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

Back to the essence...


Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 74 in total
Sun, 28 Jan 2018 #1
Thumb_img-0590 Mina Martini Finland 214 posts in this forum Offline

Identification is not in true contact with the thing it identifies with, but only with its idea of it.

(In K's language the phenomenon of identification is described as 'the thinker separate from thought' or 'the observer separate from the observed)

The above sentence in bold was recently uttered in another thread and since it is carrying immense significance, beoynd the words, I would like to keep on looking into it.

Clive pointed out that the object (the observed) of identification can be an actual living 'thing', like the body for example.

True, but it is still all happening within ideas, within thinking that it has to do with a living thing, the body.

There is an urge to 'move back' into understanding the phenomenon of identification (thinker separate from thought) itself fully. Back to the essence, to silence.

In other words can we be so totally focused on understanding the nature of ourselves/mind/identification, that no separate observer, no separate focus, no one to identify and nothing to identify with, can survive the energy of it?

(This is not a theoretical question, nor is it inviting any merely verbal reply)

This post was last updated by Mina Martini Sun, 28 Jan 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 28 Jan 2018 #2
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4023 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
(In K's language the phenomenon of identification is described as 'the thinker separate from thought' or 'the observer separate from the observed)

I don't, at this moment, see the equivalence of the two.

Mina Martini wrote:
Clive pointed out that the object (the observed) of identification can be an actual living 'thing', like the body for example.
mina: True, but it is still all happening within ideas, within thinking that it has to do with a living thing, the body.

Of course it is thought that is doing the identification, no question of that. I was just pointing out that the thing identified with sometimes (not always) has some actual existence in this world. And then we share in the fate of that thing, we rise and fall with it. We are dependent on it.

Mina Martini wrote:
There is an urge to 'move back' into understanding the phenomenon of identification (thinker separate from thought) itself fully. Back to the essence, to silence.

Yes, I felt a similar movement a few days ago. It certainly is essential, as it seems clear, intellectually at least, that without identification, the self cannot exist, continue. if all identification dies, if that is posible ..... well, that cannot be speculated upon.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 28 Jan 2018 #3
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 539 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
can we be so totally focused on understanding the nature of ourselves/mind/identification, that no separate observer, no separate focus, no one to identify and nothing to identify with, can survive the energy of it?

When energy is just energy, what 'someone' is there to survive or not-survive to it? ... On the other hand "can we be so totally focused on" sounds as an act of will, and can an act of will see that energy?

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 28 Jan 2018 #4
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2109 posts in this forum Offline

I thought I'd throw today's QOTD into the discussion. Don't know if it will shed any light on the question or questions Mina put. "My thought, which is the outcome of yesterday, can respond only in terms of yesterday; and when it asks, 'how can I go beyond?', it is asking a wrong question." (K) The 'identification' being discussed is always in terms of yesterday...the past.

QOTD continued..." Because, when thought seeks to beyond its own conditioning, it continues itself in a modified way. Therefore, there is a falseness in that question. There is freedom only when there is no conditioning; but for freedom to be, thought must be aware of its condition and not try to become something other than it is. If thought says, 'I must free myself from my conditioning', it never can; because whatever it does is its own net continued or modified. All that thought can do is to cease to be."

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Sun, 28 Jan 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 28 Jan 2018 #5
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2109 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
On the other hand "can we be so totally focused on" sounds as an act of will, and can an act of will see that energy?

Yes, Mina's wording appears to be implying something we can 'try' to do...make an effort to achieve...but she's just asking if this desire to understand is taking place... perhaps. Of course trying or focusing on a goal is more identification...identification with our goal...with that which we want to achieve....an ideal or image.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Sun, 28 Jan 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 28 Jan 2018 #6
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 539 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
but she's just asking if this desire to understand is taking place...

"desire to understand" does it not imply again an act of will, images, etc.?

Wait, don't jump to a conclusion yet ;-) ... Simply answer this two questions: (1) May i go listen K without any desire to understand? (2) Can i understand something being there without any desire, just listening?

So, what has understanding to do with desire?

Tom Paine wrote:
... perhaps.

Perhaps

p.s.: BTW, i just watched "Freeheld" (movie) in a local TV Network.

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

This post was last updated by Juan E Sun, 28 Jan 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 28 Jan 2018 #7
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2109 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
(1) May i go listen K without any desire to understand? (2) Can i understand something being there without any desire, just listening?

I wouldn't watch a K video or listen to a talk if desire wasn't present. But, desire is a fact for most of us....whether to understand ourselves or to have a nice dinner out....or to make lots of money. To your #2, perhaps, yes perhaps...

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 28 Jan 2018 #8
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 539 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
I wouldn't watch a K video or listen to a talk if desire wasn't present.

What if someone brings you there, or gives you a book, a tape or a video tape? ... What if you go there out of curiosity?

