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

What does it mean, NOT to be the world?


Displaying posts 31 - 60 of 123 in total
Sat, 28 Apr 2018 #31
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4532 posts in this forum Offline

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

Dan, if we can't know it, then how can it be talked of, how can it be described? How can it be stated?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 28 Apr 2018 #32
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 958 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Dan, if we can't know it, then how can it be talked of, how can it be described? How can it be stated?

That's a good question...and I guess we can't. Like Love and Silence and Intelligence, unless it's discovered in ourself, we just have to take K.'s (and others) word that it's there. But being a light to oneself means never to have to depend on the light from another, doesn't it? So 'how' does the 'light' come? And if it comes, how do you 'know' it's the 'real' light and not just another escape by the 'self'? Is the 'light' the light of 'being' that comes when the process of 'becoming' has been understood and ends? And if you are a 'light unto yourself' can you say "I am a light to myself' or is that also something that can't be 'known', hence, 'said'?

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 28 Apr 2018 #33
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2271 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
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".

Of course this is still thinking/thought, and limited....bound...not free, right? It separates 'me' from 'what is'....the turmoil of my daily life. I don't know...perhaps you'd say no? K. might have seen 'what is' as sacred, but I'm not sure what value there is in you or I 'considering' such things as long as we are feeling separate from what we observe(what is), be it our neighbor or our struggles and conflicts. Perhaps the value lies in observing(along with considering ('right thinking'?)) the way the mind divides from life/what is.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 28 Apr 2018 #34
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 634 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
we just have to take K.'s (and others) word that it's there. But being a light to oneself means never to have to depend on the light from another, doesn't it?

Dan,

Can you show me where K said that “what is” is sacred? Rather, he said things like this:

About “what is”:

"To understand what is, is more important than to create and follow ideals because ideals are false, and what is is the real. To understand what is requires an enormous capacity, a swift and unprejudiced mind. It is because we don't want to face and understand what is that we invent the many ways of escape and give them lovely names as the ideal, the belief, God. Surely, it is only when I see the false as the false that my mind is capable of perceiving what is true.” The Book of Life

And:

"The very awareness of what is is a liberative process. So long as we are unaware of what we are and are trying to become something else, so long will there be distortion and pain. The very awareness of what I am brings about transformation and the freedom of understanding." Collected Works, Vol. IV,75,Choiceless Awareness

And about “sacred”:

“So if we want to enquire into that which is most holy, which is nameless, timeless, one must obviously belong to no group, no religion, have no belief, no faith, because belief and faith is accepting as true something which does not or may not exist. That is the nature of belief: taking for granted, accepting something to be true when your own enquiry, your own vitality, energy, has not found out, you believe. Because in belief there is some form of security, comfort. But a man who is seeking merely psychological comfort, such a man will never come upon that which is beyond time." Rajghat 2nd Public Talk 1st December 1963 Collected Works, Volume II

Again, not that K is the unquestionable authority. But in "my own enquiry, my own vitality, energy", most of what he says is observable, and therefore exciting, for me at least. Why should I believe anything K says? If I don’t see but it seems to have the ring of truth to it (which Christianity, cults etc. don't have), I MUST keep “digging”, looking into it, to find out for myself what is not clear. Maybe it is not the ring of truth I hear but a death knell. That is not believing.

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 28 Apr 2018 #35
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 958 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Can you show me where K said that “what is” is sacred?

I can't but maybe someone else was struck by it as I was and knows when/where it was said. What it meant to me was that when all the 'becoming' has ended, all the searching, the struggling to understand, the theories, the beliefs, the confusion, the fears, thought/time, the 'suffering', etc... when all that has come to an end, there is, as there has always been and always will be: the 'what is'.(the "sacred" 'what is')

It reminded me of the poet's insight: "Truth is beauty, beauty is truth. That is all ye know on earth and all ye need to know."

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 28 Apr 2018 #36
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 634 posts in this forum Offline

K said that "what is" is fear etc. but I do see that he also said that "what is" is sacred ... "when there is no illusion". I do not deny the sacred but how do you jump from "the sacred" to "our true nature"?

What is “my true nature”? If I have a true nature, doesn't that mean that there is a "me" to whom that true nature is attached? Doesn’t “true nature” imply something that is unchanging, constant, continuous through time? Is there a difference between a "true nature" and a “true self”?

Whenever I’m angry, that IS “what is” in that moment. Isn’t anger my nature or true nature in the moment of anger? Isn’t “what is” in constant flux? Where there is awareness of my anger, does that mean I am “one with the world” and anger is “not me”?

A “nature” is something that is ascribed to someone or something, isn’t it? For example, it is the nature of diamonds to be extremely hard, it is the nature of sugar to dissolve in water, it is the nature of cheetahs to be shy, it is the nature of the honey badger to be aggressive, it is the nature of sloths to move extremely slowly, it is the nature of a vacuum to suck surrounding matter into it.

