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

All one inquiry


Displaying posts 511 - 540 of 882 in total
Tue, 30 Apr 2019 #511
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2691 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Jose: That strange feeling is suffering. I think that people suffer without even knowing that are suffering.

Could you say more about this, Jose? Especially what I have marked in bold?

I suspect it’s a thin veneer of pleasure that keeps one from noticing the underlying suffering. As long as I’m chattering away about my favorite sports team, I’m unaware that I may be in fact quite unhappy. Playing cards, my golf addiction, a comedy on tv, all those kind of distractions and superficial pleasures serve to keep me unaware of my actual condition

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 30 Apr 2019 #512
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5159 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Funny he didn’t mind the violence in films, but used to hide his eyes during any passionate romantic scenes.

That is somewhat strange. I have heard him say that before.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 30 Apr 2019 #513
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5159 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
I suspect it’s a thin veneer of pleasure that keeps one from noticing the underlying suffering. As long as I’m chattering away about my favorite sports team, I’m unaware that I may be in fact quite unhappy. Playing cards, my golf addiction, a comedy on tv, all those kind of distractions and superficial pleasures serve to keep me unaware of my actual condition

This is probably so, but I was interested in the actual nature of that underlying suffering. I think I raised the question some time back, in fact.

One source of pain I notice a great deal in the mind, is thought realising that it is only thought. When one is relatively quiet, this happens a great deal. I mean thought creates some reality, and the mind takes that reality to be actual, to be so, true, then that thought ends - as all thoughts continually end. In the ending that reality collapses - it is seen that it was only imagination. And somehow there is a sense of disappointment, of loss, in that realisation.

So that, I find, is one source of sorrow.

Then there is conflict. Conflict is the general background of the mind, is it not? The mind is continually battling with itself - at least if is not being distracted, as you have described above, Tom. "The contradiction between one thought and another, between one feeling and another, the contradiction between different actions", as K has said.

Is this the real cause of suffering, this state of duality, where there is rarely any sense of wholeness, of harmony?

And it seems to me that mankind is so busy trying to reconcile the effects of this fundamental inner conflict that he hardly ever examines the cause. This is mankind's suffering.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 01 May 2019 #514
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2691 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Then there is conflict. Conflict is the general background of the mind, is it not? The mind is continually battling with itself - at least if is not being distracted, as you have described above, Tom. "The contradiction between one thought and another, between one feeling and another, the contradiction between different actions", as K has said.

Yes, I think this is so, Clive. I need to look more closely at this before commenting further, but it's something we can observe in ourselves, for sure...the inner battles...should vs should not...right vs wrong, etc. This duality is the realm of the 'me', isn't it? Good you bring this up as it's crucial to understand, I would think...this constant background of suffering in 'me'.
Looking out the window of the building where I work now,and I see two women sitting at a table outside smoking. One is in management and the other a social worker. Why this constant conflict that makes people smoke even knowing the terrible consequences to their health? These aren't struggling underpaid workers at a Walmart or Burger King. These are people with good jobs and adequate pay. Why conflict all the time? This is worldwide, of course. In Japan and China smoking is widespread. Can't we live and work free of conflict?

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Wed, 01 May 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 01 May 2019 #515
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5159 posts in this forum Offline

It is interesting when two lines of inquiry converge, which I feel has happened in me, with my discussion with Dan and with you, Tom. With Dan I was discussing the role of ‘the observer’ in observation, and whether the observer does not deny the possibility of pure observation. You and I were discussing conflict.

The arising of the observer in thought is the very act of division, and hence of conflict.

The observer can also be called the thinker, the controller, the analyser, the condemner, and all the other terms that you, of course, know.

I seem to be seeing this really clearly. I am the problem (emphasis on ‘I’). Although I, as the observer, appears to come about in an attempt to solve some mental problem, some disorder, it is actually creating disorder. It is the act of thought fragmenting itself.

