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

All one inquiry


Displaying posts 451 - 480 of 720 in total
Wed, 10 Apr 2019 #451
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2585 posts in this forum Offline

K has said there is no other factor here other than thought itself, that can do it. And thought has not done it because it has created this situation and it wants to continue it,

K really said that...that thought “can do it”? I would question that he said that, but perhaps you have a citation? K said that thought divides. That very division is preventing insight or truth, isn’t it?

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 10 Apr 2019 #452
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5030 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
it has not gotten past the belief that it is an 'individual' which it seems to me, lies at the root of our 'human problem'.

I have been meaning to raise this issue for some time. It seems to be something we have left out of our discussions lately, something vital.

What do you - anyone - think of the following explanation? I quote, but not from K

Thought in its very nature is short-lived. So every time a thought is born, you are born. But you have added to that the constant demand to experience the same things over and over again, thus giving a false continuity to thought. To experience anything you need knowledge. Knowledge is the entire heritage of man's thoughts, feelings, and experiences, handed on from generation to generation. Just as we all breathe from a common fund of air, we appropriate and use thoughts from the surrounding thought-sphere to function in this world. That's all there is to it. Man's insistence that thought must be continuous denies the nature of thought, which is short-lived.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 10 Apr 2019 #453
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5030 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
When I'm observing myself, thought and emotion and psychological knowledge is present...

What do you mean by "present", Tom? Present as the observed, or as the observer?

Tom Paine wrote:
It's true that it cannot be seen by thought,

If it cannot be seen by thought, how come we are can talk about it? What has bought the idea that thought is limited into consciousness, into the mind? Is it just that K has said it? Or do we see it for ourselves? And if that is the case, what does it mean, "to see it"?

Is it merely to think about it? I feel that I see it, that in the course of inquiry and self observation it appears like a brick wall. It says "thought cannot go any further". It is related to the perception that the thinker is the thought. It is contained in the realisation of the nature of thought, that thought, as we have said, is not reality, is not truth.

So I too would question that "thought can do it", and I await some citations. It seems to me that it is only pure perception that brings about change

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 10 Apr 2019 #454
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1261 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
K really said that...that thought “can do it”? I would question that he said that, but perhaps you have a citation? K said that thought divides. That very division is preventing insight or truth, isn’t it?

Thought divides, it writes symphonies, builds cathedrals, comes and goes in outer space , creates us as the 'thinker', writes poetry, posts on Kinfonet, and K. has said that thought must 'become aware of itself'...that that is the only way it could take its 'rightful' place, which is not in the psyche. Thought is 'self-centered' as a means of protection, it considers itself to be an individual. It is not...thought is universal isn't it?

Insight can act upon thought and through it thought can see what is false: nationalism, organized religion, rituals, etc. and 'drop' them without effort. Thought is time...does it see that? Can it 'cease' to bring that element of time into the psyche? Thought created the 'me', the 'thinker' apart from itself, can it see that it has done that? Can it let the 'self' die without effort?

Bohm has said that when Intelligence is present, thought can function "parallel" (resonate?) to it... 'parallel' is I think the word he used, but Intelligence can't directly change or act upon thought. Thought is material, Intelligence, Love, Compassion seem all to be of a different 'dimension'?

Krishnamurti to Himself | Ojai California Saturday 23rd April, 1983:

Can thought be aware of its own movement? Can thought see itself, see what it is doing, both in the outer and the inner? There is really no outer and inner: the inner creates the outer, and the outer then shapes the inner. This ebb and flow of action and reaction is the movement of thought, and thought is always trying to overcome the outer, and succeeds, bringing about many problems; in solving one problem other problems arise. Thought has also shaped the inner, moulded it according to the outer demands. This seemingly endless process has created this society, ugly, cruel, immoral and violent. And having created it, the inner becomes a slave to it. The outer shapes the inner and the inner shapes the outer.

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, California | 6th Public Talk 30th June, 1940:

Thought cannot escape from its limited action and reaction until it understands deeply and fully the cause and the process of its own bondage.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Thu, 11 Apr 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 12 Apr 2019 #455
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5030 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
and K. has said that thought must 'become aware of itself'...that that is the only way it could take its 'rightful' place, which is not in the psyche.

