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

All one inquiry


Displaying posts 241 - 270 of 882 in total
Thu, 27 Dec 2018 #241
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 657 posts in this forum Offline

Whm, My correction to post 237

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

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 27 Dec 2018 #242
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 737 posts in this forum Offline

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

[Process - a series of actions or steps taken in order to achieve a particular end (Google definition)]

I could be wrong but I don’t see observation as a process at all, Clive. When I observe a beautiful jewel, that observation is not the beginning of a process culminating in a product, in a result. I’m not observing all the facets of the jewel in order to gain an advantage or a benefit, or to fulfill myself. I want to observe it, not verbally, not with explanations or theories, but just to see it fully. “I want” - not based on a desire in time but as a spontaneous action or movement of life.

Similarly, I observe the workings of the mind, not because I want to transform myself or gain some other benefit. I observe because, being alive, I naturally want to understand. "I want", not because there’s a pot of gold at the end of it: it is just my nature. I observe (there's observation) because I’m alive and observation, awareness, understanding, is not based on time, it's not an action of thought, of "me". It is the spontaneous action or movement of life, as I see it more or less. I say “more or less” because words can only go so far to convey “the thing”.

Clive Elwell wrote:
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?

Observation is not a matter of anything, as I see it. “It is a matter of” implies a process leading to a result.

I think the seed of understanding or intelligence has been there all along. "I" had nothing to do with it. It’s part of being human. Silent awareness is the ground in which the frozen seed can thaw, germinate and flower. Of course this is just an analogy (if that’s even the right word) as I can’t express it otherwise.

When the mind observes anything - a beautiful sunset or a beautiful face, is the observation itself a process, conscious or unconscious? Is it a spontaneous action or a knowledge-based action? We often acknowledge that observation is not thought, that it is beyond time, measure, thought. Direction, desire and intention are thought. So there is a fundamental distinction between observation-awareness-understanding and thought-time-self. And who or what makes the distinction? You and I did not invent or create the distinction, as we did not invent or create apples and oranges. The distinction IS, the distinction exists. And the wholeness of the human being is aware of it, observes and understands it.

Is all this so?

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 27 Dec 2018 #243
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 657 posts in this forum Offline

Peter Kesting wrote:
Whm, My correction to post 237

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

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

Is it that the unidentified state is always there...a something beyond... and the shift out of the identified state comes from the unidentified state?

The shift comes when the identified state pauses in its activity. When it is quiet.

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 27 Dec 2018 #244
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 657 posts in this forum Offline

Hello Huguette,

I like what you just posted above.

Peter

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 27 Dec 2018 #245
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2721 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Similarly, I observe the workings of the mind, not because I want to transform myself or gain some other benefit. I observe because, being alive, I naturally want to understand.

This makes sense. When there's confusion and conflict it's natural to want to find out why one has to live with this.

Huguette . wrote:
When the mind observes anything - a beautiful sunset or a beautiful face, is the observation itself a process, conscious or unconscious? Is it a spontaneous action or a knowledge-based action?

It's spontaneous. But if we take this further and ask why man hasn't changed his ways fundamentally....the violence and misery he lives with over many thousands of years...why change hasn't happened spontaneously....well, we aren't waiting for a spontaneous change are we? Or will there be this spontaneous observation of 'myself' free of the 'me' which will transform one/me/you/any man? If man was capable of changing spontaneously....any man...we wouldn't live with so much misery and violence. There would be no war and the countless manifestations of violence and exploitation....no drugs and alcoholism. Can we wait around for spontaneous observation and transformation to just come to us? Isn't some effort....some direction...needed? The kind of transformation K spoke about has not come about in any of us spontaneously,has it? Perhaps it has in a few. It hasn't come about in me (other than relatively briefly), though I've hoped and prayed that permanent change would come about in the past. It didn't come about in my loved one who committed suicide, not meaning to be morbid....just stating facts as I observe them. It did't come about in the Trumps and the millions of other greedy elites. And the poor are still praying to their 'Gods' to be transformed/saved in churches and synagogues and mosques and temples. But spontaneous change for man doesn't seem to be a fact.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 27 Dec 2018 #246
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 737 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Can we wait around for spontaneous observation and transformation to just come to us? Isn't some effort....some direction...needed?

