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

What does it mean, NOT to be the world?


Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 123 in total
Tue, 24 Apr 2018 #1
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4266 posts in this forum Offline

A little while back I was struck by an observation that seems to contain the essence of K’s phrase:
“You are the world”.

As no doubt you all know, words, descriptions, never capture adequately the intensity of a pure, spontaneous perception. But simply put, I saw that all that “I am”, all that is in the mind, is only that which has flowed into it form “the outside”, from the influences around me, the pressures, the propaganda ……. combined with the strong tendency of the mind to imitate, to be influenced, to be impressed (im-pressed).

I saw there is nothing else, nothing original, nothing that is truly “mine”. Only what has been conditioned into the mind. Of course people are welcome to argue this, maybe I am wrong.

I started to listen to a book, a novel, and when I put it down, the mind was full of memories, experiences of the book. The emotional impact starts to influence the way that I think, feel. I think it is fair to say I was the book.

Or I read a news item, and the mind reacts to the violence of it, the sadness of it, I am reminded once again how terrible is the state of the world. And for a while that fills the mind, along with past associations that the new experience engenders. But everything that I am, is the world. All the content of consciousness has been put there, it IS “the world”.

And I started to wonder along the lines what does it mean NOT to be the world? This may be a wrong question. It may not mean anything, just thought putting words together. The question may be an escape from the original perception, the mind not liking it. But I thought I would share the question, to see if there is any response.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 25 Apr 2018 #2
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 845 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
what does it mean NOT to be the world?

It seems to me that would be 'weird'...everything else IS the world except 'us'?

That we don't actually 'see' and feel that 'we are the world' is 'understandable' given our inability for direct perception...there are always one or more "veils" in the way. They are our escapes and they maintain our division with the 'world'. We say we would like to feel and 'know' this 'one-ness, but do we?... But then again, can we 'know' what we truly are: (the world)? Or is what we 'truly' are, unknowable? Is it that all we can 'know', are the 'veils'? That what we truly are is 'ungraspable'(un-manifest)?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Wed, 25 Apr 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 25 Apr 2018 #3
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 561 posts in this forum Offline

Clive,

I will hesitantly throw one of your recent quotes back at you:

“Without probing deeply into oneself self-knowledge is not possible. What do we mean by self-criticism? The function of the mind is to probe and to comprehend. Without this probing into ourselves, without this deep awareness, there can be no understanding. We often indulge in the stupidity of criticizing others but few are capable of probing deeply into themselves. The function of the mind is not only to probe, to delve, but also to be silent. In silence there is comprehension. We are ever probing but we are rarely silent; in us rarely are there alert, passive intervals of tranquillity; we probe and are soon weary of it without the creative silence. But self-probing is as essential for the clarity of understanding as is stillness. As the earth is allowed to lie fallow during the winter so must thought be still after deep searching. This very fallowness is its renewal. If we delve deeply into ourselves and are still then in this stillness, in this openness, there is understanding.

[...]With right probing there comes right stillness.

[...] Self-probing comes with conflict and sorrow, and there must be passive receptivity to understand. Surely self-probing, stillness and understanding are in awareness a single process and not three separate states.”

The point, isn't it?, is that both probing and silence are necessary for understanding. But, as K says, “self-probing comes with conflict and sorrow”. It cannot be merely a lackadaisical probing, as I see it. Then it is not probing but, as you yourself suggest, a wrong questions, an escape. No?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 26 Apr 2018 #4
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4266 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
It seems to me that would be 'weird'...everything else IS the world except 'us'?

But Dan, surely the self IS weird, is it not? Implied in its actions is the assumption that it IS separate from everything else. This is how it looks at the world, no? As if it I am separate from others, separate from things that "I" have, from my attributes, separate from nature, separate even from ideas that "I" have. This is indeed weird, the assumption that something can exist that is different, separate from everything else.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 26 Apr 2018 #5
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4266 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
It seems to me that would be 'weird'...everything else IS the world except 'us'?

