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

We have to see what our our actual consciousness is


Displaying posts 31 - 60 of 69 in total
Thu, 11 Jan 2018 #31
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 572 posts in this forum Offline

"No division in matter"

As I see it every thing, all matter, as wave or particle is in contact with adjacent matter and so in contact thru this ajacency with all of the universe. It may even be that what seems local is at once in contact with everything else however distant. Scientific experiments have demonstrated nonlocality. The word continum may be used.

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Thu, 11 Jan 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 11 Jan 2018 #32
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 572 posts in this forum Offline

Another view: waves constantly expanding in spherical form interpenetrating all other waves. It seems the light from a star billions of light years away from us has come to us as such an expanding spehrical wave front, traveling for those billions of years the whole thing colapsing to a point just at that instant that it excites a single cell in the retna of ones eye.

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Fri, 12 Jan 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 11 Jan 2018 #33
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 572 posts in this forum Offline

K: "no division"

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 12 Jan 2018 #34
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 572 posts in this forum Offline

I wrote a reply here some time back (on one of these forums) which describes the relationship that dimensions have to each other. I can try to give you an abreviated version.

As i see it:

A line is a one dimensional field. Imagine a being living in such a field (as we go on we will see that this has in it a contradiction but it is usefull for now) There is not much to such a life. There are only two directions. Any two points can be marked on the line. There are points that lie in the space between these two and there are other points that are outside of that space. Which isn't space at all. Having no thickness a line is not there at all It exists only in that it exists in a higher dimensional space. There are no angles no curves. To us looking from the space from outside of the line there might be curves and angles in the line, but to our one dimensional being these are undetectable. There is no time there, time being of a higher dimension, and there really could be no such being. These things only are there when one adds more dimensions. If we add another dimension, a two dimensional space has in it some things that would be inconcievable to a one dimensional being. Angles and curves are possible. One can draw a picture. The whole of Euclidian geometry suddenly is there. As one adds dimensions one by one there are these completely unexpected things that come into being. Things that would be unthinkable to a being living in a space of one fewer dimensions. In three dimensions one can have a knot...something radically new, not seen to exist by a flat being living in only two dimensions, the field of topology is here, something inconceivable to a being living in a plane. There is a next dimension a four dimensional space. The new thing here is time. Einstein has demonstrated it and almost all physists agree that we live in such a four dimensional space. Here we can see clearly what is being pointed out by this word inconcieveable. No three dimensional being, no being not having this next dimension, not living in time, could concieve of the nature of existance in time in a fourth dimension. Well...there could actually be no such a being.

Going from one lesser dimension to one higher brings in a whole field of things that can not even be imagined without exposure to that step. In four space...in timespace there is the whole field we know as science..cause and effect.. Time is of this field but,also matter and energy. Without matter there is no time. Without time there is no matter. Making this next one dimensional step brings into being all of this that could not even be imagined by a being existing in only three dimensions, Existance of our lesser dimensional beings is seen as not possible.

The question arises: what would the next step be, what would a five dimensional space have in it? In that 'space' there would be something new. Something as far beyond science, mater, energy, time, as time is beyond three dimensional space.

Back to your question: This is how i see it that time is matter.

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Fri, 12 Jan 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 12 Jan 2018 #35
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 572 posts in this forum Offline

Well there is something (not a thing). Sentience is there/here. This beingness is beyond scientific explanation.

If you notice each dimension seems to exist only in that it exists within a higher dimension.

There might be a still higher dimension. What is there would seem to have to be beyond sentience. To be to as far beyond sentience as time is beyond three space... As far beyond sentience as sentience itself is beyond time/space.

Inconceivable to us.

All of this is so far conjecture only. Has such conjecture any value?

Thought is memory, memory is matter, matter is time. What is beyond all of that is nowness, qualia, meaning, intelligence, other things, not remembered just now.

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Fri, 12 Jan 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 12 Jan 2018 #36
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4476 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
Thought creates the impression of something missing, of something needing to be done, ultimately because of its own incomplete nature.

Interesting observation Mina. Yes, and what damage is done by minds not realising this, and so seeking completion in trying to change circumstances, change "the world out there". According to some particular vision.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 12 Jan 2018 #37
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4476 posts in this forum Offline

Peter Kesting wrote:
It seems the light from a star billions of light years away from us has come to us as such an expanding spherical wave front,

Perhaps that light is not separate from the star, not merely a "messenger from the star", but it part of the star itself.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 12 Jan 2018 #38
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4476 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
Really interesting to spend 1:19:01 hour listening to it (if you want).

