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

To understand the fact which we call emptiness, there must be no naming of that fact


Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 59 in total
Tue, 14 Aug 2018 #1
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4639 posts in this forum Offline

Regarding the issue of naming things, when it is not necessary to do so. The following is from a question put to K after the 5th talk in Paris 1950:

“To understand the fact which we call emptiness, there must be no condemnation, no naming of that fact. After all, the recognition of the fact creates the centre of the ‘me’; and the ‘me’ is empty, the ‘me’ is only words. When I do not name the fact, give it a term, when I do not recognise it as this or that, is there loneliness?”

And a little later on he says:

“But when we understand the process of isolation, we shall see that emptiness is merely a thing of words, mere recognition; and the moment there is no recognition, no naming of it, and hence no fear, emptiness becomes something else, it goes beyond itself. Then it is not emptiness, it is aloneness - something much vaster than the process of isolation”.

I will post the whole question/answer soon, but I want to contemplate these words first.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Wed, 15 Aug 2018 #2
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 999 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
K- when I do not recognise it as this or that, is there loneliness?”

I am usually 'occupied'. In those moments when I'm not, I might think "I'm bored." Thinking that I'm 'bored' is the "recognition" (knowing again) of my state and labeling it according to similar states, sensations in my memory. And along with the label, in this case 'bored' or 'lonely', come the thoughts associated with that state (all considered to be negative) and the automatic desire to move out of the state and become its opposite say, 'occupied', 'entertained' and not-lonely. (further isolation?). But if I question this process, as it is happening, and ask "what is this state of being 'bored'?, this state labeled 'loneliness'?, the thought process is 'short-circuited', the desire to escape ceases and I am 'interested', attentive to the sensations and feelings being experienced and as K. says: "hence no fear". The 'word' (with all its connotations) is replaced by the observation of the actual sensations. And without 'thought', the feeling has no 'continuity', no 'longevity'.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 16 Aug 2018 #3
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4639 posts in this forum Offline

The following is from a question put to K after the 5th talk in Paris 1950:

Question: Beyond all superficial fears there is a deep anguish, which eludes me. It seems to be the very fear of life - or perhaps of death. Or is it the vast emptiness of life?

Krishnamurti: I think most of us feel this; most of us feel a great sense of emptiness, a great sense of loneliness. We try to avoid it, we try to run away from it, we try to find security, permanency, away from this anguish. Or, we try to be free of it by analyzing the various dreams, the various reactions. But it is always there, eluding us, and not to be resolved so easily and so superficially. Most of us are aware of this emptiness, of this loneliness, of this anguish. And, being afraid of it, we seek security, a sense of permanency, in things or property, in people or relationship, or in ideas, beliefs, dogmas, in name, position, and power. But can this emptiness be banished by merely running away from ourselves? And is not this running away from ourselves one of the causes of confusion, pain, misery, in our relationships and therefore in the world?

So this is a question not to be brushed aside as being bourgeois, or stupid, or merely for those who are not active socially, religiously. We must examine it very carefully and go into it fully. As I said, most of us are aware of this emptiness, and we try to run away from it. In running away from it, we establish certain securities; and then those securities become all-important to us, because they are the means of escape from our particular loneliness, emptiness or anguish. Your escape may be a Master, it may be thinking yourself very important, it may be giving all your love, your wealth, jewels, everything to your wife, to your family; or it may be social or philanthropic activity. Any form of escape from this inward emptiness becomes all-important, and therefore we cling to it desperately. Those who are religiously-minded cling to their belief in God, which covers up their emptiness, their anguish; and so their belief, their dogma, becomes essential - and for these they are willing to fight, to destroy each other.

Obviously, then, any escape from this anguish, from this loneliness, will not solve the problem. On the contrary, it merely increases the problem, and brings about further confusion. So, one must first realize the escapes. All escapes are on the same level; there are no superior or inferior escapes, there are no spiritual escapes apart from the mundane. All escapes are essentially similar; and if we recognise that the mind is constantly escaping from the central problem of anguish, of emptiness, then we are capable of looking at emptiness without condemning it or being afraid of it. As long as I am escaping from a fact, I am afraid of that fact; and when there is fear, I can have no communication with it. So, to understand the fact of emptiness, there must be no fear. Fear comes only when I am trying to escape from it; because, in escaping, I can never look at it directly. But the moment I cease to escape, I am left with the fact, I can look at it without fear; and then I am able to deal with the fact.

So, that is the first step to face the fact, which means not to escape through money, through amusement, through the radio, through beliefs, through assertions, or through any other means. Because, that emptiness cannot be filled by words, by activities, by beliefs. Do what we will, that anguish cannot be wiped away by any tricks of the mind; and whatever the mind does with regard to it, will only be an avoidance. But when there is no avoidance of any kind, then the fact is there; and the understanding of the fact does not depend on the inventions on the projections or calculations of the mind. When one is confronted with the fact of loneliness, with that immense anguish, the vast emptiness of existence, then one will see whether that emptiness is a reality - or merely the result of naming, of terming, of self-projection. Because, by giving it a term, we have condemned it, have we not? We say it is emptiness, it is loneliness, it is death, and these words - death, loneliness, emptiness - imply a condemnation, a resistance; and through resistance, through condemnation, we do not understand the fact.

To understand the fact which we call emptiness, there must be no condemnation, no naming, of that fact. After all, the recognition of the fact creates the centre of the "me; and the"me' is empty, the `me' is only words. When I do not name the fact, give it a term, when I do not recognize it as this or that, is there loneliness? After all, loneliness is a process of isolation, is it not? Surely in all our relationships, in all our efforts in life, we are always isolating ourselves. That process of isolation must obviously lead to emptiness; and without understanding the whole process of isolation, we shall not be able to resolve this emptiness, this loneliness. But when we understand the process of isolation, we shall see that emptiness is merely a thing of words, mere recognition; and the moment there is no recognition, no naming of it, and hence no fear, emptiness becomes something else, it goes beyond itself. Then it is not emptiness, it is aloneness - something much vaster than the process of isolation.

Now, must we not be alone? At present we are not alone - we are merely a bundle of influences. We are the result of all kinds of influences - social, religious, economic. hereditary, climatic. Through all those influences, we try to find something beyond; and if we cannot find it, we invent it, and cling to our inventions. But when we understand the whole process of influence at all the different levels of our consciousness, then, by becoming free of it, there is an aloneness which is uninfluenced; that is, the mind and heart are no longer shaped by outward events or inward experiences. It is only when there is this aloneness that there is a possibility of finding the real. But a mind that is merely isolating itself through fear, can have only anguish; and such a mind can never go beyond itself.

With most of us, the difficulty is that we are unaware of our escapes. We are so conditioned, so accustomed to our escapes, that we take them as realities. But if we will look more deeply into our selves, we will see how extraordinarily lonely, how extraordinarily empty we are under the superficial covering of our escapes. Being aware of that emptiness, we are constantly covering it up with various activities, whether artistic, social, religious or political. But emptiness can never finally be covered: it must be understood. To understand it, we must be aware of these escapes; and when we understand the escapes, then we shall be able to face our emptiness. Then we shall see that the emptiness is not different from ourselves, that the observer is the observed. In that experience, in that integration of the thinker and the thought, this loneliness, this anguish, disappears.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 16 Aug 2018 #4
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4639 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
I am usually 'occupied'. In those moments when I'm not, I might think "I'm bored." Thinking that I'm 'bored' is the "recognition" (knowing again) of my state and labeling it according to similar states, sensations in my memory. And along with the label, in this case 'bored' or 'lonely', come the thoughts associated with that state (all considered to be negative) and the automatic desire to move out of the state and become its opposite say, 'occupied', 'entertained' and not-lonely. (further isolation?).

