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

The Tragedy of the Commons


Displaying posts 31 - 48 of 48 in total
Sun, 03 Jun 2018 #31
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4469 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
(Thought/self is fear.) Self is a protective mechanism, isn't it?

So what is the self protecting? Is it not protecting just images of itself? Which are not real, or not actual? A sudden feeling of how odd it is that something exists just to protect its own existence, but this may be an over-simplification.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 03 Jun 2018 #32
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4469 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
. Self-understanding means understanding self as it is actually refelected in action and relationship in this moment, not as we think "true" self will be once we understand, once we step out of the old self.

In this, there is no suggestion that “the self” is one thing, is there? Although using the phrase suggests that it is – such is language. A mirror does not reflect one thing, it reflects whatever is in front of it. And if the mirror is in motion, whatever it reflect is also in constant motion.

So the reflection analogy – which I find very appealing – does not imply a “true self”, does it? It really just suggests a movement, or a series of movements – that movement being energy, which you and Dan bring up later.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 03 Jun 2018 #33
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2263 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:

Offline
Dan McDermott wrote:

(Thought/self is fear.) Self is a protective mechanism, isn't it?

So what is the self protecting? Is it not protecting just images of itself? Which are not real, or not actual? A sudden feeling of how odd it is that something exists just to protect its own existence, but this may be an over-simplification.

The self is protecting its attachments, isn't it? Its memories...pleasures? Which may amount to protecting itself, since attachments make up a big part of self. Just questioning here.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Sun, 03 Jun 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 03 Jun 2018 #34
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 926 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Clive: ...how odd it is that something exists just to protect its own existence, but this may be an over-simplification.

I think the 'self' as a protective mechanism is formed as a buffer against the 'hurts' and fears of our childhood. It is a psychological buffer against the outside world: avoid those who could hurt you and befriend those who 'like' you. It's in John R.'s words an "interface". Everything must pass through it and it judges everything on past experience. It blocks direct perception because of fear. The self in a sense then IS fear, isn't it? When K. speaks of our "nothingness", he is speaking I think, of the absence of the 'self'/self-centered thought, this 'protective' mechanism.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sun, 03 Jun 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 03 Jun 2018 #35
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2263 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
I don't agree...why should the fact that you have an image or belief or hope about who or what you are "prevent" the 'seeing' of that.

I wasn’t talking of seeing the image. I was talking of seeing the conflict that is happening in me...whatever it is....fear, anger, desire to smoke, etc. I can’t truly see/observe fear if I have an image of it....opinions....a belief or conclusion that it makes me weak ...or that I must not be afraid....that I must have courage....or that I am NOT fear, but rather I am formless awareness. My opinions and knowledge about fear obviously prevent me from seeing it afresh.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Sun, 03 Jun 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 03 Jun 2018 #36
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4469 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
The self is protecting its attachments, isn't it? Its memories...pleasures? Which may amount to protecting itself, since attachments make up a big part of self. Just questioning here.

I tend to see "attachments" as pretty much the same thing as "identifications", I could be wrong. And aren't identifications the whole of the self? I mean the self is nothing more than the things it is identified with ie attached to?

And so the self has no choice but to try to protect the things it has identified with, since it is protecting its own existence, no?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 04 Jun 2018 #37
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 926 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
And aren't identifications the whole of the self? I mean the self is nothing more than the things it is identified with ie attached to?

Yes, the self is a process of continual identification, dropping some things, adding some things , but the most basic and most continuous identification is as 'me'. Isn't it? The 'permanent' center around which the world revolves: me.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Mon, 04 Jun 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 04 Jun 2018 #38
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2263 posts in this forum Offline

Clive: And so the self has no choice but to try to protect the things it has identified with, since it is protecting its own existence, no?

I’m not sure if we’re saying the same thing, Clive. We’re attached to our memories,which we’ve identified with, yes. They’ve become more real/significant (to ‘me’...who?) then the actual movement of life. They are in the driver’s seat is one way of putting it. For practical purposes, this is of crucial importance, obviously, but why do we protect our self image or status or beliefs...our ideals? The self is belief and opinion and ideals too. Sorry if this sounds muddled, but I’m not sure where we’re going with this notion of me protecting the existence of all that makes up ‘me’. ‘I’ AM all that...obviously.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Mon, 04 Jun 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 04 Jun 2018 #39
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2263 posts in this forum Offline

I’m going to throw the QOTD from today in here as it might be relevant to the discussion.

Bangalore, India | 6th Public Talk 8th August, 1948

To understand 'what is' requires a state of mind in which there is no identification or condemnation, which means a mind that is alert and yet passive. We are in that state when we really desire to understand something; when the intensity of interest is there, that state of mind comes into being. When one is interested in understanding what is, the actual state of the mind, one does not need to force, discipline, or control it; on the contrary, there is passive alertness, watchfulness. If I want to understand a picture or a person, I must put aside all my prejudices, my preconceptions, my classical or other training, and study the picture or the person directly. This state of awareness comes when there is interest, the intention to understand.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 04 Jun 2018 #40
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4469 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Yes, the self is a process of continual identification, dropping some things, adding some things , but the most basic and most continuous identification is as 'me'. Isn't it? The 'permanent' center around which the world revolves: me.

