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

The brain is infinite


Displaying posts 91 - 107 of 107 in total
Fri, 05 Oct 2018 #91
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 639 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote (quoting K):
"Energy has no order"

It seems to me that K could just as easily have said, “Energy has no disorder”. Isn't energy the ultimate “what is”, or ultimately "what is"? Disordered thought and its effects are also “what is” but, ultimately, isn't that man-made disorder also energy without order or disorder?

Which is not to say that disorder “doesn’t matter”. Compassion says that it matters, that war matters, cruelty matters, negligence matters, suffering matters, and so on.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 05 Oct 2018 #92
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 999 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
If the thought process is seen through as an unnecessary dead end process it will only be activated under supervision from awareness and not longer out of order on its own.

Wim

This as you say above, seems to me to be the crux of our 'problem'. The 'forces' that keep the 'self/thought/time' in place. What are those 'forces'? Fear, the fear of being nothing? The addiction to 'pleasure'? The momentum of our physical and psychological acquisitions? Our inability to 'look' and 'listen' without the intrusion of the past? (thought/time)...

I've been experimenting recently with the 'senses', sight and hearing and also touch...and I see John has just put up a 1980's dialogue that is related: K. discusses the "flowering of the senses'...When I look at or listen to what is going on around me, I rarely am aware that what I am seeing and hearing has never been heard or seen by me before. The information coming in through the senses is always in the immediate present, the 'Now'. This is a revelation. The world is always new, always 'beginning'... Seen in that light, the senses are 'pure'. But with 'naming', the things seen and heard are 'overlaid' (hi-jacked?) by the past accumulation of knowledge. The pure immediate operation of the senses are in effect overridden and 'corrupted' by thought/time. Is this the subtle operation of "desire" that K. is talking about?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Fri, 05 Oct 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 05 Oct 2018 #93
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 757 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
This as you say above, seems to me to be the crux of our 'problem'

Hi Dan,

for me it is now clear that in the first place one should not approach it as a problem because that triggers the engine to try to solve it.

P.S.: I'll take the time to read the information about the senses, but after my operation it became clear how I took a lot of my body for granted and get a new fresh look on it.

Truth will unfold itself for those who enquire their own actions and only to them and for them and to or for no one else.

This post was last updated by Wim Opdam Fri, 05 Oct 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 05 Oct 2018 #94
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 999 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
for me it is now clear that in the first place one should not approach it as a problem because that triggers the engine to try to solve it.

I think that it is alright to refer to the 'supremacy' of thought/self as a 'problem'. The definition from the Collins English Dictionary is:' A problem is a situation that is unsatisfactory and causes difficulties for people.' But how one 'approaches' the problem in oneself is what is most important I agree.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 05 Oct 2018 #95
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 597 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
An unidentified questioner states "biologists have proved that life is anti-entropic, which means that while material energy dissipates itself, life energy does not.

I doubt very strongly that there is any proof of this.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 05 Oct 2018 #96
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4648 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Without 'intention' doesn't everything stop?

Well, this is a profound question. Are we talking about an intention that is intrinsic to life, that is there 'before' thought? If so, it does not seem to be the right word, as "intention" generally suggests a defined goal, knowing where one is heading - which seems to imply an image. I have always assumed that images are peculiar to thought.

Does the Universe know where it is going? I doubt it.

Dan McDermott wrote:
Doesn't 'thought' always intend to come to a conclusion, to find an answer?

yes, except when thought asks a question. But wait, even then it tries to find an answer to the question.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 05 Oct 2018 #97
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4648 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
. What are those 'forces'? Fear, the fear of being nothing? The addiction to 'pleasure'? The momentum of our physical and psychological acquisitions? Our inability to 'look' and 'listen' without the intrusion of the past? (thought/time)...

You seem to have listed the primary forces, Dan. Yes, all those things.

Dan McDermott wrote:
I've been experimenting recently with the 'senses', sight and hearing and also touch...

