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

Daily Meditation with Krishnamurti


Displaying posts 31 - 42 of 42 in total
Mon, 25 Jun 2018 #31
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 927 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
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?

Well I am not the 'brain'. The brain has many functions that happen without the help of 'me'. The brain doesn't 'need' 'me'. But it has in a kind of ignorance created 'me' for its own sense of security and permanence. But 'intelligence' points out that there is no psychological security ...and that there can be an end to conflict, sorrow, etc.. Does the brain listen to that? Or is it so conditioned to stay 'in the (safe) stream' that to leave behind its precious attachments (including me) becomes an impossibility? (Until death of course.)

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Mon, 25 Jun 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 25 Jun 2018 #32
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4470 posts in this forum Offline

Dan wrote:
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'.

Yes, sorry Dan, I tend to use the terms brain and mind without much discrimination. Would you attempt to draw the distinction as it appears to you?

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

Yes, this seems to be a major problems for the brain. It definitely needs security, but that does not seem to be found anywhere. Even without the prospect of death, we have created a world that threatens collapse economically, politically, socially, environmentally, war …… in every way. And imminently, in fact it has already come for many.

and there is no psychological safe place that does not create disorder, and sorrow.

This is true, and well put. Although the mind constantly searches for one.

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.

I can’t see any other way.

And only by the perception of the whole functioning of the 'patterns' and not as an observer looking at what is being observed.

The observer looking at the observed is not really observation, is it? It is interpretation by the past, by what we already know.

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.

Yes

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'.

While I am not denying what you say (or saying it must be so), here is a little exchange from 1972 (Brockwood dialogue 2):

• K: That's right sir, why don't you see it? Is it that you are not
listening properly? Is it that you are
frightened? Is it that you have not
enough energy to listen? Is it that
you don't see the world and everything
collapsing, burning, you don't see it,
you don't feel it, it is not in your
blood?

Q: We might be just too far gone.

K: Yes, you might be too far gone. Our
brains have gone to pieces, that might
be true.

Q: I don't know about other people
here, but I'm not too far gone. I can
see that clearly the world is
collapsing, there is terrible
destruction, and people are fighting
with each other in various ways and I
ask myself where do I come into this,
how do I fit in? I obviously can't
just provide for myself, it is
meaningless for me to provide for
myself.

K: Just listen to this. The world is
fighting - right? Killing each other.
There are the Catholics, Protestants,
Communists, Hindus, Muslims - you
follow - appalling things are going
on. My guru is better than your guru -
right? All that kind of thing is going
on. What is my relationship to all
that? Right? I think - not think - I
see all that is most destructive,
which is, my intelligence says it is
destructive. Now what is that
intelligence to do and what is its
relationship to all that is taking
place? Right? What is the
relationship? Look at it carefully
sir. What is the relationship of that
intelligence to a world that is
insane?

Q: There is no relationship.

K: No relationship. Right? How can
sanity have relationship with
insanity? No, it can't. Therefore what
will you do? You must do, you must
act, you must live, what will you do?
What will that intelligence do?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 25 Jun 2018 #33
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4470 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
But since there's no 'me' separate from the mind, then this is where we're stuck.

But doesn’t the seeing of this fact, (that the mind doesn’t want to be free/spontaneous) or any fact, introduce a new factor?

And also I deliberately changed what I had written to: “there are elements that don’t want to be free”. Because there is a movement towards freedom, is there not? Although as you say, this movement tends to be the movement of knowledge, and ultimately there is no freedom in knowledge, is there?

The mind wont release its hold on the known....thoughts, images, knowledge, beliefs, opinions, conclusions, because the mind is all that.

Can we talk about the mind releasing its hold on the known, as if it is SEPARATE from the known? Or is it that the mind IS entirely the known?

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."

There is seeing of the fact, is there not? And no, that is not the action of “me”. But it happens. I guess this is what is called “insight”. Yes, I would go along with what you, Dan, and Huguette are saying.

This post was last updated by Clive Elwell Mon, 25 Jun 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 26 Jun 2018 #34
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4470 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?

