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

All one inquiry


Displaying posts 211 - 240 of 643 in total
Sat, 22 Dec 2018 #211
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4965 posts in this forum Online

Tom Paine wrote #161 :
But first we have to feel we are caged....be aware of the fact

I feel this is very true, Tom, and very important. Actually feel it, experience it, live with it fully, not just to have an idea that we are caged. And also we need to see beyond the illusion that there is some action we can take to escape the cage. The mind doesn't like that to see that. Much of society consists of various escapes from seeing it.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 22 Dec 2018 #212
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2510 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
this age old idea of 'enlightenment'. A big bang in the brain where everything becomes clear-the mystery of life solved...just another myth? Just another reason to hope for a phony 'future'?

I don't know. Did K ever talk about such a possibility? It seems to me it is more a matter of a stream of "small" realisations or insights. I have read of such big bangs in the brain in individuals. If one accepts the truth of them, it seems they were spontaneous, or perhaps the result of some shock. But never the result of volition, effort. One thing seems clear, to form an image of the possibility of such an event, to wait for it to happen, to expect it, is destructive.

But he did talk about a total revolution....a total mutation in the brain. I think he talked of this a lot. I DO agree with your last sentence, though, Clive.

Making an image of that...an ideal...or a goal...would only create imitation and contradiction and conflict.

I have returned to this because I see that I had left out parts of your post, Clive, which I now copied and pasted. Still finding that the site doesn’t always work all that well with iOS on my iPad. Multiple quoting for instance won’t work. Sometimes even the basic quote function doesn’t work and I have to resort to copy and paste. It can be quite time consuming to make a thorough reply to some messages when using my iPad.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Sun, 23 Dec 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 23 Dec 2018 #213
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4965 posts in this forum Online

Dan McDermott wrote:
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.

Here is a quote from K that is very definite on that question:

There are many unique separative forces or energies at work in the world, which we cannot wholly understand. We can only understand fundamentally and integrally the unique energy which is focussed in each one of us, which is the "I". It is the only process we can understand.

Here is the rest of the talk, as it is so fascinating:

To understand the process of this unique energy, the "I", you need deep discernment, not the study of intellectual deductions and analysis. You must have a mind that is capable of great pliability. A mind that is burdened with want and fear, which creates opposites and from which arises choice, is incapable of discerning the subtle process of the "I", the centre of all action. As I have explained, this energy is unique; it is conditioning and conditioned at the same time. It is creating its own limitation through its own action born of ignorance. This unique energy, without a beginning, has in its self-active development become consciousness, the "I" process. This consciousness, which is conditioning itself through its own volitional activities, this "I" process of ignorance, wants, fears, illusions, is the centre of action. This centre is continually reforming itself, and creating anew its own limitation through its own volitional activities, and so there is always conflict, pain, sorrow. There must be a fundamental change in consciousness, in this very centre of action; mere discipline and the authority of ideals cannot bring about the cessation of suffering and sorrow. You have to discern that the "I" process, with its fear and illusion, is transient, and so can be dissolved.

Many of you subtly believe that the "I" is eternal, divine, and that without the "I" there cannot be activity, there cannot be love, and that with the cessation of the "I" process there can only be annihilation. So you must first discern profoundly for yourselves if the "I" process is everenduring, or if it is transient. You must know what is its nature, its being. This is a very difficult task, for most of you have been brought up through faith in the religious tradition which makes you cling to the "I" and prevents you from perceiving its true essence. Some of you, who have cast aside religious beliefs, only to accept scientific dogmas, will equally find it difficult to know the true nature of the centre of action. Superficial inquiry into the nature of the "I", or casual assertion of its divinity, merely indicates an essential lack of understanding of the true nature of the "I" process.

You can discern for yourself what it is, as I know for myself its real nature. When I say this, it is not to encourage a belief in my comprehension of the "I" process. Only when you know for yourself what it is, can this process be brought to an end.