"When there is no illusion the "what is" is most sacred. Now let's look at what actually is. At a given moment the "what is" may be fear, or utter despair, or a fleeting joy. These things are constantly changing. And also there is the observer who says, "These things all change around me, but I remain permanent". Is that a fact, is that what really is? Is he not also changing, adding to and taking away from himself, modifying, adjusting himself, becoming or not becoming? So both the observer and the observed are constantly changing. What is is change. That is a fact. That is what is." The Urgency of Change 'Is There a God?'

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 28 Apr 2018 #37
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 958 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
K.: What is is change. That is a fact. That is what is.

Everything is in motion isn't it? Everything is changing. That is the fact. And as he has said; what we are is "nothing" (not-a -thing). Was he just talking about 'us' or is the cheetah included, and the tree and the bird etc?..Did he mean that in our 'essence', we are nothing...that 'we' are one, no division, we are the world? Is the essence of all living things that which is un-manifested? That this essence is 'one'...for the ant and for the elephant and for the rose and for humans etc? And this 'essence' is not in motion, changing etc. it is the 'stillness', the silence out of which the movement comes, out of which the manifest world is continuously born. And the essence or awareness belongs to no-thing, it is no-one's. Anyway sorry to go on but our 'true nature' then, as I more or less rightly or wrongly understand it, lies in the 'Silence', in the un-manifest. Our differences, tendencies, attributes, forms, etc. appear here in the manifest world.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sun, 29 Apr 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 28 Apr 2018 #38
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 958 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Maybe it is not the ring of truth I hear but a death knell. That is not believing.

I didn't understand what you meant here Huguette.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 28 Apr 2018 #39
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4532 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
And if it comes, how do you 'know' it's the 'real' light and not just another escape by the 'self'?

I suggest, by doubting, questioning. If it collapses in the light of doubt, then it's not real. What is real, true, will not be affected by doubt, will it?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 28 Apr 2018 #40
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4532 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Can you show me where K said that “what is” is sacred?

K says "What is, is the most sacred", in The Urgency of Change.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 28 Apr 2018 #41
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4532 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Can you show me where K said that “what is” is sacred?

K says "What is, is the most sacred", in The Urgency of Change.

Krishnamurti: If there is no illusion, what is left?

Questioner: Only what is.

Krishnamurti: The ""what is' ' is the most holy.

Questioner: If the "what is' ' is the most holy then war is most holy, and hatred, disorder, pain, avarice and plunder. Then we must not speak of any change at all. If "what is' ' is sacred, then every murderer and plunderer and exploiter can say, ``Don't touch me, what I'm doing is sacred' '.

Krishnamurti: The very simplicity of that statement, "`what is' is the most sacred' ', leads to great misunderstanding, because we don't see the truth of it. If you see that what is is sacred, you do not murder, you do not make war, you do not hope, you do not exploit. Having done these things you cannot claim immunity from a truth which you have violated. The white man who says to the black rioter, "What is is sacred, do not interfere, do not burn'', has not seen, for if he had, the Negro would be sacred to him, and there would be no need to burn. So if each one of us sees this truth there must be change. This seeing of the truth is change.

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 28 Apr 2018 #42
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 634 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:

Maybe it is not the ring of truth I hear but a death knell. That is not believing.

Dan McDermott wrote:
I didn't understand what you meant here Huguette.

Sorry Dan, I wasn’t clear.

What I meant was that I realize that just because something seems to me to have the ring of truth to it, doesn’t make it true. I might be quite mistaken! The “ring of truth” I hear might be merely my imagination, my conclusion - not understanding.

As for “believing”, I again meant to say that even if something seems like it might be true, doesn’t mean that I believe it to be true. I still have to dig and find out for myself. Just because K (or anyone else) says this or that, I don’t believe it based on who said it. I still question it even if it seems true.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 28 Apr 2018 #43
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 634 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
K says "What is, is the most sacred", in The Urgency of Change.

Yes thanks Clive. I found it and also quoted an exerpt from The Urgency of Change at #36.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 29 Apr 2018 #44
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 958 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
What I meant was that I realize that just because something seems to me to have the ring of truth to it, doesn’t make it true. I might be quite mistaken! The “ring of truth” I hear might be merely my imagination, my conclusion

The absence of that realization is what the cult gurus cash in on and there but for the 'grace of god' go we.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sun, 29 Apr 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 29 Apr 2018 #45
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4532 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
And as he has said; what we are is "nothing" (not-a -thing).

When K has made the statement “you are nothing”, I have generally taken him to mean that the self has no real existence, it is only a concept created by thought.

I am not saying that I am right in this, or that this is the full depth, the complete meaning. I know one tends to draw conclusions and not look beyond them. I think that is one of the uses, the beauty even, of forums like this, that they can shake us up, challenge our conclusions.

