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 31 - 60 of 62 in total
Tue, 15 May 2018 #31
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 753 posts in this forum Offline

Here it is, but there are more hints in this second chapter:

Dr. Bohm: I would say there is a kind of thinking that communicates insight. The insight is non-verbal, but the thinking itself is not non-verbal. There is the kind of thinking which is dominated by the word and there is another kind of thinking whose order is determined, not by the word, but by the insight.

Krishnamurti: Is the insight the product of thought?

Dr. Bohm: No, but insight works through thought. Insight is never the product of thought.

Krishnamurti: Obviously not.

Dr. Bohm: But it may work through thought. I wanted to say that the thought through which insight is working has a different order from the other kind of thought. I want to distinguish those two. You once gave an example of a drum vibrating from the emptiness within. I took it to mean that the action of the skin was like the action of thought. Is that right?

Krishnamurti: Yes, that’s right. Now, how does insight take place? Because if it is not the product of thought, not the process of organized thought and all the rest of it, then how does this insight come into being?

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
Tue, 15 May 2018 #32
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 753 posts in this forum Offline

And another quote

Krishnamurti: Yes, the thinker is the thought. Now, is that energy different from the energy of conditioning and the activity of the conditioning and reality? Is that energy the perception of truth? – and therefore it has quite a different quality of energy.

Dr. Bohm: It seems to have the quality of being free of, not being bound by the conditioning.

Krishnamurti: Yes. Now I want to make it practical to myself. I see this whole thing that you have described to me. I have got a fairly good mind, I can argue, explain it, all the rest of it, but this quality of energy doesn’t come. And you want me to have this quality, out of your compassion, out of your understanding, out of your perception of truth. You say, “Please, see that”. And I can’t see it, because I’m always living in the realm of reality. You are living in the realm of truth and I can’t. There is no relationship between you and me. I accept your word, I see the reason for it, I see the logic of it, I see the actuality of it, but I can’t break it down.

How will you help – I’m using that word hesitantly – how can you help me to break this down? It’s your job, because you see the truth and I don’t. You say, “For God’s sake, see this”. How will you help me? Through words? Then we enter into the realm with which I am quite familiar. This is actually going on, you understand? So what is one to do? What will you do with me, who refuses to see something which is just there? And you point out that as long as we live in this world of reality, there is going to be murder, death – everything that goes on there. There is no answer in that realm for any of our problems. How will you convey this to me? I want to find out, I’m very keen, I want to get out of this.

Dr. Bohm: It’s only possible to communicate the intensity. We already discussed all the other factors that are communicated.

Krishnamurti: You see, what you say has no system, no method, because they are all part of the conditioning. You say something totally new, unexpected, to which I haven’t even given a single moment of thought. You come along with a basketful and I do not know how to receive you. This has been really a problem; to the prophets, to every...

Dr. Bohm: It seems nobody has really succeeded in it.

Krishnamurti: Nobody has. It’s part of education that keeps us constantly in the realm of reality.

Dr. Bohm: Everyone is expecting a path marked out in the field of reality.

Krishnamurti: You talk of a totally different kind of energy from the energy of reality. And you say that energy will wipe all this out, but it will use this reality.

Dr. Bohm: Yes, it will work through it.9

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
Tue, 15 May 2018 #33
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4529 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
How did we get to ‘dying all the time’ from the gap between thoughts?

Space between thought means that thought is not operating, no? And no thought means no self, no?, since it is thought that creates the self.

So does not this space between thought imply a psychological death has taken place. It is clear that we are talking of psychological dying, is it not?

I say "imply" because this is a theoretical explanation. But one can FEEL this dying, or feel its effect. Exactly how it is felt is an interesting question that arises now.But really thought cannot touch it.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 15 May 2018 #34
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4529 posts in this forum Offline

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

How is the unknown to be explored? Clearly "unknown" means untouched by the know, and I AM the known. So this is an interesting question/question.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 15 May 2018 #35
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4529 posts in this forum Offline

As you know, over and over again K has asked us if we can die to the past. Die to all our attachments. I felt the passion of this call so strongly this morning, on wakening. Especially I felt it as a call to die to all the movements towards psychological security – and in essence are there any other movements in the mind?

And I saw what a miserable life it is, when that drive towards psychological security dominates that life.

So can we face impermanency, now? Thata seems to be the essence of the challenge. Not to be sure, not to take refuge in beliefs, in ideas? Feeeling that is an enormous thing.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 16 May 2018 #36
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2271 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Tom Paine wrote:

How did we get to ‘dying all the time’ from the gap between thoughts?

Space between thought means that thought is not operating, no? And no thought means no self, no?, since it is thought that creates the self.

So does not this space between thought imply a psychological death has taken place.

I would think so, yes. But this is not the transformation or 'mutation' that K spoke of, because the self is still ready to spring into action at any time. The brain is still operating in division and fragmentation once thought returns....as I see it, and I may be mistaken.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Wed, 16 May 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 16 May 2018 #37
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 753 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
And no thought means no self, no?, since it is thought that creates the self.

How can thought, being the past, create something new ??