Can we just check that the way you are using the word "world" is the same as K does when he says "You are the world"? I may well be wrong, and if I am I want to see that, but I have always assued K meant by "the world", the man-made world. The world that thought has created, directly or indirectly.

Is this the way you are using the word? Or are you using it synonymously with "the Universe"? Of course we ARE also the Universe, or part of it.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 26 Apr 2018 #6
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4266 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
But then again, can we 'know' what we truly are: (the world)? Or is what we 'truly' are, unknowable? Is it that all we can 'know', are the 'veils'? That what we truly are is 'ungraspable'(un-manifest)?

Yes, well put Dan. As we are a fragment, we cannot see the whole. What can we "know" except our knowledge, our experiences, which really is conditioning, isn't it.

If thought truly knows that it cannot know what it is, would it not cease trying to do so? But I should go back a step, and ask, CAN thought truly know that it cannot truly know? Or is there a contradiction in that?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 26 Apr 2018 #7
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4266 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
I will hesitantly throw one of your recent quotes back at you:

Huguette, I cannot imagine you “throwing” anything!

Huguette . wrote:
The point, isn't it?, is that both probing and silence are necessary for understanding. But, as K says, “self-probing comes with conflict and sorrow”. It cannot be merely a lackadaisical probing, as I see it. Then it is not probing but, as you yourself suggest, a wrong questions, an escape. No?

It is not clear to me in this moment that asking what I did is not a form of probing. And questioning the rightness of the question, is that not also probing? As long as we are asking questions, and not drawing conclusions, is that not probing? Or is K saying, and you suggesting, if that quality of stillness is not there also, there is no true probing?

Is that stillness necessary to see that thought itself is a very limited affair? And that I AM thought?

I can see that the mere asking of questions, without stillness, can be an endless affair.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 26 Apr 2018 #8
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4266 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
I will hesitantly throw one of your recent quotes back at you:

I am also asking, from that same quote, why does K say: “ But if you are seeking an opportunity to be silent then you are not aware ".

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 26 Apr 2018 #9
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 561 posts in this forum Offline

re 7 :0)

When I am probing into fear, anger, violence, love, beauty, comparison, time, relationship, sorrow, the rightness of questions, “I am the world”, and so on, isnt the probing done in the light of awareness or observation, of understanding the importance or significance of awareness, the need for observation? So that awareness is there as “the thing” arises, and "the thing" is observed and understood.

But if I’m probing into “what does it mean NOT to be the world?”, isn’t that an intellectual probing set in motion by an idea? The arising and movement of the question can be observed and understood - i.e. is it related to fear, desire, escape, and so on. But can this "thing" (“not to be in the world”) be observed as such?

It seems to me that these are fundamentally different types of probings - one is probing into the fact of what is, the other is an intellectual probing into an idea - but I’m not sure.

This post was last updated by Huguette . Thu, 26 Apr 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 26 Apr 2018 #10
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 561 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
I am also asking, from that same quote, why does K say: “ But if you are seeking an opportunity to be silent then you are not aware ".

K addressed this to the Questioner who had stated that “This complexity is so deep that one does not seem to have an opportunity for quietness”.

Can’t there be silence in the midst of noise? Does one have to SEEK an opportunity to be silent? Awareness is a movement of silence, a silent action, isn’t it?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 26 Apr 2018 #11
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 845 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
This is indeed weird, the assumption that something can exist that is different, separate from everything else.

At the level of the senses, this seems to be the case: I am not the tree. But going deeper, the world, everything, is something we call 'energy', is it not?...the world, the universe is a 'play' of 'energy'. At the level of the senses, my being eaten by the tiger is a true horror, but at the level of 'energy', it is 'just' a transformation, isn't it? At the level of the senses, everything eating everything else here is a kind of nightmare, but at the 'finer' level it is all just an 'exchange, a 'dance' some have called it...so it is the 'world' of energies that I think K refers to when he says "you are the world", the One-ness 'behind' the energy... That we 'are' it, is not to say that the frightened, confused, anxious, suffering 'self' is the 'world'...the 'self' is the illusory wall of psychological protection we have built unwittingly around ourself, the prison we have locked ourself into, and now struggle to 'escape' from.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 26 Apr 2018 #12
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2215 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
But if I’m probing into “what does it mean NOT to be the world?”, isn’t that an intellectual probing set in motion by an idea?

