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

What does it mean, NOT to be the world?


Displaying posts 91 - 120 of 123 in total
Fri, 04 May 2018 #91
Thumb_open-uri20180717-8420-135f99u-0 Mina Martini Finland 248 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
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"?

Mina: The unlearning and learning are the same, in essence. And the 'inner need' to keep unlearning/learning is a need of life itself, not of an imagined separate part (ego) of it. Yes, the only real need..

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 04 May 2018 #92
Thumb_open-uri20180717-8420-135f99u-0 Mina Martini Finland 248 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott 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?

Mina: Of course fundamentally everything is included is that which neither includes nor excludes, which is wholeness, meditation, silence, love, life, intelligenece, awareness, presence.....

Just saying that the way I have used the verb 'discuss' is 'thought discussing itself, reacting to itself, continuing itself, as a thinker separate from thought'. This movement is absent in meditation, which again does not mean that
one would lose the ability to speak. Speaking only changes in the way that it is imbued with full awareness of there being no speaker. It is only then that words, although still limited symbols, are not deviating from their silent source into creating the reality of thinker-thought.

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 04 May 2018 #93
Thumb_open-uri20180717-8420-135f99u-0 Mina Martini Finland 248 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
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?

m: Silence and speaking in words are not mutually exclusive, whereas

Silence and a speaker are.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 04 May 2018 #94
Thumb_open-uri20180717-8420-135f99u-0 Mina Martini Finland 248 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
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:Beautiful! :-)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 04 May 2018 #95
Thumb_open-uri20180717-8420-135f99u-0 Mina Martini Finland 248 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell 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: What does it mean to 'enter the inquiry afresh'. Does it not mean without any thought, past, preconception, assumption, belief, attitude, self. Otherwise it would not be quite afresh would it. -Is it not in that freshness and only when anything can be fully understood? -You can go in that freshness :-) and read your post and my reply again, and there is no past. Nothing can prevent you from 'going to the past' that does not even exist! And only in that 'state of mind' (negation of all state, all mind) is there understanding. And only that matters. Seeing this together now IS the 'answer', the living one, and no other is needed.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 04 May 2018 #96
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2294 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
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. -

Not really....I'm simply saying that when we have conflict/confusion/turmoil there's noise...thinking...emotions...not silence. Anger or fear isn't silence, is it? And that's what we bring to the forum....what we're looking into...exploring together....the conflict. We're looking at the noise itself....ourselves.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 04 May 2018 #97
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 973 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
I'm simply saying that when we have conflict/confusion/turmoil there's noise...thinking...emotions...not silence. Anger or fear isn't silence, is it?

If I'm off on this correct me but the way that I hear Mina using the word 'Silence' is not the absence of noise, or the absence of 'surface' emotions such as anger, confusion, jealousy etc., but more synonymous with the word 'being', or 'awareness, or love, or Intelligence or even 'nothing' (not-a-thing)...basically the un-manifested from which the manifest world flows. That this is what we are in essence. These 'emotions' come and go and as K. points out, they have a continuity only when they are 'named' and when they are 'thought of' as 'my' anger, 'my' turmoil, conflict, confusion etc. Like ripples on the surface of a 'silent' calm pond they die out quickly unless the water is continuously roiled?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Fri, 04 May 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 04 May 2018 #98
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 634 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
.....'Silence' is not the absence of noise, or the absence of 'surface' emotions such as anger, confusion, jealousy etc., but more synonymous with the word 'being', or 'awareness, or love, or Intelligence or even 'nothing' (not-a-thing)...basically the un-manifested from which the manifest world flows. That this is what we are in essence.

Dan,

How does propagating a conclusion about what silence is - about silence being the “un-manifested from which the manifest world flows” and that “this is what we are in essence” - how do these authoritarian assertions help ME to understand myself? It is an authoritarian assertion that silence is what we are in essence because I don’t SEE it and other than this assertion, nothing else is pointed to to help me see it. So I see it as false.
Anyone can insist on anything - that silence is not the absence of noise but is rather synonymous with being etc. I see this as propaganda, knowledge, conclusion, merely an unproven assertion which has been repeated over and over. Repetition can have value. K does often repeat. But repetition alone does not make it fact.

