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

Stepping out of the stream


Displaying posts 61 - 89 of 89 in total
Wed, 14 Feb 2018 #61
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 558 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
At this point I have to leave the home,

And i'm going to bed now ... Listen to you tomorrow, so i hope that you may find the time and energy to return later ... Good night!

"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
Thu, 15 Feb 2018 #62
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 783 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
the very attempt to understand the stream is based on a contradiction; it seems to assume that I am separate from the stream. Perhaps what is necessary is for the stream to understand itself.

Yes I think it may be a language problem. 'We' are not separate from the (beleaguered?) 'stream'. We are 'manifestations' of it, given a name, a cultural conditioning, experiences, preferences, desires, characteristics, talents etc. as one cloud has a different form than another. But we are all in the stream of human anguish and confusion. So yes, in that sense, you can say that it is necessary for the "stream to understand itself." Or as John R., I think, suggested a while back, that it is the "brain" awakening to the situation.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Thu, 15 Feb 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 15 Feb 2018 #63
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4051 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
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?

Yes. Just as "what to do about" any psychogical problem are "seen" to be false. But I have to doubt that 'seeing', since the momentum of that falseness continues. It may not take root, but it keeps arising.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 15 Feb 2018 #64
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4051 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote #46:
I'm saying that the questioning can arise from the 'suffering' in the form of " Why is there any psychological suffering at all!? We have 'accepted' it as mankind's lot but is that true, is it 'human nature' or is it only what we have been conditioned to think?

Yes. I also find the question "Does there have to be a shadow of conflict in the mind" also very meaningful. It amounts to the same thing as suffering, I guess. On asking the question, immediately it is seen that effort, striving, can play no part in the elimination of conflict, since they are conflict-producing. So definitely one does not know how to solve the problem of conflict, or suffering.

So what is left? Only watching the conflict, and enquiring into it, no? The principle enquiry being: how does one watch?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 15 Feb 2018 #65
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4051 posts in this forum Offline

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.

This is very interesting, Dan.

Are you suggesting that when one is "A light unto oneself" one is naturally out of the stream?

I find myself asking this question now: does the stream contain only the psychological experiences of mankind, or ALL experience (like language)? If the latter, then clearly we can never be completely out of the stream.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 15 Feb 2018 #66
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4051 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:

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

Juan: Not even "the one" who sees that.

I think if my statement came from insight, then yes, there is no one who has an insight. In fact insight only comes when the one, the me, is in abeyance, does it not?

Suddenly tired - so much questioning today.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 15 Feb 2018 #67
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 558 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Suddenly tired - so much questioning today.

Passion is never tired by questioning, only thought gets tired ... There is no "so much questioning" for passion, only for thought.

Good morning all!

"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
Thu, 15 Feb 2018 #68
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 642 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
Passion is never tired by questioning, only thought gets tired ... There is no "so much questioning" for passion, only for thought.

Good morning all!

Good morning to you too, Juan

One should be careful with this sentence too.!

Although I'm sure you did not meant to say that, but passion is also the word which is used by believers to hold on their believe or human beings to hold on to something !(sport, capital, career, ......etc. at.).

So the understanding of what is meant must be without the word !

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
Thu, 15 Feb 2018 #69
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 558 posts in this forum Offline

Hi Wim,

Wim Opdam wrote:
One should be careful with this sentence too.!

Yes, i understand ... but the passion i was talking about is that "something" that never stops in its wish to find out the truth, that questions everything and at the same time expects to be questioned too, which means that it is in constant movement ... even being in the stream, because that constant questioning is no other than the constant questioning of everything in the stream (including itself).

Therefore the passion that holds on to anything (believing, sports, capital, career, etc.) is not passion at all, being somewhat static, lacking movement.

The passion that is in constant movement is a disturbance for the passion that holds on to something, bringing about all kind of reactions of the later to the former ... Which BTW helps the former to still question further, so unintentionally the latter helps the former to be even closer to the truth (if there is such a thing as the truth).

"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 Thu, 15 Feb 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 15 Feb 2018 #70
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 642 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
Therefore the passion that holds on to anything (believing, sports, capital, career, etc.) is not passion at all being something static and lacking movement.

