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

All one inquiry


Displaying posts 781 - 810 of 882 in total
Wed, 17 Jul 2019 #781
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2848 posts in this forum Offline

Here’s the QOTD which touches on the issue of division...the me vs the not me:

http://www.kinfonet.org/krishnamurti/quotes/as-...

“As long as there is a guiding principle in our lives to which we are trying to be true, there must be duality in action, and therefore a problem. That duality will exist as long as there is conflict, and conflict exists wherever there is the limitation of self-consciousness, the 'I'. Though we have discarded external standards and have found for ourselves an inner principle, an inner law, to which we are trying to be true, there is still distinction in action, and hence an incompleteness in understanding. It is only when we understand, when we no longer search for understanding, then there is an effortless existence.”

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Wed, 17 Jul 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 17 Jul 2019 #782
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 855 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:

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?

Hi Clive and Dan,

Something is not quit right it seems to me.

atoms, cells and organs are all at different levels of existence and the higher the level the other levels are involved so to me it seems that in awareness knowing is co-existing but not at the same level, knowing is involved in awareness but not the primary and/or controlling factor.

Truth will unfold itself to those who enquire their own actions.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 17 Jul 2019 #783
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2848 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
it seems that in awareness knowing is co-existing but not at the same level, knowing is involved in awareness but not the primary and/or controlling factor.

I think k is saying something different, Wim....that knowing is preventing awareness. If I know all about fear I can’t be choicelessly aware of fear. I already know that it’s ‘wrong’ or that I don’t like it or that I’ve been told all my life that it’s wrong. My knowledge prevents seeing fear as it actually is because I’m condemning it or resisting it. My knowledge of you prevents me seeing you as you are NOW, since knowledge is based upon the past.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Wed, 17 Jul 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 17 Jul 2019 #784
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5369 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote @ 779:
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.

As a matter of fact, it doesn't, Huguette.

I Am feeling disturbance at the moment, I have been through the morning. It is not related to some specific problem, as far as I can see, just a general sense of disturbance, a sort of insecurity, insufficiency.

But feeling this does not seem to bring insight into my original
question:

"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 is almost obvious that fragments of the mind must be in conflict - but not quite. K has often said "where there is separation/division there MUST be conflict" That is actually becoming more obvious the more I stay with the question, feel into the question without searching for an answer.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 18 Jul 2019 #785
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1518 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
My knowledge prevents seeing fear as it actually is because I’m condemning it or resisting it.

Yes, we resist or condemn the sensation of 'fear' and try to get away from it or resolve or rationalize it somehow but that movement away from it is part of the process itself, isn't it? If that is so then what has to be seen is the desire to move away from it or any conflict, sadness, loneliness, etc., in myself. That is where awareness comes in; observing the causes behind these processes rather than just the desire to run from them. That's the "duality" mentioned in the QOTD isn't it? The causes of psychological disturbance have to be clearly seen or there is just the escaping from it and the causes remain undiscovered. And the fear or whatever reappears another time and again the escape...
'Awareness' doesn't care what is going on in our psycho dramas, it doesn't 'take sides', it just sees. It can see the cause, the effect and the reaction to the effect. It is not a participant. It is free. Yes?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Thu, 18 Jul 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 18 Jul 2019 #786
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 757 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?"

It is almost obvious that fragments of the mind must be in conflict - but not quite. K has often said "where there is separation/division there MUST be conflict" That is actually becoming more obvious the more I stay with the question, feel into the question without searching for an answer.

Can there BE conflict without fragmentation?

All words are verbal images, as I see it. There are words/images which have a counterpart in reality, and there are words/images which do not reflect ANY reality. For example, there ARE apples and oranges, blue eyes and brown eyes, there IS love and intelligence, brothers and sisters, jobs, knowledge, ignorance, darkness and light, and so on. These names reflect a fact that can be observed. Such words merely reflect a fact or truth that actually is, but they are never the truth itself. A word or name can never fully reflect or contain the wholeness of the thing named. A word explains nothing. An explanation is never the truth itself. An explanation is never complete. So these fact-based words are necessarily limited. Understanding or insight is needed to complete their full meaning. Intensity is necessary to communicate. Energy is necessary for intensity.

