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

Stepping out of the stream


Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 58 in total
Fri, 02 Feb 2018 #1
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4569 posts in this forum Offline

Stepping out of the stream

In a recent issue of “New Scientist” there is an article entitled “Is Western Society On the Verge of Collapse?” Their answer is probably. It is hard to see why this is restricted to WESTERN society, though. It has been clear for a long time that pretty much everything mankind has created, has touched, is collapsing at an ever increasing pace.

I say “it is clear” but if one looks at society superficially, as superficially as society lives, one does not get this impression. In the restaurants and cafes, in the shops and offices, it seems people are not concerned with the wider picture at all. No, they are concerned with the minutiae of their own lives, their own pleasures and so-called security, and the security of their own families. There is a blindness, an indifference to all the dire trends of society and the environment that can be hard to understand.

Even when there is some appreciation that things are going wrong, this is partial, concerned with particular problems only. The effects and not the basic cause are considered. Solutions to problems are pursued at the same level as the problem – economic problems are pursued through economics; it is thought psychology can solve mental problems, violence is met with violence. There is still the vain and ridiculous hope that politics can bring about a better world.

I don't think anyone here on the forum would dispute the fact that the real crisis is in the psyche, in the human mind. I just notice the QOTD, saying coincidently: “do you not feel that the darkness is closing in, deterioration is setting in fast in every human being? ” Sometimes I write to various comment columns following articles on the web concerned with major social problems and state this, but it gets very little traction, and quite a lot of downright opposition. I don't know why. Or a common response is “human nature cannot change”.

This assertion perhaps deserves looking at, as their seems a lot of evidence for it. Over and over again K asked “why don't people change?”. I don't know if it can be said he became despairing.

For some time I have been looking at things from the point of view of this Stream of Human Consciousness, this collective consciousness of mankind. I don't see it as just a theory, as I have stated, I have a sense of it. I think I see “my” thought arising from that stream – indicating that it is not “my” thought at all. It is as if all possible thoughts, many possible reactions, arise from that reservoir of thought and feeling. They are all possible “me's”. I use the word “possible” because seeing them arise, they don't seem to gel, they don't settle in the mind. Perhaps one could say they don't become identified with.

I'm sorry if I appear to be rambling. When I started to write, the question that was on my mind was “Is it possible to step out of the Stream?” Because that seems the only meaningful response to all this chaos that the world is, given that I AM the world. But it seems that a lot of things have to said, be considered alongside this question.

If one accepts that the root cause of the on-going collapse of society is the deterioration of human consciousness – and I have no doubt in this respect - one must ask why is this deterioration happening? Is it not that so much suffering and violence – in the broadest sense of that word, has been accumulating in the that consciousness, in The Stream? All the terrible violence and suffering of two world wars last century. And all the subsequent wars, the genocides, the indescribable brutality of man to man and to the living world. The suffering of so many refugees. The abuse, including that done to our own body and mind. Doesn't all this accumulate in the stream, and so the Stream become a more and more terrible place? And from this Stream, comes further human action, further violence.

I wonder if people accept this? Of course it is open to question.

I am feeling strongly what I write, and need a break.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 04 Feb 2018 #2
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4569 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
I fully accept all what you say here ...

Clive: Can be a dangerous business, acceptance. Wasn't acceptance at the root of the matrix? :-)

But thank you for your full reply, Juan. Sometimes I look at all the recent threads, and all I see is my own name at the end of each of them, and wonder ….

A week or so ago, i started talking about something i have observed too, which is that the world seems to be losing its passion for anything, that it seems to prefer a monotonous life than a life full of passion for anything,

Clive: Well, there is a lot of enthusiasm for sport, entertainment, sometimes politics, or rather nationalism, people devote their lives to breaking records, , and they seem proud to display their sentimentality ….. none of which is real passion of course.

Perhaps the closest people come to passion is when it is a matter of self interest – making money, achieving status......

which implies "I don't know anything about anything, let's go and see what we may discover about it" (what by definition, implies also insecurity - but we may talk about this later) ...
So i talked about it at least in two or three occasions in the forum, but nobody seemed interested in taking the 'baton', so lacking the water of interest on others it withered naturally ...

Clive: if you feel something is important, I suggest don't hesitate to bring an issue up a second time. Draw our attention to it.

