act from conclusion, not assumption, since all conclusions exist only in the stream. Not to act from patterns, habits.

That is all I can express at the moment.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 16 Dec 2017 #34
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3921 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
Until it was seen as a mistake it was a fact for that consciousnes,

This is not how I use the word "fact", Juan, as if something is a fact for one person and not for another. A fact is what actually happening, or what is actually happening (like the fact I am typing to you now, or I started this forum over two years ago). A fact does not rely on any interpretation

Juan E wrote:
... It's the same with our whole life, in which we run after persons and objects until we become 'wise'

What we run after are images, are they not? Which suggests that wisdom means (at least in part) not to be influenced by images, by projections of the brain.

Juan E wrote:

So, once again: who created the fact, and who realized the mistake?

I still don't see why you bring in a "who" into this process.

Yes, I guess as a postman you have a different perception of Christmas than most :-). Have a good relax.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 16 Dec 2017 #35
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 430 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
This is not how I use the word "fact", Juan, as if something is a fact for one person and not for another.

OK! ... I knew that this would happen, so let's go back for a while ...

You said (#22):

Clive Elwell wrote:
There is no “who” who created it, it was just the brain making a mistake. And when the mistake is realized there is no “who” who destroys the illusion – the brain just accepts new evidence of the senses, and corrects itself, no?

So you're saying that there's a 'me' on one side and a brain in another, and that both act on it's own, isn't it? ... So, the brain made the mistake and itself corrects its own mistake (both states with the only help of the senses according to you) ...

And 'you'? ... Are 'you' simply an spectator of all that? ... Is it the brain who make your legs run after your 'friend' and 'you' follow it as an slave trapped in a jail-case?

You see, if the brain is the one who perceives through the senses, and those are enough for it to correct its own mistakes what need is there for a 'me'? ... What need is there for meditation, or attending any teachings just to be 'free of the stream' (and so on) if 'you' have nothing to do with neither the mistake nor the correction of that mistake?

Therefore, if there's no who, 'you' have not dreamed 'your' dream, so why are 'you' talking about it? ... Or is your brain who's talking about it on 'your' behalf? ...

So, why don't we let our brains to discover it's own mistakes with the help of the senses finding those facts that do not depend on one or another's brain perceptions, given that there's not a 'who' and therefore also not a 'me' who perceives them?

Or perhaps would you say that there are two different perceptions, the one from the brain, and the one from a 'who' that doesn't depend on the brain (which according to you does not exist and therefore can't do any mistake, because being non-existent it can't see any fact at all)?

So, who converted in a real fact that which was a false perception after seeing that my friend never was there? ... Only the brain? ... Is only the brain 'who' sees those facts that are not "a fact for one person and not for another"?

"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 Sat, 16 Dec 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 17 Dec 2017 #36
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3921 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
So you're saying that there's a 'me' on one side and a brain in another, and that both act on it's own, isn't it? ...

No, I am not saying that at all. Not in the slightest. Have I said anything about a "me"? I thought I had denied the role of a me, and said it is just the brain/senses that are operating.

Juan E wrote:
You see, if the brain is the one who perceives through the senses, and those are enough for it to correct its own mistakes what need is there for a 'me'? ...

It may well be that here is no need for a me at all.

Juan E wrote:
Therefore, if there's no who, 'you' have not dreamed 'your' dream, so why are 'you' talking about it? ... Or is your brain who's talking about it on 'your' behalf? ...

Well, in one sense I am talking about it because you have taken the issue up with me :-)

Seems to me the word "I" is used in different ways. There is the ego-use of course, which is really illusion. And there is a convenient usage, usually referring to the body - "I went to the UK", "I am hungry", "I am feeling tired", etc.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 17 Dec 2017 #37
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 430 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Well, in one sense I am talking about it because you have taken the issue up with me :-)

No time to laugh, sorry ...
Better i use my time to investigate and enjoy my brand new Raspberry Pi 3B

"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
Tue, 19 Dec 2017 #38
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3921 posts in this forum Offline

Returning to my original post in this thread, which was concerned with K's words on the continual “wiping away” or negation of …..... of what? Of time really, of thought which is always of the past or the future. Of late it has been more meaningful for me to see this movement in terms of negation of the images that thought creates.