Spontaneous observation is not an idea, is it? Choiceless awareness, spontaneous observation - is a fact. Isn’t it? Awareness IS choiceless, observation IS spontaneous, and observation/awareness is not thought. Self “thinks” that it is a distinct entity in charge of itself. Where the mind is centred on self as the controller in action and relationship, then awareness, observation, thought, emotion, and so on, are all seen as something that self DOES.

Observation is not waiting around for transformation --- but transformation (not change or modification) is needed. If anything, it is thought which is waiting around for transformation. It is seen that transformation cannot be the product of thought and effort. We’re learning about the workings of the mind, the mind is learning about itself.

There’s awareness/observation which is not thought; there’s thought which is not observation. Each one is essential but in terms of transformation, thought is not only out of place, thought is the obstacle or constraint. The fact is that effort in relationship, effort to transform oneself, leads to conflict. These things too are observed.

Transformation means a fundamentally new mind where the old mind is not. The old mind cannot function in a fundamentally new way. If it thinks it IS transformed, then it is still the old mind. It is the old mind which decides to wait around or not wait around for spontaneous observation, isn’t it? Spontaneous observation or choiceless awareness is not waiting around. Choiceless awareness observes all the movements of thought, including the desire or waiting around.

I don’t know if I’m expressing my meaning clearly.

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 28 Dec 2018 #247
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1419 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Awareness IS choiceless, observation IS spontaneous, and observation/awareness is not thought.

Good point Huguette. Thanks for posting it. Awareness and observation in them selves are choiceless, non-judgmental ... when there is condemnation or judgment of any kind, it is psychological thought reacting to what is seen, observed. (?)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 28 Dec 2018 #248
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2721 posts in this forum Offline

Spontaneous observation is not an idea, is it? Choiceless awareness, spontaneous observation - is a fact. Isn’t it?

Yes. I think I understand most of what you wrote, Huguette. Observation is spontaneous; and thought is spontaneous as well, right? My anger, my belief, my opinion, my desire, my thinking and images, my fear and prejudice ...all that is spontaneous as well. As Peter pointed out, there is no do-er...no thinker separate from the thought. It’s all spontaneous, isn’t it, with no one doing the thinking or acting? So my question is, what will bring change? Is there anything, any action I can take; or is change, transformation, totally beyond ‘me’ ...outside the realm of ‘me’ and my thoughts and actions? If all is happening spontaneously, including the ugliness and the hatred and violence, what could possibly bring change?

It is the old mind which decides to wait around or not wait around for spontaneous observation, isn’t it? Spontaneous observation or choiceless awareness is not waiting around. Choiceless awareness observes all the movements of thought, including the desire or waiting around.

But this ‘choiceless awareness’ is mostly absent in man, isn’t it? Man who has ideals and goals and ambitions and desires and fear? If it were present there would be understanding and enlightenment and peace in the life of man. Perhaps all that one can do is to inquire into what is interfering in observation....what are the factors preventing objective observation and self understanding ?

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Fri, 28 Dec 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 28 Dec 2018 #249
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1419 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
..what are the factors preventing objective observation and self understanding

But aren't they "spontaneously" taking place every moment? Is it that we want to 'experience' them in a way that we can 'know'? Bring them into the 'cavern of the known'?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Fri, 28 Dec 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 28 Dec 2018 #250
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 847 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
I don’t know if I’m expressing my meaning clearly.

For me it does not seem your meaning , but rather a clear expression.

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 28 Dec 2018 #251
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2721 posts in this forum Offline

Dan: Tom Paine wrote:
..what are the factors preventing objective observation and self understanding
But aren't they "spontaneously" taking place every moment? Is it that we want to 'experience' them in a way that we can 'know'? Bring them into the 'cavern of the known'?