With the cessation of the "I" process there is a change of will, which alone can end suffering. No system, no discipline, can bring about the change of will. Become aware of the "I" process. In choiceless awareness, duality which exists only in the action of want, fear and ignorance, ceases. There is simply the perception of the actor, with his memories, wants and fears, and his actions; the one centre perceiving itself without objectifying itself.

Mere control or compulsion, one want overcoming another want, mere substitution, is but a change in will, which can never bring suffering to an end. The change in want is a change in limitation, further conditioning thought, which results in superficial reformation. If there is change of will through the comprehension of the "I" process, then there is intelligence, creative intuition, from which alone can come harmonious relationship with individuals, with environment. Through discernment of the "I" process of ignorance there comes awareness. It is choiceless spontaneity of action, not action born of discrimination which is weighing one act against another, one reaction against another, one habit of thought against another. When there is the full comprehension and so the cessation of the "I" process there comes a choiceless life, a life of plenitude, a life of bliss.

http://jiddu-krishnamurti.net/en/1936-1944-the-mirror-of-relationship/krishnamurti-the-mirror-of-relationship-21

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 23 Dec 2018 #214
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 804 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Here is the rest of the talk, as it is so fascinating:

Hi Clive,

Indeed it is fascinating and at the same time it is dangerous as becoming the source of more thought. On the general discussion they speak of K.people how is is possible to speak in those terms if one is serious about this matter ? Seeing lately more seriousness in common life situations where they are questioning there own behaviour.

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 23 Dec 2018 #215
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2510 posts in this forum Offline

Clive quoting K in #213:

“ A mind that is burdened with want and fear, which creates opposites and from which arises choice, is incapable of discerning the subtle process of the "I", the centre of all action. ”

Well, then, we are pretty much doomed from the start! Sorry, but for many of us reading this, it may feel so. But here’s today’s QOTD that might point us towards the direction of self awareness: http://www.kinfonet.org/krishnamurti/quotes/to-...

From 3rd public talk in 1936:

“When the mind discerns for itself the hindrances that are preventing clear thought, then no artificial impetus is necessary for the awakening of intelligence. A mind that seeks a method is not aware of itself, of its ignorance, fears. It merely hopes that perhaps a method, a system of discipline, will dissipate its fears and sorrows. Discipline can only create habit, and so deaden the mind. To be aware without choice, to be conscious of the many activities of the mind, its richness, its subtleties, its deceptions, its illusions, is to be intelligent. This awareness itself dispels ignorance, fear. If you make an effort to be aware, then that effort creates a habit, impelled by the hope of escape from sorrow. Where there is deep and choiceless awareness, there is self-revelation which alone can prevent the mind from creating illusions for itself and thereby putting itself to sleep.”

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 23 Dec 2018 #216
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4965 posts in this forum Online

Tom Paine wrote #186 :
T: Of course, because I am only another thought.

If you see this, and I see this, why doesn't thought see this? I mean by this, if it is clear that the thinker is only another thought, why does the mind persist in this pretense? Why doesn't it drop away once and for all?

Isn't this insight the only portal necessary for complete change of the mind?

I am extracting from a quote I gave above:

If you see this, and I see this, why doesn't thought see this? I mean by this, if it is clear that the thinker is only another thought, why does the mind persist in this pretense? Why doesn't it drop away once and for all?This consciousness, which is conditioning itself through its own volitional activities, this "I" process of ignorance, wants, fears, illusions, is the centre of action. This centre is continually reforming itself, and creating anew its own limitation through its own volitional activities, and so there is always conflict, pain, sorrow. There must be a fundamental change in consciousness, in this very centre of action; mere discipline and the authority of ideals cannot bring about the cessation of suffering and sorrow. You have to discern that the "I" process, with its fear and illusion, is transient, and so can be dissolved.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 24 Dec 2018 #217
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4965 posts in this forum Online

Wim Opdam wrote:
Indeed it is fascinating and at the same time it is dangerous as becoming the source of more thought.

I doubt if there would be "less thought" if the passage was not read or considered. Can thought be measured in this way, so quantitatively? And what would be the measure-er? Only more thought, no?