I would agree that an intellectual probing...an intellectual question... is very different than probing into
'what is'....what actually is NOW...be it fear, confusion...a conflict of some sort. What actually IS, is never an intellectual conception....but can be probed into in the sense you mention in your above post #9....observing...exploring...'going into it', a phrase K sometimes used in his talks. "Go into it, sir" he used to sometimes say. This is obviously not simply an intellectual 'going into it'.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 26 Apr 2018 #13
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4266 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
But if I’m probing into “what does it mean NOT to be the world?”, isn’t that an intellectual probing set in motion by an idea?

Huguette, ........ I have been surprised at how much significance the issue of "being the world" has taken on, the last day or two. Including your questions. And the question “what does it mean NOT to be the world?” has gone no further than the actual asking, together with the simple realisation "I do not know". But yes, I am inclined to think the question is tainted with the breath of escape.

After all, it is such a huge realisation, that one is the world - or at least it has the potential to be a huge realisation, if it left alone. left to flower. Because with it comes the realisation that the thinker is as much the world as the thought, and "I" can do nothing about it.

Recently I mentioned a talk by K, published asa booklet, entitled "The Ending of Sorrow". It ends:

"So a mind that would understand sorrow cannot do anything about; it cannot transform sorrow, or make it gentle. To be free of sorrow, you cannot do a thing about it. It is because we have always done something about it that we are still in sorrow".

Sorrow is a very important matter, isn't it? Although the world (and so me) is so full of it, it is hardly looked at per se, in the hectic, mad rush to escape from it. I don't think that I am wondering "from the point" in bringing this in.

Huguette . wrote:
It seems to me that these are fundamentally different types of probings - one is probing into the fact of what is, the other is an intellectual probing into an idea - but I’m not sure.

It is seeming this way to me also, at the moment.

This post was last updated by Clive Elwell Fri, 27 Apr 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 26 Apr 2018 #14
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4266 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Awareness is a movement of silence, a silent action, isn’t it?

Are you saying that the awareness of noise is in fact the action of silence?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 27 Apr 2018 #15
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4266 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
.so it is the 'world' of energies that I think K refers to when he says "you are the world", the One-ness 'behind' the energy...

I do not dispute the fact of this "world of energy", but are you saying, Dan, that when I wrote in *1 above:

I saw that all that “I am”, all that is in the mind, is only that which has flowed into it form “the outside”, from the influences around me, the pressures, the propaganda ……. combined with the strong tendency of the mind to imitate, to be influenced, to be impressed (im-pressed). I saw there is nothing else, nothing original, nothing that is truly “mine”. Only what has been conditioned into the mind. Of course people are welcome to argue this, maybe I am wrong.

This is not what K was saying/meaning, or at least part of what he was saying?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 27 Apr 2018 #16
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 845 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
I saw that all that “I am”, all that is in the mind, is only that which has flowed into it form “the outside”, from the influences around me, the pressures, the propaganda ……. combined with the strong tendency of the mind to imitate, to be influenced, to be impressed (im-pressed). I saw there is nothing else, nothing original, nothing that is truly “mine”. Only what has been conditioned into the mind. Of course people are welcome to argue this, maybe I am wrong.

I think that this is a description of the 'insight', that "I am nothing".

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 27 Apr 2018 #17
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 561 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Awareness is a movement of silence, a silent action, isn’t it?

Clive Elwell wrote:
Are you saying that the awareness of noise is in fact the action of silence?

Perhaps, like love, silence can only be “explained” through seeing what it is not. I don't know. Can we understand what it is NOT? It is seen that it is not effort, desire, ambition, fear, and so on. Effort etc. is the noisy movement of thought, isn’t it? But there can be silent observation of all that, can’t there? The observation of thought is not the movement of thought.