I don’t think that’s quite right Dan. We want to learn about ourselves because we suffer. To learn we have to observe, right? So I’m asking, ‘what is preventing clear observation/seeing of my problems....my anger or loneliness or fear?’ If I have beliefs or conclusions about anger I can’t look at it objectively because I’ve already made up my mind....that it’s wrong or bad or immoral or whatever. So I reject that part of me and therefore it’s impossible to observe it....understand it.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Fri, 28 Dec 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 28 Dec 2018 #252
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1419 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
I don’t think that’s quite right Dan. We want to learn about ourselves because we suffer. To learn we have to observe, right? So I’m asking, ‘what is preventing clear observation/seeing of my problems....my anger or loneliness or fear?’ If I have beliefs or conclusions about anger I can’t look at it objectively because I’ve already made up my mind....that it’s wrong or bad or immoral or whatever. So I reject that part of me and therefore it’s impossible to observe it....understand it.

I wrote what I wrote because it was for me, a 'new' way to look at our 'problem'...Thank you for questioning it. It was following on from the post that 'awareness' and observation' are "spontaneous". That insight opened a door for me. I feel that it is true that 'thought' is really devious in all this...To answer your question, I would say that nothing is preventing a clear seeing of our 'problems' except ourselves. First they are only 'problems' because there is a comparison between what is 'going on' and what 'I' would prefer to go on. If there is "suffering" as you say, then the motive is to escape from that state called "suffering" to a different state where the 'suffering' is no more. Not many would say that that is a bad idea or goal. But this K. teaching turns all that upside down. Escaping means the conflict and suffering will continue. Drugs/ self-hypnosis are options but they don't get to the root cause. And thought's imagined situation where I finally can look "clearly" and "objectively" at my 'problems' may just be a pipe dream created by thought. Is it, as has been said, that the very 'movement' of psychological thought itself may be the 'impediment' in question. If so, can that end? And along with it psychological 'time'?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 28 Dec 2018 #253
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2721 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
To answer your question, I would say that nothing is preventing a clear seeing of our 'problems' except ourselves.

And what is ourselves but all the knowledge about our problem....our beliefs ideals, and conclusions?

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 28 Dec 2018 #254
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1419 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
And what is ourselves but all the knowledge about our problem....our beliefs ideals, and conclusions?

Right...so "ourself" attempting to solve or approach the 'problem' just continues it, because 'we' are the 'problem'. Thought has pronounced it as a 'problem' and then can't just 'let it be', it has to attempt to solve it. That is the thinker/thought duality. The thinker saying in the case of psychological 'suffering' that this should not be...not realizing that it is the very thing that it is saying should not be...( this is the constant movement of thought I was getting at, an endless circling )

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 28 Dec 2018 #255
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5246 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Observation is not a matter of anything, as I see it. “It is a matter of” implies a process leading to a result.

I could be wrong but I don’t see observation as a process at all, Clive.

You are quite right, Huguette. On reflection, I see that was entirely a wrong use of the word. Observation is not of the mind, and so not a series of steps at all. It is good to see this.

“I think the seed of understanding or intelligence has been there all along. "I" had nothing to do with it. It’s part of being human. Silent awareness is the ground in which the frozen seed can thaw, germinate and flower. Of course this is just an analogy (if that’s even the right word) as I can’t express it otherwise.”

Krishnamurti, in several talks, has talked of “the seed of a million years”. Perhaps I will try and find one of those talks. But in general it is clear that that seed has not yet matured in the human mind.

“And the wholeness of the human being is aware of it, observes and understands it.”

What is this “wholeness of the human being”, Huguette? I have a feeling that I have asked this question several times before, perhaps of you. One knows the fragmentation of thought/feeling, and the impossibility of integrating the parts into a whole. Perhaps one is not identified with any particular fragment, idea, belief, conviction, conclusion, but still I cannot say there is a sense of wholeness. But then wholeness, if it means anything, cannot be ‘known’, so could it be recognised if it was there? Could it/can it be sensed?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 28 Dec 2018 #256
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5246 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote #245 :
If man was capable of changing spontaneously....any man...we wouldn't live with so much misery and violence.