Or perhaps what you are pointing out, Wim, is the danger of turning perception into concept? Mistaking the word for the thing?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 24 Dec 2018 #218
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4965 posts in this forum Online

Tom Paine wrote:
But he did talk about a total revolution....a total mutation in the brain. I

Yes, this is so.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 24 Dec 2018 #219
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4965 posts in this forum Online

Tom Paine wrote #186 :
T: Of course, because I am only another thought.

If you see this, and I see this, why doesn't thought see this? I mean by this question, if it is clear that the thinker is only another thought, why does the mind persist in this pretence? Why doesn't it drop away once and for all?

Would this be the "big bang" that you talked of?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 24 Dec 2018 #220
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4965 posts in this forum Online

That’s certainly an interesting idea. What you say seems logically correct. But when one is living it, then the seeing that a mind burdened with want and fear, etc, is incapable of understanding the ways of the self, is itself a profound realisation. Although it might be seen, conceptually, as a negative, hopeless, situation, the very realisation has its effect.

Sorry, this may not be clear. I can relate to the quotes given a week or so ago. Eg from #151:

"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."

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 24 Dec 2018 #221
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 804 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine quoting K. wrote:
"To be aware without choice, to be conscious of the many activities of the mind, its richness, its subtleties, its deceptions, its illusions, is to be intelligent. "

So it must be possible to hear and/or speak with totally different words and understand it's a pointing to the same source.

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 24 Dec 2018 #222
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 804 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
I doubt if there would be "less thought" if the passage was not read or considered. Can thought be measured in this way, so quantitatively? And what would be the measure-er? Only more thought, no?

"More or less Thought" can be observed like any other action in the world, the observation of more agression is not only a thought, it is also a fact !

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 24 Dec 2018 #223
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2510 posts in this forum Offline

if it is clear that the thinker is only another thought, why does the mind persist in this pretence? Why doesn't it drop away once and for all?

I don’t have an answer for this, but K did once speak of the lack of attention in this context. I think he said that the reason we don’t change totally is inattention. I’m not clear about this ‘big bang’ issue, as Dan called it, myself.

I just saw today’s QOTD and want to share it here, as it will be gone tomorrow. It may touch on what we’ve been discussing:

Public Talk 9th November, 1947 | Madras, India

So far we have considered a man that can fix his mind on one thing, as if this were something remarkable. If he can fix in his mind the idea of God which is an idea created by himself, or a word, or a phrase, and be consumed by that idea, that word, that phrase, you think he is a great religious man; and then you will also say that the man knows how to create. Isn't it so? What I mean is that the mind being vagrant, wandering, disorderly, but seeking orderliness, security, pursues one exclusive idea, generally a verbal idea; and when someone can dwell completely in an idea and be identified with it, we call him a great man. Yet the idea is a mere projection. The phrase is made by the man, is it not? The word is repeated by the man.

So, as long as there is repetition, you are putting yourself in a trance by means of a phrase, a word, an idea; and going far into a trance, you will call that meditation, which is only identification with a projected idea; because reality is inconceivable, unknowable and you cannot think about the unknowable, you can only think about the knowable. And what you know is not the truth and therefore when you create the known you only experience a process of self-hypnosis. Is that meditation? To go into a trance, to concentrate on a thing with which you are completely identified, which is a projection of yourself? Is that not what we are doing? Is that right? What we do restlessly when in meditation is merely moving from the known to the known and therefore it is not the discovery of the unknown.

After all, man is the result of the past and when the mind thinks of something in the future, it has translated the past into the future and therefore it is not the real. So if this is not the true process, then what is the true process? How to discover the unknown is the problem. After all the purpose of meditation is to discover reality, not to hypnotize yourself about the reality. Meditation is, after all, the discovery of beauty, love. But you can discover nothing by mesmerizing yourself, or by becoming stupefied by a phrase, or by a map, or by concentrating on something which is exclusive of all else. it is a form of self-hypnosis.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Mon, 24 Dec 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 24 Dec 2018 #224
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2510 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
Tom Paine quoting K. wrote:

"To be aware without choice, to be conscious of the many activities of the mind, its richness, its subtleties, its deceptions, its illusions, is to be intelligent. "

So it must be possible to hear and/or speak with totally different words and understand it's a pointing to the same source.

