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

All one inquiry


Displaying posts 151 - 180 of 882 in total
Sat, 15 Dec 2018 #151
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1433 posts in this forum Offline

K.:"If you integrally, with your whole being, understand this process, then in the midst of this flame of suffering, when there is no desire to escape, to overcome, out of this very confusion there arises a new comprehension spontaneously springing up out of the soil of fear itself."

The energy named as 'fear', itself contains a "new comprehension"...and to run from it, to avoid it, is to maintain and perpetuate the 'old' comprehension...?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sun, 16 Dec 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 17 Dec 2018 #152
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5268 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote, citing K:
K..."If you begin to experiment with yourself, you will see a curious transformation taking place. In the moment of highest confusion there is clarity; in the moment of greatest fear there is love. You must come to it spontaneously, without the exertion of will.

I find that I have begun to experiment with myself, with this issue. But when such experimentation is undertaken, there always seems to be a desire to achieve something, to bring about a result. And this desire is a major part of the problem itself - as the QOTD describes.

Can what K is saying be extended to other states of mind? In the moment of greatest hatred, is there love? In the moment of ‘greatest comparison’ (whatever that is), is there peace? Is it a matter of taking all mental states to their extremes? Or rather, letting them go to extremes?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 17 Dec 2018 #153
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2725 posts in this forum Offline

Clive: I find that I have begun to experiment with myself, with this issue. But when such experimentation is undertaken, there always seems to be a desire to achieve something, to bring about a result. And this desire is a major part of the problem itself - as the QOTD describes.

I feel the same Clive. Experimenting is undertaken to achieve a result....always. I think the word itself implies that intrinsically. Well, perhaps Im missing something, but I seem to discover something new only when I’ve no goal, when my guard is down. It’s always unexpected. If you expect a result, you are obviously not simply aware of ‘what is’. You are avoiding the fact of what is....be it fear or anger or desire, etc. Here’s the QOTD which will disappear tomorrow so I’m putting up the link: http://www.kinfonet.org/krishnamurti/quotes/jus...

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 17 Dec 2018 #154
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 855 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
I find that I have begun to experiment with myself, with this issue. But when such experimentation is undertaken, there always seems to be a desire to achieve something, to bring about a result. And this desire is a major part of the problem itself - as the QOTD describes.

Tom Paine wrote:
I feel the same Clive. Experimenting is undertaken to achieve a result....always.

Hi Clive and Tom,

Is an experiment not also an act or operation for the purpose of discovering something unknown or of testing a principle, supposition,etc. ?

So by enquiring the Teaching we are in the process of experimenting, in search of the meaning.

Is it not only when the desire and or achieving a result is out of balance, out of the harmony of the whole It's going wrong and that is where awareness should be ?

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 17 Dec 2018 #155
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1433 posts in this forum Offline

If I say that 'experimentation' is out because my motive for doing so is 'impure', I think an important point has been missed. K. has said many times that experimenting is important and you can disagree with him but you can't set sail on a 'journey of discovery' if you never leave the port because you say I don't know where I'm going. By experimenting you discover what your motives are...and then you can go beyond... to the next motive and on and on. That is what the 'unknown' is all about, it seems to me, discovering the ways of the self.

This may be an example of how I'm seeing this: I've been experimenting with trying to be aware of the sensations going on in the body, also breathing and especially with the feeling in the hands...this comes and goes and before long what was 'new' becomes mechanical, becomes a 'method' of some kind. Thought or the 'self' has taken charge of the experiment and looks for some sort of 'gain' from 'doing' this...so this morning when I awoke, I didn't feel well and there was a kind of disappointment that I felt the way I did. Shouldn't I be beyond this sort of thing, what with all 'my' awareness...then the question arose: is this 'comparison'?... Something I had been told and thought I had understood that we had been conditioned as children to do, etc., etc.? But here it was being 'seen' at work in me! (really for the first time). I was unconsciously comparing the state I was in this morning, with other states that I have been in...otherwise why was there disappointment there at how I was feeling unless this state was being 'compared' to other (remembered) states in myself? Sorry to be personal but for me it points out that with 'experimenting' you can't know what will be stumbled upon, what will be discovered at work in you.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Mon, 17 Dec 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 17 Dec 2018 #156
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2725 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
Is an experiment not also an act or operation for the purpose of discovering something unknown o