In The Ending of Time, where K peels off the layers of the onion of “what is” on a cosmic scale, the first layer reveals, both he and Bohm say, nothingness, or emptiness. And I think K says: “Because there is nothing, there is every thing. Would this relate to what you are saying about oneness, Dan? It is perfectly logical.

And one reads, when people have some sort of ‘mystical experience’, they usually describe it afterwards as some sort of feeling one-ness with everything. A lack of distance, lack of separation, from everything else. I do not think I have ever felt this myself, except perhaps as a child sometimes.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 29 Apr 2018 #46
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4532 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
. 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."...

Dan,
I am probably wrong in this, but some weeks ago was not the accuracy of this quote from Terence Stamp questioned? Perhaps you could point me towards the posts on this in an earlier thread?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 29 Apr 2018 #47
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 958 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
And I think K says: “Because there is nothing, there is every thing. Would this relate to what you are saying about oneness?

Yes, maybe but I don't know what the context is in that conversation. Can you give a link?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sun, 29 Apr 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 29 Apr 2018 #48
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 958 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
I am probably wrong in this, but some weeks ago was not the accuracy of this quote from Terence Stamp questioned?

Since it came from his memory of his meeting and wasn't recorded as far as I know. I took it as being accurate because of the content, but who can actually know for certain about something like that?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sun, 29 Apr 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 29 Apr 2018 #49
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2271 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Clive Elwell wrote:

I am probably wrong in this, but some weeks ago was not the accuracy of this quote from Terence Stamp questioned?
Since it came from his memory of his meeting and wasn't recorded as far as I know. I took it as being accurate because of the content,

Of course Stamp could have been experiencing early dementia, or just simple confusion. K never said this kind of thing in the talks, as far as I know. I could be mistaken, but no one on the forum has ever shared a quote where K said this in a talk. What Clive said about K’s statement that ‘you are nothing’ has much more resonance with me. But perhaps ‘nothing’ and ‘pure being’ are two ways of saying the same thing? Not sure about that. Pure being taken in the context of Stamp’s statement applies to a ‘you’ or a ‘me’....a self....or Self...as I see it.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Sun, 29 Apr 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 30 Apr 2018 #50
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 958 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Pure being taken in the context of Stamp’s statement applies to a ‘you’ or a ‘me’....a self....or Self...as I see it.

But the quote is that K. says to him "Being is not the mind thinking. Thinking is a movement, a motion. Being is the silence that precedes the motion"...

I don't see at all how that applies to the 'me', the 'self', the thinker/thought...?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Mon, 30 Apr 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 30 Apr 2018 #51
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4532 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Yes, maybe but I don't know what the context is in that conversation. Can you give a link?

I have a feeling there is nothing of much substance with reference to this. Also I am travelling at the moment - perhaps I will have browse for it tomorrow, Dan.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 30 Apr 2018 #52
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 634 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:

Pure being taken in the context of Stamp’s statement applies to a ‘you’ or a ‘me’....a self....or Self...as I see it.

Dan McDermott wrote:
But the quote is that K. says to him "Being is not the mind thinking. Thinking is a movement, a motion. Being is the silence that precedes the motion"...

I don't see at all how that applies to the 'me', the 'self', the thinker/thought...?

Isn't the nature of self that it is thought? Is thought the nature of being or silence?

Isn’t “you are nothing” another way of saying there IS NO you, there is no thing that is “you”? Nothing is nothing. Nothing is not something. “Being” is something, awareness is something, understanding is something. But there is no you - no lower you, no higher you. There is nothing that is "you", and so “you” cannot have a true nature, can it? Is there a difference between a "true nature" and a “true self”?

Is the self an actuality? Is it that there actually IS a self but what that “you really are", is being or awareness? IS there a self or is there no self, nothing? If “you” are being, then “you” - the idea of “you” - is retained. So can “you” - an idea, an illusion - have a true nature beyond idea, thought, illusion? Can nothing have a true nature?

So DO we see that the “you, me, self” is nothing, no thing, an illusion, an idea, a cerebral movement in the brain - that is, there is no "you"?

You said (#21): “"You are the world" (to me) is pointing at our true nature, that we are (actually) one with the world around and in us.”

But if I AM the world, the world is not around and in “me”. I AM the world, the world IS “me” and “me” and “me”, all the "me's", all of us. And that “me” is nothing. It is an illusion of the brain on which the brain bases its action. No?

This post was last updated by Huguette . Mon, 30 Apr 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 30 Apr 2018 #53
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 634 posts in this forum Offline

The illusory nature of “the world” is understood. There is nothing, no actuality, to the illusion of the world and me. But nothing is not a void. Therefore, it is understood that in the silence of nothing, is everything - love, beauty, illusions and sorrow.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 30 Apr 2018 #54
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 958 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
I AM the world, the world IS “me” and “me” and “me”, all the "me's", all of us. And that “me” is nothing. It is an illusion of the brain on which the brain bases its action. No?