Dear Juan,

That was all implied in #69 but

So the understanding of what is meant must be without the word

Is an indication that understanding must be outside the stream and the seeing what's not is within the stream, right ?

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
Thu, 15 Feb 2018 #71
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 558 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:

So the understanding of what is meant must be without the word

Is an indication that understanding must be outside the stream and the seeing what's not is within the stream, right ?

No, let me put it that way: understanding is still in the stream which means that it belongs to the content of consciousness ... It may change that content somehow and so consciousness itself, but it is still consciousness, and as such it is still subjected to agony, pain, desire, strife and all that, otherwise we would never say "I've seen this or that, but i'm back to the usual pattern".

Therefore even that understanding must be questioned as such ... This is the passion i was referring to in my original post to Clive ... The passion that questions everything in the stream, including itself, never giving anything for granted, and being open to any serious questioning of what it sees.

But the usual answer to all this by the static passion is "But you can not question everything!!", to which the constantly moving passion answers "Why not?"

And before that answer the static passion can only show its fear to become free of its lack of movement and start moving once and for all, which is at the root of its usual reactions before the constantly moving passion ... Something BTW, that it perfectly knows, otherwise there will be no reaction, but only "moving together" ... Which BTW is at the root of all the K's teachings.

And it comes to mind now, while writing all this, that if K said at the time of death that "nobody has understood the teaching" (paraphrasing), was because probably he never felt a person with that constantly moving passion with whom walk together wholly questioning the stream ... Yes, that's it!.

"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 Thu, 15 Feb 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 15 Feb 2018 #72
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 558 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
To 'remain' with the sorrow, 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' ... Actually a different 'dimension' of human consciousness.

If one accept, sees, or feels any truth in the words of K in that ...

"Consciousness is its content. That stream is this content of our consciousness, which is agony, pain, desire, strife, all that ... as long as man does not step out of the stream, there is no salvation for mankind"


Taken from the dialogue between K and Buddhist Scholars

... (s)he can not advocate that there is "actually a different 'dimension' of human consciousness", which means nothing, as it is still human consciousness with all its content (even on the assumption that it has been partially modified by that "'remain' with sorrow, etc.").

Therefore, thinking or believing that it can be living in a different dimension it can not be anything more than an illusion of that consciousness which will be added to its already present content and therefore to the stream of suffering.

On the contrary, if one doesn't accept, see, or feel any truth in the words of K mentioned before, then there's nothing to say to the observation that there is "actually a different 'dimension' of human consciousness" ... which also does not prevent at all from it being a mere illusion.

Clive Elwell wrote:
This is very interesting, Dan ... Are you suggesting that when one is "A light unto oneself" one is naturally out of the stream?

I would like to ask something here...

What does it mean "Be a light unto oneself" while in the stream? ... Is that one who's "A light unto himself" in the stream, totally free of the content of consciousness (which is the stream)? ... If not, what does it mean "Be naturally out of the stream" for a consciousness that is not totally free of its contents?

I have the feeling that in the stream we give words a meaning that they don't have actually, which keep us in the stream thinking illusively that we may "be naturally out of it" or believing that we may live in an "actually 'different' dimension of our human consciousness" while being in the stream.

"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 Thu, 15 Feb 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 15 Feb 2018 #73
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2109 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
I think if my statement came from insight, then yes, there is no one who has an insight. In fact insight only comes when the one, the me, is in abeyance, does it not?

But we may have insight into anger, for example, in the midst of being angry. With the 'me' in full throttle, no? Does insight, in that case, penetrate the thick walls of the 'me'?

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 15 Feb 2018 #74
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 558 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
when the calm water is disturbed, it is this questioning which arises not to bring calm but to understand the root of the disturbance

May i ask...

Are there any actual 'calm water' in the stream other than the illusory 'calm water' brought about by our trying to escape from what-is?

If i'm at home, calm, doing something on my computer, or reading a book, or listening to some music, or simply doing nothing but daydreaming, and all of a sudden someone calls me to tell me "you should come quick, your son is dead!" ... Has the former (according to what you say), to be considered "calm water" and the later "that which disturbs that calm water"?