But when K says:

Meditation means awareness: to be aware of what you are doing, what you are thinking, what you are feeling, aware without any choice, to observe, to learn. Meditation is to be aware of one's conditioning, how one is conditioned by the society in which one lives, in which one has been brought up, by the religious propaganda - aware without any choice, without distortion, without wishing it were different. Out of this awareness comes attention, the capacity to be completely attentive. Then there is freedom to see things as they actually are, without distortion. The mind becomes unconfused, clear, sensitive. Such meditation brings about a quality of mind that is completely silent of which quality one can go on talking, but it will have no meaning unless it exists. (Beyond Violence,80)

... when K says things like the above, I can see for myself that awareness, silent observation, meditation, is crucial to self-understanding; I can see for myself that the conditioned thinking of self is not clear thinking; I can see for myself that without self-understanding, there is inevitably distortion and confusion in thought, in relationship, in action. I can see for myself that where there is confusion and distortion, there is insensitivity. I am not blindly accepting K’s word for any of it. And still, I realize I can be mistaken.

But I don’t have to “trust” anyone's assertions - that silence is what I am in essence, or anything else. I see for myself that without silence, there can be no understanding. Self-understanding is learning - but not learning by rote or repetition, not parroting back what K or anyone says. K points out what actually am in action, in relationship. I see it for myself. Me “actually being silence” does not help me understand “what is”.

I am learning about myself - not according to some psychologist or specialist - I am watching and I see something in myself; but I do not condemn it, I do not judge it, I do not push it aside - I just watch it. I see that I am proud - let us take that as an example. I do not say, 'I must put it aside, how ugly to be proud' - but I just watch it. As I am watching I am learning. Watching means learning what pride involves, how it has come into being. I cannot watch it for more than five or six minutes - if one can, that is a great deal - the next moment I become inattentive. Having been attentive and knowing what inattention is, I struggle to make inattention attentive. Do not do that, but watch inattention, become aware that you are inattentive - that is all. Stop there. Do not say, 'I must spend all my time being attentive', but just watch when you are inattentive. To go any further into this would be really quite complex. There is a quality of mind that is awake and watching all the time, watching though there is nothing to learn. That means a mind that is extraordinarily quiet, extraordinarily silent. What has a silent, clear mind to learn? (Impossible Question Part I Chapter 2 2nd Public Talk Saanen 19th July 1970 'Freedom')

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 04 May 2018 #99
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2294 posts in this forum Offline

Dan: the absence of 'surface' emotions such as anger, confusion, jealousy etc.

Tom: They may seem to be on the ‘surfarc’, but don’t they come from very deep seated conditioning that goes to the core of what we are...of what the self is? The emotions may come and go, but they are always ready to re-surface as long as the ‘self’ remains. To say that what we are in essence is love or intelligence seems nonsensical. As if the violence and insanity of a Hitler or Donald Trump has anything to do with love. Are you maintaining that at their core, they are ‘love’? Even though Hitler was responsible for the death of millions of innocent people? How would you know such a thing?

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Fri, 04 May 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 04 May 2018 #100
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 634 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
They may seem to be on the ‘surfarc’, but don’t they come from very deep seated conditioning that goes to the core of what we are...of what the self is? The emotions may come and go, but they are always ready to re-surface as long as the ‘self’ remains.

Yes.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 04 May 2018 #101
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2294 posts in this forum Offline

H: How does propagating a conclusion about what silence is - about silence being the “un-manifested from which the manifest world flows” and that “this is what we are in essence” - how do these authoritarian assertions help ME to understand myself? It is an authoritarian assertion that silence is what we are in essence

T: These kind of assertions don’t help one bit as I see it. Saying I am pure being or silence when I’m in fact angry or frightened is like trying to ignore an open wound.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Fri, 04 May 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 04 May 2018 #102
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 634 posts in this forum Offline

Yes.

