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

All one inquiry


Displaying posts 571 - 600 of 882 in total
Sat, 11 May 2019 #571
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2885 posts in this forum Offline

Letting' it all happen without the "minding".

Ah, but the self IS all the minding of what happens...as is fear. And that minding is a fact....actuality. So how am I...the self...to observe fear/myself without ‘minding’. Minding us what I am!

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 11 May 2019 #572
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1569 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
So how am I...the self...to observe fear/myself without ‘minding’.

By not being the 'self'?...isn't that why K. said it was his "secret": he doesn't mind what happens.

As you say, only the self minds.

This connects for me with something K said that is also strange: That there is seeing with the eyes but that there is another seeing, with "the eyes that are behind the head".

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sun, 12 May 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 12 May 2019 #573
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5404 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
No it's not different if the 'motive' for that 'looking into' is to bring it to an end. Inquiry has no motive . . . .

I would say what you say is true, Dan. But the mind is so conditioned into having motives, into the concept of ‘getting somewhere’, achieving something, it is difficult to conceive of an inquiry, or ANY action, that has no motive, that is pure, as you put it, Dan.

Generally we do things without motive when we love to do them. When our heart is in what we are doing. Do we ‘love’ to inquire? Sometimes I feel that is true for myself. And sometimes there is resistance. How about you others?

Another motiveless-ness state, perhaps, comes when there is no choice, no choice left. When there is really nothing else that can be done, when we do things from necessity. I do feel that state is applicable to inquiry. And not to inquire, to accept the status quo, is really to be dead, psychologically.

Hmm. It comes now that when we see that are operating WITH a motive, that is a good indicator that we are NOT truly inquiring. And also if we know where we are intending to go, in the mind, that is inquiry. Which suggests the “negative approach” ( which is not a deliberate approach) is the only true approach.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 12 May 2019 #574
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5404 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Ah, but the self IS all the minding of what happens...as is fear. And that minding is a fact....actuality. So how am I...the self...to observe fear/myself without ‘minding’. Minding us what I am!

That is a good description of the self, Tom. Yes, it IS the minding of what happens. It IS resistance to what is. It IS the wanting of what the self, the individual wants, irrationally, irrespective of what others selves might want.

How is the self to observe anything without 'minding', without judging, condemning, etc? That is a good question. I don't think that the self can. the self has to step out of the picture for such choiceless awareness to be.

Do I truly see that?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 12 May 2019 #575
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1569 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
it is difficult to conceive of an inquiry, or ANY action, that has no motive, that is pure, as you put it, Dan.

Aren't the words 'choice-less awareness' and 'motive-less inquiry' pointing at the same 'action'? One that is pure and free from condemnation, judgement, comparison, etc.? Inquiry carried out by the 'self' can never be free, can it?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 12 May 2019 #576
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2885 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
One that is pure and free from condemnation, judgement, comparison, etc.?

Logically what you say seems reasonable and true. But logic and reason won't bring about freedom from conditioning...freedom from the self... will it?

Dan McDermott wrote:
Inquiry carried out by the 'self' can never be free, can it?

Do we 'see' this as fact...truth? Asking myself too.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 12 May 2019 #577
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1569 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
But logic and reason won't bring about freedom from conditioning...freedom from the self... will it?

It seems not, yet logic and reason are indispensable, aren't they?. But regarding inquiry without a motive, it's not black or white. If I don't inquire because my inquiry always has a motive and is never pure, I've stopped myself, haven't I?. Isn't it that you start and then begin to discover the motives behind your inquiry, as I think Clive was getting at? It's seeing the 'impurities' (the self-centered aspects?) in the inquiry and the negating of them that brings about the purity or objectivity. The 'self' is not interested in coming to the truth; its interest is only in being more secure, more comfortable. It will 'put up' with a level of conflict. Its motives are discovered in the process of inquiry but when that process of inquiry serves and strengthens the self, (by wishing to change what is seen: fear, anger, sorrow, etc.), rather than discover the underlying cause; the 'root'....then it can be called "introspection". Is the way I see it.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Mon, 13 May 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 13 May 2019 #578
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5404 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
. Isn't it that you start and then begin to discover the motives behind your inquiry, as I think Clive was getting at? It's seeing the 'impurities' (the self-centered aspects?) in the inquiry and the negating of them that brings about the purity or objectivity.