(cut)

Take Democracy as an example ... They, the rulers, say "We are democratic because we respect/obey the laws, and those who not respect/obey the laws must be punished somehow!", and many people applaud those words accepting that it is a fact that those rulers are actually democratic ... Now, what do you think it would happen if you go to all those people that applaud ruler's words and put them the following simple question: "Who makes the laws?"

Clive: I was thinking, to elect a leader through the ballet box, and then say, “well, you're in charge, you make all the decisions on my behalf” is not real democracy. It is not what the ancient Greeks devised, in fact, they were involved of all aspects of organising the civic state.

In fact, except in a republic, the people don't even get to elect the supreme leader, the political party does this.

So, extrapolate this example to all what you say above and you'll get the answer to your questions: "We don't want any problems. We don't want go to jail, we don't wanna die, and so on ... What you say is right but leave me alone!!! ... I prefer to continue being afraid, even suffer, than seek any problems that may put in danger my own life and that of those around me"

Clive: but Juan, we have to look at ourselves in this light, no? We have to look at our own indifference, our own inaction, our own fears.

So if you let me, i would say that probably it's time for the 'IV Reich', and for a new war, for more deaths, for a new beginning, and for a new fall down ... Human history repeats once and once again, since apparently we are unable to stop the stream ... or if you prefer to use this words: "to step-out of the stream".

Clive: I doubt very much is we can “stop the stream” it has the flow, the volume, of hundreds of thousands of years of human conditioning behind it, human sorrow and fear. Seeing that we cannot stop it, then one naturally asks, “can one step out of it?”, no? I am making no assumptions if it is possible, or “how?” But I am persisting with the question.

I just received a text from a new friend, saying something very pertinent to this, I feel:

"Yes, complete inaction, we must come to understand how to allow this to happen, without a method or a pattern or control of any manner"

Anyway, my question to you and to anyone in the forum who have something to say about it, is: If I am already afraid to face/question things within the stream, will not I be even more afraid to face/question things that seem outside the mainstream?

Clive: Fear is a fact. Fear is part of the stream. Fear cannot be brushed aside, or willed aside, it has to be FACED, seen for what it is.

Just to end this post ... let me cite Matrix (the movie) once again in this forum, as i feel it fits pretty well in what we are talking here:
(In the Restaurant)

Agent Smith: Do we have a deal, Mr. Reagan.
Cypher: You know, I know this steak doesn't exist. I know that when I put it in my mouth, the Matrix is telling my brain that it is juicy and delicious. After nine years, you know what I realize? Ignorance is bliss.
Agent Smith: Then we have a deal?
Cypher: I don't want to remember nothing. Nothing. You understand? And I want to be rich. You know, someone important, like an actor.
Agent Smith: Whatever you want, Mr. Reagan.
Cypher: Okay. I get my body back into a power plant, you insert me into the Matrix, I'll get you what you want.

Clive: I would like to take the attitude that I am free of corruption, but from self-observation, I know that is not true.

p.s.: by the way, i had the purpose to put order in the flat today (which is in an absolute chaos), but i preferred to spend the whole morning in answering your post ... yes!, feel free to call me a weak and irresponsible person! ;-)

Clive: All right, a pat on the back :-)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 04 Feb 2018 #3
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4569 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
Corruption in Italy is so widespread that it is no longer news, it is not interesting news. It is a normal thing. It reaches the point that the corrupt are happy to be corrupt, and the non-corrupt want to be! They say "Why do not they come to corrupt me?" They are worried!

Interestingly, K points out the original, root meaning of the word "corruption" is to break up

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 05 Feb 2018 #4
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4569 posts in this forum Offline

Juan wrote:
Agent Smith: Do we have a deal, Mr. Reagan.
Cypher: You know, I know this steak doesn't exist. I know that when I put it in my mouth, the Matrix is telling my brain that it is juicy and delicious. After nine years, you know what I realize? Ignorance is bliss.
Agent Smith: Then we have a deal?
Cypher: I don't want to remember nothing. Nothing. You understand? And I want to be rich. You know, someone important, like an actor.
Agent Smith: Whatever you want, Mr. Reagan.
Cypher: Okay. I get my body back into a power plant, you insert me into the Matrix, I'll get you what you want.