But we’ve already made it known if we have a purpose...if we make an effort. I, the known, want to discover the unknown. We’re hoping to achieve that unknown ‘something’ or other(insight?) K has told us will set us free. So we know what we’re after. I think we fool ourselves when we make any effort in the ‘psychological’ realm, but perhaps I’m mistaken. Perhaps there is some meaning to this type of ‘meditation’...effort. Perhaps what you are describing is simple self observation as Dan has described above.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Mon, 17 Dec 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 17 Dec 2018 #157
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2725 posts in this forum Offline

Dan: But here it was being 'seen' at work in me! (really for the first time). I was unconsciously comparing the state I was in this morning, with other states that I have been in...otherwise why was there disappointment there at how I was feeling unless this state was being 'compared' to other (remembered) states in myself?

Thanks for sharing Dan. I can relate very well to this. May comment further later. Time to start breakfast...

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 17 Dec 2018 #158
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2725 posts in this forum Offline

I think the QOTD speaks to some of what we’ve been discussing above perhaps.

“Ignorance is the unawareness of the process of conditioning, which consists of the many wants, fears, acquisitive memories, and so on.”

“Belief is part of ignorance. Whatever action springs from belief only further strengthens ignorance.
The craving for understanding, for happiness, the attempt to get rid of this particular quality and acquire that particular virtue, all such effort is born of ignorance, which is the result of this constant want. So in relationship strife and conflict continue.”

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 17 Dec 2018 #159
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 855 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:

Wim Opdam wrote:

Is an experiment not also an act or operation for the purpose of discovering something unknown 

But we’ve already made it known if we have a purpose...if we make an effort.

Is this really the case ?

Read this carefully from the dissolution of the order of the star.
Ommen 1929

As I have said, I have only one purpose: to make man free, to urge him towards freedom, to help him to break away from all limitations, for that alone will give him eternal happiness, will give him the unconditioned realization of the self.

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 17 Dec 2018 #160
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 737 posts in this forum Offline


  • The child in the schoolyard who gets pleasure through teasing or inner relief through bullying;

  • the teenager who joins a gang;

  • the man who deceives, pretends, cheats, bullies, and so on, for profit or pleasure;

  • the obsequious man, the psychological lackey;

  • the rebellious oppositional angry man;

  • the man who is consciously or unconsciously influenced by and conforms to the social environmental pressures of all sorts;

  • the man who looks at “the world” from atop his high horse, who finds fault with and condemns “others”;

  • the parent who either brags about or is ashamed of his children;

  • the man whose ambition it is to reach the summit of a hierarchy in any field - professional, religious, political, social, business, sports, entertainment, education; and so on.

There is self-ignorance in these behaviours: these behaviours are “the stream”, “the self”, the way of “the world”, the conditioning of humanity, the social norms and traditions, and so on, which implacably push or compel man to behave as he does, unaware of his own compulsions and fears.

Is there an actual difference in the meanings of “stream”, “self”, social norms, tradition, conditioning and consciousness (as we are using these terms here)? Don't they all point to the same thing? These terms imply a continuity, a continuous linear movement of “being” ---- which is time.

What drives all of it? Is there one factor at the root, or many?

Why DOES man jump onto a multitude of bandwagons either to conform to or rebel against popular opinion and political-social-religious-moral “correctness”?

Why DOES the child tease and laugh at the other’s hurt?

Why DOES the teenager take on and stay loyal to the attitudes of the gang?

Why DOES the man-woman-human being deceive, bully, cheat, pretend, conform? What is the factor that accounts for these inner compulsions?

Is it a fundamental lack of awareness of, inattention to, the entirety of the workings of the mind, as just quoted by Tom: “Ignorance is the unawareness of the process of conditioning, which consists of the many wants, fears, acquisitive memories, and so on”?

