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

All one inquiry


Displaying posts 751 - 780 of 882 in total
Sun, 14 Jul 2019 #751
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2813 posts in this forum Offline

Manfred Kritzler wrote:
One assumption is that only this exists what we as human beings can recognize with our senses or thought.

The other assumption is, that there is unity which can not be grasped by senses or thought.

Both are assumptions which cannot be proved by science at the moment.

And how does any assumption help me to understand myself? My suffering, my loneliness, my anger, greed, worry, fear?

So we have to make a decision what assumption is more logical. We only can do it by logic and then try out if it works.

“Works” in what way?

For my understanding and experience it is more logical to let together what is dependent on each other and see the differences only as different appearances of one whole, but not “per se” as separate. The result of this assumption is a paradox. Whatever is seen as a different appearance of the whole and not as a separation is the whole and the appearance at the same moment.

Again, these assumptions and speculations have no effect on how I live my life. They’re just intellectual as I see it. Will they bring peace or happiness to man...end man’s inhumanity to man?

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 14 Jul 2019 #752
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1491 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
And how does any assumption help me to understand myself? My suffering, my loneliness, my anger, greed, worry, fear?

Is it only through 'direct perception' of those sensations (without naming or condemning them), that understanding can take place? Would you include also the sensation called 'pleasure'?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 14 Jul 2019 #753
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5345 posts in this forum Offline

Manfred Kritzler wrote #740:
Is the seeing of the division that thought creates in choiceless awareness the end of the division and does this include the seeing when we live not in choiceless awareness?

Manfred, I am not fully understanding your question. Could you rephrase your words a little?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 14 Jul 2019 #754
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5345 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote #742:
Thought is always fragmented this way by its very nature. It can never be anything but fragments. And one fragment is always divided from the others obviously. Is this the cause of conflict....thought never being whole? I’m just exploring....questioning.

Clear that the very nature of thought is to be fragmented, since all thought is based on experience, and all experience is limited, not whole. But it is not perfectly obvious to me why "fragmented" should translate into "conflict" Why should the fragments be in conflict with each other?

I woke in the night with this question: What is true? Not 'what is truth?', but what is true? And the answer quickly came that it is true that the mind is full of falseness.

And perhaps the greatest falseness, the greatest myth, is that "I" am separate to, am different from, "me". That there is an I who is different from the mind, and by inference is able to somehow act upon the mind, solve the problems of the mind. This seems to be an almost universally held idea. Is this the basic cause of conflict?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 15 Jul 2019 #755
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2813 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
But it is not perfectly obvious to me why "fragmented" should translate into "conflict" Why should the fragments be in conflict with each other?

I’m not totally clear about this Clive, but here’s my take, for what it’s worth.

Any one fragment can not stand on its own. They’re related to and in conflict with all the opposing fragments. The pleasurable fragment is in conflict with the painful one. The good one is in conflict with the bad. The me fragment is in conflict with the you fragment....the Christian with the Muslim or atheist. Will explore this further at another time....got to have dinner.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 15 Jul 2019 #756
Thumb_avatar Manfred Kritzler Germany 55 posts in this forum Offline

Why is it necessary to assume some connection with the universe, etc? Is it just another 'belief' to avoid the suffering of not knowing? Just questioning.
———-
When we see that everything what we can grasp is what is possible to recognize and beyond of that is “not knowing” no further model or inference is necessary. I agree completely with that what you said.

This is by the way very similar to the science of Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.

But also Bohm’s implicate order and holographic worldview are models in the area of thought with the intention to point to the sphere beyond thought.

I think this models make sense for supporting to see that our usual way of thinking is incomplete. If they are seen as truth or fixed explanation we are in a mental jail again.

But why means not knowing necessarily suffering?
Is this also a believe-system?

Clive asked me when I „practice“ wholeness or not-knowing, which is for me the same:

I try to practice it nearly in any part of my life which needs movement, for instance in weeding weeds, cuting bread or vegetables and also in sports . Most interesting in tennis, because there is an opponent who has an intention opposite to mine and there is a brake after each point.