There are other verbal images or words - and to complicate matters, they can be (usually are) the SAME words - which are routinely imbued with qualities, measures and values which are NOT in any way reflective of actuality. The qualities, measures and values attached to these words are pure fantasy or illusion. They have no basis in fact, they do not reflect “what is”. They distort “what is”. They measure “what is not”. Self is the leading example.

Consciousness is fundamentally whole, unbroken, unfragmented. Isn't it the attribution of illusory qualities, measures and values which breaks consciousness down into illusory fragments? Fragmentation does not reside in the fact that thoughts are in themselves incomplete, as I see it. Fragmentation lies in the fact that something which IS whole - like the universe itself - is broken down by illusion/thought. But it is not actually broken. The fragmentation ends as soon as the illusion ends. And illusion ends as soon as thought is still.

The universe is whole and the universe is also diverse. But diversity does not fragment wholeness. What fragments wholeness is the illusion that the word is the thing, that the explanation is the truth, as I see it.

Can there BE conflict without fragmentation, without the process of attributing qualities, measures and values to things which have no counterpart in reality? As long as the mind is unaware of its own habit or process of fragmentation, it MUST BE in conflict. And conflict is what alerts the mind to the process of fragmentation, which is our conditioning.

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.

I don't know if this clears up anything or if it only muddies it more. I don't know if it's right or wrong.

This post was last updated by Huguette . Thu, 18 Jul 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 18 Jul 2019 #787
Thumb_avatar Manfred Kritzler Germany 55 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette: Consciousness is fundamentally whole, unbroken, unfragmented. Isn't it the attribution of illusory qualities, measures and values which breaks consciousness down into illusory fragments? Fragmentation does not reside in the fact that thoughts are in themselves incomplete, as I see it. Fragmentation lies in the fact that something which IS whole - like the universe itself - is broken down by illusion/thought. But it is not actually broken. The fragmentation ends as soon as the illusion ends. And illusion ends as soon as thought is still.
———
Manfred:I agree with your statement that consciousness is fundamentally whole, unbroken. A little baby is conscious of the world without thought or fragmentation.
When we learn thinking also this process does not mean that the variety or diversity we create necessarily leads to a break of the unity.

As long as we are aware that whatever thought is creating is not separate from the whole, but is only only a differentiation, the whole includes thought. It stays unbroken like the body stays unbroken when we treat our fingers or toes.

The important difference for me is that we can grasp the finger or toe and the body. In a certain way we know the whole finger-toe/body system. When we look at the parts of the whole we can grasp the parts but not the whole. The whole is unknown. So we see diversity embedded in the unknown.
This results in the realization that the base for the finger is the body, but the base for the diverse things thought creates is the unknown.

Conflict is arising when we try to put together the parts in undivided wholeness. This works in a certain domain, but never in full. If we do not recognize the limitation of this process we get inevitably in conflict.

As the limits of a domain are either difficult or in no way recognizable, we always have to be as far as possible open for changing any statement we make or view we have.

This post was last updated by Manfred Kritzler Thu, 18 Jul 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 19 Jul 2019 #788
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5369 posts in this forum Offline

Manfred Kritzler wrote:
As the limits of a domain are either difficult or in no way recognizable, we always have to be as far as possible open for changing any statement we make or view we have.

Indeed this is so, Manfred. As soon as thought has asserted something, or suggested something, it must let go, and be prepared to look afresh. And this seemed always to be K's "way". The world is exactly the opposite of course, holding on like grim death to all its ideas, its identifications.

This 'not holding on to ideas' characterised Bohm's approach to dialogue, didn't it, in his latter years. it is a remarkable thing to watch.

When thought is operating in a 'positive mode', sooner or later it reaches contradiction (often very quickly I find). Surely this is the time to let go, and look anew?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 19 Jul 2019 #789
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5369 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote @782:
so to me it seems that in awareness knowing is co-existing but not at the same level, knowing is involved in awareness but not the primary and/or controlling factor.