This unawareness IS self-ignorance, isn't it? And ignorance produces suffering. Man is conditioned to this. Isn’t this ignorance at the root of suffering, the search for pleasure, the desire to inflict pain, to reach the summit of one’s ambitions, to conform or rebel, and so on? Man is conditioned to either self-pity or psychological toughness, both of which involve time. And where there is the suffering of self-pity, the suffering of being tough, the suffering of isolation, there can be no love. Can there? Can or does love (intelligence, beauty, compassion) effortlessly change all that? Does love end suffering without seeking to? Is ending of time and ignorance the spontaenous flowering of affection, beauty, compassion, and so on?

So it’s not a question of whether this “works”. “Working” implies a goal, and there is no goal in self-understanding, in ending ignorance. Isn’t there a natural desire to understand? Not “desire” in the field of time - not desire to achieve, to escape, but the sponteaneous desire of life’s energy to move freely, unhindered by compulsion or fear. This desire of life’s energy is not put together by time or thought.

No animal likes to be caged, every animal loves freedom - not because it wants fame, fortune, admiration, and so on. The desire to be free is completely unrelated to the desire to be or to become. Isn’t it?

This post was last updated by Huguette . Mon, 17 Dec 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 17 Dec 2018 #161
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2725 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
No animal likes to be caged, every animal loves freedom - not because it wants fame, fortune, admiration, and so on. The desire to be free is completely unrelated to the desire to be or to become. Isn’t it?

But first we have to feel we are caged....be aware of the fact. As long as the cage gives pleasure and reward (even in an imagined future) as in the pursuit of success or wealth or status, we don’t really object to the cage, do we? And most of us live our lives unaware of the extent to which we are caged...bound. It seems Man is the one animal that accepts his bondage, that doesn’t revolt when he’s caged.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 17 Dec 2018 #162
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2725 posts in this forum Offline

Wim, quoting K, “As I have said, I have only one purpose: to make man free, to urge him towards freedom, ”

I would say that K is using the word ‘purpose’ a bit differently than we have been using it here. He is living a truth that he wants to share. That’s different than ‘my’ purpose to find out what it is he’s living....something totally unknown to me. And, moreover, something K says is a ‘pathless land’.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Mon, 17 Dec 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 17 Dec 2018 #163
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 737 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
But first we have to feel we are caged....be aware of the fact. As long as the cage gives pleasure and reward (even in an imagined future) as in the pursuit of success or wealth or status, we don’t really object to the cage, do we? And most of us live our lives unaware of the extent to which we are caged...bound.

Not to sound harsh but what "we" feel is irrelevant to me, Tom. If I don't FEEL bound by compulsion, fear, desire, etc., then there's no problem, no obligation to feel caged, no duty to see the ignorance, is there? Then I leave the ignorance that someone else tells me is there alone and I carry on along the well-trodden paths of thought, becoming and time and do "my best" in accordance with my ignorance.

But if I-you-one does feels caged, if one IS aware of one's ignorance, fear, compulsion, etc., then my approach is totally different, not out of ideal, belief, method, obligation. It just is. No? No one needs to tell the caged animal that he's caged. If he's happy in his cage....

This post was last updated by Huguette . Mon, 17 Dec 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 17 Dec 2018 #164
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 855 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
I would say that K is using the word ‘purpose’ a bit differently than we have been using it here. He is living a truth that he wants to share. That’s different than ‘my’ purpose to find out what it is he’s living....something totally unknown to me. And, moreover, something K says is a ‘pathless land’.

Was what he was living known to him,? there was neither a path for him telling us about the truth, or do you see the teaching as path to truth.?

It's all very delicate and subtle and one Is Easily trapped in the maze of the psyche.

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 17 Dec 2018 #165
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 855 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
No one needs to tell the caged animal that he's caged. If he's happy in his cage.

Yes huguette, even when the animal don't know and one opens the cage he is gonne out, into the unknown.