And is silence merely the absence or cessation of thought’s noise? There is a “silence” which is not silence - boredom, depression or anxiety - where there is no apparent thought, where no words come. Since boredom or depression are observable, something is necessarily “going on”, moving - if not consciously, then subconsciously, no? Doesn’t the very presence of depression, boredom or anxiety indicate a subconscious movement of thought?

But the silence which is untouched by either conscious or subconscious thought, is not dreadful, frightening or painful, is it? Can one hesitantly say - without affirming anything - that it is filled with energy which is unfragmented? CAN this be looked into .... silently?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 27 Apr 2018 #18
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 561 posts in this forum Offline

Dan,

“I am the world” - to me does not refer to the wholeness of the universe. It refers to the fact that the world is divided, in conflict, corrupt, greedy, brutal, and “I” see myself as an unwitting, hapless, helpless victim of the world - who has had to become greedy, brutal, aggressive, deceitful, etc., in order to protect myself. It’s a dog-eat-dog world but inwardly (so my story goes), I’m really a good guy, fair, kind, etc.

But does the world make me brutal or do I make the world brutal, deceitful, and so on? As K said, it is the same tide going out and in. No?

This post was last updated by Huguette . Fri, 27 Apr 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 27 Apr 2018 #19
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 845 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
“I am the world” - to me does not refer to the wholeness of the universe. It refers to the fact that the world is divided, in conflict, corrupt, greedy, brutal, and “I” see myself as an unwitting, hapless, helpless victim of the world - who has had to become greedy, brutal, aggressive, deceitful, etc., in order to protect myself. It’s a dog-eat-dog world but inwardly (so my story goes), I’m really a good guy, fair, kind, etc.

But does the world make me brutal or do I make the world brutal, deceitful, and so on? As K said, it is the same tide going out and in. No?

Somewhat of a shock to read that Huguette, though I did get an idea from one of Clive's questions that he may see it similarly...Re: "You are the World". It sounds like you took him to be speaking only to the perverted, unbalanced psychological 'self' and not to the 'essence' of a totally integrated human being. For whatever reason, I never heard it the way you did... I took him at his word; that what we are, (as well as every other living thing?), is the 'world'. It is the perversions of the ("evil") protective apparatus (the movements) of the 'self' that blind us to that truth. And that is why I understand now that his comments reported by Terence Stamp resonated so strongly with me and not to you and others:.."what you are...what you actually are is being. Being is not the mind thinking. Thinking is a movement, a motion. Being is the silence that precedes the motion. You cannot see it; you cannot grasp it because you are it. The feeling that you are."...

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Fri, 27 Apr 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 27 Apr 2018 #20
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 561 posts in this forum Offline

I’m surprised as well, Dan.

In my view, K made his meaning clear when he talked of “the world”, namely that he was referring to the collective suffering, the chaos, the conflict, the injustice, the violence, the fear, and so on. And so when he said “you are the world” (still in my view), he was referring to "the world's" rampant habit that it is always “others” who are to blame or who are responsible for the terrible events in “the world”: - it is the rich, the poor, the North Koreans, the Americans, the Europeans, the educated, the stupid, the whites, the blacks, the boss, the neighbour..... not “me”. Isn’t this point of view seen everywhere, daily, constantly? “The world” gets on its high horse with every terrible event, condemning, justifying, analyzing, self-righteously calling for retribution, thereby deepening the gulf which separates the fragments.

At least this clears up the source of a recurring misunderstanding between us regarding “one-ness”.

I’m taking the liberty of providing one quote for your consideration which you might be interested in (if not, then sorry):

http://www.basharantoon.com/ebooks/You_are_the_World.pdf

You Are The World Chapter 4 3rd February 1969 1st Public Talk at University of California Berkeley

We are concerned with human sorrow, the sorrow that most of us have, the anxiety, the fear, the hopes and despairs, and the great disorder that exists throughout the world. With that we are concerned as human beings, because we are responsible for this colossal chaos in the world, we are responsible for the disorder, for the war that is going on in Vietnam, we are responsible for the riots. As human beings living in this world in different countries and societies we are actually responsible for everything that is going on.