Is it not simply the same illusion as creating "God" as the creator of all there is ??

Thoughts are there to look at, to investigate if they are false , driven by the past or used to convey Truth !

Are all the talks and dialogues of K. with or without friends not the investigation of the rightness or falseness of what's going on in our minds ?.

Is it driven by the past or used by awareness ?

Are all this questions above coming from the unknown, in need of an answer or coming from the knowledge of the teaching or inspired by them ?

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
Wed, 16 May 2018 #38
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2271 posts in this forum Offline

Just a note: that was Clives statement that you are quoting above, Wim. You attributed it to me.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Wed, 16 May 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 16 May 2018 #39
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 753 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Just a note: that was Clives statement that you are quoting above, Wim. You attributed it to me.

I selected the text indeed from Clive's reply but to my surprise you were mentioned, so I assumed the origin came from you, but does it really matter ? We are all in this dialogue, are we not and this is has or can be meaningful for all of us.

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
Wed, 16 May 2018 #40
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2271 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
does it really matter ?

Only in a practical sense. Since Clive said it, I think I’ll wait and see how Clive responds, as I don’t have an answer or question forthcoming.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 16 May 2018 #41
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4529 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
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.

But he did vehemently deny time as a factor of change, didn't he? And surely a concern for a permanent solution to fear, or any of our problems, is a measurement that only time makes?

I'm not saying that such a "permanent" transformation is not possible, but I'm suggesting that a mind that thinks in such terms is not actually concerned with transformation. it is concerned with security. And a mind that is so concerned can never transform. It's just another form, another manifestation of desire, is it not?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 17 May 2018 #42
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2271 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
'm not saying that such a "permanent" transformation is not possible, but I'm suggesting that a mind that thinks in such terms is not actually concerned with transformation. it is concerned with security.

True enough, Clive. I was not implying that we should seek a permanent end to suffering...to violence...to fear. Only that K said that there can be an end to conflict and suffering...a total mutation in the brain...a transformation....which to me, is more significant then the space between thoughts....a temporary gap in thinking.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Thu, 17 May 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 22 May 2018 #43
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4529 posts in this forum Offline

I am still pondering, looking at, this issue of dying, in its different manifestations. Here is a quote I have posted before:

"There is the thought of human beings as a great stream - everybody wants to go on - and in that stream the thought of you remains. And when the medium calls upon you, you manifest, out of that stream, because you are still there, still there in your daily life, because you are still pursuing the same thing that every human being is pursuing - security, permanency, "me' and 'not me',"we' and `they', this constant concern with yourself in that stream in which all human beings are caught. When you die your thought of yourself goes on in that stream as it is going on now - as a Christian, Buddhist, whatever you please - greedy, envious, ambitious, frightened, pursuing pleasure - that is this human stream in which you are caught. Unless you step out of it now you will go on in that stream - obviously. Can the mind step out of that and face complete impermanency, now? If you have understood, that is death, is it not?"

I am puzzled by the phrase “in your daily life”. here. If you are dead, what is this “daily life”? I may be missing something important here, and I would appreciate it if anyone has anything to comment on this.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 24 May 2018 #44
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 634 posts in this forum Offline

To paraphrase Eldridge Cleaver, “The mind is either part of the solution or part of the problem”. The difficulty in this is that there are a multitude of opinions on what “the problem” is. And even where there is agreement on what the problem is, there is a multitude of opinions on what the solution is.

Whatever one does, whatever action one takes, however one behaves, is necessarily part of the problem or part of the solution. If I treat you with hate, contempt, violence, fear, indifference, and so on, and you respond likewise, that IS the relationship. Hate, contempt, violence, fear, indifference, and so on, are rooted in self, which is rooted in thought, knowledge, the past, the mind, the brain, and so on. If you treat me with love, compassion, understanding, and I respond according to my conditioning, the relationship is nonetheless altered. A seed is planted. It may bear fruit. The seed of love, compassion, understanding, intelligence, is not planted intentionally, cunningly, with a motive. If there is motive or cunning, it is not love. Cunning cannot plant the seed of love, compassion, understanding, intelligence, and so on.

And obviously, I cannot treat you with love, compassion and understanding if I do not feel it. I can pretend, but pretense is not the thing. Just as I can’t prevent hate and fear from expressing themselves in relationship or action if hate and fear are acting in me and there is no awareness.

The multitude of definitions and analyses given for the chaos in the world are not different from the problem itself. The totality of all the opposing opinions, the endless words, debates, arguments, anger, animosity, etc., is like a great noise rising to the heavens. It is our conditioning, our indoctrination, the stream, which makes the mind approach problems through debate, argument, opposing opinions. The truth is not uncovered through debate. The truth is seen or perceived or understood and, from that, there may be verbal expression, or not. If the truth is understood, it can express itself in other ways than verbally.

K points out that it is very simple: there is only one problem, and that problem is consciousness - the self, permanence, continuity, time, desire, fear, attachment, ideas, beliefs, the indoctrination of the global mind, and so on, which are all interrelated aspects of the one problem.

Jacques Cousteau said something to the effect that the pollution from the smoke of every single cigarette ends up in the depths of the oceans.

