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

All one inquiry


Displaying posts 331 - 338 of 338 in total
Fri, 08 Feb 2019 #331
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4831 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 799 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 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, 08 Feb 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 09 Feb 2019 #333
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4831 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 4831 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 799 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 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  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Tue, 12 Feb 2019 #336
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4831 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 799 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 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  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Tue, 19 Feb 2019 #338
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4831 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
Displaying posts 331 - 338 of 338 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.)