[...]
You know, wherever one goes in the world, human beings are more or less the same. Their manners, behaviour and outward pattern of action may differ, but psychologically, inwardly, their problems are the same. Man throughout the world is confused, that is the first thing one observes. Uncertain, insecure, he is groping, searching, asking, looking for a way out of this chaos. [...]

The society in which we live is the result of our psychological state. The society is ourselves, the world is ourselves, the world is not different from us. What we are we have made the world because we are confused, we are ambitious, we are greedy, seeking power, position, prestige. We are aggressive, brutal, competitive, and we build a society which is equally competitive, brutal and violent. It seems to me that our responsibility is to understand ourselves first, because we are the world.

[...]
What is the problem when we observe the actual world around us and in us? Is it an economic problem, a racial problem, Black against White, the Communists against the Capitalists, one religion opposed to another religion - is that the problem? Or is the problem much deeper, more profound, a psychological problem? Surely it is not merely an outward, but much more an inward problem.

[...]

So what is important is to learn about yourself, not according to any specialist, but to learn by actually observing yourself. And there you will find that you are the world: the hatreds, the nationalist, the religious separatist, the man who believes in certain things and disbelieves in others, the man who is afraid and so on.

This post was last updated by Huguette . Fri, 27 Apr 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 27 Apr 2018 #21
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 845 posts in this forum Offline

Yes thanks Huguette. I see. I did understand "you are the world" in that context of the earth's problems, in the similarity of suffering among peoples and in the corruptness of the societies and 'civilizations' we create. But when the observer is seen as the observed, and the 'thinker' ends, where is the division then between you and me? Where is the division between you and the 'world'? When the 'self' is no longer carving out and protecting its own 'individuality' and there is no 'me' and no 'mine'...no image between you and I... then? That is how I see the meaning of that phrase. For me it is pointing at the effect of the 'wrong turning' which brought about in each of us, our isolation, loneliness, suffering, etc. "You are the world" (to me) is pointing at our true nature, that we are (actually) one with the world around and in us.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 27 Apr 2018 #22
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 561 posts in this forum Offline

Dan,

The context of the world’s problems is where we are, what we are talking about, isn’t it?

Being confused, afraid, a slave to compulsion, etc., can I have insight into the end of self - the end of desire, fear, comparison, psychological time, division, effort to become, comparison between me and you, us and them, self-righteousness, and so on? Can I talk about a hypothetical time “when there is no me and no mine” as long as I am THAT? What do I know about “our true nature” as long as I am all THAT? Is there another context as long as I am that?

Being confused, I can have insight into being confused, into what I actually am, I can have insight into the process of my confusion, not into what I am not. No?

This post was last updated by Huguette . Fri, 27 Apr 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 27 Apr 2018 #23
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 845 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
The context of the world’s problems is where we are, what we are talking about, isn’t it?

Being confused, afraid, a slave to compulsion, etc., can I have insight into the end of self - the end of desire, fear, comparison, psychological time, division, effort to become, comparison between me and you, us and them, self-righteousness, and so on? Can I talk about a hypothetical time “when there is no me and no mine” as long as I am THAT? What do I know about “our true nature” as long as I am all THAT? Is there another context as long as I am that?

Being confused, I can have insight into being confused, into what I actually am, I can have insight into the process of my confusion, not into what I am not. No?

What does Krishnamurti represent to you? (If not the "hypothetical" 'Freedom from the known'?)

And yes you can have 'insight' into all those things. And with the insight comes freedom. The insight IS freedom, isn't it?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Fri, 27 Apr 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 28 Apr 2018 #24
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 561 posts in this forum Offline

Dan,

I see K as a human being who teaches how to think, not what to think - and not through authority but by pointing out the importance of understanding the processes or mechanisms of thought, self, time, fear, and so on, which one can observe for oneself. I don’t know if this “represents” anything.