A disordered mind is like the cigarette. It pollutes relationship, the network or totality of which constitutes society or “the world”. Whatever decision and action the disordered mind makes is therefore tainted by or part of its disorder. Whatever philosophy, ideas, politics, religion, etc., the disordered mind adopts as a basis for action, its action is tainted by or part of disorder. And just as the ocean and streams, sky and earth can refresh or unpollute themselves, so can the mind unpollute itself. As long as the pollution stops. For all living things, there IS a point of irreversibility for pollution, isn't there?

Disorder is the result of conditioning or indoctrination. Disorder is self-centeredness, conceit, hate, pretense, fear, violence. (I’m not talking of pathologies of the brain which can also affect perception and action.) Disorder is the psychological darkness of self-ignorance.

The mind can bring order about within by grounding itself in awareness, not by grounding itself in its disorder. Awareness is not part of the disorder, and the disorder is not awareness. The mind has the ability to understand these things.

“DB: I think that it would help if we could see with regard to the brain whether it has any activity which is beyond thought. You see, for example, one could ask, is awareness part of the function of the brain?

JK: As long as it is awareness in which there is no choice.

(The Future of Humanity Chapter 2 2nd Conversation with David Bohm Brockwood Park 20th June 1983)

The disordered mind is cunning and vigilance is needed. The disordered mind can be extremely subtle and it infiltrates awareness with subtlety. The disordered, conditioned, indoctrinated mind will adopt awareness as its motto or method. It will try to appropriate awareness into its field of conflict.

So what is vigilance and “who” is vigilant? We were talking earlier about the action of awareness, intensity, intelligence, understanding, and so on. These actions are not the action of the self-centre. In the same way, vigilance is not the action of the self-centre. As I understand it, these are total action which arises from unfragmented mind, which is order. The qualities of vigilance, sensitivity, awareness, intensity, intelligence, understanding, love, compassion, freedom, and so on, cannot be broken down into fragments. One quality cannot be extracted from this totality. Fragmentation is the activity of the self-centre, disorder. There is no love without freedom, no intelligence without awareness, no vigilance without intelligence, no sensitivity without understanding … and so on. No?

“If there is no action following understanding, there is no understanding, obviously.
[...]
One wants security, not only for oneself but for the whole of humanity: that is love, that is compassion. But that compassion and love is totally denied when one seeks security in a neurotic concept, a thing formulated by thought, a thing formulated by a materialistic attitude. When an action is based on a concept, which is itself totally material, then division must inevitably take place - battles, quarrels, agony.
(6th Public Talk Saanen, 25th July 1974)


“An intelligent mind acts in the field of thought intelligently, sanely, without resistance; it is free from the structure and implications of attachment, from the action of attachment, from the pursuit of power with all its complications, the ruthlessness of it. It sees the dividing process of thought, and seeing that clearly, totally, it has energy; that energy is intelligence. Having that energy, that intelligence, it can operate in the field of thought, not the other way round.
(Talks in Saanen 1974, 2nd Public Talk 16th July 1974)"


“When you yourself see the truth of this wholeness, action has quite a different meaning. The tomorrow altogether disappears, but yet tomorrow exists in your arrangements, the planning of daily life; but this planning is contained in the wholeness and is not separate from it.

There is the action of thought and the action of non-thought. The action of thought has its place, but it does not bring about the flowering of goodness. The action of non-thought does. Thought does not breed love; it breeds satisfaction, pleasure, the self-centred activity which has nothing whatsoever to do with love and goodness. The wholeness of action is love.

(Chapter 71 - Freedom is sane living in daily life - The Whole Movement of Life Is Learning: Letters to His Schools)

This post was last updated by Huguette . Thu, 24 May 2018.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Thu, 24 May 2018 #45
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4529 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
And just as the ocean and streams, sky and earth can refresh or unpollute themselves, so can the mind unpollute itself. As long as the pollution stops. For all living things, there IS a point of irreversibility for pollution, isn't there?

I have a strong suspicion that climate change has become irreversible, as more and more positive feedback factors area discovered, and more and more evidence from palaeontology, and what is happening now, points to run-away changes, of a tipping point having been broached. But is there a suggestion here that the human mind has gone beyond a tipping point? That is, the damage done to it and by it is irreversible, and it is incapable of healing itself (whether it has ever been capable of healing itself is debatable, better just say “is incapable of being healed”)? I think this is certainly a possibility, but I do not see how one could ever know this for sure. I am not saying that that you ARE saying this, Huguette.

In fact you go on to say the opposite, with:

The mind can bring order about within by grounding itself in awareness, not by grounding itself in its disorder. Awareness is not part of the disorder, and the disorder is not awareness. The mind has the ability to understand these things.

I have to say that I don’t know. I see that awareness has its own effect, and is outside of the disorder of the mind. But I cannot say that so far that it has bought about a complete transformation of the mind. But such a statement needs a lot of going into. Does awareness have a function, any function? Is it within the realm of cause and effect? For the mind to regard awareness as a tool to be used is a continuation of usage, exploitation, and so still within the field of the self. Again, I am not saying that you are implying this, Huguette, I am just discussing with myself. I think I am saying what K says in the quote you give:

“As long as it is awareness in which there is no choice”.