I was hoping you would respond to Tom's follow-up to your post, Wim. How do you see knowing being involved in awareness?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 19 Jul 2019 #790
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2848 posts in this forum Offline

Manfred Kritzler wrote:
Conflict is arising when we try to put together the parts in undivided wholeness. This works in a certain domain, but never in full. If we do not recognize the limitation of this process we get inevitably in conflict.

Is this the cause of conflict and suffering in man? Can you give a practical example from everyday life? I identify as a Christian or a Hindu and don’t see the whole. I relate to life through the fragment. And this fragment is in conflict with other fragments....both internally in me and externally with my neighbor. It would be helpful if we could start with some obvious examples from everyday life of how fragmentation creates conflict. I got a little lost reading your and Huguette‘s posts.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 19 Jul 2019 #791
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 757 posts in this forum Offline

Tom,

You addressed your question to Manfred, so I hope you don't mind if I respond since I've been thinking this over anyway.

:o)

As I see it, “the whole” or “wholeness” cannot be visually observed DIRECTLY as a “thing” in itself. It can only be seen by its results or effects.

For example, one can observe that a polluted stream can cleanse or purify itself when polluting activity is ended. Or “human wisdom” might have decided to remove a seemingly insignificant element from a stream and so unwittingly destroyed it by interfering with its natural harmony. Doesn’t this show the wholeness of the stream? That is, the stream is not just a sterile pool of water containing various disparate, unrelated elements. It is a living organism. There is a relationship between all the elements which comprise and also surround the stream - the water, the aquatic plants, animals and microorganisms living in or on it, the animals which bathe, fish or drink in it, the minerals on its floor and the earth’s core beneath it, the sun, wind and air above it, and so on. The totality of the relationships or interactions between all the elements which comprise the stream IS the wholeness of the stream, isn’t it? That wholeness was not created by man. And isn’t that wholeness fragmented or destroyed by man’s waste and garbage, by cigarette smoke, by runoff from industry, by bombs, by the introduction of invasive species, and so on? It is not the water of the stream alone, nor any one of its elements alone, which cleanses the stream. It is the whole or the wholeness of it - if it is given a chance.

Another example: We now understand that bees are crucial to the survival of all life on Earth. Who knew. We don’t understand the relationship between all the seemingly disparate elements “around” us and “within” us but we can observe that there IS such a relationship, an interconnectedness; and so - indirectly - we observe and understand that there IS a whole. No?

Similarly, every element which comprises the identifiable layers of Earth - troposphere, stratosphere, core, crust, etc. (which are in turn part of a greater whole) - is part of the wholeness of each layer which, in turn, is part of the wholeness of Earth, and so on, which are all part of the endless limitless unknowable wholeness. So each element is whole in itself and each body of which the element is a part is whole in itself, endlessly inwardly and outwardly. Can’t that can be understood even if it cannot be directly observed? Or is this imagination, fantasy?

"People" may believe that they are independent, aloof, impervious to, separate from the wholeness. They may believe that their cleverness protects them from the dangers of life or that they can protect themselves by isolating themselves in various ways. They may justify their aggressive, thoughtless or selfish actions with statements such as, “What’s it to you? I can do what I want. I won't conform to your values. What I do is none of your business.” But doesn’t that very view of life indicate psychological fragmentation? Isn’t it a symptom of our conditioning? The arrogant, fragmented mind thinks that “I” - this incredibly miniscule speck in the universe, which is ignorant of the whole of life, which is ignorant of the significance of its own action in relationship - this ignorant mind surveys its perceived domain from atop a high horse. And from this height, it pontificates, judges, concludes, and so on. Man is not the centre of the universe. Man is one of the elements of the whole which is beyond Man's understanding.

It is an illusion to think that “I” am free to live as I desire and that it is no one else’s business but my own. That is not freedom but the darkness of ignorance, fear, as I see it.

Can the mind step off this high horse? Can “it”/I/we somehow climb to the mountaintop to get a “bird’s eye view” of the consequences of our aggressive, thoughtless and selfish activities - war, islands of plastic in the oceans, flooding, exploitation, poverty, injustice, brutality, isolationism, cruelty, disease, famine, industrial agriculture, pollution of food, air and water, and so on? From the mountaintop, it can be seen that everything is connected, that whatever one does affects the whole, though we still cannot directly see or understand “the whole”.