I can't do anything about this movement, about what is seen, obviously. What I am describing is the very act of “trying to do something about it”. One can only watch – but it is wrong to put it that way, rather, there can only be observation of the phenomena – the ‘me’ trying to observe IS the phenomena. It IS the act of division, which turns the me into the not-me. So there appears to be two entities in the mind, the me and the not me, and all the attendant agony of that.

This “not being able to do anything about it” would probably be seen as something depressing by most people. But it is not, far from it. It appears to be the key to the whole problem of the mind.

Am I making any sense?

This post was last updated by Clive Elwell Wed, 01 May 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 02 May 2019 #516
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2691 posts in this forum Offline

Although I, as the observer, appears to come about in an attempt to solve some mental problem, some disorder, it is actually creating disorder. It is the act of thought fragmenting itself.

The division of the observer from the observed is creating disorder, yes. K spoke of this a lot. Internally this manifests as the ‘me’ vs the ‘not me’(me vs my fear, anger, etc)...both only fragments of thought. Externally it manifests as all the conflict in the outer world that we are all familiar with...culminating in war. So you are right to put the focus on this central issue.

This “not being able to do anything about it” would probably be seen as something depressing by most people. But it is not, far from it. It appears to be the key to the whole problem of the mind.

It’s only depressing if one believes in this central ‘me’ fragment ...me as the controller. Can you expand on your last sentence above, Clive?

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Thu, 02 May 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 02 May 2019 #517
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1358 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:

I can't do anything about this movement, about what is seen, obviously. What I am describing is the very act of “trying to do something about it”. One can only watch – but it is wrong to put it that way, rather, there can only be observation of the phenomena – the ‘me’ trying to observe IS the phenomena. It IS the act of division, which turns the me into the not-me. So there appears to be two entities in the mind, the me and the not me, and all the attendant agony of that.

Yes. In re-reading your post this morning, it became clear that it could be read as 'seeing' this along with you or... reading it and 'trying' to understand what you were seeing/saying...If I see what you are saying, it is finished. But if I try to understand it then the 'thinker' has arisen. More broadly, the 'desire' to understand creates the 'thinker' who 'wishes' to do so, doesn't it? And so 'time' is introduced: i.e. "I don't understand it fully but perhaps in time, I'll get it". And more broadly again, any desire, it seems to me, or wish to change, improve, whatever is taking place in the 'psyche', creates the duality which is seen to be the creator of conflict ("agony"). The idea that we have inherited: that there is a "key" to all this, somewhere, somehow, rather than "what is" means there will continue the 'search' (desire) to find it, until the falseness of that idea is seen through. The duality of the 'searcher' looking for the 'treasure' may or may not come to an end. But as you say, 'nothing' can be 'done' about it, except the 'observation' of it. Does that make any sense?

Krishnamurti: Nobody can push you out of your trap - no guru, no drug, no mantra, nobody, including myself - nobody, especially myself. All that you have to do is to be aware from the beginning to the end, not become inattentive in the middle of it. This new quality of awareness is attention, and in this attention there is no frontier made by the "me". This attention is the highest form of virtue, therefore it is love. It is supreme intelligence, and there cannot be attention if you are not sensitive to the structure and the nature of these man-made traps.

The Urgency of Change (page 9) (my bold)

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Thu, 02 May 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 02 May 2019 #518
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5159 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
So you are right to put the focus on this central issue.

Hmm, I wouldn't put it that way. It's not that I decide to put my focus on some issue - this thinker/thought split is there, it always there to be seen, to be experienced. There is no avoiding it (anything one did to avoid it would be it).

Feeling that any journey of self discovery must, sooner or later, come to this point.

Tom Paine wrote:

Clive: This “not being able to do anything about it” would probably be seen as something depressing by most people. But it is not, far from it. It appears to be the key to the whole problem of the mind.

Tom: It’s only depressing if one believes in this central ‘me’ fragment ...me as the controller. Can you expand on your last sentence above, Clive?

Have you not explained it yourself, Tom, in pointing out it's only depressing if one accepts the central me as a fact, an enduring entity? But I will have a look anew.