Yes Juan, thanks, I had listened to this (and the earlier ones are also relevant) and it has played a part in my recent investigations into "The Stream". Also as I mentioned, this reconstructed dialogue "The death of John Field" is hugely illuminating (from the book "The reluctant Messiah" by Sydney Field"). But this is not available in audio/video, as far as I know.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 12 Jan 2018 #39
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4476 posts in this forum Offline

Peter Kesting wrote:
There is a next dimension a four dimensional space. The new thing here is time.

I was reading quite recently that scientists have discovered the existence of the fourth spacial dimension. Sorry I cannot give a reference, but you probably know of it, Peter. Or rather what has been observed is the "shadow" cast by this fourth dimension onto the third dimension.

This post was last updated by Clive Elwell Fri, 12 Jan 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 13 Jan 2018 #40
Thumb_open-uri20180717-8420-135f99u-0 Mina Martini Finland 243 posts in this forum Offline

Dear Juan and all participants,

I just listened to the video you presented here, and it was wonderful to feel the both men's passion throughout it...:-) Alain was fairly talkative :-), beautiful English accent and soft voice, enjoyed it thoroughly..

....

There was a point there which I felt was the most crucial, and I would like to share it here. (not 100% exact words perhaps, but was listening and copying here)

At some point K is asking, "What is the relationship of the mind (self, stream) to that which is not in time, which is completely silent, which is unknown. -He was asking if that is the right question at all. Alain replied, 'The relationship is non-relationship.', and continued, -"As soon as you know what the relationship is, it is the 'me' (the stream itself) knowing it, which is the source of all mischief."

m continuing:

M: So, the stream of sorrow flows only for the one who knows about it. The one who knows about it IS knowledge of a self (observer) as if separate from the stream.(observed). So it exists for the one who believes it is there, which is the self believing in its own existence. It is a belief, an idea. The stream is composed of all that. It is always in duality and exists only as knowledge of itself. This is the same as pretending separation from itself, as the observer and the observed.

This is what creates the particular AND the collective, in no separation. The whole stream, survives only by the experience of separation from it. The stream does not remain in the one (the one that is all and has therefore no separate identity!) who is not in it. Any talk of the 'stream still being there' falls back into the experience of the self/selves and the stream as separate.

(Thought will interpret the word 'one' above as describing 'someone', because that is what it itself is composed of and capable of understanding. Just clarifying once again that the 'one for whom the stream does not exist' is absolutely no one, not anyone, not any image)

"When you realise the one, the many will not be seen." (Ramana Maharshi)

No stream will be seen, will be left to be talked about as if it really existed.

Any talk of it is there only to point to its non-existence. This is what all true spiritual teachers have been pointing out, all in their unique ways, still talking about the same.

So in the one in whom the self ends, ALL the stream/selves end. Otherwise it is no real ending at all. It is not possible that only a part of the stream would end. Then it does not end at all, because each part, each self, is inseparable from the rest of the same structure, collectively. It can only survive under the impression of it being separate.

So, physical death, the dying of some specific memories and ideas of a specific brain, is not what makes a real difference in the stream. Only the ending of the whole stream in the absolute silence of the mind is the real dying which is one with living.

..

So, to go back to the responsibility that Clive talked of, within the stream there is only limited responsibility, that which is carried by a self, out of self-interest. To be completely responsible means to be without a self(-interest), which is already an action in the absence of the stream/self.

....

Some questions that to be shared, in silence, not only verbally or intellectually:

When talking about the stream, are we already assuming/knowing it exists?

Is it the stream talking about, and thus creating, itself, that is in action?

Is the thinker separate from thought, the observer from the observed?

Thank you.

This post was last updated by Mina Martini Sat, 13 Jan 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 13 Jan 2018 #41
Thumb_open-uri20180717-8420-135f99u-0 Mina Martini Finland 243 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Yes, and what damage is done by minds not realising this, and so seeking completion in trying to change circumstances, change "the world out there".

Mina: Yes..what is then happening is the continuation of the stream of self/selves/sorrow/division, for oneself and all inseparably.

