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

What does it mean, NOT to be the world?


Displaying posts 61 - 90 of 123 in total
Mon, 30 Apr 2018 #61
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 624 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
But you can't "become" what you already are.

Can it be that there’s confusion about what the word “becoming” refers to?

When I am afraid, hurt, angry, joyful, and so on, isn’t THAT what I really am in that moment? If I’m angry or afraid, I want not to feel that way. I want to become something else than what I am, than what is. No?

When you say that “being” is what I really am, aren’t you talking about being “something else” than what I am in the moment? Aren’t you saying that I’m not “really” anger, fear, or hurt, that I am "really" something else?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 30 Apr 2018 #62
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 926 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
When I am afraid, hurt, angry, joyful, and so on, isn’t THAT what I really am in that moment?

Yes that is 'what is', what 'I'am. But these are only 'surface' emotions generally, below the surface, the deep hurts and pains reside, repressed through childhood, exerting their influence and sometimes appear in dreams. But though 'I' appear at the center of these dreams, frustrated, anxious, fearful, etc. are they 'mine'? Or does the 'I' arise as the result of the 'desire' to stop them, end them?

Huguette . wrote:
If I’m angry or afraid, I want not to feel that way. I want to become something else than what I am, than what is. No?

Yes that is what we're calling the 'process of becoming',the moving away, the escape from what is. The choosing, the judging, the condemnation, etc. And its carried over in dreams and can be more 'uncomfortable' there since in dreams the 'controlling I' isn't present or is 'impotent'.

Huguette . wrote:
When you say that “being” is what I really am, aren’t you talking about being “something else” than what I am in the moment? Aren’t you saying that I’m not “really” anger, fear, or hurt, that I am "really" something else?

Yes I think that there is the implication in the word 'being' that beyond the (sacred) 'what is', there is another 'higher' dimension say? A dimension where Love, Compassion, Awareness, Intelligence, the "Other", exists? Man can realize 'being' but not until the process of 'becoming' is totally understood in myself. To use another metaphor, this would be the 'stepping out of the stream'. There is no duality between 'me' and the fear or anger, or loneliness, 'I' am those... but they are not 'mine'. The fear is the same for all but when it's 'personalized' as 'my' fear, it distorts the picture. Human brains are more or less the same...but when the brain says 'my' brain it divides itself from all other brains and everything else for that matter. It is the same with attachment. If the brain attaches itself to something, anything, it will eventually suffer the ending or fear of loosing that attachment. But if it sees the danger in that process and attaches itself to nothing, then it can be 'empty' and then it is 'attached' to nothing and everything. It is, it seems to me, the 'I process'/desire that is the 'root' of the conflict with 'what is'.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Tue, 01 May 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 30 Apr 2018 #63
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4469 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
"Ah yes, I(me) am pure being"?

If this statement arises, it seems to be in contradiction. Being, as far as it is perceived here, has no place for an "I", for an entity who IS that being.

But then language often does this - forces us into the use of an "I", where non exists.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 01 May 2018 #64
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4469 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
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"?

Just because there is no self, does not mean there is nothing, does it? There are lots of other things – nature, the Universe, bodies, thoughts, feelings ………

Although there is no actual self – or at least this is ‘my’ perception (smiling at how the word ‘my’ comes in there), the illusion of self may be blocking the ….. appearance? manifestation? (neither word seems to fit) of something else, no? And this something else may be described as “our true nature”, perhaps? I think is that a concept common to ancient Indian thinking, belief – not that that makes it true, of course.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 01 May 2018 #65
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4469 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
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 is a wonderful point, Huguette.

So the question arises, when K said “I am the world”, did he mean this illusory I, created by thought, is the world, or “I” (what I really am) is the world?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 01 May 2018 #66
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4469 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
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.

I don’t follow this “but nothing is not a void”. Can you enlarge?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 01 May 2018 #67
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4469 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Therefore, it is understood that in the silence of nothing, is everything - love, beauty, illusions and sorrow.

Clive: And “in the silence of nothing is everything”. This is what I have been searching in “The Ending of Time” for. Over and over again K says “I am nothing, and so everything”. On page 41 he says:

“Emptiness is energy, and that emptiness exists in silence, or the other way round, it doesn’t matter – right?

And before that, on page 35:

K: There is the ending of the me as
time, and so there is no hope; all
that is finished, ended. In the ending
of it, there is that sense of
nothingness. And nothingness is this
whole universe.