Yes, all the senses. It seems that when the consciousness is full of the senses, there is no room for thought. But according to K, all the senses must be operating together for this to be so, and this is my own observation. Observing through one sense only generally stimulates thought, doesn't it?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 05 Oct 2018 #98
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4648 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
It seems to me that K could just as easily have said, “Energy has no disorder”.

Yes, I see that. What I have been asking lately is: Is there not another factor which supplies that “order”. Perhaps I really mean another factor which sculptors that energy into forms – all the forms of the universe.

Huguette . wrote:
Isn't energy the ultimate “what is”, or ultimately "what is"?

C: I think in “The Ending of Time” K suggests that there is something ‘beyond’ energy. Something he calls, as no doubt you know, “The Ground of Everything”. I will read this up. At the moment I see no way to verify this for myself, by direct observation.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 06 Oct 2018 #99
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 639 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
I think in “The Ending of Time” K suggests that there is something ‘beyond’ energy. Something he calls, as no doubt you know, “The Ground of Everything”.

The Ending of Time Chapter 1 1st April 1980 Conversation with Prof. David Bohm 'The Roots of Psychological Conflict':

“One night in India I woke up; it was a quarter past twelve, I looked at the watch. And - I hesitate to say this because it sounds extravagant - the source of all energy had been reached. And that had an extraordinary effect on the brain. And also physically. I'm sorry to talk about myself but, you understand, literally, there was no division at all; no sense of the world, of `me'. You follow? Only this sense of a tremendous source of energy.”

I don't know if this "source of all energy" is what K also means by the ground. I don't see that there could be such a duality!

I also don't know why K is so allergic to the word "God". It seems to me that the word "Ground" can be just as easily corrupted and misunderstood as the word "God". They're just words and it is understood that the word is not the thing. Does Ground mean anything different than God, and vice-versa? If we are to avoid the word God as false, why not also avoid the word Ground for the same reason? It seems that there is something inexpressible that needs to be expressed, something uncommunicable that needs to be communicated, call it God, Ground or Stick-in-the-mud.

This post was last updated by Huguette . Sat, 06 Oct 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 06 Oct 2018 #100
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 757 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
It seems that there is something inexpressible that needs to be expressed, something uncommunicable that needs to be communicated, call it God, Ground or Stick-in-the-mud.

Yes the pointing to needs to be understood, every word is a distraction..

Truth will unfold itself for those who enquire their own actions and only to them and for them and to or for no one else.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 06 Oct 2018 #101
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4648 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
I also don't know why K is so allergic to the word "God". It seems to me that the word "Ground" can be just as easily corrupted and misunderstood as the word "God". They're just words and it is understood that the word is not the thing. Does Ground mean anything different than God, and vice-versa? If we are to avoid the word God as false, why not also avoid the word Ground for the same reason? It seems that there is something inexpressible that needs to be expressed, something uncommunicable that needs to be communicated, call it God, Ground or Stick-in-the-mud.

Well I think I can at least suggest why K avoided the use of the word God. It has such connotations, doesn’t it? Most people think they know exactly what is meant by the word God, it is something we all recognise, feel familiar with. It is the same with the words meditation and love, for example. Everyone takes them to be understood; to be things one can know, things of knowledge. As if we all agree about what they mean. I recently asked someone (a chance encounter) what he meant by the word “meditation” he was using, and he looked at me as if I was crazy, or enormously ignorant. And he never answered the question :-) ).

But “the Ground” does not have such deep associations in the human mind. And so it allows for some questioning about what it might be. It is not in such a straight-jacket of knowledge, is it?

Also the term is simply factual – K uses it to describe the source, or the ground of all things. From which everything emerges and returns to. Is that how people think of God? Do they think God created everything, including evil, the devil? Including man's suffering? I get the impression that God is regarded as one half of some cosmic battle that is going on - a battle that people do their best to reproduce here on Earth! But I am not saying there are not similarities between the implied meanings of “God” and “The Ground”. (Does not the Christian bible attribute the words “I am the alpha and the omega” to God?).