Yes, this is how it seems to me, Dan. Yes, recognition is through words, labels. One one hand we need this function to live, on the other hand it reduces the living world to dead knowledge.

Dan McDermott wrote:
But if I question this process, as it is happening, and ask "what is this state of being 'bored'?, this state labeled 'loneliness'?, the thought process is 'short-circuited', the desire to escape ceases and I am 'interested', attentive to the sensations and feelings being experienced

This is the power of questioning, isn’t it? But I think it has to arise naturally, questioning cannot be turned into a technique to achieve something.

Dan McDermott wrote:
The 'word' (with all its connotations) is replaced by the observation of the actual sensations. And without 'thought', the feeling has no 'continuity', no 'longevity'.

Yes, I see that it is words, symbols, which have the capacity to create time - and only them. Which is an enormously important thing – both negatively and positively. Strange to see that time is what is created by the brain. I believe it is built into computers also

And time is the essence of the me.

But in those excerpts from K, is he not suggesting that emptiness is not a state that is recognised by the mind, labeled by the mind, but that emptiness IS “merely a thing of words” That is, there is no emptiness apart from the recognition of it?

And the same for fear, etc.

Looking at that. Can we say without recognition there is SOMETHING – perhaps we could call it just sensation. It is clear that recognition brings in all the value judgments, the old reactions, the conditioning, the ways we have been taught to regard things.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 19 Aug 2018 #5
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 999 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Looking at that. Can we say without recognition there is SOMETHING – perhaps we could call it just sensation. It is clear that recognition brings in all the value judgments, the old reactions, the conditioning, the ways we have been taught to regard things.

Are they all derived originally from the physical body? Shri Anirvan, I read, said "emotion is a misplaced sensation". Without the recognition arousing memory, what is there?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 20 Aug 2018 #6
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4639 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Without the recognition arousing memory, what is there?

I have been asking this question of myself. And oddly the question arose towards the end of a small discussion I was taking part in yesterday. I say "towards the end", actually it did seem to bring about the end of the discussion. It was as if nobody knew where to go after the question. Interesting.

Perhaps no answer to this question is possible, Dan. I mean there is no answer in the realm of the known. All answers seem to be in this realm, and so inappropriate?

What do you yourself have to say?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 20 Aug 2018 #7
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 999 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
What do you yourself have to say?

If I ask myself quietly:"who am I", who or what is this sensation of 'me'? I see that 'I' am not the physical body...though the physical body is here ,it is a thing but it is not 'me'...'I' also can see that I am not these thoughts or these memories though they also have a reality, they are 'things' but they are not this sensation of 'me'...so if I am not these things, what am 'I'? K. has said that "I am nothing (not-a-thing)"! Yet here is this body and these thoughts and memories and he says,'I' am not them. This to me is the meaning of "you are the world" as well as the "observer is the observed". The duality of myself as different from what I see, feel, hear, touch etc. is false. Being as 'nothing' is to be in a way 'everything'. Yet this everything/nothing cannot be grasped because we are it...Self-knowledge, I'd say, is the understanding of how the 'self' creates and defends the image of separateness. It is at its center, 'lonely' because it is has isolated itself from the world. It strives to be attached which forestalls it facing the fact that there is no real 'I' there. But the loneliness and fear persist as a result perhaps, of the feeling that the false 'I' (unrealized as such) must at all costs be protected and preserved..

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Mon, 20 Aug 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 21 Aug 2018 #8
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4639 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
If I ask myself quietly:"who am I", who or what is this sensation of 'me'? I see that 'I' am not the physical body...though the physical body is here ,it is a thing but it is not 'me'.

C: Ok

'I' also can see that I am not these thoughts or these memories though they also have a reality, they are 'things' but they are not this sensation of 'me'…

C: That is not so easily seen. Because thought has a verbal contact. It “says something” about me. It creates an image of “me”

so if I am not these things, what am 'I'? K. has said that "I am nothing (not-a-thing)"! Yet here is this body and these thoughts and memories and he says,'I' am not them. This to me is the meaning of "you are the world" as well as the "observer is the observed". The duality of myself as different from what I see, feel, hear, touch etc. is false.

C: Ok

Being as 'nothing' is to be in a way 'everything'.

C: I don’t know that I understand this fully. Yes, when I discard all the images of myself, from myself and others, I am left with the sense that “I am nothing”. I am not looking for an intellectual understanding, explanation, which would have very little meaning or impact, I need to feel it in myself, not convince myself about it. But if you have anything to say on this issue, it would be appreciated, Dan

Yet this everything/nothing cannot be grasped because we are it

C: Do you mean because I am always “the grasper”, I can never be what is grasped?

...Self-knowledge, I'd say, is the understanding of how the 'self' creates and defends the image of separateness. It is at its center, 'lonely' because it is has isolated itself from the world.

C: Indeed.

It strives to be attached which forestalls it facing the fact that there is no real 'I' there.

C: Yes. Attachment = identification, does it not? The self, or the illusion of the self, can only find existence in its identifications. Society is the interplay of the identifications. And if the self had no identification, then it could not exist.

But the loneliness and fear persist as a result perhaps, of the feeling that the false 'I' (unrealized as such) must at all costs be protected and preserved..

C: So this is the prison humanity is caught in. Quite simple really. And any movement of the self to free itself is actually its preservation. Strange, is it not?

Why can it not completely see the trap it has created, is always creating, and let go? Or is this a false question, a projection of thought?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 21 Aug 2018 #9
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 999 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
C: So this is the prison humanity is caught in. Quite simple really. And any movement of the self to free itself is actually its preservation. Strange, is it not?
Why can it not completely see the trap it has created, is always creating, and let go? Or is this a false question, a projection of thought?

When thought asks a question like this about itself, it does seem a bit disingenuous doesn't it? Like thought asking "why can't thought be quiet when it's not needed"? It has with its very movement answered its own question!...but if it's looked at as thought seriously asking itself these questions, it means doesn't it, that thought is at least being able to see that something is very 'wrong', that it is divisive, attached, fearful etc; a "trap" as you say? That is something. It may not be seeing itself as the 'snake in the corner', the precipice, that which has to be stayed away from... but it is something. It has not silenced itself but it has lost some of its despotic power even if it is still on the 'throne'.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Tue, 21 Aug 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 22 Aug 2018 #10
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4639 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
When thought asks a question like this about itself, it does seem a bit disingenuous doesn't it? Like thought asking "why can't thought be quiet when it's not needed"? It has with its very movement answered its own question!...but if it's looked at as thought seriously asking itself these questions, it means doesn't it, that thought is at least being able to see that something is very 'wrong', that it is divisive, attached, fearful etc; a "trap" as you say? That is something.

Disingenuous - not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does.

I wasn’t quite sure about the meaning of that word. Yes, it fits well It is part of the whole syndrome of “thought pretending it is not thought”. Perhaps this is why thought is so dangerous, has done so much damage in the world, built a mind/society that has so much falseness in it, so much pretence.