How can one say i wouldn't do this or that if this or that wasn't present? ... There always may be other things present for us to do what we wouldn't do if desire wasn't present ... or am i wrong?

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

This post was last updated by Juan E Sun, 28 Jan 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 28 Jan 2018 #9
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 539 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
But, desire is a fact for most of us....whether to understand ourselves or to have a nice dinner out....or to make lots of money.

Yes, and that desire does not confuse/mesh everything?

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

This post was last updated by Juan E Sun, 28 Jan 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 28 Jan 2018 #10
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2109 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
Tom Paine wrote:

I wouldn't watch a K video or listen to a talk if desire wasn't present.

What if someone brings you there, or gives you a book, a tape or a video tape? ... What if you go there out of curiosity?

Curious? Only if we think he can give us something we feel we're lacking. If someone gave me a book on economics, I wouldn't read it unless I had some interest in economics....a desire to learn about it. If I would read a book by K it would be because I had some interest in ...desire for....self understanding. K asked his audience in one of the talks, "Do you have an image of the speaker?" Then he answered his own question, "Of course you do. Otherwise you wouldn't be here." We have an image of him as being enlightened otherwise we wouldn't read his book. So we're identified with the idea or goal of enlightenment. We desire it, otherwise we wouldn't read the book. Just my take on the issue, for what it's worth. Mina's 'focused on' in the thread starter seems like it's more of the same... desire....identifying with a goal.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Sun, 28 Jan 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 28 Jan 2018 #11
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 539 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Curious? If someone gave me a book on economics, I wouldn't read it unless I had some interest in economics....a desire to learn about it.

Are you telling me that you never thought/said to yourself "Oh well, let's see what is this!" out of curiosity?!

Tom Paine wrote:
K asked his audience in one of the talks, "Do you have an image of the speaker?" Then he answered his own question, "Of course you do. Otherwise you wouldn't be here." We have an image of him as being enlightened otherwise we wouldn't read his book. So we're identified with the idea or goal of enlightenment. We desire it, otherwise we wouldn't read the book.

Reading your post there is only one thing that comes out from the heart: (not talking about you, but) How sad, monotonous and gray is the life of one who has lost passion for things, a passion that has nothing to do with desire for things! ... How sad that one needs desire to approach anything, including oneself! ... No wonder the present world is like so!

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 28 Jan 2018 #12
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2109 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
ow sad, monotonous and gray is the life of one who has lost passion for things

But I wasn't even addressing that issue of passion. I was speaking of desire and Mina's 'focused' as well as identification. I guess you didn't read carefully?

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 28 Jan 2018 #13
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4023 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote: ( from QOTD )
but for freedom to be, thought must be aware of its condition and not try to become something other than it is.

I would say that if/when thought is aware of its own conditioning, then it is absolutely impossible for it to try to become anything. It would be a contradiction.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 28 Jan 2018 #14
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2109 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
Tom Paine wrote:

Curious? If someone gave me a book on economics, I wouldn't read it unless I had some interest in economics....a desire to learn about it.

Are you telling me that you never thought/said to yourself "Oh well, let's see what is this!" out of curiosity?!

A book by K? Well the library is full of them. I often spent many hours at our local library...just exploring. I might look at a book by K too, but probably not unless I was searching for something that I felt was missing in my life.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 28 Jan 2018 #15
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4023 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Curious? Only if we think he can give us something we feel we're lacking. If someone gave me a book on economics, I wouldn't read it unless I had some interest in economics....a desire to learn about it.

I would not equate curiosity and desire. To pursue something because one is curious does not imply that the self is attempting to gain something, does it? Action stemming from curiosity (interest) has a certain purity, which is at least observable in children, before their education and upbringing conditions them.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 28 Jan 2018 #16
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4023 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Curious? Only if we think he can give us something we feel we're lacking. If someone gave me a book on economics, I wouldn't read it unless I had some interest in economics....a desire to learn about it.

I would not equate curiosity and desire. To pursue something because one is curious does not imply that the self is attempting to gain something, does it? Action stemming from curiosity (interest) has a certain purity, which is at least observable in children, before their education and upbringing conditions them.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 28 Jan 2018 #17
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 539 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
But I wasn't even addressing that issue of passion.

Yes, you're right, I've been the one who introduced the issue of passion, but if you do not see why I've done it, or think that since nobody talks about something, it cannot be addressed, what can i do?

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

This post was last updated by Juan E Sun, 28 Jan 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 28 Jan 2018 #18
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 539 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:

Are you telling me that you never thought/said to yourself "Oh well, let's see what is this!" out of curiosity?!

A book by K?

Why not, Tom? ... What's the meaning of taking a book of K (or whoever else) from the shelf with an already created image of the author and of the content of the book, as well as an already created image also of one-self and a supposed lack of who knows what? ... But forgive me, who am i to talk about all that.

