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

All one inquiry


Displaying posts 331 - 360 of 720 in total
Fri, 08 Feb 2019 #331
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5030 posts in this forum Offline

I actually made a reply to your mail yesterday, Dan, but when I turn to the forum today I see that the reply was not posted somehow. Probably my own carelessness. There is no way I can reproduce what I said, that moment is past. Could one say, in fact, that “that reality is past”?

It is curious how K completely reversed – as far as I can see – the meaning he put on the word “reality”. From that which is actual, to that which is created by thought. Or am I slurring over the difference between the words “real” and “reality”? In 1958 he wrote that religion was the search for what is real.

In 1950 he said “to find out what is real, to discover whether or not there is reality, God, one must first understand oneself; because, whatever the conception one may have of reality or of God, it is merely a projection of oneself, which can obviously never be the real”. I don’t know why he seems to equate reality with God – which would suggest that I have never touched ‘reality’ in this sense. But the necessity to first understand oneself is, I think, clear. In this great confused mix-up of thoughts, conceptions, contradictory ideas – including ideas of reality – how can there be real understanding? It is impossible, surely?

So the question is, not what is reality, but what is it to understand oneself? And seeing the confusion, the contradiction, the noise of thought, the question becomes, how is the mind to be quiet? I think we both are aware of the falseness of ‘methods’ to become quiet, they are just the continuation of the noise.

Only when the mind is quiet, says K, when it is not projecting itself, is it possible for the real to be.

So how is, how does, quietness come about? The human world in general seems to put no value whatsoever on quietness, all its activities seem aimed at destroying it, in fact - which i often find a great strain. But to blame the environment is a waste of energy, it is up to me to inquire into this quietness.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 08 Feb 2019 #332
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 810 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Or am I slurring over the difference between the words “real” and “reality”? In 1958 he wrote that religion was the search for what is real.

To me chapter 1 from " truth and actuality " was a clear description of those two concepts.

"Krishnamurti: I was thinking about the question of what is truth and what is reality and whether there is any relationship between the two, or whether they are separate. Are they eternally divorced, or are they just projections of thought? And if thought didn’t operate, would there be reality? I thought that reality comes from “res”, thing, and that anything that thought operates on, or fabricates, or reflects about, is reality. And thought, thinking in a distorted, conditioned manner is illusion, is self-deception, is distortion. I left it there, because I wanted to let it come rather than my pursuing it.

Dr. Bohm: The question of thought and reality and truth has occupied philosophers over the ages. It’s a very difficult one. It seems to me that what you say is basically true, but there are a lot of points that need to be ironed out. One of the questions that arises is this: if reality is thought, what thought thinks about, what appears in consciousness, does it go beyond consciousness? "

K. USED those words but in my humble opinion not always in the clear explanation in this chapter.
in some way I can feel since than when he's using reality but is probably meaning actuality.
3

Truth will unfold itself to those who enquire their own actions.

This post was last updated by Wim Opdam Fri, 08 Feb 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 09 Feb 2019 #333
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5030 posts in this forum Offline

After writing yesterday:

So how is, how does, quietness come about? The human world in general seems to put no value whatsoever on quietness, all its activities seem aimed at destroying it, in fact - which i often find a great strain. But to blame the environment is a waste of energy, it is up to me to inquire into this quietness.

I decided to take a trip to a forest-covered mountain not too far from here. There is a beautiful walk along a tree-hung stream, clear dark water, rushing and swirling over pebbles and rocks. So clean. Once one takes a few steps into the forest one feels “far from the restless hand of man”. Although one takes the restless mind of man with one, of course.

But it felt right to be so alone. Right, but not comfortable – to look for comfort, or security, is so limiting of inner exploration. Just watching, watching the movements of the mind, and endlessly discovering that thought is not truth, it is only thought, memory, conditioning. And endlessly realising that thought cannot possibly find a way out from its quandary – its quandary being this false separation between thinker and thought, with the illusory thinker endlessly trying to ‘overcome’ thought.

This state I think can be called meditation. It is the mind endlessly dying to itself, dying to its psychological knowledge. Seeing the futility of it. If I took anything anyway from the walk, it was the realisation one has to be prepared to be nothing. By “prepared” I don’t mean getting ready, but a state of allowing it happen, being willing that it happens, not resisting the perception that one IS nothing.

Which means there really isn’t a thinker, so there is really isn’t any basis to “correct” thought. Thought is just a fact. Which implies the end of all conflict.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 09 Feb 2019 #334
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5030 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:

in some way I can feel since than when he's using reality but is probably meaning actuality.

Perhaps, Wim, we have to accept temporary usages and meanings of words. Like a tool one picks up for the moment, uses, and puts down again. So at one time we use real to mean actual, another time to mean that created by thought. I guess the former is the more intuitive meaning, one that most people would understand.

It came to me yesterday that perhaps the best, the clearest understanding of the meaning of reality is “that which is there when the projections of thought have ceased”. That is, the negative approach.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 10 Feb 2019 #335
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 810 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
It came to me yesterday that perhaps the best, the clearest understanding of the meaning of reality is “that which is there when the projections of thought have ceased”. That is, the negative approach.

not entirely correct, I can not describe it as clearly as they have done so below the continuation of their dialogue:

***"Krishnamurti: Are the contents of consciousness reality?

Dr. Bohm: That’s the question; and can we use thought as equivalent to consciousness in its basic form?