It's very like the conventional idea of reincarnation, isn't it? And it carries the same weakness, the same contradiction. If Cypher doesn't remember anything in his new life, then then it is not “his” life. There is nothing to connect with “his” present life and “his” future one. Basically, he would not be the same person at all. So what would be the use of determining this future life as being rich or whatever?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 09 Feb 2018 #5
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4569 posts in this forum Offline

Although the enrgy of discussion has been on the "What is Experience?” thread, I continue to ponder the issue of the Stream of Human Consciousness.

In the discussions with Buddhist Scholars, published in the book “Can Humanity Change?”, and available as a video on Youtube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=np57tASzQyc&list=PLEbxOVEQgBpM7gP2kvEM7mamd8oO1ozvR&index=5

K is asked the question “Is there life after death?”. What follows is really a discussion about The Stream. What is it that dies? It is quite similar to the discussion “The death of John Field”, but perhaps more concentrated, with more questioning from people.

The issue of “stepping out of The Stream” receives prominence. But as K insists that there IS no individual in the stream, only the collective human consciousness which manifests as you and me, the question is repeatedly put: “What is it that steps out of the stream?”

I cannot see that K actually answers this question, although he says that he will. I may be mistaken, I may have missed something, even though I have read/listened to the passage several times

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 10 Feb 2018 #6
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4569 posts in this forum Offline

What does it mean to step out of the stream?

The first thing to say is: I do not know. Not knowing, I can only examine what it means to be IN the stream.

Does staying in the Stream mean reading newspapers and magazines, going on the internet and so reinforcing the business of holding opinions (no matter what is the nature of those opinions). Does it mean watching television, and so being able to discuss the TV shows with others? Does it mean identifying with the characters in the programmes, and so subtly taking on their values, approaching the issues of life as they approach them?

Is it a matter of imitating what is going on around us, like watching sporting events, being concerned with politics, attending entertainment events, cultural events? …..... Do all these things play a part in remaining in the stream?

Nowadays are we more firmly in the stream if we participate in social media, like Facebook?

Or is there a more subtle process going on? Because I imagine if we isolated ourselves from all these things, even going to live in some remote area, one would still be part of that Stream. Do we not carry it with us?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 10 Feb 2018 #7
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 755 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Or is there a more subtle process going on? Because I imagine if we isolated ourselves from all these things, even going to live in some remote area, one would still be part of that Stream. Do we not carry it with us?

Hi Clive,

To me it seems to be a very subtle and on going activity which is asking for awareness all the time. Ones life would be a lot more pleasant if we let ourselves be carried away on or in the stream, and yet there are activities that are in fact inaccessible.

it did not do my career well by not adapting the common denominator of gossiping or getting higher up on the back of others.
And at the same time, that road/stream is always there to step up/in.

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

This post was last updated by Wim Opdam Sat, 10 Feb 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 10 Feb 2018 #8
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4569 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
Ones life would be a lot more pleasant if we let ourselves be carried away on or in the stream,

I am surprised to read this, Wim. The Stream of which I speak K has also described as the Stream of Human Suffering, of Sorrow. As talked about, and quoted, in "The death of John Field" thread. All human experience is in that stream, which is dominated by conflict, fear, anxiety, insecurity, violence, hatred, confusion ....... we know this, do we not?

There is much triviality, superficiality in this Stream, but there is very little that is "pleasant", I would say.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 10 Feb 2018 #9
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4569 posts in this forum Offline

Here is an excerpt from Krishnamurti's Journal, entry for 23 September. It seems to have relevance to understanding the The Stream of Human Consciousness:

Consciousness is its content: the content makes up consciousness. The two are indivisible. There is no you and another, only the content which makes up consciousness as the "me" and the not "me". The contents vary according to the culture, the racial accumulations, the techniques and capacities acquired. These are broken up as the artist, the scientist and so on. Idiosyncrasies are the response of the conditioning and the conditioning is the common factor of man. This conditioning is the content, consciousness. This again is broken up as the conscious and the hidden. The hidden becomes important because we have never looked at it as a whole. This fragmentation takes place when the observer is not the observed, when the experiencer is seen as different from the experience. The hidden is as the open; the observation the hearing of the open is the seeing of the hidden. Seeing is not analysing. In analysing there is the analyser and the analysed, a fragmentation which leads to inaction, a paralysis. In seeing, the observer is not, and so action is immediate; there is no interval between the idea and action. The idea, the conclusion, is the observer the seer separate from the thing seen. Identification is an act of thought and thought is fragmentation.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 11 Feb 2018 #10
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 755 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
There is much triviality, superficiality in this Stream, but there is very little that is "pleasant", I would say.