When the mind is confused about what is true and what is false, when the mind is ignorant about its own motives and processes, it cannot - out of its state of confusion - choose "right action". Any choice made out of confusion must itself be confused, mustn't it? K often said that choice itself indicates confusion, which makes sense to me.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 04 May 2018 #103
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 973 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
How does propagating a conclusion about what silence is - about silence being the “un-manifested from which the manifest world flows” and that “this is what we are in essence” - how do these authoritarian assertions help ME to understand myself?

They don't, they can't. Not sure why you are using the word "help" here. Why would you or I need 'help' to see ourselves? These are insights that I have come to myself and I share them with whoever is interested. When K. "propagates a conclusion" or an "authoritarian assertion" that "you are the world". Is he doing that to 'help' or to share what he sees as fact. You or I may not see what he is talking about when he says the "sacred what is" but it may (or may not) let us look at all this 'mess' in a new way...But the reason I posted was because the word 'Silence' seemed to me to be being understood in two different ways; in the ordinary way of quiet, noiseless, peaceful, etc. and the other meaning that I felt Mina was putting forth; as the 'Ground' behind 'every-thing'...(the un-manifest behind the manifest is the way I understand it).

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 04 May 2018 #104
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 973 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
As if the violence and insanity of a Hitler or Donald Trump has anything to do with love. Are you maintaining that at their core, they are ‘love’?

No.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 04 May 2018 #105
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 634 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Not sure why you are using the word "help" here. Why would you or I need 'help' to see ourselves? These are insights that I have come to myself and I share them with whoever is interested. When K. "propagates a conclusion" or an "authoritarian assertion" that "you are the world". Is he doing that to 'help' or to share what he sees as fact.

From the dissolution speech, Star Camp at Ommen, Holland | August 2, 1929:

As I have said, I have only one purpose: to make man free, to urge him towards freedom, to help him to break away from all limitations, for that alone will give him eternal happiness, will give him the unconditioned realization of the self.

Personally, Dan, I am not averse to getting help, whether it actually helps or not. Don't we need help to see clearly? Of course, no one can "do it" for me, no one can "make" me see. But someone might point something out that I had not considered before or that I had considered but not understood. As long as I don't depend on that person to do the work FOR me, as long as I understand that there is no substitute for my own understanding, is there something wrong with getting help? If not, what is the reason for sharing that our true nature is being, that silence is the essence of what I am? Is it an intellectual pastime?

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 04 May 2018 #106
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 973 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
is there something wrong with getting help? If not, what is the reason for sharing that our true nature is being, that silence is the essence of what I am? Is it an intellectual pastime?

No.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 04 May 2018 #107
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 634 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
When K. "propagates a conclusion" or an "authoritarian assertion" that "you are the world". Is he doing that to 'help' or to share what he sees as fact.

As far as I'm concerned, I don't see K as propagating a conclusion when he says "you are the world". He goes into what he means by it in great detail and at great length. He puts it one way and then another. He's not doing it authoritatively - "just because I say so" - as I see it.

Personally, I came to the forum in the first place (too many years ago) because there were some things that K said which I simply couldn't understand and I thought someone else might be able to help me figure it out. I'm still not sure that I understand what I think I understand but much of it seems clearer to me now through talking it out.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 05 May 2018 #108
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4569 posts in this forum Offline

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

Sorry if this is a distraction among the other more fundamental discussion, but it does not seem worth starting a new thread.

I started to wonder that if this switch is identified in the human brain, and a way found to activate it, would it only toggle physical fear, or psychological fear also? That would be quite profound - basically a pill to solve a very basic human problem.

But I can well imagine the first use of such a discovery, such a pill - to give to soldiers so that they are 'fearless' in battle.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 05 May 2018 #109
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4569 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
As far as I'm concerned, I don't see K as propagating a conclusion when he says "you are the world". He goes into what he means by it in great detail and at great length. He puts it one way and then another. He's not doing it authoritatively - "just because I say so" - as I see it.

