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

Daily Meditation with Krishnamurti


Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 42 in total
Thu, 14 Jun 2018 #1
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4579 posts in this forum Offline

There is no place at which to arrive

Can humility be practiced? Surely, to be conscious that you are humble, is not to be humble. You want to know that you have arrived. This indicates, does it not?, that you are listening in order to achieve a particular state, a place where you will never be disturbed, where you will find everlasting happiness, permanent bliss. But as I said previously, there is no arriving, there is only the movement of learning – and that is the beauty of life. If you have arrived, there is nothing more. And all of you have arrived, or you want to arrive, not only in your business, but in everything you do; so you are dissatisfied, frustrated, miserable. Sirs, there is no place at which to arrive, there is just this movement of learning which becomes painful only when there is accumulation. A mind that listens with complete attention, will never look for a result because it is constantly unfolding; like a river, it is always in movement. Such a mind is totally unconscious of its own activity, in the sense that there is no perpetuation of a self, of a "me," which is seeking to achieve an end.

— ???????????????????? ????????????????????????????????????????????????

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 15 Jun 2018 #2
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4579 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote, quoting K:
Such a mind is totally unconscious of its own activity, in the sense that there is no perpetuation of a self, of a "me," which is seeking to achieve an end.

I am not at all sure what K means here by "such a mind is totally unconscious of its own activity". Can anyone shed any light on this. Is he saying that such a mind is not aware of its activities? That does not seem likely. The word "conscious", the phrase "conscious of", carries a variety of meanings. As does the word "consciousness". My tendency is to take that to mean the common human consciousness, the stream, the vast reservoir of all human experience, accumulated over thousands of years. But this is not awareness, surely?

Reading the passage again, is K saying that a mind that is listening wit full attention is not in a state of division; has not divided itself from what it is listening to?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 19 Jun 2018 #3
Thumb_open-uri20180717-8420-135f99u-0 Mina Martini Finland 248 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
I am not at all sure what K means here by "such a mind is totally unconscious of its own activity". Can anyone shed any light on this.

m: A mind unconscious of its own acitivity means a mind that is innocent, that does not know of itself, that is not in a state of duality.

It is the 'left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing', in the words of Christ.

...

Again, to really understand the above or the original Krishnamurti's words, not merely as a description, not merely as knowledge about something, or as mind conscious of itself, (all meaning the same) one has to BE the light that you ask to be shed on the expression you feel you do not understand.

m

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 19 Jun 2018 #4
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 978 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
K.-But as I said previously, there is no arriving, there is only the movement of learning – and that is the beauty of life. If you have arrived, there is nothing more.

We are taught as children to "be someone", gain knowledge so you can 'profess'. 'Get ahead', be a success, 'arrive!'... all leading to a kind of misery and its results as we see around us. Christ is purported to have said something like the animals have their homes but Man has not where to lay his head...no 'place to arrive at' as K. says here? But still we strive to 'arrive', to solve the puzzle, to find peace and contentment...that is the trap of time isn't it, the donkey with the carrot hanging in front of his nose that no matter how fast he walks, can never reach it?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 19 Jun 2018 #5
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 755 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote quoting K.:
Sirs, there is no place at which to arrive, there is just this movement of learning which becomes painful only when there is accumulation. A mind that listens with complete attention, will never look for a result because it is constantly unfolding; like a river, it is always in movement.

How beautiful expressed no struggle only learning !

So from another thred

Wim Opdam wrote:
realizing afterwards that there is a kind of being proud of my work and thinking of my dad words and also those of my brothers in law and my own brothers (9 of them !) when i tried something like that in the past.
Seeing that, is that a struggle.?

Seeing the root of the feeling proud grounded in the past is meditation/learning at work !

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, 20 Jun 2018 #6
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4579 posts in this forum Offline

Another Daily Meditation

Let a thought flower

Awareness is that state of mind which takes in everything – the crows flying across the sky, the flowers on the trees, the people sitting in front, the colors they are wearing – being extensively aware, which needs watching, observing, taking in the shape of the leaf, the shape of the trunk, the shape of the head of another, what he is doing. To be extensively aware and from there acting – that is to be aware of the totality of one's own being. To have a mere sectional capacity, a fragmentation of capacity or capacity fragmented, and to pursue that capacity and derive experience through that capacity which is limited – that makes the quality of the mind mediocre, limited, narrow. But an awareness of the totality of one's own being, understood through the awareness of every thought and every feeling, and never limiting it, letting every thought and every feeling flower, and therefore being aware – that is entirely different from action or concentration which is merely capacity and therefore limited.