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

This post was last updated by Wim Opdam Mon, 17 Dec 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 17 Dec 2018 #166
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2725 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette: No animal likes to be caged, every animal loves freedom

I was implying that what you said about the ‘animal’ doesn’t seem to apply to the human, that’s all. That was the reason for the ‘we’....’we’ humans. Does it apply to me? I suppose I felt caged in a sense, since my early days in grammar school. But I didn’t see until much, much, later that the society itself was the cage. Like most, I struggled to succeed within the confines of the cage....to have my ‘freedom’ when school was out. Not until suffering became quite extreme did I even begin to question the society as a whole....or to see societal conditioning as a cage. Will look further into what you wrote later....at a noisy university cafeteria at the moment. And I wanted to come back to Wims point as well.

I wanted to add, that I never felt a longing for freedom as I had no concept of freedom. I only wanted fulfillment....pleasure....excitement...more experiences, and an end to my suffering

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Mon, 17 Dec 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 17 Dec 2018 #167
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2725 posts in this forum Offline

Wim: Was what he was living known to him,? there was neither a path for him telling us about the truth, or do you see the teaching as path to truth?

I’m sorry, it’s very difficult to express this clearly and you have misunderstood what I was trying to get across. Probably it was my fault. No time to go back over this again now. Perhaps some others will comment on your point about ‘purpose’

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 18 Dec 2018 #168
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 737 posts in this forum Offline

re 166:

Sorry Tom, I was commenting on several posts at once, from you, from Clive, from Wim, without completely being clear about what I was responding to.

In terms of the issue you raise, I understand very well what you say about the distinction between animals and humans. But that is partly my point. “We” humans have been conditioned to look at everything through thought, to intellectualize everything "we" experience, not to question the nature of consciousness, and so on. We think or believe that the word IS the thing, that when we SAY we’re not afraid (or angry etc.), the very saying of it indicates that we are not afraid. And so we disregard and are unaware of the inner contradictions, we are ignorant of the deep motivations, fears and desires pulling us in different directions.

Nonetheless, isn't it a fact that there are some - I, you, others - in which there is a deep discontent, a flowering of awareness of our contradictions and fears and, with this, a spontaneous questioning whose energy cannot be disregarded or ignored?

Is it so? Then all that matters is the flowering of learning, awareness, understanding, intelligence. With that flowering, ignorance begins to dissipate. Does it? Doesn’t it? So I don’t concern myself with the ignorance of “we” because I can do nothing about that. I see that this concern with the consciousness of "others" or "we" is an avoidance of the fact. I’m learning, finding out for myself about the "me" which is - as K repeatedly said - mankind. I'm finding out about time and self, fear, contradictions, desire, and so on. And it is only my own direct observation and understanding that can act “rightly” in relationship. Don't you think?

This post was last updated by Huguette . Tue, 18 Dec 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 18 Dec 2018 #169
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 737 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote at 156:
But we’ve already made it known if we have a purpose...if we make an effort. I, the known, want to discover the unknown. We’re hoping to achieve that unknown ‘something’ or other(insight?) K has told us will set us free. So we know what we’re after. I think we fool ourselves when we make any effort in the ‘psychological’ realm, but perhaps I’m mistaken. Perhaps there is some meaning to this type of ‘meditation’...effort. Perhaps what you are describing is simple self observation as Dan has described above.

Is it the unknown we want to discover? The unknown CAN'T be discovered through experimentation that is based on desire to become or to achieve, can it?

Or is it the psychological processes of the mind we want to fully understand? For myself, it is the latter. Doesn’t such experimenting mean self-observation? Isn't the action of observation necessarily a psychological state of not knowing? There can be no observation if I already know the significance or meaning of what is observed. If I already know or believe I know the sigificance and meaning of the observed, then I inevitably act out of knowledge. If I don't know, if I have no idea if my action is good or bad, right or wrong, if I don't know and can't explain or analyze the significance of and explanation for the observed, action is the observation itself, isn't it?