I don't want to nit-pick, and I may be playing the devil's advocate somewhat - but if thought is the response of memory, how can it be "aware of itself"? Thought is the past; how can the past be aware? Can something mechanical be aware of itself? I really don't know. Is K saying rather than the illusion that "I" am aware of "thought", with the separation that implies and entails, the division, can thought be directly aware of itself?

What does that mean? Isn't awareness distinct from thought? Is it that first awareness happens, and then that awareness somehow informs, enthuses, thought? is this what you mean, Dan, when you say:

Insight can act upon thought and through it thought can see what is false

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 12 Apr 2019 #456
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5030 posts in this forum Offline

K: “You cannot `get rid' of it. Sorrow is something that has to be embraced, lived with, understood; one has to become intimate with sorrow. But you are not intimate with sorrow, are you? You may say, "I know sorrow; but do you? Have you lived with it? Or, having felt sorrow, have you run away from it? Actually, you don't know sorrow. The running away is what you know. You know only the escape from sorrow.”

I was greatly struck by this. It was instantly seen as true, and I felt I had never really felt the truth of it before. Yet it is so simple.

And late in this talk:

“Death is the unknown, as sorrow is. You really do not know sorrow; you do not know its depth, its extraordinary vitality. You know the reaction to sorrow, but not the action of sorrow. You know the reaction to death, but not the action of death, what it implies; you don't know whether it is ugly or beautiful. But to know the nature, the depth, the beauty and loveliness of death and sorrow, is the ending of death and sorrow.”

It really is extraordinary to face this. I only know the reaction to sorrow/death, I do not know the thing itself. The reaction is all I have ever known – and I have always taken it for “the real thing”

So is the reaction to what is actually the escape from is? It seems so – and then the only question is, can I cease to escape?

Not to offer any reward, but K goes on to say: “The ending of sorrow lies in facing the totality of sorrow, which is to perceive what sorrow is”.

K ends the talk:

“You see the benediction comes only when the mind is in a state of non-reaction. It is a benediction to know death, because death is the unknown. Without understanding death, you may spend your life searching for the unknown, and you will never find it. It is like love, which you do not know. You do not know what love is, you do not know what truth is. But love is not to be sought; truth is not to be sought. When you seek truth, it is a reaction, an escape from the fact. Truth is in what is, not in the reaction to what is.”

I really recommend you to the whole talk, which was in Bombay, 1960, talk 6 on Sorrow.

http://jiddu-krishnamurti.net/en/1960/1960-01-1...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 12 Apr 2019 #457
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5030 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Thought divides, it writes symphonies, builds cathedrals, comes and goes in outer space , creates us as the 'thinker', writes poetry, posts on Kinfonet, and K. has said that thought must 'become aware of itself'...that that is the only way it could take its 'rightful' place, which is not in the psyche. Thought is 'self-centered' as a means of protection, it considers itself to be an individual. It is not...thought is universal isn't it?

Reading this mail, I did get a sense of thought as "one thing". One entity. Or I saw that possibility. Is this what you meant by "universal", Dan. But of course it is, or has become, fragmented.There is "my thought", "your thought", "his thought", billions of individual's thoughts. Clearly it has been this way for many thousands of years. But does it have to be this way? Is this fragmentation intrinsic to thought? Obviously the human situation would be more harmonious, more rational, if thought was "universal".

This (concept of a) unfragmented state would imply the dying of the self, as you mentioned, Dan.

Dan McDermott wrote:
K: Thought cannot escape from its limited action and reaction until it understands deeply and fully the cause and the process of its own bondage.

I presume the emphsis is yours, Dan, on the "until it understands deeply and fully"

What I am trying to understand, to see, is the relationship between seeing/understanding, and thought. Seeing does happen, there is at times spontaneous insight. Is this IN thought, or is it an independent process, which may be reflected in thought?

Coming at another way, would you agree, Dan, that we are either conscious or unconsious of thought?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 13 Apr 2019 #458
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1261 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
I presume the emphasis is yours, Dan, on the "until it understands deeply and fully"

Yes and with an extra emphasis on his use of the word 'it'...only thought itself can understand itself...and that understanding must be "full and deep". As he said somewhere else which struck me strongly: there is no other "factor". So thought seeing how it operates is the only way such an understanding can come about. Which means thought being 'aware' of itself as it manifests. Seems here to be the only thing of any importance psychologically. The 'thinker' (you,me) is not the 'instrument' by which this deep and full understanding could come about. 'We' (the 'thinker') can discuss what is seen, 'understood' etc.and I think we should, but the thinker (you,me) is always the observer, always the analyser, always the experiencer, etc. but it's really all, always, only thought.