To continue ...

“The disordered mind is cunning and vigilance is needed. The disordered mind can be extremely subtle and it infiltrates awareness with subtlety. The disordered, conditioned, indoctrinated mind will adopt awareness as its motto or method. It will try to appropriate awareness into its field of conflict”

Very interesting. But this infiltration is not actual, is it?, just another deception of the mind, which as you say is very cunning and subtle. And as you say, it TRIES to appropriate awareness – but true awareness is aloof, is it not?

It is like intelligence – as soon as the mind tries to use intelligence, it is introducing its own bias, and so it is then NOT intelligence.

Thank you for finding all the quotes, Huguette. A question comes nagging, something to do with “where does one start, it seems a sort of circle”, but there is also a seeing that this is a wrong question. One either sees the truth, or one does not, and it is that seeing which can act. And to see that one does NOT see is also seeing, which has its own action, would you say?

I am not sure what happened to my original question, but never mind :-).

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 25 May 2018 #46
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 634 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
I have a strong suspicion that climate change has become irreversible, as more and more positive feedback factors area discovered, and more and more evidence from palaeontology, and what is happening now, points to run-away changes, of a tipping point having been broached. But is there a suggestion here that the human mind has gone beyond a tipping point? That is, the damage done to it and by it is irreversible, and it is incapable of healing itself (whether it has ever been capable of healing itself is debatable, better just say “is incapable of being healed”)? I think this is certainly a possibility, but I do not see how one could ever know this for sure. I am not saying that that you ARE saying this, Huguette.


“Formerly one of the four largest lakes in the world with an area of 68,000 km2 (26,300 sq mi), the Aral Sea has been shrinking since the 1960s after the rivers that fed it were diverted by Soviet irrigation projects. By 1997, it had declined to 10% of its original size, splitting into four lakes. [...] The eastern basin is now called the Aralkum Desert.” (Wikipedia)

There is a point beyond which it is too late to stop smoking cigarettes, too late to stop drinking alcohol, too late to reverse the melting polar ice. By "too late", I mean too late for the lungs, liver and earth to somewhat recover.

So in the context of matter, of the physical, there IS a tipping point, it seems. But the actions which are responsible for destroying food, air, water and species, for causing wars and other forms of violence, famine, the spread of disease, and so on, are the consequences of the mind’s ignorance. Ignorance doesn’t kill the brain directly, like cancer does. It incites the brain to act foolishly, destructively, selfishly.

So as I see it, there's no point of no return for the self - the self being an illusion, not a living organism. The brain/mind can heal from its darkness of ignorance but can it heal in time to reverse the consequences of man’s ignorance and bring the Earth back to health? Who knows. There are millions suffering those consequences right now - wars, famine, drought, disease, extreme poverty, dangerous work and living conditions, hate, and so on.

Each of us must in any case face the fact of death, the sword of Damocles seemingly hanging over humanity's head. Only then, it seems to me, can life be lived fully. Life cannot be lived fully when it is filled with fear.

This post was last updated by Huguette . Fri, 25 May 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 25 May 2018 #47
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 634 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
I am not sure what happened to my original question, but never mind :-).

Clive, do you mean the question about daily life? In my mind, my post WAS related to that. Self-centred concerns, fears, hates, desires, ambitions, attachments, ideals, pleasure-seeking, and so on, are the root of my daily life, of all our daily lives, aren't they? So "daily life" is made up of countless fragments shaped by the same self-ignorance which causes war, exploitation and all the other expressions of self-centeredness. That is the stream, isn’t it? This stream of daily life is my legacy or contribution to the illusion of continuity. It is the stream which is the legacy of man. But if one “steps out” of the stream, there is a brand new legacy. I'm taking the liberty of repeating here one of my quotes from above:

“When you yourself see the truth of this wholeness, action has quite a different meaning. The tomorrow altogether disappears, but yet tomorrow exists in your arrangements, the planning of daily life; but this planning is contained in the wholeness and is not separate from it.
There is the action of thought and the action of non-thought. The action of thought has its place, but it does not bring about the flowering of goodness. The action of non-thought does. Thought does not breed love; it breeds satisfaction, pleasure, the self-centred activity which has nothing whatsoever to do with love and goodness. The wholeness of action is love.
(Chapter 71 - Freedom is sane living in daily life - The Whole Movement of Life Is Learning: Letters to His Schools”)

This post was last updated by Huguette . Fri, 25 May 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 26 May 2018 #48
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4529 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
So as I see it, there's no point of no return for the self - the self being an illusion, not a living organism. The brain/mind can heal from its darkness of ignorance but can it heal in time to reverse the consequences of man’s ignorance and bring the Earth back to health? Who knows. There are millions suffering those consequences right now - wars, famine, drought, disease, extreme poverty, dangerous work and living conditions, hate, and so on.

Yesterday, after reading some articles about the state of the world – not just environmentally, but socially, culturally, politically, this incredible ruthlessness, cruelty of man for man, the violence in every country …… I became deeply affected by the human situation. And surely it is right that we DO feel these things, feel them very deeply? Not feeling them is really the cause of them, is it not, or at least the continuation of them?