That's well put, Dan. One can only inquire into is, what is actually happening. And that inquiry - I am meaning awareness really - brings change to what is.

Dan McDermott wrote:
The 'self' is not interested in coming to the truth

Yet something is interested in coming to truth, is it not? What is that something?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 13 May 2019 #579
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5404 posts in this forum Offline

![alt text][1]

Take a look at this. I actually haven't read the article as yet, but I hope to do so.

Hmm, when I look closely I see it is not recent, but 8 September 2018

Oh, I tried to insert an image, but it did not appear. It was the cover of a New Scientist magazine, and the headlines were:

THE YOU DELUSION

Why your sense of self is just a trick of the mind.

This post was last updated by Clive Elwell Mon, 13 May 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 14 May 2019 #580
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2885 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Dan McDermott wrote:

The 'self' is not interested in coming to the truth

Clive: Yet something is interested in coming to truth, is it not? What is that something?

'Something' in one feels that one must change....sees the immense suffering everywhere, and asks 'why?'...'what is the cause of this?', right? Something in my little childhood self back in the 1950's first saw the film footage from the NaziHolocaust for the first time and knew this was insanity...total madness. How did I know? I didn't know this intellectually, but my whole being responded with such horror and inner pain, that I wanted an answer....'How did this happen'?... 'Man can't possibly live like this!" So thus began a life long quest for the truth....for an answer to my question, 'why do we live like this?'. It's not just suffering in oneself that one observes. One sees immense suffering on the news in Africa, in the Middle East, in the history books recounting of the slave trade and the appalling wars and exploitation of the poor throughout all man's history. How can one NOT want to find out?

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Tue, 14 May 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 14 May 2019 #581
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5404 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
How can one NOT want to find out?

Quite right Tom. That is the way to put it.

Yet the majority of people seem completely engaged in their own pursuits, their self interest, their personal fulfillment. They take on some belief or ideology, and think that is all there is to life. And they feel that they are RIGHT.

I still don't really have an answer to the question "Why do we live like this?"

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 14 May 2019 #582
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5404 posts in this forum Offline

The following extract is from "Tradition and Revolution", Dialogue 4

P: But if one is born blind, only when a person like you comes and says, look, something happens. Most people would not understand what you are talking about.

Krishnamurti: Most people would not listen to all this. They would brush it aside.

B: The other is easier. It gives something whereas this gives nothing.

Krishnamurti: This gives everything if you touch it.

B: But the other is easier.

Krishnamurti: You see I am terribly interested in this. How has the mind of Krishnamurti maintained this state of innocence?

P: What you are saying is not relevant. You may be an exception. How did the boy Krishnamurti come to it? He had money, organization, everything and yet he left everything. If I were to take my grand-daughter and leave her with you and she had no other companion but you, even then she would not have it.

Krishnamurti: No, she would not have it. (pause) Wipe out all this.

P: When you say that, it is like the Zen koan; the goose being out of the bottle. Did you have a centre to wipe away?

Krishnamurti: No.

P: So you had no centre to wipe away? You are unique and therefore you are a phenomenon, and so you cannot tell us you did this and so it happened. You can only tell us "This is not it" and whether we drown or not, no one else can tell us. We see this. We may not be enlightened, but we are not unenlightened.

Krishnamurti: I think it is tremendously interesting - to see that anything that thought touches is not the real. Thought is time. Thought is memory. Thought cannot touch the real.

I find it very interesting that K never had a center to wipe away. What are the implications of that?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 15 May 2019 #583
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 775 posts in this forum Offline

Clive,

In the same dialogue you quoted (i.e. "Tradition and Revolution", Dialogue 4), K also said:

“The exercise of the brain is to find the truth and the false; to see the false as the false. You see when the boy Krishnamurti saw the truth, it was over.”