I think maybe one of the most important things for thought to realize is that the image of a 'thinker' that it creates is not an individual in the sense that all 'thinkers' arise and are maintained, and 'updated' by the same process called 'image-making'. The thinker or self-image is given a name and is made up of unique past experiences that are registered in memory. This image goes out into the world to compete against other images. But other than those differences, and different talents, physical attributes, and aptitudes, the 'thinker' image as an entity separate from thought itself, as K. pointed out, is a "trick". It doesn't 'exist'. Can thought realize this? Deeply, fully? And discover its own reasons/fears for maintaining the illusion of 'individuality', the self-image?

Isn't thought's 'belief' about being an individual the basis for the fear of being 'alone', loneliness, the search for security... and doesn't this belief engender the desire to attach itself to others, countries, traditions, family, extravagant wealth and possessions, organized religions, beliefs in a 'hereafter', beliefs in general? Isn't it this false image that gets 'hurt' from childhood?

From QOTD K. in 1936: (bold mine)

"Explanations are merely so much dust in the eyes. If you take even one of the ideas which I have put forward, and become aware of its full significance, you are then beginning to release creative intelligence".

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sat, 13 Apr 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 13 Apr 2019 #459
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5030 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
'deleted'

I see you have deleted a post, Dan, a post which I had replied to in my mind.

I had written: "Do you agree that we are either conscious or unconscious of thought?", and you had replied "We ARE thought".

Quite right, and as soon as I had written those words the error of them came to me. But I let it stand, to see what would come of it.

So I will rephrase the question: Do you agree Dan, that there is unconscious thought or conscious thought? But the word "conscious" might be mis-interpreted. Hmm, this needs further investigation. I will try this was: Is there not thought which is unaware of itself, and thought that is aware of itself?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 13 Apr 2019 #460
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5030 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
only thought itself can understand itself

I have been looking intently at this. "Understanding" means understanding its very nature, doesn't it? Understanding its own limitations? it has nothing to do "explanations", does it?, because explanations are part of the limitation. Is it anything to do with knowledge at all, in fact?

Is it a reasonable question to ask "what is the mechanism by which thought understands itself?"? That is my no means clear, given that thought is some sort of movement in the brain cells, a material process as K insists upon. Given that thought is a mechanical response to memory, how does it "understand itself"?

And is the understanding of itself in any sense an accumulative process? Seems to me we (thought) can accumulate forever, and never really understand.

I will return to the rest of your mail later, perhaps.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 14 Apr 2019 #461
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1261 posts in this forum Offline

The challenge here Clive as I understand it is that 'thought/time' must stop. Thought/time must cease. There is no 'outside' force that can bring that about. Only 'understanding'. Understanding that what it has done for thousands of years, is 'misplaced', in error, a "wrong turning"...the evolved, complex, human brain released from the constraints of 'instinct' was a freedom and for whatever reason it went wrong. (Bohm said I recall, that we took a wrong turn because we could!) And now we are mired in hatred, confusion and violence. K. has said that what we are in fact is "nothing" (not-a-thing). That does not sit well with thought which has created a self that has to be protected and enhanced at all costs (k.'s "me and mine")... it can't be just 'abandoned'. But thought has yet to realize that it has occupied a place in the brain where it does not belong. it has imported the linear time of past present and future into a realm where it corrupts and distorts and paints a false picture of the 'what is', the immediate now. It must come to a stop if humanity is to have a chance to survive. (As seen here at this 'time')

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 14 Apr 2019 #462
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1261 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Is there not thought which is unaware of itself, and thought that is aware of itself?