How is it that the 'calm water' has no space to consider/observe/look at the inevitable disturbance (whatever it may be)? ... It will not be because what is considered 'calm water' is nothing else than an escape from what-is (in the example from the fact that my son is dead) and not an actual 'calm water' as such?

But of course, most of us would say "It would be impossible for me to live if i were constantly thinking-on/looking-at the death of my son, (or the death of whatever i could be escaping)" ... Which BTW is another escape ... Is it not?

But then, how can a disturbance which merely disturbs an escape, bring about "a questioning not to bring calm but to understand the root of the disturbance"? ... Can an escape which is disturbed, with all its anxiety because such a disturbance, bring about such questioning to understand the root of its disturbance and not to calm its own anxiety?

I don't think so! ... So your proposal seems impossible (as i see it).

"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
Thu, 15 Feb 2018 #75
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 479 posts in this forum Offline

#73:

Tom Paine wrote:
But we may have insight into anger, for example, in the midst of being angry. With the 'me' in full throttle, no? Does insight, in that case, penetrate the thick walls of the 'me'?

Does insight need to “penetrate the walls” of the self? Does the self have an interior core protected by exterior walls, or does “the self” include both its own “interior” and “exterior”? Insight is not an action of the self; it is not “done” by the self, is it? If one examines the nature and processes of self, it is seen (maybe) that self simply cannot have insight, can it? Wouldn’t “self having insight” be a contradiction, an example of an oxymoron?

We see (maybe) that insight is not the fruit of thought, and therefore that self (thought) cannot be CONVINCED BY insight. That is, insight cannot be COMMUNICATED TO the self, can it?

Isn’t the question then: Does the self “transform and incorporate" insight into thought as concept, idea, conclusion, knowledge (psychological “alchemy” of sorts!), and then believe IT “has” insight? Can vigilant awareness stop this mental process of “transformation and incorporation” of insight into thought?

Or are we merely fooling ourselves into believing that thought and insight are 2 completely unrelated processes? IS insight free of memory, knowledge, time, or not? IS thought incapable of having insight, or not?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 15 Feb 2018 #76
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 783 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
Are there any actual 'calm water' in the stream other than the illusory 'calm water' brought about by our trying to escape from what-is?

Analogies have their limit. The 'calm water' as I'm using it is the mental state of affairs that we live with each day. A 'relative' peace if we are so lucky. No great disturbances and as you describe it, an "escape from what is". That is how we live...how we get along in a mad world. Now comes the great disturbance, the death of a loved one, or less drastic, someone informs you that you are basically 'stupid' say...the only point I am trying to communicate here is that when there is a disturbance of the psychological status quo, 'damage control' in the form of thinker/thought goes to work immediately to restore the 'relative' calm. Thought goes into operation to mitigate the 'upheaval'. K.'s point (not mine) was that in these moments a great deal of energy is released, energy that could be transformative if it were not dissipated in self-pity or some other suppressive or judgmental re-action of thought. Which is the "remaining with" the sensation...In other words, the energy released in the 'conflict' could be the 'explosion' that blows away the 'normal' state of "escaping from 'what is'. Who knows? By experimenting with this even with small disturbances, we can determine if this is true or false. If the 'explosive' energy released is not dissipated as 'fuel' for the thought/damage control process, what happens to it?

Now is this just another attempt of the 'self' to 'escape' from pain? By 'rehearsing' for possible tragedy in the future, is it using this "remaining with" business to build up a tolerance to any incoming psychological pain and thereby adding another brick in the wall of its 'security'? Where the self is concerned, nothing can be ruled out. I may like the sound of being on an "uncharted journey" while actually staying in the safety of my own bathtub!

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Thu, 15 Feb 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 15 Feb 2018 #77
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 558 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
But we may have insight into anger, for example, in the midst of being angry. With the 'me' in full throttle, no? Does insight, in that case, penetrate the thick walls of the 'me'?