But sometimes it feels ‘just too much’.

Both of us know the fundamental cause of man’s malaise and violence, we don’t have to go into that, unless we can penetrate more deeply into self understanding. We seem to be asking, has the state of human consciousness reached a tipping point, as the planet seems to have? Is consciousness beyond redemption, if I can use that word? You suggest there is no such point. I say I do not know.. But it may be a possibility.

Decades ago, K used to be asked questions like “can the approaching war be prevented?” And he said “no”. He said that with all the preparations for war, a huge momentum had been created which could not be turned aside. There was no stopping it, things had to play themselves out. That momentum is much greater now, isn’t it? Not just for military war, but generally in the decay, the deterioration, the corruption, the violence, the indifference in all the areas of society. It is all coming to a head, very rapidly. There is no one in charge of things – although some people think they ARE in charge, think they CAN control things, and this is very much part of the problem – just as it is directly in human consciousness.

However, this does not refute what you say, Huguette. You are saying, are you not, that there is always a possibility for human consciousness to somehow change track. That it is never what one might call “hopeless” - but best not to bring that word into the discussion.

I will stop here.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 26 May 2018 #49
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4529 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Each of us must in any case face the fact of death, the sword of Damocles seemingly hanging over humanity's head. Only then, it seems to me, can life be lived fully. Life cannot be lived fully when it is filled with fear.

Huguette, are you referring to some sort of collective death of the human race, or individual death?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 27 May 2018 #50
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2271 posts in this forum Offline

Clive and Huguette,
It's the idea of death that creates fear, no? We can't know the unknown, but only our ideas and projections about it. Facing the idea of death creates fear because of our ideas about it. But the unknown itself? Can one fear that? It might be wonderful or terrible, but that's just more ideas...the known.. fear. So can we understand fear? Perhaps we can understand life. Life as we live it....the divisions, conflicts, beliefs, ideals, our conditioning. Seeing the absurdity of the way we live, perhaps we will change(die to all that)...spontaneously....not because we desire change

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Sun, 27 May 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 27 May 2018 #51
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 634 posts in this forum Offline

Yes, Tom, that is what we’re looking into - psychological fear, which is not fear of actual physical danger. Fear of death or the unknown is psychological fear, fed by time, ideas, desire, imagination, speculation, and so on.

What does it mean to actually face death, not the idea of death? Does it mean the mind “ends” its endless pursuit of or preoccupation with ideas - not "end" through will or effort, but simply by being aware that it is doing so? If the mind understands the significance of self and its pursuit of ideas, and there is awareness of ideas and images as they arise, then understanding acts and the pursuit of thought ends. The pursuit ends in that moment, not “forever”, which is again the preoccupation of thought with time.

“If there is no action following understanding, there is no understanding, obviously."
(6th Public Talk Saanen, 25th July 1974)

K said something to the effect that when death comes, one can’t say, “Wait just a minute, death. I haven’t finished looking into all this. I still have to think about it. Give me a bit more time to figure it out. I also have a score to settle. And I need to save money, lose weight, stop drinking, become a better person,” and so on.

When death comes a-knockin’, the pursuit of thought is over - the ambitions, plans, projects, desires, hates, fears, all the unfinished business of thought, and so on - it’s all over. And he asked, “Can we die - psychologically - in THIS moment?”

Death IS the ending of time.

This post was last updated by Huguette . Sun, 27 May 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 28 May 2018 #52
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2271 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
What does it mean to actually face death, not the idea of death? Does it mean the mind “ends” its endless pursuit of or preoccupation with ideas - not "end" through will or effort, but simply by being aware that it is doing so?

It's possible that that's what death is....the end of 'me'. Can I face that? 'Me'/'I'/self obviously cannot, since 'me' is continuity. I can be aware of the ways of 'me'...of time/continuity...however.

Huguette . wrote:
then understanding acts and the pursuit of thought ends. The pursuit ends in that moment,

Right...only with understanding of 'me' is there any ending. Call it silence of the 'me' or death.

Huguette . wrote:
And he asked, “Can we die - psychologically - in THIS moment?”

For sure 'I' can't erase 'I'. It seems like a senseless question for 'me' to ask. Can I be aware of myself? To me that's a more sensible question. Or asking, "What is 'me'?"

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Mon, 28 May 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 28 May 2018 #53
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 634 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Can I be aware of myself? To me that's a more sensible question. Or asking, "What is 'me'?"

I see it differently, Tom. It doesn’t really matter which question is asked. Isn’t there an “I” in “can I be aware of myself” or in “what is ‘me’”, just as there is in “can I die psychologically”? The supposedly separate “I” might even avoid using the word “I”, but that in itself doesn’t eliminate the “I”.

Where there is awareness, the mind observes whether the question (“Can I die psychologically in this moment”) arises out of consciousness, out of the “I”, or not. What matters is understanding the source of the question. Is it rooted in consciousness, is it asked by the intellect who desires and is actively searching for an answer? The movement of will, of pursuing an answer, of effort can be perceived, can’t it?