This post was last updated by Mina Martini Sat, 13 Jan 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 13 Jan 2018 #42
Thumb_open-uri20180717-8420-135f99u-0 Mina Martini Finland 243 posts in this forum Offline

Dear Juan,

Mina: The mind IS interpretation/words, so unless the mind itself is understood profoundly for what it is, and so transformed, it will go on listening to, and understanding, words only.

Juan:Quite true Mina ...

Will you say then, that i could have an hour or so dialog with K remaining only in the field of words thinking that i have really seen its real meaning (as it is fairy obvious in some recorded individual dialogs between K and 'x')? ... Is it not that the problem, the feeling that i have gone beyond words when i'm still in the field of words?

Mina: Yes of course, I ( the 'I' meaning fundamentally the mind put together by knowledge) could have an hour dialogue, or a lifetime of dialogues for that matter, with different people talking from beyond the reality created by words/thought, and keep on turning it all to 'mind-stuff' (ideas) in the head. This keeps happening if there is not a radical transformation, through the cessation of the psychological mind, in the listener. -It is never about 'what the other says', but about about responding fully, to another's words for example. So, it is never not 'what the other says', that makes the difference, but in the WHAT I AM, in my own state of mind, lies the transformation, the realisation, (or the lack of it). There is no other to understand in any separation from what i am myself.

Juan:>So, let me ask ... Is not then the understanding of words only, which creates the future and so the perpetuation of conflict? ... Can i say that there's no future in the real seeing through words, of what those words are pointing to?

Mina: Yes, this is clear. To remain at the level of words is to remain in ideas of past/present/future/division/conflict. Yes, the real seeing THROUGH the words, is an action of timeless perception.

Juan:>So, let me say, even at the risk of being burned at the stake of heresy, that the one who knows how to 'use' words to go beyond them and see what is hidden in the 'darkness' of those words, has eliminated any future, which allows him/her to see how all those who still live in the field of the so called 'spiritual-words' live their lives as if there were a future ... i.e.: 'he' has stopped any psychological time, while others are still moving in that psychological time no matter how much they can understand those so called spiritual words.

Mina: Yes..but I would just add that for the one who sees through the reality created by words/thought, understands in the silence that this seeing is, that another may be in a state you are describing above, but this is never any kind of judgement which would again come from thought/division. Therefore I would stress the fact that the limitation that is seen, in oneself or in another inseparably, is always its dissolution..and stay just there. This is what abiding in what is true, is for one..

This post was last updated by Mina Martini Sat, 13 Jan 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 13 Jan 2018 #43
Thumb_open-uri20180717-8420-135f99u-0 Mina Martini Finland 243 posts in this forum Offline

Juan,

Just clarifying for you/all what is meant and not meant by the following words:

Mina:Yes..but I would just add that for the one who sees through the reality created by words/thought,

Mina continues: With the above wording one is not talking about ANY seer, any observer, anyone who does something (here: sees through etc...)..but pointing to NO ONE, no image of anyone, no division, that is the 'seeing through'.

Nice you are going to your sister's, sounds cosy to me..:-) Till later then..

This post was last updated by Mina Martini Sat, 13 Jan 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 13 Jan 2018 #44
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 572 posts in this forum Offline

Juan wrote: "Ijust have one question for you Peter ... In which dimension abides mankind suffefing?"

K:"memory is matter" "thought is matter"

Would anyone disagree with the suggestion that the stream of sorrow is a part of the stream of matter and that it actually consists entirely of matter?

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Sat, 13 Jan 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 13 Jan 2018 #45
Thumb_open-uri20180717-8420-135f99u-0 Mina Martini Finland 243 posts in this forum Offline

Peter Kesting wrote:
Would anyone disagree with the suggestion that the stream of sorrow is a part of the stream of matter and that it actually consists entirely of matter?

Mina: Yes, it consists entirely of matter. The idea/thought of spirituality for instance, is matter. To think is to be materialistic. :-)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 13 Jan 2018 #46
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 572 posts in this forum Offline

Peter Kesting wrote:

"There is a next dimension a four dimensional space. The new thing here is time."

Clive wrote: "I was reading quite recently that scientists have discovered the existence of the fourth spacial dimension."

There is a lot of speculation but i doubt there is anything that has been demonstrated. As i see it people have invented mathematics that might imitate multi dimensional space like structure, string theory is an example. It seems that nothing has come from these efforts. You could put this mathematics into a computer and crank out solutions but there is no actual space there only the real space the computer takes up.