With regard to 'insight':

So we are going to find out together the meaning of this word 'insight'. To have an insight into something is not personal, is not based on some ideological conclusions, memories, remembrances. One must be free of that to have an instant insight into something. One must be free of knowledge to have immediate perception. This is not something extravagant, exotic, or rather emotional, but actual: where, if you have ever had this kind of immediate understanding and therefore immediate action, that immediate understanding demands immediate action irrelevant of time. Hasn't it happened? It happens, obviously, but then thought says, 'I have had that insight, I have had that strange deep perception and therefore from that immediate action, but I wish it would continue all the time'. You understand? I want that insight, that immediate perception, immediate understanding, to continue. When you say it must continue you have already begun the whole movement of thought. I wonder if you see this. Insight, the quick perception of something is instantaneous and finished there. You can't carry it over. Whereas thought demands that it should be carried over, therefore prevents the next insight. I wonder if you get all this.


Brockwood Park 1978 Talks, Part 1 of 6

With regard to the 'insight into anger'

When there is this passionate observation of what is going on, that which is being observed dissolves into nothingness. The observation of the anger that is taking place now reveals the whole nature and structure of violence. This insight is the ending of all violence. It is not replaced by anything else and therein lies our difficulty. Our whole desire and urge is to find a definite end. In that end there is a sense of illusory security.

Questioner: There is a difficulty for many of us in the observation of anger because emotions and reactions seem inextricably part of that anger. One doesn't feel anger without associations, content.

Krishnamurti: Anger has many stories behind it. It isn't just a solitary event. It has, as you pointed out, a great many associations. These very associations, with their emotions, prevent the actual observation. With anger the content is the anger. The anger is the content; they are not two separate things. The content is the conditioning. In the passionate observation of what is actually going on - that is, the activities of the conditioning - the nature and structure of the conditioning are dissolved.


J. Krishnamurti Letters to Schools Volume One 1st August, 1979

With regard to 'passionate observation':

A mind that is calculating, becoming virtuous, a mind that has got an end in view which it is everlastingly trying to pursue - such a mind is not abandoning itself. It is only out of total self-abandonment that simplicity comes; and to be completely aware of the extensiveness of the illusions, fancies, myths, urges and demands of the mind, is self-knowledge. It is the full understanding of existence as it is and not as it should be. But that beauty of simplicity does not come into being if there is no self-abandonment, and abandonment means, surely, the dropping away of all conditioning, as a dead leaf falls away from a tree; and you cannot die to something if you are not passionate. To die means the feeling of coming to a point or state beyond which there is nothing; a state of mind in which, with all the cunning tricks and speculation, do what you will, you can proceed no further. In that state there is neither despair nor hope, and the whole question of search has come to an end. A total death has come into being; and if you do not die, totally, to the past, how can you learn?


Bombay 10th Public Talk 28th December 1958

So it is obvious, it seems to me, that insight can only arise "when the one, the me, is in abeyance", as Clive has rightly said, and not just because K says it.

"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
Thu, 15 Feb 2018 #78
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 558 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
K.'s point (not mine) was that in these moments a great deal of energy is released, energy that could be transformative if it were not dissipated in self-pity or some other suppressive or judgmental action of thought. In other words, the energy released in the 'conflict' could be the explosion that blows away the 'normal' state of "escaping from 'what is'".

I understand and fully agree with what you (and K) say ...

Dan McDermott wrote:
Who knows? By experimenting with this even with small disturbances, we can determine if this is true or false.

It is true, Dan ... When one stops absolutely any resistance to what-is (either if it is to a bells of church that sound late at night and doesn't let us sleep, or a terminal cancer that puts before us the near death), all the energy that is dissipated with that resistance comes to us, to make us possible to end with any disturbance ... Unfortunately, to stop that resistance seems almost impossible for most of us, who have never questioned the actual cause of such resistance, not even when we lived in those periods of supposed 'calm waters'.