Or does the question arise out of silence, awareness, observation, out of self-understanding? Is it an innocent question asked without any idea of a specific answer?

For a scientist looking through a microscope or at data, a question might arise. He can desire a specific conclusion and fudge the observation or data so as to present the conclusion he was hoping for. Or he can observe passively, “negatively”, and see what emerges out of silent attention.

We can’t claim that the mind is NOT aware, CANNOT be aware, can NEVER be aware. In awareness, the mind can observe its discontent, dissatisfaction, fear, endless pursuit of and occupation with ... something. This movement, which includes both thought and emotion, goes on unbidden and can’t be deliberately halted. The mind (not “I”) can passively observe this and understand that its pursuits and preoccupations CANNOT bring contentment or resolution. The self pursues one goal after another, “solves” one problem after another, and other goals or problems immediately present themselves. It is a never-ending movement.

The movement of consciousness can’t be halted but the preoccupation with it and the efforts to alter it can end where the significance of the movement is understood.

To me, to “die” psychologically means to die to the pursuit, the effort, the will, the preoccupation, the dogged determination, and so on. So that life unfolds without interference from “me”. That is what happens when death comes, isn’t it? Seeing all this, “the question” contains both question and answer, doesn’t it? And living is dying.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 28 May 2018 #54
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4529 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
It's the idea of death that creates fear, no? We can't know the unknown, but only our ideas and projections about it. Facing the idea of death creates fear because of our ideas about it. But the unknown itself? Can one fear that?

Yes, it seems very clear to me that fear (psychological fear) only arises when we imagine a situation arising. When we are actually face to face with something (even a situation that we previously imagined) there is no fear whatsoever. We just meet the challenge. This is a really remarkable discovery, because, as the old saying goes, "tomorrow never comes". We just imagine that it is going to come.

In fact, thinking about the future - better to say imagining the future, in fact, because the future has no existence independently of our imaginings - is a really bad thing altogether. Another form it takes is the mind creating a desire (which means I might get something in the future), and then the mind becomes a slave to the fulfilment of that desire, achieving that pleasure.

Of course one should add the usual proviso that in a practical sense it is sometimes necessary to think about the future.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 28 May 2018 #55
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4529 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Clive, do you mean the question about daily life?

Yes.

Huguette . wrote:
In my mind, my post WAS related to that. Self-centred concerns, fears, hates, desires, ambitions, attachments, ideals, pleasure-seeking, and so on, are the root of my daily life, of all our daily lives, aren't they? So "daily life" is made up of countless fragments shaped by the same self-ignorance which causes war, exploitation and all the other expressions of self-centeredness. That is the stream, isn’t it? This stream of daily life is my legacy or contribution to the illusion of continuity. It is the stream which is the legacy of man.

I understand that, Huguette - well, I think I understand it to some extent, I am pretty sure I don't understand completely (hence my question perhaps). But just what is "my daily life" once I am dead, physically?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 28 May 2018 #56
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4529 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote &51 :
When death comes a-knockin’, the pursuit of thought is over - the ambitions, plans, projects, desires, hates, fears, all the unfinished business of thought, and so on - it’s all over.

And yet, Huguette, he also said that we continue in the stream. That if we have not stepped out of that stream already, we continue in it, as we did before. "the thought of me continues in the stream" So it seems in this sense it is not "all over".

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 29 May 2018 #57
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 634 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
But just what is "my daily life" once I am dead, physically?

I'm taking the liberty of quoting a long extract. I don't understand the whole thing but it does address this very question. Is it that my daily life is the life of selfishness and that selfishness continues in the stream, maintains the stream? Is it too simple?

"Can one living in the world of reality end selfishness?” - public talk 6, Saanen, 24 July 1975

So that 'me' is moving in the stream of greed, in the stream of selfishness, in the stream of fear, anxiety and so on, which is the same as you in the stream. I wonder if you get this. Please, don't accept what I am saying, see the truth of it. That is: you are selfish and another is selfish, you are frightened, another is frightened - basically - you are aching, suffering, tears, greed, envy - that is the common lot of all human beings. That is the stream in which we are living in the present. Right? That is the stream in which we are caught - all of us. We are caught in the stream while we are living. Please see that: that we are caught in that stream as an act of life. That is, the stream is selfishness. Let's put it that way. That stream is... in that stream we are living; the stream of selfishness. That word includes all the descriptions which we have just now given. And when we die, the organ dies but the selfish stream goes on. You understand? Just wait - look at it, take time, consider it. Suppose I have lived a very selfish life: that is, self-centred activity: my desires, the importance of my desires, the ambitions, the greed, the envy, the accumulation of property, accumulation of knowledge, accumulation of all kinds of things we have gathered - which I have termed as 'selfishness'. And that is the thing I live in. That is the 'me'. And that is the you also. In our relationship it is the same.

So while living, we are together flowing in the stream of selfishness. Got it? This is a fact, not my opinion, not my conclusion. If you observe it, you see it. Whether you go to America, you see the same phenomena, in India, all over Europe, modified by the environmental pressures and so on and so on - but basically that is the movement. And when the body dies, that movement goes on. So there is this vast stream of selfishness - if I may use that word to include all the things that is implied in that word - is the movement of time, and when the body dies that goes on. Go slowly in this. I am going to go into this a little more.