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

This post was last updated by Juan E Sun, 28 Jan 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 28 Jan 2018 #19
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 539 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
has a certain purity, which is at least observable in children,

But you know what, Clive? ... We forget very soon that at one time we were children ... And not only that, many of us laugh at children when observing them looking at something full of curiosity, full of passion for it ... And when the child insists with taking us inside his world most of us do not hesitate at all to tell him/her "Do not disturb me and continue playing with your games, leave me alone!" ... How sad is to see an adult that thinks that the passion and curiosity of children is an annoyance, and at the same time he's fighting with him/herself to find out what he is lacking through a desire full of images and knowledge of who knows what.

These kind of human being will not understand what you're saying here, unless (s)he rediscover again the child inside ... a much difficult thing for most adults (who through years have build an unmovable certainty of how things are in life).

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

This post was last updated by Juan E Sun, 28 Jan 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 28 Jan 2018 #20
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 539 posts in this forum Offline

Few minutes later...

I have had to get up from bed and look at the thread's title thinking that perhaps we were going off topic ... But no, we are still on topic! ... Which is "Going back to essence" ... That is, going back to curiosity and passion, which unfortunately seems that this world is losing now more than ever.

Please Mina, excuse me if it happens that i'm wrong with that.

"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
Mon, 29 Jan 2018 #21
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2109 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
I would not equate curiosity and desire. To pursue something because one is curious does not imply that the self is attempting to gain something, does it? Action stemming from curiosity (interest) has a certain purity, which is at least observable in children, before their education and upbringing conditions them.

OK, curiosity then. It's not a problem, this thing we're calling curiosity. But when it comes to understanding ourselves or another....my wife or child...I'm not sure it has gotten us very far. I mean, we can all say we're curious about why man continues with violence and hate...or I'm curious why my wife and I often argue. But curiosity alone is not going to get to the bottom of our suffering is it? Again with passion...we may have passion for music or art or sports, but passion hasn't seemed to help us understand ourselves with all our contradictions and confusion. Now, we're all over the place in this thread. I don't know about you all, but I'm totally lost! Hopefully someone will get this back on track.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 29 Jan 2018 #22
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2109 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
What's the meaning of taking a book of K (or whoever else) from the shelf with an already created image of the author and of the content of the book, as well as an already created image also of one-self and a supposed lack of who knows what? ...

There may be no meaning, but those are the facts of how our minds work. When we suffer we have an image of the wise man...the 'teacher' (whether K, Buddha, Jesus) , and we have an image ourselves as the one lacking in peace, happiness, wisdom. These are simple observable facts.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 29 Jan 2018 #23
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 539 posts in this forum Offline

I'm in a hurry because i must go work, anyway i leave this here ... I'll elaborate further when i come back home this afternoon.

Tom Paine wrote:
But curiosity alone is not going to get to the bottom of our suffering is it?

Curiosity + passion can go beyond bottom of anything.

Tom Paine wrote:
but passion hasn't seemed to help us understand ourselves with all our
contradictions and confusion.

Without passion understanding is not possible.

Tom Paine wrote:
Hopefully someone will get this back on track.

I'm afraid that we never leaved the track, so no need to get back on track.

"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 Mon, 29 Jan 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 29 Jan 2018 #24
Thumb_img-0590 Mina Martini Finland 214 posts in this forum Offline

Clive&all,

Clive: Of course it is thought that is doing the identification, no question of that. I was just pointing out that the thing identified with sometimes (not always) has some actual existence in this world. And then we share in the fate of that thing, we rise and fall with it. We are dependent on it.

Mina: Yes, for as long as there is not full understanding of our mind (of identification), there will be duality, and thus one thing depending on another.Without duality there can be no dependency.

Mina Martini wrote:

There is an urge to 'move back' into understanding the phenomenon of identification (thinker separate from thought) itself fully. Back to the essence, to silence.

Clive:>Yes, I felt a similar movement a few days ago. It certainly is essential, as it seems clear, intellectually at least, that without identification, the self cannot exist, continue. if all identification dies, if that is posible ..... well, that cannot be speculated upon.

Mina: It is only in silence beyond thought that there is the full understanding of identification/mind/anything. This is what the whole thread, as far as this writer is concerned at least, is pointing to.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 29 Jan 2018 #25
Thumb_img-0590 Mina Martini Finland 214 posts in this forum Offline

Juan/all,

Mina earlier:>can we be so totally focused on understanding the nature of ourselves/mind/identification, that no separate observer, no separate focus, no one to identify and nothing to identify with, can survive the energy of it?

Juan to that:>When energy is just energy, what 'someone' is there to survive or not-survive to it? ... On the other hand "can we be so totally focused on" sounds as an act of will, and can an act of will see that energy?