Thought can become aware at any moment, it seems to me, but almost always operates without awareness of what it is doing. If you go deeply into it, the question arises: "why is it that psychological thought seemingly can't stop, can't be silent?" It is an interesting moment. Since any response by thought to that question is the movement (formulation) of thought. As is any description of that moment...Could you say that thought is a 'gatherer' attempting to 'hold on' to what is seen? Rather than to allow by its non-movement (non-formulation) 'what is' to simply unfold, Thought ignores 'what is' and with 'time' attempts get to 'what is not'? It's not very clear. This example occurred to me as a result of a dream: I am walking somewhere and going down walled tunnels and reaching a destination atop a structure, then I try to find my way back out... I am lost and there is a certain amount of anxiety and then I awake. In answer to your question above Clive, why does thought have a feeling of anxiety if it has no actual destination? Why does it not take in the immediate surroundings with any 'interest'? It seems obsessed with 'getting back', finding the right way out. etc. There is no 'awareness' that it is 'dreaming'. Is it that psychological thought always has a 'motive', an objective, projects a future, whereas 'life' has none of those things, it just is?

K." Our thought is the result of the past and without understanding its conditioning it cannot go beyond itself. Thought-feeling becomes a slave to its own creation, to its own power of illusion if it is unaware of its own ways. Only when thought ceases to formulate can there be creation."

Ojai, CA 10th Pub.Talk 1945

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sun, 14 Apr 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 14 Apr 2019 #463
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5030 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
The challenge here Clive as I understand it is that 'thought/time' must stop.

But thought cannot stop. Without thought we would be helpless, catatonic, unable to survive, to feed ourselves ......

Psychological thought must stop - but perhaps this is what you meant by "thought/time"? But we do need time also, we could not function in this world without it. I refer to chronological time, of course.

So perhaps the question is: "Can thought find its right place?". Is this a real problem, the necessity for thought to discover where it needs to act, and where it is destructive to act? HOW does it discover this?

Dan McDermott wrote:
But thought has yet to realize that it has occupied a place in the brain where it does not belong.

But we do realise this, don't we? We discuss it a lot. Thought is continually coming to the point where it sees it cannot sanely act, where to act, to continue, is completely inappropriate, without any meaning?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 14 Apr 2019 #464
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5030 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Thought can become aware at any moment, it seems to me,

You see, I tend to think that this awareness is "another factor", whereas you (and K) say there is no other factor involved. Not saying that I am right.

Dan McDermott wrote:
In answer to your question above Clive, why does thought have a feeling of anxiety if it has no actual destination? Why does it not take in the immediate surroundings with any 'interest'? It seems obsessed with 'getting back', finding the right way out. etc. There is no 'awareness' that it is 'dreaming'.

Yes, this is how thought is all right, Dan. Seems to me its anxiety arises (at least in large part) from the fact it is mostly in a state of choosing. Fundamentally, try to choose what will make it secure (individually). Trying to judge what is true, what is right, Such mental activity is, of course, based on the concept that thought is reality, as we have discussed.

Also, it came to me very strongly recently, the whole raison d'etre of the thought - why it acts the way it is does - it to make the brain feel good. Good or better. It just wants that sensation, and is continually trying to achieve that. This means it can never, or hardly ever, take rational decisions, decisions for the benefit of the human race. each brain is just concerned with feeling "good".

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 16 Apr 2019 #465
Thumb_open-uri20151228-18124-1kyi3s7-0 Jose Roberto Moreira Brazil 62 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
So is the reaction to what is actually the escape from is? It seems so – and then the only question is, can I cease to escape?

Clive, very impressive indeed what K said about sorrow. But maybe the question is WHY do we escape? Why do we think that escaping will prevent sorrow and not the opposite, breed more suffering?

It seems that our mind makes an image of itself facing sorrow and feeling sorrow. For example, if think of something frightening that might happen in the future, then I create an image, like an actor, that will "move" into the future and live the experience of facing the frightening thing.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 17 Apr 2019 #466
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5030 posts in this forum Offline

Jose Roberto Moreira wrote:
Clive, very impressive indeed what K said about sorrow. But maybe the question is WHY do we escape? Why do we think that escaping will prevent sorrow and not the opposite, breed more suffering?

Hi Jose, good to hear from you again. Yes, it would be good to go into the whole issue of sorrow. We may have done so before on the forum, and off it, but if it is still with us - and I am sure it is - that seems an indication we need to go deeper.

Immediately upon reading your question "Why do we escape" the mind started to try to answer it. various possible replies came to mind, all of them reasonable. But suddenly something else came, a realisation, perhaps, that all such answers come from knowledge. And knowledge, which is basically thought, isn't it?, cannot solve the problems. I am not saying that I am right, but this is what came.