Therefore, isn't K saying that there was a moment in which he “saw the truth”? Which means that there was a “time” prior to that moment when he did not.

We also know that K went through a period of complete upheaval and crisis after Nitya’s death which lasted for weeks. Was that crisis perhaps “the death of the self”, so to speak, the ending of the centre? Does it matter? K also said elsewhere, “Friend, do not concern yourself with who I am.”

As I see it, there is only one thing of importance for anyone interested in understanding life and it is not whether or not K had a centre to wipe away. I may be completely wrong about this.

The only thing of importance that I see is “to see that anything that thought touches is not the real”. To see this is not to desire the ending of thought and time. If it is seen/understood that “thought cannot touch the real”, there is no further effort that needs to be made. There never was that need. To see/understand it is to "let" that perception act, to let the seed germinate, to see all that life brings - sorrow, fear, joy, love - without condemning it or trying to overcome it. That’s all. No? There is no end to learning and discovery.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 15 May 2019 #584
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5404 posts in this forum Offline

Krishnamurti said:

Belief is NOT reality.
To find out what is true, the mind must be free from belief AND non-belief.

The first sentence is easy. But what the second? Can anyone comment? And what exactly is “non-belief”?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 15 May 2019 #585
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2885 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
If it is seen/understood that “thought cannot touch the real”, there is no further effort that needs to be made.

This seems correct. Effort is thought....the struggle to overcome one image/thought with another image...a 'lower' one with a 'higher' one.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Wed, 15 May 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 15 May 2019 #586
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2885 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
I find it very interesting that K never had a center to wipe away. What are the implications of that?

I would think that this can lead to a great fear of not attaining. "I can never be like K. because he never had a self to begin with", we think....and all the fear that thought entails. So we're comparing ....'me' compared to 'K'...the 'lower' image compared to the 'higher' image again. It's only an image of K that we are comparing ourselves to. We can't compare to the 'real' right?

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Wed, 15 May 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 15 May 2019 #587
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1569 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
We can't compare to the 'real' right?

Thought/self compares... and thought "cannot touch the real".

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 15 May 2019 #588
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5404 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
The only thing of importance that I see is “to see that anything that thought touches is not the real”.

Yes. Thought is not true. This is not a theory, an idea. If it is an idea, it can be argued about, and such argument is not real. As an idea it can be thought about, accepted,or denied, and all that is merely the continuation of thought.

Such seeing is the ending of all problems, is it not? Seeing that thought is not true/real, it ends, it dies.


Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 15 May 2019 #589
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2885 posts in this forum Offline

Seeing that thought is not true/real, it ends, it dies.

Well, my bus home from the university is due in about 5 minutes so I’m not about to discard thought right now or I won’t get home tonight ;). But you’re speaking of ‘psychological thought’ I’m assuming. Thoughts of becoming or attaining or acquiring?

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Thu, 16 May 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 16 May 2019 #590
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2885 posts in this forum Offline

Clive: Such seeing is the ending of all problems, is it not? Seeing that thought is not true/real, it ends, it dies.

And the unconscious beliefs, ideals, conclusions, etc. Are these ended as well?

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 16 May 2019 #591
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5404 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Well, my bus home from the university is due in about 5 minutes so I’m not about to discard thought right now or I won’t get home tonight ;).

I’m not sure of that, Tom. In fact I am not feeling sure of anything at the moment.

Can thought be simply divided into psychological thought and “practical thought”? I feel dubious about this. Who or what would be the divider? I remember Max used to argue all thought was psychological.

In any case “I” cannot discard thought, as “I” AM thought. It is not a matter of choice, is it? But I am not saying that thought is not needed in daily life.

Tom Paine wrote:
But you’re speaking of ‘psychological thought’ I’m assuming

Not necessarily. I think ALL thought needs space between it in order to function properly, even purely practical thoughts – if there is such a thing. K has said only in that space can there be true creation – and he said that goes for scientists, artists, in their fields. The knowledge of the past has to be cleared, in order to make space for the new.

The ending or dying of thought that I was referring to is in the active present. It does not mean "for all time". It is not "once and for all".