How can seeing be part of any pattern, Huguette? "pattern" strongly suggests conditioning, doesn't it? And 'conditioning' and 'seeing' seem mutually exclusive. If we truly see that conditioning is controlling us, then does that seeing not loosen the power, the hold of that conditioning?

I think it does. But that is only that particular instance of conditioning. Does it cut away the roots of the whole movement of conditioning? It does not appear to. Why is that? (Come to that, why should I expect that it might?)

Is the reason that there was not true seeing in the first place, nothing outside of the pattern?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 26 Jun 2018 #35
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 624 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Is the reason that there was not true seeing in the first place, nothing outside of the pattern?

The mind has come to see the nature of self, time, consciousness, belief, desire, fear, and so on, and to see the pattern it is stuck in.

Stepping out of the pattern, I don’t know what will happen. I very well might lose EVERYTHING, my family and friends, my comforts such as they are, my security such as it is, and so on. I don't know. If I'm not aware of these considerations, if I'm not aware of this covert thinking going on, the seeing is only partial because those considerations are part of the pattern. What has been seen is the nature of self, time, etc. But have those considerations been looked at? "What might happen" is unknown and can't be looked at but the fear of what might happen, the fear of being completely vulnerable, can be looked at.

The mind wants freedom, spontaneous action, love, beauty, bliss, the ending of suffering. But in order to “get” that, it must be totally vulnerable and it is not willing to risk those eventualities without a guarantee. These considerations too are part of the pattern. Does the mind really want to step out of that pattern and be irrevocably faced with the unknown?

So there can be no stepping out of the pattern where the whole of consciousness is not seen? "The whole" means every movement of thought even the most subtle, not a whole list or catalogue of the contents.

The mind might also have subtle, "hidden", assumptions about WHAT HAPPENS when one SEES the nature of self, time, etc. K said things to the effect that when the fact is seen, “it’s over, it’s finished, there’s nothing else to do”. Is it possible that the mind subtly interprets that to mean that “if I see the truth, my suffering will instantly end, there will be instant bliss, no more fear, no more anger, and so on”? And when that doesn’t happen, when the habits of the pattern manifest themselves as fear, anger, and so on, the mind says, “well that means I did NOT see what I thought I saw”. Which would again mean (if all this is so) that there is a subtle expectation and the expectation was not met. Which means that the whole is not seen.

Also, the mind is attached, addicted, to its own movement. It is afraid of being unoccupied, isn't it? Self is not ready to give up without getting something in exchange. That too is part of the pattern, and seeing is partial if this is not seen, isn't it?

"Truth is not something away over the hills and mountains. It is the perception of the true in the simple things, and if you see the truth of what we have been saying now, you will break the habit."

POONA 2ND PUBLIC TALK 10TH SEPTEMBER 1958

“you will break the habit” - but that still doesn’t mean “instantly”. If the expectation of “instantly” is not met and I start cogitating about anger still surfacing etc., if I resist, then truth is lost. When anger, fear, depression, desire or conceit surfaces, it can be looked at dispassionately. The surfacing of fear, anger, desire, conceit, depression, or any other habit, does not invalidate the truth about self, time, consciousness, and so on.

If the mind sees the anger and sees that it is the pattern it is caught in, without identifying it as “mine” or “me”, without resisting it, just seeing it for what it is, the truth is not lost. That's how it seems to me. I’m not sure.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 27 Jun 2018 #36
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 927 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
So there can be no stepping out of the pattern where the whole of consciousness is not seen? "The whole" means every movement of thought even the most subtle, not a whole list or catalogue of the contents.

Maybe you are already aware of this although I didn't read it your post but you may have mentioned in different words. What I have found and what was brought to my attention in a recent posting by John of a discussion by K. and J.P. was the factor that was being left out of seeing the 'whole' or 'total' consciousness, was in a word, 'me'. That was the factor that was being left out. J.P. put it "the sense that I exist". It is a bit hard to 'swallow' that this 'sensation' of me is the result of memory, the past, and is not the 'entity', the 'individual', that it has always been felt to be. As I said, you may be well aware of this and it is maybe just a difference of words but you would agree that is extremely important in having such as 'me', included in a 'global' observation.