As Dan posted from K recently: "Explanations are so much dust in the eye".

And yet we have to look at sorrow. We have to inquire into it. More and more I see that everyone is mired in sorrow. It is like some epidemic, and figures on depression and mental illness bear this out. Just about everyone I know has some sort of great sorrow, and/or is intimately connected to someone else who is. I have a feeling that it is overwhelming the world.

As K said, sorrow is the common factor of mankind.

So escaping,which as you point out, is the common reaction to sorrow/suffering, does not work. I think we can take it for granted that it cannot work. You ask why the mind turns to this avenue. Is not a matter of how we are conditioned? Is that an adequate answer? Or more fundamentally, does the answer lie in something that I posted a little way above:

Also, it came to me very strongly recently, the whole raison d'etre of the thought - why it acts the way it is does - it to make the brain feel good. Good or better. It just wants that sensation, and is continually trying to achieve that. This means it can never, or hardly ever, take rational decisions, decisions for the benefit of the human race. each brain is just concerned with feeling "good".

Sorrow, or suffering, (I am not making any distinction here) definitely does not "feel good".

What do you say?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 18 Apr 2019 #467
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1261 posts in this forum Offline

I think that the question of "why" here is very important...not in the sense of analysis but in the sense of: "Wait a minute, what is actually going on here?" I have been running away from these things called 'fear, 'loneliness', 'sorrow', etc. ever since being first 'humiliated' as a child and suffering the pain of those moments. ("The child is the father of the man.") That hurt heaped upon that newly forming image of myself was 'crushing, deflating, humiliating...and there was no one there to help me to see what was going on. And those memories, remain in the brain and are ignited and burn again whenever this wall that has been built around myself is threatened. But as you brought up Clive from your reading, I don't really know what this 'humiliation', 'sorrow' is, I only know the 'running away' from it...! What is it exactly? What happens if I 'stay' with it instead of escaping? As Jose asks: "Why escape?" What is it that I've been running from and avoiding all my life? (Is it 'life' itself?)....Going into this, I was reminded of the poet:

Be thankful not for the friend's kindness, but for his treachery

So the Arrogant Beauty in you, can become a Lover that weeps.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Fri, 19 Apr 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 19 Apr 2019 #468
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5030 posts in this forum Offline

I am sure what you say is so Dan. And another factor is that like all the movements of the psyche, this movement has its roots it the biological, the physical, our animal past. Any animal caught is a trap instinctively tries to escape. Any threat to the body, and the body responds - without thought - to remove that threat, or escape from it. To escape from pain if it can. All this is the work of intelligence. But to try to escape from psychological problems does not seem to be a stratergy that works. Probably the science of psychology would agree with that, and its application with individuals does try to get him to see his problem, to face it. But I think this remains at a superficial level, it does not see the fundamental problem is the self itself.

How can one escape from the self, when the "escaper-er" is in fact the self?

Dan McDermott wrote:
What happens if I 'stay' with it instead of escaping?

Yes, this is the question. Of course it is no use speculating about the answer, one has to DO it. So what does it mean, to do it?

The following words are extracted from a dialogue betweeen K and Professor Anderson. The dialogue was actually on beauty, but you can see the extract is highly relevant to suffering and escape:

K: I don't think people are aware, or even feel this immense sorrow that is in the world. They are so concerned with their own personal sorrow, they overlook the sorrow that a poor man in a little village in India, or in China or in the Eastern world, where they never possibly have a full meal, clean clothes, comfortable bed. And there is this sorrow of thousands of people being killed in war. Or in the totalitarian world, millions being executed for ideologies, tyranny, the terror of all that. So there is all this sorrow in the world. And there is also the personal sorrow. And without really understanding it very, very deeply and resolving it, passion won't come out of sorrow. And without passion, how can you see beauty? You can intellectually appreciate a painting, or a poem, or a statue, but you need this great sense of inward bursting of passion, explosion of passion. You know, that creates in itself the sensitivity that can see beauty. So it is I think rather important to understand sorrow. I think it is related, beauty, passion, sorrow.

