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

Impermanence rules


Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 50 in total
Fri, 02 Mar 2018 #1
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4469 posts in this forum Offline

K has often said, and I think people on this forum have a feel for it from their own experience, or rather their own perceptions, that thought is impermanent. I think “transient” is another term that could be used. And yet thought has created this concept of a self, a me, an “I”, that appears to be permanent, or at least semi-permanent. Looking at this, not in the abstract but actually, from moment to moment, this is felt to be a very strange thing, this dichotomy, if I can call it that.

Does it not give rise to a great deal of contradiction? Is there not a great deal of frustration involved? Because, it feels to me, the pretence of a permanent me cannot be maintained permanently. We cannot totally deceive oneself about the matter. We cannot escape the realisation that the me is not really permanent, at least at some level.

In fact when one is fairly quiet, the realisation that the me is not permanent – which is the same realisation, as the thinker is the thought - is overwhelming, is it not? It is simply impossible to maintain the deception – and I would say this realisation is the essence of meditation. Perhaps this is the "wiping away" that Dan referred to. After all, one could not "wipe away" that which was truly permanent, could one?

Not that it is a permanent realisation. At least for me, I cannot claim this has been seen “once and for all”. In fact to make such a claim would be a contradiction, would it not? Is there anything that is “permanent”? This is a question in itself.

It may be that thought creating an entity that pretends to be permanent is a necessary thing, at some level – at the practical, material level. Is this the way that we “manage time”? - time being another creation of thought, necessary at times to handle the physical time that actually exists out there (and perhaps in the brain) – the passing of the seasons, the movements of nature, the rhythms of the day, the bodily necessities. Even to write this mail. However, although perhaps necessary, this is a matter of convenience; it has its place, but it is not an absolute reality. It can be put together by thought, and let go when it has served its purpose.

Impermanence is king, isn't it? Impermanence rules. Impermanence is the fact of life, is it not? And we are in contradiction with life if we live in the illusion, the pretence, that there is a permanent me.

Just exploring this, tentatively. Not sharing ideas with others, but perhaps sharing an exploration with others.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 02 Mar 2018 #2
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4469 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
For me Clive, this "wiping away" is applied to anything that obscures the present moment. Psychological thought obscures. Psychological thought as 'me' obscures.

Yes.

Dan McDermott wrote:
The present moment: sights, sounds, sensations are no 'match' for thought, memory and imagination which can range over an unlimited landscape of past and future..

It certainly seems this way. The mind WANTS to daydream, that seems its preferred activity. But if the present is no match for thought-created time images, then the situation seems hopeless, no?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 02 Mar 2018 #3
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2263 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
But if the present is no match for thought-created time images, then the situation seems hopeless, no?

Yes, it appears to be so....until we suffer and see how the images are leading to the suffering. How thought/attachment/image/pleasure is responsible for suffering....in me and in the world.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Fri, 02 Mar 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 05 Mar 2018 #4
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4469 posts in this forum Offline

I was describing how thought is so transitory. I was not talking theoretically; this is something that is felt, experienced, very intensely at times. “At times” means, of course, when there is a certain quietness, when the mind is not occupied, not trying to achieve something. And the body, also, is still.

“Transitory” is just a fancy word (although rather beautiful-sounding) describing the fact that a thought appears in conscious, and having appeared, disappears. This is such an obvious fact that it sounds superfluous, ridiculous even, to mention it. Thought comes and goes, of course. And one could say that this is so even when the mind IS occupied, IS quiet. How else could it be? And yet there is a difference, an immense difference between the two states of being. A difference which I can't put my finger on right at this moment. Perhaps someone could help?

What is this other state of being when thought does not feel transitory? Is it that thought is not SEEN as thought? That is, not seen as a memory, an idea, which has drifted across consciousness? Instead the thought is taken as some sort of absolute truth? Which persists even after the thought has had its existence? But how can this be? Does identification play a part in the process?

Hmm, I am suddenly doubting that this can possibly make sense to others.

I had another question about this transitory nature of thought, but will leave it for now.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 06 Mar 2018 #5
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4469 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
we can question what is going on.

Yes. And it seems to me this is the crucial factor. When one talks with the majority of people, it is precisely this questioning that is lacking. There is just the assertion of what they believe, what they have concluded. This seems to make meaningful communication impossible.

But questioning can go on in oneself. It MUST. And when it has started, it seems to gather momentum, wouldn't you say? It becomes "out of one's hands", out of any sort of control. It becomes guided by 'what is'. And the greatest 'what is' is that the thinker is not separate from thought.