The images constitute fear, pleasure, and desire, don't they? These things only exist as images – we suddenly imagine some scene, some situation, some (imagined) experience, happening, and the image is associated with a sense of “me”. It will happen to “me”. And contained in the image is a sense it will be pleasant or unpleasant. We call the unpleasant-feeling image “fear”, and want to avoid it, and the pleasant-feeling image we want to move towards.

But how can one move towards an image? This is the whole problem with desire, isn't it? Because the image is not actual, and part of mind recognises that, we still need to “realise”, the image, make it come real, make it actual. And is this actually possible?

So many words, so much explanation, to describe an almost instantaneous movement in the mind! But the point is, can these images be negated as they arise, as K describes, so that they do not take hold, they do not dictate our actions, do not dominate our life? It seems to me this IS possible, but it implies that state of awareness that is so central to K's teachings.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 19 Dec 2017 #39
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 430 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
But the point is, can these images be negated as they aris

Those images can't be negated but only be seen as illusions ... Then they vanish together with that who sees them as real ... Own will has no power over those images, but many think it has ... Then they become frustrated when those images return, having thought that they had overcome them by simply negating them through will.

"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
Tue, 19 Dec 2017 #40
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 770 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
But the point is, can these images be negated as they arise, as K describes, so that they do not take hold, they do not dictate our actions, do not dominate our life?

Isn't it that as long as there is the 'desire' to 'negate' certain images and not the totality, there will be choice? The 'self' arises, doesn't it, when there is this psychological conflict between the 'fragments'? The self can't 'know' the "vastness" that lies outside its boundaries...and the brain totally resists the state of 'I really don't know'... the intellect 'feels' that it can/will find the answer, can solve the puzzle somehow, that it will come to it one day....but it can't and never will. Is it because the 'answer', the 'Freedom', lies in a different dimension? Is it that the 'answer' is the 'vastness' and the struggle and search to be 'free of the known' only continues and strengthens the self-created bondage?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Tue, 19 Dec 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 20 Dec 2017 #41
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 430 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Is it because the 'answer' lies in a different dimension?

Isn't the 'answer' in the 'question' itself? ... How can it lie in a different dimension, then? ... Maybe we should look for it very, very near, don't you think? ... On the other hand 'vastness' is just a word to be used by a 'me' to dream of an illusion ...

Therefore, if the 'answer' is in a different dimension from the me, this would made clear how strong the duality between question and answer is, or between negation and the thing being negated ... Which means that if such duality is there, nothing has been negated... yet ...despite the illusion.

Negation can only arise in the silent non-duality between the false and the seeing of the false ... So, paraphrasing the famous k's sentence: "the false is me, and i'm the false" ... Therefore, what is being negated if i divide myself from that non-duality in the negation?

Said k: “... to live with death in timeless silence

"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
Wed, 20 Dec 2017 #42
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3921 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
Those images can't be negated but only be seen as illusions ... Then they vanish together with that who sees them as real ... Own will has no power over those images,

Juan, we are in agreement - it is exactly this seeing images as illusions that IS the negation. This is what I meant by negation - not an act of will.

Yes, there is no effort in negation, no act of will, and I would say no intention to get anywhere, to achieve anything. That is the beauty of it - it is nothing to do with the 'me'. Seeing the false AS the false is the act of negation. Perhaps such seeing is the only pure action.

Juan E wrote:
, but many think it has ... Then they become frustrated when those images return, having thought that they had overcome them by simply negating them through will.

We ARE an image, are we not? Trying to overcome them means one image trying to overcome another one. The winner will always be an image!

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 20 Dec 2017 #43
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3921 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Isn't it that as long as there is the 'desire' to 'negate' certain images and not the totality, there will be choice...... etc?