Let us say, for the moment, that it is a fact that “I am the world”. Or at least let us say it appears to me to be a fact. I was going to talk about K (actually what I imagine about K), but better I talk about myself. So I have come across this statement, it has interested me, puzzled me, frustrated me at times in my attempts to understand it …. But I have observed, within and without, and I am forced to the realisation that it is true. And I see that this fact is quite contrary to what most people think, and contrary to how society is constructed.

And I see that the implications of this truth are enormous. It is really impossible for me to carry on as before, in the light of the fact that I am the world. I can no longer keep up the pretence that I am a separate individual, at least if I am perfectly honest.

If I get in discussion about it, I know “I am the world” may be seen as an assertion, dogmatic, even a slogan, if the other person knows K at all. But I am willing to question it, go into it. I see that if it is a truth, then I have to keep seeing it anew, keep realising it; I cannot make a conclusion and just keeping repeating it. In fact I have to keep questioning it just in myself, because maybe I have made a mistake. Or maybe I am seeing just part of the truth, and I am missing a much greater truth hidden in the words.

A truth, once repeated, becomes a lie, says K. And I am aware of the dangers of this, aware of the dangers of accepting any authority, and aware of the danger of me taking on the robes of authority, or making the statement an authority. On-going awareness and inquiry is the key, is it not? If it is a fact that “I am the world”, then that fact will stand up to any amount of inquiry. If it is not a fact, then inquiry may bring it toppling down. Then let it topple.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 05 May 2018 #110
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 634 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
...I have to keep seeing it anew, keep realising it; I cannot make a conclusion and just keeping repeating it. In fact I have to keep questioning it just in myself, because maybe I have made a mistake. Or maybe I am seeing just part of the truth, and I am missing a much greater truth hidden in the words.

A truth, once repeated, becomes a lie, says K. And I am aware of the dangers of this, aware of the dangers of accepting any authority, and aware of the danger of me taking on the robes of authority, or making the statement an authority. On-going awareness and inquiry is the key, is it not? If it is a fact that “I am the world”, then that fact will stand up to any amount of inquiry. If it is not a fact, then inquiry may bring it toppling down. Then let it topple.

Well put, Clive. It is so hard to put these things into words.

And the putting into words itself does not come from a deliberate effort with the goal of pushing a point of view. Rather it comes from looking at the actual "thing" - from awareness and inquiry as you say, doesn't it?

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 06 May 2018 #111
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4569 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette and Tom Paine wrote:
H: How does propagating a conclusion about what silence is - about silence being the “un-manifested from which the manifest world flows” and that “this is what we are in essence” - how do these authoritarian assertions help ME to understand myself? It is an authoritarian assertion that silence is what we are in essence

T: These kind of assertions don’t help one bit as I see it. Saying I am pure being or silence when I’m in fact angry or frightened is like trying to ignore an open wound.

And earlier Tom had said, in relation to a PM he had received:

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.

Perhaps after reading a lot of K, we tend to become “sensitised” to any suggestion of spiritual authority. Certainly he spoke vehemently about it. And perhaps we tend to react when we think we detect it in operation. Which in a way is to be under the influence of a sort of inner authority of our own, is it not? One cannot claim to be free of conclusions; they may be acting in one’s life at any moment.

Although on the whole K’s approach to life, to relationship, was a very inquiring one, one can find many ‘positive’ statements in his talks and books. One might call them assertions.

Do we not, all of us, sometimes find ourselves in the position of feeling one can see what is true, and thinking what the other person is saying is clearly wrong? (a simple example, nationalism is clearly stupid, though others may defend it). And did not K find himself in that position? That he saw something with absolute clarity, beyond doubt or compromise? Something that there could be no question about?

Let us extend this beyond K; someone may express on the forum something that seems absolutely true to them. Do we dismiss them because the phrase “spiritual authority” comes up in our mind?

But more fundamentally is anyone ever in the position of knowing what is true? Truth is not a matter of knowledge, it might well be said – but the other person says agreed, but I SEE this truth. I can SEE this, they say, and I am describing it to you (like K might). Is that a valid position? And what is the right response to “authoritarian assertions”, to use the phrase Huguette used? Is it to “throw the baby out with the bathwater”?