But Clive if triviality, superficiality would not be an easy, pleasant way to live there would be much more attention to live different. Look at the 2% richest humans on earth who live plesantly at the expense of the rest of mankind.
And what is seen in the community can also been seen in oneself.

This is in one package pleasant courses the sorrow!

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
Sun, 11 Feb 2018 #11
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 755 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Seeing is not analysing. In analysing there is the analyser and the analysed, a fragmentation which leads to inaction, a paralysis. In seeing, the observer is not, and so action is immediate; there is no interval between the idea and action. The idea, the conclusion, is the observer the seer separate from the thing seen. Identification is an act of thought and thought is fragmentation.

I'm anxious too much analysing is taking place on the forum.

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
Sun, 11 Feb 2018 #12
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2294 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
Clive Elwell wrote:

There is much triviality, superficiality in this Stream, but there is very little that is "pleasant", I would say.

Wim: But Clive if triviality, superficiality would not be an easy, pleasant way to live there would be much more attention to live different.

Wim Opdam wrote:
This is in one package pleasant causes the sorrow!

Interesting Wim!I've never been totally clear about all the ways pleasure causes pain. Need to observe this in my own life

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Sun, 11 Feb 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 11 Feb 2018 #13
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4569 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
Look at the 2% richest humans on earth who live plesantly at the expense of the rest of mankind.

I do not think that the rich, the famous, are happy, Wim. Does one not read of them committing suicide, of taking drugs? Are they not seeking escape from themselves? And is there not something seriously wrong with a person who has billions of dollars and is devoting himeself to accumulate further billions? Is that not neurotic? Is there fulfilment in such things?

And I see in myself, although I have little, that the more one has, the greater the burden in having to take care of those things. As K said, we do not possess our possessions; our possessions possess us.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 11 Feb 2018 #14
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4569 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
I'm anxious too much analysing is taking place on the forum.

Is it analysis, or is it a sharing of observations? And a sharing of questions?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 11 Feb 2018 #15
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4569 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Or is there a more subtle process going on? Because I imagine if we isolated ourselves from all these things, even going to live in some remote area, one would still be part of that Stream. Do we not carry it with us?

Even though one carries the things of the stream inside oneself, it seems to me there is value in letting go of the superficial activities of the world, which are the manifestations of the stream. Not to occupy oneself with endless entertainment, with following sport, endless socialising – all the things that people do to basically escape from themselves.

In any case, does not this letting go occur naturally, as one begins to inquire into oneself, and one's relationship with the world? It does not have to be forced. K once said that the world has nothing to offer but food and shelter.

With the letting go perhaps the emptiness of the self may be exposed? This may not be pleasant, but is it not necessary?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 12 Feb 2018 #16
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 755 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
And if you don't believe me, go ask people around the world if their superficial lives are easy and pleasant ...

I don't believe you but acknowledge also your observation!

Clive Elwell wrote:
I do not think that the rich, the famous, are happy, Wim

Althoug they did everything to reach there wealth or nothing by inheritance It's also the source for other humans sorrow.

Clive Elwell wrote:

Wim Opdam wrote:

I'm anxious too much analysing is taking place on the forum.

Is it analysis, or is it a sharing of observations? And a sharing of questions?

Juan E wrote:
A little of everything it seems to me.

very true, it was a description of a feeling

Juan E wrote:
Are we ourselves (those that "don't occupy themselves with endless entertainment to escape from themselves"), willing to fully listen about the misery life we ourselves live (in spite of that)?"

a similar question played through my head.
Is this being active on the forum not also a form of escape ??

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

This post was last updated by Wim Opdam Mon, 12 Feb 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 12 Feb 2018 #17
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4569 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
I think it's a mistake to think that we are free of something of what others are not, when we are still in the stream like them ... A trick of the mind that makes us think that we are different somehow when in fact we are not ... simply because we are still suffering, the same as them.

This is an interesting point, Juan.

Yes, in essence "we are the world". But perhaps my last post - no, I actually haven't posted it yet - is relevant. (It is # 34)

We are the Stream, yes. It is in all of us yes. But when one starts to look at these things ..... is there not a shift in perception? Is there not a cessation, or at least a diminuation, of identification with the things of the Stream?

