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

the extraordinary state of being nothing, of coming to the abyss of an eternal movement, and dropping over the edge


Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 62 in total
Tue, 08 May 2018 #1
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4569 posts in this forum Offline

The following is from the 6th public talk in Madras,9th December. The full talk can be found here:
http://jiddu-krishnamurti.net/en/1959/1959-12-09-jiddu-krishnamurti-6th-public-talk

I am not quite sure where to start the quote, but I will plunge in.

You are a Hindu, a Christian, or what you will. You are shaped by the past, by custom, tradition. You are greed, envy, joy, pleasure, the appreciation of something beautiful, the agony of not being loved, of not being able to fulfil - you are all that, which is the process of continuity. Take just one form of it. You are attached to your property, to your wife. That is a fact. I am not talking about detachment. You are attached to your opinions, to your ways of thinking.

Now, can you not come to the end of that attachment? Why are you attached? - that is the question, not how to be detached. If you try to be detached, you merely cultivate the opposite, and therefore contradiction continues. But the moment your mind is free of attachment, it is also free from the sense of continuity through attachment, is it not? So, why are you attached? Because you are afraid that without attachment you will be nothing; therefore you are your house, you are your wife, you are your bank account, you are your job. You are all these things. And if there is an ending to this sense of continuity through attachment, a total ending, then you will know what death is.

Do you understand, sirs? I hate, let us say, and I have carried this hatred in my memory for years, constantly battling against it. Now, can I instantly stop hating? Can I drop it with the finality of death?

When death comes, it does not ask your permission; it comes and takes you, it destroys you on the spot. In the same way, can you totally drop hate, envy, pride of possession, attachment to beliefs, to opinions, to ideas, to a particular way of thinking? Can you drop all that in an instant? There is no `how to drop it', because that is only another form of continuity. To drop opinion, belief, attachment, greed, envy, is to die - to die every day, every moment. If there is the coming to an end of all ambition from moment to moment, then you will know the extraordinary state of being nothing, of coming to the abyss of an eternal movement, as it were, and dropping over the edge - which is death.

I want to know all about death, because death may be reality, it may be what we call God, that most extraordinary something that lives and moves, yet has no beginning and no end. So I want to know all about death - and for that I must die to everything I already know. The mind can be aware of the unknown only when it dies to the known - dies without any motive, without the hope of reward or the fear of punishment. Then I can find out what death is while I am living - and in that very discovery there is freedom from fear.

Whether or not there is a continuity after the body dies, is irrelevant; whether or not you are born again, is a trivial affair. To me, living is not apart from dying, because in living there is death. There is no separation between death and life. One knows death because the mind is dying every minute, and in that very ending there is renewal, newness, freshness, innocence - not in continuity. But for most of us, death is a thing that the mind has really never experienced. To experience death while living, all the trickeries of the mind - which prevent that direct experiencing - must cease.

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 09 May 2018 #2
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2294 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
In the same way, can you totally drop hate, envy, pride of possession, attachment to beliefs, to opinions, to ideas, to a particular way of thinking? Can you drop all that in an instant?

No...not without self-knowledge. I would say it's impossible. Without self knowledge we aren't even aware to what extent we are attached to beliefs, ideas, ideals, possessions, etc. Our whole life is centered around all that. And someone comes along and tells me to drop it? Drop all that I love to do? My movie watching....tv...sports....dining out...fine wine....nice clothes....wine women and song? I live for all that. If I go into it and begin to understand how attachment causes pain, then I might begin to become somewhat free of it. Easy for K. to talk about dropping it all. He never had it! If you can believe what he has said about never having had conflict in his life, that is.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 09 May 2018 #3
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4569 posts in this forum Offline

K often talks of bring death into life. Of not separating the two. Of living with death – that is, I think, psychological death, the ending of the self and all its activities.

Although it is next to impossible to talk about, there is a feel for the psychological ending going on throughout the day. As I see it, it is connected with the perception that one is thought, the thinker is the thought. Obviously thoughts come and go, they have their existence and they end, and another thought arises. Between two thoughts there is a space. Large or small. One can say that thoughts are born and they die (the same for feelings). When one sees that one IS thought, not some entity separate from thought, then one is born and dies “along with” thought.