To let a thought flower or a feeling flower requires attention – not concentration. I mean by the flowering of a thought giving freedom to it to see what happens, what is taking place in your thought, in your feeling. Anything that flowers must have freedom, must have light; it cannot be restricted. You cannot put any value on it, you cannot say, "That is right, that is wrong; this should be, and that should not be" – thereby, you limit the flowering of thought. And it can only flower in this awareness. Therefore, if you go into it very deeply, you will find that this flowering of thought is the ending of thought.

This post was last updated by Clive Elwell Wed, 20 Jun 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 20 Jun 2018 #7
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 755 posts in this forum Offline

The Ending of Time | 1st Conversation with David Bohm 1st April, 1980

Krishnamurti: And one morning, one night in Rishi Valley I woke up
- a series of incidents had taken place, meditation for some days -
I woke up one night, in the middle of the night, it was really a quarter past twelve, I looked at the watch. And I hesitate to say this because it sounds extravagant and rather childish: that the source of all energy had been reached. And that had an extraordinary effect on the brain, and also physically. Sorry to talk about myself but you understand.
Wait a minute, I don't mind now I am in it.
And literally any sense of the world and me and that - you follow? - there was no division at all only this sense of tremendous source of energy. I don't know if I am conveying it.

David Bohm: So the brain was in contact with this source of energy?

Krishnamurti: Yes. Now, coming down to earth, as I have been talking for sixty years, I'd like to, not help, I'd like another to reach this
- no, not reach it - you understand what I am saying?
Because all our problems are resolved, political, religious, every problem is resolved because it is pure energy from the very beginning of time. Now how am I - not I, you understand - how is one to - not teach, not help, not push, pressure - how is one to say,
'This way leads to a complete sense of peace, love and all that'?
I am sorry to use all these words.
Sir, you have it sir, suppose you have come to that point and your brain itself is throbbing with it, how would you help me? You understand?
Not words, how would you help me to come to that?

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 Wed, 20 Jun 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 21 Jun 2018 #8
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4579 posts in this forum Offline

You have to find out what truth is because that is the only thing that matters, not whether you are rich or poor, not whether you are happily married and have children, because they all come to an end, there is always death. So, without any form of belief, you must find out; you must have the vigor, the self-reliance, the initiative, so that for yourself you know what truth is, what God is. Belief will not give you anything; belief only corrupts, binds, darkens. The mind can only be free through vigor, through self-reliance.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 21 Jun 2018 #9
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 755 posts in this forum Offline

• Meeting Life | What is Beauty

Questioner: Yes. Real beauty must be something other than the beauty of the poet,
the artist,
the young, alert mind, though I am not in any way belittling that beauty.

Krishnamurti: Is this really what you are seeking? Is it really what you want?
If you do, there must be the total revolution of your being. Is this what you want?
Do you want a revolution that shatters all your concepts, your values, your morality, your respectability,
your knowledge - shatters you so that you are reduced to absolute nothingness, so that you no longer have any character, so that you no longer are the seeker, the man who judges, who is aggressive or perhaps non-aggressive, so that you are completely empty of everything that is you?
This emptiness is beauty with its extreme austerity in which there is not a spark of harshness or aggressive assertion.
That is what breakthrough means and is that what you are after?
There must be astonishing intelligence, not information or learning.
This intelligence operates all the time, whether you are asleep or awake.
That is why we said there must be the observation of the inner and the outer which sharpens the brain.
And this very sharpness of the brain makes it quiet.
And it is this sensitivity and intelligence that make thought operate only when it has to; the rest of the time the brain is not dormant but watchfully quiet.
And so the brain with its reactions doesn't bring about conflict.
It functions without struggle and therefore without distortion.
Then the doing and the acting are immediate, as when you are in danger.
Therefore there is always a freedom from conceptual accumulations.
It is this conceptual accumulation which is the observer, the ego, the "me" which divides, resists and builds barriers.
When the "me" is not, the breakthrough is not, then there is no breakthrough;
then the whole of life is in the beauty of living, the beauty of relationship,
without substituting one image for another. Then only the infinitely greater is possible.