But at least thought is able to see its true motives when it acts - indeed I find it cannot help but see its true motives, though at the surface it is pretending to other, false, motives. That is also something, very much so.

Dan McDermott wrote:
It may not be seeing itself as the 'snake in the corner', the precipice, that which has to be stayed away from... but it is something. It has not silenced itself but it has lost some of its despotic power even if it is still on the 'throne'.

But when thought looks, it does so under the pretence that it is NOT thought, does it not? As if there is a thinker independent of thought. But it is still thought looking, which means it looks fragmentarily – because that is the very nature of thought.

It may see the snake, but does it see that IT is the snake itself?

All one’s observations bring one to this point. Which is, again, very much “something”. Something of value, of significance. But not the mind-created value, which Huguette talked of some time back.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 22 Aug 2018 #11
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 999 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
But when thought looks, it does so under the pretence that it is NOT thought, does it not? As if there is a thinker independent of thought. But it is still thought looking, which means it looks fragmentarily – because that is the very nature of thought.
It may see the snake, but does it see that IT is the snake itself?

"We have seen the enemy...and it is us." (approx. quote by K. and Pogo!)

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Fri, 24 Aug 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 22 Aug 2018 #12
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4639 posts in this forum Offline

To return to the issue of naming, of labelling. Not only naming things that we look at in the external world, as part of the process of recognition, but the naming of feelings, movements, that arise in us. You asked, as K often asked, is it possible not to name? Or at least, can there be a space between the feeling and the recognition?

First of all, there is nothing we can do about the arising of a feeling, is there? Just like thought, it arises spontaneously in the mind. There is no choice about it, I cannot influence its arising, I cannot decide that it should NOT arise. I presume you would go along with this, Dan?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 23 Aug 2018 #13
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 999 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
First of all, there is nothing we can do about the arising of a feeling, is there? Just like thought, it arises spontaneously in the mind. There is no choice about it, I cannot influence its arising, I cannot decide that it should NOT arise. I presume you would go along with this, Dan?

That's K.'s whole point isn't it, that there is no-one there to do anything about anything! The way I see it is that the 'sensation' arises and the 'thinker' recognizes it from memory and names it. Next, if the named sensation is judged to be bad, negative, undesirable etc., the thinker tries to 'substitute' something else for it, the opposite, say... So is it possible for this process to end? What could end it? As everything else, it comes back to the 'seeing' of the process. Not changing it but seeing it without judgement. Do you or anyone see this differently?

This brings in something else that I saw this morning and you recently mentioned it : 'Time'. I saw it as 'time the postponer':..."no need for action now, it can be taken care of in the 'future'"...but what does that do in the psychological realm? 'What is' is always the immediate present, is it not? But if the idea of past, present, future is introduced (as it is) then the 'what is' can be ignored totally and thought/time can indulge in its illusory creation, something that 'isn't', a past, present, or future. Thought's 'present' is not 'what is' because thought itself is of the 'past' and even though it projects a present and a future, it is still always the past. So psychological time is the 'ability' to postpone attending to (and being) 'what is'?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 24 Aug 2018 #14
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4639 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
That's K.'s whole point isn't it, that there is no-one there to do anything about anything!

C:That’s certainly how I see it. But this is complicated by the mind’s pretence that that there IS some one, some entity, that can do something. Has not this concept permeated human thinking, human inquiry, throughout recorded history? In the West and the East? And in fact this may be the origin of the psychological self, thought’s desire to do something about itself. And when it glimpses that it cannot, then it invents a God that can do something about the human situation, this bundle of problems. But that is still a projection of the self.

But its hard to see why this illusion has not, apparently, been seen through ‘very much’. I mean it seems that many people have ‘meditated in the wilderness’, or in monasteries, for decades with seeing it.

The way I see it is that the 'sensation' arises and the 'thinker' recognizes it from memory and names it.

C: I presume you are talking about particular sensations, not one amorphous sensation? Sensations of sadness, fear, conflict, jealousy …….

Next, if the named sensation is judged to be bad, negative, undesirable etc.,

C: This judgment being based on conditioning, no? It is relative, not absolute.

the thinker tries to 'substitute' something else for it, the opposite, say...

C: Interesting point – you are saying that it is the judgment that is substituted, condemned – not the original sensation?

So is it possible for this process to end? What could end it? As everything else, it comes back to the 'seeing' of the process. Not changing it but seeing it without judgement. Do you or anyone see this differently?

C: I cannot see any other possibility that the seeing of the process. That is, seeing the falseness of the idea of the actor, the controller, the judger.

You say “Not changing it but seeing it without judgement”. Can there be a seeing WITH judgment? Is not the prerequisite of seeing, (ie awareness) this absence of judgment? Seems to me this is a crucial factor. Not that the state of non-judgment automatically brings about awareness, though – one may be day-dreaming.

This brings in something else that I saw this morning and you recently mentioned it : 'Time'. I saw it as 'time the postponer':..."no need for action now, it can be taken care of in the 'future'"...but what does that do in the psychological realm?

C:Yes, this is true in the material realm. And necessary – one cannot do everything that might be necessary immediately.

I wrote to someone yesterday: The mind tries to respond to the challenge that is here and is now. But it responds from another place, another time, another experience. It responds from the memory of a challenge, and so it cannot meet the present challenge.

'What is' is always the immediate present, is it not? But if the idea of past, present, future is introduced (as it is)

C: Yes, it is introduced by imagination. Wondering why why that happens. Probably the mind’s drive for security is behind it.

then the 'what is' can be ignored totally and thought/time can indulge in its illusory creation, something that 'isn't', a past, present, or future. Thought's 'present' is not 'what is' because thought itself is of the 'past' and even though it projects a present and a future, it is still always the past. So psychological time is the 'ability' to postpone attending to (and being) 'what is'?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 26 Aug 2018 #15
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 639 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
“To understand the fact which we call emptiness, there must be no condemnation, no naming of that fact. After all, the recognition of the fact creates the centre of the ‘me’; and the ‘me’ is empty, the ‘me’ is only words. When I do not name the fact, give it a term, when I do not recognise it as this or that, is there loneliness?”

“The word is not the thing” means not only that the thing exists independently of the word. It also means that the word itself or knowing the word is not necessary in order to perceive and understand the thing. The thing can be perceived and understood without the word. Just as I can perceive and understand the thing that is "table" without knowing the word "table", I don't need the word "emptiness" to perceive and understand the thing that is "emptiness". First there is the thing, then a word is coined to point to it. Not first there is a word and then a thing is found to apply the word to.

Obviously the feeling does not disappear by the mere fact that I stop myself from naming it. It is just necessary to understand the process of naming. Understanding the process of naming does not mean that the word - the naming, labeling, explaining, condemning, escaping, etc. - should be suppressed or disclaimed. Suppressing it is another form of escape, isn't it? But obviously, to suppress the feeling or to pretend that the feeling isn't felt only drives it "underground" where it continues to produce conflict.

When the feeling arises and I name it emptiness, despair, depression, accepting the definition of it propagated by experts or society, I am already avoiding facing the feeling; I am already resisting the feeling, condemning the feeling, aren't I? I'm saying there is a "real" thing emptiness, just as I think there is a real thing "me".

In using the word to communicate with each other in the context of dialogue here, there’s no condemnation in the naming, is there? We're looking into self, into mental processes, not giving a clinical or socially-accepted diagnosis.

