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

All one inquiry


Displaying posts 31 - 60 of 109 in total
Mon, 26 Nov 2018 #31
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 639 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
There may still be conflict but conflict is now seen in the light of this understanding. And is conflict seen in the light of this understanding still conflict? Conflict being the battle, the effort to overcome or change.

Clive Elwell wrote:
Not sure what you are meaning by this, Huguette.

Conflict lies in: “I want to drink alcohol but I must not. I am compelled to hate or rage but it is wrong and I mustn’t hate or rage,” and so on and so on. That is, there’s “a part of me” that wants to drink or rage, and there’s another “part of me” that says I mustn’t. If I just wanted to drink or rage (and so on) and there were no “OTHER part of me” that - for reasons of health, ideal or for any other reason - resisted it, then there would be no conflict at all, would there? That’s a fact, isn’t it? The conflict lies in the opposing or contradictory “parts of me” - which are thought-based, as self itself is thought-based.

I want to drink and I also don’t want to drink.

I want to rage and I also don’t want to rage.

And the conflict between them is painful. When the compulsion to drink or rage is greater than the urge not to, then I drink or rage ---- and then I berate myself.

Both compulsions are there in consciousness. There is also pleasure in giving in to them, in letting go of the resistance - the pleasure of no conflict between “parts”. Can I say “joy” - for a brief instant? In the moment of giving in, there’s no conflict. In that brief instant, there’s no time? Is there such an instant? If so, is that instant of seeming freedom what gives fuel and strength to the conflict?

So I fight the compulsion and experience the torment of resistance; or I “give in” to it and then experience self-recrimination. In that conflict, the circus of my life unfolds: the urge resurfaces, I resist the urge, I give in to it, then I lambaste myself for giving in, then I calm down for a while. Then the whole thing starts again, builds up again, calms down again. Through effort, I stop drinking or raging for a while or even permanently but even if I do stop, there’s a never-ending battle inwardly. I have tried and tried but I see that, on some level, the battle never ends. It might be easier at times, it might recede at times, but it is always there beneath the surface. It can and does resurface. Through effort, I repress desire down into the unconscious, where it REMAINS and is unavoidably expressed in relationship.

What I want is not to feel the torment of compulsions at all, neither consciously nor unconsciously.

But instead of effort, there’s another approach to conflict, as we have been talking about, which is simply to observe it without trying to interfere. This suggestion alone gives rise to fear, doesn’t it? The thought or question immediately follows: “But if I simply observe, what will happen then?” ---- as though NOT observing had ever ended the compulsions.

But through awareness of the whole thing - of all the “parts”, of the processes which govern them, of the whole of consciousness including conscious and unconscious, and of the significance of it all in action and relationship - understanding emerges. That’s what I mean by “the conflict is now seen in the light of understanding”. Isn’t that what is meant by allowing “a revolution to take place at the unconscious level” as quoted in #19? So where there is understanding, effort is not needed. The ending of effort and time is part of understanding.

I don’t want to make this too long or complicated. This is a very clumsy expression of what I’m observing, without being sure of what I’m actually observing or whether I’m actually observing “what is”.

What seems clear is that observation itself is not a desire or a compulsion. It seems clear that through observation, there is understanding, clarity. As I see it, effort and desire are the movements of the fragmented psyche, darkness in which there is no understanding. And understanding - in which there is no psychological division - must act and that action must transform relationship. Observation, awareness, attention, understanding is its own significance or "reward", if I can put it that way, just as love is its own reward. They are not means to an end. Are they?

This post was last updated by Huguette . Mon, 26 Nov 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 26 Nov 2018 #32
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 999 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Hmm, the problem with using the word “state” here is that the mind conceives of moving from the one state to another. But the very idea of moving comes from the divided mind. It implies effort, the problems of which have frequently been discussed. The same with the phrase “making a step”. But then to my knowledge K has never used these words, he has simply stated that “The first step is the last step”. This does not imply a “stepper”, one who makes a step.