Bohm: yes, the universal mind, the
universal matter.

K: the whole universe.

Bohm: What led you to say that??

K: Ah. I know. To put it very simply:
division has come to an end. Right?
The division created by time, by
thought, created by this education,
and so on – all that. Because it has
ended, the other is obvious.

Bohm: You mean that without that
division then the other is there – to
be perceived?

K: Not to be perceived, but it is
there.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 01 May 2018 #68
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2263 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Tom Paine wrote:

"Ah yes, I(me) am pure being"?

If this statement arises, it seems to be in contradiction. Being, as far as it is perceived here, has no place for an "I", for an entity who IS that being.

Right....if there's no place for an 'I', why give it a 'you'? 'You' and 'I' are the self image. Being is unrelated to the image...ANY image.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 01 May 2018 #69
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 624 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
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.

Clive Elwell wrote:
I don’t follow this “but nothing is not a void”. Can you enlarge?

Imagine a huge hologram projected onto the night sky. I don’t know how holographic images work but obviously it is a mechanical process, some kind of machine requiring the human hand and brain to turn it "on" and "off". Obviously, a hologram does not move and operate independently of the hand and brain.

The brain also is a mechanical process, a machine of sorts, but it does not require the human hand and brain to turn it on and off. It is “on” until death turns it “off”. And the brain did not, does not, create itself. The functions of the human heart and kidneys can be somewhat replaced by machines allowing the body to continue “living”. Some of the functions of the human brain can be duplicated by computers and robots, but machines cannot replace the brain within the body in the way that heart and kidneys can be somewhat “replaced”. And computers/machines do not need hearts and kidneys. Computers and machines are not living beings.

So back to the hologram projected into the night sky by a machine - by a mechanical, material, process. And imagine further that, like the brain, this machine too takes its projection to be “real” and independent. But the projected image is in fact nothing, nothing but a projection. When the machine is turned off, the image disappears from the night sky. Nothing is left of the image, and the night sky remains. But this nothing is not a void. The whole universe is in this nothing. That’s somewhat what I mean. I don't know if the meaning is clear ... or if it makes sense at all.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 01 May 2018 #70
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4469 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
. The whole universe is in this nothing. That’s somewhat what I mean. I don't know if the meaning is clear ... or if it makes sense at all.

This seems like a clear analogy to me - although all analogies can only be taken so far.

It also related to an idea that came to me just before I went to bed last night.

Huguette . wrote:
When the machine is turned off, the image disappears from the night sky.

Is it possible that death also is the turning off of the machine, of the projector? (I was thinking of final, physical death, but one can also explore psychological dying as also being an off switch. But I will stick to physical death for the moment).

So the suggestion is, when we die, the projector comes to an end, there is no more 'me' maintained by the brain, all illusions end, and the Universe is revealed (although revealed to no-one, no entity, there is no separate entity any more) as it is. It just IS. The totality of it, with no separation.

This is a rather wonderful vision, I find. And it makes fear of death absolutely redundant. But there is one possible fly in the ointment.

Do we really end when the body dies? K has suggested that ‘we’ carry on in the common human stream of consciousness. Which means the illusions carry on, the false perception of separation carries on, the conflict and sorrow carry on. I don’t think the mind can fully grasp the consequences of this, but I am sure you know what I am getting at. Unless we have stepped out of the stream, there is no off-switch. And this sounds truly frightening.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 02 May 2018 #71
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 624 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
I don’t think the mind can fully grasp the consequences of this, but I am sure you know what I am getting at. Unless we have stepped out of the stream, there is no off-switch. And this sounds truly frightening.

I’m not sure what you’re getting at, Clive. Are you suggesting that death of the brain is a nightmare where the individual “me” is imprisoned for eternity in the stream of suffering “souls”? Something like Dante’s Inferno (speaking of the stream)? Is that what you’re saying?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 02 May 2018 #72
Thumb_open-uri20180717-8420-135f99u-0 Mina Martini Finland 242 posts in this forum Offline

What does it mean to NOT be the world?

....

It means exactly the same as 'being fully the world'.

Only for division/thought are the two different, and that difference is between the ideas of 'being the world' and 'not being the world'. Or, in other words, only for thought, as its own creations, do the two exist.

Being fully the world means that the division and distance between observer and observed collapses, or is being revealed as not existing at all in the light of Presence and Silence. This could also be described as the revelation of the total illusion of the world as a creation of image. The world, as a creation of image, is only existing for an image of an observer, of which the observed world is not separate.