The interesting thing for me is that “not-knowing” cannot be reached by any intention. For a long period of time I tried to suppress thinking through „not knowing“. But that did not work very well. It was a high-level division or a try to throw thinking out of my life in certain situations. This meant to try to know when thinking is appropriate and when not. The result was that thinking become stronger and not weaker.

As a next step I tried to accept thinking, what made it weaker. But there was still not “not knowing”, but a control if I really accept thinking.

Two years ago I started only to being aware whatever I am aware of. It doesn’t matter what it is. For instance that I think, that I watched the ball, that I did not watch it, that my movement is good or that it is bad, that I hit the ball in the out, that I am angry making a mistake and so on. After each rally I have the chance to see if I am only observing or interfering again. Both “actions” have the same “value”. There is no right or wrong anymore.

The status in the moment is that the game itself is getting better in quality, but I lose it very often. There are many great rallies, but my opponents play also much better.
So it is a big challenge for my ego not to fall back in the old pattern of willpower.

This is only an attempt to describe a practical situation in words, which means it can not be complete.

Although it was and still is sometimes very tough to stay with this “new” attitude, suffering happens not to much. When it shows up it is my old pattern telling me not to trust in the unknown.

What I am convinced of is that “not knowing or wholeness” can only be lived but not expresses in words. Nevertheless in the internet we have only words to express the inexpressible.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 15 Jul 2019 #757
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2813 posts in this forum Offline

Manfred Kritzler wrote:
I think this models make sense for supporting to see that our usual way of thinking is incomplete.

Yes it’s based upon the known. Our whole consciousness is based upon that. So consciousness is always limited by the past...the known....always bound...limited by past experience....our own, and passed down from our parents and teachers and our parents’ parents, going back to man’s first thoughts and experiences. So that has become our authority...our prison? But I’m not clear how you are jumping from that limited consciousness...our everyday way of living...knowing and knowledge and belief....to not knowing or what you refer to as ‘wholeness’. How did you come to discard the totality of consciousness....knowing...the ‘me’? Or are you only aware of the known interfering...of inattention to what is....the unknown? “After each rally I have the chance to see if I am only observing or interfering again“, as you put it.
Sorry if my questions are unclear. I’m trying to get a feel for what you’re saying.

I just saw the QOTD and it touches on the issue of the known so I’ll share it here:

“To go beyond the self-enclosing activities of the mind, you must understand them; and to understand them is to be aware of action in relationship, relationship to things, to people, and to ideas. In that relationship, which is the mirror, we begin to see ourselves, without any justification or condemnation; and from that wider and deeper knowledge of the ways of our own mind, it is possible to proceed further; then it is possible for the mind to be quiet, to receive that which is real.”

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Mon, 15 Jul 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 15 Jul 2019 #758
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1491 posts in this forum Offline

Manfred Kritzler wrote:
The interesting thing for me is that “not-knowing” cannot be reached by any intention.

Yes "intention" or direction always has a motive behind it, doesn't it? And yet 'not-knowing' is the 'fact' isn't it. But when I look out at the natural scene around me here, I somehow 'know' that what I am seeing , hearing, etc is being filtered through a 'veil' of memory. I am not seeing what is in front of me in its pristine 'newness'. I am seeing it through all those labels which are of course the past. There may be a reason for this, that the brain can't contain the energy of 'Now' and has damped it down into the 'ordinary" so we can go about our 'business'.(It's not a theory for me when I say there is a different way of seeing in the moment) So as Tom mentioned, I thought, that thinking, registering, labeling, experiencing, memory has created a kind of prison that we are in. How we see the world around us each day...and desire or craving to be free of that 'prison' is a 'characteristic' of the prison itself?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 15 Jul 2019 #759
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2813 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Yes "intention" or direction always has a motive behind it, doesn't it?