But there IS condemnation whenever the feeling arises and I name it as part of my effort to resolve it, isn’t there? In that process of naming, isn't the mind isolating itself, cutting itself off from the whole?


K says (post 3), “We are so conditioned, so accustomed to our escapes, that we take them as realities”. Does he mean - as one example - when I say, “I’m depressed because of my unhappy childhood , my mother is to blame, society is to blame, the rich are to blame, the government is to blame”, or "it’s because of my handicap, my illness", and so on?

(Added: Like those magazine polls or “news” articles reporting on research which concludes that men are happier than women, that old people are happier than young people, that poor people are happier than rich people - or vice-versa. These reflect the view that happiness is a “real” condition, don't they?)

Then I go through life with a chip on my shoulder, feeling sorry for myself, blaming my mother, others and society for the psychological condition of "me". And 10 20 30 years later, my whole life, I still think that my explanations are reality. Conditioning, psychological moulding, does start in childhood, but is the human being doomed to be limited by that legacy his whole life, to carry that burden around through life? Can understanding the process of naming, the process of self, uncondition the mind, make it new, innocent, selfless?

This post was last updated by Huguette . Sun, 26 Aug 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 26 Aug 2018 #16
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 999 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Can understanding the process of naming, the process of self, uncondition the mind, make it new, innocent, selfless?

Seeing how the 'old' meets the 'new' might be the only thing that is needed. This process of 'naming' every arising sensation through 'recognition' is false isn't it? False because the sensation/energy is (the arising of it) always new, and the naming (dealing with it) is always old. The recognition (knowing again) keeps us/the brain from dealing with the sensation directly by calling it this or that from the past, anger, jealousy, loneliness, shame, fear, etc. K. said something about the interference with this registration momentum (John R's post today of a 1972 talk) and Clive was questioning how given the speed of our reactions how this could come about:

K.- " The gap can only happen when you go very deeply into the question that the word is not the thing, the word is not fear. Immediately, you have stopped the momentum."

So questioning "deeply" the relation between the word and the thing can bring about the gap between sensation and the naming of it?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 28 Aug 2018 #17
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4639 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
“The word is not the thing” means not only that the thing exists independently of the word. It also means that the word itself or knowing the word is not necessary in order to perceive and understand the thing. The thing can be perceived and understood without the word. Just as I can perceive and understand the thing that is "table" without knowing the word "table", I don't need the word "emptiness" to perceive and understand the thing that is "emptiness". First there is the thing, then a word is coined to point to it. Not first there is a word and then a thing is found to apply the word to.

C: When I read the above, in all honesty I find it is not so obvious to me. Which probably reflects just how important the word has become to us, and to society. It is not that I am doubting what you say, but I need to examine it. If I look at a table, when it is not in use, if there as no word, would I understand its function? Well, that is impossible to say.

Huguette . wrote:
In using the word to communicate with each other in the context of dialogue here, there’s no condemnation in the naming, is there? We're looking into self, into mental processes, not giving a clinical or socially-accepted diagnosis.
But there IS condemnation whenever the feeling arises and I name it as part of my effort to resolve it, isn’t there? In that process of naming, isn't the mind isolating itself, cutting itself off from the whole?

C: What do you mean here by “resolve”, Huguette? If I look at a tree, and the word “oak” or “maple”, or even the word “tree” arises, just what is being “resolved”? Or perhaps you are talking about the psychological realm only?

If sadness arises in me, and I apply the word “sadness”, I certainly agree that I am limiting, distorting, how sadness is perceived, but am I attempting to resolve that sadness by naming it? Or is the process of attempted resolution automatically implied by the naming process?

Are you implying that without the word, without the naming -let us say of emptiness to continue your example – there is no attempt to resolve it?

Obviously I need to look at these movements within myself, but I welcome your responses.

Huguette . wrote:
In that process of naming, isn't the mind isolating itself, cutting itself off from the whole?

C: As I said above, I see that naming is limiting, it interprets the new in terms of old experience, but I never really understood the meaning, the significance, of this “whole”.

Huguette . wrote:
Conditioning, psychological moulding, does start in childhood, but is the human being doomed to be limited by that legacy his whole life, to carry that burden around through life?

C: People seem to assume so. How often in those news items do you see people distraught after some calamity, saying “I shall carry this memory, this feeling, this scar, until the day I die”? They almost seem proud of that.

Huguette . wrote:
Can understanding the process of naming, the process of self, uncondition the mind, make it new, innocent, selfless?

Well, that is the question. But it seems clear that “the understanding of the process” is the only ‘way’, and that means passive awareness.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 29 Aug 2018 #18
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4639 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
That's K.'s whole point isn't it, that there is no-one there to do anything about anything!

Seeing that there is nothing to be achieved, psychologically, spiritually, and that the very attempt to achieve in those realms is illusory, mistaken, destructive, creates an intense sense of emptiness, of nothingness.

All my life I have pursued something or other, and now one sees there is nothing to pursue, except having adequate food and shelter. A great deal has been revealed as useless, meaningless, and that leaves a great space, an emptiness.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 29 Aug 2018 #19
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 999 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Seeing that there is nothing to be achieved, psychologically, spiritually, and that the very attempt to achieve in those realms is illusory, mistaken, destructive, creates an intense sense of emptiness, of nothingness.

Is it the 'naming' of that "intense sense", whether, 'emptiness', 'nothingness', 'freedom', 'enlightenment' etc, is that 'thought's attempt to bring the unknown into the known? To form a word image of that 'insight' and 'classify' it in memory?
As K. discusses it in John R.'s post today, 'The First and Last Step', can the insight be completely let go (died to) rather than it being named and dragged into "horizontal time"?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 29 Aug 2018 #20
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4639 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Is it the 'naming' of that "intense sense", whether, 'emptiness', 'nothingness', 'freedom', 'enlightenment' etc, is that 'thought's attempt to bring the unknown into the known?

That's a very pertinent question. But first I should say, as I may have created a misapprehension with my previous post, that I was not regarding this emptiness as a problem. It was or is just the next phase of the inquiry. Something to be lived.

I think the emptiness was real. I don't think that its existence was dependent on the word 'emptiness' being applied. But that isn't your question, Dan.

Yes, I was asking myself "why all this naming?" And the answer to your question seems to be yes, thought's attempt to bring the unknown into the known. Why does it do this? My first answer is my usual one - the movement has significance at the practical level (indeed it is essential) and with the development of the ego, the same movement was carried over to the psychological field.

Of course then there is the question, why did the ego develop? And more to the point, why does it keep appearing/acting in the mind, in our everyday life? Or to put it another way (but an equivalent way, I think), why does thought keep creating a thinker?

But I also see that such questions can and probably will carry on for ever, if they are merely intellectual. And at the moment they ARE intellectual - I am not actually in the state where I am passively watching the movements of the mind. Today I am facing a number of things that 'need to be done', on a practical level, and that is where the mind really wants to be.

Dan McDermott wrote:
To form a word image of that 'insight' and 'classify' it in memory?

This movement is happening all the time. Of course the memory of insight is not insight. The mind, psychologically, needs to be clearing itself of accumulation all the time. As K has said, a truth. once repeated, becomes a lie.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 29 Aug 2018 #21
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4639 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
So questioning "deeply" the relation between the word and the thing can bring about the gap between sensation and the naming of it?