I’m sorry, Wim, but I’m having difficulty relating what you wrote to the excerpt from K.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 24 Dec 2018 #225
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 804 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
I’m sorry, Wim, but I’m having difficulty relating what you wrote to the excerpt from K.

if I see a connection somewhere and someone else does not, then there is nothing to apologize for.
Only when I have had expectations, or you would think you should see the same thing,
is there a energy going on which is out of order.

And yes "I'm sorry" is also a polite way of saying but amongst friends superfluous.
This is what i'm seeing as one of the very very subtle ways thought can do its wrong doing.

and that can be said without using the words which are used by K.

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 24 Dec 2018 #226
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2510 posts in this forum Offline

And yes "I'm sorry" is also a polite way of saying but amongst friends superfluous.

I’m sorry, Wim ;), but that’s just how I normally speak....even among friends :) If my wife is trying to tell my something that’s not clear, I’d say the same. Like saying “would you mind” clarifying what you’re saying? Will have another go at your post in a bit.

Only when I have had expectations, or you would think you should see the same thing,

No expectations....I simply don’t have a clue what you’re trying to communicate in your post.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Mon, 24 Dec 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 24 Dec 2018 #227
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4965 posts in this forum Online

Wim Opdam wrote:

Clive Elwell wrote:

I doubt if there would be "less thought" if the passage was not read or considered. Can thought be measured in this way, so quantitatively? And what would be the measure-er? Only more thought, no?

"More or less Thought" can be observed like any other action in the world, the observation of more agression is not only a thought, it is also a fact !

Perhaps aggression could be measured (although that would be a complicated process, and we would have to agree on exactly what constitutes aggression) but there is more to aggression than thought, is there not? Aggression is an action, or series of actions, observable, visible, although i admit its origins may lie at least partly in thought.

What to you would it mean to "measure thought", Wim?

This post was last updated by Clive Elwell Mon, 24 Dec 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 24 Dec 2018 #228
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4965 posts in this forum Online

Tom Paine wrote:
I don’t have an answer for this, but K did once speak of the lack of attention in this context. I think he said that the reason we don’t change totally is inattention.

I feel this may be correct. So one asks (not to make a problem of inattention) why is there insufficient attention?

But "insufficient" suggests that there are degrees of attention, which I think K has denied. Not sure about that. Can anyone come in about that?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 25 Dec 2018 #229
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2510 posts in this forum Offline

Clive: I feel this may be correct. So one asks (not to make a problem of inattention) why is there insufficient attention?

Not ‘insufficient attention’, but why is there inattention? Why do we live in words and ideas and ideals, ignoring ‘what is’?

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 25 Dec 2018 #230
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 804 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
What to you would it mean to "measure thought", Wim?

Is the determination that there are questions where no longer being worried about, but being accepted, that there is no change in the degree of cessation of thinking.

for example, I used to be worried if someone did not understand me or if I had to convince someone of my right, without having worked on it, I find that these things no longer affect me.

It's not a calculation a measuring but simple observation.

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 25 Dec 2018 #231
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 676 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote at 219:
If you see this, and I see this, why doesn't thought see this? I mean by this question, if it is clear that the thinker is only another thought, why does the mind persist in this pretence? Why doesn't it drop away once and for all?

There are 2 ways of approaching this question, as far as I can see. I could be wrong.

One is the old way, through knowledge or intellect, the way of trying to figure it out.

The other way is of “picking it up like a jewel" and observing it, observing all its facets, for as long as the question is THERE --- just like any or every thought or emotion which arises. Is the answer revealed - is the question clarified - in "simply" observing the question to its end? Does the answer lie in the question itself?

