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

Stepping out of the stream


Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 88 in total
Fri, 02 Feb 2018 #1
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4023 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_avatar Juan E Spain 539 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
I wonder if people accept this?

I fully accept all what you say here ...

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, 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 ...

Which BTW -- open parenthesis -- it's not much different from what you mention in your post when you say: "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." -- close parenthesis.

Also a couple of weeks ago, i met two good friends of mine, each separately, during my daily rounds as postman, and we begin to talk about the present situation in Spain and by extension in the world ... And you know what? ... Both agreed in that "i came to the conclusion that it is better to remain silent, not to say anything, than to appear before others as a 'problem seeker'" ... And my answer was "Then you are becoming as monotonous, grey, and scared like them! ... Is that what you want to be, like them?" ... Both looked at me the same way: with a kind of smile sketched in their face and a simple "Well, you know...!"

And this is the image that many people would have of K (or whoever dare to point out all what you say here and i said here and there) if he were still alive this days, as a 'problem seeker' ... Because most of those in the stream nowadays don't want 'problems', they prefer go to a bar and talk just for the sake of talking about how things are deteriorating 'at home' and in the world, and then go home, sit down in front of the TV and watch any non-sense TV show while drinking some beer and eating some pizza until falling asleep and then go to bed to just wake up the next morning to a new monotonous day, going to the bar again (or to any forum) after the work, and so on ...

Most of us, seem to be interested more in talk just for the sake of talking about deterioration and so on, than go deep to the root to find out its actual causes (which by the way would imply a great deal of responsibility if what most of us say is true: that we are concerned with the actual deterioration of the world), and 'change' through an actual seeing of those causes.

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?"

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"

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".

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?

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.


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! ;-)

"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, 04 Feb 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 04 Feb 2018 #3
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 539 posts in this forum Offline

Curiously enough, i have turned on the TV right now and there were a news about a concert that Giovanna Marini gave yesterday in Barcelona ... They have showed a very short interview with her in which she said verbatim:

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!


Giovanna Marini, BCN 02.Feb'2018

"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, 04 Feb 2018 #4
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4023 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 #5
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4023 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
Sun, 04 Feb 2018 #6
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 539 posts in this forum Offline

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

:-) ... Going to bed now, i'll comment on your post tomorrow.

Good night all ... Tom included ;-)

"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, 05 Feb 2018 #7
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4023 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 #8
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4023 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 #9
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4023 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 #10
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 630 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 #11
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4023 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 #12
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4023 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 #13
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 630 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 #14
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 630 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 #15
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2109 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 #16
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 539 posts in this forum Offline

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

This would be true if it was not because many people all around the world think there's no different way to live, and not because their superficial way of living is easy and pleasant ... And if you don't believe me, go ask people around the world if their superficial lives are easy and pleasant ... As a postman i enter plenty of homes every day, and i can assure you that the superficial life of many of those who live in them are neither easy, nor pleasant.

"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, 11 Feb 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 11 Feb 2018 #17
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4023 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 #18
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4023 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 #19
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4023 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
Sun, 11 Feb 2018 #20
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 539 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Is there fulfilment in such things?

Some time ago, in one of my daily rounds, someone told me this story about someone who's rich and lives in the town i live ... It turns out that he was talking with that rich person and he said to him: "What a wonderful house you have?!" ... The rich person's answer was: "Yes, but do you know who's enjoying it? ... The cleaning woman!".

"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, 11 Feb 2018 #21
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 539 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
the more one has, the greater the burden in having to take care of those things.

What a BIG truth, Clive!

"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, 11 Feb 2018 #22
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 539 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Is it analysis, or is it a sharing of observations? And a sharing of questions?

A little of everything it seems to me.

"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, 11 Feb 2018 #23
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 539 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Not to occupy oneself with endless entertainment, with following sport, endless socializing – all the things that people do to basically escape from themselves.

In spite of that, one is still in the stream, and as long as one remains in the stream...

I don't know if you have read my #114 in the thread "What is experience?", but there i put a simple question which i think could fit here: "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)?"

What if K came to us and said "let's go look together if one is completely free of all entertainment/escape?

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.

"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, 12 Feb 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 12 Feb 2018 #24
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 539 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
With the letting go perhaps the emptiness of the self may be exposed?

The letting go IS itself the emptiness of the self ... I think what you call "be exposed" is the self becoming aware somehow that it is dying.

Clive Elwell wrote:
This may not be pleasant, but is it not necessary?