Is it that all the manifest world, that which can be seen and touched, fulfills itself according to 'what' it is?...it grows, propagates itself, it comes to fruition. It blooms and it flowers/matures and withers and dies. That is how I see it in the nature here around me. But for Man something (the image of a 'self?) has entered the picture and created the madhouse that mankind finds itself in.(that it has always been in?). Did thought with psychological 'time' put us 'out of sync' with the natural world? And are we trying to find our way back to a harmony, an integration within ourselves before everything literally blows up? The 'brain' of the rose creates a rose. The brain of Man with its thought tricked itself and created a 'thinker'?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Mon, 30 Apr 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 30 Apr 2018 #55
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2271 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Tom Paine wrote:

Pure being taken in the context of Stamp’s statement applies to a ‘you’ or a ‘me’....a self....or Self...as I see it.

But the quote is that K. says to him "Being is not the mind thinking. Thinking is a movement, a motion. Being is the silence that precedes the motion"...

I apologize...I didn't recall the full quote from Stamp. If I am actually 'pure being', what is the need for K...or anyone...to tell me that that's what I am? As soon as I think, "I am pure being" there's a 'me'...a self image. Don't most of us hear a statement like the Stamp quote, and think, "Ah yes, I(me) am pure being"? If we are only pure being, what is the need for the statement? In fact, what we are is the self...the accumulated images...the conditioning. Pure being would have no 'me' or 'you' that is in need of being told that 'you are pure being'. I'm probably making too much of this, but that statement by Stamp seems 'off' key ....not at all like something K would actually say.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 30 Apr 2018 #56
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2271 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
But for Man something (the image of a 'self?) has entered the picture and created the madhouse that mankind finds itself in.(that it has always been in?).

Yes, the 'me' vs. the 'you'....division. Also 'internal' division in consciousness. What is (the fact) vs. the ideal...vs.the image.

Dan McDermott wrote:
Did thought with psychological 'time' put us 'out of sync' with the natural world?

"psychological" time, yes. Becoming based upon images of 'me' (my future and my past) in the brain. And the attachment to pleasurable images. The dog or cat may experience pleasure, but most likely they don't become attached to images of that pleasure and want it repeated. Well, perhaps they do to a minor extent. They recall a delicious treat if you give them some table scraps that they enjoy. Then they want that pleasure repeated. But they don't build their life around the search for pleasure and fulfillment the way man does. I know a guy who told me he has like 4,000 CD's in his music collection. Who would have time to listen to all that music...or even want to? Who would waste time counting and organizing all that?

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Mon, 30 Apr 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 30 Apr 2018 #57
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 958 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
If I am actually 'pure being', what is the need for K...or anyone...to tell me that that's what I am? As soon as I think, "I am pure being" there's a 'me'...a self image. Don't most of us hear a statement like the Stamp quote, and think, "Ah yes, I(me) am pure being"? If we are only pure being, what is the need for the statement? In fact, what we are is the self...the accumulated images...the conditioning.

When you are told that what you are is not this thinker separated from your thought, this "bundle of memories". When you are told that what you actually are is 'being', that you have always been 'being' and couldn't be anything else. How do you hear that? How does self-centered thought 'hear' that what I actually am is "naked unadorned awareness"? (that is rarely if ever heeded) Doesn't it give 'thought' a chance to awaken to itself, to become aware of the isolated dream that it is in? And how it perpetuates it? To become aware that this sense of separation from the 'world' is a colossal misfortune and mistake?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 30 Apr 2018 #58
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2271 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
When you are told that what you actually are is 'being', that you have always been 'being' and couldn't be anything else. How do you hear that? How does self-centered thought 'hear' that what I actually am is "naked unadorned awareness"?

I immediately make another image or images out of it....an image which I want to actualize...to become. What else can 'I'/me do with such a statement? If you say that 'ALL is being'...un-divided being...whole, that might be a better way to put it. Like saying 'All is God'. But that would be very different than saying 'You are God'. Or 'I am God'.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 30 Apr 2018 #59
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 958 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
I immediately make another image or images out of it....an image which I want to actualize...to become.

But you can't "become" what you already are. There's no way to 'get to' where you already are...so why keep on 'trying' to form an image of what 'being' is, or does thought finally realize that it can't be made into an image, or thought about or "actualized" or even known, etc.? That that is all just the 'thinker' up to his old tricks?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 30 Apr 2018 #60
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2271 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
There's no way to 'get to' where you already are...so why keep on 'trying' to form an image of what 'being' is

I don't try. Unless asked the question you asked in #57

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 31 - 60 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.)