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

Hypocrisy, a place to start


Displaying posts 31 - 34 of 34 in total
Mon, 11 Jun 2018 #31
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4531 posts in this forum Offline

Daniel Paul. wrote:
we as one "object" of creation are able to be directly touched by the ground as it wishes

I intended to look at this matter of “The Ground” that Daniel had raised. But, irrespective of the fact he has withdrawn from discussion, when I come to it, I wonder if I have anything meaningful to say. There seems two possibilities:
1) I repeat what K has said about the Ground, and I have ‘absorbed’, turned into idea.
2) speculate.

Neither of these lines seems to have any meaning. Other than feeling a sort of sense of awe, other than being touched by a feeling of vastness, what part does it play in my life? The answer seems to be that I do not know. And for some time now I have been feeling the foolishness of turning what is fundamentally unknown into the known. I should make it clear that I am talking solely for myself now; not attempting to talk for others.

Isn’t the only “way” (not a method) to the unknown is through the ending of the known?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 11 Jun 2018 #32
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4531 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
I think this is simply another way of saying that ‘I’/self/me is suffering...no division between the two because they are NOT two.....only the one fact of me/suffering.

I sometimes have the strong feeling - and this is not imagination, not a theory, just a direct experience - that time itself is suffering, or sadness. And as time IS thought, IS the self, then yes, the me IS suffering.

And yet when the me IS suffering, with no division as the one who suffers and what is suffered, is there then suffering, in the usual meaning of the word?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 12 Jun 2018 #33
Thumb_stringio Daniel Paul. Ireland 124 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Clive: I intended to look at this matter of
“The Ground” that Daniel had raised.
But, irrespective of the fact he has
withdrawn from discussion, when I come
to it, I wonder if I have anything
meaningful to say. There seems two
possibilities: 1) I repeat what K has
said about the Ground, and I have
‘absorbed’, turned into idea. 2)
speculate..

.

Hello Clive, well I think it is good to finish up with this peculiar point of this talk before to leave as I am away for 3 weeks from this afternoon, usually I do not use the word ground but rather origin often qualifying it of "necessarily beyond time"..even pure logic shows that it is what is..there is an origin, unknown to us as to its nature and it always had been there...so is not of time..I play this game since young and it always shows that..

that would be speculating yes..

in my own experiments like in the ones of probably many, there was the presence of something totally different from thought ,daily life, a fulfilling sort of energy where there is no sorrow, no fear, no pain etc , we can agree that it is beyond words anyway, etc..was it this origin or ground of all things ? I have not a single clue, nor in fact do I find it important..only thought would love to qualify this ...

but as I said even logic can go far in such matter...it is not a proof but common sense applied here says a lot..for me we all of us have not to be shy, we as human have the means in us to go into all that without referring to any authority of any kind, k included, that is what he often said himself...the proper use of a brain is sufficient..but school and formatting tend to destroy brains .

Clive:
Neither of these lines seems to have any meaning. Other than feeling a sort of sense of awe, other than being touched by a feeling of vastness, what part does it play in my life? The answer seems to be that I do not know. And for some time now I have been feeling the foolishness of turning what is fundamentally unknown into the known. I should make it clear that I am talking solely for myself now; not attempting to talk for others.

clive Isn’t the only “way” (not a method) to the unknown is through the ending of the known?

Well in what i know , talking about being deeply "touched" whatever is behind such words there is no sense of awe at all..of course one can be lying it is easy, especially since k because there are tons of sentences to be copied and pasted. Nor was it this sense of awe, a sense of fantastic, extraordinary,powerful, etc not it is very simple but pure contentment and more when this weird moments were there, that is a one of the strange specificity of all that, it is not at all extraordinary, nor fantastic , nor awesome , nor will it give one a sense of "I have got it", "I am better than" etc..all this is gone...because all those words are the world of thought..

I have some feeling about that here..

first thought did not live it because it must record first to analyse, so it was a mere very remote spectator ...in other words there is no connection between thought and "this" , thought always the past even if forecasting the future, and "this" is the present..thought is a sort of time capsule in the present, this is vital to analyse...

when all this is gone, there is no sense of oh my god that was fantastic etc

when it is gone there is no anticlimax at all

but one knows things out of the blue...

for me it all was and is related to this sensation of sorrow just lived not thought about, but now in very minor proportions of a normal everyday life , making one's life different...sort of in between ...not hell , not heaven...good enough though.

k apparently was in a very different league..what good is it for me, us ? the ways of societies not only have not changed at all but are getting worse, well how could one man change all that mess at the time we live in ? ...but I do not despise k at all, on the contrary..

Clive: Isn’t the only “way” (not a method) to the unknown is through the ending of the known?