I don't know why, but the mind, my mind, has not yet seriously applied itself to this question, or watching carefully the whole business of naming feelings/reactions/sensation. I am asking myself why this is so.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 31 Aug 2018 #22
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4639 posts in this forum Offline

I took a small walk today, with the specific idea of looking at this naming business. It was a friend’s property, a place I was familiar with, land I had worked on. I saw how my looking was utilitarian, How were the trees progressing? What could be planted in such and such a place. Appraising other work that had been done.Etc.

It became clear that the mind is a measuring machine. Its very looking is a form of measuring, of comparing. And obviously it is naming that enables thought to do that. We name, and then we compare, we evaluate that what we have named.The very naming IS a form of measurement, isn’t it? It is words that are being evaluated not the thing itself.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 31 Aug 2018 #23
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 639 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
What do you mean here by “resolve”, Huguette? If I look at a tree, and the word “oak” or “maple”, or even the word “tree” arises, just what is being “resolved”? Or perhaps you are talking about the psychological realm only?

If sadness arises in me, and I apply the word “sadness”, I certainly agree that I am limiting, distorting, how sadness is perceived, but am I attempting to resolve that sadness by naming it? Or is the process of attempted resolution automatically implied by the naming process?

Are you implying that without the word, without the naming -let us say of emptiness to continue your example – there is no attempt to resolve it?

Days have passed so I don't know if this is still pertinent for you.

In observing my mind, I observe my reaction of fear or hurt in reaction to an insult. I immediately name it "insult" and register it as an attack on me, as a hurt. That is the immediate and automatic level of registration and naming, as I see it. Understanding the process, which is the momentum of the past, I leave it at that. I don’t name it, expand and carry it forward in time as I have been conditioned to do - which is habitually the second level of registration.

So I observe that I am hurt and understand that this hurt is engendered by the momentum of the past which has been recorded and accumulated by the "me". I understand that I am conditioned to "protect" myself by retaliating or escaping and I also understand that in fact I am NOT protecting myself by doing this. There is in fact no self to protect. In fact striking back perpetuates conflict and creates danger.

That is, I observe the immediate reaction of hurt and the mechanical naming of the aggression as an insult, but I don’t carry any of it forward in time as an experience to remember and hold onto. And this silent observation, this “not carrying the experience forward” is the action which ends the momentum of the past, which in fact ends the process of registering. So to observe the falseness of that psychological process of registering, and to see it as it is happening, is to end it, not carry it forward. I don't know if this makes sense to you. This is how I'm understanding it.

K put it this way:

Give a gap between the movement of thought, without interfering with the actual movement of feeling.

In a separate post below is the full quote from which these words are taken.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 31 Aug 2018 #24
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 639 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
What do you mean here by “resolve”, Huguette? If I look at a tree, and the word “oak” or “maple”, or even the word “tree” arises, just what is being “resolved”? Or perhaps you are talking about the psychological realm only?

If sadness arises in me, and I apply the word “sadness”, I certainly agree that I am limiting, distorting, how sadness is perceived, but am I attempting to resolve that sadness by naming it? Or is the process of attempted resolution automatically implied by the naming process?

Are you implying that without the word, without the naming -let us say of emptiness to continue your example – there is no attempt to resolve it?

Days have passed so I don't know if this is still pertinent for you.

In observing my mind, I observe my reaction of fear or hurt in reaction to an insult. I immediately name it "insult" and register it as an attack on me, as a hurt. That is the immediate and automatic level of registration and naming, as I see it. Understanding the process, which is the momentum of the past, I leave it at that. I don’t name it, expand and carry it forward in time as I have been conditioned to do - which is habitually the second level of registration.

So I observe that I am hurt and understand that this hurt is engendered by the momentum of the past which has been recorded and accumulated by the "me". I understand that I am conditioned to "protect" myself by retaliating or escaping and I also understand that in fact I am NOT protecting myself by doing this. There is in fact no self to protect. In fact striking back perpetuates conflict and creates danger.

That is, I observe the immediate reaction of hurt and the mechanical naming of the aggression as an insult, but I don’t carry any of it forward in time as an experience to remember and hold onto. And this silent observation, this “not carrying the experience forward” is the action which ends the momentum of the past, which in fact ends the process of registering. So to observe the falseness of that psychological process of registering, and to see it as it is happening, is to end it, not carry it forward. I don't know if this makes sense to you. This is how I'm understanding it.

K put it this way:

Give a gap between the movement of thought, without interfering with the actual movement of feeling.

In a separate post below is the full quote from which these words are taken.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 31 Aug 2018 #25
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 639 posts in this forum Offline

http://jiddu-krishnamurti.net/en/exploration-in...

Exploration Into Insight 'Registration, the Movement of Millennia'

P: Krishnaji, you have spoken about holding the quality of anger, fear or any strong emotion, without the word, in consciousness. Could we probe into that? The wiping away, whether it is a hurt, fear, anger or any one of the darknesses within one, is only possible if what you are talking about takes place. Can we come to that passion of feeling, which goes behind all these words of fear, anger, etc? Can that be held in consciousness?

K: What does it mean to hold the feeling of anger, whatever `is', without the word? Is this possible?

P: And is there anything without the word?

K: Go on.

FW: Is there fear when there is not the word `fear'? And what is the nature of the energy in the body or in the whole being if there is no naming?

A: Clarity for us means naming. When we want to probe into a strong feeling, a disturbance, we want to know precisely what it is, we don't want any self-deception. Invariably, before we have been able to grasp it completely, we have named it. So, naming is both our instrument of clarity and the cause of confusion.

K: Is the word different from the fact, from "what is'? Is the word"door' different from the door? The word `door' is not the actuality. So, the word is not the thing.

S: The question arises, then, can one ever indicate the actuality?

K: We are going to find out. We are going into it slowly.

R: Is there a difference between the statements, "the word "door" is not the door' and" "Fear" is not fear'? The two things seem to be different.

K: The word "door' is not the actuality. The nameK' is not the actuality; the form is not the actuality. So, the word is not the thing. The door', the word, is different from the actuality. We are trying to find out if the word"fear' is different from the actuality. Does the actuality represent the word and without the word is there the actuality?

S: What is the feeling of fear without the word?

K: Let us go very very slowly. I want to make this perfectly clear to myself. There is the word "fear', now is the word"fear' different from the actuality, the emotion, the feeling of fear and without the word is there that feeling?

R: Word is thought.

K: So, the word is the medium through which thought expresses itself. Without the word, can thought express itself? Of course it can; a gesture, a look, a nod of the head, and so on. Without the word, thought can express itself to a very very limited extent. When you want to express something very complicated in thought, the word is necessary. But the word is not the actual thought, the actual state.

A: I raise one difficulty: we perceive with the senses. That process ends when there is naming. That starts the tertiary process. With the naming, a number of complicated things begin in my brain. Now, I see this and wipe out the word, the name. When I have wiped out the name, I have not wiped out the feeling.

K: I am not quite sure, Achyutji. Pupulji is asking, what is the quality of the mind that without the word can hold that feeling without any movement, right?

R: But we are questioning whether the feeling arises without the word?

K: That is all. P: If I may say so, there are many things in consciousness which arise prior to the word.

Rad: Primordial fear; but can it be sustained without the word?

P: I am not talking about sustaining. But there are various things, tenderness, joy for instance.

K: Can you observe something without the word? Can you observe me, the form, for the moment without the word?