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 16 May 2019 #592
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5404 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
The only thing of importance that I see is “to see that anything that thought touches is not the real”. To see this is not to desire the ending of thought and time. If it is seen/understood that “thought cannot touch the real”, there is no further effort that needs to be made. There never was that need. To see/understand it is to "let" that perception act, to let the seed germinate, to see all that life brings - sorrow, fear, joy, love - without condemning it or trying to overcome it. That’s all. No? There is no end to learning and discovery.

I feel a reluctance to make any statement about what is, to make any description. Is this because thought can only imagine static states - and life is never static?

Anything I might say seems to put me in a state of knowledge, which is false. False because limited, a fragment only. And then I am imprisoned in that state.

But no, "I" am not imprisoned, I AM that prison.

Yes, it is only this realisation that thought is never the real, never true, that is the ending of the prison of knowledge.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 17 May 2019 #593
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2885 posts in this forum Offline

Clive: Can* thought be simply divided into psychological thought and “practical thought”? I feel dubious about this. Who or what would be the divider? I remember Max used to argue all thought was psychological.

If I look at my watch and think, ‘my bus is due in 10 minutes. I better head over to the bus stop.’, this is an example of practical thought. There’s no ‘me’ involved there. We all know, I think, what it is that we’ve been calling ‘psychological’ thought...thought centered around becoming or attaining for ‘me’...to gain psychological security or status, for example. Got to run....it’s late here and I have to shut down (practical thought)

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 17 May 2019 #594
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1569 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Can thought be simply divided into psychological thought and “practical thought”? I feel dubious about this. Who or what would be the divider?

It's thought along with intelligence that sees where it is of value and where its presence creates conflict, I'd say. For me I seem to have drawn a 'line in the sand'. No more conflict. No more suffering. no more psychological 'problems'. Obviously 'I' can't do anything about those things but without that 'line' there can't be the awareness that its been 'crossed...if you see what I mean. None of it is actually necessary (the suffering) so why indulge in it?

I imported something Huguette wrote in the other forum that touches on this in response to my questioning the source of insight:

Dan:Is it the insights themselves that bring the energy to look deeper?

Huguette: Isn't perhaps the other way around? That when energy is not squandered in desire and effort, there is the energy to look deeper?

Yes, That is what psychological conflict, suffering, worry, anxiety, fear ,etc is, a squandering of this precious energy. It is the 'house cleaning' that K. has said must be done, the negating, wiping away any conflict...not allowing any psychological problem to take root. And for this 'attention' is necessary. That is the "arduous" part of all this, to be attentive to the source of conflict in the psyche.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 17 May 2019 #595
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2885 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
No more suffering. no more psychological 'problems'. Obviously 'I' can't do anything about those things but without that 'line' there can't be the awareness that its been 'crossed...if you see what I mean. None of it is actually necessary (the suffering) so why indulge in it?

If suffering is present, who is it that decides not to indulge? Who draws that ‘line’? Just questioning, Dan, because it’s not clear to me what you’re trying to say.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Fri, 17 May 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 17 May 2019 #596
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2885 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Not necessarily. I think ALL thought needs space between it in order to function properly, even purely practical thoughts – if there is such a thing.

Are you saying that there can be creativity even when using thought....that the two can function together? I think that’s true. But, I use what I’m calling practical knowledge when cooking a meal, for instance...when repairing a broken light switch. Isn't that a purely practical use of thought....mechanical...not creative?

K has said only in that space can there be true creation – and he said that goes for scientists, artists, in their fields. The knowledge of the past has to be cleared, in order to make space for the new.

Yes, I can see that.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Fri, 17 May 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 17 May 2019 #597
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1569 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
If suffering is present, who is it that decides not to indulge? Who draws that ‘line’? Just questioning, Dan, because it’s not clear to me what you’re trying to say.