This seems to be a real, active process. But in the above quote, K seems to be concerned with something greater than this process – hmm, better turn that statement into a question - is he? He asks if one can drop all attachment. I take attachment to be the same as identification.

Now, can you not come to the end of that attachment? Why are you attached? - that is the question, not how to be detached. If you try to be detached, you merely cultivate the opposite, and therefore contradiction continues. But the moment your mind is free of attachment, it is also free from the sense of continuity through attachment, is it not? So, why are you attached? Because you are afraid that without attachment you will be nothing; therefore you are your house, you are your wife, you are your bank account, you are your job. You are all these things. And if there is an ending to this sense of continuity through attachment, a total ending, then you will know what death is.

K uses the phrase “a total ending”, which seems to suggest something greater, more profound, than the space between thought.

Sorry, as I said, it is next to impossible to write about this, and perhaps it should not be attempted. I find I cannot formulate a precise question, as even questions are subject to this process of psychological dying.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 10 May 2018 #4
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2294 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
K uses the phrase “a total ending”, which seems to suggest something greater, more profound, than the space between thought

Absolutely. He's talking about the ending of the self. I don't see much significance in the space between thoughts. My attachments may end momentarily, but why would that be significant, assuming that they keep resurfacing?

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 10 May 2018 #5
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2294 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote(quoting K ?):

In the same way, can you totally drop hate, envy, pride of possession, attachment to beliefs, to opinions, to ideas, to a particular way of thinking? Can you drop all that in an instant?

T: In essence, K., in the excerpt, is asking, "Can I drop the self instantly?" So who or what is this someone or something that is separate from the self that can drop the self?

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Thu, 10 May 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 10 May 2018 #6
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 973 posts in this forum Offline

From #1:

I think that K. is referring to himself here:

"There is no separation between death and life. One knows death because the mind is dying every minute, and in that very ending there is renewal, newness, freshness, innocence - not in continuity."

And this refers to us:

K.- "But for most of us, death is a thing that the mind has really never experienced. To experience death while living, all the trickeries of the mind - which prevent that direct experiencing - must cease."

And this from a later talk is about us, the 'trickster'/ 'thinker':

K.-"The thinker ceases, not as a result of transforming thoughts, but only by understanding the movements of the thinker and therefore coming to the central issue, the problem itself, which is the thinker. When the thinker is aware of his own movements, when the mind is aware of itself in action - which is not the thinker altering thoughts, but the thinker being aware of himself - , then you will find there comes a period when the mind is absolutely still, when it is meditative, when it is not attracted, not agitated. Then, in that moment, when the thinker is silent, there comes creative being which, if you will experiment, you will find is the foundation of all radical transformation."

Which implies, it seems to me, that 'experimentation' is necessary if one is to move from 'becoming' to 'being'.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Thu, 10 May 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 10 May 2018 #7
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2294 posts in this forum Offline

Dan: Which implies, it seems to me, that 'experimentation' is necessary if one is to move from 'becoming' to 'being'.

Tom: I see it the same way Dan. That’s why it seems very odd to talk of ‘dropping all that instantly’.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 10 May 2018 #8
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 973 posts in this forum Offline

If I ask myself the question that, given the fact that thoughts come and go ('live' and 'die') each moment, how does this sense of 'continuity' occur, if no such thing as continuity actually exists?...And in this 'normal' question the 'trickster' exposes himself to himself. By asking the question it implies that an answer, any answer will be 'forth-coming'. right? So the question itself creates the illusion of a 'future' when there may (or may not) come an answer. But in actuality, there is no future, only the moment of 'now' and then the 'next' now and the 'next' etc; each moment living and dying... but the 'thinker' ties them together in a false continuous string so only the 'life' aspect is experienced, the 'death' is not...that is, until it becomes aware of the trick it is playing.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Thu, 10 May 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 10 May 2018 #9
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4569 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
I don't see much significance in the space between thoughts. My attachments may end momentarily, but why would that be significant, assuming that they keep resurfacing?

It is questionable whether attachments can end 'momentarily', but that perhaps is a side issue.