Hi Clive

K used the word 'step' as I recall in response to the idea of 'becoming'. You can't 'become' free, there is either freedom or there is not. It, 'freedom', is not accomplished at the end of a 'process' of study, effort, etc. It doesn't come at the end, as a result of what went before. It's not an 'accumulation' of knowledge. Not a result of one's 'search'. Freedom is at the 'beginning'. It is, as he put it, a "state of mind". It is not 'my' freedom or 'your' freedom. Freedom is not in the past or in the future (which is slavery?) It is the "total abandonment of the self" (identification?)...it is the "first and the last step".

H: Observation, awareness, attention, understanding is its own significance or "reward", if I can put it that way, just as love is its own reward. They are not means to an end. Are they?

In reading Huguette's post above, I would say no. Pure observation or understanding has no goal but to see what is there, effortlessly and without judgement. Otherwise in 'taking sides' it is not understanding or observation at all.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Mon, 26 Nov 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 26 Nov 2018 #33
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4639 posts in this forum Online

Jose Roberto Moreira wrote:

Clive Elwell wrote:

And this morning I dipped into the book of dialogues with K “Tradition and Revolution”. Here is an excerpt:

Very interesting! In what chapter is it?

Can you give me the thread number, Jose?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 26 Nov 2018 #34
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4639 posts in this forum Online

Dan McDermott wrote:
So what does it mean when in place of the 'me' overseeing the processes within , that the 'me', the effort maker, is included in the light of awareness? Then 'I' am part of the scene, part of the landscape, rather than imagining 'myself' outside of it (as an individual) where 'I' believe 'I' can act in some way upon what is seen.

These words of yours, Dan, came to me several times in the course of the day, yesterday, and, without being able to verbalise further, I felt the sense of them.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 26 Nov 2018 #35
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4639 posts in this forum Online

Huguette . wrote:
Conflict lies in: “I want to drink alcohol but I must not. I am compelled to hate or rage but it is wrong and I mustn’t hate or rage,” and so on and so on.

Thank you for this very comprehensive response to my question, Huguette. Yes, conflict is the major problem facing the human race, both within each individual, and in the society individuals have created. I often think that if one must have an objective in life, then the elimination of conflict is the most likely candidate. As one starts to enquire into the issue, the complexities start to emerge – including the complexity of having any objective in life!

Huguette . wrote:
Can I say “joy” - for a brief instant? In the moment of giving in, there’s no conflict. In that brief instant, there’s no time? Is there such an instant? If so, is that instant of seeming freedom what gives fuel and strength to the conflict?

I came across exactly such a instant yesterday, and it seemed to me it was genuinely liberating, and did not give rise to guilt or conflict. Are you suggesting the opposite, that it does give fuel?

Huguette . wrote:
What I want is not to feel the torment of compulsions at all, neither consciously nor unconsciously.

When, despite ourselves, a certain sense of peace is within us, we realise how destructive it is to 'want things', to be in the grip of desire, to struggle between choices, preferences, compulsions. So much 'simpler' to let such things go.

Huguette . wrote:
And understanding - in which there is no psychological division - must act and that action must transform relationship.

Yes, I feel that understanding, seeing, MUST act. In fact, is there any other source of true action, psychologically?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 26 Nov 2018 #36
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4639 posts in this forum Online

Huguette . wrote:
If I just wanted to drink or rage (and so on) and there were no “OTHER part of me” that - for reasons of health, ideal or for any other reason - resisted it, then there would be no conflict at all, would there?

I happened to come across this excerpt from K yesterday which seems to be on the same lines as what you write:

Now, if there is nobody to answer you, to tell you, and you are faced with this problem, which is: the deep hurts, how are they to be wiped away so that the mind can never be hurt - right? What is your answer? You, who are very clever people, read a great deal, can quote Freud, Jung and all the professionals, what is your answer? Please be honest, what is your answer? Would you honestly say that you don't know? Can you honestly say, "I really don't know how to answer that question". Can you? Now please be careful, can you, with truth, with integrity, say, "I really don't know"? Or is your mind still searching to find an answer in books, or in people who have said there is an answer. Are you following all this? Come on sirs. Can you say with truth that you have no answer for this, you really don't know? Right? If you really truthfully, honestly say, 'I really don't know. I have no answer. I have only the problem, I have no answer. I know what the problem is, I am fully aware of the meaning of that problem, the significance, the depth of that problem. I have looked at it, I have watched it, all round it, from different angles, I have looked, worried, examined, but I have no answer.' - right?

