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

Back to the essence...


Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 48 in total
Sun, 28 Jan 2018 #1
Thumb_open-uri20180717-8420-135f99u-0 Mina Martini Finland 236 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 4432 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_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2263 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 #4
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2263 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 #5
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2263 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 #6
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2263 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 #7
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2263 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 #8
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4432 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 #9
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2263 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 #10
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4432 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 #11
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4432 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
Mon, 29 Jan 2018 #12
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2263 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 #13
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2263 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 #14
Thumb_open-uri20180717-8420-135f99u-0 Mina Martini Finland 236 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 #15
Thumb_open-uri20180717-8420-135f99u-0 Mina Martini Finland 236 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 #16
Thumb_open-uri20180717-8420-135f99u-0 Mina Martini Finland 236 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 #17
Thumb_open-uri20180717-8420-135f99u-0 Mina Martini Finland 236 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 #18
Thumb_open-uri20180717-8420-135f99u-0 Mina Martini Finland 236 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 #19
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2263 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 #20
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4432 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
Mon, 29 Jan 2018 #21
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4432 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
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.

Yes, it struck me yesterday that society (which is us of course) is always concerned with the EFFECTS of thought, and hardly ever on thought itself, the cause of all the effects. Solutions are looked for within the field of thought, and so the chaos continues.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 29 Jan 2018 #22
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4432 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Is there a way back?

There is no way back to any psychological state, Tom, as such would be the pursuit of projections of the mind. But there is the dropping, the letting go of the things of the mind.

And I am talking of from moment to moment, not concerned with time, with "will things return".

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 29 Jan 2018 #23
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4432 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Is there a way back?

Look up and see the QOTD excerpt !

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 29 Jan 2018 #24
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2263 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
As it seems that you don't expect any answer to your question, i guess that you have put it just aloud but for yourself ... Have you given yourself an answer to it already?

Any answer someone might give would just be another path to follow, right? Something other than 'what is'. 'Way', meaning 'path' or method.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 30 Jan 2018 #25
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2263 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Tom Paine wrote:

Is there a way back?

There is no way back to any psychological state, Tom,

Is innocence a 'psychological' state? Mina and Juan were talking about passion and curiousity of the small child. I was only pointing out the simple fact that we are no longer that innocent child...an obvious fact. And we can only understand ourselves as we are....not return to what we once were. Will look at the QOTD later. Have to finish dinner.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 30 Jan 2018 #26
Thumb_open-uri20180717-8420-135f99u-0 Mina Martini Finland 236 posts in this forum Offline

Tom: I was only pointing out the simple fact that we are no longer that innocent child...an obvious fact. And we can only understand ourselves as we are....not return to what we once were.

Mina: No, we can only understand ourselves as we are IN THE TIMELESS UNKNOWN INNOCENCE which is always only NOW. That is what we ARE, all else are mere images of ourselves, the thinking about ourselves.

For as long as we keep thinking about ourselves, (or about anything else) that long thought is creating a cover that prevents the direct seeing/being of what we already, timelessly, are.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 30 Jan 2018 #27
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2263 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Tom Paine wrote:

Is there a way back?

There is no way back to any psychological state, Tom, as such would be the pursuit of projections of the mind.

I think yours was the best response to the question I posed, Clive....really a rhetorical one. We can't go back...or forward..since the only reality is what is now. Anything else is a projection of thought as you said.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 30 Jan 2018 #28
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2263 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
For as long as we keep thinking about ourselves, (or about anything else) that long thought is creating a cover that prevents the direct seeing/being of what we already, timelessly, are.

Are you saying that we are not angry or confused...ambitious or greedy? That would be denying the obvious fact of our anger or fear, when in actuality we may be full of emotional conflict of some sort...and attachment, addiction, craving.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Tue, 30 Jan 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 30 Jan 2018 #29
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2263 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
Mina: No, we can only understand ourselves as we are IN THE TIMELESS UNKNOWN INNOCENCE which is always only NOW. That is what we ARE, all else are mere images of ourselves, the thinking about ourselves.

But I may be thinking of making a lot of money....of being the greatest golfer or skier. That ambition or greed is actually the truth....not the innocence or childlike curiosity and passion that was spoken of.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Tue, 30 Jan 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 30 Jan 2018 #30
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2263 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
In any case, what would it do the 'answer' for someone who has such fixed ideas about himself and others? ..

Juan E wrote:
Tom Paine wrote:

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

We (most of us) are not, at one time or another, all that I mentioned above? Is it a fixed idea to say I am angry or violent or confused when in fact I am? Or am I simply stating a fact? Of course I'm not saying that the label is the thing/feeling. But the feeling of loneliness may be present right now, right? To say I'm lonely is then simply stating a fact. The same goes for fear. Here's K on fear:

Krishnamurti: First of all, you must know what fear is. If you know your wife, husband, parent, society, you are no longer afraid of them. To know about something completely makes the mind free from fear.

How will you find out about fear? Are you afraid of public opinion, public opinion being what your friends think of you? Most of us, especially while we are young, want to look alike, dress alike, talk alike. We do not want to be even slightly different, because to be different implies not to conform, not to accept the pattern. When you begin to question the pattern there is fear. Now examine that fear, go into it. Do not say, ``I am afraid' ', and run away from it. Look at it, face it, find out why you are afraid.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Tue, 30 Jan 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 48 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.)