Why is psychological ending significant, you ask? One response that comes is: because when thought ends, even momemtarily, the significance of thought is revealed. Or better perhaps to say the non-significance of thought is revealed.

And that implies ALL thought, not a particular thought or two.

This ending is action, it is not an idea. But to discuss it, to analyse it, to assess its significance, IS in the dimension of ideas. So I don't know if such analysis has much meaning. The analysis itself, being part of thought, in itself has an ending. It sees it own limitations.

Sorry, I did say this is next to impossible to discuss. But that doesn't mean one shouldn't try to do so.

This ending is part of awareness. And with the ending of thought- perhaps better to say a break in thought - one becomess aware of the real world, through our senses. Thought is not the real world, and it very much obscures our perception of the real world, doesn't it?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 10 May 2018 #10
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4569 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Our whole life is centered around all that. And someone comes along and tells me to drop it? Drop all that I love to do? My movie watching....tv...sports....dining out...fine wine....nice clothes....wine women and song? I live for all that

Even though "I am the world", I think there is a danger in bringing in this "our"; to look at the issue from the point of view of the common man. Can I drop it, that is the question, isn't it, with the emphasis very much on the "I".

Tom Paine wrote:
No...not without self-knowledge. I would say it's impossible.

This seems very much like a conclusion. So do we stop looking, stopping inquiring?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 10 May 2018 #11
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4569 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
T: In essence, K., in the excerpt, is asking, "Can I drop the self instantly?" So who or what is this someone or something that is separate from the self that can drop the self?

I would read K's question as "can the self be dropped?" Clearly "I" cannot do it, since "I" am the self; any action of me IS the action of the self.

But this perception that the thinker is the thought must bring about change, one cannot remain unmoved if one truly sees this. And this movement is part of this dropping of the self, is it not?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 11 May 2018 #12
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2294 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Can I drop it, that is the question, isn't it, with the emphasis very much on the "I".

I won't even look at that question. I'm only concerned with what's going on now....whatever it is. Not dropping...but looking out of interest. There's a significant difference, as I see it. This 'can I drop it?' is an ideal or goal, as far as I can see. "Can I look at myself?", might also be a goal, but at least I can observe the way in which I look/observe. Can I observe what is as it is....not trying to drop or change it?

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Fri, 11 May 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 11 May 2018 #13
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2294 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
But this perception that the thinker is the thought must bring about change, one cannot remain unmoved if one truly sees this. And this movement is part of this dropping of the self, is it not?

I think it is, since if I see this clearly, then there's absolutely nothing 'I' can do; so for a moment, at least, I stop making this kind of divided effort of one fragment of 'me' battling with another. I see very clearly the falseness of that and I'm still.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Fri, 11 May 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 11 May 2018 #14
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2294 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Tom Paine wrote:

No...not without self-knowledge. I would say it's impossible.

This seems very much like a conclusion. So do we stop looking, stopping inquiring?

No but we stop looking at impossibilities....since it is seen that 'I' can't possibly drop 'I'. I can only perpetuate I.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 11 May 2018 #15
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2294 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Tom Paine wrote:

I don't see much significance in the space between thoughts. My attachments may end momentarily, but why would that be significant, assuming that they keep resurfacing?

It is questionable whether attachments can end 'momentarily', but that perhaps is a side issue.

I probably should have said 'my thoughts may end momentarily'. I'll have a closer look at the rest of your message tomorrow, time permitting....I've got to make dinner and then more work to do before bed.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Fri, 11 May 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 11 May 2018 #16
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2294 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
This ending is part of awareness. And with the ending of thought- perhaps better to say a break in thought - one becomess aware of the real world, through our senses. Thought is not the real world, and it very much obscures our perception of the real world, doesn't it?

K often said that our image of the tree is not the tree. So we're not actually seeing the tree when thought/image is active. We're lost in the image/s. Maybe not so significant in regards to the tree, but looking at our neighbor or child through the image creates division. I never see my child as they are, but only see my image....of the 'good' boy or the 'bad' boy, or some image based upon pleasure or desire. My desire for him to succeed in life....to live up to my expectations. So we are constantly creating division and conflict when we look through the image/s. This is a key point that K. emphasizes over and over. How many of us are even aware that we are looking through the image in all our relationships? That we don't see our neighbor as they actually are? thought obscures the real person.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 11 May 2018 #17
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4569 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
This 'can I drop it?' is an ideal or goal, as far as I can see.