What does it mean to climb to the mountaintop in this sense? Isn’t it simply to abandon “the view from the centre”? Which means to understand the nature of the centre, the processes which constitute the centre, including thought, time and fear. Isn’t that very “view from the centre” the cause of man’s conflict and suffering? The centre, the self.

One can observe that when an angry, agitated person enters a space - a room or a public place - the whole of that space is affected by that angry, agitated, scattered energy. In the same way, it can be seen that a fearless person entering that space brings a calming energy into the space. Am I fantasizing?

Isn’t it seen or understood that everything and everyone is interrelated or interconnected? Isn’t that seeing wholeness?

I don’t fully know how to express what I mean, and I could be wrong. I throw it out here as one might throw a message in a bottle into the ocean.

This post was last updated by Huguette . Fri, 19 Jul 2019.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Fri, 19 Jul 2019 #792
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2848 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette: >Isn’t that very “view from the centre” the cause of man’s conflict and suffering? The centre, the self.

Yes it is. It’s the me and mine more important than you and yours. And as you said, more important than the well being of the rivers and streams....animal and plant life. Many of us see this intellectually but there’s no fundamental change at the center. Some aspects of me remain. Perhaps some aspect/s of me is lessened but the center remains. That seems to be the case anyway. I know many people who want to do good in the world but cling to some aspect of the self. K spoke of exploding the center so that it’s gone....the me is ended. Not sure how this happens since ‘I’ obviously can do nothing to bring it about. Desiring that is just more ‘me’. So observing myself...self knowledge of the workings of me ....seems to be the only ‘path’.

Isn’t it seen or understood that everything and everyone is interrelated or interconnected? Isn’t that seeing wholeness?

But it needs to be more than intellectual understanding obviously. And without understanding desire and attachment and fear in me, there will likely be no fundamental change

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Fri, 19 Jul 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 19 Jul 2019 #793
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1518 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
But it needs to be more than intellectual understanding obviously.

Why? The 'desire' or 'search' for that 'understanding' is coming from the dissatisfaction of the 'center isn't it? How can there be 'peace' as long as the search for understanding continues?

We form an image of this 'total' or non-intellectual understanding and we want that. That is sort of the 'end game' of all these years of studying these ideas. To get past the intellectual understanding to what we imagine will be the transformative understanding. I don't know if you see it this way. But it's just another 'ideal' to chase. And like all end games, it requires 'time' to accomplish it...but this is all coming from the desire of the 'center', the 'self' as I'm seeing it.

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 19 Jul 2019 #794
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2848 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
The 'desire' or 'search' for that 'understanding' is coming from the dissatisfaction of the 'center isn't it? How can there be 'peace' as long as the search for understanding continues?

I was simply stating what I saw as a fact...like saying one needs to eat well if one wants to remain in good health. I don’t see it as goal setting.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 19 Jul 2019 #795
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1518 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
I was simply stating what I saw as a fact...like saying one needs to eat well if one wants to remain in good health. I don’t see it as goal setting.

Sure but does the physical analogy apply as well to the psychological? I heard it as the understanding I have is not adequate and there has to be a different (better, non-intellectual ?) understanding? ...For me it's an important point. Because it discards 'what is'. That 'what is' (the present understanding) is lacking somehow and it needs to be improved, changed, somehow. "If I had a different understanding" i.e....The important point for me is that this (desire) always comes from the very destructive and very divisive 'center' that seeks a fundamental change which it considers will afford a greater 'security' as well as 'peace'. (Maybe that's why it's been called the 'snake'?)

From #781: K. "It is only when we understand, when we no longer search for understanding, then there is an effortless existence.”

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 20 Jul 2019 #796
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2848 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
I heard it as the understanding I have is not adequate and there has to be a different (better, non-intellectual ?) understanding? ...

I was simply trying to point out that an intellectual understanding of wholeness is not wholeness. My thoughts about the tree no matter how profound are obviously not the tree.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 20 Jul 2019 #797
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 855 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:

Wim Opdam wrote @782:

so to me it seems that in awareness knowing is co-existing but not at the same level, knowing is involved in awareness but not the primary and/or controlling factor.