Such teaching (how to think not what to think) is supposedly the function of universities but that promise is of course made in vain.

Yes, I too see it that to see or understand for oneself the psychological processes and mechanisms which govern action in relationship IS freedom. It is a totally new approach to life, action and relationship, which is not based on opposites, on choise or on time. It is a non-conflictual approach in which there is no fear of doing the wrong thing, no conceit or pretense of doing the right thing, and no desire or effort to do the right thing. It is an approach which does not go from conclusion to conclusion, which is not tethered or attached to the known. Whereas postulating about the hypothetical freedom of our true nature is the old approach to life. Isn’t it?

There is surely more that can be said but I’ll leave it at that.

This post was last updated by Huguette . Sat, 28 Apr 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 28 Apr 2018 #25
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 845 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Whereas postulating about the hypothetical freedom of our true nature is the old approach to life. Isn’t it?

No. I don't think so. Not if it is the result of insight. Not if it is the 'result' of this 'new approach'. ("Postulating" is a grim word.) There is a 'joy' involved in considering what 'this' and 'I' is all about: About the 'gift' of life as a human being here, now, isn't there? That was K.'s gift to us; to point that out to us: that the 'what is' is "sacred".

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sat, 28 Apr 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 28 Apr 2018 #26
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 561 posts in this forum Offline

Dan,

Certainly there is joy in the ability to think, in considering all these things, and in expressing words of friendship or affection. K often categorized thought as technical or psychological. As I see it, there is also thought which is the action of affection or joy. It may be playful, serious, nonsensical or technical.

As for man’s true nature, in observing the only mind which I can observe directly, I personally have not had such insight into the true nature of the human being which I am. I have no idea what that is. I can observe fear, joy, anger, love, hurt, tranquility, and so on, but I don’t know where to look, what to look at, to observe my true nature.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 28 Apr 2018 #27
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 845 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
I can observe fear, joy, anger, love, hurt, tranquility, and so on, but I don’t know where to look, what to look at, to observe my true nature.

The 'true nature' is what is doing the looking. You/I can't 'know' it because we are it.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 28 Apr 2018 #28
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 561 posts in this forum Offline

I don't see it. I can't just take your word for it that is is so.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 28 Apr 2018 #29
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4266 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
But does the world make me brutal or do I make the world brutal, deceitful, and so on? As K said, it is the same tide going out and in. No?

Interestingly, I was discussing the very issue with a couple of people last night. It certainly is not a question of “either/or”. Clearly what “I am” is the result of what has been put into me; what has been absorbed into the brain from “the world”. But also clear that that world is only put together by so-called individual consciousnesses. The closer one looks at this process, the more that any distinction between the two, between “the world” and “me” becomes superfluous, artificial. There is no “world” apart from, independent of, me and you, us, and there is no me apart from the world.

This is not the generally accepted view of things. It is as you say, Huguette:

Huguette . wrote:
and “I” see myself as an unwitting, hapless, helpless victim of the world - who has had to become greedy, brutal, aggressive, deceitful, etc., in order to protect myself. It’s a dog-eat-dog world but inwardly (so my story goes), I’m really a good guy, fair, kind, etc.

There are the goodies and the baddies, the powerful and those subject to their power. In protecting itself against what is actual, the mind has a very powerful tool in rationalising.

But never mind how the world rationalises and perceives things. What is important is to be silently aware - perhaps not so much that “I am the world”, but how the mind deceives itself into thinking it is different from the world. Which is basically the concept of “I”, is it not?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 28 Apr 2018 #30
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4266 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
But the silence which is untouched by either conscious or subconscious thought, is not dreadful, frightening or painful, is it? Can one hesitantly say - without affirming anything - that it is filled with energy which is unfragmented? CAN this be looked into .... silently?

Certainly silence is not frightening, because fear is always of an IDEA, a concept, something imagined. Something not yet come to pass.

But as to the question "Can this be looked into silently" ..... rather than give an answer, one can only engage with the question.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 123 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.)