Ok, it is putting a wrong question, or putting the question the wrong way. We are agreed, I think, that "I" cannot do it, ie no action of will can end the self, no matter how refined.

Tom Paine wrote:
I'm only concerned with what's going on now....

Quite right. But my point is - one of my points - is that the ending of thought IS one of the things that is going on now.

There IS a space between thought; it is not something that we have to bring about; it is certainly not something that we can create. Nevertheless, it is actually there.

This seems connected - I may be wrong - to K's asking if dying can be a part of living.

This is from the original quote at the start of the thread:

K wrote:
To me, living is not apart from dying, because in living there is death. There is no separation between death and life. One knows death because the mind is dying every minute, and in that very ending there is renewal, newness, freshness, innocence - not in continuity.

When he says "the mind is dying every minute, do we assume that "that is only for K, it is not for the average man"? K himself has always denied such an idea, he has often said the teachings are accessible to all.

So I am suggesting that this dying is actually there, it is part of the mind - or perhaps not part of the mind, but it is THERE. We may not normally notice it, because the self is so busy trying to create continuity. Or we may avoid it when we get an inkling of it, because we are afraid of endings. But can we invite it, to use a word we have discussed before? With no suggestion of effort whatsoever, just as part of seeing what is?

This post was last updated by Clive Elwell Sat, 12 May 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 12 May 2018 #18
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2294 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Tom Paine wrote:

I'm only concerned with what's going on now....

Clive: Quite right. But my point is - one of my points - is that the ending of thought IS one of the things that is going on now.

There IS a space between thought; it is not something that we have to bring about; it is certainly not something that we can create. Nevertheless, it is actually there.

I'm still not sure why this is significant. Thought may die momentarily, but the conditioning of the brain remains... in dormancy (?).

Clive Elwell wrote:
When he says "the mind is dying every minute, do we assume that "that is only for K, it is not for the average man"?

I assumed that in this quote he was talking about K....not the average man who's brain is thoroughly conditioned. I really should go back and find the context for his statement however, because I'm missing that; so I may be totally off base.

Clive Elwell wrote:
. But can we invite it, to use a word we have discussed before? With no suggestion of effort whatsoever, just as part of seeing what is?

No. We can't invite truth, can we? This 'we' or 'I' is thought, as far as I can see.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Sat, 12 May 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 12 May 2018 #19
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4569 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
o. We can't invite truth, can we? This 'we' or 'I' is thought, as far as I can see.

We seem to be unravelling the original question, which is good.
You say we can’t invite truth. I actually asked, “can we invite DEATH”, not truth. But perhaps there is no essential difference.

I note that you put emphasis on the word “we”, and I take this to mean that you mean that the self cannot do it, that this inviting is not an act of will. Can we say it is not a positive action? I would go along with this, and so perhaps “invite” is a wrong word, if it suggests such a thing. It is clear that I cannot make any movement towards death – if I try to do so, I am merely making a movement towards an IDEA of death. “I” am assertion, I am the very denial of the action of dying (dying to the past). This is why it is so difficult to discuss.

So instead can we regard the state of invitation as a negative state? A passive state? Which implies, we are not trying to hold on to what we are attached to? We are open to what comes, without trying to determine what comes? Can we SEE the necessity of not holding on to the past, to what we know? In the end, it all boils down to seeing, does it not?

So this state of invitation is not desire. There is no object in view, no aim. But we are not resisting. We are not resisting the fact of being nothing, when we see it. Yes, perhaps that is a better way to put it, instead of “inviting”, we are not resisting.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 13 May 2018 #20
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2294 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Can we SEE the necessity of not holding on to the past, to what we know? In the end, it all boils down to seeing, does it not?

Yes. Seeing the false as false.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 13 May 2018 #21
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4569 posts in this forum Offline

I attended a meeting at the local Theosophy Lodge last night. They are doing a series of presentations of perspectives on death. This meeting was a video of one Eben Alexandra, a neurosurgeon, talking about his intense “near death” experience. He has written a very popular book on this experience.. appeared on “Oprah”, etc.