Huguette . wrote:
It seems that there is something inexpressible that needs to be expressed, something uncommunicable that needs to be communicated,

So one possibility for such a word might be “The Inexpressible”. Or more simply, “the inexpressible”.

But I think that we have to accept that “this soiled and greasy currency of words” IS corrupted, terribly corrupted. A corruption, an encrustation, that has developed over thousands of years. As the QOTD suggests, knowledge is not understanding. And worse, knowledge, including words like God, gives the ILLUSION of understanding – and so one looks no further, thinking one has got it.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 06 Oct 2018 #102
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 639 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Most people think they know exactly what is meant by the word God, it is something we all recognise, feel familiar with. It is the same with the words meditation and love, for example.
[...]


But “the Ground” does not have such deep associations in the human mind. And so it allows for some questioning about what it might be. It is not in such a straight-jacket of knowledge, is it?

We don't gear our talks to what most people think, do we? We talk about love and meditation even though most people do not understand them in the same way.

Most of our exchanges have to do with self-observation, which also has nothing to do with what most people think or approach life. God for the most part doesn't come into it. I can't in any case talk about God or the Ground positively or assertively, I can't say God or the ground is this or that.

We say we approach love negatively. This is not how most people approach love.

Also the term is simply factual – K uses it to describe the source, or the ground of all things. From which everything emerges and returns to. Is that how people think of God?

I think that many people do think about God in that way, as the source or ground of all things. As for the term "ground" being factual, it is only factual if there is a direct experiencing of it. Otherwise, for me, it is not.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 08 Oct 2018 #103
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4648 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
We don't gear our talks to what most people think, do we? We talk about love and meditation even though most people do not understand them in the same way.

The question was, Why did K not use the term "God" in his talks (or almost never) And here is another question you bring out, Huguette, did he in any way "gear" his talks? I don't know, although I would say he did not ever compromise the truth. Is there a place for gearing one's own words, in discussion? Interestingly I was talking with a new acquaintance this morning (second meeting), and I found myself very alert to what I was saying. I wanted to find ways of meeting this person, find the right language, relate to his concerns, not get into argument, and yes, finding ways to put what were to him new concepts. It was all very interesting, challenging, and I do not think I ever compromised on what I saw as true - but I did not attempt to explore as deeply as I might with "a K friend".

Huguette . wrote:
Most of our exchanges have to do with self-observation, which also has nothing to do with what most people think or approach life. God for the most part doesn't come into it. I can't in any case talk about God or the Ground positively or assertively, I can't say God or the ground is this or that.
We say we approach love negatively. This is not how most people approach love.

Yes. And yet in my daily life I want to contact people in as meaningful a way as is possible. I want to establish as much common ground as possible. And of course there IS a great deal of common ground, as we are all "the world", all part of the same human consciousness. It is beliefs, convictions, ideas, that get in the way of this. so called 'positive thinking'. I can at least be aware if I ever come from such a place. And not be afraid to say "I don't know".

Huguette . wrote:
As for the term "ground" being factual, it is only factual if there is a direct experiencing of it. Otherwise, for me, it is not.

'The Ground' is not an actuality for me. By "factual", I meant K has chosen a word which describes what The Ground actually is, actually does -it is the ground from which things arise, like plants from the earht. Of course one can only take analogies so far, and they carry their risks.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 09 Oct 2018 #104
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4648 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
I also don't know why K is so allergic to the word "God".

Here is something K said about the use of the word “God”; it is in “The Urgency of Change”, the chapter entitled “Is there a God?"

Q: “ ….. you’re asking me if the mind can be free of the word – that is, can the mind be free of its own activity?”

K: in the case of the tree the object is before our eyes, and the word refers to the tree by universal agreement. Now with the word God there is nothing to which it refers, so each man can create his own image for which there is no reference.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 09 Oct 2018 #105
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4648 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
We say we approach love negatively.