And I die; my wife, tearful, upset, lonely, missing the companionship, having no money - you follow? - is suffering, still like the rest of the world. And she goes to a medium, seance, because she wants to get into touch with me, because she is lonely, unhappy, suffering, no money - all that. And the medium there gets into contact with what it calls the 'me', the husband, and says, 'Your husband is here, he has a message for you. He says he is perfectly happy. Look under the drawer and you will find the testament'. This phenomena is repeated differently in different ways all over the world. Either it is the medium picking up the intimation, unconscious intimations of the wife and repeating it - one can do that very simply if you have observed that there is such thing as transmission of thought; you must have played with it, you must know it, it has its own reality - or, out of that stream of selfishness the thought of K still exists and the thought manifests. So there it is.

We live in that stream in our daily life till we die, and when we die that stream continues. Just a minute. That stream is time. Time. That is the movement of thought which has created suffering, which has created the 'me', which the 'me' has now asserted itself, being independent and divides itself from you, but the 'me' is the same as you when it suffers. So the 'me' is the word, or... the me is the word. The 'me' is the imagined structure of thought. In itself it has no reality. It is what thought has made it, because thought needs security, certainty. So it has invested in the 'me' all its certainty. And in that there is suffering and all the rest of it. In that movement of selfishness, while we are living we are being carried in that stream. When I die, that stream exists.

Is it possible for that stream to end? You understand? I die physically, that is obvious. My wife may cry about it, but the fact is I die, the body dies. And this movement of time is going on, of which we are all part. That is why the world is me and 'me' is the world. And will there be an end to this stream? And is the manifestation of that ending of the stream, is it the manifestation of something totally different from the stream? I wonder if you follow all this? Are you interested in all this? Which is: can selfishness with all its decorations, with all its subtleties, come totally to an end? And the ending is the ending of time, and therefore there is totally different manifestation of that ending - which is no selfishness at all. I wonder if you... you have understood this a little bit?

You see there are several things involved in this: in that stream, is there a 'you' and 'me'? You understand? When there is suffering, is there a 'you' and 'me' - or is there only suffering? I identify myself as the 'me' in that suffering which is the process of thought. But the actual fact is you suffer and I suffer, not me suffer something independent of you who are suffering. I wonder if you see that. So there is only suffering: not I suffer and you suffer. You suffer because your... I suffer - better keep to myself - I suffer because my son, my wife, my husband, my neighbour, my relative is dead. I suffer because my wife has turned away from me. I suffer because there is loneliness. I suffer because I can't fulfil, I can't get everything I want - I want position, power, money, sex - in that order - and I suffer. Don't you also suffer in the same way? So the suffering is the same as 'me'. It is not, 'I suffer something separate from you'. You understand sir? That is a tremendous thing to find out.

So there is no individual suffering. There is individual blindness - but that is a physical phenomenon. But the suffering is the same as you and me. Therefore there is only the factor of suffering. Do you know what it does when you realise that? Out of that non-personalised suffering, non-identified as the 'me' who is suffering separate from you - when there is that suffering - out of that comes tremendous sense of compassion. I wonder if you see that.

The very word 'suffering' comes from the word 'passion'. So I have got this problem now: living, there is selfishness - dying, there is selfishness. And that is the stream of time as a movement of thought. And that stream of selfishness can manifest itself, which is happening all the time. That manifestation of that selfishness may have a name - as 'John Smith', 'K' and somebody else. But if there is no name - you understand? - if there is no naming of that suffering as belonging to me - what is then the individual at all? You follow? I wonder if you see this thing. I suffer... there is suffering and that suffering has been given a name and a form as 'K' - 'K' is me - has been given a name and a form. And that name and form becomes the individual, separate from the stream of suffering. And that individual says, 'I am different from you'. I am cleverer, I am duller or you are more clever or this and that. If there is no naming as the form, no naming the form, then is there an individual at all? I wonder if you see. This is too... The word individual means 'indivisible' - a human being who is not fragmented, indivisible in himself. That he is the whole - whole being healthy, sane, rational, holy. And when death takes place when there is living, is there an ending of time as movement of thought and suffering - now? You follow the question? Can I as a human being, living, knowing in that stream I exist as selfishness, can that stream, can that movement of time come totally to an end? Both at the conscious as well as the deep level? You understand my question, after describing all this?

Now how will you find out? How will you find out whether you, who are caught in the stream of selfishness, can completely step out of it? Which is the ending of time. And therefore death is the ending of time as a movement of thought, if there is this stepping out of that. Can you, living in this world with all the beastliness of it, the world that man has made, which thought has made - the dictatorship, the totalitarian authority, the destruction of human minds, destruction of the earth, the animals - everything he touches he destroys, including his wife and husband - now can you live in this world completely without time? That means no longer caught in that stream of selfishness. Can you?