Yes Dan, I follow all that you say. Perhaps I caused some confusion with my words "Can the images be negated as they arise". Please see my post #42 above. I was not implying that there needs to be a "negate-er".

Yes, your point about "the totality" is well taken. It is certainly not a matter of picking and choosing. One has to be prepared (not suggesting any preparation), one has to be willing (not suggesting any will), for the whole of the psychological structure to drop away. One cannot let some desires end, but keep others. One cannot hang on to certain pleasures, while negating others.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 20 Dec 2017 #44
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3921 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
The self can't 'know' the "vastness" that lies outside its boundaries...

Yes, because the self IS knowledge, isn't it. So all it can know is knowledge. It cannot touch the unknown, and this vastness, if it exists, must be unknown.

and the brain totally resists the state of 'I really don't know'...

Again, is this not because the brain is composed of knowledge, the known?

the intellect 'feels' that it can/will find the answer, can solve the puzzle somehow, that it will come to it one day....but it can't and never will.

The very fact that the intellect busies itself in trying to find an answer, and thinks at some level that it can, may be the precise factor in preventing the breakthrough into the vastness.

Is it that the 'answer' is the 'vastness' and the struggle and search to be 'free of the known' only continues and strengthens the self-created bondage?

Certainly the struggle and search just continues the bondage, One can say that it IS the bondage.

Is it because the 'answer', the 'Freedom', lies in a different dimension?

That seems …... likely.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 20 Dec 2017 #45
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 438 posts in this forum Offline

#38:

Clive Elwell wrote:
But how can one move towards an image? This is the whole problem with desire, isn't it? Because the image is not actual, and part of mind recognises that....

IS that the problem? Doesn’t the mind understand very well that the image is not the actual thing, that it can’t turn the image into the thing on the spot? The image is not the thing, but doesn’t the mind think that through effort and with the passage of time, it CAN acquire the desired thing or avoid the fear? Isn’t it the divided mind as “self” which thinks all that, the mind which is divided into “me” and “not-me”? Not the clear mind. Isn’t it this activity of image-making (e.g. “me” accomplishing, avoiding or fulfilling through time and effort, “me” remembering past pleasures, accomplishments and failures, and so on) which is the mental mechanism or process that divides the mind into “me” and “not-me”, that divides life into past, present and future, and that prevents fully experiencing the present moment? As long as I’m concentrated on these images and measuring them as true, I’m not experiencing “what is”, am I?

Isn’t “the problem” that the self which wants to move “towards” or “away from” an image ... IS itself part of the image? The image is complex, multi-faceted. The image is put together, assembled, produced, by the process which creates all the fragments - self, desire, effort and time - isn’t it? It is not just a one-dimensional picture. Time, self, desire and fear are part of it. It includes ... “me” who desires, desire, pleasure and fear, time which separates the present “me” from the future or past “me”, and so on. The “me”, the desire and the image of the object of desire, fear, etc., are all part of the same process or mental movement, aren’t they? There is no desirer without desire, no desire without a desirer, no desirer without time or fear or pleasure, no time or fear or pleasure without the desirer, no time without desire, and so on. These are part of any psychological image, aren’t they?

The imagined object of desire or fear also contains the image of “me”.

The remembered pleasure in Switzerland is pleasurable because “I” was there. I’m not just remembering a picture postcard. I was there then, I’m not there now. And in being attached to that memory, I’m avoiding what is.

And if the future is frightening, isn’t it because “I” am there (or my children are there) in the image of the projected future? In resisting that future psychologically, aren’t I avoiding what is?

To see this as fact (if it is fact) is not to say that I must detach myself from it through will. IS all this fact? And does seeing the nature and significance of self, time, desire, fear, etc., change anything? Does it matter? Is it another illusion?

This post was last updated by Huguette . Wed, 20 Dec 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 20 Dec 2017 #46
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 612 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
We ARE an image, are we not?