Without the division there is no world put together by image, at all.

This is why K's statement 'you are the world' is only partially (in thought/division) understood if its meaning is limited to the world created by thought. The world created by thought appears to be there not because 'we are the world', but exactly because the full truth that the statement describes, is not lived directly, beyond the distance between 'me' and 'the world' that thought is always creating by its very existence.

So, to be fully the world IS the same and NOT be the world, or the same as the ending of the world of division.

...

Please, let Silence fall..and be... no other

Let Silence prevail so only that is.

Amen

This post was last updated by Mina Martini Wed, 02 May 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 02 May 2018 #73
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2263 posts in this forum Offline

Mina above spoke of ‘silence’, and recently I received a PM from one of our members on the same subject... about the necessity of being ‘silent’...and also that my posting here is a total waste of time. Can a man....myself...any man...who is full of problems in his life simply be silent in the face of all that...all the inner and outer turmoil, that is? I’m asking, not concluding anything. K had something interesting to say about learning about oneself(in this case one’s anger) in regards to the idea of being ‘silent’, and I felt like sharing it. Here’s K.:

So, first I have to learn how to look at anger; I have to learn how to look at my wife, at my husband, at my children; I have to learn how to listen to the politician, I have to learn now - you understand, Sir? I have to learn why I am not objective, why I condemn or justify, I have to learn about it. I can't say, well it's part of my nature. I must know, so I have to tackle the question of learning. What do you think is the state of mind that learns?

Questioner: Silence.

Krishnamurti: Silence? Do you learn Italian when you're silent? or French, or German? - a language which you don't know. You can't be silent. You buy the book, you read it, all the verbs, the irregular verbs and go into it. In the same way we have to learn. You don't assume that first I must be silent and then learn. Here is something that you don't know. You don't know how to look at anger, therefore you have to learn, and to learn you have to study why you justify, why you condemn. You condemn and justify because it is part of your social structure, part of your inheritance. It's the easiest thing to do: to condemn or justify. You are German - out! Or you are a Negro - you cannot associate! That's the easiest thing to do! But study means care; you must love the language that you are studying. (July 23, 1967, Saanen)

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Wed, 02 May 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 02 May 2018 #74
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 926 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
I received a PM from one of our members on the same subject... about the necessity of being ‘silent’...and also that my posting here is a total waste of time.

Very 'generous' Tom of that person to break his or her own 'silence' and give up some of their 'precious' time to inform you that you are "wasting" yours. ;-)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 02 May 2018 #75
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2263 posts in this forum Offline

Dan: Very 'generous' Tom of that person to break his or her own 'silence' and give up some of their 'precious' time to inform you that you are "wasting" yours. ;-)

Indeed. That particular enlightened being is so full of silence and wisdom themselves that they’ve been banned from all the forums. All that ‘light’ they share is too much for mere mortals to handle no doubt ;) Sorry, not meaning to be cruel, but some things do get on my nerves, and anyone claiming ‘spiritual’ authority is one of them.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Wed, 02 May 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 02 May 2018 #76
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4469 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
I’m not sure what you’re getting at, Clive. Are you suggesting that death of the brain is a nightmare where the individual “me” is imprisoned for eternity in the stream of suffering “souls”? Something like Dante’s Inferno (speaking of the stream)? Is that what you’re saying?

Well, I also am not sure what I am getting at, Huguette. Just probing into an area that is basically unknown.

I am not familiar with Dante's Inferno; I know it is some vision of hell. And it is clear that we already have hell on Earth, there is tremendous suffering going on, and that seems to have been the case since time immomorial.

K talks of the importance of stepping out of the stream of human consciousness BEFORE we undergo physical death, and yes, he has said in some way, if we do not step out, in some way we carry on in that stream ("and when the medium calls on us, we manifest"). But also he did not seems to accept the concept of an individual conscousness at all. (just to complicate things more, he suggested we become truly individual AFTER we step out, if we do).

Huguette . wrote:
where the individual “me” is imprisoned for eternity

I also do not accept that there IS an individual me, so this would have to be the ILLUSION of the me that is so trapped, would it not?