And the motive is based upon something known.

And yet 'not-knowing' is the 'fact' isn't it. But when I look out at the natural scene around me here, I somehow 'know' that what I am seeing , hearing, etc is being filtered through a 'veil' of memory.

True, and necessary for physical survival. I must remember how to cook and clean, obviously. The known becomes a prison when it controls our behavior....when our behavior is influenced by known beliefs and ideals and conclusions about how one ‘should’ live and behave, and when we judge ourselves as well as others by these standards. Fear and pleasure are also motivating our behavior, and they are also based upon the known....and are limiting.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Mon, 15 Jul 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 15 Jul 2019 #760
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 657 posts in this forum Offline

Can we agree that Krishnamurti is pointing to the existence of something that is beyond thought, thought being matter? That there is then, something that is beyond matter.

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Mon, 15 Jul 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 15 Jul 2019 #761
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 657 posts in this forum Offline

I think that we can establish that what is matter only, necessarily goes into disorder. Death, War.

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Mon, 15 Jul 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 15 Jul 2019 #762
Thumb_avatar Manfred Kritzler Germany 55 posts in this forum Offline

Tom:
„To go beyond the self-enclosing activities of the mind, you must understand them; and to understand them is to be aware of action in relationship, relationship to things, to people, and to ideas. In that relationship, which is the mirror, we begin to see ourselves, without any justification or condemnation; and from that wider and deeper knowledge of the ways of our own mind, it is possible to proceed further; then it is possible for the mind to be quiet, to receive that which is real.”

———-

Manfred:
Your question is in no way unclear. It is so difficult to express in words how the process of acting beyond thought works. I also can never be sure if it is really beyond. So what you cited is much more beautiful than I ever could express it.

For me it was for a long time experience and exercises. And also now it is a back and forth movement. In a certain way my „system“ learned to trust in the unknown. But in Tennis when the so called big points are played it has the tendency to fall back in the old conditioned way, which means to use only thought.

The biggest challenge for me is to accept this fall-back even though I know it brings mostly a negative result. It is really difficult to learn the right out of the false.

Another approximation might be: There is emanating awareness, movement of the body inclusive sometimes movement of thought and complete stillness at the same moment. My “system” learns like a small child to stand up by falling down and standing up again without judging anything. The standing up is learned by accepting fully the falling down. Standing up is inseparable connected with falling down.

And for sure these statements are made by looking back. They never can be the actual or what is. Only what has been.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 15 Jul 2019 #763
Thumb_avatar Manfred Kritzler Germany 55 posts in this forum Offline

Manfred:
Is the seeing of the division that thought creates in choiceless awareness the end of the division and does this include the seeing when we live not in choiceless awareness?

Clive: Manfred, I am not fully understanding your question. Could you rephrase your words a little

Manfred: Thank you for asking. The question is really unclear. I tried to put it as short as possible, but that was perhaps not the best idea. Now a second attempt:

“Can the division end by choiceless awareness or do we need something else?

Does choiceless awareness include being aware that we are not choiceless aware?”

I don’t know if it is more understandable because I made two questions of one?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 15 Jul 2019 #764
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1491 posts in this forum Offline

More confusing: if we make the choice to be choicelessly aware is that choiceless awareness?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 15 Jul 2019 #765
Thumb_avatar Manfred Kritzler Germany 55 posts in this forum Offline

and more confusing: If we are choiceless aware that we making a choice is that choiceless awareness?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 15 Jul 2019 #766
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1491 posts in this forum Offline

Manfred Kritzler wrote:
If we are choicelessly aware that we making a choice is that choiceless awareness?

Do 'we' play any part at all in the process of 'choiceless awareness'...do 'we' initiate it? And if 'we' don't somehow initiate it, what 'starts' it???