Yes. Actually – and I am just speaking for myself – I don’t think I associate any fixed meaning, any definite interpretation, for words like ‘love’, ‘meditation’, and other words K used in a radically different way from common useage. What such words do, is start up a PROCESS of inquiry, in that way of negation which seems to be the way of intelligence.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 09 Oct 2018 #106
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 639 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
But “the Ground” does not have such deep associations in the human mind. And so it allows for some questioning about what it might be. It is not in such a straight-jacket of knowledge, is it?I completely understand what you’re saying about the difficulty of using the word God due to its having a predefined meaning for “most people”. I do. And I completely understand what K says about the meaninglessness or falseness of belief, of having beliefs.

So K points out that the word/idea/belief is not the thing. Nonetheless words must be used for communication. So he uses the words love, self, the sacred, and it is understood that he is using them without the traditional connotations which conditioning attaches to them. He could substitute other words for “love”, “self”, “the sacred”, etc., too - but he doesn’t. That would be like moving to a new country to escape oneself and finding that one’s troubles have “followed” one; or like using baby versions of grown-up words when talking to toddlers; or perhaps like using the word “poo” instead of “shit”. So one is either aware, attentive, to the “straight-jacket of knowledge” (nicely put, by the way!), or one is not. If there is understanding, there is no straight-jacket.

If one is inattentive or if one doesn’t understand the difficulty in word use, the word “Ground” can end up having the old - or new - connotations attached to it. Or it can give the illusion of understanding something that one does NOT understand. So I find that K’s aversion to this word God ends up being a useless distraction. I don’t want to belabour the point … perhaps I already have.

Clive Elwell wrote:
But I think that we have to accept that “this soiled and greasy currency of words” IS corrupted, terribly corrupted. A corruption, an encrustation, that has developed over thousands of years. As the QOTD suggests, knowledge is not understanding. And worse, knowledge, including words like God, gives the ILLUSION of understanding – and so one looks no further, thinking one has got it.

Not to ACCEPT but to understand, right? If it is understood, then the “soiled and greasy currency of words” is ipso facto, presto chango, cleaned up, isn’t it? And like the word “God”, using the word “ground” can give the illusion of understanding something that one does NOT understand.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 09 Oct 2018 #107
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 639 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
And here is another question you bring out, Huguette, did he in any way "gear" his talks?

My understanding is that K did NOT gear his talks to any segment or part, which is what makes his aversion to the word “God” puzzling to me.

My question was not about K gearing his talks. It was about “US” gearing our talks by considering what “most people” think or do. I wonder why we care about what “most people” think or do. Who cares what “most people” think or do if “I” - the speaker - don’t understand the thing completely. If the speaker (“me”) is still confused and miserable in his life or relationships, what does it matter if “most people” understand this or that?

Clive Elwell wrote:
I was talking with a new acquaintance this morning (second meeting), and I found myself very alert to what I was saying. I wanted to find ways of meeting this person, find the right language, relate to his concerns, not get into argument, and yes, finding ways to put what were to him new concepts. It was all very interesting, challenging, and I do not think I ever compromised on what I saw as true

I understand this perfectly (I dare to say)! But in my view, what you describe is not the same thing as gearing your talk to someone else’s perceived level. It is being cautious, hesitant in one’s use of words, so that one's words are as true or congruous as possible in expressing one’s perceptions. That is “alertness” as you say. I don’t see that as “gearing one’s talk” at all. “Gearing” one’s talk is a dumbing-down, a pre-judgment, it indicates a division, as I see it. As you explain, there is no division in talking things over. There is alertness, yes, not division. When I speak to you, I want to be clear and congruous, which does not mean gearing or dumbing-down. Without alertness, an un-noticed double-entendre, a contradiction, an inaccurate term, an assumption, and so on, can muddy up the intended meaning. Even in thinking "things" over by oneself, that same alertness and attention is needed.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 91 - 107 of 107 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.)