Perhaps - and I can understand if this is dismissed as mere speculation -
"we are given this life" (and K has actually used this phrase) precisely so that we can discover this "off switch of illusion". And to die without doing so is the human tragedy.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 02 May 2018 #77
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4469 posts in this forum Offline

Just adding to the above, to step out of the stream surely implies the dropping of all theories, ideas, the dropping of all psychological/spiritual knowledge in fact.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 02 May 2018 #78
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4469 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
Only for division/thought are the two different, and that difference is between the ideas of 'being the world' and 'not being the world'

When I asked,when I ask, "what does it mean NOT to be the world" (if it means anything) it is clear that the answer to the question, if there is indeed an answer, does not and can not lie in thought.

And so yes, it is clear that if there is an actual answer, it can only lie in silence.

Mina Martini wrote:
This could also be described as the revelation of the total illusion of the world as a creation of image.

But you also say that:

"This is why K's statement 'you are the world' is only partially (in thought/division) understood if its meaning is limited to the world created by thought."

There seems to be some confusion here - or at least say if we are to discuss this, we need to share a common meaning of what "the world" is. My preference is to say it is the world created by thought.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 03 May 2018 #79
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2263 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
There seems to be some confusion here - or at least say if we are to discuss this, we need to share a common meaning of what "the world" is. My preference is to say it is the world created by thought.

Good point, Clive. If we're bitten by a poisonous snake, we don't simply say, "It's(and the world is) an illusion" and leave it at that. WE act on the reality of the world(in this case, the snake bite)...not the world of thought, but the physical world.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Thu, 03 May 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 03 May 2018 #80
Thumb_open-uri20180717-8420-135f99u-0 Mina Martini Finland 242 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
mina:Only for division/thought are the two different, and that difference is between the ideas of 'being the world' and 'not being the world'

clive:When I asked,when I ask, "what does it mean NOT to be the world" (if it means anything) it is clear that the answer to the question, if there is indeed an answer, does not and can not lie in thought.

And so yes, it is clear that if there is an actual answer, it can only lie in silence.

m: There is something 'wrong' in the above, something not directly perceived, and therefore 'still there as if existing'. That, which was an expression of direct percepetion, is being brought back to creating content/mind.

(There is aboslutely no feeling of 'you' or 'me' or 'somebody perceiving', 'someone else not', since neither the direct perception which is understanding, nor the apparent lack of it, are anyone's)

(just clarifying this, although any clarification that remains at the level of words only in the reader's mind, does not fundamentally clarify anything.)

If it is really clear that there cannot be another actual answer, if there is any, but silence, then it is not possible to ask your initial question, because silence has none. No questions/answers or content. This does not mean that silence cannot speak, it can, but what is says never forms content, idea, for the mind or in the mind. The mind as the division between the observer and the observed is simply out of it. This is exactly why the mind will always fail to fully understand the language of silence.

So when you say, "It is clear that if there is an actual answer, it can only lie in silence." ,

-What is the state of mind saying the above? Where are you in saying the above, because it is presenting silence as if it was not already right here. Therefore it sounds theoretical to me. As if there was some way to go to it, some subtle way to excuse the kind of engagement that is still happening in the field of content/mind. In time/thought 'silence' , or anything else, is an idea, not actuality.

This post was last updated by Mina Martini Thu, 03 May 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 03 May 2018 #81
Thumb_open-uri20180717-8420-135f99u-0 Mina Martini Finland 242 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
"This is why K's statement 'you are the world' is only partially (in thought/division) understood if its meaning is limited to the world created by thought."

There seems to be some confusion here - or at least say if we are to discuss this, we need to share a common meaning of what "the world" is. My preference is to say it is the world created by thought.

Mina: Yes, indeed, for as long as there is a desire to keep on discussing, it must be 'about something', so a limited meaning (a meaning in image) must be there, and perhaps agreed on, but in this there is no holistic understanding of anything, including of the statement 'you are the world'.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 03 May 2018 #82
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 926 posts in this forum Offline

With the ending (insight into) the thinker and the 'me', there remains 'just' thinking, the process of thought... things change radically. The whole total conditioning of a 'me and mine' is revealed. It is so 'close', it is 'overlooked'. 'My' thought in relation to 'your' thought is really just this verbal activity, different for each brain but at bottom the same process. It becomes a factor of division when it divides itself and personalizes itself as 'me' and 'my' thoughts (to assert, to defend etc.). This a 'slippery' process to be 'present' to. But it 'opens' something. I don't 'know' how to observe this in myself and as K. has said, there has to be a 'learning' how to see this (self-centered) thinking in ourself without choice or judgement. As in learning a language or a musical instrument, there has to be "love".