There is the realization that the mind is ignorant of its own processes; so conceit, pretense, fear, deceit, violence, etc., are fully looked at as they arise, without any effort to correct or disregard what is observed. THAT is experimentation, as I see it - just to see “what is” clearly, without the distortion of thought.

For me, such experiment or observation means that action is not based on knowledge and time. So action is without any pretense of, or desire for, certainty in outcome; without any effort to become, to influence, to change, to punish, and so on. As I see it, such experimentation in itself is transformative. Not to know or think I know what will happen; not to have an attitude or expectation about the outcome ---- is that in itself a transformation of relationship, behaviour, action? Or is it not?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 18 Dec 2018 #170
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 855 posts in this forum Offline

are we not still heirs of the pack animals, their pack behavior, their struggle for leadership and their submission to the leader, is it not our humanity to question the correctness of these behaviors?

if thinking is humanity new skill, should we not be able to master it experimentally and questioning its correct behaviour ?

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 18 Dec 2018 #171
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2725 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
for myself, it is the latter. Doesn’t such experimenting mean self-observation? Isn't the action of observation necessarily a psychological state of not knowing? There can be no observation if I already know the significance or meaning of what is observed.

You make a valid, and important, point, Huguette. Knowledge and observation, as K uses that word, are mutually exclusive. We....or should I say, the human mind, as you don’t seem to like that ‘we’...the human mind ( mine, yours, the common human brain) automatically labels what it observes. I don’t know why, but it happens almost instantaneously that I label anger as anger, and I feel that I know about it as well. All my knowledge about it interferes in simply observing. I suspect this happens to all of us who have read K and experiment with observing. At the moment of anger or fear...or immediately after....I say, “I am angry”. I recognize the anger. So knowledge is already interfering when there is recognition. We have read K and we then say, I will experiment with observing the anger free of the word/label/knowledge. In my own experience, I have found that it seems impossible to observe any strong emotion free of knowledge....free of the desire to get rid of it....even to get rid of it by observing free of knowledge. Knowledge doesn’t disappear because I want it to....because I want to observe like K. So perhaps all one can do is to observe the interference of knowledge and the seeking of a result, since that is what is....that is what’s happening when we/I feel a strong emotion. In post 152 Clive brings up the issue of trying to achieve a result and how this is part of the problem itself.

“There can be no observation if I already know the significance or meaning of what is observed”, you wrote. Yes, that is the issue...the crux of the matter. I DO know so much about fear and anger, and that knowledge interferes. Part of me automatically responds to fear or anger with condemnation. Haven’t we all been told that anger is wrong....or that we shouldn’t be afraid? In fact we’ve been told that so often as small children that as soon as we get angry, we may immediately condemn ourselves. I’m only expressing how my own mind works in a moment of strong emotion. I assume it’s a common characteristic of the human brain to attempt to act upon the anger or to get rid of it....or to analyze its causes. But can I observe it without this movement in the brain? Without trying to achieve a result? And can I do this effortlessly, as any effort is already a reaction to fear to try to get rid of it? Can I simply observe it as I might observe an unusual animal or insect? Observe out of interest or curiosity? Just sharing some of my own questioning here.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Tue, 18 Dec 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 18 Dec 2018 #172
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1433 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
if thinking is humanity new skill, should we not be able to master it experimentally and questioning its correct behaviour ?

I think that it is critical. As I see it that has been the main question of K.'s message: Can psychological thought with its 'time' and measurement end? Can it only operate in 'practical' matters? In practical matters, time is necessary as measurement is necessary...it is our great gift. But operating in the psychological area, it has carried over 'time' and measurement erroneously : "I am this now, but with time I can become that". I am not happy now but I will be happy in the future if I do this or I do that...I have not realized 'enlightenment' but given time and practice and whatever, I can..."Becoming". (In the psychological there is only 'now', this instant, no past, present, or future, right?)