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 Thu, 21 Jun 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 21 Jun 2018 #10
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4579 posts in this forum Offline

I am wondering what the this means:

K wrote:

When the "me" is not, the breakthrough is not, then there is no breakthrough;

Does it mean that then there is no sense of becoming, of achieving?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 21 Jun 2018 #11
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 978 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
K.-When the "me" is not, the breakthrough is not, then there is no breakthrough;

My take on that Clive is that the 'breakthrough' now for me represents the state that K is describing in the beginning, a state of total 'emptiness' and from my perspective that could only lie 'up ahead' somewhere, something that as you say I may "become" or "achieve" etc. But once there is such a state, there is no me and with the disappearance of me, no-one to become or achieve and nothing or no-one to "breakthrough" anything.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 21 Jun 2018 #12
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4579 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
My take on that Clive is that the 'breakthrough' now for me represents the state that K is describing in the beginning,

That sounds right, Dan. I tried to find the original context, but could not.

When one reads these quotes from K, so powerful, so penetrating,so explosive, with the austere beauty of overwhelming truth, one wonders why the teachings did not achieve more traction in the world. I mean they did to a certain extent, but not overwhelmingly so. No doubt his words sowed a great number of seeds, all over the world. But still that world continues on its downward path, like some great juggernaut, seeming more and more to be almost in free fall.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 22 Jun 2018 #13
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 978 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
one wonders why the teachings did not achieve more traction in the world.

Well when you read what he said to that questioner, asking if he/she really wanted that "emptiness"?...we all come looking to gain something. Greed brings us here. But some see that there is something beyond that greed and understand the ignorance that is involved in 'chasing' it. That there actually is some deep meaning to "selling your birthright for a mess of pottage".

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sat, 23 Jun 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 22 Jun 2018 #14
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 755 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam quoting K. wrote:
When the "me" is not, the breakthrough is not, then there is no breakthrough;

Did Mina recently not gave a similar description in her topic:
"On the root of authority" ??

 

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
Sat, 23 Jun 2018 #15
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4579 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
That there actually is some deep meaning to "selling your birthright for a mess of potage".

So what do you feel that birthright is, Dan?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 23 Jun 2018 #16
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 978 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
So what do you feel that birthright is, Dan?

Probably the same thing that you do Clive, to be "free of the known"?

K."So one asks how serious one is. Is it all - one's whole life - an illusion, constant battle, struggle and unending misery, confusion and sorrow? Or can one live differently? Is our brain capable of totally changing its whole structure, its nature? The brain has - if I may go into it and if you are willing to listen, and if you don't listen it doesn't matter either, but if you care to listen and since you have taken the trouble to come here, uncomfortable and all the rest of it, it seems necessary, adequate and right that one should listen to something that is actually true. Our brains have been conditioned along a certain pattern. You can observe it for yourself. The speaker is not a brain specialist, though he has talked to many of them about the brain, but one can observe oneself the activity of the brain. It is conditioned to follow a certain pattern. That brain has evolved through time, through millennia and therefore that brain is not my brain or your brain, it is the brain of mankind. And that brain has followed a certain way, a certain route, a certain pattern, and that pattern has brought about this division between man and man - which is obvious when you look at it, when you go into it. That brain, which has evolved through time, which is the result of millennia, is constantly seeking security in images, in persons, in conclusions, in some ideals, that is the pattern human beings have followed. Please look at it yourself, you will see the truth of it. And it becomes extraordinarily difficult to break that pattern, even an ordinary physical habit like smoking, drinking and all the rest of it. When it becomes deep rooted habit, it is extraordinarily difficult to break it. And the brain has followed this particular path, this particular way of living, being concerned with itself, with its own egotistic activities, its own sorrow, its own particular anxiety, its own pleasures, its own demands - that has been the pattern of this brain for generation after generation.