Krishnamurti: Yes.

Dr. Bohm: I wonder whether, just for the sake of completeness, we should include in thought also feeling, desire, will and reaction. I feel we should, if we are exploring the connection between consciousness, reality and truth.

Krishnamurti: Yes.

Dr. Bohm: One of the points I’d like to bring up is: there is thought, there is our consciousness, and there is the thing of which we are conscious. And as you have often said, the thought is not the thing.

Krishnamurti: Yes.

Dr. Bohm: We have to get it clear, because in some sense the thing may have some kind of reality independent of thought; we can’t go so far as to deny all that. Or do we go as far as some philosophers, like Bishop Berkeley, who has said that all is thought? Now I would like to suggest a possibly useful distinction between that reality which is largely created by our own thought, or by the thought of mankind, and that realty which one can regard as existing independently of this thought. For example, would you say nature is real?

Krishnamurti: It is, yes.

Dr. Bohm: And it is not just our own thoughts.

Krishnamurti: No, obviously not.

Dr. Bohm: The tree, the whole earth, the stars.

Krishnamurti: Of course, the cosmos. Pain is real.

Dr. Bohm: Yes. I was thinking the other day, illusion is real, in the sense that it is really something going on, to a person who is in a state of illusion.

Krishnamurti: To him it is real.

Dr. Bohm: But to us it is also real because his brain is in a certain state of electrical and chemical movement, and he acts from his illusion in a real way.

Krishnamurti: In a real way, in a distorted way.

Dr. Bohm: Distorted but real. Now it occurred to me that one could say that even the false is real but not true. This might be important.

Krishnamurti: I understand. For instance: is Christ real?

Dr. Bohm: He is certainly real in the minds of people who believe in him, in the sense we have been discussing.

Krishnamurti: We want to find out the distinction between truth and reality. We said anything that thought thinks about, whether unreasonably or reasonably, is a reality. It may be distorted or reasoned clearly, it is still a reality. That reality, I say, has nothing to do with truth.

Dr. Bohm: Yes, but we have to say besides, that in some way reality involves more than mere thought. There is also the question of actuality. Is the thing actual? Is its existence an actual fact? According to the dictionary, the fact means what is actually done, what actually happens, what is actually perceived.

Krishnamurti: Yes, we must understand what we mean by the fact.

Dr. Bohm: The fact is the action that is actually taking place. Suppose, for example, that you are walking on a dark road and that you think you see something. It may be real, it may not be real. One moment you feel that it’s real and the next moment that it’s not real. But then you suddenly touch it and it resists your movement. From this action it’s immediately clear that there is a real thing which you have contacted. But if there is no such contact you say that it’s not real, that it was perhaps an illusion, or at least something mistakenly taken as real.

Krishnamurti: But, of course, that thing is still a reality that thought thinks about. And reality has nothing to do with truth.

Dr. Bohm: But now, let us go further with the discussion of “the thing”. You see, the root of the English word “thing” is fundamentally the same as the German “bedingen”, to condition, to set the conditions or determine. And indeed we must agree that a thing is necessarily conditioned.

Krishnamurti: It is conditioned. Let’s accept that.

Dr. Bohm: This is a key point. Any form of reality is conditioned. Thus, an illusion is still a form of reality which is conditioned. For example, the man’s blood may have a different constitution because he’s not in a balanced state. He is distorting, he may be too excited, and that could be why he is caught in illusion. So every thing is determined by conditions and it also conditions every other thing.

Krishnamurti: Yes, quite.

Dr. Bohm: All things are interrelated in the way of mutual conditioning which we call influence. In physics that’s very clear, the planets all influence each other, the atoms influence each other, and I wanted to suggest that maybe we could regard thought and consciousness as part of this whole chain of influence.

Krishnamurti: Quite right.

Dr. Bohm: So that every thing can influence consciousness and it in turn can work back and influence the shapes of things, as we make objects. And you could then say that this is all reality, that thought is therefore also real.

Krishnamurti: Thought is real.

Dr. Bohm: And there is one part of reality influencing another part of reality.

Krishnamurti: Also, one part of illusion influences another part of illusion.

Dr. Bohm: Yes, but now we have to be careful because we can say there is that reality which is not made by man, by mankind. But that’s still limited. The cosmos, for example, as seen by us is influenced by our own experience and therefore limited.

Krishnamurti: Quite.

Dr. Bohm: Any thing that we see, we see through our own experience, our own background. So that reality cannot possibly be totally independent of man.

Krishnamurti: No.

Dr. Bohm: It may be relatively independent. The tree is a reality that is relatively independent but it’s our consciousness that abstracts the tree.

Krishnamurti: Are you saying that man’s reality is the product of influence and conditioning?

Dr. Bohm: Yes, mutual interaction and reaction.

Krishnamurti: And all his illusions are also his product.

Dr. Bohm: Yes, they are all mixed together.