Would you not say that the central human problem is that of conflict? Conflict that manifests at all levels of society, in all areas, and conflict that manifests in all the particular human brains. Mankind has based everything on thought, and conflict is inherent in the process of thought, is it not?

And the cause of conflict is separation, division.So it is reasonable, indeed essential, to ask where this division comes from. (seeing something new now, hope I can express it). If this issue of psychological division was non-existent, would there be any problems at all? There would still be challenges, but I suggest an undivided mind can meet challenges without turning them into problems. It just meets them. So is it not true that this division of thought is the key, as I said?

And the act of division is the appearance of the thinker, the controller, the analyser, reacting to thought, no? Feeling/seeing this intensely, it is what I was trying to describe in my post.

What do you say?

Oh, what I saw earlier is that this phenomena of the thinker/controller/observer arising from thought and trying to act ON thought has its parallel in society, as it must. When there is a problem, someone takes on the mantel of leader, or at least assumes authority and claims to be able to solve the problem. But this never works in the term, as the process is as fragmented as each brain is. There can be no single, absolute authority in society, just as there is no single thinker/authority in the mind.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 02 May 2019 #519
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5159 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Does that make any sense?

There is bascially a series of nods, of yes’s, that come as I read your post, Dan. Yes, the arisal of the thinker , the attempt to change what is, is the continuation of the problem mode. (and when it has arisen – another thought – what is has become ‘what was’, and how can the past be changed?)

Is it desire that creates the thinker? I have been asking myself why this crazy process exists in the mind, although I have not yet shared the question. If anything I have been seeing it as a result of the fragmentation of the mind. But one could equally say it is the cause of that fragmentation, rather than the effect! It IS that fragmentation.

Thought is always incomplete. Is the thinker the attempt to make it complete, or at least more complete?

But will you say more about the role of desire in the thinker/thought process, Dan?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 03 May 2019 #520
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1358 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
K. All that you have to do is to be aware from the beginning to the end, not become inattentive in the middle of it. This new quality of awareness is attention, and in this attention there is no frontier made by the "me".

The 'I' or 'me' traps the awareness and focuses it through a 'center'. It 'encloses' the awareness and creates a "frontier"around itself. But actually the awareness with which we see and observe the flower or tree is no different than the awareness that can see the 'I/me' phenomenon. We divide one as the 'outer' and the other as the 'inner' but there actually is no division. There is no "frontier".

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 03 May 2019 #521
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1358 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
But will you say more about the role of desire in the thinker/thought process, Dan?

The way I'm seeing it Clive is from a point of 'vacancy'...why is there any 'want' or 'craving' at all in the 'psyche? Why isn't it empty? Not meeting life through any vestiges of the past. Desire for what? Why is there a desire for anything but 'what is'? So the 'vacancy', emptiness, can meet life, not some desire based on an image of the self being this or that. We see that's all fraught with fear, competition, conflict, suffering, etc. Desire, craving,in the psyche, seems like a recipe for turmoil.

For example, I see someone famous, someone I admire and a comparison is made between me,my life and this person. I get a sickening feeling of 'deflation', worthlessness...if rather than move away from that, I stay-something happens. It feels as if 'I'm not my self', I'm at 'sea'. It is not a 'bad' feeling just strange, new. And then my 'old self' feeling returns.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Fri, 03 May 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 03 May 2019 #522
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1358 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Thought is always incomplete. Is the thinker the attempt to make it complete, or at least more complete?

That seems like a proper role for thought in the technical realm: to solve the problem, task at hand. But in the psychological realm there is no problem to 'solve'. Thought creates the problem there and then attempts to solve it. Does that sound right?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 03 May 2019 #523
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5159 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
The 'I' or 'me' traps the awareness and focuses it through a 'center'. It 'encloses' the awareness and creates a "frontier"around itself. But actually the awareness with which we see and observe the flower or tree is no different than the awareness that can see the 'I/me' phenomenon. We divide one as the 'outer' and the other as the 'inner' but there actually is no division. There is no "frontier".