I was hoping you would respond to Tom's follow-up to your post, Wim.
How do you see knowing being involved in awareness?

I have made several attempts to answer this, but in the end I did not post them because it did not seem obvious.

I am currently in a situation that is unique to me, but that is not unique to many in the hospital. I have been diagnosed with cancer and the way I deal with it surprised myself. No perspective, no doom scenario, no optimism, but an acceptance of 'what is' and the awareness of attempts that emotion wants to take control, which, precisely because of that perception, flow away again.

The reply from Huguette is, in my opinion, another example of an awareness full of references to thought.

Truth will unfold itself to those who enquire their own actions.

This post was last updated by Wim Opdam Sat, 20 Jul 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 22 Jul 2019 #798
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 757 posts in this forum Offline

Manfred Kritzler wrote:
As long as we are aware that whatever thought is creating is not separate from the whole...

Manfred,

Everything you say in your post 787 is clear and well put, except for the one phrase above. Forgive me for saying so. I could be wrong.

As I see it, that “whatever thought is creating is not separate from the whole” cannot BE awareness. It can be an expression of understanding but it is not something AWARENESS sees. There can be awareness of the moment the intellect fragments into "me" and thought. Maybe that's what you meant.

Thought is not awareness and awareness is not intelligence or understanding. Awareness can open the door to the understanding that self is thought and that whatever self creates is not the action of intelligence or understanding. It seems to me that it is important to distinguish the meanings of the terms awareness, intelligence, understanding, and so on. They certainly are interconnected. They are facets or aspects of the whole mind, as I see it (and maybe I'm blind).

As I see it, awareness, intelligence, understanding, love, compassion, and so on, have no significance on their own, as separate entities. They can't act alone. Even thought has no significance without awareness, love, intelligence, understanding. In this way, it is understood that all the facets of the mind are part of an indivisible whole.

I begin from where I am - in the moment of sorrow, discontent. In the awareness of what is in the moment, there is no fragmentation in the mind, no naming or analyzing, no opposing “what is” with the ideal. Fragmentation begins with opposition and effort.

Where the mind understands the significance/error of its efforts to name and explain every thought and emotion, and to pursue the opposite - which is fragmentation - the understanding of it ends the effort. How can it not? Then there is only the fact itself, not the artificial, contradictory duality of the fact and its imagined opposite. In this spontaneous ending is the gathering of energy; the mind no longer being occupied with seeking to solve its problems, no longer being intent on finding joy and serenity, and so on. It sees and understands the process of fragmentation which leads to thought fighting against itself. And so it indiscriminately faces pain, sorrow, fear, anger, hate, joy, love, pleasure, and so on. It is experiencing all of life as it is.

So it is not awareness which says, “whatever thought is creating is not separate from the whole”, is it?

Am I flogging a dead horse? I talk too much sometimes.

This post was last updated by Huguette . Mon, 22 Jul 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 23 Jul 2019 #799
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5369 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
I have been diagnosed with cancer and the way I deal with it surprised myself. No perspective, no doom scenario, no optimism, but an acceptance of 'what is' and the awareness of attempts that emotion wants to take control, which, precisely because of that perception, flow away again.

Hi Wim,

I will not make statements like "sorry to hear that", because that predisposes how one "should" react to the situation. I can well understand this "acceptance of what is" that you describe. And it seems to me NOT to accept what is is insane.

However, acceptance is a tricky word. It does not imply that one has fixed one's reactions, that one is not open to what new situations, perceptions, might happen, does it?

Do you want to share more, Wim, about your situation and feelings?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 23 Jul 2019 #800
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5369 posts in this forum Offline

The last few days I have been travelling, staying with various people, and have found myself discussing quite a lot. Mostly with people who have no background in Krishnamurti, but would regard themselves as spiritual sort of people. And several who are psycho-analysts or councillors.

Over and over again, we arrived at the issue of the controller and the controlled, although I tried to avoid K terms when discussing. What became clear was how people’s basic approach to life was based on an assumption that there is an “I” who is separate from their thoughts, their feelings, their emotions, their actions. They seemed so very clear that this is so, although when pushed they seemed to find it difficult to say what the nature, the substance of this separate self is.