Just about everyone has concluded that the thinker IS separate from his thought.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 06 Mar 2018 #6
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4469 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Yet the 'I' (the thinker) is not separate and K. pointed out that until it sees the "trick" that it played on itself, it will continue as it has been, as will the inevitable human fear, conflict and suffering.

Again, yes.

I can accept that in certain circumstances thought NEEDS to act under this pretence of a "permenent" thinker, or some sort of entity extended in time. Just to manage things that need to be managed in our lives. Some decisions need to be made, no? But this guise of permanency needs to be put aside as soon as it is no longer necessary. It has no place in the psychological sphere. In fact the psychological sphere IS this guise, this pretence, is it not?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 07 Mar 2018 #7
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4469 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
But for me in thinking about it, the line between 'technical' thought which is man's 'marvelous' capability compared with the other creatures here and that of 'psychological' thinking, is 'murky'

Yes, I have often thought it is not clear-cut, it is murky as you say, Dan. Because the self can, and does, identify with anything. Including, especially perhaps, the skills one might have.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 07 Mar 2018 #8
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4469 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
It can become self-learning/self-knowledge, and there is no end to it. An undiscovered country!

"Self-knowledge" I consider an unfortunate term, as has been discussed on the forum more than once. We are talking about transcending knowledge itself, are we not? And that really is an incredible thing. All the limits that we feel, and perhaps all the sorrow (that is really a question), are contained in that knowledge. Only beyond knowledge, perhaps, is there true freedom.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 07 Mar 2018 #9
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4469 posts in this forum Offline

Thought is transitory, that seems to be a fact, a living fact. And so can there be any security in thought, in the things that thought creates? By security one means having continuity ( at least that is one meaning of the word, it might also mean the absence of pain, suffering. )

Yet thought – the brain – desires security, does it not. One can even say that it needs security. Security is a biological necessity. All living creatures feel this, and act accordingly. The fact that thought has tried to create a thinker that is non-transitory (the word “permanent” does not see quite right) is evidence of the brain's desire for security.

So the brain needs security, and yet it cannot find it, can it? In fact all its action to try to achieve security seem to produce the opposite.

Seems we have a puzzle here. What is the answer? IS there an answer?

The problem seems to be that we are seeking security IN THOUGHT. In the very place where it cannot be found. Is this right?

And a final question for now, is there “somewhere else”, other than thought, where security can be found?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 08 Mar 2018 #10
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4469 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Psychologically, you mean? In the material world, it's success at creating safety and comfort (for some) is marvelous.

But Dan, your "for some" rather undermines the idea of success, does it not? Not only that, how long will this "safety and comfort" last, even for the few? 10 years? 20? 50?

Outside of the bubbles some people manage to live in, suicide rates going through the roof, mental illness reaching epidemic proportions, a sense of meaningless futility ever rising, the Anthropocene Extinction Event in full swing, insect and bird populations crashing, trees loss out of control, the seas about to collapse as a source of food and thoroughly infected with plastic in the food chain. Faith in information and truth is collapsing as people mistake it for mere opinion amenable to mere bias and prejudice. Nations,races, belief systems ever more fatally divided . . . . . . . and so on.

Hard to call this success, is't it? Rather I would say the brain/thought has utterly failed in its quest for security.

Please show that I am wrong, if there is such evidence.

This post was last updated by Clive Elwell Thu, 08 Mar 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 08 Mar 2018 #11
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4469 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
An impermanent process has cloaked itself in a 'dream' of permanence

Yes. But it's not a totally satisfactory garment, is it? Has the self totally convinced itself of its own permanence? Or are there intimations of its own illusion? Does it not sense, at some level, at some times, that its house is built on sand?

Doubt, uncertainty, seems to manifest in even the most unthinking, uncritical individuals, does it not?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 09 Mar 2018 #12
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4469 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote #20 :
what is creating all the problems you mention is the 'I'-me-mine' process with its cravings and fears and search for pleasure and psychological security. No?

I don't think this can be doubted, Dan.

Dan McDermott wrote #20:
our ingenuity (technical thought) to invent, discover, produce etc. is seemingly limitless...

Hmm, "seemingly". Is it actual? There are those that believe that our great technological capacity will not only solve all of mankind's problems before they overwhelm us, and even will produce a Utopia. I have heard some "scientists" make the most outrageous claims about this - even saying it will be possible to "live forever". Popular psychology professor Steven Pinker is a good example. But the scientists and technologists are still part of the human fragmentation, their opinions are still limited, incomplete. As are any one's opinions, including mine of course.

So it is hubris to think our ingenuity is limitless, infinite. but the idea offers a convenient escape from the actual crises facing us.