What makes this 'learning' difficult to describe is that with a language or an instrument there is a seeming duality between the 'learner' and what he is learning; the 'learner is storing, accumulating, perfecting, etc....but here with 'learning' as self-knowledge, there is no learner/learned. No right way or wrong way, no accumulation...only moving, choiceless awareness of the 'self'; self-centered thought being aware of itself?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Thu, 03 May 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 03 May 2018 #83
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2263 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
Mina: Yes, indeed, for as long as there is a desire to keep on discussing, it must be 'about something', so a limited meaning

Of course there's a desire to discuss, Mina. We don't come to the forum to remain silent. We are looking for an understanding of ourselves and our problems, so we are here to explore together why there's suffering...conflict...confusion...violence, etc. We may be an addictive smoker or over eater. We want to go into it and find out if this suffering can end. So we discuss. Are you implying that the man/woman who has terrible turmoil and conflict in their life can simply be silent? When you were a young woman or a teenager, didn't you have 'inner' turmoil? Did you simply drop it and remain silent? There's no silence without self knowledge (understanding) is there? So some of us (the unenlightened ones, anyway;)) are trying to understand ourselves here...understand the noise that prevents us from looking objectively at ourselves....at our problem/s.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Thu, 03 May 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 03 May 2018 #84
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 926 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
Mina: Yes, indeed, for as long as there is a desire to keep on discussing, it must be 'about something', so a limited meaning (a meaning in image) must be there, and perhaps agreed on, but in this there is no holistic understanding of anything, including of the statement 'you are the world'.

But of course discussion is included in 'meditation', isn't it?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 03 May 2018 #85
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2263 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
There seems to be some confusion here - or at least say if we are to discuss this, we need to share a common meaning of what "the world" is. My preference is to say it is the world created by thought.

To get back to this point about what K. meant by his statement 'you are the world', here's a brief excerpt that was posted on the General Forum today. Here's K:

We are conditioned, and we are asking whether it is possible to be free. Don't say it is or it is not, because that will be absurd; whereas if you are enquiring, then you are learning through investigation. Where do you begin to enquire whether it is possible to free the brain from its conditioning, to enquire whether it is possible not to be a Hindu or a Muslim or a Sikh, but a human being with all the travails of humanity, the anxieties, the uncertainties, the depth of sorrow and pain? Do you begin to enquire from the outside or do you begin to enquire from inside? That is, is the outside world different from the world in which we live inside? Do you understand that question? The society, the morals, the outward world - is that different from you or have you created it? Please look at this: The world is you and you are the world. (Krishnamurti: New Delhi, First Talk 30th October, 1982)

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Thu, 03 May 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 03 May 2018 #86
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4469 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
The brain also is a mechanical process, a machine of sorts, but it does not require the human hand and brain to turn it on and off.

Here is something interesting about off switches that I came across yesterday:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/brain-fear-cause-mouse-switch-courage-vmt-a8333411.html

it seems scientists have discovered an "off switch" for fear in the brain of mice. And it probably exists in the human brain similarly.

I find it interesting that even the existence of fear, which we tend to experience as very much "my feeling", is still a mechanical process.

This post was last updated by Clive Elwell Sat, 05 May 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 03 May 2018 #87
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4469 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
(There is aboslutely no feeling of 'you' or 'me' or 'somebody perceiving', 'someone else not', since neither the direct perception which is understanding, nor the apparent lack of it, are anyone's)

Well, one person may understand something, and another may not. I have no problem in discovering that I do not understand, and that in fact is a form of understanding.

Mina Martini wrote:
-What is the state of mind saying the above?

I cannot say, obviously it was several days ago, and obviously it has passed now. One has to enter the inquiry afresh.

Mina Martini wrote:
Where are you in saying the above, because it is presenting silence as if it was not already right here.

I cannot say that silence is "right here", or not right here, the brain is involved in that assesment. In fact I doubt if we can communicate in a state of silence, at least on the forum, because thought plays a part in communication, does it not?

I am wondering if silence is not integral with solitude. But clear that anything the mind says about silence is not silence.

Mina Martini wrote:
This is exactly why the mind will always fail to fully understand the language of silence.

Please say more about this language of silence, Mina.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 04 May 2018 #88
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4469 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
..but here with 'learning' as self-knowledge, there is no learner/learned. No right way or wrong way, no accumulation...only moving, choiceless awareness of the 'self'; self-centered thought being aware of itself?