I see that we just can put our house in order, thanks k for those words, and from there live what is there...in other words life guides...not thought.Of course not thought as it is a practical tool only., lost in its own matrix.

krishnamurti :As we said, we must put our house in order and nobody on earth, or in heaven, is going to put our house in order, neither your gurus, nor your vows, nor your devotion because our house is in disorder: the way we live, the way we think, the way we act. Unless that house is in order, which is to understand disorder, which we went into yesterday, how can a mind that is in disorder perceive that which is total order, as the universe is in total complete order?

thought has tried to be the leader of our lives, it does not work at all..

life this unknown "thing" is far beyond and above thought . thought is only a mere tool for practical survival, it is vital at this level and useless in any other fields , it is playing god..thought suffers, I , some, solve it for me-them when it is there, it is simple I suffer then it may speak and will always produce something "good" as it wishes if thought is not hidden behind, if thought is behind = more pain....and it leads wherever it will...

I have been using logic here for about 40 years ..and it says this: this nasty sensation is part of a natural process we have , it is that which turns on some other capacities...

ok, have to get ready to leave soon, the last words for Mr K....for me this is enough to know and live...then more will follow as it wishes..

Krishnamurti: There are various ways of escape but there is only one way of meeting sorrow. The escapes with which we are all familiar are really the ways of avoiding the greatness of sorrow. You see, we use explanations to meet sorrow but these explanations do not answer the question. The only way to meet sorrow is to be without any resistance, to be without any movement away from sorrow, outwardly or inwardly, to remain totally with sorrow, without wanting to go beyond it.

Clive Elwell wrote:
And yet when the me IS suffering, with no division as the one who suffers and what is suffered, is there then suffering, in the usual meaning of the word?

Suffering immediately disappears when this is lived, this will not take place as long as there is a tiny bit of thought lurking in the woods , this is why suffering , it must be that strong to put thought down to its knees..all my input here since 12 years is about that...in different ways..

so the words even if saying facts are one thing and the doing another...it may help..

cheerio..enjoy your time ;-)

France and Spain now soon for me..mountain and deserts

Dan ...........

This post was last updated by Daniel Paul. (account deleted) Tue, 12 Jun 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 26 Jun 2018 #34
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4531 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
T: Easier said then done! But the cause of our dishonesty is in the very movement of the self. In every movement of the self. Thought itself is inherently dishonest (psychologically). The ‘me’ is inherently divided and isolated and dishonest. I’m angry but I pretend or prefer to be calm. I’m violent but I pretend to want peace. I’m intolerant but I try...make an effort... to be tolerant. Any movement in the psychological realm of consciousness is inherently dishonest. Whatever I try to do psychologically is dishonest....any effort in that realm.

Here is a quote from K that very much supports what you say, Tom.

As I said in my previous talks, in freeing thought-feeling from craving, in becoming aware of its ways, we begin to perceive the significance of candor, love, fear, simple life and so on. It is not that one must become candid, honest, but in thinking-feeling about it, in becoming extensively aware of it, its deeper implications are perceived rather than the self becoming honest. Virtue is not a structure upon which the self can build for in it there is no becoming. The self can never become candid, open, clear for its very nature is dark, enclosing, confusing, contradicting.

To become aware of ignorance is the beginning of candor, of honesty. To be unaware of ignorance breeds obstinacy and credulity. Without being aware of ignorance, to try to become honest only leads to further confusion. Without self-knowledge mere sincerity is narrowness and gullibility. If one begins to be self-aware and observes what is candor, then confusion yields to clarity. It is the lack of clarity that leads to dishonesty, to pretension. To be aware of escapes, distortions, hindrances, brings order and clarity. Ignorance, which is the lack of self - knowledge, leads to confusion, to dishonesty. Without understanding the contradictory nature of the self, to be candid to be hard and to produce more and more confusion. Through self-awareness and self-knowledge there is order, clarity and right thinking.

“Candor”, or “candour”,is a word not much used these days, so I looked it up in a dictionary:

the quality of being open and honest; frankness.
"a man of refreshing candour"

synonyms:
frankness, openness, honesty, candidness, truthfulness, sincerity, forthrightness, directness, lack of restraint, straightforwardness, plain-spokenness, plain dealing, plainness, calling a spade a spade, unreservedness, bluffness, bluntness, outspokenness;
informaltelling it like it is
"he spoke with a degree of candour unusual in political life"

But we must be able to see when we are being dis-honest, without candour, other wise we would not be discussing this, would we? I mean it must be possible. This is similar, I think, to the point Huquette makes in #29 of the “Daily Meditation” thread:

“I’m asking why you say that the brain doesn’t SEE that it is enslaved and at the same time you say you do see it?”

Becoming honest, or rather being honest seems to me a natural consequence of right intention. And of seeing that we are not honest. It always boils down to this "seeing", doesn't it? Is this seeing independent of the self?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 31 - 34 of 34 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.)