The "fear" that you mention about not knowing the outcome to the loss of attachments etc...that is all generated by this image of myself, as I'm seeing it...they 'belong' to 'it'. They are the result of 'it'. Trying to deal with them apart from their cause (the 'center') seems futile. Because the fears, anxieties, arising, etc. have their source in the self-image (me) that is then reacting to them?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Wed, 27 Jun 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 27 Jun 2018 #37
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 624 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
..... the factor that was being left out. J.P. put it "the sense that I exist". It is a bit hard to 'swallow' that this 'sensation' of me is the result of memory, the past, and is not the 'entity', the 'individual', that it has always been felt to be.

As I see it, “the sense that I exist” IS awareness without the “I”. “I exist” is a thought. Awareness is not a thought. It is life, being, without thought. This is not an idea, clever or stupid. It can be observed directly, and understood wordlessly in awareness, that in awareness of being, of existing, there is no thought, only awareness.

Life, being, the awareness of being, is not “mine” or “of me”. In this awareness of being, there is no “I”. Awareness is not the same movement or action as the movement or action of the “me” who is insulted, hurt, who has knowledge, who remembers and projects into the future. That is the "me" which is illusory. Of course, I exist, there is awareness of breathing, of pain, of joy, and so on, but the "I" in "I exist" is functional. It is not the same "I" who reacts, who looks to the past and the future.

It's difficult to put into words.

This post was last updated by Huguette . Wed, 27 Jun 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 27 Jun 2018 #38
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 927 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
It's difficult to put into words.

I would try to say it like this: when 'I' try to have a global, total perception of 'my' consciousness, (the "patterning") it may not be realized that the one seeking that total perception stands 'outside' the sought perception as an observer apart from it. And that the 'seeker'( me) is actually the perception (the "patterning") that is being sought.

And as long as the 'me' is absent from the perception, the false duality will continue, along with the conflict, fears, and sufferings.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 27 Jun 2018 #39
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4470 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Does the mind really want to step out of that pattern and be irrevocably faced with the unknown?

This is a crucial question isn’t it? What I have been watching intently the last few days is that the mind is in a state of contradiction. (This word seems more precise that the term “conflict”). It wants different things. It is buffeted from here to there. It wants something, then it doesn’t want it. Something is very important to the mind, and suddenly the mind is indifferent to it.

This state of contradiction, apart from being very painful, is paralysing to the mind. It cannot truly think, since thought is “cancelling itself out” so much of the time.

Krishnamurti once made this remarkable statement: "Do you not get what you want if that desire is not luke-warm? You envy Napoleans and Stalins who went ruthlessly and wholeheartedly after what they wanted. Spiritual leaders have also acted likewise, though with kid gloves".

"Does the mind want to be irrevocably faced with the unknown" ……. the mind cannot know the unknown, can it? It can only form images of the unknown, and those images are NOT the unknown. So the mind reacts to the images that it forms – contributing to the state of contradiction.

Yes, it is as you say, the mind is afraid of being unoccupied. This is very clear, it can be seen, and is definite. It implies there is a sort of insincerity, it is no really interested in that it is thinking about, it is only using, exploiting those thoughts as a means of escape from itself. And probably people engage in social work, in politics, in “serving others” for the same motive, to escape from themselves. They are really serving themselves, which must be a great distortion in their actions.

“ The surfacing of fear, anger, desire, conceit, depression, or any other habit, does not invalidate the truth about self, time, consciousness, and so on.”

Can anything invalidate truth? Even the invalidation is true, no? But I will not pursue that line of thinking. I want to continue with the question why, seeing what we are, seeing the mischief and the suffering we cause, we do not change, transform? When we are faced with - when we see - a physical danger, like a snake, we ACT. If we do not act, it seems to me either we are not seeing, or we we not want to see.