I think that it's a mistake to get caught up in the "who". Just as K. has said: "Do it!" Haven't you had enough of the misery, the worry, the fear? It was a few years ago that this was a realization. To put it simply, all that suffering just dissipates the energy we have. Energy that when freed from all that can bring some light? Question it and see the source of it. It's 'thought'. Thought in the wrong place creating problems and then attempting to solve them. It's a 'trap'. The trap is I'd say that we've learned to 'live with' the conflict because there was nothing that could be done about it: "it's human nature", grin and bear it...or go to a professional, or take a drug, find a guru or amuse yourself endlessly, etc. But none of that gets to where the trouble is...that can only happen through 'self-knowledge', seeing the traps of the cunning self. "Who" is it that does the seeing? 'Who' knows? Just be clear that psychological conflict and suffering has no place.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 17 May 2019 #598
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2885 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Just be clear that psychological conflict and suffering has no place.

If I’m suffering, what (let’s forget who for now) brings this seeing? The seeing that it has no place. I’m deeply frightened and insecure in my job or marriage for example. I can’t decide to not ‘indulge’. Suffering/fear is there....it’s a fact.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 17 May 2019 #599
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1569 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
If I’m suffering, what (let’s forget who for now) brings this seeing? The seeing that it has no place.

You're aware that you're suffering? Do you want to stop the suffering? End it? That's running from the sensation that you're calling 'suffering', isn't it. Do you know what you are actually trying to end, to stop? Doesn't it just show up again in a different situation? What about really getting to the bottom of what is going on in you rather than accepting that it's the 'outer' situation that is causing the 'problem? What is the sensation of 'fear' when you get really close to it? Doesn't your 'attachment' to your job or your marriage, your 'security' bring up the question of why am I attached to anything psychologically? What is the 'root' of that need to attach in me? That's the question isn't it? Not how to 'escape' this 'suffering' from the threats to my attachments, my 'security' but to not be attached... period? Is that possible? And if not, why not? All that is going to go up in smoke anyway when you die, why shouldn't we be free of it all now?Do I want to be free of it? I see this as a journey of discovery with no end in sight. The discovery is of these 'traps'...but as the saying goes, I may be wrong...but not about conflict in myself.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Fri, 17 May 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 17 May 2019 #600
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 775 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
All that is going to go up in smoke anyway when you die, why shouldn't we be free of it all now?

If I ask “Why shouldn’t we be free now?”, isn’t this still in the realm of reasoning? But it is not by reasoning that the mind can answer or stop seeking and striving. It stops seeking and striving the moment it sees with complete clarity that it is unable to end suffering, desire, fear, attachment, time, self, and so on. Reason IS necessary but only to the point where the fact is seen - the fact that it is unable to come upon anything totally new.

And when you begin to investigate, or question, or reason with him [i.e. one who is secure in his belief] he stops at a certain point and will not examine further, it is too dangerous, he feels his security is being threatened; then communication ceases. He may reason, think logically up to a certain point but is incapable of breaking through to a different dimension altogether; he is stuck in a groove and will not investigate anything else. Does that really give security? .... We function with thought; all our activity is based on thought, horizontal or vertical; whether you are aspiring to great heights it is the movement of thought vertically; or whether you are merely satisfied to bring about a social revolution and so on it is the horizontal movement of thought. So does thought fundamentally, basically, give security, psychologically? Thought has its place; but when thought assumes that it can bring about psychological security then it is living in illusion. ... Please use your reason, logic, all your energy to find out. (http://jiddu-krishnamurti.net/en/wholeness-of-l...)

To me, this extract from K is pointing to something that is so clear, so simple and so immediate that the mind - which is accustomed to the complexity of effort, reasoning, thinking, making choices, struggling, analyzing, explaining, desire, comparison, time, and so on - cannot fathom it. Thought and reason are necessary. But thought and reason CANNOT discover anything new.

Thought can understand logic, it can reason, it can see the processes of its sorrow, but it is incapable of doing anything except think and reason, sanely or not. It "refuses" or backs away from the clarity, simplicity and immediacy of the fact that it must do nothing because THERE IS NOTHING THAT IT CAN DO. It refuses it because it is unknown, new, too simple, too immediate. “Doing nothing”, “not deciding what to do” in matters of relationship, IS ACTION. And such action is a completely new approach to life and relationship.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 571 - 600 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.)