Of course things may be not at all the way i see them.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 13 Jan 2018 #47
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4476 posts in this forum Offline

Peter Kesting wrote:
There is a lot of speculation but i doubt there is anything that has been demonstrated.

Well, I do not feel qualified to judge, but the find is based on experimental observation, not just theory. Here are a couple of links I found:

https://nypost.com/2018/01/10/studies-find-evidence-of-a-fourth-dimension/

https://www.outerplaces.com/science/item/17464-scientists-found-proof-fourth-dimension

"Two teams of physicists created two separate experiments that simulated what the quantum Hall effect would look like in four dimensions by using only 3-D (and some nearly 2-D) materials. "

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 13 Jan 2018 #48
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4476 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
So, to go back to the responsibility that Clive talked of, within the stream there is only limited responsibility, that which is carried by a self, out of self-interest. To be completely responsible means to be without a self(-interest), which is already an action in the absence of the stream/self.

Thanks for this post, Mina, I do not pretend to see all that you describe at the moment (not saying that you are wrong in any way). It is a human tendency, as soon as we have glimpsed something psychologically, to try to “go beyond it”. But I still feel I am at the stage of my feeling my way around this notion of “The Stream”, to sense it, to live with it, to see it for what it is. You may question that last phrase.

And also I find I have to keep discovering all over again (with no sense of again). What was seen yesterday is not necessarily seen today (which may be an indication that it was not fully seen)

When you wrote, Mina:

“So, to go back to the responsibility that Clive talked of, within the stream there is only limited responsibility, that which is carried by a self, out of self-interest. To be completely responsible means to be without a self(-interest), which is already an action in the absence of the stream/self.”

you may have been using the word “responsibility” differently from how I was. I was trying to describe, as I remember, seeing that as I am the stream ( I am the world) any action of “mine” (although I question if there is a “mine” in the stream) is simultaneously an action of the stream. Even using the word “simultaneously” suggests a separation, a division, that may not exist. I AM THE STREAM, AND THE STREAM IS ME. So whatever “I” do is inevitably feeding into the stream. This is what I meant by “I am responsible”. Is that clear?

This is something I wrote in #11 of “A jewel on a Silver Platter”:

Let me put it this way: When each one of us is violent (which we are, in so many ways) we contribute to a sort of sea of violence in human consciousness. This has been going on for thousands of years. The existence of this sea allows storms to manifest. These storms are circumstantial – sometimes it happens in Ireland, sometimes in Rwanda, sometimes in Cambodia, in Palestine, some mass shooting in the US, …...... The potential for such storms are ever present as long as the sea of internal violence is there.

So the slightest act of violence in this brain feeds the sea of violence in the stream, and ultimately brings about war. This is why I used the phrase “a terrible responsibility”

Seeing this, what happens?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 13 Jan 2018 #49
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4476 posts in this forum Offline

Peter Kesting wrote:
Would anyone disagree with the suggestion that the stream of sorrow is a part of the stream of matter and that it actually consists entirely of matter?e

I am not actually sure what you mean by "the stream of matter", Peter.

If David Bohm was here he would add the correction: "it is a MOVEMENT in matter" :-)

But it is an interesting question, what exactly is suffering, pain? Is it invariably connected with certain chemical affecting the brain cells? But even if that is so, one can still ask: "what is it that suffers?"

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 14 Jan 2018 #50
Thumb_open-uri20180717-8420-135f99u-0 Mina Martini Finland 243 posts in this forum Offline

Clive,

Mina>“So, to go back to the responsibility that Clive talked of, within the stream there is only limited responsibility, that which is carried by a self, out of self-interest. To be completely responsible means to be without a self(-interest), which is already an action in the absence of the stream/self.”

Clive:>you may have been using the word “responsibility” differently from how I was. I was trying to describe, as I remember, seeing that as I am the stream ( I am the world) any action of “mine” (although I question if there is a “mine” in the stream) is simultaneously an action of the stream. Even using the word “simultaneously” suggests a separation, a division, that may not exist. I AM THE STREAM, AND THE STREAM IS ME. So whatever “I” do is inevitably feeding into the stream. This is what I meant by “I am responsible”. Is that clear?

Mina: I was exactly responding to what you quote again above.

I will try again.