This post was last updated by Clive Elwell Mon, 12 Feb 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 12 Feb 2018 #18
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4569 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
Necessary for who or what?

Necessary for ongoing, deepening enquiry.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 12 Feb 2018 #19
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4569 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
Is this being active on the forum not also a form of escape ??

Well, that is up to each of us, to enquire of ourselves if that is so, at any one time.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 12 Feb 2018 #20
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4569 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
Does everything written here make any sense to you (or anyone here)?

Well, I was listening to you fairly intently, and that is what matters, is it not?, rather than making some abstraction about making sense or not making sense?

Juan E wrote:
... So would you like to start anew in our investigation, not about stepping-out of the stream, but about the stream itself? ... I would like it! :-)

Actually, before reading the posts on the forum this morning I wrote something, which I will post at the end, which might qualify as starting anew. (#34)

This post was last updated by Clive Elwell Mon, 12 Feb 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 12 Feb 2018 #21
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4569 posts in this forum Offline

I have stated from time to time that “I have a feel” for being part of the Stream of human consciousness. I was wondering if anyone else has such a feel, such an intimation? I will try to describe how I feel it, and perhaps others will say if this resonates with them or not.

There is a challenge; a normal, everyday challenge. Somebody says something to you. Then, rather than a simple response arising, and perhaps being expressed, it is as if any number of responses start to arise. Non of them dominate the others, None of them seem more important that the others. They are not identified with, so they do not become established in the mind.

One could say they are all 'potential' reactions, responses to the challenge. It is as if ALL possible human responses arise, not one single one. They are as a cloud of possible responses. And I feel this cloud is from the Stream, where all human experiences have been laid down, over thousands of years, waiting to respond, to arise.

Now questions arise about what I have said. It would probably be wrong to say EVERY possible experience arises from the Stream, or are seen, - but a whole bundle do. And also perhaps it is not right to say NONE of them get 'established', or achieve dominance in the mind. If the mind meets the original challenge with a verbal response, one member of the cloud of possibilities has solidified and formed that response. But it could just as easily been another one. And the word “established” is not correct, it is just a thought passing through the mind.

Does this resonate with anyone?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 13 Feb 2018 #22
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 973 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Does this resonate with anyone?

I see it Clive to use this K. analogy of the 'stream' or 'river', is to say that it is all contained in that. The consciousness of all human kind is the stream. The individual manifestations, you, me, we have our differences but in fact we are all the same as regards sorrow, fear, conflict, loneliness, confusion. moments of joy, pleasure, innovation, etc. There is only one way to "step out" that K. has mentioned and that is to ask the question to oneself: Why am I like this? Why this burden of sadness, and despair? Why the seemingly never-ending conflict? Why do we live like this?...The asking of the question leads to an exploration of myself. But the means of the exploration are all important, it can't be based on what has gone before. No system, religion, belief, no motive, nothing but the wish to see and to 'understand' (learn) in the moment. Not to get rid of or make better.. not for the 'reward' of "enlightenment", but just to see what is it that is behind all the conflict, confusion, loneliness etc. What creates it? What maintains it?

To 'remain' with the sorrow, the conflict, the loneliness, etc. without "the interference of thought" (not to suppress it)...That as I understand it now, is a 'different' consciousness than that of the 'stream', (which is the acceptance, the 'putting up' with sorrow, loneliness, conflict, the changing or the suppression of 'what is', etc.) Actually a different 'dimension' of human consciousness.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Tue, 13 Feb 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 13 Feb 2018 #23
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4569 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
All this works only within the stream, outside of it it has no meaning at all ... Buddha, K, exist only in the stream, outside of it there's no Buddha, no K, no Juan, no Clive ...

I have transfered your comment to this thread, as you do not explain how it is is relevant to where you put it.

I want to question if anyone DOES exist in the Stream. In the Buddhist discussion K says K does not exist in the stream, but whether he also meant A, B and C also is not clear. Well actually K does insist that there IS no individual in the stream, only the collective human consciousness which manifests as you and me.

Above somewhere I quoted from K's Journal:

"Consciousness is its content: the content makes up consciousness. The two are indivisible. There is no you and another, only the content which makes up consciousness as the "me" and the not "me"

And furthermore K says that we can ony claim to be individual when we are outside the stream.