Krishnamurti: And what is the relationship of a sane, rational, healthy, whole man, to reality and to truth?

Dr. Bohm: Yes, we must consider that, but first may we look at this question of truth. I think the derivation of words is often very useful. The word “true” in Latin, which is “verus”, means “that which is”. The same as the English “was” and “were”, or German “wahr”. Now in English the root meaning of the word “true” is honest and faithful; you see, we can often say that a line is true, or a machine is true. There was a story I once read about a thread that ran so true; it was using the image of a spinning-wheel with the thread running straight.

Krishnamurti: Quite.

Dr. Bohm: And now we can say that our thought, or our consciousness, is true to that which is, if it is running straight, if the man is sane and healthy. And otherwise it is not, it is false. So the falseness of consciousness is not just wrong information, but it is actually running crookedly as a reality.

Krishnamurti: So you’re saying, as long as man is sane, healthy, whole and rational, his thread is always straight.

Dr. Bohm: Yes, his consciousness is on a straight thread. Therefore his reality –

Krishnamurti: – is different from the reality of a man whose thread is crooked, who is irrational, who is neurotic.

Dr. Bohm: Very different. Perhaps the latter is even insane. You can see with insane people how different it is – they sometimes cannot even see the same reality at all.

Krishnamurti: And the sane, healthy, whole, holy man, what is his relationship to truth?

Dr. Bohm: If you accept the meaning of the word, if you say truth is that which is, as well as being true to that which is, then you have to say that he is all this.

Krishnamurti: So you would say the man who is sane, whole, is truth?

Dr. Bohm: He is truth, yes.

Krishnamurti: Such a man is truth. He may think certain things which would be reality, but he is truth. He can’t think irrationally.

Dr. Bohm: Well, I wouldn’t say quite that, I’d say that he can make a mistake.

Krishnamurti: Of course.

Dr. Bohm: But he doesn’t persist in it. In other words, there is the man who has made a mistake and acknowledges it, changes it.

Krishnamurti: Yes, quite right.

Dr. Bohm: And there is also the man who has made a mistake but his mind is not straight and therefore he goes on with it. But we have to come back to the question: does truth go beyond any particular man; does it include other men, and nature as well?

Krishnamurti: It includes all that is.

Dr. Bohm: Yes, so the truth is one. But there are many different things in the field of reality. Each thing is conditioned, the whole field of reality is conditioned. But clearly, truth itself cannot be conditioned or dependent on things.

Krishnamurti: What then is the relationship to reality of the man who is truth?

Dr. Bohm: He sees all the things and, in doing this, he comprehends reality. What the word “comprehends” means is to hold it all together.

Krishnamurti: He doesn’t separate reality. He says, “I comprehend it, I hold it, I see it”.

Dr. Bohm: Yes, it’s all one field of reality, himself and everything. But it has things in it which are conditioned and he comprehends the conditions.

Krishnamurti: And because he comprehends conditioning, he is free of conditioning."***

Truth will unfold itself to those who enquire their own actions.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Tue, 12 Feb 2019 #336
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5030 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:

Clive Elwell wrote:

It came to me yesterday that perhaps the best, the clearest understanding of the meaning of reality is “that which is there when the projections of thought have ceased”. That is, the negative approach.

not entirely correct,

Could you explain that "not entirely correct", Wim?

I have read the excerpt, several times in fact. And I note especially the comment by Bohm:

" Now I would like to suggest a possibly useful distinction between that reality which is largely created by our own thought, or by the thought of mankind, and that realty which one can regard as existing independently of this thought."

It seems to me that such divergent things deserve two different names/words.

I also seem to remember that in "The Ending of Time" K says that the material universe was or is created by the Universal Mind, the Cosmic Consciousness. I don't have the exact words at hand. This might suggest that there is some sort of link between Bohm's "two sorts of reality". In considering this, one needs to ask what is the relationship, if any, between the Universal Mind and the human mind, no?

What do you say?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 13 Feb 2019 #337
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 810 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
It came to me yesterday that perhaps the best, the clearest understanding of the meaning of reality is “that which is there when the projections of thought have ceased”. That is, the negative approach.

. And I note especially the comment by Bohm:

" Now I would like to suggest a possibly useful distinction between that reality which is largely created by our own thought, or by the thought of mankind, and that realty which one can regard as existing independently of this thought."

To me it seems that in the conversation between Bohm and K. the meaning of reality is both the not man-made and the man-made, which is thought.

In your description you seems to point to only one; the not man-made.

By accepting the distinction they are also saying: thought is also a reality.

In the ending of time they are talking of another level. Although using a lot of the same words in quantum theory and relativity theory they have a different meaning, that's for me the meaning of Bohm's citate: ' Change of meaning = change of being.

Yes I agree that it would be much easier if our vocabulair would have different words for this being

Truth will unfold itself to those who enquire their own actions.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Tue, 19 Feb 2019 #338
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5030 posts in this forum Offline

I find this quite an interesting article, by one Kazu Haga

It doesn't matter if you believe in it

Gravity is a universal law of nature. It doesn't matter if you believe in gravity. You are still governed by its laws, and there is no way for you to escape it. The laws of gravity govern human bodies and celestial bodies.