Now who is going to tell you whether you can or cannot? You understand? Or will you take time? You understand? If you take time, you are still in there, still in the stream. So the whole idea of gradual change, gradual evolution, gradual process, is still the continuity of suffering, continuity of selfishness. I wonder if you see. So do you actually see this? See in the sense clearly as you see the speaker sitting on the platform.

See there are many more things involved in this which we haven't time to go into. Because there is such thing as great mystery - not the thing invented by thought - that is not mysterious. The occult is not mysterious, which everybody is chasing now, that's the fashion. The experiences which drugs give is not mysterious. This thing called death and seeing all this, the description and much more involved in it, and the mystery that lies when there is a possibility of stepping out of it.

Which is: as long as one lives in the world of reality - which we do - can there be the ending of suffering in that world of reality? Wait, wait, wait. Think about it. Look at it, look at it! Don't say, yes or no. If I don't... if there is no ending of suffering in the world of reality, which is order, if there is no ending of suffering, which is selfishness - please, I will use the word 'selfishness' - if there is no ending of selfishness in the world of reality - it is selfishness that creates disorder in the world of reality - if there is no ending to that, then you have not understood or grasped the full significance of ending time. Therefore you have to bring order in the world of reality. That is, in the world of relationship, in the world of action, in the world of rational thinking and irrational thinking - the fear, pleasure - all that is in the world of reality. So can you... can one living in the world of reality as we are, end selfishness? You know it is a very complex thing ending selfishness, it is not just, 'I won't think about myself'. It is a very complex thing and very subtle. One may think one is not selfish, but deeply there is this root of it which shows itself in its peculiar ways. So to be enormously aware of all that. That means being sensitive. You cannot be sensitive if you drink, if you take drugs, smoke - obviously. Or you cannot learn by going to college how to be sensitive. You cannot learn how to be sensitive from another. You have to be aware of one's insensitivity.

One is aware of one's... One is sensitive to one's desires, to one's hurts, to one's demands, but we are talking of being sensitive totally - both physiologically as well as psychologically. That means one has to have an excellent body, not drugged body by alcohol or overeating and all the rest of it. So one has to be aware of this selfishness in the field of reality, because this selfishness in the field of reality is creating chaos. And you are the world and the world is you. If you change deeply you affect the whole consciousness of man.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 29 May 2018 #58
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 634 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
And yet, Huguette, he also said that we continue in the stream. That if we have not stepped out of that stream already, we continue in it, as we did before. "the thought of me continues in the stream" So it seems in this sense it is not "all over".

I don't mean that the stream ends when I die. I mean it's "all over" in the sense that if I do not understand now, it's too late to understand when death comes around.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 29 May 2018 #59
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2271 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
. It doesn’t really matter which question is asked. Isn’t there an “I” in “can I be aware of myself” or in “what is ‘me’”, just as there is in “can I die psychologically”?

Yes. The 'I' is in every question 'I' ask. If I ask the question K. asked, "Can I die psychologically in this moment" , it's still 'me' asking the question....looking for a result....a result to benefit 'me'.

I wanted to reply to your message yesterday Huguette, but I was having a terrible problem quoting parts of your post on my iPad. I do want to look at your post again, as I didn't fully understand all that you were trying to say. This site works fine when I'm using my windows laptop, but it's really difficult with an iPad or iPhone. Sometimes the quoting function doesn't work at all. Dev, if you're reading this, perhaps someone can address this issue. Participating when one is using an iPad or iPhone is almost impossible. The site is not working well with the Apple iOS. Perhaps I will come back to your challenging post #53 at another time Huguette. I'm on my laptop now, but I have to shut down soon to make breakfast and begin my work day. There's been a lot of interesting messages on the forum the past couple of days and it takes time to digest them all. It would be nice if I could reply when I'm out at a wifi hotspot and using my iPad but it's quite a chore.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Tue, 29 May 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 29 May 2018 #60
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4529 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
I'm taking the liberty of quoting a long extract. I don't understand the whole thing but it does address this very question. Is it that my daily life is the life of selfishness and that selfishness continues in the stream, maintains the stream? Is it too simple?

Thank you for finding this quote, Huguette (how do you find so many appropriate quotes?). Although K says fundamentally the same things always, there are times, in specific talks and dialogues, when he goes into things in more detail, and these times can be immensely valuable, I find.

“The thought of K still exists in the stream”

K has used exactly this phrase at other times. What does it mean, do you think,:

1) the thoughts that K used to have

or

2) the thoughts ABOUT K. I guess such thoughts could either have been in the mind of others, or the mind of K (ie self-images)

Or is this distinction entirely artificial? Does such a distinction arise from the false concept of individuals, that actually do not exist. There is actually only the stream, manifesting in all the brains.

“but the 'me' is the same as you when it suffers”

I have written that down from the quote as I ponder it. Is the implication that the me is not the same as you when it is not suffering, or it is not going through what might be called the fundamental movements of consciousness – jealousy, fear, ambition, pleasure, suffering …...? The other states of being, where there are differences in individuals, are a result of conditioning, are they not? Due to different circumstances, different environments, we are conditioned differently? Just pondering over there things.

I have to go out soon, but I am fairly sure I will be back on this.

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