And yet i have been reflecting lately that spontaneous action is the only real action. Action that is planned, that stems from thought, is merely a form of imitation, isn't it? It is mechanical. Such action can only be a continuation of the past, no?

it occurs to me that we never give spontaneous action a chance to act. We are always planing, plotting, choosing,according to what we think is our own advantage - and this may be the reason man has never changed, and continues to live, as you say, Tom, with so much misery and violence.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 28 Dec 2018 #257
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5246 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
my thinking and images, my fear and prejudice ...all that is spontaneous as well.

Why do you say that thinking is spontaneous, Tom? Does it not have a motive? Is it not always concerned with the self? Isn't thought always hedged about, weighing up the advantages and disadvantages, wavering between the profit and the loss? Is not all this the very denial of spontaneity?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 28 Dec 2018 #258
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 737 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
My anger, my belief, my opinion, my desire, my thinking and images, my fear and prejudice ...all that is spontaneous as well. As Peter pointed out, there is no do-er...no thinker separate from the thought. It’s all spontaneous, isn’t it, with no one doing the thinking or acting?

That’s not what I mean, Tom. Not that “what I mean” is right or wrong.

There IS NO do-er in awareness. Awareness is not the action of self. Self - which is the product of thought - is NOT performing the action of awareness or observation. But the conditioned mind/self - not distinguishing between thought and awareness - thinks that “I” am aware, “I” am attentive, “I” think, “I” love, “I” am intelligent, “I” make wise choices and if “I” make unwise choices, I can consult an expert to help me out, and so on. So “self” puts observation, awareness, love, intelligence, action, desire, anger, jealousy, fear - all of it, in the same bag. “Self” sees all of it as something that IT does. In this sense, self/thought does not make a distinction between awareness, love, fear, etc.

Thought IS a response TO something, it has a cause, even if it is an immediate response. Isn’t it? “I” might have heard something - a song, a sound, an insult, a compliment; or I might have seen a sight, a headline, a photo; or I might have smelled something; or something has jogged the memory of a past event or a person or a word or jingle; and so on. Therefore thought is not spontaneous as I understand the word. Spontaneous to me implies “no cause” and the cause of thought is memory. Even if the response is immediate, thought springs from memory. Whether the thought is nonsensical, sensible, with emotion, without emotion, it comes from memory, doesn’t it? But awareness has no cause, does it? It is not attached to memory. In that sense, it is spontaneous.

Tom Paine wrote:
So my question is, what will bring change? Is there anything, any action I can take; or is change, transformation, totally beyond ‘me’ ...outside the realm of ‘me’ and my thoughts and actions? If all is happening spontaneously, including the ugliness and the hatred and violence, what could possibly bring change?

When you ask what could possibly bring change, what do you mean? Do you mean what can end my suffering? Do you mean what can bring order, love, compassion, intelligence to the world? Do you mean what can end discontent?

We here have some degree of understanding of the source or nature of thought, time and self; some degree of understanding that awareness, love, intelligence, are not the doing of thought. To understand these things also means to understand, to realize deeply, that there is nothing that I can do because I am what I am and I cannot through volition be fundamentally otherwise. I cannot fundamentally alter my inner reality, my reactions, feelings and thoughts. Through volition, I can somewhat modify my external behaviour, but I cannot change what goes on inwardly. And what goes on inwardly necessarily shapes or affects what flows outwardly in relationship. We see that many who have gained this partial insight or degree of understanding are ready to fool themselves and assign full insight and understanding to themselves. But such self-deceit is not the path to transformation. I don’t know how to bring about transformation, but it is clear that self-deceit, pretense, knowledge, effort are NOT the path.