I'm a little puzzled by this, Dan. Are you saying that the self identifies with itself?

It seems to me - and I'm not clinging to this perception, that the self, which has no existence of its own, continues its "pseudo existence" by identifying with something else. For example, a nation, a possession, a person, an idea.

Now I can see that these things that are identified with are basically creations of the thought, of the self, so in this sense the self is identifying with the self, with its own projections. Is this what you are saying? Or something else?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 05 Jun 2018 #41
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2263 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Now I can see that these things that are identified with are basically creations of the thought, of the self, so in this sense the self is identifying with the self, with its own projections. Is this what you are saying? Or something else?

I won’t attempt to speak for what Dan means in #37, but let’s say I identify with my fear or my depression. Besides identifying with my emotions, I identify with the ‘me’ who is experiencing those emotions....the self image. So it appears we identify with the many facets of the self as well as the one who possesses them. But they’re all images in consciousness. My image/s of my fear or addiction or anger, as well as my image of me who is afraid or angry. I think it was Mina who said that there’s no fear(for example) without the image of the one who is afraid....who owns the fear....the one who knows fear. So ‘I’ am the known...knowledge....Consciousness is the known.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Tue, 05 Jun 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 05 Jun 2018 #42
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 926 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
So ‘I’ am the known...knowledge....Consciousness is the known.

And I think that K. is asking, can this 'consciousness'/ knowledge which contains my fears, my hopes, my greed, memory of my experiences, etc....can this consciousness not interfere with the observation of the present moment, not arise in what is taking place in me in this present moment? Can psychological thought end? (be still?) Because if thought moves, then the 'thinker' arises apart from the thought, the observer (me) arises apart from what is observed...And this duality is the root cause of conflict. Do others see it this way, in themselves?

Put another way; as long as thought continues to be active in the psychological realm without awareness of its movement, conflict will continue?

K. "Knowledge, the burden of the past, is corruption".

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Wed, 06 Jun 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 06 Jun 2018 #43
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4469 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Besides identifying with my emotions, I identify with the ‘me’ who is experiencing those emotions....the self image.

Yes, I take your point, Tom.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 06 Jun 2018 #44
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2263 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Put another way; as long as thought continues to be active in the psychological realm without awareness of its movement, conflict will continue?

Yes

K. "Knowledge, the burden of the past, is corruption".

Never saw that quote before. Powerful statement to make seeing that most of us have been raised to worship knowledge.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 06 Jun 2018 #45
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 926 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
K. "Knowledge, the burden of the past, is corruption".

Tom- Never saw that quote before. Powerful statement to make seeing that most of us have been raised to worship knowledge.

I see it as knowledge as memory of past experience creating the veil or filter that comes between the senses and the world, the "corruption" of direct perception.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 07 Jun 2018 #46
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2263 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
I see it as knowledge as memory of past experience creating the veil or filter that comes between the senses and the world, the "corruption" of direct perception.

I can see that, but I also suspect K is referring to knowledge as the observer dividing 'me' from 'you' and me from myself. How the observer(me) with his knowledge and experiences divides us from our fellow man....as well as dividing ourselves 'internally. Got to run and make dinner. Will look further into K's statement later, time permitting.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Thu, 07 Jun 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 07 Jun 2018 #47
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4469 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Powerful statement to make seeing that most of us have been raised to worship knowledge.

What haven't we been raised to worship, to respect, in this corrupt world, Tom? Greed, ambition, the ways of the self, separation, the division of mankind, tradition, possessiveness, attachment, conformity, escaping in entertainment, and so on. Even war is glorified. Yes, and as you say, great respect for knowledge - perhaps knowledge includes all these. All these are the ways of society, and yet they are immensely destructive, and are destroying mankind and the planet.

This post was last updated by Clive Elwell Thu, 07 Jun 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 07 Jun 2018 #48
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2263 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
What haven't we been raised to worship, to respect, in this corrupt world, Tom? Greed, ambition, the ways of the self, separation, the division of mankind, tradition, possessiveness, attachment, conformity, escaping in entertainment, and so on.

Ambition of course ...‘worship’ and ‘respect’ depends upon knowledge and conformity. Attachment ...to the known of course...knowledge again. Knowledge of good and evil....wasn’t that the apple that Eve ate in the Garden of Eden? Right vs wrong, should vs should not....knowledge which divides (internally and externally) and ultimately leads to every kind of violence, even war. There’s a whole lot that falls under the umbrella of knowledge...the known.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Thu, 07 Jun 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 31 - 48 of 48 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.)