And we are asking: can that pattern be broken? Not by will, not by some kind of pressure, idealistic carrot, but seeing the actual pattern of our life and seeing the cruelty of it, the inanity, the stupidity of it, that to live in images is the very essence of a destructive way of life. When one sees the truth of it you are already breaking away from it. So one asks: does one actually see the pattern, the norm, the continuity of this movement from generation to generation? And this movement is in the brain, in our brain, in our hearts, in our minds. So can one be free of all that? Otherwise we pursue the way of our daily life which is corrupt, fragmentary, destructive, violent."

Brockwood Park England 1st public talk 1980

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sat, 23 Jun 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 24 Jun 2018 #17
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4579 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Probably the same thing that you do Clive, to be "free of the known"?

Thanks for this mail, Dan, and the quote. Just a few minutes before reading it, sitting quietly in bed, I had seen something that seemed new about the mind – that it doesn’t want to be free. No, better to put it this way: there are elements in it that doesn’t want the freedom that is often talked about.

Because freedom is too vulnerable. Freedom is too unpredictable. Freedom implies spontaneity, and the mind doesn’t really want to be spontaneous, because it doesn’t know where that might lead.

Normally the mind is “under control”. I put that phrase in inverted commas, because I would say it is a very shaky sort of control. More the illusion of control. And exactly what is controling what, is not clear. But in that control, the mind is protecting itself against “freedom”, unpredictability spontaneity. One could say the mind is protecting itself against the unknown. Do you have a feel for this, Dan?

One could say the mind wants to follow a pattern, as K says in the quote, the pattern being the known.

But you are saying that the birthright of the mind is to be free of the known. Interesting word that, “birthright”. Does it mean its true function, its essence? It certainly implies that it has the capacity to be free.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 24 Jun 2018 #18
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 634 posts in this forum Offline

Yes, Dan, thanks for this quote.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 24 Jun 2018 #19
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 978 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
the birthright of the mind is to be free of the known. Interesting word that, “birthright”. Does it mean its true function, its essence? It certainly implies that it has the capacity to be free.

I relate to all that you have written above (#17) and each day does seem to create some new 'discovery. Of late I am seeing our situation more in terms of the 'brain' than of the 'mind'. That it is the brain that continues to follow the ages old patterns, in fear of 'freedom' and the 'unknown'. K. has said it, the brain, needs to feel "total security" in order to function and it has not seen except perhaps in some cases that the security that it clings to is no security at all. There is no physical security, there is death for the body and there is no psychological safe place that does not create disorder, and sorrow. There is no 'my' brain and no 'your' brain, that is an illusion. There is the human brain and in keeping itself within the borders of its fears, desires, it has created a world of agony for so many. But it would seem that the situation, the destructive 'patterns' can only be addressed, one brain at a time, this brain. And only by the perception of the whole functioning of the 'patterns' and not as an observer looking at what is being observed. The whole 'stream' of myself must be seen. There is nothing or no-one outside that can 'observe'. That is the 'fact' that is being dealt with, that nothing 'psychologically' can be done... those attempts are just part of the patterning that have gone on forever and that is being perpetuated and strengthened. I see no reason why the 'birthright' of the brain isn't, to be free of conflict, to become aware of the destructive path of thought/time and the resultant 'sorrow' it has inherited and through becoming aware of itself with its unconscious behavior, to free itself at least from its 'personal consciousness'.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 24 Jun 2018 #20
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2296 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
that it doesn’t want to be free. No, better to put it this way: there are elements in it that doesn’t want the freedom that is often talked about.

Because freedom is too vulnerable. Freedom is too unpredictable. Freedom implies spontaneity, and the mind doesn’t really want to be spontaneous, because it doesn’t know where that might lead.

But since there's no 'me' separate from the mind, then this is where we're stuck. The mind wont release its hold on the known....thoughts, images, knowledge, beliefs, opinions, conclusions, because the mind is all that. It seems there must be something outside of this feedback loop that will act on the mind. Insight or intelligence is not from this loop. But is there anything at all 'I' can do to help bring intelligence into the picture? Or is all movement by 'me' keeping the mind in its prison...since 'I' am it. I think Dan said the same thing above and I quote: "That is the 'fact' that is being dealt with, that nothing 'psychologically' can be done... those attempts are just part of the patterning that have gone on forever and that is being perpetuated and strengthened."