What makes it a problem - please listen carefully - what makes it a problem? Do you understand my question? A problem exists only when you want to resolve it. Right? Please listen carefully. I have a problem: my problem is I want to have a mind that is so clear, unhurt, not polluted, free, vital, full of beauty and energy. And I have examined, I have looked at it and I see analysis is not the way, dreams, examinations, going off to somebody to say, "Please help me" or following some guru who will say, "Forget all that, think about god" and all the rest of it. I see all that is of no value - right? So I have this left with me, and it has become a problem. And I say why has it become a problem. If I can't do anything about it, it is not a problem. You are following all this? It is only when I think I can do something about it, it becomes a problem. I don't know if you understand this?

If I actually know when I am confronted with a gigantic mountain, and I can't do anything about it, it is there, with that great height, dignity, majesty, full of stability, splendour - why should I make a problem of it? It is only when I want to go beyond it - right? Climb it, go beyond it, then it becomes a problem. You understand? But when I see that I can't do anything about this, is it a problem? You have understood? If it is not a problem then it is resolved, isn't it? This is not a trick please. It is the truth. It is not a trick. A river is flowing by, full, strong, heavy with water, it is only when I want to cross to the other side where I think there is more freedom, there is more beauty, there is more loveliness, peace and all the rest of it, the crossing the river becomes a problem - right? But I see I can't cross the river, I haven't got a boat, I can't swim, I don't know what to do. Therefore what happens to my mind? It is not content with remaining on this side - you understand? It has no problem. I wonder if you are getting all this? So my hurt is not a problem - right? Therefore I am not hurt - right? Oh, it is so simple if you see this. It is so simple that we refuse to see it.

Saanen 1972 talk 4

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 27 Nov 2018 #37
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 999 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
A river is flowing by, full, strong, heavy with water, it is only when I want to cross to the other side where I think there is more freedom, there is more beauty, there is more loveliness, peace and all the rest of it, the crossing the river becomes a problem - right? But I see I can't cross the river, I haven't got a boat, I can't swim, I don't know what to do. Therefore what happens to my mind? It is not content with remaining on this side - you understand? It has no problem. I wonder if you are getting all this? So my hurt is not a problem - right? Therefore I am not hurt - right? Oh, it is so simple if you see this. It is so simple that we refuse to see it.

Can someone clarify this sentence in bold, for me,it doesn't follow from the sentence before? The 'river' is only a 'problem' if I want to cross it. If I don't have the means to cross it, if I see that clearly, then the problem vanishes because I 'know' that I can't cross it. The river can flow on...Is it that after seeing that it can't be crossed, the effort ceases to do so, the problem that was created by the desire to cross disappears...then would there not be "contentment"? But the sentence in bold says "It is not content..."

After listening to the actual talk (about 37 mins. into it) it seems clear that the 'problem' is created by thought wanting to find a means to get rid of the deep hurts within us, analysis, dreams, etc but with the insight that these because of their limitation can't succeed, thought gives up and then truly doesn't know what to do, the problem it created disappears. The images of the 'hurts' disappears.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Tue, 27 Nov 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 27 Nov 2018 #38
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2325 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
the problem vanishes because I 'know' that I can't cross it. The river can flow on...Is it that after seeing that it can't be crossed, the effort ceases to do so, the problem that was created by the desire to cross disappears...then would there not be "contentment"? But the sentence in bold says "It is not content..."

I’m not totally sure I understand K in #37, but this is my take on what he appears to be saying: Contentment is of thought, right? K says ‘it has no problem’. Thought has stopped making problems. Having no problem is different than contentment. Thought simply stops dividing from itself perhaps...sees the falseness of that.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Tue, 27 Nov 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 27 Nov 2018 #39
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 999 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Contentment is of thought, right? K says ‘it has no problem’. Thought has stopped making problems. Having no problem is different than contentment. Thought simply stops dividing from itself perhaps...sees the falseness of that.

