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

Impermanence rules


Displaying posts 31 - 50 of 50 in total
Sat, 17 Mar 2018 #31
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 958 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
The closest word I can mind would be "passion".
Perhaps it comes when it is seen that nothing else is worth wanting.

Yes, at one level, 'I' want this "revolution" because it would mean the end of conflict, suffering, confusion, worry and fear. But this 'level' still wants to keep the pleasure, keep the 'me'...and we understand that that is no revolution at all, it is just 'greed'. The deeper level is understanding as Tom said, the stickiness that 'I' with my greed, and sense of individuality am the cause of my own 'imprisonment in the 'known'. At this level all objects of desire can be seen as 'escapes'. I think this is where the "passion" that Clive speaks of is present...it is the "state of observation" that 'wants' to see all without judgement, without condemnation, without comparison..?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sat, 17 Mar 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 18 Mar 2018 #32
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4531 posts in this forum Offline

The QOTD seems to express the reality of impermanence so perfectly

Amidst the changing circumstances of life, is there anything permanent? Is there any relation between ourselves and the constant change about us? If we accepted that everything is change, including ourselves, then there would never be the idea of permanency. If we thought of ourselves as in a state of continual movement, then there would be no conflict between the changing circumstances of life and the thing we now think of as being permanent.

There is a deep, abiding hope or a certainty in us that there is something permanent in the midst of continual change, and this gives rise to conflict. We see that change exists about us. We see everything decaying, withering. We see cataclysms, wars, famines, death, insecurity, disillusionment. Everything about us is in constant change, becoming and decaying. All things are worn out by use. There is nothing permanent about us. In our institutions, our morals, our theories of government, of economics, of social relationship - in all things there is a flux, there is a change.

And yet in the midst of this impermanency we feel that there is permanency; being dissatisfied with this impermanency, we have created a state of permanency, thereby giving rise to conflict between that which is supposed to be permanent and that which is changing, the transient. But if we realized that everything, including ourselves, the "I", is transient and the environmental things of life are also impermanent, surely then there would not be this aching conflict.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 18 Mar 2018 #33
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 753 posts in this forum Offline

Krishnamurti quote:
And yet in the midst of this impermanency we feel that there is permanency

And there is also the permanence one can observe.
It touched me deeply the self-evidence with which the self-healing aspect occurs as soon as one stops interfering.

Once discovered it is visible everywhere, think e.g. to nature how it recovered in Tsjernobyl after the atomic disaster, after a Forrest fire, etc..

Is this self-healing also working in the mind ?

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, 18 Mar 2018 #34
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4531 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
And there is also the permanence one can observe.

So what do you feel is the nature of this permanence, Wim? I have been feeling/observing more and more that there is no permanence, within us or in the outer material world.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 18 Mar 2018 #35
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4531 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
Is this self-healing also working in the mind ?

If there is a healing process, I would say it is comes from the realisation that the nature of life is impermanence, and the living in the light of this awareness. Then one is not living in the pretence of a “permanent self” - and after all, is it not the self (the illusion of self) that is the cause of most disease (dis-ease)?

Is this not what K is implying in the QOTD above, when he says:

”If we thought of ourselves as in a state of continual movement, then there would be no conflict between the changing circumstances of life and the thing we now think of as being permanent”

I think even modern science and medicine now recognizes that conflict is a major cause of disease.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 19 Mar 2018 #36
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 753 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
So what do you feel is the nature of this permanence, Wim? I have been feeling/observing more and more that there is no permanence, within us or in the outer material world

I don't even know if it is a feeling or seeing or something else !
It's clear that it is not in the material world, inner or outer !

Once someone said to me:
' Love does not need bodies, but bodies need Love.'

At that time I didn't understand and now it seems an answer to your question.

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, 19 Mar 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 19 Mar 2018 #37
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 753 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Is this not what K is implying in the QOTD above

Yes, it is implied, but that was not in mind at all

I think even modern science and medicine now recognizes that conflict is a major cause of disease

Yes, mostly the medicine is worse than the disease and the cause of another disease.

does humanity not underestimate its own spirit power?

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 Mar 2018 #38
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 958 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
K. But if we realized that everything, including ourselves, the "I", is transient and the environmental things of life are also impermanent, surely then there would not be this aching conflict.

The 'intellect' fools itself here. It 'knows' that everything, that everyone we lay eyes on will disappear, decay, die. Yet it has with the 'self' turned a 'blind eye' to the truth, where it, where the 'I', the 'me' is concerned. Like a frightened, greedy, petulant child it turns away from the obvious, which is that 'I' along with everything else will disappear and instead dreams/hopes of 'greater things' to come...It also has sucked the 'attention' from everything else and kept it on itself. Why? To perpetuate the belief in its own 'reality'? To keep alive the neurotic hope of 'permanence'? Pure sights and sounds and sensations of the magnificent world around us are constantly coming in to the body/brain through the "uncorrupted" senses, but these are then subordinated and marginalized to the tin pot 'dominance' of the noisy, narrow, peacock-like self.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 19 Mar 2018 #39
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4531 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
' Love does not need bodies, but bodies need Love.'
At that time I didn't understand and now it seems an answer to your question.

I am not commenting on your statement, except to say I do not see how it is an answer to my question, which was:

"So what do you feel is the nature of this permanence, Wim? "

which followed your comment earlier:

"And there is also the permanence one can observe"

Let us examine this, as it seems fundamental.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 19 Mar 2018 #40
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4531 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
...........It also has sucked the 'attention' from everything else and kept it on itself. Why? To perpetuate the belief in its own 'reality'? To keep alive the neurotic hope of 'permanence'? ........

Nice post Dan.