That's well put, Dan. Yes, this is the fundamental problem with the self, it traps awareness. I feel a sort of shiver at that. In "the Ending of Time" K says the wrong step was because the mind couldn't contain that enormous energy. Is that saying the same thing?

This post was last updated by Clive Elwell Fri, 03 May 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 03 May 2019 #524
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2691 posts in this forum Offline

Didn't you mean the mind CAN'T contain, Clive?

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 03 May 2019 #525
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2691 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
That seems like a proper role for thought in the technical realm: to solve the problem, task at hand. But in the psychological realm there is no problem to 'solve'. Thought creates the problem there and then attempts to solve it. Does that sound right?

So, fragmentation and division is useful in the technical realm, but deadly in the psychological realm. Which means that thought is deadly there. Is that what you're saying, Dan?

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Fri, 03 May 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 03 May 2019 #526
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5159 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Why is there a desire for anything but 'what is'?

That is an interesting and novel question, Dan, why do we have desire at all? And I find it related to the question I asked quite recently: why does the thinker form from thought, and try to shape thought?

The root cause of desire seems to be a dissatisfaction with what is, using the term 'dissatisfaction' loosely, a sense of inadequacy with what is. One can see this movement in both a positive and negative light - K sometimes said desire is essential to life.

And as you point out, comparison often plays a part in desire. And of course image-forming is part of the mechanism, but one can ask, why do we form images at all? The usual answer I suppose - it is necessary in the physical realm, and it has been carried over into the psychological. But why? Indeed, why the psychological at all?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 03 May 2019 #527
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5159 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Didn't you mean the mind CAN'T contain, Clive?

Yes. my usual mistake where I say the opposite of what was intended :-). I will correct it.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 03 May 2019 #528
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5159 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Didn't you mean the mind CAN'T contain, Clive?

Actually the word was "couldn't". Couldn't contain the enormous energy.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 03 May 2019 #529
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5159 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
But in the psychological realm there is no problem to 'solve'. Thought creates the problem there and then attempts to solve it. Does that sound right?

Exactly so. I remember someone was once talking to me about how we have to "climb the spiritual mountain", and I replied thought creates both the mountain and the climber of the mountain.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 03 May 2019 #530
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1358 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Actually the word was "couldn't". Couldn't contain the enormous energy.

Is it 'tamped' down to make the world manageable? Starting with the child. But the narrowing of 'perception' through the 'self' which creates the illusion that each of us is an individual, separate...that is what K. was saying is false: "You are the world". It's for us to question that 'seeming' fact of our own psychological individuality.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 04 May 2019 #531
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1358 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
fragmentation and division is useful in the technical realm, but deadly in the psychological realm. Which means that thought is deadly there.

In the sense that this 'horizontal' idea of time; a past, a present and a future, is useful in the practical world where things have to be made, perfected, and produced which takes 'time'...things have to be learned, knowledge has to be accumulated...but in the psyche, is any of that necessary? Do the images formed about 'who' we are, have to be held onto? Strengthened and protected? Why bring the past at all into the psyche? Is it only for 'protection? To protect the 'image' of myself? Is it necessary to have an image of myself at all? As 'separate', as 'individual', etc.?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 04 May 2019 #532
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2691 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
In the sense that this 'horizontal' idea of time; a past, a present and a future, is useful in the practical world where things have to be made, perfected, and produced which takes 'time'...things have to be learned, knowledge has to be accumulated...but in the psyche, is any of that necessary? Do the images formed about 'who' we are, have to be held onto? Strengthened and protected?

You make a good point about time being useful in one realm and deadly in the other. Time is division of course. I am this and I will become that. And this is all based upon the image...’me’....which is a fragment...thought. So thought is division which is deadly in the psychological realm. And deadly in my relationship with you....other than in practical matters. Going to look further into this. It’s interesting to observe all this. Not just read K, but observe it in oneself.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 04 May 2019 #533
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1358 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Not just read K, but observe it in oneself.