If I see clearly that there is nothing that I can do, say, to remove the deep hurts suffered in childhood and that there is no one who can remove them for me, no analysis, no book etc. Yet I feel that these hurts form an 'undercurrent' in the mind and affect my conscious behaviors, my relations, my dreams, etc...that they are like a 'poison'. So I conclude that my life would be better, less conflicted if I could get to the source and somehow remove them...I might try everything I know but here I finally admit that I can't solve this 'problem' of these unconscious childhood traumatic 'hurts'. I don't know how to do it...and I know it's futile to look outside myself for significant help'...so I give up, I give up trying to solve the 'problem' and then, it's no more a 'problem'. (K. did say this wasn't a "trick"!)

This led me to consider other psychological 'problem' areas esp. one Huguette recently described, the fear of 'letting go'. The fear that suppose I did let go control, who would 'run the ship'...applying what was said above, the 'problem' is the fear of what would happen if the 'controller' (me) was seen to be illusory and disappeared? Here again, it can be said that I don't know how to 'let go' and no one can tell me how, though intellectually I feel that it must be 'done' and after years of study and reading, I still do not know how to be "free from the known"...so I give up trying to solve the problem and it is no more a 'problem'. The energy 'wasted' in trying to solve the perceived (but unsolvable)'problem' can now be used just for seeing actually 'what is'...? No longer trying to 'get past' what is in order to reach 'freedom from the known'?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Tue, 27 Nov 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 27 Nov 2018 #40
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2325 posts in this forum Offline

Dan: I feel that these hurts form an 'undercurrent' in the mind and affect my conscious behaviors, my relations, my dreams, etc...that they are like a 'poison'. So I conclude that my life would be better, less conflicted if I could get to the source and somehow remove them...I might try everything I know but here I finally admit that I can't solve this 'problem' of these unconscious childhood traumatic 'hurts'.

WE can't go back and analyze the past, no. We are a product of that. But if there is this residue of the past in 'me', the past is acting NOW....and my thoughts, emotions and actions can be observed NOW. it's NOW that I can look and and observe, and the past can be understood/resolved only now....not by analyzing my childhood hurts, I don't think.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Tue, 27 Nov 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 28 Nov 2018 #41
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4639 posts in this forum Online

Dan McDermott wrote:
Can someone clarify this sentence in bold, for me,it doesn't follow from the sentence before?

> It is not content with remaining on
this side - you understand? It has no
problem

I also was going to ask for clarification on this :-). Now I will have to look myself!

So K is saying that when we realise that we cannot solve a problem, then it is no longer a problem.

"It is only when I think I can do something about it, it becomes a problem"

Presumably when one so sees, one stops trying to solve the problem. That seems to make perfect sense, that would be intelligence. But where is one then, in regard to the 'issue' - the issue that is no longer a problem. Now it is merely a fact, no? Like death. I realise that I am going to die, there is nothing I can do about it, it is a fact.


Is it a matter of acceptance? I'm pretty sure K said one doesn't accept a fact, a fact just IS. Although looking at that now, I am not sure that I understand it..


So K says the mind is NOT CONTENT, after having seen it cannot solve the problem, after realising that it IS no problem, because a problem is something that you are trying to solve. So what is this state of mind, if it is not content?

I’m really not sure.


I see that thought cannot solve any psychological problems. Thought cannot solve the problem which is itself. Am I actually in that state, now?

If I see that I cannot resolve conflict, then I stop trying to resolve it. Then is there conflict at all?


I realise that I don’t know what K means by “being content”. Was K content? Probably he had no conflict, is that the same thing? Obviously he had this tremendous drive to talk, dialogue, communicate, create schools – I cannot really reconcile such a drive with the word “content”.

This post was last updated by Clive Elwell Wed, 28 Nov 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 28 Nov 2018 #42
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 999 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Now it is merely a fact, no? Like death. I realise that I am going to die, there is nothing I can do about it, it is a fact.