This post was last updated by Clive Elwell Tue, 13 Feb 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 13 Feb 2018 #24
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4569 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
No, every individual experience, either conscious or unconscious arises in, and it's part of, the stream ...

What I meant was that there are a great many possible reactions in the stream that DON'T normally arise in this brain. Although potentially they could, I think.

Juan E wrote:
As i felt it this afternoon, there was no K in the conversation with the Buddhists Scholars, but there were five people experiencing that they were actually there as "Walpola Rahula", "Phiroz Mehta", "Stephen Smith", "Mary Zimbalist", and "Shakuntala Narayan", all of them experiencing that they were really listening to a sixth person, that is K, experiencing a seeing and understanding whatever they could have understood during that dialogue about the stream, individually ... But as long as one is still in the stream, all those experiences are-in, and part-of, the stream, therefore one is still subjected to the stream of sorrow ...

Yes, It was the stream manifesting in the 5 brains. In effect it was the stream talking to itself, would you say?

Juan E wrote:
Buddha, K, and all the words they uttered to point out the stream, exist only in the stream, not outside of it ... We don't see that because we don't see the stream as-it-is ... So we put Buddha, K, and all what they said as being beyond the stream, but in fact they have been, are, and will be all the time in the stream, never outside of it ...

I am not sure at all about this, Juan. There was what I felt to be a deep perception on waking this morning, which I will try to describe in another post.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 13 Feb 2018 #25
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4569 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
The consciousness of all human kind is the stream.

And would you say, Dan, that that is ONE consciousness? Actually one whole thing, but somehow it has become broken up? Into you, me, etc?

Dan McDermott wrote:
There is only one way to "step out" that K. has mentioned and that is to ask the question to oneself: Why am I like this? Why this burden of sadness, and despair? Why the seemingly never-ending conflict? Why do we live like this?...The asking of the question leads to an exploration of myself.

It is certainly important, essential, even natural to ask these questions. But I cannot say with certainty that the asking of them leads to the stepping out of the stream. For that is not insight necessary? The insight that does not dependent on any action of ours?

Dan McDermott wrote:
To 'remain' with the sorrow, the conflict, the loneliness, etc. without "the interference of thought" (not to suppress it)...That as I understand it now, is a 'different' consciousness than that of the 'stream', (which is the acceptance, the 'putting up' with sorrow, loneliness, conflict, the changing or the suppression of 'what is', etc.) Actually a different 'dimension' of human consciousness.

Does this imply, Dan, that consciousness is then not divided into thinker and thought?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 13 Feb 2018 #26
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4569 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote in #34:
I have stated from time to time that “I have a feel” for being part of the Stream of human consciousness. I was wondering if anyone else has such a feel, such an intimation? I will try to describe how I feel it

There is more that could be said about the thoughts (and we should not forget feelings) that appear to appear from the Stream, as I described for myself in # 34.

They can appear quite alien. What do I mean by that? That they do not see related to my daily life – or my life at all. That they represent opinions that I have never really held. That they suggest actions that I would probably never do. They respond to challenges that I am not actually experiencing in my present life.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 13 Feb 2018 #27
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4569 posts in this forum Offline

This morning on waking, I reached for a K book that I had been reading intently the day before. But immediately there came a feeling not to read, but to simply watch the mind. What was seen is very difficult to put into words, but at the time I did write down a few sentences:

The way out of the Stream:

Is to see that there is no one in the stream in the first place.

That you are not in the Stream anyway.

That there is no “you” actually.

That there is no thinker separate from thought.

That whenever I think that I exist, then there is a me, then I AM in the stream. Because such thoughts are of the Stream.

To see that one was never in the Stream, means that one is out of it.

How empty descriptions are!

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Wed, 14 Feb 2018 #28
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 755 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:

Wim Opdam wrote:

Is this being active on the forum not also a form of escape ??

Well, that is up to each of us, to enquire of ourselves if that is so, at any one time.

That's also the reason not to keep this question for myself.

Clive Elwell wrote:
How empty descriptions are!

How true, taking the advice of Juan serious, suddenly in the midst of a walk in the Forrest yesterday came this Cristal clear in the mind:
"Somebody is totally different than someone".!

Why don't we use 'someone' for somebody is speaking from a center and 'somebody' when not ??