This post was last updated by Huguette . Tue, 25 Dec 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 25 Dec 2018 #232
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 629 posts in this forum Offline

Clive wrote:
f you see this, and I see this, why doesn't thought see this? I mean by this question, if it is clear that the thinker is only another thought, why does the mind persist in this pretence? Why doesn't it drop away once and for all?

Thought is material. Matter persists. The notion that there is only matter is thought.

There is no real change because it is not seen that there is something that is beyond matter.

We are identified with... what we think we are... is only thought... which is only matter. What we actually are is beyond matter. One must ask oneself, out of real interest only, not to get something out of it,

" What actually is it that is this self?"

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Tue, 25 Dec 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 25 Dec 2018 #233
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 676 posts in this forum Offline

Peter Kesting wrote:
Thought is material. Matter persists.

I agree that “Thought is material. Matter persists”. But does this in itself explain why the mind persists in its pretence?

Peter Kesting wrote:
One must ask oneself, out of real interest only, not to get something out of it,

" What actually is it that is this self?"

Again, I do agree with you. This question is important, crucial. But what if one does NOT have a real interest, what if one’s interest IS tainted by desire or self-interest? Can one simply - through will or choice - end that self-interest? Isn’t it important to observe, to acknowledge to oneself, to be aware of, to face THE ACTUAL FACT that “real interest” is not really there? The perception of the fact necessarily changes the course of the questioning into the nature of self, doesn’t it?

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Tue, 25 Dec 2018 #234
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4965 posts in this forum Online

Huguette . wrote:
The other way is of “picking it up like a jewel" and observing it, observing all its facets, for as long as the question is THERE -

Would you say, Huguette, that this observing of a precious jewel is a conscious or an unconscious process?

I mean, is it a matter of keeping the jewel in one's hand and observing it, or sowing the seed of observation, and then leaving the seed to grow, on its own? Something may emerge from the soil, or not?

Not sure if this is a valid question.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 25 Dec 2018 #235
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4965 posts in this forum Online

Peter Kesting wrote:
Thought is material. Matter persists.

Wait a moment, Peter. When K used to say "thought is matter", Bohm usually corrected him, and eventually K would agree that thought is a PROCESS in matter. So although matter may persist, the process in it, thought, may not.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Dec 2018 #236
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 629 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Again, I do agree with you. This question is important, crucial. But what if one does NOT have a real interest, what if one’s interest IS tainted by desire or self-interest? Can one simply - through will or choice - end that self-interest? Isn’t it important to observe, to acknowledge to oneself, to be aware of, to face THE ACTUAL FACT that “real interest” is not really there? The perception of the fact necessarily changes the course of the questioning into the nature of self, doesn’t it?
<

Looking at this, I'm thinking we are looking for what it is that precedes the state where the self is absent. K sometimes reminds us of what happens when we suddenly see a marvelous view, a mountain or a sunset. I would also say seeing the unexpected event in the performance of a stage magician. Thinking also of what happens simply when one watches a very good movie.

Here in this one, it seems that the absence of the self comes and goes. Just now, seeing that what we are interested in is a state where there is the absence of. identification. Several posts back there is mention of looking at conflict,suffering as if it were a precious jewel. Again isn't this where there is the absence of identification.>

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Wed, 26 Dec 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Dec 2018 #237
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 629 posts in this forum Offline

Is the nonidentified state all or nothing? Or is there a gradation?

It seems that one cannot get there intentionally from the identified state.

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Thu, 27 Dec 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Dec 2018 #238
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 629 posts in this forum Offline

Can one come to see that there is no doer?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Dec 2018 #239
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 629 posts in this forum Offline

All the same question.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 27 Dec 2018 #240
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 804 posts in this forum Offline

Peter Kesting wrote:
Is the nonidentified state all nothing? Or is there a gradation?

It seems that one cannot get there intentionally from the identified state.

.

Peter Kesting wrote:
Can one come to see that there is no doer?

Isn't that also happening in quantumtheory, one can determine whether the movement or the place but not both in the same event..?

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 211 - 240 of 643 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.)