In a way. all there is are 'facts', the suffering comes with the attempt to 'do' something about them. But then the 'trying to do something' about them is a fact also, isn't it? Then the 'desire' to move away from the 'unpleasant' or toward the 'pleasant' is the fact. The psychological fact 'at hand' or 'what is'. It is a 'strange' sensation to let an unpleasant stream of thought 'have its say' without moving away. But when it is realized that one is actually powerless to do anything with what is but resist it or change it and that that resistance only strengthens and perpetuates it, then the possibility to 'hear it out' arises. Then the issue at hand may or may not be able to be resolved through some action but clearly, psychological avoidance (escape) is no solution at all.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Wed, 28 Nov 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 28 Nov 2018 #43
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4639 posts in this forum Online

A little while back we were discussing a little the unconsciousness mind, with that quote from K on how significant it was. I asked two questions, and I repeat them here, hoping someone might take them up.

1) There seems to a contradiction between the things K has said about the unconscious mind. In “You are the World”, for example, he says:

"Then you will find out that the whole of the unconscious is as petty, shallow, dull, as the superficial mind; there is nothing holy about the unconscious".

Compare this with the quote in #22:

“Because, in the unconscious level, there is no limitation, there is no conformity, because the mind there is not interfering to search for a result; there, the mind is not trying to suppress or to be anything; it is only there; the mind can understand what is Truth”.

To me, there seems a definite contradiction here. And I am asking myself, how do I meet these (apparent) contradictions in K’s words? I don’t know if others have felt these.

2) Is the unconscious mind (or subconscious, I don’t know the distinction) the same as what K describes as “The river of consciousness”, and which he asks if we can step out of?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 28 Nov 2018 #44
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4639 posts in this forum Online

Dan McDermott wrote:
But then the 'trying to do something' about them is a fact also, isn't it?

I don't know that all the movements of the mind can be described as "facts". It is a fact that the mind is doing something, or trying to do something, or thinking it is doing something. It is a fact that there is some sort of electro-chemical activity going on. But WHAT it is trying to do, the psychological content of the activity, is that a fact? If so then prayer is a fact, all the beliefs that the mind holds are facts, no?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 28 Nov 2018 #45
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 999 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
If so then prayer is a fact, all the beliefs that the mind holds are facts, no?

In the sense that whatever is occupying my mind is a 'fact'. That is 'what is', isn't it? It may be a belief, or a fear, or a daydream or a brilliant string of thoughts...but the 'fact' is, is that what is in my mind at the moment, that is what is there. That is what I am. Do you see that differently?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 29 Nov 2018 #46
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2325 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Clive Elwell wrote:

If so then prayer is a fact, all the beliefs that the mind holds are facts, no?

In the sense that whatever is occupying my mind is a 'fact'. That is 'what is', isn't it?

A little child may believe in Santa Claus. His belief is a fact (believing itself is a fact....something that takes place in the brain) though Santa Claus himself coming down the chimney is obviously not real...imaginary...non-fact. It's tricky the way the word 'fact' can be used when trying to communicate what K is pointing out. Hope this makes sense.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 29 Nov 2018 #47
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2325 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
1) There seems to a contradiction between the things K has said about the unconscious mind. In “You are the World”, for example, he says:

"Then you will find out that the whole of the unconscious is as petty, shallow, dull, as the superficial mind; there is nothing holy about the unconscious".

This is how I understand it, and Huguette explained this very well in #24, imo. Then we have the other quote: “Because, in the unconscious level, there is no limitation, there is no conformity, because the mind there is not interfering to search for a result; there, the mind is not trying to suppress or to be anything; it is only there; the mind can understand what is Truth”. This quote is not at all clear to me. Is he really saying that understanding takes place in the 'unconscious'? That doesn't seem correct in light of the first quote. Perhaps he's pointing out that on the conscious level I may think I'm very peaceful and tolerant of my neighbor's actions or words, but there may be anger there deep down in the unconscious that I'm repressing. I have an image of myself as being non-violent ....a follower of the belief or practice of non-violence....but in my dream I may find that I behave very violently. So only when the unconscious reveals the truth of what I am ...when it comes to the surface...that there is understanding. I don't know...just exploring...

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Thu, 29 Nov 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 29 Nov 2018 #48
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 999 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
It's tricky the way the word 'fact' can be used when trying to communicate what K is pointing out. Hope this makes sense.