“Why are you not transformed? Is it because you have been so long living with the cobra that you are immune to its poison?” (K)

We don’t seem to see “what is”. Why is it so extraordinarily difficult to see what is? The answer that keeps presenting itself to me, as I meet people, is that most people are encased in ideas, in beliefs, conclusions. Especially the idea that they are “getting there slowly” Do I feel that? Am I taking refuge in time? When I don’t do that, then there is a sense of urgency.I have to solve the problem of the self NOW.

I want to ask you a question, Huguette. When you say: “When anger, fear, depression, desire or conceit surfaces, it can be looked at dispassionately”, does that "looking at dispassionately" imply the looker is separate from what is being looked at? Because if it does, then the whole is not being seen, is it?

This post was last updated by Clive Elwell Thu, 28 Jun 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 28 Jun 2018 #40
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 624 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
It wants different things. It is buffeted from here to there. It wants something, then it doesn’t want it. Something is very important to the mind, and suddenly the mind is indifferent to it.

Yes, there are those contradictions. And also the mind is ATTACHED to the known, isn’t it? At least to the pleasurable parts. It’s not ALL bad! No matter how rich or poor I am, educated or uneducated, respected or looked down upon, “an upstanding citizen or the scum of the earth”, I have my customary routine, pleasures, talents, fields of competence and cleverness, no matter what they are.

And is there also the fact that subtly or not, I still feel that I am separate and independent from the rest of humanity and so am really only interested in attaining my personal fulfillment? And as long as I view life from the perspective of the self, can time and knowledge end? The perspective of the self-centre IS time and knowledge. As long as I view life from the perspective of self, can I be passionate about the truth, whatever it is? Passion means that my whole being is given to it. The self can't do that.

So self wants to understand truth but it also wants self-fulfilment, selfish fulfilment. Is there that contradiction? Doesn't that contradiction constitute the 2 sides of pleasure and pain? Isn’t that contradiction the self-centered perspective?

Ultimately, the problem of why the mind doesn’t step out of the pattern is without an answer, which we have also talked about recently. If the nature of self, time, consciousness, and the fragility, vitality and essentiality of awareness (poorly expressed, I know), are understood, is there anything else “to do”, is there anything else to understand about this problem?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 28 Jun 2018 #41
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 624 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Krishnamurti once made this remarkable statement: "You envy Napoleans and Stalins who went ruthlessly and wholeheartedly after what they wanted."

I can only say that I'm not convinced that this is so.

Clive Elwell wrote:
.....does that "looking at dispassionately" imply the looker is separate from what is being looked at?

No. The first definition of “dispassionate” I find online is: “in an unemotional, rational, and impartial manner”. That’s a good way of putting what I mean by it. Another way of saying it is simply “awareness” but dispassionately seems clearer in this instance, I think. If it is self “doing” the looking, the looking is of course not dispassionate and therefore there is no understanding.

“Normally” or traditionally, as soon as anger, fear, etc. arise, it is looked at by the pattern, from within the pattern - i.e. it is “me” looking at it. It is “me” bothered by it, thinking about it, approving or disapproving of the thought or emotion that has arisen. There is obviously separation in that. That “me” and “the thing” together are the pattern, the stream, the weight of human history, as we have been talking about.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 01 Jul 2018 #42
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4470 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
The mind has come to see the nature of self, time, consciousness, belief, desire, fear, and so on, and to see the pattern it is stuck in.

Firstly, can we use the words "pattern" and "habit" interchangeably?

Then, would you say, Huguette, that this "strong tendency" that thought has of dividing itself into thinker and thought, observer and observed, etc, is just a pattern, a habit? Or are there deeper, more fundamental reasons for this movement?

If it is a pattern/habit, habits can be changed. patterns can be observed for what they are, and let go of. They can even be dropped by deliberate intention, like drinking alcohol - although perhaps if such force is used, there remains an urge to drink, at some deep level. But perhaps it is not accurate to draw parallels between physical habits and psychological ones. The mind CAN work upon the body, but it is more problematic to work upon itself.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 31 - 42 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.)