No, one have an image about ourselves which we are not !!

i've done some studywork lately and we don't accept that every movement - however small - is already a duality.
Movement can only exist with two entities, which are related to each other.
whether this is two thoughts or two objects, false or real ......
it does not matter at all !!!

I've read some basic physics at the site of " David Bohm society " (http://dbohm.com/)
and it became aware of what movement really is ...

The unpublished papers are realy interesting.

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, 20 Dec 2017 #47
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 770 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Dan: "and the brain totally resists the state of 'I really don't know'..".

Clive: Again, is this not because the brain is composed of knowledge, the known?

I wasn't thinking of the brain that way when I wrote that but in the way that K. had said that the brain was "infinite". Which I took as its unrealized capacity, its unused capability. (In the sense of a 'receiver'?) But the brain conditioned with this limiting search for certainty and security (psychologically) feels vulnerable with the "I don't know" state. It has to be active, to 'know', 'understand' or at least 'believe'... simply 'not knowing' (with no expectation to ultimately know or understand ) is too threatening. It is the 'unknown' that is the threat or as you have commented in the past, it is the image of the unknown that it fears. But the fact remains, despite the fears - we really don't know... Do we?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Thu, 21 Dec 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 21 Dec 2017 #48
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3921 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
IS that the problem? Doesn’t the mind understand very well that the image is not the actual thing, that it can’t turn the image into the thing on the spot?

Clive: If it realised that fully, why would it form images, become attached to images at all?

The image is not the thing, but doesn’t the mind think that through effort and with the passage of time, it CAN acquire the desired thing or avoid the fear?

Clive: This is be the assumption of the image-making process.

Isn’t it the divided mind as “self” which thinks all that, the mind which is divided into “me” and “not-me”? Not the clear mind.

Clive: What is this “clear mind”, Huguette? Feeling at the moment that I do not know/recognise such a thing at all.

Isn’t it this activity of image-making (e.g. “me” accomplishing, avoiding or fulfilling through time and effort, “me” remembering past pleasures, accomplishments and failures, and so on) which is the mental mechanism or process that divides the mind into “me” and “not-me”, that divides life into past, present and future, and that prevents fully experiencing the present moment? As long as I’m concentrated on these images and measuring them as true, I’m not experiencing “what is”, am I?

Clive: An image is not “what is”, no. An image is imaginary, it is an idea projected by the mind. And as you say, this projection involves time. It is the very creation of time, in fact, past or future.

Isn’t “the problem” that the self which wants to move “towards” or “away from” an image ... IS itself part of the image?
The image is complex, multi-faceted. The image is put together, assembled, produced, by the process which creates all the fragments - self, desire, effort and time - isn’t it? It is not just a one-dimensional picture. Time, self, desire and fear are part of it. It includes ... “me” who desires, desire, pleasure and fear, time which separates the present “me” from the future or past “me”, and so on. The “me”, the desire and the image of the object of desire, fear, etc., are all part of the same process or mental movement, aren’t they? There is no desirer without desire, no desire without a desirer, no desirer without time or fear or pleasure, no time or fear or pleasure without the desirer, no time without desire, and so on. These are part of any psychological image, aren’t they?

Clive: I am “looking at this” this Huguette – whatever that phase means. The truth or significance of your words do not strike me immediately. Or maybe the I see the various parts of what you see, but I am not seeing the sense of them as an integrated whole. Will continue to ponder.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 21 Dec 2017 #49
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 438 posts in this forum Offline

re 48

Huguette . wrote:
IS that the problem? Doesn’t the mind understand very well that the image is not the actual thing, that it can’t turn the image into the thing on the spot?

Clive Elwell wrote:
If it realised that fully, why would it form images, become attached to images at all?

The problem, as I see it, is not that the mind forms images, but that it gives a value to them and does not see all their components, the entire process.

If the mind is viewing the “image” as being merely one-faceted - e.g. the one-dimensional pleasure in Switzerland or the desire for a promotion, and so on - it is missing the full significance or process of the image, isn't it? In restricting the image to the one aspect, isn't the mind "leaving out" time and self? Aren't time and self an integral part of the image?