In any case, it is realized deeply and with no argument that thought cannot bring about a transformation of consciousness or the mind. There is no secret, no magic alchemy, no method, no knowledge for it. The mind knows many things and it understands that knowledge is of no help whatsoever in this. That’s all. Seeing the state of the mind or consciousness does not end awareness or sensitivity. Seeing the fact does not mean despair, self-pity, depression, anger, rebellion, and so on. One is alive and life acts and moves spontaneously, and one is witnessing it, aware of it, and learning.

I don’t know if what I’m saying makes sense to anyone else, if it’s right or wrong, sane or insane. I think it’s sane but it might not be. I have no idea!

Tom Paine wrote:
But this ‘choiceless awareness’ is mostly absent in man, isn’t it?

Is it? Or is it that man doesn't understand the nature of self and awareness and so attributes the action of awareness to self?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 28 Dec 2018 #259
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2721 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Tom Paine wrote:

my thinking and images, my fear and prejudice ...all that is spontaneous as well.
Why do you say that thinking is spontaneous, Tom? Does it not have a motive? Is it not always concerned with the self? I

I’m going to have to rethink this word ‘spontaneous’. Perhaps I’m not really understanding the meaning. Someone insults me and I react immediately....almost instantaneously. I was assuming that means spontaneous. Now I see I may have been mistaken. Will look further into this later because I see I’m confused as to the actual meaning.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Fri, 28 Dec 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 28 Dec 2018 #260
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2721 posts in this forum Offline

In any case, it is realized deeply and with no argument that thought cannot bring about a transformation of consciousness or the mind. There is no secret, no magic alchemy, no method, no knowledge for it. The mind knows many things and it understands that knowledge is of no help whatsoever in this. That’s all.

A very definitive statement Huguette. I appreciate your honesty, and I will take some time to look into this. If one truly understands that the mind has no place here. That the mind will never resolve the issue of division and suffering because by its very nature the mind divides from what it attempts to understand ....then perhaps the mind ceases to move in this realm....the psychological realm. Will come back to the rest of your post later....at work now.

When you ask what could possibly bring change, what do you mean? Do you mean what can end my suffering? Do you mean what can bring order, love, compassion, intelligence to the world? Do you mean what can end discontent?

Yes....all of that. I’m aware of conflict inside and out in the world. I see news reports of unthinkable horror and ugliness...genocide, war, lives ruined by drugs. Of course I want to find out if man can change.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Fri, 28 Dec 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 28 Dec 2018 #261
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 737 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
What is this “wholeness of the human being”, Huguette?

I mean simply that the wholeness of the human being is every aspect of man’s being and experiencing - thought, fear, pride, laughter, jealousy, ambition, awareness, desire, love, fatigue, and so on. No part or facet is excluded from the wholeness - not love to the exclusion of thought, or thought to the exclusion of love, or awareness to the exclusion of knowledge, not body to the exclusion of mind, and so on. There is no thought IN awareness, but thought is still an essential part or aspect of the human being, and so thought is not deliberately excluded or kept separate from awareness. The human being is a whole and as long as there is no deliberate exclusion, the parts act as needed, as appropriate, in harmony, without conflict. Sometimes thought might appropriately play a bigger role, a lesser role or go into abeyance. Will or effort plays no part in this fluidity. It is natural, spontaneous action.

I don’t know if this makes sense.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 28 Dec 2018 #262
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2721 posts in this forum Offline

The thinker saying in the case of psychological 'suffering' that this should not be...not realizing that it is the very thing that it is saying should not be...( this is the constant movement of thought I was getting at, an endless circling )

Understood Dan. Thanks for bringing home this point.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 29 Dec 2018 #263
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1419 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
What is this “wholeness of the human being”, Huguette? I have a feeling that I have asked this question several times before, perhaps of you. One knows the fragmentation of thought/feeling, and the impossibility of integrating the parts into a whole. Perhaps one is not identified with any particular fragment, idea, belief, conviction, conclusion, but still I cannot say there is a sense of wholeness. But then wholeness, if it means anything, cannot be ‘known’, so could it be recognised if it was there? Could it/can it be sensed?