Nonviolence, to me, is an explanation and an articulation of the universal laws of conflict. It doesn't matter if you believe in it. You are still governed by its laws, and there is no way for you to escape it. The laws of human conflict govern interpersonal conflict and global conflict.

To me it doesn't matter if you think you can use violence to achieve a just society. The violence you use or the violence that is internal to your movement will be reflected in the change you bring about, because that is a universal law of nature. I believe that it doesn't matter if you think hatred and resentment can sustain you. It will ultimately eat you up, because that is a universal law of nature. I believe that it doesn't matter if you think that love is sappy and weak. Cultivating love will fulfill you and help you achieve your potential, because that is a universal law of nature. I believe that it doesn't matter if you don't trust in the laws of interdependence, what happens to me directly will affect you in some way, because it is a universal law of nature.

Nonviolence isn't some naive, dogmatic or judgmental belief that hatred and violence are "bad" and that compassion and love are "good". Concepts like "good" and "bad" are ultimately relative and have no relevance to the universe. Violence isn't "bad" and love isn't "good", they simply exist. Nonviolence is simply an exploration of the impact of violence and love onto human experience, and an attempt at understanding the laws that govern them. It is the science of understanding conflict, much like cosmology is the science of understanding the origins of the universe.

If we invest into systems that harm human beings, if we invest in a culture that isolates people, if we invest in a world view that divides communities, we will move away from Beloved Community. Because the ultimate structure of the universe, the unalterable and universal laws of the universe dictate that. The universe doesn't "care" if we reach Beloved Community or not. The universe doesn't "care" if we fulfill our potential as species. The universe simply exists, and its job is to continue to create balance and order. It is up to us, as species, to understand these laws so we can move towards Beloved Community.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 06 Mar 2019 #339
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5030 posts in this forum Offline

This was from the QOTD yesterday:

Questioner: I want to understand myself, I want to put an end to my stupid struggles and make a definite effort to live fully and truly.

Krishnamurti: What do you mean when you use the term 'myself'? As you are many and ever changing is there an enduring moment when you can say that this is the ever me? It is the multiple entity, the bundle of memories that must be understood and not seemingly the one entity that calls itself the me.
We are ever changing contradictory thoughts-feelings: love and hate, peace and passion, intelligence and ignorance. Now which is the me in all of this? Shall I choose what is most pleasing and discard the rest? Who is it that must understand these contradictory and conflicting selves? Is there a permanent self, a spiritual entity apart from these? Is not that self also the continuing result of the conflict of many entities? Is there a self that is above and beyond all contradictory selves? The truth of it can be experienced only when the contradictory selves are understood and transcended.

K’s description of the multiple selves, ever-changing, is exactly so, I find.
But I repeat the question that I put some time ago – what does it mean to UNDERSTAND in that last sentence? Certainly there is the understanding that the mind is a mass of these contradictory selves. It is understand the origin of these selves is experience, the past, conclusions registered in the brain, which arise again as a reaction to thought, as the thinker.

Is there more to understand? Does each “self”, as it arises, need to be understood? And if so, what does that understanding mean? To see its roots? To sense its motivation?

In the quote K asks the question: “Who is it that must understand these contradictory and conflicting selves? Is there a permanent self, a spiritual entity apart from these?”. It seems to me if there was a separate entity that does the understanding, that entity becomes merely a part of what has to be understood. And so on.

As K is pointing out, there is no ‘entity’ in the mind. Only ever changing thought which has produced the illusion of an entity. So we are back to the question, what does it mean to understand this endless, ever-changing flow?

Perhaps the answer to all these questions lies in the last sentence of the quote, below - understanding lies in choiceless awareness of the whole process.

All the conflicting entities which make up the me have also brought into being the other me, the observer, the analyser. To understand myself I must understand the many parts of myself including the I who has become the watcher, the I who understands. The thinker must not only understand his many contradictory thoughts but he must understand himself as the creator of these many entities. The I, the thinker, the observer watches his opposing and conflicting thoughts-feelings as though he were not part of them, as though he were above and beyond them, controlling, guiding, shaping. But is not the I, the thinker, also these conflicts? Has he not created them? Whatever the level, is the thinker separate from his thoughts? The thinker is the creator of opposing urges, assuming different roles at different times according to his pleasure and pain. To comprehend himself the thinker must come upon himself through his many aspects. A tree is not just the flower and the fruit but is the total process. Similarly to understand myself I must without identification and choice be aware of the total process that is the me.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Wed, 06 Mar 2019 #340
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2585 posts in this forum Offline

Thanks Clive for the above excerpts. Never saw those before. No comment at the moment as it's late here and about time to close down. What could I possibly add to that anyway?! Wow!

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 06 Mar 2019 #341
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5030 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
So we are back to the question, what does it mean to understand this endless, ever-changing flow?

I venture to say that an entity, by which I mean something static, unchanging in the mind, cannot possibly understand that is which is always changing - as the mind does.