I could see that the consequences of this belief – I am calling it a belief, to them it was a fact – the consequences of this conviction, are very great indeed. The very essence of their lives seemed to lie in controlling themselves, or at least in trying to control themselves. And in the case of the psycho-analysts/councillors, advising their clients how to ‘best’ control themselves.

Given just how strongly people’s lives were based on this assumption of separation, I found myself questioning my own perception very deeply. My own perception being that I do not and can not “choose” what my thoughts/feelings are, they just arise. “Choice” was a very big word in our discussions. All the time it seems people are “choosing” their actions, their approaches to the challenges of life. And yet there seems a fundamental contradiction to this concept – if people can simply “choose” to be happy and peaceful, why are they not? On the contrary, their lives are constant effort, constant strain, constant contradiction.

People seem to live a life where they are endlessly “correcting themselves” - and advising other people, including their children, how best to correct themselves. All based on the assumption that there exists a “corrector”, an entity somehow apart from themselves who can intelligently do the correcting. As far as i can see, people choose an idea of how they should be, and then devote themselves to trying to achieve that, to become that. This seems to me a miserable and confused way of living. It guarantees a life of conflict. A phrase of K’s comes to mind: “we are all lost in the idea of becoming”.

No matter how much I examine myself, I cannot detect an entity separate from what is, if I can put it that way. There is no controller separate from what is being controlled (trying to control). I can see that thought projects the idea of a thinker, separate from thought, but there is no reality in this, surely?

This is an absolutely fundamental question, a question that is determining the nature of people’s lives. I think this wrong concept is causing untold misery and confusion. More than that, it is ... a sort of violence to life itself. It doesn’t give life a chance to act itself, since people are all the time telling life how it SHOULD be, and trying to make life approximate to their ideas of life. It is as if they feel there WILL BE NO LIFE if they do not make it happen themselves.

Can people here understand what I am trying to express? It does seem connected to some of the recent posts.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 23 Jul 2019 #801
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1518 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
It is as if they feel there WILL BE NO LIFE if they do not make it happen themselves.

And then of course it doesn't happen and they suffer or it does happen and it's not what they imagined and they suffer...It seems quite clear to me at times that thought created the 'me' for whatever reason; continuity, permanence, a sense of security, etc. and that has come down to us as 'selfishness' the 'me'. The 'secret' is, is that we are actually not this 'me' but...'nothing', absolutely 'not-a-thing'. The 'me' is what has been picked up along the way. It has a 'life' of its own and wants to keep it that way. It is 'betrayed' every time there is a 'disturbance' which it then tries to manage and that is when we can see our conditioning. 'Being as nothing' we can see this conditioned 'me' attempting to put itself back on an 'even keel'. The disturbance itself awakens us to ourself and there is a chance then to see how and why we are bound. That it seems to me is the only possibility to leave this 'stream of self'. What is very surprising is the force with which the 'me' protects itself from being seen for what it is. That it is 'unthinkable' for it to be treated as anything other than 'real'!

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 24 Jul 2019 #802
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 855 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Do you want to share more, Wim, about your situation and feelings?

despite the awareness of all possible scenarios, I remain surprised about my calmness and the obviousness of not clinging to or avoiding one of those scenarios, even setbacks in the treatment do not seem to touch me.

this morning something went through my mind:
'if we are confronted with something unknown, we form an idea of it. That idea is the obstacle to looking again / freshly, but we distort the idea and think that it is true, but the truth remains something unknown! '

Truth will unfold itself to those who enquire their own actions.

This post was last updated by Wim Opdam Wed, 24 Jul 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 24 Jul 2019 #803
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1518 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
That idea is the obstacle to looking again / freshly, but we distort the idea and think that it is true, but the truth remains something unknown!

Hi Wim

That is a hard thing for the 'me' to swallow, that it can never 'know' the truth, only form "distorted" images of it. But that is the 'truth' isn't it?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 24 Jul 2019 #804
Thumb_avatar Manfred Kritzler Germany 55 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette: So it is not awareness which says, “whatever thought is creating is not separate from the whole”, is it?
———
Manfred: Yes. There is no separation of intelligence, thought and awareness. Only when it comes together thought is not separate from the whole. When we treat thought as something which exists by itself we either make a distinction between thought and no thought or we live a conscious life which is only directed by thought.