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 15 Jul 2019 #767
Thumb_avatar Manfred Kritzler Germany 55 posts in this forum Offline

Dan: Do 'we' play any part at all in the process of 'choiceless awareness'...do 'we' initiate it? And if 'we' don't somehow initiate it, what 'starts' it???
—————-
Manfred: Good but difficult question. I think, if we try to initiate choiceless awareness it will not work. But what starts it is a question we cannot answer. For me choiceless awareness has no opposite, no movement, no shape. It is the observed without a separate observer. In what way should we be able to describe what brings it in existence?

This post was last updated by Manfred Kritzler Mon, 15 Jul 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 15 Jul 2019 #768
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1491 posts in this forum Offline

Manfred Kritzler wrote:
In what way should we be able to describe what brings it in existence?

This reminds of another K. 'enigma': "Be attentive when you are inattentive".

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 15 Jul 2019 #769
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5345 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote &755:
Any one fragment can not stand on its own. They’re related to and in conflict with all the opposing fragments. The pleasurable fragment is in conflict with the painful one. The good one is in conflict with the bad. The me fragment is in conflict with the you fragment....the Christian with the Muslim or atheist.

Each thought, no matter how deep, is incomplete. I think this is clear. Thought, or something, is disatisfied with this state, this feeling of incompleteness. Perhaps it is in contradiction to the basic wholeness of the life. Incompleteness is a sort of insecurity, isn't it, which the mind does not like. For whatever reason, thought tries to overcome the incompleteness, it tries to bring wholeness.

But the only way thought can try and do this is through another thought. And this new thought is just as incomplete as the original one. And one it goes. And on it has gone through the history of mankind. The mystery is, as I have been asking lately, why thought has not learnt about its basic mistake, and ended the problem. Why has thought not seen its own nature, its own limitations?

in any case, feeling that this is our task.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 16 Jul 2019 #770
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5345 posts in this forum Offline

Manfred Kritzler wrote &756:
Two years ago I started only to being aware whatever I am aware of. It doesn’t matter what it is. For instance that I think, that I watched the ball, that I did not watch it, that my movement is good or that it is bad, that I hit the ball in the out, that I am angry making a mistake and so on. After each rally I have the chance to see if I am only observing or interfering again. Both “actions” have the same “value”. There is no right or wrong anymore.

yes,I have a strong sense of this, Manfred. At times, especially when relating seriously with others, there comes a sense of what I call "moving from what is to what is". It is a very high energy state. There is not a vestage of choice, no sense of right or wrong. Hence there is no chooser, no me.

Manfred Kritzler wrote:
I think this models make sense for supporting to see that our usual way of thinking is incomplete. If they are seen as truth or fixed explanation we are in a mental jail again.

Exactly. And is this not precisely the trap that the human race is caught in? We do think thought is true. We do think it is describing some objective reality "out there". That is, thought thinks itself true. Even when it questions itself, it assumes the questioning is true.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 16 Jul 2019 #771
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5345 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote &764:
More confusing: if we make the choice to be choicelessly aware is that choiceless awareness?

It means absolutely nothing to "decide" to be choicelessly aware, as I am sure you see, Dan. We cannot decide to be ANYTHING, psychologically, can we? That is one of the great myths of the mind, that this "me" is in charge, can control thought/feeling.

Choiceless awareness is not something that I do, surely? Anymore that "I" can love, or be intelligent.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 16 Jul 2019 #772
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1491 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Choiceless awareness is not something that I do, surely? Anymore that "I" can love, or be intelligent.

Well that's the question, how does it come about in you if you don't 'do' it?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 16 Jul 2019 #773
Thumb_avatar Manfred Kritzler Germany 55 posts in this forum Offline

Clive: Choiceless awareness is not something that I do, surely? Anymore that "I" can love, or be intelligent.
——————

Dan: Well that's the question, how does it come about in you if you don't 'do' it?
—————

Manfred: I think this question is not answerable. To answer a question we need an opposite. It is either this or that. Choiceless awareness is a word created by Krishnamurti. In German I call it „absichtslose Achtsamkeit“, which means „awareness with no intention“. For my understanding it has no opposite. It is superposed with that what is observed. Observer and observed are one. It is similar to the superposition in quantum physics, which also is an assumption.