I see a contradiction in the above sentence. There IS no static entity in the mind, there is ONLY change, flow. So it is meaningless to say "I understand" - there is no I. The I has been created by the mind to give the pretence of something non-changing. Sorry if I keep repeating this, but it is such an active realisation in this mind.

All an (imaginary) entity can do is draw conclusions, accumulate knowledge, and this process is not understanding, is it?

So I am asking myself again, what does it mean to 'understand' a process that is ever-changing, continually flowing? Various answers come, but none are accepted.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 07 Mar 2019 #342
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1261 posts in this forum Offline

Clive is there anything in this insight (?) that I posted on the other forum that relates to what you are saying?

In the sense, (of being 'conditioned') each one of us has a totally 'unique' way of going about life. Our thoughts and feelings are a unique patterning composed by the experiences, beliefs, fears, joys, etc. that we have been through. If we leave it there and not judge it in any way, not depend on anyone's word for 'what' it is, or 'what' it should be, then there is, I think, the possibility to 'know oneself'... but only when (if) there is this "passion" to listen. It must be a passion without a goal, without an aim, just to hear, to 'listen'. When I am attentively listening to a piece of music by Bach for example, I realize that each note/chord reaches my ear in the immediate present and then the intervals/spaces... all are separate from one another... but then memory binds together the present and past, and an 'effect' of 'beauty' is created. Likewise with this passion to follow ones thinking, this pure state of 'listening' has no motive, no judgement, no demand,: it listens to the unfolding 'composition' of thoughts as they arise in the moment, with no effort... And when in relationship to 'others', it 'can' listen in the same way, no matter how 'discordant' it sounds...but only if (and when) there is this pure passion to just 'hear'... as I am seeing it.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Thu, 07 Mar 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 07 Mar 2019 #343
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5030 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
In the sense, (of being 'conditioned') each one of us has a totally 'unique' way of going about life. Our thoughts and feelings are a unique patterning composed by the experiences, beliefs, fears, joys, etc. that we have been through.

I note that you put the word ‘unique’ in quotation marks, which I understand, because I am not sure if some particular blend of conditionings constitute uniqueness. Each one of those conditions is probably shared others, is it not?

“Unique” is very much an absolute sort of word. It means there is nothing, but nothing, similar to it.

Dan McDermott wrote:
If we leave it there and not judge it in any way, not depend on anyone's word for 'what' it is, or 'what' it should be, then there is, I think, the possibility to 'know oneself'... but only when (if) there is this "passion" to listen. It must be a passion without a goal, without an aim, just to hear, to 'listen'. When I am attentively listening to a piece of music by Bach for example, I realize that each note/chord reaches my ear in the immediate present and then the intervals/spaces... all are separate from one another... but then memory binds together the present and past, and an 'effect' of 'beauty' is created. Likewise with this passion to follow ones thinking, this pure state of 'listening' has no motive, no judgement, no demand

It is very hard, if not impossible, for the mind to act without motive, isn’t it? It is so conditioned into reward and punishment. When will it do so? Two answers present themselves: when it sees that it is the right thing to do. The only thing to do. The other is when it acts in love. Perhaps the two are not dissimilar.

it listens to the unfolding 'composition' of thoughts as they arise in the moment, with no effort... And when in relationship to 'others', it 'can' listen in the same way, no matter how 'discordant' it sounds...but only if (and when) there is this pure passion to just 'hear'... as I am seeing it.

What do you see that brings about this pure passion, Dan? Or is that entirely a wrong question?

Sorry if I have picked what you said to pieces. The important thing is that there IS a passion to understand oneself, above all other things. Something that never fades.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 08 Mar 2019 #344
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2585 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
It is very hard, if not impossible, for the mind to act without motive, isn’t it? It is so conditioned into reward and punishment. When will it do so? Two answers present themselves: when it sees that it is the right thing to do. The only thing to do. The other is when it acts in love. Perhaps the two are not dissimilar.

I'm not sure one can be rid of the mind's conditioning so easily. Perhaps only by seeing the danger of acting from that...from conditioned motive. The way you phrased it above does't seem correct, for some reason. When one sees that fire burns, there's no motive involved in staying away. Perhaps it's the same when one sees the danger of our usual manner of functioning/acting. It's not a matter of seeing what's 'right' but of seeing what's false.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 08 Mar 2019 #345
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5030 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
I'm not sure one can be rid of the mind's conditioning so easily.

That is not quite what I was saying, I think. I was asking about acting without motive. But of course motive is a form of conditioning.

Well, I am sure that it is not easy to rid the mind of conditioning! Especially living in a world which firmly based on conditioning the inhabitants, politically, so-called religiously, socially, economically. Education is basically a machine to condition children to accept and fit into society. To accept authority. And although some schools may talk of encouraging independent thinkers, they don't really mean that, or do it. Well, very very few.

Tom Paine wrote:
It's not a matter of seeing what's 'right' but of seeing what's false.

I wonder if we are using the word "right" in the same way, Tom? I certainly agree we need to see what is false, and the mind IS capable of that. Is it not seeing the false that leads one, inexorably, to "the only thing to do", the other phrase that I used for "the right thing to do". I was not talking moralistically. A place of no choice, and so not based on conditioning.