(cut)

But what is beauty? Must it be expressed? That's one question. Does it need the word, the stone, the colour, the paint? Or it is something that cannot possibly be expressed in words, in a building, in a statue? So if we could go into this question of what is beauty. I think to really go into it very deeply one must know what is suffering. Or understand what is suffering, because without passion you can't have beauty - passion in the sense, not lust, not ……….. the passion that comes when there is immense suffering. And the remaining with that suffering, not escaping from it, brings this passion. Passion means the abandonment, the complete abandonment of the 'me', of the self, the ego. And therefore a great austerity, not the austerity of - the word means ash, severe, dry which the religious people have made it into - but rather the austerity of great beauty.

(cut)

A great sense of dignity, beauty, that is, essentially, austere. And to be austere, not verbally or ideologically, but being austere means total abandonment, letting go of the 'me'. And one cannot let that thing take place if one hasn't deeply understood what suffering is. Because passion comes from the word, sorrow. I don't know if you have gone into it, looked into that word, the root meaning of that word passion is sorrow, from suffering.
Professor Anderson: To feel.

(cut)

K: You see, sir, let's start, right: man suffers, not only personally, but there is immense suffering of man. It is a thing that is pervading the universe. Man has suffered physically, psychologically, spiritually, in every way for centuries upon centuries. The mother cries because her son is killed, the mother cries because her husband is mutilated in a war, or accident - there is tremendous suffering in the world. And it is really a tremendous thing to be aware of this suffering.

(cut)

K: I don't think people are aware, or even feel this immense sorrow that is in the world. They are so concerned with their own personal sorrow, they overlook the sorrow that a poor man in a little village in India, or in China or in the Eastern world, where they never possibly have a full meal, clean clothes, comfortable bed. And there is this sorrow of thousands of people being killed in war. Or in the totalitarian world, millions being executed for ideologies, tyranny, the terror of all that. So there is all this sorrow in the world. And there is also the personal sorrow. And without really understanding it very, very deeply and resolving it, passion won't come out of sorrow. And without passion, how can you see beauty? You can intellectually appreciate a painting, or a poem, or a statue, but you need this great sense of inward bursting of passion, explosion of passion. You know, that creates in itself the sensitivity that can see beauty. So it is I think rather important to understand sorrow. I think it is related, beauty, passion, sorrow.

(cut)

K: You see, in the Christian world, if I am not mistaken, sorrow is delegated to a person, and through that person we somehow escape from sorrow, that is, we hope we escape from sorrow. And in the Eastern world sorrow is rationalized through the statement of karma. You know the word karma means to do. And they believe in karma. That is, what you have done in the past life you pay for in the present or reward in the present, and so on, and so on. So that there are these two categories of escapes. And there are thousands of escapes - whiskey, drugs, sex, going off to attend a mass and so on, and so on. Man has never stayed with a thing. He has always either sought comfort in a belief, in an action, in identification with something greater than himself and so on, so on, but he has never said, look, I must see what this is, I must penetrate it and not delegate it to somebody else. I must go into it, I must face it. I must look at it. I must know what it is. So, when the mind doesn't escape from this sorrow, either personal or the sorrow of man, if you don't escape, if you don't rationalize, if you don't try to go beyond it, if you are not frightened of it, then you remain with it. Because any movement from 'what is', or any movement away from 'what is', is a dissipation of energy. It prevents you actually understanding 'what is'. The 'what is', is sorrow. And we have means and ways and cunning to escape. Now if there is no escape whatsoever then you remain with it. I do not know if you have ever done it. Because in everyone's life there is an incident that brings you tremendous sorrow, an happening. It might be an incident, a word, an accident, a shattering sense of absolute loneliness, and so on. These things happen and with that comes the sense of utter sorrow. Now when the mind can remain with that, not move away from it, out of that comes passion. Not the cultivated passion, not the artificial trying to be passionate, but the movement of passion is born out of this non-withdrawal from sorrow. It is the total completely remaining with that.

(cut)

K: So, if, when there is no escape, when there is no desire to seek comfort away from 'what is', then out of that absolute inescapable reality comes this flame of passion. And without that there is no beauty. You may write endless volumes about beauty, or be a marvelous painter, but without that inward quality of passion which is the outcome of great understanding of sorrow, I don't see how beauty can exist. Also one observes man has lost touch with nature.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 19 Apr 2019 #469
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1261 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Yes, this is the question. Of course it is no use speculating about the answer, one has to DO it. So what does it mean, to do it?