P: Yes.

K: You can. Now, you are already observing the form, you have removed the word `K' and you are observing the form.

P: We are observing. I don't say we are observing the form.

K: Then, what are you observing?

P: You see, sir, the moment you say 'I am observing the form', there has to be naming.

K: There has to be a name.

P: There has to be naming.

K: No.

P: Please listen, sir, when I say there is just observing, then the form is part of the whole observing field. I am observing, not only you, I am observing.

K: I said, remove the word `K', and observe the form. That is all. Of course, you are observing. I am limiting it to just the form. Are you observing the form?

P: Yes. I am observing the form.

K: What are you trying to get at?

P: I am trying to see whether the word is prior to that.

K: Pupul, let us keep simple. There is fear. I want to find out whether the word has created that fear. The word is the recognition of that thing which I have called fear, because that fear has gone on for many years, and I have recognized it through the word. Ten years ago I was afraid, that fear is registered in my brain with the word. With the word is associated fear. It occurs again today and immediately the recognizing process sets in, which is the word, and so on. So, the word gives me a feeling that I have had before. The word encourages the feeling, has stabilized the feeling.

R: Yes. Sustains it.

K: It holds it. The word holds the thing by recognizing it, by remembering it and so on. Now, I am asking whether without the word there can be fear. The word is a process of recognition. Fritz, look at it. You are afraid. How do you know you are afraid?

FW: By naming it.

K: Now, how do you know it?

FW: I have been afraid before, so I know that feeling. So, as it comes again, I recognize it.

K: If you recognize it, it is a verbal process; if you don't recognize it, what is the state?

FW: There is no fear. There is energy in the body.

K: No, sir. Don't use the word `energy' because we will go into something else. There is fear. I have recognized it by naming it. In naming it, I have put it into a category and the brain remembers it, registers it, holds it. If there is no recognition, no verbal movement, would there be fear?

P: There is disturbance.

K: I am using the word `fear'. Stick to fear.

P: If I may say so, fear is not such a simple thing that you can say, if there is no naming of it, fear is not…

K: I don't say that, yet. Of course, there is a lot of complexity involved in it.

P: It is a tremendous thing.

S: Psychologically something happens even before naming takes place.

P: There are profoundly deep fears.

S: If we accept only this position that the word creates fear, that means there is no content to fear at all.

K: I don't say that. There is a process of recognition. If that process of recognition didn't exist, if that is at all possible, then, what is fear? I am not saying it doesn't exist. I am asking a question. If there is no process of registration, recording, which is memory in operation, what is the thing called fear?

P: Remove the word "fear', and see what remains. Any word I use is going to apply exactly as much as the word"fear'.

K: I am attacking it quite differently. You insult me because I have an image. There is an immediate registration taking place. I am asking: Can that registration come to an end when you insult me and so there is no recording at all?

S: I don't understand this. That is a totally different process.

K: It is exactly the same thing. Fear arises because I am afraid of the past. The past is registered and that incident in the past awakens the sense of fear. That fear has been registered. Is it possible to observe the new feeling, whatever it is, without bringing the past into action? Have you got it?

Rad: There is a feeling of recognition before you actually call it fear.

K: No, look. Let us go calmly. You insult me. I insult you. What takes place? You register it, don't you?

Rad: I register it when I recognize it initially. That itself creates a momentum.

K: Therefore, stop that momentum. Can that momentum be stopped? Look Radhika, let us put it much more simply. You are hurt. Aren't you? You are hurt from childhood for various reasons and it has been deeply registered in the mind, in the brain. The instinctive reaction is not to be hurt any more. So, you build a wall, withdraw. Now, without building the wall, can you know that you are hurt, can you be aware of it and the next time a process of hurt begins, not register it?

FW: What do you mean by registering?

K: Our brain is a tape recorder. It is registering all the time, there is like and dislike, pleasure and pain. It is moving, moving. I say something ugly to you and the brain immediately takes charge, registers it. Now, I say: `Can you stop that registration, though it has registered? And next time if there is any insult, do not register it at all.' You understand what I am talking about? First, see the question. Is the question clear?

FW: That means not to form any image of it right away.

K: No, no. Just don't introduce the image for the moment. That becomes yet more complex. Can you recognize the word but not register it? I want to keep it very very simple. First, see this. The brain is registering all the time. You call me a fool, that is registered for various reasons. That is a fact. The next question is: Can that registration stop? Otherwise the mind, the brain, has no sense of freedom.

P: The brain is a live thing. It has to register. Registration is one thing, but the cutting of the momentum is the movement away from registration.

K: That is what I am talking about.

S: Aren't you speaking of two things: one is the stopping of the momentum and the other stopping registration altogether.

K: First, get what I am talking about. Then you can question. Then you can make it clear.

P: When you say do not register, does that mean the brain cells come to a stop?

K: Look, Pupulji, it is very important because if there is no possibility of stopping registration, then the brain becomes mechanical.

A: I want to question this, because you are oversimplifying the matter. Actually, our state of receiving anything is without our knowing that there is either a preference or an aversion, and fear is in that cycle. It arises from the past, and is not directly related to what I perceive. But it is that which perceives.

K: As long as the brain is registering all the time, it is moving from knowledge to knowledge. Now, I am challenging the word. I see knowledge is limited, fragmented and so on and I am asking myself whether registration can stop.

GM: Can the brain answer that question?

K: I think it can, in the sense the brain can become aware of its own registering process.

P: There are certain fears which you can deal with in that way. But fear has been the cry of man for millennia. And you are that cry.

K: I know. Stop. That cry of millennia is fear. The brain has been registering for millennia. Therefore, registering has become part of it. The brain has become mechanical. I say: Can that mechanical process stop? That is all. If it cannot be stopped it becomes merely a machine, which it is. This is all part of tradition, part of repetition, part of the constant registration through millennia. I am asking a simple question which has great depth to it, which is: Can it stop? If it cannot stop, man is never free.

Par: May I ask you a question? Why do we register at all?

K: For safety, security, protection, certainty. The registration is to give the brain a certain sense of security.

P: Isn't the brain itself involved? It has evolved through registration.

K: It has evolved through knowledge, which is registration.

P: What is it from within itself which says `stop'?

K: Somebody challenges me.

P: What is the factor which makes you say `stop'?

K: Someone comes along and says: Look, through millennia man has evolved through knowledge and at present you are certainly different from the great apes. And he says: Look, as long as you are registering, you are living a fragmentary life because knowledge is fragmentary and whatever you do from that fragmentary state of brain is incomplete. Therefore, there is pain, suffering. So, we are asking at the end of that explanation, can that registration, can that movement of the past, end? Listen. I am making it simple. Can this movement of millennia stop?

P: I am asking you this question: Is there something in the very quality of listening?

K: Yes, there is. That's it.

P: And that listening ends, silences this registration.

K: That is it. That is my point. You have come into my life by chance. You have come into my life and you have pointed out to me that my brain has evolved through knowledge, through registration, through experience; and that knowledge, that experience is fundamentally limited. And whatever action takes place from that limited state will be fragmentary and therefore there will be conflict, pain. Find out if that momentum which has tremendous volume, depth, can end. You know it is a tremendous flow of energy which is knowledge. Stop that knowledge. That is all.

FW: May I ask you a question? Much reference has been made to the tape-recorder which just goes on registering, and it can't stop itself. It has to be stopped. But then, can the brain stop itself?