Before yesterday i begun with a kind of sickness that last only for two or three days, and that causes stomach ache, weakness, vomiting (not always) and diarrhea in those who suffer from it ... So i did not eat anything, took a natural lemon juice with a little bit of water (good to constipate) and went to sleep, and i slept for 14h (with occasional wake ups to call the work to say that i would not go, or to go to the toilet a couple of times) ... No resistance, letting the body to do its job ... When i woke up stomach ache had disappeared, diarrhea was not as acute, nor was weakness ... So at dinner i could eat almost normal (since the disease had almost disappeared) and write some posts in the forum ;-).

Last week one of my sisters had the same 'sickness', she told me that he couldn't sleep, and that his sickness lasted for almost four days with vomits, diarrhea and weakness.

Once, I lived near a church, and I had no problems sleeping from the first day, even though the bells rang every hour and every quarter throughout the night.

A couple of months ago i heard on the news that in some town, some people had asked that the bells stop ringing at night because they disturbed their sleep.

So everything is a matter of resistance to what it is, because we never live with what it is ... And despite that, we think/believe that when the time comes we will be able to live with what it is (which for most of us simply means more resistance, or acceptance based on any idea, or even letting us go without any hope -- which doesn't mean at all to live with what is).

"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 Thu, 15 Feb 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 15 Feb 2018 #79
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2109 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
So it is obvious, it seems to me, that insight can only arise "when the one, the me, is in abeyance",

If we need for 'me' to be absent before there is a single insight we might very well wait forever for said insight.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Thu, 15 Feb 2018 #80
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 558 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
If we need for 'me' to be absent before there is a single insight we might very well wait forever for said insight.

Well, it is said that which has to happen will happen, only that it needs a little bit of patience :-) ... So let me say that i've been waiting for this answer of yours since a long time, Tom.

Now, if neither you, nor the reader that has recommended your post don't mind, i would like to listen to you both about what is the base on which you base the statement above which you both seem to share ( i.e.: the impossibility of an insight totally free of the 'me') ... I would like to listen also if you both really think that a partial insight of the 'me' is enough to step out of the stream or not.

P.S.: I hope that the reader that has given you a 'thumbs up' also comes out and expresses his opinion/seeing/perception, and that he or she does not prefer to hide him/herself in anonymity ... as we are only inquiring.

"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
Fri, 16 Feb 2018 #81
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4051 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote # 72 :
What does it mean "Be a light unto oneself" while in the stream? ... Is that one who's "A light unto himself" in the stream, totally free of the content of consciousness.

Well, I was suggesting - and it was only a suggestion, for enquiry, not an assertion - that if one is a light to oneself, then one is out of the stream. because one is no longer dependent on the stream for understanding.

One is no longer a second hand human being, and the stream is strictly second hand.

So the suggestion is that it is impossible to be a light to oneself, and still be in the stream.

What does it mean to be a light to oneself? I think I will hold on to that question.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 16 Feb 2018 #82
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4051 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote #73 :
But we may have insight into anger, for example, in the midst of being angry. With the 'me' in full throttle, no? Does insight, in that case, penetrate the thick walls of the 'me'?

i have the feeling that insight only arises in a still mind. But that still mind may not be a million miles away from anger. Anger, seen for what it is, can end instantly, can it not?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 16 Feb 2018 #83
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4051 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
I may like the sound of being on an "uncharted journey" while actually staying in the safety of my own bathtub!

Laughing at this, Dan!

Yes, disturbance is an important moment in daily living, it is a wake up call - but there is a tendency to reach out to shut off the alarm clock - or at least put it on "snooze"!

Feeling that "staying with" feelings, emotions, states is crucial to living. And one doesn't have to wait long for disturbance to come along where the self is concerned.

This post was last updated by Clive Elwell Fri, 16 Feb 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 16 Feb 2018 #84
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2109 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
i have the feeling that insight only arises in a still mind. But that still mind may not be a million miles away from anger.

Right....it comes right in the midst of anger. That's probably something like what I was trying to say. When do we observe anger? When it's absent....when the 'me'(the anger...the ideas and ideals...the self) is absent? If anger was absent there would be nothing to observe. I can't observe a tree or a flower when it's absent right? Can I observe anger when it's absent? So we observe anger when anger/me is present. Insight into anger comes when there is anger/me present....not when there's no 'me'/anger. Insight dispels the anger which was present...or am I off base?. But this is not a debate (I hope!) and I'm not defending a position. Just telling how it appears to me.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 16 Feb 2018 #85
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 558 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Insight into anger comes when there is anger/me present....not when there's no 'me'/anger. Insight dispels the anger which was present...or am I off base?