Hmm. 'Seeing' (what is false) is free of conditioning, isn't it? That is why it is so important.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 09 Mar 2019 #346
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2585 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:

I'm not sure one can be rid of the mind's conditioning so easily.

Clive: That is not quite what I was saying, I think. I was asking about acting without motive. But of course motive is a form of conditioning.

Well, I am sure that it is not easy to rid the mind of conditioning!

I should have left the ‘so’ out of the first sentence above. That’s really what I meant to say.

Wanted to reply further but I can’t do a double quote on my iPad. The website is still not working well with iOS. I don’t have my Windows laptop out that often due to back problems. Using my iPad is easier on my back. Will return to the rest of your post later time permitting.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 09 Mar 2019 #347
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1261 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
“Unique” is very much an absolute sort of word. It means there is nothing, but nothing, similar to it.

Yes that's how I see it regarding the experiences that constitute the 'me' the 'I'...'unique' like snowflakes, no two alike but all still, snowflakes.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 10 Mar 2019 #348
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5030 posts in this forum Offline

This is not a reply to any particular mail, rather a question that is with me so much of the time.

Can thought realise its own transience. Not ME realising it ABOUT thought, but thought realising it itself. After all, this transience, impermanence, is the fact.

If it realises it - I know K frowned upon sentences beginning “if”, as being speculative but I will carry on – if thought realises (makes real) its own impermanence, then so much of what thought does now, or attempts to do, becomes impossible. I mean so much illusion must end. The idea of a permanent self being one of those illusions..

More generally, I am asking how to live in the perpetual movement which is the mind? In a way this is a silly question, because that is exactly what we do all the time anyway. But we don’t think this is the case. We continue to think, to assume, the existence of a static entity, and static things.

This is written in a bit of a hurry, and it may be incomprehensible, sorry.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 10 Mar 2019 #349
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1261 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Can thought realise its own transience. Not ME realising it ABOUT thought, but thought realising it itself. After all, this transience, impermanence, is the fact.

Your question is posed by the 'thinker' isn't it: "Since the 'fact' is that 'I' don't really exist, why does thought keep on creating me?" The question itself brings the 'I' into existence! No?

It also creates psychological 'time': "thought is doing this now creating the duality thinker/thought, when is it going to stop?"...

Later:

There has to be a 'state of inquiry' that is possible that doesn't 'want' any result, right? Any desire at all no matter how subtle is 'time', isn't it? Just to see our 'conditioned' situation without any desire to change it. Or as you put it, for thought to understand its limitation and to cease its action of creating the duality of thinker separate from thought...not because that ending is desirable but because the 'efficacy' (security) of that action is seen through as illusory. Its action is divisive and that division of a 'me' separate from 'you' has created the bloody path mankind has been walking.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Mon, 11 Mar 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 11 Mar 2019 #350
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5030 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Your question is posed by the 'thinker' isn't it: "Since the 'fact' is that 'I' don't really exist, why does thought keep on creating me?" The question itself brings the 'I' into existence! No?

It also creates psychological 'time': "thought is doing this now creating the duality thinker/thought, when is it going to stop?"...

I’m not sure that I’m seeing the significance of your question, Dan. Are you saying that the question is not valid? That it carries some assumption? There was no "how", no looking for a method, implied in my question.

“Since the 'fact' is that 'I' don't really exist, why does thought keep on creating me?”

Fundamentally, I don’t have an answer to this question, Dan. Thought is obviously seeking security, which it interprets as ‘permanence’ or continuity, but in the face of all the contradiction inherent in this pursuit, why does it persist? Is it because the self has come to regard itself as a living thing, and its ending is a sort of death? All living things try to avoid death.

Can thought realise its own transience, I asked. Let me put it this way: can thought function in the full awareness of it actually is? Because it seems to me the way it functions now is on a false basis – a basis I am sure you know all to well, the basis that there is a permanent entity involved in the thought process.

I was not asking for a method to follow to achieve this ‘aim’. It cannot be an aim, an objective, of course. I don’t know the answer the question, since thought generally DOESN’T function in such awareness, at least fully. But there are intimations that thought would be a very different creature if it did function knowing what it truly is.

You suggest, Dan that the question itself brings the I into existence. Not sure about this. Attempting to find an answer in thought does this. As I experience it, the question produces a sort of state of open questioning, a state of not knowing.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 11 Mar 2019 #351
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1261 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
I’m not sure that I’m seeing the significance of your question, Dan. Are you saying that the question is not valid? That it carries some assumption? There was no "how", no looking for a method, implied in my question.

Not for you but seeing the same question is what I put to myself...that's why I put it in different words, in my words. Questioning the "validity" of it, yes. Is there desire in it? Is there 'want' in it? Will it take 'time'?

Clive Elwell wrote:
Is it because the self has come to regard itself as a living thing, and its ending is a sort of death?