So you were absolutely right to say that the statement “whatever thought is creating is not separate from the whole” is in its isolated form incorrect and contradictory.

It only makes sense together with awareness which is in unity with thought, the senses and everything we are aware of. Krishnamurti’s “the seeing is the doing” means for me that there is only seeing which encompasses and is identical with the seen. No matter what is seen.

I have been frequently in this state, at least I felt it was this state, some months ago. Then I lost it completely for whatever reason. Last Sunday I had a serious bike accident. And today this state of “awareness unified with what I am aware” of is back. No idea why or what I did for it.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 24 Jul 2019 #805
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5369 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
That is a hard thing for the 'me' to swallow, that it can never 'know' the truth, only form "distorted" images of it. But that is the 'truth' isn't it?

Are we faced with a logical contradiction here? One one hand we say thought or the self, cannot know what is true. On the other hand that very statement itself seems to be true.

What do you say to this, Dan?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 24 Jul 2019 #806
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5369 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
despite the awareness of all possible scenarios, I remain surprised about my calmness and the obviousness of not clinging to or avoiding one of those scenarios, even setbacks in the treatment do not seem to touch me.

I was talking to my podiatrist yesterday, as she worked away at my feet. We touched upon ill health and even death. Although quite a young woman, she was obviously really disturbed, repulsed even, by the thought of death. And we can easily see that this reaction permeates the whole of society. Why? Why, when faced with the only certainty of life, is there denial and fear?

(I quoted to her from Peter Pan, "Death is an awfully big adventure", but I don't think it changed her feelings much :-).

If I may ask, Wim, would you say that your own calm attitude to death has come about because of your exposure to Krishnamurti's words? I am guessing so, and I find significance in this. My guess is everyone on this forum has actually been changed in some way, some real way, through our contact with K's words. Which means it not just a load of words, not just a lot of theoretical explanations, not mere "philosophy".

Is it that we have seen things, and that seeing has had its own effect? Effect on what exactly?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 25 Jul 2019 #807
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2848 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
People seem to live a life where they are endlessly “correcting themselves” - and advising other people, including their children, how best to correct themselves.

Absolutely. I’ve noticed this for as long as I can remember.

All based on the assumption that there exists a “corrector”, an entity somehow apart from themselves who can intelligently do the correcting.

Yes!

As far as i can see, people choose an idea of how they should be, and then devote themselves to trying to achieve that, to become that. This seems to me a miserable and confused way of living.

Indeed. Psychotherapy is based upon this nonsense as is traditional Christianity and Judaism.

It guarantees a life of conflict.

Which is considered progress. MY Christian friends believe the will become closer to the ideal ...become better people in te future...closer to God...through prayer and bible study.

A phrase of K’s comes to mind: “we are all lost in the idea of becoming”.

No matter how much I examine myself, I cannot detect an entity separate from what is, if I can put it that way. There is no controller separate from what is being controlled (trying to control). I can see that thought projects the idea of a thinker, separate from thought, but there is no reality in this, surely?

This is an absolutely fundamental question,

Agree totally.

a question that is determining the nature of people’s lives. I think this wrong concept is causing untold misery and confusion. More than that, it is ... a sort of violence to life itself. It doesn’t give life a chance to act itself, since people are all the time telling life how it SHOULD be, and trying to make life approximate to their ideas of life. It is as if they feel there WILL BE NO LIFE if they do not make it happen themselves.

I think it’s more a fear of punishment and suffering ....God will punish them if they don’t conform to the ideal/s...if they are ‘bad’...if they sin.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Thu, 25 Jul 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 25 Jul 2019 #808
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 855 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
If I may ask, Wim, would you say that your own calm attitude to death has come about because of your exposure to Krishnamurti's words?

That's a difficult one to answer, it appears to be a natural way to be, not based on or the consequence of something. I suppose that's why it is still so surprising to me.

At the same time I remember some things from my youth which i could not express in words and now are capable and seeing that as result off studying the Teaching.

One of the last QOTD: 'Awareness is the discernment of what is true' seems to be a drive which always was there without knowing what it was why a frequent response was 'Wim, you are too serious'

Truth will unfold itself to those who enquire their own actions.