K: We are going to find out. First, face the question, that is my point. First, listen to the question.

S: Is the whole of my consciousness only registration? In the whole of my consciousness, is there only registration going on?
K: Of course.

S: Then, what is it that can observe that registering?

K: What is it that can observe this registering or can prevent registering? I also know silence - the silence that is between two noises…

S: Is the silence which I experience also registered?

K: Obviously.

S: You can't use the word `registering' for silence.

K: As long as there is this registration process going on, it is mechanical. Is there silence which is non-mechanistic? A silence which has not been thought about, induced, brought about or invented. Otherwise, the silence is merely mechanistic.

S: But one knows the non-mechanistic silence sometimes.

K: Not sometimes.

Raj: Sir, is it possible for a non-mechanistic silence to come?

K: No, no. I am not interested in that. I am asking something entirely different: this momentum, this conditioning, the whole o consciousness is the past. It is moving. There is no future consciousness. The whole consciousness is the past, registered, remembered, stored up as experience, knowledge, fear, pleasure. That is the whole momentum of the past. And somebody comes along and says: Listen to what I have to say, can you end that momentum? Otherwise this momentum, with its fragmentary activity, will go on endlessly.

Raj: I think this movement can be stopped only if you don't hang on to it.

K: No, the momentum is you. You are not different from the momentum. You don't recognize that you are this vast momentum, this river of tradition, of racial prejudices, the collective drive, the so-called individual assertions. If there is no stopping that, there is no future. So, there is no future if this current is going on You may call it a future, but it is only the same thing modified. There is no future. I wonder if you see this.

P: An action takes place and darkness arises in me. The question arises: Can consciousness with its own content, which is darkness -

K: End. Hold it.

P: What do you mean exactly?

K: Can you hold, can the brain hold this momentum, or is it an idea that it is momentum? You follow what I mean? Listen to it carefully. Is the momentum actual or is it an idea? If it is an idea, then you can hold the idea about the momentum. But, if it is not an idea, a conclusion, then the brain is directly in contact with the momentum. I wonder if you follow. And therefore, it can say: `All right, I will watch.' It is watching, it is not allowing it to move. Now, is it the word you are holding on to, or are you observing this vast movement? Look, you are the vast movement. When you say you are that vast movement, is it an idea?

Raj: No.

K: Therefore, you are that. Find out if that thing can end - the past coming, meeting the present, a challenge, a question and ending there. Otherwise, there is no end to suffering. Man has put up with suffering for thousands upon thousands of years. That momentum is going on and on. I can give ten explanations - reincarnation, karma - but I still suffer. This suffering is the vast momentum of man. Can that momentum come to an end without control? The controller is the controlled. Can that momentum stop? If it does not stop, then there is no freedom, then action will always be incomplete. Can you see the whole of that, see it actually?

P: Can we ever see that? When we see feeling in the present, what is it we are seeing?

K: I call you a fool. Must you register it?

P: I can't just answer why should I register.

K: Don't register.

P: It is a question of whether these eyes and ears of mine are flowing out to the word; if they are still and listen, there is no registration. There is listening but no registration.

K: So, what are you seeing?

P: There is no seeing of this movement. I have been observing while this discussion has been going on and I say: What does it mean to register the fact? I am listening, you are listening. Obviously, if my listening is directed to the word, which is coming out of me, I register, and this very movement outward throws it back. But if the eyes and the ears are seeing and listening, but still, then they take in without any registration.

K: So, you are saying that there is a quietness in listening. There is no registration, but most of us are not quiet.

P: We can't answer that question of yours: Why should one register?

K: No. I am asking quite a different question. Someone calls you a fool. Don't register it at all.

P: It is not a process in which I can register or I can't register. The way you put it, you are suggesting two alternatives: it is either to register or not to register.

K: No. You are registering all the time.

P: There is a registration all the time. So long as my senses are moving outward, there is registration.

K: No; when you say `as long as', that means you are not now.

P: No. I am giving an explanation.

K: I want to find out whether this vast stream of the past can come to an end. That is all my question.

P: You won't accept anything. You won't accept any final statement on it. Therefore, there has to be a way to end.

K: I am asking: How can it end?

P: So, we have to move from that to the brain cells - to the actual registration.

K: So, the brain cells are registering. Those brain cells which are so heavily conditioned, have realized that momentum is the only safety. So, in that momentum, the brain has found tremendous security. Right?

P: Please listen to me. There is only one movement which is the movement of the past, touching the present and moving on.

K: The past meeting the present, moving on, modifying - we have gone into that. The brain is conditioned to that. It sees as long as that stream exists, it is perfectly safe. Now, how are those cells to be shown that the momentum of the past in which the brain cells have found enormous security and well-being is the most dangerous movement? Now, to point out to that brain the danger of this momentum is all that matters. The moment it sees the actual danger, it will end it. Do you see the danger of this movement? Not the theoretical danger, but the actual physical danger?

P: Are your brain cells saying that this movement is dangerous?

K: My brain is using the words to inform you of the danger, but it has no danger in it. It has seen it and dropped it. Do you see the danger of a cobra? When you see the danger, you avoid it. You avoid it because you have been conditioned through millennia to the danger of a snake. So, your responses are according to the conditioning, which is instant action.

The brain has been conditioned to carry on because in that there is complete safety, in meeting the present, learning from it, modifying it and moving on. To the brain, that is the only safe movement it knows, so it is going to remain there. But the moment the brain realizes that it is the most dangerous thing, it drops it because it wants security.

Raj: I don't see the danger of the momentum as actually as you see it.

K: Why, sir?

Raj: Partly because I have never observed the vast momentum to see its danger.

K: Are you living with the description of the momentum or living with the momentum itself which is you? You understand my question, sir? Is the momentum different from you?

Raj: No, sir.

K: So, you are the momentum? So, you are watching yourself?

Raj: Yes. But this does not happen often.

K: Often? The words "often' and"continuous' are awful words. Are you aware without any choice that you are the momentum, not sometimes? You can say: I only see the precipice occasionally. If the word is not the thing, then the word is not fear. Now, has the word created fear?

R: No.

K: Don't quickly answer it. Find out. Go slowly, Radhaji. The word is not the thing. That is very clear. Fear is not the word, but has the word created the fear? Without the word, would that thing called `fear' exist? The word is the registration process. Then, something totally new arises. That new, the brain refuses because it is a new thing; so, it immediately says it is fear. For the brain to hold the momentum of that, wait, watch. Give a gap between the movement of thought, without interfering with the actual movement of feeling. The gap can only happen when you go very deeply into the question that the word is not the thing, the word is not fear. Immediately, you have stopped the momentum. I wonder if you see this.

P: I still want to get the thing clear. Is it possible to hold a quality of feeling without the word, whether it is hatred, anger or fear.

K: Of course, you can hold the feeling of anger, fear, without the word; just remain with that feeling. Do it.

P: But what do you do exactly?

K: When fear arises from whatever cause, remain with it, without any momentum, without any movement of thought.

P: What is it then?

K: It is no longer the thing which I have associated with the past as fear. I would say it is energy held without any movement. When energy is held without any movement, there is an explosion. That then gets transformed.