There is no choice or effort involved in the formation of images, is there? It happens without volition, doesn’t it? It is in attributing a value to the image that the problem arises. It is in attributing value that the mind is "creating" self and continuity-time. Can there be a denial (wiping away) of the value attributed to the image, or is there an entrenching of the value and therefore an expansion or continuation of it, of self and time?

I don’t know if I’m explaining my meaning clearly. Of course, I also don’t know if I’m “right” :0)

Huguette:
Isn’t it the divided mind as “self” which thinks all that, the mind which is divided into “me” and “not-me”? Not the clear mind.

Clive:
What is this “clear mind”, Huguette? Feeling at the moment that I do not know/recognise such a thing at all.

When I say “clear mind”, I don’t mean clear through time. I don’t mean that clarity is “permanent”. I mean that in the moment, there can be clarity if there is no “denial” - denial of a different kind here, “denial” meaning pretense or lying to oneself. For example, I’m feeling ashamed, afraid, angry, conceited, desire, and so on --- to see the fact of it in the moment is clarity in that moment, isn’t it? There is no division in that, is there? No analysis, justification, explanation, pretense, and so on, in that, is there? Isn't that clear perception?

Where there is such clarity in the moment, where value is not attributed to images as they arise, and so on, then can one “attempt, without effort, to live with death, in timeless silence”? I'm asking, not saying it's so.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 22 Dec 2017 #50
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3921 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
No, one have an image about ourselves which we are not !!

What I take your words to mean, Wim, is that we are not the content of the image, the thought. Which I go along with- an image is an imagined thing, a projection of thought, a description, and the description is never the described. And yes, it seems the reason the mind forms psychological images is to try to be other that it is -implying that it is dissatisfied with what it actually is - or thinks it is.

I am considering the words I wrote, and to which you responded - “We are an image, are we not”. I think I hold to that. Any suggestion of a “me” in the mind is always an image created by thought. But I don't want to dismiss the depths of this question.

Wim Opdam wrote:
i've done some studywork lately and we don't accept that every movement - however small - is already a duality.
Movement can only exist with two entities, which are related to each other.
whether this is two thoughts or two objects, false or real ......
it does not matter at all !!!

I've read some basic physics at the site of " David Bohm society " (http://dbohm.com/)
and it became aware of what movement really is ...

The unpublished papers are realy interesting.

This is all very interesting, Wim, and thanks for sharing your research, but I don't have the time at the moment to go into it. Perhaps I will return to your mail later.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 22 Dec 2017 #51
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3921 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
The problem, as I see it, is not that the mind forms images, but that it gives a value to them and does not see all their components, the entire process.

Yes, I am following you down to:

I don’t know if I’m explaining my meaning clearly. Of course, I also don’t know if I’m “right” :0)

And I think I understand. Certainly the image-creating happens without choice, effort, volition.

When you ask:

Huguette . wrote:
Can there be a denial (wiping away) of the value attributed to the image, or is there an entrenching of the value and therefore an expansion or continuation of it, of self and time?

When talking of "value attributed" to the image, you are not suggesting that some images are more useful than others, are you? We are talking of psychological images here, ones involving the self.

Would you say that this denial, wiping away, negation of the image happens naturally when the image is simply seen for what it is - ie an image, something imaginary, not actual? This does seem to happen if there is alertness. This seeing seems to encompass all the implications of image, the realisation that the image is, as you say, multi-faceted, very much encapsulated with time?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 22 Dec 2017 #52
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3921 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Which I took as its unrealized capacity, its unused capability. (In the sense of a 'receiver'?)

Interesting observation that, Dan "in the sense of a receiver"

Dan McDermott wrote:
But the fact remains, despite the fears - we really don't know... Do we?