On the other hand, K has said that the brain "has infinite capacity". I cannot claim to know what this means. But it is clear that at the moment most of this capacity goes into the things of the self.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 09 Mar 2018 #13
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4469 posts in this forum Offline

*

Clive: But if the present is no match
for thought-created time images, then
the situation seems hopeless, no?

Tom:Yes, it appears to be so....until
we suffer and see how the images are
leading to the suffering. How
thought/attachment/image/pleasure is
responsible for suffering....in me and
in the world.

*

I wanted to take this up, Tom, but I just accidentally deleted my reply, and am not sure if I can reproduce it. Let's see.

Are you saying that suffering, and the seeing that we induce our own suffering because we are living in the past, living in thought-created reality (and everlastingly speculating about what might happen in the future); are you saying that such perception has the power to put us in the present, the here and now, to put us in the world that our senses perceive?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 10 Mar 2018 #14
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2263 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Are you saying that suffering, and the seeing that we induce our own suffering because we are living in the past, living in thought-created reality (and everlastingly speculating about what might happen in the future); are you saying that such perception has the power to put us in the present, the here and now, to put us in the world that our senses perceive?

I think I was trying to say that we need to see how we are actually creating suffering..,see how suffering is created...actually 'see' it, not just think about it...see how the images themselves create suffering. Not just living in the past, but our attachment to the images and pleasures and fulfillment we want to obtain in the future. Fulfillment is a big one, isnt it? Always based upon an image or images we are hoping to achieve or experience. Attachment is the cause of suffering according to the Buddha. Attachment is always based in image/s. The present moment...life itself...is free of all imagery. I dont know if I'm making sense. Will have to return to this later....have to start dinner.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Sat, 10 Mar 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 10 Mar 2018 #15
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4469 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
I dont know if I'm making sense.

Well, it all seems to make sense to me. And yes, I do see the question "why do we suffer" as an important one. To live a life full of suffering, conflict, makes no sense. Not that finding explanations gets us very far. And immediately looking for a way out of suffering also gets in the way of earning about it.

But I am still not sure how this related to my earlier question, which was:

"But if the present is no match for thought-created time images, then the situation seems hopeless, no?"

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 11 Mar 2018 #16
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2263 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
The situation as it is now with psychological thought was expressed well I thought by Huguette as being, "mud covering a lantern".

But Clive's question seems to point to the fact that we prefer the 'mud' to the light of the lantern. As Trump seems to have preferred his sordid relationship with a porn star to being with his wife and child. Clive's question again, "But if the present is no match for thought-created time images, then the situation seems hopeless, no?"

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 11 Mar 2018 #17
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2263 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
It seems to be the preference of most.

It's not a matter of preferrence. We don't know the light....we live in darkness...so we can't prefer one over the other. One simply prefers pleasure and fulfillment over fear. That seems to be the hard wiring of the brain, and until we see that the pursuit of pleasure and fulfillment (even 'spiritual' fulfillment) leads to suffering, it's how we will continue to live.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 11 Mar 2018 #18
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4469 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
But Clive's question seems to point to the fact that we prefer the 'mud' to the light of the lantern.

The question was not referring to the issue of "preferring". I was asking if this is the actual state of the mind? If somehow this is how the brain is wired, these days?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 12 Mar 2018 #19
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2263 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
I was asking if this is the actual state of the mind? If somehow this is how the brain is wired, these days?

Yes...the mud is covering the lantern. Its the way we are wired to live, it seems. It was Dan who brought in the idea of preference, which I strongly questioned.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 12 Mar 2018 #20
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4469 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Its the way we are wired to live, it seems

If it is the way the brain is wired - ie being attracted to its own occupations, its own creations (and let us remember we are talking about the human brain, not any particular brain), rather than quietness, rather than existing in that state of awareness and stillness which was being discussed on the other active thread, then I ask again, is the situation hopeless?

I am not concluding this, only enquiring.

The "K answer" would be in choiceless awareness. But I am asking if the brain is capable of that awareness in this day and age. Because I do not necessarily accept that that brain is the same as when K was speaking. It has received so much buffeting in these intervening years. There has been so much more hurt, so much violence. Does this not have a cumulative, negative influence on the brain?

There has been such a tremendous onslaught from the entertainment industry, advertising, so many forces of brain-washing.The brain has had to cope with so many completely new technological challenges, the internet, social media, violent computer "games", virtual reality, pretty much instant communication.

We can see how the human body has declined since K's time; soaring rates of diabetes, obesity, cancer, heart disease - and similarly an accelerating increase in "diseases of the mind", related to measured deficiencies in attention, increased rates of clinical depression, in suicides ....... The body/brain is subject to so many toxins .... I am asking what effect does all this have on the human mind? And is it still capable of the transformation that K spoke of?