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Sun, 24 Jun 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 24 Jun 2018 #21
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 634 posts in this forum Offline

Tom,

The mind won’t release its hold on the known (or the known won't release its hold on the mind). That is true.

“Our brains have been conditioned along a certain pattern” (Dan quoting K).

The pattern is the “me”, which “has” thoughts, images, knowledge, beliefs, opinions, conclusions. If the mind says, “there must be something outside of this feedback loop that will act on the mind”, it is still acting in that pattern, it is still the movement of the pattern, the stream, consciousness, self, conditioning. It is, as you say, "stuck". It is the pattern which says, “I'm stuck, I’m trapped, I can’t do anything right, I’m no good, I’m a failure", or, "I can do whatever I like, I’m superior, I’m untouchable”, and so on.

There is, as you say, no getting away from that pattern, no breaking away from it, through will, effort, determination, prayer, self-mortification, discipline, and so on. It is an immovable fact. Nonetheless, isn’t it a tremendous thing to SEE the fact? "Tremendous" meaning not insignificant, not humdrum, not run-of-the-mill.

This perception or understanding is not something which has what might be called a “market value”. It can’t be exploited or manipulated for gain or profit of any sort. The fact stands immovable, unshakable, solid. And is the mind which actually, truly SEES the fact the same as the mind which does NOT see the fact? I’m not asking this in a comparative, measuring way. I’m not COMPARING the mind which sees to the mind which does not see just for the sake of comparison. I’m really asking: is it the same mind which actually truly sees the fact? Or is there "something new" in the perception, in the understanding of it?

Added:
"Something new": something which is not a product of the pattern

This post was last updated by Huguette . Sun, 24 Jun 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 24 Jun 2018 #22
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 978 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
"Something new": something which is not a product of the pattern

Can it be put this way? Can the brain 'see' how totally it has trapped itself by creating an 'outsider' , a 'me', separate from itself? An outsider created by its own fear of 'ending', with the illusion that it is a true entity and one who can 'act' upon and give a 'continuity' to the thought/memory process: the 'thinker'? Can the total seeing of that effortlessly 'explode' the 'contents of consciousness' with the habits, hurts, memories both pleasant and painful, the perpetual conflicts...? (Which I guess is the same question of K.'s: Can time / thought come to an end?)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 24 Jun 2018 #23
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 634 posts in this forum Offline

I'm not asking whether time has come to an end. I'm not concerned with whether the seeing of it can "explode" the contents. I'm not asking what seeing can accomplish.

Just, do you (does the mind) see the fact of conditioning, of the pattern, of the stream, of consciousness? And is the seeing of it part of the pattern? Does the mind which is observing itself only see in accordance with the pattern? Is there no seeing other than the seeing which is inevitably moulded by the pattern?

This post was last updated by Huguette . Sun, 24 Jun 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 24 Jun 2018 #24
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 978 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Just, do you (does the mind) see the fact of conditioning, of the pattern, of the stream, of consciousness? And is the seeing of it part of the pattern? Does the mind which is observing itself only see in accordance with the pattern? Is there no seeing other than the seeing which is inevitably moulded by the pattern?

That's what we are asking isn't it? Can the 'whole' thing be seen? Not only this 'pattern' or this 'content' or that, but the entire 'consciousness'...Has that question ever been asked? And 'who' or what in us can 'listen' to that question without the movement of thought as to 'how' or 'who' is going to 'have' this total perception?

...But then again...the brain may just be 'worn out': "Leave well enough alone"..."You're not going to 'really' change anything, take care of yourself and those you care about and let the rest take care of itself". "Other people have tried all this, smarter people than you and look what's come of it." "Don't ask for trouble, you're going to make yourself crazy"". Stop playing head games" "Be happy you've got what you've got" etc, etc. ;-)

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sun, 24 Jun 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 24 Jun 2018 #25
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 634 posts in this forum Offline

No, I’m not asking if the WHOLE thing can be seen.