This post was last updated by Huguette . Fri, 31 Aug 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 02 Sep 2018 #26
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4639 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Exploration Into Insight 'Registration, the Movement of Millennia'

I am puzzled by the suggestion that, for example, without the word fear there is no fear. I do not think that whenever I experience fear, for example, the word “fear” appears. Fear comes about when I imagine a future situation where my existence appears threatened, or compromised, when there is a possibility of loss or diminution. As I say, such a movement brings about a certain sensation, but it seems to me this movement occurs whether or not the word “fear” appears in the mind or not.

Yes, I have just this moment gone through such a state – one imagines something happening, something painful, and a certain sensation, a certain movement, arises – but the word “fear” does not appear to play a part in this. So yes, it does appear to me that without the word there is still the feeling.

The same with pleasure, of course, and all the other feelings. Am I missing something here?


To carry on with the excerpt:

“ K: So, the word is the medium through which thought expresses itself. Without the word, can thought express itself? Of course it can; a gesture, a look, a nod of the head, and so on. Without the word, thought can express itself to a very very limited extent. When you want to express something very complicated in thought, the word is necessary. But the word is not the actual thought, the actual state.”

This comes – and I feel foolish to admit this – as a revelation to me. I have always associated thought with the word only. Of course one recognises that thoughts carry an associated feeling. But here, is K suggesting that feeling is deeper, more fundamental, than words? Or is he suggesting there is another factor involved in thought altogether? I will read on.


I find I am unable to really engage in the rest of the dialogue, which mostly concerns registration. That is, it does not become a living thing for me at the moment – and more and more I am dissatisfied with intellectual understandings, as I probably used to be. So the question for me, personally, is why I do not become a part of the dialogue that you have presented, Huguette. Why it does not become part of me? No doubt it is highly relevant to my life.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 02 Sep 2018 #27
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 639 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
I am puzzled by the suggestion that, for example, without the word fear there is no fear. I do not think that whenever I experience fear, for example, the word “fear” appears. Fear comes about when I imagine a future situation where my existence appears threatened, or compromised, when there is a possibility of loss or diminution. As I say, such a movement brings about a certain sensation, but it seems to me this movement occurs whether or not the word “fear” appears in the mind or not.

Yes, I have just this moment gone through such a state – one imagines something happening, something painful, and a certain sensation, a certain movement, arises – but the word “fear” does not appear to play a part in this. So yes, it does appear to me that without the word there is still the feeling.

The same with pleasure, of course, and all the other feelings. Am I missing something here?

I completely agree with you that naming or explaining a feeling is not the catalyst or stimulus that sets off the feeling. The feeling is “there” and it is not the name that summons it. Nor does the effort to suppress the naming of it end it. That’s what I tried to express in post #15 and elsewhere.

This has also come up in previous discussions about dreams where others disagreed when I said that the landscape and events that "take place" IN THE DREAM are easily distinguishable from the actuality of landscape and events in wakefulness but that the FEELINGS in dreams are JUST AS REAL OR ACTUAL as the feelings in wakefulness. The “story” in the dream is the parallel to my naming and explaining of the feeling in wakefulness.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 02 Sep 2018 #28
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 639 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
I am puzzled by the suggestion that, for example, without the word fear there is no fear. I do not think that whenever I experience fear, for example, the word “fear” appears. Fear comes about when I imagine a future situation where my existence appears threatened, or compromised, when there is a possibility of loss or diminution. As I say, such a movement brings about a certain sensation, but it seems to me this movement occurs whether or not the word “fear” appears in the mind or not.

Yes, I have just this moment gone through such a state – one imagines something happening, something painful, and a certain sensation, a certain movement, arises – but the word “fear” does not appear to play a part in this. So yes, it does appear to me that without the word there is still the feeling.

The same with pleasure, of course, and all the other feelings. Am I missing something here?

I completely agree with you that naming or explaining a feeling is not the catalyst or stimulus that sets off the feeling. The feeling is “there” and it is not the name that summons it. Nor does the effort to suppress the naming of it end it. That’s what I tried to express in post #15 and elsewhere.

This has also come up in previous discussions about dreams where others disagreed when I said that the landscape and events that "take place" IN THE DREAM are easily distinguishable from the actuality of landscape and events in wakefulness but that the FEELINGS in dreams are JUST AS REAL OR ACTUAL as the feelings in wakefulness. The “story” in the dream is the parallel to my naming and explaining of the feeling in wakefulness.

Added: I might think that my naming and explaining a feeling shows that I understand "the thing". Because that is what I have learned - isn't it? - that naming and explaining are indicative of understanding. But "I" can name and explain till the end of eternity and still have no insight into the thing itself. Doesn't insight alone transform my relationship with "my" psychological pain? Where the nature of my relationship with pain is naming, explaining, condemning, bemoaning it, doesn't that sustain the division of "me" and "pain"?

This post was last updated by Huguette . Sun, 02 Sep 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 02 Sep 2018 #29
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4639 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
I said that the landscape and events that "take place" IN THE DREAM are easily distinguishable from the actuality of landscape and events in wakefulness but that the FEELINGS in dreams are JUST AS REAL OR ACTUAL as the feelings in wakefulness.

C: The difference seems to me there is not the usual division between experiencer and experienced in dreams. There is no one who experiences the feelings. Perhaps because of this feelings are more vivid in dreams than often in the waking state.

Huguette . wrote:
The “story” in the dream is the parallel to my naming and explaining of the feeling in wakefulness

That is very interesting. This suggests the subconscious mind at work, does it not?

Huguette . wrote:
Added: I might think that my naming and explaining a feeling shows that I understand "the thing". Because that is what I have learned - isn't it? - that naming and explaining are indicative of understanding. But "I" can name and explain till the end of eternity and still have no insight into the thing itself.

Yes indeed Huguette. Just lately it has come strongly that explanations, descriptions of reality, can be downright misleading, because they carry the impression of understanding. This realisation in itself has the quality of insight, I feel. I certainly feel it has had an effect on my behavour/actions.
Perhaps explanations/descriptions may have significance if they reflect insight, but no meaning if they are on their own, purely verbal. Intellectual. As K says, intellectual understanding is no understanding at all.

Huguette . wrote:
Doesn't insight alone transform my relationship with "my" psychological pain? Where the nature of my relationship with pain is naming, explaining, condemning, bemoaning it, doesn't that sustain the division of "me" and "pain"?

Looking at this, or trying to. I don’t want to give an easy “yes”. Naming, explaining, condemning, all are associated with a namer, an explainer, a condemner, so yes, such movements do sustain the division of thinker/thought.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 03 Sep 2018 #30
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4639 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
In observing my mind, I observe my reaction of fear or hurt in reaction to an insult.

C: But we don’t do that, usually, do we? The usual reaction to an insult is to go through the process of being hurt, the image forming, the registration, the reaction, all that, yes. But we don’t normally say to ourselves “I have been hurt”, do we? At least not consciously. So is this process of “naming” actually happening, as I bought up previously? Sorry if I am hammering this too hard.

I can accept that some sort of recognition process has been set in motion, so we react to the insult as we have reacted to insult in the past. Is this “naming”? Am I perhaps taking this word too literally?

Huguette . wrote:
So to observe the falseness of that psychological process of registering, and to see it as it is happening, is to end it, not carry it forward.

What exactly do you mean by”false” here, Huguette. The process of registration does actually happen, when it happens, so in that sense it is not “false”. I see that it is false in the sense it does not achieve its objective, but instead frustrates its purpose.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 59 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.)