The way to choiceless awareness is different for each one of us. It depends on what mechanism are working in us and prevent us from giving the possibility or chance that choiceless awareness is emanating.

Maybe we could say that there is one thing we can do to create a room for the possibility that choiceless awareness can emanating, which is being aware of our programs which prevent us from choiceless awareness.

I’m in no way sure if this is reasonable.

This post was last updated by Manfred Kritzler Tue, 16 Jul 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 16 Jul 2019 #774
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2813 posts in this forum Offline

Clive: And perhaps the greatest falseness, the greatest myth, is that "I" am separate to, am different from, "me". That there is an I who is different from the mind,

The mind is thought which is based upon memory and I am that, yes.

and by inference is able to somehow act upon the mind, solve the problems of the mind. This seems to be an almost universally held idea. Is this the basic cause of conflict?

I was looking into your post this AM, Clive, and I’m stuck on this question. One fragment of the mind acting upon another fragment is conflict yes. Can you say more about how you answer this question? It is certainly a crucial issue.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Tue, 16 Jul 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 16 Jul 2019 #775
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1491 posts in this forum Offline

Manfred Kritzler wrote:
Maybe we could say that there is one thing we can do to create a room for the possibility that choiceless awareness can emanating, which is being aware of our programs which prevent us from choiceless awareness.

Looking into this I asked what if any, is the impediment to choiceless awareness or awareness with no intention?...Is it that I have formed an image of what that entails? I have heard from someone I respect that this thing called by that name is a good thing to have or to do... so I want it, I want to figure out how to do it, etc., etc. But this 'choiceless awareness' can't be 'experienced', can it, by me? And something only has "value" if I can experience it. But experience is in the past and awareness can only be now. So 'desire' has come into the picture. But can I desire that which I can't know or is it that I 'imagine' the state of being 'choicelessy aware' and that is what I crave...As a reward, because I imagine it to be 'satisfying'? So I come back to the idea of non-effort and realize that there is nothing that I can do to bring about what I imagine this thing to be. But then how will I 'know' it's happening and if I don't know it's happening, what 'use' is it? Etc.,etc...

Believe it or not there is some clarification to come out of all of that...I don't 'know' what choiceless awareness is?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Tue, 16 Jul 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 17 Jul 2019 #776
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5345 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Clive:Choiceless awareness is not something that I do, surely? Anymore that "I" can love, or be intelligent.

Dan: Well that's the question, how does it come about in you if you don't 'do' it?

As is my wont, I am replying without looking further down the thread yet.

This is a question that often arises, from many different starting points, from apparently different inquiries. How does change come about, if it is realised that “I” cannot bring about change? I am not at all sure that it is a right question – and that “if” is a warning sign.

Two lines of inquiry present themselves to me.

We do not ask the question “How can I breath?” Obviously breathing is not something that I need to bring about. In fact if I (thought) does try to get involved in the process, it gets rather complicated. But we cannot take any analogy too far.

Does awareness need to be “brought about”? Or is not there right from the start? Is it not part of life itself?

We often feel that awareness is lacking, is NOT there. Are we doing something that somehow denies natural awareness? I think it is easily observed that thought itself is the essence of this denial. Walking along the river, under the trees, suddenly thought starts up, pursuing some memory, some future plan, and immediately the body's senses are lost. We are no longer seeing, hearing, smelling.... And I suggest, in fact, this is the common state of being for most people, most of the time. We live mostly in thought.

If what I describe is so, the question is no longer “how does awareness come about?”, but “how is it lost, or over-shadowed?”

I said above the word “if” is a warning sign. “If” is not actual, is it? “If” indicates some imagination at work. IS IT ACTUALLY realised that we cannot bring about change? That is the crucial question, for me.