It is. I was using it to say that whatever the 'self' is up to, thinking about, dreaming about, wishing, hating, fearing, loving etc. that those are the 'fact' of what is taking place in the mind at the conscious level at any given moment. And if there is a resistance or an escaping from 'what is', then that escaping or resistance becomes the 'fact'. That there is 'identification' with the self/thought seems an inescapable 'fact', doesn't it? (But it does escape us!)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 29 Nov 2018 #49
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2325 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
That there is 'identification' with the self/thought seems an inescapable 'fact', doesn't it?

Yes...identification with a lot of 'non facts' is part of the fact of 'me'....identification with beliefs (in a father figure God, in reincarnation, for example)...identification with ideals (I should be brave, tolerant, 'better', non-violent, 'good', etc). So there is the fact of these non-facts...which might be one way to put it. They are 'non-facts' because they are not actualities. I believe I should be 'good' but the actuality is that I cheat, lie, manipulate, exploit, etc.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Thu, 29 Nov 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 29 Nov 2018 #50
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4639 posts in this forum Online

Dan McDermott wrote:
In the sense that whatever is occupying my mind is a 'fact'.

Yesterday I read that a British MP stated "There's nothing wrong with killing for what you believe in"

If I accept that this was reported accurately, then one can describe his actions, his making the statement, as a fact. But surely it is not a fact that "there is nothing wrong with killing for what you belief in"?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/johnny-mercer-conservative-mp-plymouth-army-tweet-killing-believe-for-values-a8655996.html

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 29 Nov 2018 #51
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 639 posts in this forum Offline

I don’t know why K asked whether a revolution can take place at the unconscious level. It doesn’t make sense to me either. Did he make a mistake, did he mean something else, or....? K did say he was not the Delphic oracle. So I’m on my own here.

Consciousness is undivided - that is understood. There is no impermeable, impenetrable barrier or division between the conscious and unconscious levels of consciousness. The unconscious level and the conscious level are one indivisible whole - that is understood. It is also understood that EFFORT cannot bring about fundamental transformation. EFFORT - interpretation, analysis, judgment, etc. - is made at the conscious level. So to approach transformation through effort - at the conscious level - is to continue the tradition and conditioning of self.

The wild, untamed unconscious does not conform to ideals or beliefs. It is not influenced by reason. The conscious mind strives to conform to ideals and beliefs. The conscious mind gathers and measures information, and "chooses" a course of action based on its conclusions and assessments ----- at least, it believes that this is the process according to which it acts: ideals, beliefs, measure and evaluation, weighing the fact, and finally choice. In giving credence to this process, the tamed, polished, “civilized” conscious mind is ignoring the intimations of the wild, untamed unconscious ---- ignoring them or attributing to them the value of being insignificant

But whether at the conscious or unconscious level, it is all the conditioned mind. It is clear that there is no effort “I” can make to FUNDAMENTALLY transform consciousness. Any effort “I” make is the movement of conditioning.

http://jiddu-krishnamurti.net/en/awakening-of-intelligence/1971-08-04-jiddu-krishnamurti-awakening-of-intelligence-the-fragmentation-of-consciousness

THE AWAKENING OF INTELLIGENCE PART VIII CHAPTER 1 1ST PUBLIC DIALOGUE SAANEN 4TH AUGUST 1971 'THE FRAGMENTATION OF CONSCIOUSNESS'

......when the mind realizes totally that you are conditioned, that your consciousness is its content - and that any movement you make is still part of that consciousness - trying to get out of it, accepting it, or rejecting it, is still part of it - then how does the realization of that truth affect your life?