Of course the only answer is to find out for oneself, through one's own enquiries and actions. One can never conclude that it is not possible.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 13 Mar 2018 #21
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4469 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
When it asks if the "situation is hopeless?" or is the "brain hardwired", isn't this a form of 'self' indulgence that accomplishes the only thing it really cares about and that is its own continuation.

Interesting question Dan. Let me see if I have understood it correctly. Are you suggesting that the mind puts questions, not because it really wants to find out, but only as a way of continuing its own activities? Continuing its own existence, in fact. As a way of avoiding that death of itself that is always looming, always just a moment away?

Dan McDermott wrote:
After all it is only an 'image', this self, this 'me', is it not?

This is how I see it, Dan. An image created by thought.

Dan McDermott wrote:
When it talks about "hope" (or hopelessness) it has brought in the element of 'time' hasn't it, a 'future' when this 'silence', peace, transformation, etc. will (might) be found,

Perhaps I was lax in my use of the word "hopeless". I think I was simply asking if the thing was impossible or not. Does this involve time? When I look at it, I'm not sure if it does. It's just a factual question, asking if awareness in the now is possible in the face of this relentless onslaught of thought and its images.

Of course it IS possible - sitting here I suddenly become aware of the wind in the trees, the birdsong, the heat ...... And this is here and now.

This awareness is as transient as thought, isn't it? But why should thought object to the transitory nature of things, and of itself? Is that another question thought has invented in order to continue itself for a few more seconds?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 14 Mar 2018 #22
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2263 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Yes thought talking about itself...anything to keep itself going! But why the need/desire for a 'permanence' in a world of movement?...Why a 'self-image' at all? That's a good question. Maybe it was seen as a way to increase 'pleasure',

Well, if thought is impermanent, then that means my pleasure may also be impermanent, and I don't like that. 'Me'/self is centered around the continuity of pleasure, isn't it? If thought is impermanent I may not have my much anticipated golf game tomorrow. I may not get a date with that sexy blond I met at the bar last week. We become attached to the pleasures that we've experienced, and want them repeated. The self...self image....serves to protect my pleasure and fulfillment. Is that it? Just exploring this issue here.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 15 Mar 2018 #23
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4469 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
I think it does, the question is about whether some psychological event can or cannot take place...when? In the future? But 'psychologically', there really is no 'future', is there? (Though that's not generally considered to be true, is it?)

Can I postulate that there are two sorts of questions? There are variations on “Can I?”, “Should I?” ….....” How do I?” …. and these sort of question DO involve time in their 'answers', as you suggest. Then there are questions that do not involve the “I”, like “Is the observer different from the observed?”, “Does belief separate mankind?” ….... such questions do NOT seem to involve time. In fact, if they are real questions, they are followed by a space, a hiatus, since we do not have an immediate response.

Dan McDermott wrote:
Yes thought talking about itself...anything to keep itself going! But why the need/desire for a 'permanence' in a world of movement?...Why a 'self-image' at all? That's a good question. Maybe it was seen as a way to increase 'pleasure', by being able to relive the 'past' through accumulated memories of experiences...? Without realizing that there would be a 'flip side': that of pain?
What do you say?

I often ask myself why thought keeps going as it does. Endlessly chatting to itself, condemning itself, congratulating itself, “Chewing the cud” as K has called it. There seems two possible answers:

1) Thought demands occupation because it cannot face what it imagines as its own absence. It cannot face emptiness, quietness.

2) Thought never completes what it is thinking about. It is always creating what might be called “unfinished business”, and so keeps trying to complete that business – but never succeeding in that, if it completes one bit of business, it creates more that is unfinished.

Both these answers seem true. But do they answer the question “why does thought object to the transient nature of itself?”. Why does it create the concept of a permanent self? Actually I think I have the explanations of these questions, but explanations are not action, are they. The real challenge is not for thought to find answers, but to slow down, to be still.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 15 Mar 2018 #24
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4469 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
and while it persists there can be no "Love"... which is the only 'thing' that he says is permanent and "immortal".

Can you give any citations for this, Dan? Not that I am doubting you, but I am interested to see.

how does that illusion fall away of its own accord?

Dan, is there not a contradiction contained in this question? If you ask “how?”, then how can it fall away of its own accord? To ask “how” suggests I have to do it, I have to find a way.

And if it is to fall away of its own accord, then surely any ideas that I have to do anything about that falling away have to end, no?

Not sure that I have explained this sufficiently?

do we really 'want' such a thing?