That is right, we really don't know, despite all our playing about with knowing, our attempts to know. And that is a very purifying thing to see.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 22 Dec 2017 #53
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3921 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
When I say “clear mind”, I don’t mean clear through time. I don’t mean that clarity is “permanent”. I mean that in the moment, there can be clarity if there is no “denial” - denial of a different kind here, “denial” meaning pretense or lying to oneself. For example, I’m feeling ashamed, afraid, angry, conceited, desire, and so on --- to see the fact of it in the moment is clarity in that moment, isn’t it? There is no division in that, is there? No analysis, justification, explanation, pretense, and so on, in that, is there? Isn't that clear perception?

Yes, that is clear, Huguette.

Huguette . wrote:
Where there is such clarity in the moment, where value is not attributed to images as they arise, and so on, then can one “attempt, without effort, to live with death, in timeless silence”? I'm asking, not saying it's so.

It seems to me that this is a natural state, and is revealed as such, when all the mental striving is seen for the illusion that it is.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 22 Dec 2017 #54
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 770 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Interesting observation that, Dan "in the sense of a receiver"

It is interesting to ponder that the brain is an unlimited 'receiver' with "infinite" possibilities that has crippled itself with the 'I' process.

This also connects for me with what K has called the "art of listening"...that the self/intellect 'grabs' instantaneously the words being heard (or read) and 'bars' them from reaching another 'deeper', quieter place in the brain. The 'art' then it seems to me, would be to allow the superficial 'hearing' (brain activity) to not become active or 're-active' to what is being said (or written) in the moment.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Fri, 22 Dec 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 22 Dec 2017 #55
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 438 posts in this forum Offline

#51:

Clive Elwell wrote:
Would you say that this denial, wiping away, negation of the image happens naturally when the image is simply seen for what it is - ie an image, something imaginary, not actual?

#53:

Clive Elwell wrote:
...when all the mental striving is seen for the illusion that it is.

As long as the image includes all its components: the fragmented or multi-faceted nature of the image, time, self, the value attributed to it, etc., and the "mental striving" which perpetuates it. Wouldn’t you say? It’s not just the picture postcard aspect which is imaginary. Self, time and value are imaginary. I can see that someone might have an objection to the aspect of “value”. If, for example, I call someone “evil” or “kind”, or I call an experience “pleasant” or “frightening”, is that label the truth?

Isn’t the value that is attributed to a thing, a person or behaviour, a reflection of “me” rather than an accurate reflection of the thing, person or behaviour being evaluated? It is not “evil” or “beautiful” because I label it. It is not “not evil” or “not beautiful” because I DON’T label it. The thing evaluated speaks for itself. It is what it is, whether I label it or not, whether I memorialize it or not, condemn it or not, praise it or not. Not labeling it doesn't mean that I approve, condone, condemn or disapprove, as the case may be. By labeling it, the mind is reinforcing, strengthening and continuing “me”, the status quo, the past, the tradition, the division, and so on, isn't it?

Added:
Which doesn't mean that I mustn't or shouldn't ever label anything "awesome, awful", and so on ... As long as there is awareness, understanding, the label does not become fixed or authoritative, as I see it.

This post was last updated by Huguette . Fri, 22 Dec 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 22 Dec 2017 #56
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 612 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
“We are an image, are we not”.

Clive, why do you think that in the reply the word "one" is used instead of " We "" ??

That's a very distinctive and intentional difference !!

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
Sat, 23 Dec 2017 #57
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3921 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
As long as the image includes all its components: the fragmented or multi-faceted nature of the image, time, self, the value attributed to it, etc., and the "mental striving" which perpetuates it.

Sorry Huguette, this is not a complete sentence, so I cannot follow what you are saying.

Huguette . wrote:
Isn’t the value that is attributed to a thing, a person or behaviour, a reflection of “me” rather than an accurate reflection of the thing, person or behaviour being evaluated?

This is so, certainly - in fact this is what I was just expressing to Wim in my post #15 in the Silver Platter thread.

Huguette . wrote:
By labeling it, the mind is reinforcing, strengthening and continuing “me”, the status quo, the past, the tradition, the division, and so on, isn't it?