And what comes to mind on reading this is: " Is it because I regard myself as a living thing and my ending is a sort of death?" I think the answer to the question phrased this way then is: "of course". That is to me why all this is such a radical view that only insight it seems, can illuminate the situation; I can talk, think, ponder on the 'self', 'it's conditioning, etc. but there is not the 'understanding' that that is what I am...and that that 'me' has no existence. Is there 'desire' in 'wanting' that understanding? Has 'time' been introduced: There is not the understanding 'now' but maybe there 'will' be...in the 'future'?...The deeper one goes in this it seems the more confusion there is! So forgive me if my posts seem in any way judgmental to you, I intend none of that. Only to explore.

K. "This process has been going on for thousands upon thousands of years and thought seems not to realize its own activity. So one asks:can thought ever be aware of itself - aware of what it is doing? There is no thinker apart from thought; thought has made the thinker, the experiencer, the analyser. The thinker, the one who is watching, the one who acts, is the past, with all the inheritance of man, genetically, biologically - the traditions, the habits and all accumulated knowledge. After all, the past is knowledge, and the thinker is not separate from the past. Thought has created the past, thought is the past; then thought divides the thinker and the thought, which the thinker must shape, control. But that is a fallacy; there is only thought. The self is the 'me', the past. Imagination may project the future but it is still the activity of thought."

Ojai CA Sat. Apr 26 1983

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Tue, 12 Mar 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 12 Mar 2019 #352
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5030 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
So forgive me if my posts seem in any way judgmental to you, I intend none of that. Only to explore.

Please feel free to explore in any way that seems useful or relevant, Dan. Surely we are here to challenge each other.

Dan McDermott wrote:
I can talk, think, ponder on the 'self', 'it's conditioning, etc. but there is not the 'understanding' that that is what I am...

Yes. I think Mina said recently: thought can only think ABOUT things, including about itself. It cannot BE.

Dan McDermott wrote:
and that that 'me' has no existence

And this is the utterly radical perspective that K gives, a perspective that wipes away at any moment anything we think to be true. And in this is the perfume of freedom, it seems to me.

Dan McDermott wrote:
Is there 'desire' in 'wanting' that understanding? Has 'time' been introduced: There is not the understanding 'now' but maybe there 'will' be...in the 'future'?...The deeper one goes in this it seems the more confusion there is!

Yes, I feel this to be so. I don't suppose that I actually AM more confused than before, but one perceives and feels it more acutely, more intensely.

This very much connects with what I have been trying to express about impermanence, transience.

It is the mind that has assumed a position, that has experienced and says "I know", that wants to be different - it is only such a mind that creates self-contradiction and therefore confusion. - K

and he says:

"What you are is not static; it is moving, changing all the time. It is never a permanent state, and in the perception of that impermanency, there is no contradiction"

The emphasis is mine. This is exactly what I have been trying to express.

The K quotes are from talk 5 Delhi 1959

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 16 Mar 2019 #353
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5030 posts in this forum Offline

I suppose most of you will have heard of the mass shooting here in NZ yesterday. 49 people killed in two mosques, many more injured. I listed to the news quite a lot yesterday, including comments, analysis by politicians and professional analysts, and comments from “the man in the street”. The comments were predictable, the usual perceptions. Of course there is a great deal of shock, but I wonder if any fundamental questions will be asked after the incident?

If people were truly serious to stop such happenings, wouldn’t they start immediately to uncondition themselves and their children?

They won’t of course. They will continue in the myth that there can be harmony, peace in society when people separate themselves by holding on to different beliefs. I call that a myth, people are welcome to question that. But surely if I hold on to some ideal, some ideology, some ‘faith’, some religious belief, political party, any conclusion in fact, am I not actively bringing about division between people? And as K says, where there is division there is conflict. That is a law.

There are “faith-based” schools all over the world, all aimed at conditioning children’s minds in particular ways. This is actually encouraged by many governments, and generally seen as a good thing, a moral thing. God knows how this is rationalised, it is beyond me. Can one belong to one group and not, at heart, not be against other groups? It is this belonging that is destroying human beings – not what is belonged to.

Sorry, feeling too emotional to write coherently. But feeling that the real tragedy lies not in any particular incident, but in people's lack of understanding of themselves.

This post was last updated by Clive Elwell Sat, 16 Mar 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 16 Mar 2019 #354
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1261 posts in this forum Offline

The first division started millions of years ago and we have inherited it. It is the division of 'me' as the thinker, observer, separate from, what is thought and what is observed. That separation, difference, division is projected outward as'I' am separate, different than 'you'. It is an illusion. Something that must be seen through. Or there will only be more of this.

What is the relation of 'Intelligence' to belief? Is belief the absence of Intelligence? That where there is belief, Intelligence is not?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sat, 16 Mar 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 16 Mar 2019 #355
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5030 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
The first division started millions of years ago and we have inherited it. It is the division of 'me' as the thinker, observer, separate from, what is thought and what is observed.

In all honesty I cannot talk about “millions of years ago”, but what you say seems very likely. What I can see with certainty is the division, this controller/controled, etc, acting NOW in this consciousness. Sometimes mildly, sometimes extremely intensely, but it is always acting. There are two factors that I see at the moment – firstly that this division is the source of intense conflict. A few weeks ago on the forum I asked what was the actual nature of psychological pain. Is this not it?

And division/conflict seems to be getting worse, both in individual conscousness’s, and in its projection in society.