One thing that comes to me is that a truly “enlightened” person must be dying inwardly all the time. As soon as a statement is made, as soon as a psychological description is made, one dies to it. So there is no holding on to what has been said. To the extent there IS holding on, there is no enlightenment. One has to keep ‘rediscovering truth’ from moment to moment. The truth that is rediscovered (the prefix “re” is perhaps inappropriate) may appear (or not) to be similar to an old truth. But there is no holding on to one’s perceptions, and so one is always ready to inquire. In this there is no psychological authority.

I do not fee I have adequately explored what I wanted to explore.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 07 May 2018 #112
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 634 posts in this forum Offline

Clive,

I think there are several ways in which one can convey the message that “what I say is right”. The “face” of authority is not necessarily aggressive, is it? It can be gentle. But gentle or aggressive, it is adamant, it does not question, it does not contemplate any other views.

If, for example, K had only repeatedly said “You are the world and the world is you” in response to questions, or if he had only repeated that there is action which is not based on knowledge, without going into what he meant by it, would his words have connected with the flame of discontent within? He did not ask his listeners to accept anything without questioning, without going deeper into it, especially what he himself said.

Seeing the truth or actuality of “you are the world” is life changing. It’s not merely adopting a party line. It is seeing action and relationship in a totally new way, and it is constantly questioned anew so that it never becomes a conclusion that is not questioned. If it is not seen afresh, it is a lie.

There must be freedom from the outset, freedom to doubt, to question. When “dialogue” consists of mere repetition of an assertion on the part of one or both speakers, there is no friendly looking into things together, is there?

Of course, it is essential to question one's reactions and motives, to question the authority from within not just from without. But “sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.”

This post was last updated by Huguette . Mon, 07 May 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 07 May 2018 #113
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2294 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Perhaps after reading a lot of K, we tend to become “sensitised” to any suggestion of spiritual authority. Certainly he spoke vehemently about it. And perhaps we tend to react when we think we detect it in operation. Which in a way is to be under the influence of a sort of inner authority of our own, is it not?

Not if we see it very clearly for ourselves....the danger of spiritual authority. If someone tells you 'I know, and you don't, therefore let me tell you what is truth', they're acting as an authority, right? However if someone says, for instance, that 'thought divides'...'I see it as a fact'...and they invite you to investigate with them, as K does, that's a very different kind of sharing. In the first case there's the authority of 'knowledge' in action, as I see it. With K, he's simply sharing his insights. If someone says 'you are awareness' or 'you are presence', what can I do with such a statement other than accept it on their authority or ignore it? It can't be investigated...observed... other than in thinking, speculating, so they are inviting us to take it on their authority. It's a different matter when K says, 'thought divides'...or 'thought is fragmented, limited'. We can look directly for ourselves at our own thinking and investigate whether this is true or not. He makes it clear that he is not an authority...that we need to find out for ourselves.

Clive Elwell wrote:
Let us extend this beyond K; someone may express on the forum something that seems absolutely true to them. Do we dismiss them because the phrase “spiritual authority” comes up in our mind?

Not 'dismiss them (which would be a result of making an image of them)' but perhaps dismiss their statement, which is very different. If their statement can't be investigated, then the statement must either be dismissed/ignored or taken on their authority.

Clive Elwell wrote:
To the extent there IS holding on, there is no enlightenment.

Right, psychologically, one can only hold on to an image.

Clive Elwell wrote:
But there is no holding on to one’s perceptions, and so one is always ready to inquire. In this there is no psychological authority.

Yes.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Mon, 07 May 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 07 May 2018 #114
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 634 posts in this forum Offline

Today's QOTD (Fourth Talk in Bombay, 1954) seems to me to address this issue perfectly:

To understand the problem requires a mind that is not seeking a result, an answer. If you will observe your own mind, you will see what is happening. If you have a problem you want someone to tell you what to do; so your emphasis is on the solution and not on the understanding of the problem.