Yes, the self, being in fact non-existent, need a constant inflow of ....... cannot find a word here. Energy? Reassurance? Assertion? ...... to keep itself going, to maintain the illusion of its own existence. So it can never be at peace.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 20 Mar 2018 #41
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 753 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Yes, the self, being in fact non-existent, need a constant inflow of ....... cannot find a word here. Energy? Reassurancte? Assertion? ...... to keep itself going, to maintain the illusion of its own existence

And

Clive Elwell wrote:
I am not commenting on your statement, except to say

Seems one image is giving energy to another image.

Clive Elwell wrote:
I do not see how it is an answer to my question, which was:

"So what do you feel is the nature of this permanence, Wim? "

This remark and question is free of thought, it seems

Yes, language is a dangerous tool there are countless ways to misunderstand each other, this is one nature of the permanence, the possibility to misunderstand.

Finding myself with one feet in the stream and the other out the stream and as such very shaky.

looking too deeply into the glass of the mirror, it is broken and is shattered at my feet.

the actuality is that I can not find the right words to answer your question and fully understand that with what I've written you do not understand.

Clive Elwell wrote:
So it can never be at peace.

By not giving it energy It's not born neither has to die in the moment and that is in itself peace.

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
Tue, 20 Mar 2018 #42
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4531 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
Yes, language is a dangerous tool there are countless ways to misunderstand each other, this is one nature of the permanence, the possibility to misunderstand.

I do not know that one can say that 'a possibility' is permanent, as possibilities do not really exist. They are projects of the mind in the moment, and they end.

In fact is any creation of the mind 'permanent'? They come and they go, do they not? They are born and they die. And we do not know what tomorrow holds - we do not know what the next moment holds.

Human consciousness itself has only been in existence for - well, hard to put a date on it, say some hundreds of thousands of years. And there is certainly no guarantee that it will survive at all - the future of the human race, and perhaps most life on Earth, looks very very uncertain.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 20 Mar 2018 #43
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4531 posts in this forum Offline

It is not that I am seeking certainty. In fact to live with uncertainty, to accept (not just intellectually) the basic impermanence in life seems to put an end of most, if not all, of our problems, does it not?

I am moved to make this statement:

The seeing, from moment to moment, that thought is transient, is the fundamental transforming factor of the mind. Then thought is dying all the time, and nothing is carried forward as experience (except where necessary for practical purposes). Experience is the conditioning factor of the mind. It is experiences that make up the self.

Alongside this perception, this realisation, is that fact that the thinker is the thought. So as thought dies, it is the dying of me – the “me” that thought has created in its pretence that it ISN'T transient.

Not to be dogmatic, but is there anything else to see, to realise, than this?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 21 Mar 2018 #44
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 753 posts in this forum Offline

The descriptions in # 59/60 remain within the vocabulary of the Teaching and there is a danger of the repetition of certainty without insight.

Clive Elwell wrote:
I am moved to make this statement

Could as well point to a 'me' experiencing as well to a deep insight, the joy of discovering.

The same can be said by claiming understanding of the description.

A deep feeling is described in #58 and the same can be said about that.

Is keeping into account that all is possible really different from living with uncertainty ??

By allowing the freedom of speach without the boundary of the vocabulaire of the teaching the art of listening behind the used words is a necessity.

And that in itself is a different attitude towards each other.

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
Wed, 21 Mar 2018 #45
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4531 posts in this forum Offline

Wim, only the dying of thought/feeling, in the moment, in each moment, is the complete "answer" to all the problems, complications, that thought produces.

Is this not so?

Without this dying, this ending, thought multiplies itself ad infinitum.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 22 Mar 2018 #46
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 753 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Wim, only the dying of thought/feeling, in the moment, in each moment, is the complete "answer" to all the problems, complications, that thought produces.

Is this not so?

Clive, agreeing or disagreeing is that not the expressing of knowledge.??

in addition the words 'only' and 'complete' pointing to knowledge.

WHILE actually one don't know.!

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, 22 Mar 2018 #47
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 634 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
agreeing or disagreeing is that not the expressing of knowledge.??

Wim,

It can be and it can also not be, I think. If I respond to what you say like a tennis umpire who calls the balls “in” or “out” from his elevated chair, it is knowledge. And we certainly have seen this happening.

But if you and I look into an issue together, question together, listen to each other - without holding to an established conclusion - we might agree or disagree, but not in an authoritative, categorical way. The same thing for the words “only” and “complete”. In a dialogue between friends, one might make statements but the questions, “Do you see this also? What do you think about it?” are always underlying one's statements, aren’t they?

Is any of this so, or are dialogues useless .... or something else?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 22 Mar 2018 #48
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4531 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
Clive, agreeing or disagreeing is that not the expressing of knowledge.??

Asking "is this not so" is an invitation to enquire into the issue; it is not merely asking for agreement/disagreement.

What was said yesterday, or a moment ago, is not necessarily stuck to. Insight, if held to, does turn into mere knowledge, and so looses the meaning it had.

Wim Opdam wrote:
in addition the words 'only' and 'complete' pointing to knowledge.

Can one know if another is speaking from knowledge, or from perception? And does it have any meaning to conclude one way or another?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 23 Mar 2018 #49
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 753 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
It can be and it can also not be,
I think. If I respond to what you say like a tennis umpire who calls the balls “in” or “out” from his elevated chair, it is knowledge. And we certainly have seen this happening.

Yes, that's the reason that one don't accept an umpire in the psychological world and also there is no scores so the umpire and/or 'in' or 'out' is unnecessary.

To keep one sharp for such incidents seems the use for dialogues.

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
Fri, 23 Mar 2018 #50
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 753 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Can one know if another is speaking from knowledge, or from perception? And does it have any meaning to conclude one way or another?

No, one can never conclude if this is so and any conclusion is chrytalized in thought, so to say.

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
Displaying posts 31 - 50 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.)