Do we ACTUALLY see that we are not aware – or rather that awareness is not active? You yourself, Dan, raised the apparent paradox of being aware that we are not aware.

How does ANYTHING come about? What is the agent of any sort of change, from non-understanding to understanding, from non-awareness to awareness, from no-intelligence to intelligence (putting aside for the moment that all these qualities may actually be there but covered up)? From the absence of love to the presence of love? Is not the factor, SEEING?

And is this seeing not denied by the reaction of trying to become? From immediately creating and pursuing the imaginary opposite? TRYING to be aware, trying to understand, etc?

I suppose the mind could then raise and pursuse the question, “How can I see?”. But again it is a wrong question. Isn't “What am I to do” a wrong question, (except on a purely practical level)? The question is, WHAT AM I doing, actually?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 17 Jul 2019 #777
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5345 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
I was looking into your post this AM, Clive, and I’m stuck on this question. One fragment of the mind acting upon another fragment is conflict yes. Can you say more about how you answer this question? It is certainly a crucial issue.

I am not totally clear about what you mean by “answering this question”, Tom. Which question exactly?

Do we SEE that thought cannot solve its own problems?

Not do we KNOW that it can't. Not have an IDEA that it cannot. Do we actually see it, are we face to face with the fact, with no possibility of pretending it is otherwise?

And if we do see this clearly, can we not escape from the clarity of this perception? Because the perception will act. It HAS TO act, like you act to move out of the path of the truck that is approaching you.

So I CAN'T answer this question, Tom. I cannot do anything to escape conflict, because I see that all my life I have acted to try to escape conflict, and all I have done is increase the conflict, got stuck deeper and deeper into the quagmire of conflict. So I give up trying. I say “I” give up, but better say it gives itself up – there is no action on my part. There is no intention to act on my part – just like I explain in my above post, it is the seeing that acts.

When there is no attempt to overcome conflict, is there then conflict?

Does this meet your question, Tom?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 17 Jul 2019 #778
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5345 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Believe it or not there is some clarification to come out of all of that...I don't 'know' what choiceless awareness is?

I do believe it - or rather I see it. Knowing and awareness are different dimensions, and they cannot co-exist, can they?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 17 Jul 2019 #779
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 747 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote at 754:
But it is not perfectly obvious to me why "fragmented" should translate into "conflict" Why should the fragments be in conflict with each other?

It seems to me that the QOTD speaks exactly to this question of yours, Clive. I am pasting it below for easy reference. I don’t know if it will strike you in the same way.

You will be able to see for yourself how you are conditioned only when there is a conflict in the continuity of pleasure or the avoidance of pain. If everything is perfectly happy around you, your wife loves you, you love her, you have a nice house, nice children and plenty of money, then you are not aware of your conditioning at all. But when there is a disturbance - when your wife looks at someone else or you lose your money or are threatened with war or any other pain or anxiety - then you know you are conditioned. When you struggle against any kind of disturbance or defend yourself against any outer or inner threat, then you know you are conditioned. And as most of us are disturbed most of the time, either superficially or deeply, that very disturbance indicates that we are conditioned. So long as the animal is petted he reacts nicely, but the moment he is antagonized the whole violence of his nature comes out.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 17 Jul 2019 #780
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2813 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
I am not totally clear about what you mean by “answering this question”, Tom. Which question exactly?

Clive: And perhaps the greatest falseness, the greatest myth, is that "I" am separate to, am different from, "me". That there is an I who is different from the mind,
and by inference is able to somehow act upon the mind, solve the problems of the mind. This seems to be an almost universally held idea. Is this the basic cause of conflict?

Is this “myth” the basic cause of conflict? The me vs. the not me....the division internally in consciousness? Or is simply the fact that thought divides....both internally as well as externally as me vs you? Christian vs Jew, liberal vs conservative, right vs wrong, etc? I’ll look further into the rest of your post #777 at another time....it’s very late here. Appreciate the discussion of this crucial issue!

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 751 - 780 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.)