This question I find really important. Do we really want it? Does that mean want it enough to let everything else go, all that we are attached to? This needs examining in ourselves most carefully. Undoubedly there are many movements in us that want to hang on to the known. While the thing we are talking of, the state of “no-self”, is the unknown, is it not?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 15 Mar 2018 #25
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2263 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
do we really 'want' such a thing?

This question I find really important. Do we really want it? Does that mean want it enough to let everything else go, all that we are attached to? This needs examining in ourselves most carefully. Undoubedly there are many movements in us that want to hang on to the known. While the thing we are talking of, the state of “no-self”, is the unknown, is it not?

Right....we can only want what we know...or what we imagine or project from the known. Or am I mistaken? Can we want the absence of the wanter? That is a contradiction isn't it? Is the 'me' the state of wanting? If so, it would make no sense to speak of wanting "no-self".

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 16 Mar 2018 #26
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 926 posts in this forum Online

Questioner: Real beauty must be something other than the beauty of the poet, the artist, the young, alert mind, though I am not in any way belittling that beauty.

Krishnamurti: Is this really what you are seeking? Is it really what you want? If you do, there must be the total revolution of your being. Is this what you want? Do you want a revolution that shatters all your concepts, your values, your morality, your respectability, your knowledge - shatters you so that you are reduced to absolute nothingness, so that you no longer have any character, so that you no longer are the seeker, the man who judges, who is agressive or perhaps non-aggressive, so that you are completely empty of everything that is you? This emptiness is beauty with its extreme austerity in which there is not a spark of harshness or agressive assertion. That is what breakthrough means and is that what you are after? There must be astonishing intelligence, not information or learning. This intelligence operates all the time, whether you are asleep or awake. That is why we said there must be the observation of the inner and the outer which sharpens the brain. And this very sharpness of the brain makes it quiet. And it is this sensitivity and intelligence that make thought operate only when it has to; the rest of the time the brain is not dormant but watchfully quiet. And so the brain with its reactions doesn't bring about conflict. It functions without struggle and therefore without distortion. Then the doing and the acting are immediate, as when you are in danger. Therefore there is always a freedom from conceptual accumulations. It is this conceptual accumulation which is the observer, the ego, the "me" which divides, resists and builds barriers. When the "me" is not, the breakthrough is not, then there is no breakthrough; then the whole of life is in the beauty of living, the beauty of relationship, without substituting one image for another. Then only the infinitely greater is possible.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Fri, 16 Mar 2018 #27
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2263 posts in this forum Offline

", so that you are completely empty of everything that is you? " (K) Can one actually want that? There would be no meaning in that, would there? Wanting emptiness? One might see the importance of such emptying, though, I suspect.

Is that what you want, Dan? I used to 'want' all that...want the astonishing intelligence....the light...all that K. described above. I used to want it terribly. The wanting was in direct proportion to my suffering....and only intensified the suffering. It for sure brought no light. The wanting was clearly another movement of the self...a product of thought.... the 'mud covering the lantern' in the analogy Huguette used. K also spoke of 'looking', observing...simple awareness of what actually is. That seems to be the most intelligent way to proceed when we face any 'inner' problem or conflict. Observing the actual fact of the conflict.....not it's absence, which can't be done.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 16 Mar 2018 #28
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2263 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
(because there is no-one 'outside' of the conflict or problem)

The illusion of the one outside of the problem is a sticky one, though. The illusion that this separate 'I' ...the separate observer or analyzer... can act on the problem.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 17 Mar 2018 #29
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4469 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Can we want the absence of the wanter?

The process of "wanting" is generally to form a mental image of something, a projection of thought, and be attracted to that image, is it not? That image can be ANYTHING - I mean any construction of the mind. It can be positive or negative, getting something or giving up something, loosing something. It's all the same really, isn't it? So yes, one can desire the absence of the 'wanter', the self, many people have I am sure - but all this is "mind games", is it not, if I may use that phrase? Like all seeking, it is the pursuit of one's own projection, no?

I venture to say it never, ever, achieves its objective.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 17 Mar 2018 #30
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4469 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Is this really what you are seeking? Is it really what you want? If you do, there must be the total revolution of your being. Is this what you want?

That little word "want" may cover more than one meaning, more than one inner movement. I remember way back there was a discussion on this forum about two sorts of desire. I cannot cast the mind back to that now, but that doesn't matter.

The one sort of desire - chasing some image - I have described above. But isn't there a feel of something different in the quote Dan has put up? The closest word I can mind would be "passion".

Perhaps it comes when it is seen that nothing else is worth wanting

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 50 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.)