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

This post was last updated by Wim Opdam Wed, 14 Feb 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 14 Feb 2018 #29
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 973 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
that consciousness is then not divided into thinker and thought?

Right I would say. The division of thinker/thought is what created the 'stream of sorrow'. That unfortunate division of thinker/thought, observer/observed was/is the "wrong turning". As humans we are the inheritors and the perpetuators of that psychological event. As "manifestations" of this 'river of thought', we either 'step out' of it, (die to it) ending consciousness with its content or we strengthen and maintain it. Nothing outside of the 'stream' can 'help' this stepping out or ending, only the 'freedom to inquire' into ourselves to discover, uncover, without goal or suppression what we as manifestations of this 'movement' are. What lies 'outside' we can't 'know' because psychological knowing and knowledge are the substance of the 'stream of conflict and ignorance'. It is the unpolluted, choiceless passion to understand this sadness, misery, suffering, etc. that can be its 'ending'.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 14 Feb 2018 #30
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 634 posts in this forum Offline

#1:

Clive Elwell wrote:
In the restaurants and cafes, in the shops and offices, it seems people are not concerned with the wider picture at all. No, they are concerned with the minutiae of their own lives, their own pleasures and so-called security, and the security of their own families. There is a blindness, an indifference to all the dire trends of society and the environment that can be hard to understand.

Even when there is some appreciation that things are going wrong, this is partial, concerned with particular problems only. The effects and not the basic cause are considered. Solutions to problems are pursued at the same level as the problem – economic problems are pursued through economics; it is thought psychology can solve mental problems, violence is met with violence. There is still the vain and ridiculous hope that politics can bring about a better world.

[...] Or a common response is “human nature cannot change”. This assertion perhaps deserves looking at, as their seems a lot of evidence for it. Over and over again K asked “why don't people change?”.

[...] I think I see “my” thought arising from that stream – indicating that it is not “my” thought at all. It is as if all possible thoughts, many possible reactions, arise from that reservoir of thought and feeling. They are all possible “me's”. I use the word “possible” because seeing them arise, they don't seem to gel, they don't settle in the mind. Perhaps one could say they don't become identified with.

I think that, looking beneath your words at “the thing” itself, what you describe perfectly (to me!) here IS the essence of the stream. Isn’t this "concern" the essence of the stream? But I think you confuse it when you say that, “all possible thoughts, many possible reactions, arise from that reservoir of thought and feeling”. It’s not that there’s a reservoir of thought containing an exact grammatical form and structure (noun, verb, modifiers, qualifiers, etc.) of every “possible” thought, out of which reservoir the mind fishes pre-formed thoughts. Maybe that’s not what you meant. The crux of the issue, as I see it, is not the exact structure of any thought, it is psychological time. Concern, desire, ambition, anger, hate, fear, greed, pleasure, attachment, and so on, depend on time. There can be no "concern" without time, as I see it.

I think that humanity loves time, the brain’s capacity to remember the past, to situate the present on the continuum of time, and to imagine the future. I know the brain (I) does love this capacity (somewhat like the body loves to swim or run etc.) - all its capacities - BUT (or AND) the brain (I) also sees the limits and dangers of time. The danger is when the word is regarded as the thing, when authority and control is given to time, when time is the basis for action, when there is attachment to time, when time is used to isolate, separate, divide “me” from “them”, when time is seen as the whole or the essence of human life, etc.

We say things like "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it", so we “remember” - memorialize, enshrine - the past and ... repeat it. We say, “You have to learn from your mistakes”, when what we mean is not “learn" or "understand” but "remember" and use the memory as a basis for action.

Buddha, Jesus, Mohammed, Lao Tze, Socrates, and others, lived 1000s of years ago, and their teachings resonated with their contemporaries, so we cannot say that the current self-concern is a new development, can we? Brutality and selfishness are nothing new. To step out of the stream is to see the stream, the momentum and power of the stream - of time. Seeing it, one does not base one’s actions on it ... One cannot step out through will and effort, intention or self-interest but because the falseness of the stream as the basis for action in relationship, its nature and limitations, are actually seen - understood.

Beyond that, aren't questions which still arise as to "what to do to step out of the stream" seen to be false, as being part of the stream?

This post was last updated by Huguette . Wed, 14 Feb 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 58 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.)