Of course one questions whether any such experience is a projection of thought, or not. It seems to me that some of the imagery suggested it was. But the big question that came to me, on waking this morning, was this:

Why do we want to turn death, which is fundamentally the unknown, into the known? Why do we want to know what will happen to us after death?

And isn’t it destructive to try to know? To condition the mind about death before we die?

I am reminded of a section in one of the Commentaries on Living series (3), where a man had been dying for some years of some incurable disease. He asked K to come to his death bed, and asked K, almost demanded of him, to divulge if he continued after death. “I know you know”, he said. And “I won’t tell anyone else”. Without giving a direct answer, as far as I can see, K went into the issue, and at the end the dying man said:

“My days are numbered, my breath is short, and you are asking a very hard thing: that I die without knowing what death is. But I am well instructed. Let be my life, and may there be a blessing upon it”.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 14 May 2018 #22
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4569 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
I'm still not sure why this is significant. Thought may die momentarily, but the conditioning of the brain remains... in dormancy (?).

Isn't this dying-while-living significant because it is an end to continuity? The continuity of hate, the continuity of pleasure, ambition, desire, all the things the self identifies with in order to achieve (the illusion of) continuity? Isn't it an end of the claim of the self to be continuous? If we keep thinking about something without a break, that gives the thing continuity, doesn't it?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 14 May 2018 #23
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 755 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Without giving a direct answer, as far as I can see,

But Clive, did the man himself not giving the answer by stating:

We sat silently for a while. Presently he spoke again.

"That silence was more healing than all my anxious questioning. I wish I could remain in it and quietly pass away,....."

And immediately falls back in the old track of wanting to know ??

With:.

" but my mind won’t let me. My mind has become the hunter as well as the hunted; I am tortured. I have acute physical pain, but it’s nothing compared to what’s going on in my mind. Is there an identified continuity after death? This ‘me’ which has enjoyed, suffered, known – will it continue?”

And then the last alinea of K.:

Truth is a strange thing; the more you pursue it, the more it will elude you. You cannot capture it by any means, however subtle and cunning; you cannot hold it in the net of your thought. Do realize this, and let everything go. On the journey of life and death, you must walk alone; on this journey there can be no taking of comfort in knowledge, in experience, in memories. The mind must be purged of all the things it has gathered in its urge to be secure; its gods and virtues must be given back to the society that bred them. There must be complete, uncontaminated aloneness.

Truth will unfold itself for those who enquire their own actions and only to them and for them and to or for no one else.

This post was last updated by Wim Opdam Mon, 14 May 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 14 May 2018 #24
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2294 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Isn't this dying-while-living significant because it is an end to continuity?

But a momentary break in thinking...the space between thoughts... doesn’t put an end to the self does it? To hate, envy, fear, desire, craving and addiction, identification, belief? I’m sorry, but I’m probably misunderstanding the significance of the space between thoughts you’ve been speaking of, Clive. I apologize if I’m missing your point. I just want to share that I used to walk ‘in nature’ every day and there were breaks in the continuity of the self....the ‘me’. This was an almost daily event for over a year. Often thought would totally stop and there would be just looking. Then thought would return, and then some more looking/observing. In the moments of looking there was no thinking at all....’I’ was totally absent momentarily; yet when I returned home all the problems and conflicts of my daily living returned....the thoughts and emotional upsets...the cravings and desires. My accumulated opinions and beliefs and ideals were still in place. The conditioning of the mind was firmly in place...untouched by the temporary absence of thinking that occurred during my walk. As you said in #9:

Clive: This ending is part of awareness. And with the ending of thought- perhaps better to say a break in thought - one becomess aware of the real world, through our senses. Thought is not the real world, and it very much obscures our perception of the real world, doesn't it?

Tom: True, but this ending/break is not the end of the self, right?