Nobody is denying this Tom, what some here are saying (including K) is that in order for a total insight into anger / violence to emerge, the observation of that anger which is 'me' must be made by something which is not 'me', otherwise it is just a partial insight which has not the power to dispel the anger completely (although the thought may think otherwise).

So wondering if you (as well as the reader that recommended your post #79) still think/perceive/see that this is impossible ... I mean, to observe 'anger' which is 'me' without the 'me', at the moment that 'anger' is there.

Good morning to all!

"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 Fri, 16 Feb 2018.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Fri, 16 Feb 2018 #86
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 783 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
to observe 'anger' which is 'me' without the 'me', at the moment that 'anger' is there.

I can look at the tree, the bird, the cloud etc. I don't think "my tree","my bird", "my cloud"... That is what is 'outside'. But what goes on 'inside', I consider 'mine', my thought, my feelings, my body...'my anger'. That is what we are calling 'identification' isn't it? I am not identified with the outer but there is this identification with the inner. But why? Why can't there be no identification with either the 'outer' or the 'inner'? Why does the 'identification' stop at the skin? Why the psychological separation between outer and inner?

(It struck me this morning that an enormous responsibility comes along with a serious study of K.'s work, which is to 'bring about' in oneself the psychological "revolution" that he spoke about. People are, I suppose, as violent as they ever were. But here for example, in the US the so called 'leaders' have become so corrupted by money and their positions of power, that they now cannot even enact common-sense laws to keep military weapons out of the hands of children and the mentally deranged...)

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Fri, 16 Feb 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 16 Feb 2018 #87
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2109 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
So wondering if you (as well as the reader that recommended your post #79) still think/perceive/see that this is impossible ... I mean, to observe 'anger' which is 'me' without the 'me', at the moment that 'anger' is there.

I don't say it's impossible....OR possible. Because K said it's possible, I may make it into a goal to achieve or something to make an effort to do, but that would be no different than pursuing any other goal or practice, right? so there's just the 'noise' of the 'me'...the anger or fear or worry. Can I observe that noise and not worry about having a silent mind....a mind free of 'me'? How can I understand 'me'...the noise...if I'm setting a precondition of first having a silent mind....or of being free of 'me'?

Juan E wrote:
in order for a total insight into anger / violence to emerge, the observation of that anger which is 'me' must be made by something which is not 'me'

But I must understand the fact of this 'me' first. The rest(this 'something which is not 'me') would only be speculation on 'my' part.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Fri, 16 Feb 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 16 Feb 2018 #88
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 642 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
No, let me put it that way: understanding is still in the stream which means that it belongs to the content of consciousness ... It may change that content somehow and so consciousness itself, but it is still

I'm realy sorry Juan but ,Understanding has like passion different States of being.

Complete Works CD-ROM | Fourth Talk in Bombay, 1954

To understand the problem requires a mind that is not seeking a result, an answer. If you will observe your own mind, you will see what is happening. If you have a problem you want some one to tell you what to do; so your emphasis is on the solution and not on the understanding of the problem.
In answering this question we are concerned with the problem and not with the answer. If you go away disappointed because your question is not answered, it is your fault, because there is no answer to life. Life has no answer. Life has only one thing, one problem - which is, living. The man who lives totally, completely, every minute without choice, neither accepting nor rejecting the thing as it is, such a man is not seeking an answer, he is not asking what the purpose of life is, nor is he seeking a way out of life. But that requires great insight into oneself. Without self-knowledge, merely to seek an answer has no meaning at all, because the answer will be what is most satisfactory, what is gratifying. That is what most of us want; we want to be gratified, we want to find a safe place, a heaven where there will be no disturbance.
But as long as we seek, life will be disturbed.