Yes, and I feel this applies very much to the labelling, the defining, the judgements, put on one's self. They all strengthen, continue, the self image. And IS there any self with these self images? I would go further, and say all such knowing of oneself is the cause of all conflict, all confusion, all misery in oneself

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 23 Dec 2017 #58
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 438 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote: As long as the image includes all its components: the fragmented or multi-faceted nature of the image, time, self, the value attributed to it, etc., and the "mental striving" which perpetuates it.

Clive Elwell wrote: Sorry Huguette, this is not a complete sentence, so I cannot follow what you are saying.

Sorry Clive. It was in response to this:

Clive Elwell wrote:

Would you say that this denial, wiping away, negation of the image happens naturally when the image is simply seen for what it is - ie an image, something imaginary, not actual?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 28 Dec 2017 #59
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3921 posts in this forum Offline

One continues to observe this phenomena of image forming by the mind. I am not inferring a separate observer with those words.

Images somehow enter the mind, consciousness. It seems there are then two possibilities. They can fade away, die, without having had any apparent effect. Or they can take hold. They can act, have an effect, bring about some action or mental state. I thinking “taking hold” and “acting” mean the same thing in this respect. One might say that the image acts through the mind, is able to manifest through the mind. It cannot manifest if it fades away, dies first. When it acts, I would say that we are in a state of bondage. It is conditioning acting.

Several questions arise. One is, what determines whether an image acts, takes root, or not? Is awareness the factor?

If this the case, then a secondary question arises, what determines whether awareness is acting or not - if there IS a determining factor, that is?

And another question that seems relevant – where do images arise from? Is it the common human consciousness, the stream of consciousness? They seem connected with the senses, or the memory of the senses.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 28 Dec 2017 #60
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 438 posts in this forum Offline

Clive,

When you say, “Images somehow enter the mind, consciousness”, what do you mean? Isn’t the mind, consciousness, already a massive warehouse of images - memories consisting of the visual and the verbal, together with their associated emotions, opinions, ideas, beliefs, conceits, sorrows, pleasures, values, and so on? An image is not a flat, one-dimensional photograph. Don’t images arise out of consciousness? It's not that each new incident or event is a unique, disparate image. The image includes the sentimentality, the attachment, the hate, the fear, the moral judgment, the bias, the prejudice, the conceit, the arrogance, time, and so on. Those are all aspects of the image, aren’t they? If I have an image of someone I hate or love, the whole image of that person includes the hate, the love, time, and with each new incident involving that person, the image is expanded. What that hated or loved person does today is added to an already existing image, isn't it?

So an “image” is not just a one-dimensional picture. Something jostles memory. It could be a current event, a challenge, a question, a comparison with something similar, and so on. It could be a word association, a sound association ... something obvious, or nothing apparent. The fact that it has arisen is not the problem, as I see it. It is by accepting, giving value to, the component of judgement, value or measure, that I am continuing it, strengthening it, isn't it? If the mind sees ALL the facets of the image-making process, including the self-recrimination, self-condemnation, self-judgment, self-annoyance, conceit, self-congratulations, etc., which arise - if the mind sees and understands that game, it doesn’t play that game, does it? Isn't that what stops the image from “taking hold”? It is observed but no value is given to it, the time component is understood, so it doesn't take hold. It is denied in the sense K talked about with his Switzerland example ... as I understand it.

And if something totally new occurs, something totally unknown, totally unfamiliar, something which cannot be compared in any way to and by the past, then there is no existing image to retrieve and expand. When something new happens, at first there is just silence, isn’t there? Shock perhaps. The past cannot immediately evaluate, categorize or classify it. With the passage of time, the past-self-consciousness “makes sense of it”, adjusts it, measures it, attributes value to it, explains it, incorporates it into an existing category and it is no longer “new”. It’s part of the past. It is assimilated into and by the past. The past or consciousness has been expanded. Isn’t that how we “get used” to the new and unfamiliar things that happen?

I’m looking at it with you, not saying that’s how it is. Not sure about anything.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 31 - 60 of 88 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.)