Agreed. Tom and Clive, is it like this? That I am conditioned to believe/feel that I am free, that I am aware and awake etc. That I exist. But is the real 'truth' elsewhere? That the real truth is, that 'all is energy/Love'...that 'it' is in and around and through everything? And that I am also 'made up' of that energy but in a narrow, restricted, perverted, limited form. My sense of being an 'individual' is this 'perversion'? Clive brought the idea that the brain not being able to 'contain' the fullness of this energy, 'tamped' it down, made it manageable, etc. But the energy/Love is always present looking for a way to break through the dam that is myself as the QOTD says. Which means that anything that I do, any effort that I make to be 'free' only results in maintaining and strengthening the 'dam' because my image of freedom is and can only be a product of the limited energy that I (the 'I' process) am?...

It is not me seeking the Truth that can 'find' it. The Truth is the 'washing away' of me?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sat, 04 May 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 04 May 2019 #534
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2691 posts in this forum Offline

Dan: anything that I do, any effort that I make to be 'free' only results in maintaining and strengthening the 'dam' because my image of freedom is and can only be a product of the limited energy that I (the 'I' process) am?...

Yes...I am a product of that limitation. To have any image at all of freedom is meaningless. An image is limitation itself...a product of the past imposed upon what is NOT of the past. And I’m a fragment of that limitation attempting to be free of myself. Like trying to wash blood off your hands with blood, as the saying goes.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 04 May 2019 #535
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1358 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
I’m a fragment of that limitation attempting to be free of myself. Like trying to wash blood off your hands with blood, as the saying goes.

It brings up a 'K. like' question: What is the state of mind that realizes that any movement of thought, up, down or sideways on my part, any psychological effort no matter how subtle, to be free from the past, inevitably only strengthens my bond to it?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sat, 04 May 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 04 May 2019 #536
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5159 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Is it 'tamped' down to make the world manageable?

Are you saying, Dan, that this tamping down, this "fitting into a smaller size", created the self?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 04 May 2019 #537
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5159 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
So, fragmentation and division is useful in the technical realm, but deadly in the psychological realm. Which means that thought is deadly there. Is that what you're saying, Dan?

Putting it that suggests that thought and psychological realm are separate things. Is not the psychological realm entirely created by thought? It IS thought, is it not? Is there anything more to it than thought (in which I include feelings)?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 04 May 2019 #538
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5159 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Why bring the past at all into the psyche?

Similar to what I wrote above, would there BE a psyche without time?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 04 May 2019 #539
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5159 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
And that I am also 'made up' of that energy but in a narrow, restricted, perverted, limited form.

It's odd that you write that, Dan, because for a week or so the same concept has been floating around here. That at the root of everything there is only energy, and that energy is "shaped" into .... well, into matter and all its myriad forms.

I could not comment on the equivalence of energy and love that you infer, Dan.

This concept is not at all unscientific. But I wonder if it is not contradicted by something K once said: "Energy has no order". Because are we not postulating he everything is "ordered energy"?

But apart from that, the question arises: what is it that gives energy its shape, its form?

Dan McDermott wrote:
And that I am also 'made up' of that energy but in a narrow, restricted, perverted, limited form. My sense of being an 'individual' is this 'perversion'?

Is there "a sense of being an individual" apart from what thought asserts?

Dan McDermott wrote:
Which means that anything that I do, any effort that I make to be 'free' only results in maintaining and strengthening the 'dam'

I observe this to be true.

Dan McDermott wrote:
. . . because my image of freedom is and can only be a product of the limited energy that I (the 'I' process) am?...

That seems to be true. Where else could the image come from, apart from our conditioning?

Dan McDermott wrote:
It is not me seeking the Truth that can 'find' it. The Truth is the 'washing away' of me?

The complete negation of all that the mind has created.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 04 May 2019 #540
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5159 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Like trying to wash blood off your hands with blood, as the saying goes.

I've never heard this saying, but it is very apt.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 511 - 540 of 882 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.)