I’m asking only this: is the process, the mechanism, of self, of conditioning, of the pattern, of consciousness, SEEN? Whatever fragment is looked at necessarily contains the whole thing, the entire consciousness. The whole thing is contained in every fragment because every fragment is produced by the process of fragmentation - unless we are competely deluding ourselves in this.

So there is no who or what “in us” that can listen. There is listening/seeing, which comes from “nothing” and which leaves no trace. And there is the pattern which comes out of the past.

It seems to be a contradiction: the pattern - self - cannot see but there is seeing. How can this be? And yet, it is, isn’t it? In the same way, the pattern - self - cannot love, but there is love.

Self knows its limitations because it realizes logically, experimentally, that it can remember love but it cannot love on command. It realizes that it remembers perception/understanding but it cannot see/understand on command. And yet there is love, there is understanding.

There is nowhere for self, consciousness, the pattern, the stream, to go from “here”, nowhere to go to from that perception, nothing to do about it. That perception doesn’t lead anywhere. Any mental movement which is made subsequent to that perception is necessarily the movement of the pattern, another fragment in the pattern or process of time/thought. Any fragment, thought, idea, which “breaks away” or fragments from that perception, any fragment which “steps back” and says, “can the whole thing be seen” ..... is produced by the pattern, by conditioning. It is not seeing anything.

So doesn’t the mind SEE that it is held, enslaved, by the pattern/stream/consciousness/conditioning? And is the mind which SEES that the same mind which fragments and puts self together out of the fragments?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 24 Jun 2018 #26
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 978 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
So doesn’t the mind SEE that it is held, enslaved, by the pattern/stream/consciousness/conditioning? And is the mind which SEES that the same mind which fragments and puts self together out of the fragments?

As I said, brain (the physical organ) is how I am thinking about all this. 'Mind' seems too nebulous at this point for me. No- the brain does not see or realize that it is "enslaved", on the contrary it (I) thinks, feels, that it is free. Free to choose, free to do this or that...thought is not 'aware' that the 'thinker' is actually not separate from it. Not aware that it actually is not an 'individual at all but an illusion. There can be and is an intellectual understanding of 'all this' but the intellect, thought is a 'fragment' of the whole so can never 'see', grasp the whole 'picture'. All these 'understandings', theories, explanations, are all part of the patterning, part of the 'stream'. What has been suggested is that it is only the perception of the whole mechanism that could bring about its negation. Otherwise it will continue as it has for thousands of years and will continue to deteriorate...The 'brain' may not be yours or mine but it is only in the 'individual', separate. brain that the "breakthrough" can take place. Evolution can't 'fix' the problem. (except of course to do away with us entirely.) Sorry if I'm not meeting your points.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 24 Jun 2018 #27
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 634 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
.....the brain does not see or realize that it is "enslaved"

This is a recurring point which often comes up and which I don’t understand. What makes you say that the brain IS enslaved? Do you SEE it is so or are you taking someone's word for it?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 24 Jun 2018 #28
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 978 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Do you SEE it is so or are you taking someone's word for it?

Both, someones word (not my personal theory) and then seeing in myself the bind I'm in and others and the state of the world etc. Caught in seemingly unbreakable habits, routines, observing the animals around me, the differences between them and 'us'. Are you asking that if you 'see' you are in fact enslaved (although not 'feeling' that it is so, which is part of the prison), why aren't you 'un-enslaved'? The seeing is partial.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sun, 24 Jun 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 24 Jun 2018 #29
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 634 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Are you asking that if you 'see' you are in fact enslaved (although not 'feeling' that it is so, which is part of the prison), why aren't you 'un-enslaved'?

Not at all. 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?

And you are also bringing in partial seeing. What do you mean? Do you not fully see that you are caught in habit, compulsion, desire, etc.?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 25 Jun 2018 #30
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 978 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Do you not fully see that you are caught in habit, compulsion, desire, etc.?

A storm has knocked out power here and it's late, but no, I don't "fully" see that i am "caught in habit, compulsion, desire, etc." because I AM those things, those are not things "I am 'caught' up in". There is a difference. I appreciate your discussion and hope we and others can continue it.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 42 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.)