The 'ending' (if you see that that is the 'problem'), cannot be done by any 'method', that is clear isn't it, because any method to bring about the end of psychological thought implies the 'time' it would take to accomplish it. (so rather than 'ending' the interference of 'time', it is being employed by the 'method' to get rid of itself!) Suppression is useless because that can only be thought trying to suppress itself. (the "thinker/thought" duality). Again there is no 'outside' entity to do the suppression. Any duality in the psychological continues thought/time/self along with the conflict, suffering, friction, resistance, the illusion of 'my' individuality, the 'permanence of the 'I', and all the other things that are a result of thought being in the 'wrong' place.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Tue, 18 Dec 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 18 Dec 2018 #173
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 737 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
We have read K and we then say, I will experiment with observing the anger free of the word/label/knowledge. In my own experience, I have found that it seems impossible to observe any strong emotion free of knowledge....free of the desire to get rid of it....even to get rid of it by observing free of knowledge. Knowledge doesn’t disappear because I want it to....because I want to observe like K. So perhaps all one can do is to observe the interference of knowledge and the seeking of a result, since that is what is....that is what’s happening when we/I feel a strong emotion.

Yes, that's it.

I don't know if you ever saw the "Sorcerer's Apprentice" in the old (1930 or so, I think) Disney movie "Fantasia". The lazy apprentice used magic to split his broom into 2 magic brooms to do his chores for him. But he could not control the magic and each broom kept on splitting and emptying buckets full of water until the sorcerer's castle was under water. Maybe it's not a good illustration?!

Thought doesn't fragment just once and then stand still. It keeps splitting into fragments. One fragment is not necessarily more important or significant than the others. It is the same process of fragmentation: the emotion, the desire to get rid of it, the effort to control, the blame, the images in time, and so on, and "new" fragments taking "new" directions.

Anger, desire, blame, effort, images, etc., move and morph endlessly. And the mind takes ONE fragment and isolates it as being "the main thing" or "the problem" or "the solution", etc., and disregards the whole.

This post was last updated by Huguette . Tue, 18 Dec 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 18 Dec 2018 #174
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 737 posts in this forum Offline

Tom,

I don’t know if you’re interested in this, but I want to clarify what I meant about using the word “we”. I was unable to convey what I mean. For me, there are contexts where “we” does accurately reflect what I’m trying to say and I too use the “we” in contexts where “we” signifies mankind, man’s mind or the human being.

But there are contexts where I see “we” as an avoidance or muddying of the fact. So when you say, “But first we have to feel we are caged....be aware of the fact [that we are not free]”, that seems to me to muddy the fact.

Do you mean that you Tom ARE aware of being caged psychologically but that the rest of mankind is NOT aware of the fact? Then, if you and I ARE aware of being psychologically constrained in our actions and relationships, can’t we - you ad I - directly look into what constrains us?

Or do you mean that you Tom are NOT aware of it and that you only know about being caged because someone else has told you that you are not free? Isn’t that somewhat like saying I have a terrible pain but I’m not aware of it? If I’m not aware of the pain, then what makes me say I have pain? How do I know? If I'm not free and unaware of it, then being caged is not a problem, is it?

This post was last updated by Huguette . Tue, 18 Dec 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 18 Dec 2018 #175
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5268 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Maybe it's not a good illustration?!

I find it an apt analogy, Huguette. The music is now going through my head :-).

Huguette . wrote:
Thought doesn't fragment just once and then stand still. It keeps splitting into fragments. One fragment is not necessarily more important or significant than the others. It is the same process of fragmentation: the emotion, the desire to get rid of it, the effort to control, the blame, the images in time, and so on, and "new" fragments taking "new" directions.

Yes.

Huguette . wrote:
Anger, desire, blame, effort, images, etc., move and morph endlessly.

Indeed they do "move and morph endlessly". Why is this? And does it happen through a process of 'me' continually reacting to thought/feeling? But this is actually a guise - a disguise of thought reacting to thought.

Huguette . wrote:
And the mind takes ONE fragment and isolates it as being "the main thing" or "the problem" or "the solution", etc., and disregards the whole.