The realization of the truth of that fact is going to act. You understand? And that truth, being highly intelligent, will act according to the moment.
[...]
You are trying to overcome one fragment which is fear, by another fragment. That way you cannot get rid of it, so there must be a different approach to that fragment which you call fear. And the approach is this: to do absolutely nothing about fear. Can you?
[...]
We started out by asking if I can look at the whole movement of life as a unitary process. The killing, the refugees, the war in the Middle East, the Catholics, the Protestants, the scientists, the artists, the businessmen, private life, public life, my family, your family - there is endless division. This division has brought about such disorder in the world and in myself. Can I look at all this as a marvellous single movement? I can't, that is a fact. I can't, because I am fragmented in myself. I am conditioned in myself. So my concern then is, not to find out how to live a unitary life, but to see if the fragmentation can come to an end. And that fragmentation only comes to an end when I realize that all my consciousness is made up of these fragments. My consciousness is the fragmentation. And when I say, "There must be integration, it must be brought together", it is still part of that trick I am playing upon myself. So I realize that. I realize it as a truth, like fire burns, you can't deceive me, it is a fact, and I am left with it. And I have to find out how it operates in my daily life - not guess, play, theorize. Because I have seen the truth of it, that truth is going to act. If I don't see it and pretend I have seen it, then I am going to make a hideous mess of my life.

This post was last updated by Huguette . Thu, 29 Nov 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 29 Nov 2018 #52
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4639 posts in this forum Online

Tom Paine wrote:
identification with a lot of 'non facts' is part of the fact of 'me'....

But is the me a fact?

I would rather describe the me as an illusion - because there really is no such entity, it only a projection of thought, is it not? Are illusions facts? It is a fact that people have illusions, but is what thought projects a fact? Thought does project, yes, that is a fact, but that which is projected I would not describe as a fact. That would seem a distortion of the word to me.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 29 Nov 2018 #53
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4639 posts in this forum Online

What follows is from the very end of the book that Huguette just quoted from, "The Awakening of Intelligence". It was taken from a discussion between K and Bohm at Brockwood Park 7th October 1972. It may throw some light on the issue of the unconscious mind:

Bohm: Yes, that means the operation of thought is unconscious for the most part and therefore one doesn't know it is going on. We may say consciously we have realized that all this has to be changed, it has to be different.

Krishnamurti: But the unconscious is still going on. Can you talk to my unconscious, knowing my conscious brain is going to resist you? Because you are telling me something which is revolutionary, you are telling me something which shatters my whole house which I have built so carefully, and I won't listen to you. You follow? In my instinctive reactions I push you away. So you realize that and say, "Look, all right, old friend, just don't bother to listen to me that way. I am going to talk to your unconscious. I am going to talk to your unconscious and make that unconscious see that whatever movement it does is still within the field of time and so on." So your conscious mind is never in operation. When it operates it must inevitably either resist, or say, "I will accept", therefore it creates a conflict in itself, and all the rest of it. So can you talk to my unconscious?

Bohm: You can always ask how.

Krishnamurti: No, no. You tell me first, "Look, old boy, don't resist, think about, look at that tree, but I am going to talk to you." It sounds funny, but you know what I mean. I am going to talk to you. We two are communicating with each other without the conscious mind listening.

Bohm: Yes.

Krishnamurti: I think this is what really takes place. When you were talking to me - I was noticing it - I was not listening to your words so much. I was listening to you. I was open to you, not to your words, as you explained, I have looked in the dictionaries and all the rest of it. I said to myself, all right, leave all that, I am listening to you, not to the words which you use, but to the meaning, to the inward quality of your feeling which wants to tell me something.

Bohm: I understand.

Krishnamurti: That changes me, not all this verbalization. So can you talk to me about my idiocies, my illusions, my peculiar tendencies, without the conscious mind interfering and saying, 'Please don't touch all this, leave me alone!' They have tried subliminal propaganda in advertising, quickly, so that whilst you don't really pay attention, your unconscious does, so you buy that particular soap! We are not doing that, it would be deadly. You are telling me, look at the tree, and the cloud, or that picture on that wall, forget, don't listen to me with your conscious ears but listen to me with the ears that hear much deeper. That is how I listened to you this morning because I am terribly interested in the source, as you are. You follow, sir? And I say, by Jove, we will come to that, I caught on to it, we will come to that, and I am really interested in that one thing. All this is the explicable, easily understood - but to come to that thing together, feel it together! You follow? I think that is the way to break a conditioning, a habit, an image which I have cultivated. You talk to me about it at a level where the conscious mind is not totally interested. It sounds silly, but you understand what I am saying, sir?