In answering this question we are concerned with the problem and not with the answer. If you go away disappointed because your question is not answered, it is your fault, because there is no answer to life. Life has no answer. Life has only one thing, one problem - which is, living. The man who lives totally, completely, every minute without choice, neither accepting nor rejecting the thing as it is, such a man is not seeking an answer, he is not asking what the purpose of life is, nor is he seeking a way out of life. But that requires great insight into oneself. Without self-knowledge, merely to seek an answer has no meaning at all, because the answer will be what is most satisfactory, what is gratifying. That is what most of us want; we want to be gratified, we want to find a safe place, a heaven where there will be no disturbance. But as long as we seek, life will be disturbed.

Doesn't it?

This post was last updated by Huguette . Mon, 07 May 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 07 May 2018 #115
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2294 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
There must be freedom from the outset, freedom to doubt, to question. When “dialogue” consists of mere repetition of an assertion on the part of one or both speakers, there is no friendly looking into things together, is there?

And such a ‘dialog’ is not actually a dialog. Some of us may recall what went on on the general forum a while back with one member making such an assertion repeatedly.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Tue, 08 May 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 08 May 2018 #116
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4569 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
He did not ask his listeners to accept anything without questioning, without going deeper into it, especially what he himself said.

Yes, I think this is the essential point, Huguette. Even if something seems obviously true to one, one is still willing to go into it, to look again, to question oneself.

Huguette . wrote:
When “dialogue” consists of mere repetition of an assertion on the part of one or both speakers, there is no friendly looking into things together, is there?

And how often this is the case, in the "real world".

Huguette . wrote:
But “sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.”

:-). What is this, Huguette?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 08 May 2018 #117
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4569 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
If someone tells you 'I know, and you don't, therefore let me tell you what is truth', they're acting as an authority, right?

Yes, certainly. Although I was making the point that sometimes people are more subtle than that, and say "I can see it", or even "I am seeing it now" And perhaps they are, but that seeing cannot persist in time, can it, and it degenerates into knowledge.

Tom Paine wrote:
It's a different matter when K says, 'thought divides'...or 'thought is fragmented, limited'. We can look directly for ourselves at our own thinking and investigate whether this is true or not. He makes it clear that he is not an authority...that we need to find out for ourselves.

I made exactly the same point, in a group a couple of days ago.

But beyond the words, I feel one can feel the difference immediately between a person who is being authoritarian, dogmatic, and one who is on a journey of inquiry. Would you say?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 08 May 2018 #118
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2294 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:

He did not ask his listeners to accept anything without questioning, without going deeper into it, especially what he himself said.

Clive: Yes, I think this is the essential point, Huguette. Even if something seems obviously true to one, one is still willing to go into it, to look again, to question oneself.

Tom: And to be open to questions from others ...to being challenged (genuinely, not egotistically or with hostility).... in order to share the exploration together. When K was challenged, he went into the point he was trying get across with great patience and thoroughness....looking at the point from different angles. You can see the difference immediately between K’s discussions and the talks and discussions of various ‘spiritual teachers’ that you can see on YouTube. The other ‘teachers’ are never looking afresh...exploring. They’re sharing knowledge....’spiritual’ knowledge.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Tue, 08 May 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 08 May 2018 #119
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 973 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
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!

I felt the truth in this today Mina and wanted to say I think you expressed it well. Thanks.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 08 May 2018 #120
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 634 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
But “sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.”

Clive Elwell wrote:
:-). What is this, Huguette?

A feeble joke referring to an unsupported anecdote about Freud where he was supposedly addressing some of his colleagues while smoking a cigar. In the story, his colleagues immediately saw the cigar as a phallic symbol. And Freud supposedly replied that “sometimes a cigar is just a cigar”.

I was making a silly comparison between what you had said about becoming overly-sensitive to any suggestion of spiritual authority, meaning that, yes, there is such a thing as being overly-sensitive but there is also such a thing as being authoritarian.

This post was last updated by Huguette . Tue, 08 May 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 91 - 120 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.)