Yes that was what I was posting about: the 'doing'. In big moments of sorrow and in the little ones. The staying with it, the ending of it...that is the 'flowering', that is what has been missing. You glimpsed it, I thought when you saw that it was always the 'reaction' to (escape from) suffering that you knew, never the 'suffering' or 'sorrow'.

The 'doing' is not really a 'doing' at all; it is 'not escaping' not 'moving away' from whatever is there.

I'll be taking some time away from here Clive as others obviously have.
I've appreciated your and other's thoughtful posts and look forward to communicating again in the future. Very Best.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sat, 20 Apr 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 20 Apr 2019 #470
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5030 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
I'll be taking some time away from here Clive as others obviously have.
I've appreciated your and other's thoughtful posts and look forward to communicating again in the future. Very Best.

Yes Dan, it's been deeply meaningful to discuss with you. There is a feeling that there has been great learning and movement, change, over the last 2 1/2 years the forum has been in existence.

As I have no wish - well, not much :-) - to use this space for some sort of monologue, this may be the end of "A Quiet Space".

Dan McDermott wrote:
You glimpsed it, I thought when you saw that it was always the 'reaction' to (escape from) suffering that you knew, never the 'suffering' or 'sorrow'.

Yes, it is obviously essential that the limitations ( the limitation?) of thought is continually seen, deeply realised. In conjunction with the realisation that "I am thought". As thought dies, I die.

Some final words of K. which I think throw light on a discussion we have been having above about the capacity of thought itself to understand itself:

You see that means one has to understand very deeply the structure and nature of thought. Until you do that you won't solve the problem of fear and pleasure ......... So can thought observe its own movement and can thought observe itself at all? You are following? If it observes itself it creates an entity who becomes the observer, therefore there is a division in that and therefore conflict. So can you observe fear without any movement of thought? Not control thought, not suppress thought, but to observe it without any movement of thought.

Madras 1973 T2

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 22 Apr 2019 #471
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2585 posts in this forum Offline

Clive: There is a feeling that there has been great learning and movement, change, over the last 2 1/2 years the forum has been in existence.

I feel the same Clive. The forum has been a great place to explore deeply with others passionately interested in learning about themselves. I hope it continues, though there is a surprising lack of interest for some unknown reason. I’ve talked about my own issues with back pain that make typing difficult, but I would miss the forum if it disappears. I DO read fairly often, even if my back make it difficult to participate.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 22 Apr 2019 #472
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1261 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
The forum has been a great place to explore deeply with others passionately interested in learning about themselves. I hope it continues, though there is a surprising lack of interest for some unknown reason.

Hi Tom

I just sent Clive a PM saying pretty much what you have just written.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 22 Apr 2019 #473
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2585 posts in this forum Offline

It’s surprising that Clive set up a forum free from the personal attacks that plague the general forum, and that make it so meaningless a good deal of the time, and few people are interested in getting involved. Well, I for one, am very grateful we’ve had this place for the past couple of years to explore the teachings together. Hopefully some others will join so the forum can continue.

I think Clive summed up what we’ve been exploring here very well in his post above: “Yes, it is obviously essential that the limitations ( the limitation?) of thought is continually seen, deeply realised. In conjunction with the realisation that "I am thought". As thought dies, I die.”

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Mon, 22 Apr 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 22 Apr 2019 #474
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1261 posts in this forum Offline

Clive posted this quote from K and it brought up several questions for me, maybe someone can speak about it: (bold is mine)

Clive Elwell wrote:
K.You see that means one has to understand very deeply the structure and nature of thought. Until you do that you won't solve the problem of fear and pleasure ......... So can thought observe its own movement and can thought observe itself at all? You are following? If it observes itself it creates an entity who becomes the observer, therefore there is a division in that and therefore conflict. So can you observe fear without any movement of thought? Not control thought, not suppress thought, but to observe it without any movement of thought.

Who is the "you" that K is referring to that observes fear?...is it what he has called the "state of observation". Because he is saying here isn't he, that if thought is 'observing' itself, that is the duality of observer/observed or thinker/thought...so who is the "you" (or me) that he is referring to that needs to observe fear without any movement of thought? Any ideas?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Mon, 22 Apr 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 22 Apr 2019 #475
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5030 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
d few people are interested in getting involved

Interesting to ask why so.