This post was last updated by Wim Opdam Thu, 25 Jul 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 25 Jul 2019 #809
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1518 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
On one hand we say thought or the self, cannot know what is true.

Thought /self/me is the past , isn't it? Can the past see the truth? If we say that truth is not the past but the 'living' Now, the'what is', then how can the truth be seen through the prism/filter of the 'me' which is the product of memory and experience? It can't can it? It will be subjective. Thought is 'time' and it brings that into the psychological picture. But 'what is' is timeless so thought/self distorts it . You 'see' your 'truth', and I 'see' mine and someone else 'sees' theirs...the 'what is' colored by one's experience, by one's past....

Clive Elwell wrote:
On the other hand that very statement itself seems to be true.

Yes seeing that the 'me' can never see the truth,... is true. That the 'me' can see the truth, is false and seeing the falseness of that statement is the truth..

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 25 Jul 2019 #810
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5369 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Psychotherapy is based upon this nonsense

I have continued to examine this issue, from a perspective of “I am the world” - that is, although I discussed in my first mail “what people do”, I recognise that that the same basic movement operates in me.

But although this movement arises – the movement of the division, of the separation of controller and controlled, etc, it seems unable to persist. Something seems to see the falseness of it quite quickly. It dies away – only to arise again. This conditioning is so deeply engrained into us.

Look at the following article which I came across on the internet, which I would say well represents "conventional wisdom":

A song. A poem. The smile on someone special’s face. Each interaction that we are a part of evokes an emotion. Emotions are the most powerful and sometimes the most painful forces in our lives. They form our decisions, no matter how trivial. They dictate our actions and thoughts. Our emotional responses to different situations are what define us as an individual. 

Emotions tend to oscillate between volatile extremes of rage and euphoria. Steer too far to either extreme and you might be courting danger. Much like the other aspects of life, emotions should be handled with moderation and rational thought. Here are five methods by which you can control your emotions. 


  1. Take a moment: Losing your temper at the slightest provocation can be distressing to both yourself and those in your vicinity. If you react immediately, you are sure to do or say something that you will later regret. So, take a deep breath and control your impulse to lash out. Take your time to control your heart rate and bring it back to normal and loosen your muscles. When you feel calmer, you will find that an outburst would have been completely unnecessary.
     

  2. Ask for help: We all have that one friend whom we seek out when we need to vent. There is no shame in asking for help. A friend who can give us a rational, unbiased perspective on things. Someone who wants the best for us and knows our worst impulses is often times the best person to seek advice from. If you feel overwhelmed, or don’t know how to react, ask for guidance.
     

  3. Find an outlet: Having controlled your impulsive behavior, you need to find a way to express your feelings in a positive manner. Art thrives when infused with emotions. Painting and music are enriching pursuits that can help you achieve closure. Keeping a journal where you can pen your thoughts will broaden your awareness of your own emotions.
     

  4. Look at the larger picture: You will become more cautious of your negative emotions when you realize that your words and actions have consequences for others. Your rage at a harmless joke amongst friends could cost you a meaningful relationship. Pause and contemplate the larger picture. Do not be hasty and thus disregard how your actions might affect your future.
     

  5. Forgive and replace: Each one of us has a number of “triggers” that arouse extreme emotions in us. These triggers can be a person, our family or friends, or they can be things and incidents. You must learn how to let the past be past. Forgive those who may have wronged and replace the negative thoughts that you have associated with something. Do not let the recollection of a negative memory influence your behavior and actions.

Emotional resilience is a big part of becoming an adult. Learn to manage and lessen your emotional responses so that you may live a much more productive and stress-free life. 

In case you have a concern or query you can always consult an expert & get answers to your questions!

One hardly knows where to start to examine this approach. So many assumptions there are. And look at the last sentence! But the basic assumption is "I am separate from what I feel". And so "I" can control feelings.

Is there any truth in this? Obviously on one level, the practical level, I do have to "manage my life". But is that so psychologically, emotionally?

And If this approach is so obviously nonsense, why has it taken such a hold over how people live their lives?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 781 - 810 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.)