The second factor is that the division is, as you say, illusory. Of course it is THERE, working, but it is based on a false premise, which is the existence of the ‘me’ as a separate, permanent entity.

And a third factor now comes to mind. This illusion is terribly, terribly, destructive. It may well destroy the whole human race, and most life on earth.

And the fourth factor is, as I said, that it is not generally understood, hardly at all. In fact it is terribly respectable.

It seems futile to ask questions like “what to do about it?”, as this very division, actor and acted upon, IS the attempt to do something about the state of the mind.

Dan McDermott wrote:
That separation, difference, division is projected outward as 'I' am separate, different than 'you'.

Perhaps I do not see this quite as clearly.

Dan McDermott wrote:
What is the relation of 'Intelligence' to belief? Is belief the absence of Intelligence? That where there is belief, Intelligence is not?

Surely.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 16 Mar 2019 #356
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5030 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
The first division started millions of years ago and we have inherited it. It is the division of 'me' as the thinker, observer, separate from, what is thought and what is observed.

In all honesty I cannot talk about “millions of years ago”, but what you say seems very likely. What I can see with certainty is the division, this controller/controled, etc, acting NOW in this consciousness. Sometimes mildly, sometimes extremely intensely, but it is always acting. There are two factors that I see at the moment – firstly that this division is the source of intense conflict. A few weeks ago on the forum I asked what was the actual nature of psychological pain. Is this not it?

And division/conflict seems to be getting worse, both in individual conscousness’s, and in its projection in society.

The second factor is that the division is, as you say, illusory. Of course it is THERE, working, but it is based on a false premise, which is the existence of the ‘me’ as a separate, permanent entity.

And a third factor now comes to mind. This illusion is terribly, terribly, destructive. It may well destroy the whole human race, and most life on earth.

And the fourth factor is, as I said, that it is not generally understood, hardly at all. In fact it is terribly respectable.

It seems futile to ask questions like “what to do about it?”, as this very division, actor and acted upon, IS the attempt to do something about the state of the mind.

Dan McDermott wrote:
That separation, difference, division is projected outward as 'I' am separate, different than 'you'.

Perhaps I do not see this quite as clearly.

Dan McDermott wrote:
What is the relation of 'Intelligence' to belief? Is belief the absence of Intelligence? That where there is belief, Intelligence is not?

Surely.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 17 Mar 2019 #357
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1261 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Dan: That separation, difference, division is projected outward as 'I' am separate, different than 'you'.

What I was trying to express was that the 'division' takes place in the mind when the thinker separates from thought. That is when the individual 'I'/me is born, the 'stranger in a strange land'. Then I have to, because of fear and the impending sense of loneliness, to accumulate and attach myself to that which can protect me against this potential brutal, 'alien' world...but it all starts there in that false sense of myself as an 'individual', alone. And not being aware of my 'true' connection as a human with other humans, I pursue beliefs that give a sense of security, of 'belonging', of safety, that can take very bizarre forms. Deadly forms as we have just recently seen....

I can't change any of what is going on now in the world. But I can see the source of it in myself... that seems like the 'right' thing to do.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 17 Mar 2019 #358
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 810 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
I pursue beliefs that give a sense of security, of 'belonging', of safety, that can take very bizarre forms. Deadly forms as we have just recently seen....

But what about the deadly forms we don't pursue like those 1.35 million people dying because of traffic accidents, those millions of children dying of hunger ?
Are we aware of them every living day or just keep them out of our minds to live in peace ?

That's also the tragedy of living in this created world full of dangers.

Truth will unfold itself to those who enquire their own actions.

This post was last updated by Wim Opdam Sun, 17 Mar 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 17 Mar 2019 #359
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1261 posts in this forum Offline

Do 'beliefs' or 'causes', even 'just' ones, have any proper place in our minds? Or are they attributes of this 'illusory' self? Not capable of a true compassion or love or intelligence the self attaches itself to beliefs and causes to give itself 'meaning', a 'reason' for living...and by holding onto these static attachments blocks the possibility of realizing what might lie beyond them.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 17 Mar 2019 #360
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5030 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
What I was trying to express was that the 'division' takes place in the mind when the thinker separates from thought. That is when the individual 'I'/me is born, the 'stranger in a strange land'. Then I have to, because of fear and the impending sense of loneliness, to accumulate and attach myself to that which can protect me against this potential brutal, 'alien' world...but it all starts there in that false sense of myself as an 'individual', alone. And not being aware of my 'true' connection as a human with other humans, I pursue beliefs that give a sense of security, of 'belonging', of safety, that can take very bizarre forms. Deadly forms as we have just recently seen....

I can't change any of what is going on now in the world. But I can see the source of it in myself... that seems like the 'right' thing to do.

Thank you Dan, that is a very helpful description. It leads me to ask, can I watch - can there be watching - of the birth of this raw self, instead of the instantaneous escape that seems to take place.

But this question now comes....... can a self exist 'on its own'? I mean without being identified with something. Or can the self ONLY exist through identification with something?

After all, I think we are agreed that the self has no separate, independent existence?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 331 - 360 of 720 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.)