If one truly sees what you describe above, that one IS the whole stream, which is true indeed, then that very seeing is not OF the stream at all. The stream is exclusively put together by partial ingredients, (thought as self/selves), there is nothing truly whole in it. When seeing the whole of the stream, one sees no stream at all, but only wholeness. In other words, taking in the word 'responsibility', when responsibility is really for the whole, complete, it acts as the very ending of the stream. If it acts within the stream, as part of it, it comes from more or less limited self-interest.

For as long as we talk about the stream as if it really existed, it happens because we are not really fully one with it, but still look from separation. We may talk about it, or intellectually see the interrelatedness of it all, but for as long as there is something, a stream, to be seen, there is also that which sees it as if separate from it. And it is seen that this separation is the very nature of the stream of selves that is being talked of in this thread.

This post was last updated by Mina Martini Sun, 14 Jan 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 14 Jan 2018 #51
Thumb_open-uri20180717-8420-135f99u-0 Mina Martini Finland 243 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
So the slightest act of violence in this brain feeds the sea of violence in the stream, and ultimately brings about war. This is why I used the phrase “a terrible responsibility”

Seeing this, what happens?

m: Seeing the whole of it, one is out of it. (no one out of nowhere in other words)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 14 Jan 2018 #52
Thumb_open-uri20180717-8420-135f99u-0 Mina Martini Finland 243 posts in this forum Offline

Clive>>Let me put it this way: When each one of us is violent (which we are, in so many ways) we contribute to a sort of sea of violence in human consciousness. This has been going on for thousands of years. The existence of this sea allows storms to manifest. These storms are circumstantial – sometimes it happens in Ireland, sometimes in Rwanda, sometimes in Cambodia, in Palestine, some mass shooting in the US, …...... The potential for such storms are ever present as long as the sea of internal violence is there.

So the slightest act of violence in this brain feeds the sea of violence in the stream, and ultimately brings about war. This is why I used the phrase “a terrible responsibility”

Mina: Yet it is not a TERRIBLE responsibility, since it is fully carried only in freedom from all terror, from all fear. (-I do not mean to pick on some´specific
wording when saying this, the meaning is profoundly serious.) I would say 'tremendous responsibility', as large (immeasurable) as life itself.

What I am saying is that we are not talking about 'someone's', which would be an idea of separation, responsibility. This someone could be really horrified at the idea of one's every action affecting the whole, one's subtlest resistance turning into the ground where wars being fought, etc, or of the idea of 'being forever caught in the stream' (these last words being something you mentioned in another post of yours).

This post was last updated by Mina Martini Sun, 14 Jan 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 14 Jan 2018 #53
Thumb_open-uri20180717-8420-135f99u-0 Mina Martini Finland 243 posts in this forum Offline

"We have to see what our actual consciousness is."

The actual is not the consciousness that is put together and maintained by thought. That would be a conceptual consciousness, an image of it.

The actual is neither the individual nor the collective, neither the conscious nor the unconscious, but that which is beyond both.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 15 Jan 2018 #54
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2267 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
Clive Elwell wrote:

But even if that is so, one can still ask: "what is it that suffers?"

Would you both dare to give an answer to him?

It's the body which feels in great distress when there's an extremely frightening situation which the mind is projecting....even if it only exists in ones imagination. Like the fear of losing ones job and becoming homeless. Such fear causes suffering...physical as well as psychological. Its similar to the way that the body feels great distress if one is facing a tiger in the jungle. One runs away if one can, but in a concentration camp where one is facing the threat of bodily harm, as an example, one cannot run. So the body suffers with great distress. In the same way, when a young child feels rejection or anger from the parent, there's a tremendous amount of physical distress in the body. When I had similar fears of abandonment as a very young child I would literally throw up. So the body suffers with pain and/or distress. It's this pain which we call suffering..as I see it.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Mon, 15 Jan 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 16 Jan 2018 #55
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4476 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:

M: So, the stream of sorrow flows only for the one who knows about it.

But Mina, hardly anyone "knows about" the stream of sorrow. They believe, or tacitly assume, that any sorrow they feel is personal, peculiar to themselves. Yet surely the stream of sorrow exists, flows, whether anyone is aware of it or not? Surely it does, people do actually suffer. One is witness to the terrible suffering and conflict in so many people, wherever one goes, as soon as there is a chance to look below surface appearances. It is quite incredible, actually, the amount of suffering there is in the human race.