Mina: The problem is that language by itself is always dualistic. This is why it is almost impossible, at the level of language/expression, not to create an impression of duality. This is also why it is so essential to meet in the clear space of no-language-thought where no interpretation/separation can come in the way of total clarity.

So, yes Juan, in the pure energy that is empty of thought, there is no thought-created entity to survive or not survive in it. Quite so!

And by the words 'can we be so totally focused on', which may SOUND, at the level of words as was said, as if there was talk about some will, some limited focus of the mind on something, but this is by no means what is attempted to be said.

In other words, (which again are not enough as mere words) one is talking about the total focus of having no separate focus at all. (which means that the mind that is always in fragments, and its focus is within that structure, is not there)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 29 Jan 2018 #26
Thumb_img-0590 Mina Martini Finland 214 posts in this forum Offline

Dear Tom, nice to meet you here after quite some time..:-)

Tom:>I thought I'd throw today's QOTD into the discussion. Don't know if it will shed any light on the question or questions Mina put. "My thought, which is the outcome of yesterday, can respond only in terms of yesterday; and when it asks, 'how can I go beyond?', it is asking a wrong question." (K) The 'identification' being discussed is always in terms of yesterday...the past.

Mina: Exactly. For all long as identification, or any other subject, is discussed in terms of the mind instead of understanding the mind itself, there is the 'talking about things' in the mind, always from the distance of the observer talking about, and looking, at the observed. It is only when this dualistic movement is 'caught in the act'in oneself, observed in awareness, that there is the 'returning the one's essence'in which lies the core of this whole thread.

So thank you, the quote is shedding absolute light on what is the essence of understanding identification, or any thing of the mind, fully.

This post was last updated by Mina Martini Mon, 29 Jan 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 29 Jan 2018 #27
Thumb_img-0590 Mina Martini Finland 214 posts in this forum Offline

Tom,

Yes, Mina's wording appears to be implying something we can 'try' to do...make an effort to achieve...but she's just asking if this desire to understand is taking place... perhaps. Of course trying or focusing on a goal is more identification...identification with our goal...with that which we want to achieve....an ideal or image.

Mina: Please see my reply no 25 for clarification

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 29 Jan 2018 #28
Thumb_img-0590 Mina Martini Finland 214 posts in this forum Offline

Dear love Juan,

Juan:>Few minutes later...

I have had to get up from bed and look at the thread's title thinking that perhaps we were going off topic ... But no, we are still on topic! ... Which is "Going back to essence" ... That is, going back to curiosity and passion, which unfortunately seems that this world is losing now more than ever.

Please Mina, excuse me if it happens that i'm wrong with that.

Mina: It is not ever possible to be 'off topic' when 'all this' is not a matter of different topics, but of going back to the essence of any topic, any thing the mind has created. This is so because we are here to understand the whole of the mind.

That is the way of no way, of negation, of silent observation of the nature of the mind/oneself. And yes it is exactly as you say, without the choiceless curiosity and passion, akin to that of a small child, this is not possible.

This post was last updated by Mina Martini Mon, 29 Jan 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 29 Jan 2018 #29
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2109 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
And yes it is exactly as you say, without the choiceless curiosity and passion, akin to that of a small child, this is not possible.

However we are not small children any more. We have grown up to be adults filled with fear, anger, conflict, addictions, loneliness, beliefs, ideals, atrachments, depression, and so on. All that is preventing the innocence of the small child. Is there a way back? Just posing the question...not expecting to be told something to practice in order to regain that innocence and freedom of the little child.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Mon, 29 Jan 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 29 Jan 2018 #30
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4023 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
Mina: It is only in silence beyond thought that there is the full understanding of identification/mind/anything. This is what the whole thread, as far as this writer is concerned at least, is pointing to.

Yes, I understand, Mina. In fact I have been reflecting (which is entirely the wrong way of putting it, since there is no I doing the reflecting, only the reflecting) on your original words

Mina Martini wrote:
In other words can we be so totally focused on understanding the nature of ourselves/mind/identification, that no separate observer, no separate focus, no one to identify and nothing to identify with, can survive the energy of it?

Can one put it this way, what does it mean for the mind to go deeply into itself, penetrate itself so to speak? Does it have any meaning, in fact? Obviously there is no meaning in forming more and more complex images of oneself, of the mind.

Are there any prerequisites for such going deeply? I would say that one would be a certain state of quietness, of leisure, of inaction in the worldly sense. The body has to be still, and the mind not preoccupied. And then perhaps one can meet the barriers to inward penetration. One such barrier, is it not, is wanting something; having an idea of what one is trying achieve. This would still be the work of the conditioned mind. Related to that, any sort of choice has to go.

And as you say, Mina, duality has to go - “go” because the illusion of it is seen.

Insight and dying, these are the only things left, would you say?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 74 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.)