Yes, in psychological learning/observation there has to be a dying all the time. When I learn a skill, like a language, it would be foolish to keep dying to the knowledge that needs to be accumulated.

In fact K has said "there is nothing to learn", psychologically, and one has a feel for that. Would it be better say "there is only a need for unlearning"?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 04 May 2018 #89
Thumb_open-uri20180717-8420-135f99u-0 Mina Martini Finland 242 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
With the ending (insight into) the thinker and the 'me', there remains 'just' thinking, the process of thought... things change radically. The whole total conditioning of a 'me and mine' is revealed. It is so 'close', it is 'overlooked'. 'My' thought in relation to 'your' thought is really just this verbal activity, different for each brain but at bottom the same process. It becomes a factor of division when it divides itself and personalizes itself as 'me' and 'my' thoughts (to assert, to defend etc.). This a 'slippery' process to be 'present' to. But it 'opens' something. I don't 'know' how to observe this in myself and as K. has said, there has to be a 'learning' how to see this (self-centered) thinking in ourself without choice or judgement. As in learning a language or a musical instrument, there has to be "love".

Mina> Dan thank you for the beauty and truth expressed above. (and below, but cutting it here to say something). Yes, seeing wholly is overlooked, because it cannot be looked at all, since it is what we ARE. There is never anyone who sees wholly, if there is experienced to be the one, the observer, that is all within the play of separation and distance. So, if the wholeness is looked at at all, (observer separate from observed) it is always overlooked!

Yes, this learning you mention above, the observation of oneself without choice or judgement, IS the silence of the mind (the psychological mind IS judgement and choice) that is being talked of. Yes, and it IS also love, no difference. And learning without a learner, without any THING/THOUGHT that is 'learnt', as you point out also. No time.

Dan:>What makes this 'learning' difficult to describe is that with a language or an instrument there is a seeming duality between the 'learner' and what he is learning; the 'learner is storing, accumulating, perfecting, etc....but here with 'learning' as self-knowledge, there is no learner/learned. No right way or wrong way, no accumulation...only moving, choiceless awareness of the 'self'; self-centered thought being aware of itself?

Mina: Yes...'self-centered thought being aware of itself' ,meaning that the 'being aware of itself' is not an act of division, but of the light of awareness being shed on that which is a creation of unawareness..

Thank you.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 04 May 2018 #90
Thumb_open-uri20180717-8420-135f99u-0 Mina Martini Finland 242 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Of course there's a desire to discuss, Mina. We don't come to the forum to remain silent. We are looking for an understanding of ourselves and our problems, so we are here to explore together why there's suffering...conflict...confusion...violence, etc.

Mina: The silence that this person talks of, is not an idea. You have turned it into one I am afraid. - So, not talking about 'silencing the problems/mind' as another action of the mind/problem itself. Not talking about 'deciding to be silent'. That is no silence at all, just an image of it, just what is generally thought that the word means. Not talking about lack of words or speaking or sounds or noise either.

Talking about the underlying silence, the emptiness from thought/expression/matter/manifestation/form.

What has happened or what is happening is that by identifying with thought/matter, as images of ourselves, we have lost the touch with what we ARE, replacing it with a thought of what we 'are'. We are lost in the form, in the expression, in the manifestation, which is only a part of what we are! That is the distortion, the false, the lie, the suffering.

Tom:We may be an addictive smoker or over eater. We want to go into it and find out if this suffering can end. So we discuss. Are you implying that the man/woman who has terrible turmoil and conflict in their life can simply be silent?

Mina: No I was not implying any of that when using the word 'silence', as I am trying to again clarify in the previous paragraph here.

Tom: When you were a young woman or a teenager, didn't you have 'inner' turmoil? Did you simply drop it and remain silent? There's no silence without self knowledge (understanding) is there?

Mina: Silence IS self-knowledge, understanding, that is clear.

If by the 'inner turmoil' intense spiritual seeking, questioning, suffering, is meant, then yes, I was in a most serious turmoil from the age of 13 till 17. At 17 I came across Krishnamurti and that was a radical turning point in my life. The radical turning point was in the realisation of silence (not an idea of it!) as what one IS. It was the realisation of there being no real entity (other than an idea of it) to 'drop something and remain silent' (to use your words). Silence is the realisation of there being only Silence, nothing else. -This radical change cannot be undone, just like it cannot be caused by anything either. It can be done nothing about (from the point of view of thought/mind).

This post was last updated by Mina Martini Fri, 04 May 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 61 - 90 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.)