London, England | 5th Public Talk, 25th June 1955

Questioner: I would like to ask if you recognize the teaching of the Buddha that right understanding will help to solve the inner problems of man, and that inner peace of the mind depends entirely on self-discipline. Do you agree with the teachings of Buddha?
Krishnamurti: If one is inquiring to find out the truth of anything, all authority must be set aside, surely. There is neither the Buddha nor the Christ when one wishes to find what is true. Which means, really, the mind must be capable of being completely alone, and not dependent. The Buddha may be wrong, Christ may be wrong, and one may be wrong oneself. One must come to the state, surely, of not accepting any authority of any kind. That is the first thing, - to dismantle the structure of authority. In dismantling the immense structure of tradition, that very process brings about an understanding. But merely to accept something because it has been said in a sacred book has very little meaning.
Surely, to find that which is beyond time, all the process of time must cease, must it not? The very process of search must come to an end. Because if I am seeking, then I depend, - not only on another, but also on my own experience; for if I have learned something, I try to use that to guide myself. To find what is true, there must be no search of any kind, - and that is the real stillness of the mind.
It is very difficult for a person who has been brought up in a particular culture, in a particular belief, with certain symbols of tremendous authority, to set aside all that and to think simply for himself and find out. He cannot think simply if he does not know himself, if there is no self-knowledge. And no one can give us self-knowledge, - no teacher, no book, no philosophy, no discipline. The self is in constant movement; as it lives, it must be understood. And only through self-knowledge, through understanding the process of my own thinking, obsessed in the mirror of every reaction, do I find out that so long as there is any movement of the 'me', of the mind, towards anything, - towards God, towards truth, towards peace, - then such a mind is not a quiet mind, it is still wanting to achieve, to grasp, to come to some state. If there is any form of authority, any compulsion, any imitation, the mind cannot understand. And to know that the mind imitates, to know that it is crippled by tradition, to be aware that it is pursuing its own experiences, its own projections, - that demands a great deal of insight, a great deal of awareness, of self-knowledge.
Only then, with the whole content of the mind, the whole consciousness, unravelled and understood, is there a possibility of a state which may be called stillness, - in which there is no experiencer, no recognition.

The Mirror of Relationship | Fifth Talk at Rajghat, 1949

I do not know if you have noticed that there is understanding when the mind is very quiet, even for a second; there is the flash of understanding when the verbalization of thought is not. Just experiment with it and you will see for yourself that you have the flash of understanding, that extraordinary rapidity of insight, when the mind is very still, when thought is absent, when the mind is not burdened with its own noise. So, the understanding of anything - of a modern picture, of a child, of your wife, of your neighbor - , or the understanding of truth which is in all things, can only come when the mind is very still. But such stillness cannot be cultivated, because if you cultivate a still mind, it is not a still mind, it is a dead mind.
It is essential to have a still mind, a quiet mind, in order to understand, which is fairly obvious to those who have experimented with all this. The more you are interested in something, the more your intention to understand, the more simple, clear, free the mind is. Then verbalization ceases. After all, thought is word, and it is the word that interferes. It is the screen of words, which is memory, that intervenes between the challenge and the response. It is the word that is responding to the challenge, which we call intellection. So, the mind that is chattering, that is verbalizing, cannot understand truth - truth in relationship, not an abstract truth. There is no abstract truth. But truth is very subtle. It is the subtlety that is difficult to follow. It is not abstract. It comes so swiftly, so darkly, it cannot be held by the mind. Like a thief in the night, it comes darkly, not when you are prepared to receive it. Your reception is merely an invitation of greed.
So, a mind that is caught in the net of words, cannot understand truth.

Not that i claim to be right and quote K. as back support
but a clear description is what it is.

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
Mon, 19 Feb 2018 #89
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4051 posts in this forum Offline

" Your whole brain is filled with memory, not only memories of recent events but also the memory of the deep abiding memory of that which has been the animal, the ape, we are part of that, that memory "

With this quote (Bombay 1985 talk 4) K is indicating that the common human consciousness, the Stream that we have been discussing, actually goes back further than the birth of human thought/memory, but also includes its predecessors, animal consciousnesses. I find this logical, given how the brain has developed through evolution.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 61 - 89 of 89 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.)