Is it a matter of passion?

is it a matter of not seeing the urgency of the crisis of the human mind?

Iis it that people don't have the time, or think that they don't have the time?

Is it that they are absorbed in what is called "Their own problem", and so no time for the much greater problem of humankind? - like K says in %468, we are absorbed in our own little sorrows and so there is no time for the vast human sorrow?

And the greatest absorber of time and energy is the family, I observe.

i'm afraid most of us do not have the true spirit of inquiry. Our minds have become crystalised -no, a better word is petrified. Petrified by belief - this is the great human tragedy.

However, just because someone is not participating in "A Quiet Space" does not automatically mean they are not inquiring!

I have more to say, but need to leave for a little trip I am taking, to the forest and the sea.

Thanks, Dan and Tom.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 22 Apr 2019 #476
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5030 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Who is the "you" that K is referring to that observes fear?.

Would like to come back to this - it may be the most important question ever asked on the forum

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 23 Apr 2019 #477
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1261 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Would like to come back to this

Let's.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Tue, 23 Apr 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 23 Apr 2019 #478
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1261 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Would like to come back to this

Maybe we could start with this from the QOTD:(bold mine)

Ojai, California | 3rd Talk in the Oak Grove 19th April, 1936

"If mind-heart is bound by fears, beliefs, which are so dominant, potent, overwhelming that they pervert clear perception, it is no good making great efforts to get rid of them. First you have to be conscious of them; and instead of wanting to get rid of them, find out why they exist. If you try to free yourself from them, you will unconsciously create or accept other and perhaps more subtle fears and beliefs. But when you perceive how they have come into being, through the desire for security, comfort, then that very perception will dissolve them. This requires great alertness of mind-heart."

So as I read this, first there must be consciousness (awareness?) by the "mind-heart" of the fear, belief, etc. And then there must be no reaction to want to change, suppress, what is seen. No movement by 'you' (mind-heart,thought?) to get rid of what is seen. Then out of that stillness, non-action (may?) comes about, the perception of how (why) the fear, belief came about...and when that is perceived clearly by 'you',(mind-heart?) the fear, belief will dissolve (because it is seen that it was based on misperception, the desire for 'security'?)..(as does the fear upon seeing that the 'snake' in the grass turns out to be only a rope). Here in 1936 K. seems to be saying that 'you' refers to what he calls "mind-heart' Different from the 'thinker', observer, psychological thought,but 'something' (you) that is nevertheless "bound" by fears and beliefs (and sorrow?). What is the 'you' that he is referring to? How does 'mind-heart' differ from 'self'?

If we are "nothing" (not-a-thing) how can nothing be bound by anything?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Wed, 24 Apr 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 23 Apr 2019 #479
Thumb_open-uri20151228-18124-1kyi3s7-0 Jose Roberto Moreira Brazil 62 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
So escaping,which as you point out, is the common reaction to sorrow/suffering, does not work. I think we can take it for granted that it cannot work. You ask why the mind turns to this avenue. Is not a matter of how we are conditioned? Is that an adequate answer? Or more fundamentally, does the answer lie in something that I posted a little way above:

Also, it came to me very strongly recently, the whole raison d'etre of the thought - why it acts the way it is does - it to make the brain feel good. Good or better. It just wants that sensation, and is continually trying to achieve that. This means it can never, or hardly ever, take rational decisions, decisions for the benefit of the human race. each brain is just concerned with feeling "good".

Sorrow, or suffering, (I am not making any distinction here) definitely does not "feel good".

What do you say?

This is a very good question, Clive, I always think about it: what is my brain really concerned with?

Feeling good seems to be really the answer. I suspect that suffering is always present in our brains, either consciously or unconsciously. So, we are constantly moving away from suffering towards feeling good, or pleasure. Maybe this is the very source of the movement of thought. Or the food of the monkeys inside our head. :-)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 24 Apr 2019 #480
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5030 posts in this forum Offline

Jose Roberto Moreira wrote:
, Clive, I always think about it: what is my brain really concerned with

If I may suggest, Jose, it's not "your brain". It's the human brain. Feeling today that distinction is very, very important.

But don't have my lap top or wifi to make a substantial reply at the moment, sorry.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 451 - 480 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.)