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Mon, 14 May 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 14 May 2018 #25
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2294 posts in this forum Offline

Here’s something I came across today in the QOTD section on ending and continuity. I think it touches on what we’ve been discussing in this thread: talks in Calcutta 4th Public Talk 28th November, 1982

Now, the question then is, what is death? Please ask this question: Are you just the vast reservoir of memory, words, pictures, symbols? Is your consciousness the rest of mankind, that you are not an individual? That what you think, other people think, your thinking, is not individual and that there is only thinking? When you realize you are not an individual though you may have a different form, different shape of head, different jobs, and so on, but that inwardly you are like the rest of mankind, what does death mean then? Look, sir. Suppose I am all that - name, thought, education, physical responses, psychological reactions, all the inherited racial memories and personal memories, which is all in the past, I am all that and all human beings are that, all human consciousness is that, then what does it mean to die? Ask this question, sirs. Now we are living, repetitively active, mechanically active, as most people are; but you are active, you have got life, you have got feelings, you have got responses, sensations, and when death comes, all that is wiped out. That is what we call death, which is to end all the things you have held, your joys, your house, your bank account, your wife, your children; all that you end; you and your attachment, that is death. But you want to carry it over to the next life which is just an idea, vision, fulfillment. Please listen: While living, can you end attachment? Because, when you die, all attachment ends. But can you invite the ending of attachment? Do you understand this? That is ending. Ending is death. So, can you, while living, vigorous, active, end your attachment, end a particular habit voluntarily, easily, quietly? Because then, where there is an ending, there is a totally different beginning. When you end something like attachment, there is a different activity going on: to incarnate in the present now. That is creativity. It is up to you if you want to do all this.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 14 May 2018 #26
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4569 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
But Clive, did the man himself not giving the answer by stating:

We sat silently for a while. Presently he spoke again.

"That silence was more healing than all my anxious questioning. I wish I could remain in it and quietly pass away,....."

Yes, perhaps that is so, Wim. It is clear that much more is going on between K and the dying man than the words that are recorded. I meant that K did not appear to give a verbal answer.

Wim Opdam wrote:
And immediately falls back in the old track of wanting to know ??

Yes, the old problem of wanting to know, not understanding that knowledge IS the problem. As K wrote. and you quote:

K wrote:
The mind must be purged of all the things it has gathered in its urge to be secure; its gods and virtues must be given back to the society that bred them. There must be complete, uncontaminated aloneness.

Thank you for the further quotes you have made from this passage, they are very relevant.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 15 May 2018 #27
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4569 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
I'm still not sure why this is significant. Thought may die momentarily, but the conditioning of the brain remains... in dormancy (?).

Does this question arise only in time? Only when the mind is pretending to be separate from its problems? When it IS its problems, then the ending of thought IS the ending of the problem. The mind is not looking to the future.

Tom Paine wrote:
But a momentary break in thinking...the space between thoughts... doesn’t put an end to the self does it?

I would say it does. But what you are saying/asking, Tom, is it not, is that it doesn’t put to an end to the self permanently?

But death knows nothing of “permanently”, death is the very ending of any idea of permanent. And to the mind that is dying “all the time”, such a concept does not even enter.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 15 May 2018 #28
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2294 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Tom Paine wrote:

But a momentary break in thinking...the space between thoughts... doesn’t put an end to the self does it?
I would say it does. But what you are saying/asking, Tom, is it not, is that it doesn’t put to an end to the self permanently?

Yes, I suppose I am asking that. K said that the ‘me’ can end, I think....that violence can end...conflict...that one can be totally free of fear. He didn’t mean that it ends momentarily only to come back again full force the next moment, did he? I should also add, that he spoke of a total transformation...a mutation of the brain, in fact.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Tue, 15 May 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 15 May 2018 #29
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2294 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
But death knows nothing of “permanently”, death is the very ending of any idea of permanent. And to the mind that is dying “all the time”, such a concept does not even enter.

“Dying all the time”, or the space between thoughts ....a momentary gap...that we were discussing? How did we get to ‘dying all the time’ from the gap between thoughts?

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 15 May 2018 #30
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 755 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
I meant that K did not appear to give a verbal answer.

Can an answer about the unknown/God/afterdead or whatever name we stick on it be given verbally ??

In "truth and actuality" Bohm and K. Are investigating the possibility to convey Truth and it seems that It's in the energy of the communication, not in the words !

I'll surch for a quote now.

Truth will unfold itself for those who enquire their own actions and only to them and for them and to or for no one else.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 62 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.)