Necessary for who or what?

"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, 12 Feb 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 12 Feb 2018 #25
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 630 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 #26
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 539 posts in this forum Offline

It's a rainy day today, so a bad day for a postman ... Writing under cover while stopping for a while to express a deep feeling ... Personally i feel that it is really important that someone put this question from time to time so one can retire for a while to find out the truth of it in oneself.

So, thanks a lot to point out this in #14 Wim, and also to Clive for his response.

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


Clive Elwell wrote:
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.


Wim Opdam wrote:
very true, it was a description of a feeling

It seems that rain has stopped, time to continue my round
'See you' later!

"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, 12 Feb 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 12 Feb 2018 #27
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 539 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
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...

I totally missed this post ... I will listen the dialog you have posted.

"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, 12 Feb 2018 #28
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 539 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
the question is repeatedly put: “What is it that steps out of the stream?” ... [but] 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.

I have had some perception this afternoon while listening to the dialogue you have posted in #8 (plus the background of having listened at least 20 times the dialogues between K and Alain Naude), which i would like to share it with you, so i'll try to put it in words the best i can ...

The ordinary mind has a big problem when it comes to seeing what the stream actually is ... I was going to use the word "abstraction" in the sense that the word that came to mind in that perception was that ordinary mind needs a great, great deal of abstraction to try to catch what is actually the stream through any explanation of it ... But i decided to find out how did K use the word before doing anything else ... So i found that he uses "abstraction" in a negative way, in fact as an obstacle to see what the stream (or anything else) is:

To understand what observation is, we must also go into the question of abstraction, and 'what is'. Most of us live in abstractions. That's right isn't it? You know what I mean by abstraction. A formula or a belief, not entirely based on proof; short of proof. I looked up that word this morning in the dictionary - it says exactly that, and the root of that word is to stretch. Most of us look at things, at people, or ideas, with a mind that has already acquired a series of abstractions. Right? Don't we? That is, abstractions are concepts, formulas, opinions, judgements - judgements which are contrary or acceptable.


"To Be Human", 5th Public Dialogue in Saanen (August 1972)

So the word chosen by the mind was obviously not the right word to try to express that perception, but unexpectedly it clearly showed what is at the root of the impossibility for a mind that is within the stream, to see what the stream itself actually is, and therefore step-out of it...

Yes, ordinary mind makes an abstraction, because this is how it works in the stream to apprehend things (like when listening to someone talking about the stream -- K, Buddha, or someone else), and then it tries to look at it through that abstraction, which obviously is not the thing itself (in this case the stream).

Let me put it in other words to see if i can express it more clearly ...

What K (or Buddha, or someone else like them) is doing is to give names to something which in fact has no name at all, simply because this is how things function for the mind in the stream, i.e.: through names (which at the same time produce concepts), since this is the way the ordinary mind has to understand things in the stream ...

However, at the same time he (K, Buddha, or someone else) is asking from us to look at it without the name (the word) ... What happens though, is that it is too late because the mind in the stream has made already an abstraction of what is being said, and therefore it begins to observe the stream from that abstraction or image it has created, and not from an actual seeing of something which in fact has no name.

Let's say for example that we go to the link that you posted in #8 above to watch and listen the dialog that took place there between K and the Buddhists ... The ordinary mind will see six people there discussing (or dialoging if you prefer) about what the stream is and what it means to step-out of it, plus itself listening to them (i.e.: seven actual actors in total separated from each other as individuals) ...

But it happens that all seven actors are all manifestations of the same stream, therefore they are illusory as individuals as well as the words that they use to communique with one each other about the stream ... So the impossibility for an ordinary mind to see such illusion and therefore the stream as-it-is, is simply because it approaches to everything through an abstraction -- i.e.: it creates an image and then it starts to relate with that image thinking that it is relating to the actual thing (i.e.: it is listening/seeing through an image, therefore not actually listening/seeing).

So, in a past discussion about the stream ("We have to see what our our actual consciousness is" thread) i put to you one question and you gave me some response (#11) ... Now i feel that you were going in the right direction, while I was going in the wrong one ... 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! :-)

Does everything written here make any sense to you (or anyone here)?

"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, 12 Feb 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 12 Feb 2018 #29
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4023 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 #30
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4023 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
Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 88 in total
To quote a portion of this post in your reply, first select the text and then click this "Quote" link.

(N.B. Be sure to insert an empty line between the quoted text and your reply.)