So what is this whole that is being disregarded? Is the whole the actual process of moving and morphing endlessly? Or is the whole more than that? And if it IS more than that,how is the fragmented mind to see it?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 18 Dec 2018 #176
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2725 posts in this forum Offline

H: Or do you mean that you Tom are NOT aware of it and that you only know about being caged because someone else has told you that you are not free? Isn’t that somewhat like saying I have a terrible pain but I’m not aware of it? If I’m not aware of the pain, then what makes me say I have pain?

I think I see where the confusion arose. Personally speaking I never felt ‘caged’ at all other than in a very limited sense like in the school classroom or on a job. I was certainly aware of suffering...of being terribly unhappy at times. So, sure, I was aware of being in pain, but had never felt my mind was caged....or even constrained....until quite recently that is. And I never said to myself “I wish I was free”, since I had no concept of what freedom might be. I only knew I wanted suffering to end. I used the term ‘we’ because of the thousands of people I’ve known and interacted with over the years, I never heard it expressed that the person felt ‘caged’, yet more than a few were unhappy or depressed or confused or frustrated. Will come back later to your other very interesting post from today....have to get back to work now. It was the word caged that caused some confusion for me. I like ‘constrained’ better for some reason.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Tue, 18 Dec 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 18 Dec 2018 #177
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5268 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote #155:
Sorry to be personal but for me it points out that with 'experimenting' you can't know what will be stumbled upon, what will be discovered at work in you.

I don’t think there is a problem about “being personal” in this sense – the sense of sharing one’s own investigations into what in the end is the common mind, common problems. In fact I think it has been a strength of this forum that people are willing to talk about their own experiences, in a non-assertive way.

Can we say that this experimentation is really a state of mind, an openess to look at what is, what comes, without condemnation? It is not a set approach, not a determination, certainly not a method. And this includes being willing to let thought/feeling flow, without putting the brakes on. Of course they WILL flow, they are constantly on the move.

Perhaps it is more acurate to talk of being willing that life experiements in oneself, rather than me doing the experimenting.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 18 Dec 2018 #178
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5268 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote #171:
In post 152 Clive brings up the issue of trying to achieve a result and how this is part of the problem itself.

Tom Paine wrote:
We have read K and we then say, I will experiment with observing the anger free of the word/label/knowledge.

But if we have really understood K, ( which is not implying that I have) would we respond to his words with the idea that " I WILL ........"? That "I Will" implies the action of ...well, will, does it not? And it implies that i have some degree of control over the future. I would like to question that. Do I really have any control over the mind? Can I in any way deliberately determine the future? What I will do or will not do? I am talking psychologically of course, I can decide whether I catch a bus or drive, etc.

I can see many objections to this, it would be interesting to go into them.

If we put aside - ok, if I put aside- the notion that I can decide what I will do, psychologically, then what? Am I not left with the awareness of what is happening now?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 18 Dec 2018 #179
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5268 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:

Wim Opdam wrote:

if thinking is humanity new skill, should we not be able to master it experimentally and questioning its correct behaviour ?

I think that it is critical. As I see it that has been the main question of K.'s message: Can psychological thought with its 'time' and measurement end?

I feel all that you say seems so, Dan. But there is one big issue issue for me. Wim asks if WE should not be able to master thinking. When we are concerned with practical skills, it makes sense to talk of MY mastering of them. But what is the entity, if it is an entity at all, who could master thinking? Presumably this has to be a force, if I can use that word, OUTSIDE of the thinking process? If it is part of the thought, then is that not just a trick thought is playing on itself?

Thought needs to find its 'right place', that I think is indisputable. Is there another agency involved in this finding (one might use the word intelligence, but I don't know if that aids understanding). Can thought's own perceptions find this right place?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 19 Dec 2018 #180
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1433 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Can thought's own perceptions find this right place?

That the big question isn't it Clive? There is no outside entity that can bring an end to thought/time. And as I see it, thought/time has no place in the psychological realm. It is an interference. Can it through an awareness along with intelligence realize that it is an interference and become silent? Not to be dramatic, but that seems mankind's most important question. (whether 'mankind' knows it or not). Only awareness of its activity, here in this brain, is all that is possible. Just that, awareness, only that.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 151 - 180 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.)