Say for instance I have a conditioning; you can point it out a dozen times, argue, see the fallacy of it, the stupidity. I still go on. I resist it, I say what it should be, what shall I do in this world otherwise, and all the rest of it. But you see the truth that as long as the mind is conditioned there must be conflict and all the rest of it. So you penetrate or push aside my resistance and get to that, get the unconscious to listen to you, because the unconscious is much more subtle, much quicker. It may be frightened, but it sees the danger of fear much quicker than the conscious mind does. As when I was walking in California high in the mountains: I was looking at birds and trees and watching, and I heard a rattler and I jumped. It was the unconscious that made the body jump; I saw the rattler when I jumped, it was two or three feet away, it could have struck me very easily. If the conscious brain had been operating it would have taken several seconds.

Bohm: To reach the unconscious you have to have an action which doesn't directly appeal to the conscious.

Krishnamurti: Yes. That is affection, that is love. When you talk to my waking consciousness, it is hard, clever, subtle, brittle. And you penetrate that, say, all right, keep your own beastly little stuff, and you penetrate it with your look, with your affection, with all the feeling you have. That operates, not anything else.

This post was last updated by Clive Elwell Thu, 29 Nov 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 30 Nov 2018 #54
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2325 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Tom Paine wrote:

identification with a lot of 'non facts' is part of the fact of 'me'....

But is the me a fact?

It is acting and reacting, so in that sense it is a fact of life, no? The actions and thoughts and feelings which make up this me are facts.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 30 Nov 2018 #55
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 999 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
K.: So you penetrate or push aside my resistance and get to that, get the unconscious to listen to you, because the unconscious is much more subtle, much quicker. It may be frightened, but it sees the danger of fear much quicker than the conscious mind does. As when I was walking in California high in the mountains: I was looking at birds and trees and watching, and I heard a rattler and I jumped. It was the unconscious that made the body jump; I saw the rattler when I jumped, it was two or three feet away, it could have struck me very easily. If the conscious brain had been operating it would have taken several seconds.

Bohm: To reach the unconscious you have to have an action which doesn't directly appeal to the conscious.

Krishnamurti: Yes. That is affection, that is love. When you talk to my waking consciousness, it is hard, clever, subtle, brittle. And you penetrate that, say, all right, keep your own beastly little stuff, and you penetrate it with your look, with your affection, with all the feeling you have. That operates, not anything else.

Extraordinary.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 30 Nov 2018 #56
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4639 posts in this forum Online

Tom Paine wrote:
It is acting and reacting, so in that sense it is a fact of life, no? The actions and thoughts and feelings which make up this me are facts.

I cannot accept this, Tom. Actions and thoughts (not the contents of thought) and feelings are facts, yes. However I do not agree that these things MAKE UP the me. Rather I would say they are based on the assumption that the me exists – and assumptions are NOT facts.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 01 Dec 2018 #57
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2325 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
. Actions and thoughts (not the contents of thought) and feelings are facts, yes. However I do not agree that these things MAKE UP the me. Rather I would say they are based on the assumption that the me exists – and assumptions are NOT facts.

I think I understand what you're saying, Clive, but as long as I have beliefs and ideals, am ambitious or greedy or violent, then we can say the me is an actuality in my life...in consciousness, no? These ideals and beliefs and behaviors are what I'm calling the fact of the me. Aren't ideals and religious and political beliefs and divisions a fact for man? This is the 'me' in action.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Sat, 01 Dec 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 01 Dec 2018 #58
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 999 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Rather I would say they are based on the assumption that the me exists – and assumptions are NOT facts.

Are you saying Clive, that I am 'no-thing', is the only 'fact', ... all the rest is fiction?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sat, 01 Dec 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 01 Dec 2018 #59
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2325 posts in this forum Offline

D: Are you saying Clive, that I am 'nothing', is the only 'fact', ... all the rest is fiction?

But killing each other over religion obviously isn’t fiction, sadly. Nor the insanity of the US president and other world leaders. It is the fact of the ‘me’ that leads to all the violence and insanity, isn’t it?

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Sat, 01 Dec 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 01 Dec 2018 #60
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4639 posts in this forum Online

Dan McDermott wrote:
Extraordinary.

Would you say more, Dan?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 31 - 60 of 109 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.)