I asked the question recently if The Stream actually exists. Or is it a figment of the human imagination? Seems to me that it does, and has existed for time immemorial. It is the same as asking "Does thought actually exist". The answer is, yes it does, because it is a material process. If one says that matter does not exist, there is no point in having the word "exist" at all!

But more basically, I say the stream actually exists because I see it, I feel it. It is the well-spring of thought/feeling, it is where thought COMES from.

I would agree that the thinker, the self does not actually exist, that is a figment, a phantom projected by thought. But that is a different issue. The Stream is a sort of collective memory, is it not?

This post was last updated by Clive Elwell Tue, 16 Jan 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 16 Jan 2018 #56
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4476 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
Mina: Yet it is not a TERRIBLE responsibility, since it is fully carried only in freedom from all terror, from all fear. (-I do not mean to pick on some´specific
wording when saying this, the meaning is profoundly serious.) I would say 'tremendous responsibility', as large (immeasurable) as life itself.

I do think you are misunderstanding my words here, Mina. Not just the word "terrible, which I was using in an idiomatic sense.

I was not using the word "responsibility" in the sense of "What is my responsibility?" I was saying I am responsible for the violence in the world whenever I am violent. I feed into the world's violence. Responsible in the sense I CAUSE IT.

Of course in a sense one could say The Stream is causing The Stream.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 16 Jan 2018 #57
Thumb_open-uri20180717-8420-135f99u-0 Mina Martini Finland 243 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
M: So, the stream of sorrow flows only for the one who knows about it.

Clive>But Mina, hardly anyone "knows about" the stream of sorrow. They believe, or tacitly assume, that any sorrow they feel is personal, peculiar to themselves.

Mina: This is exactly what is meant by 'knowing about the stream'. It means the same as knowing about oneself, which again means the same as having an image of oneself, being personal. The collective is not separate from this, so it is 'enough' (everything) to understand the personal, radically. (radically means, through pure percpetion into its nature and not by more thinking about it) It is this image that suffers psychologically, and is both the cause and the effect of its own suffering and of all psychological reality.

I was about to continue, but suddenly it started feeling somehow meaningless..as shared perception into it all does not feel to be there.....and without it we are left with empty words and i do not want to be part of that..Hope that saying this will not be taken personally and thus misunderstood...

Hope we can be silence together, all of us,

Love to all

m

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 16 Jan 2018 #58
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2267 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
I was about to continue, but suddenly it started feeling somehow meaningless..as shared perception into it all does not feel to be there.....and without it we are left with empty words and i do not want to be part of that..Hope that saying this will not be taken personally and thus misunderstood...

Hope we can be silence together, all of us,

And if we're 'noisy'...worried...lost...afraid....angry, there's no point in talking together? Jeeze, K would have stopped talking in 1935 if he expected instant shared understanding from those gathered for the talks, Mina. I recently had some deep, profound insight into what you've been saying here lately, but it didn't come out of silence. It came from insight into the noise....from facing what actually was happening in 'me'..the noise/confusion/conflict.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 16 Jan 2018 #59
Thumb_open-uri20180717-8420-135f99u-0 Mina Martini Finland 243 posts in this forum Offline

Dear Clive and tom

Tom, and yet facing 'the noise of thought' fully IS an action in/of silence..

Not suggesting to stop talking, not at all, just needed some total silence for a while.

Already an insight came while sitting on the plane and wrote it down to be shared with Clive and all. It has to do with clive's replies to me. Writing this on my cellphone at an airport between flights..

To my beloved clive

Thought can never be fully aware of anything, its very existence is created and maintained by unawareness. You say that whether one is aware of it or not, the stream is there. I say that the stream itself is a creation of thought as unawareness. Within this limited reality that thought creates, there is no essential difference of 'it being aware' (in the case of thought it means knowing about something) or 'it not being aware' (thought not knowing about something). In full awareness of the limitation of thought there cannot be anyone to be or not to be aware of it.

Awareness is the ending of the stream created by thought. At the root of this duality is the impression of separation between thinker and thought. The seeing of this IS an action of /in awareness.

Love

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 16 Jan 2018 #60
Thumb_open-uri20180717-8420-135f99u-0 Mina Martini Finland 243 posts in this forum Offline

Will not be able to participate for some time after this..

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 31 - 60 of 69 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.)