K. "You want to know what will happen when you feel that you are 'the whole'. Feeling as 'the whole' comes perhaps later. But first, you are nothing and you are not concerned with what comes after. If you are concerned with what is beyond the nothingness, it means you are frightened of being nothing. 'Be nothing'. Life then becomes extraordinarily simple and beautiful."

Santa Monica 3rd Public Talk 1970 (my bold)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 29 Dec 2018 #264
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5246 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
I’m going to have to rethink this word ‘spontaneous’. Perhaps I’m not really understanding the meaning. Someone insults me and I react immediately....almost instantaneously. I was assuming that means spontaneous. Now I see I may have been mistaken. Will look further into this later because I see I’m confused as to the actual meaning.

I wouldn't definitely assume that you are mistaken, Tom. I myself have often said that "thought arises spontaneously to the mind". What I mean by that is there is no me that controls this arising.

And yet there is a feeling that thought comes FROM somewhere. That it is a reaction, and so not truly spontaneous. Spontaneity seems to suggest "from nothing".

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 29 Dec 2018 #265
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2721 posts in this forum Offline

I wouldn't definitely assume that you are mistaken, Tom. I myself have often said that "thought arises spontaneously to the mind". What I mean by that is there is no me that controls this arising.

Yes, that’s how I was seeing it. There’s a stimulus of some sort and thought immediately responds. ‘I’ don’t DO the thinking....there’s no thinker....it just arises of itself in response to a sound or a beautiful or frightening object or person

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 30 Dec 2018 #266
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1419 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
And yet there is a feeling that thought comes FROM somewhere. That it is a reaction, and so not truly spontaneous. Spontaneity seems to suggest "from nothing".

Like awareness and observation...but psychological thought is not 'spontaneous...it uses language, the language that we were taught as children. And that language has a universal 'format': subject, verb, predicate. That's how thought works. It follows more or less that format, through associations. And it has 'motive'. It seeks conclusions. And none of the words that it uses are the things that the words are describing. It has created its own abstract 'world'. With 'time' as past, present, and a future. It weaves its dreams and woes, its hopes, fears and aspirations. It has created us: the 'me' and that is where we are. The 'me' battling to make sense of it all where there is no sense. But...we are "nothing" as has been pointed out, and until that has been realized, we will continue to be drawn into the 'problems' that thought has created and is futily trying to solve. The 'me' will continue to 'mind what happens'.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 30 Dec 2018 #267
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 737 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:

What is this “wholeness of the human being”, Huguette? I have a feeling that I have asked this question several times before, perhaps of you. One knows the fragmentation of thought/feeling, and the impossibility of integrating the parts into a whole. Perhaps one is not identified with any particular fragment, idea, belief, conviction, conclusion, but still I cannot say there is a sense of wholeness. But then wholeness, if it means anything, cannot be ‘known’, so could it be recognised if it was there? Could it/can it be sensed?


Dan McDermott responded, quoting K:
K. "You want to know what will happen when you feel that you are 'the whole'. Feeling as 'the whole' comes perhaps later. But first, you are nothing and you are not concerned with what comes after. If you are concerned with what is beyond the nothingness, it means you are frightened of being nothing. 'Be nothing'. Life then becomes extraordinarily simple and beautiful."

Santa Monica 3rd Public Talk 1970 (my bold)

Yes, in considering what self is, "you are nothing". But what is the human being? The totality of the human being is more than thought alone, isn't he?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 30 Dec 2018 #268
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1419 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
But what is the human being? The totality of the human being is more than thought alone, isn't he?

I don't know but it seems that it must be so...but as he says, that it must be seen first that I am nothing and then "feeling" the totality perhaps, comes later.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 30 Dec 2018 #269
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2721 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
But what is the human being? The totality of the human being is more than thought alone, isn't he?

Dan: I don't know but it seems that it must be so...but as he says, that it must be seen first that I am nothing and then "feeling" the totality perhaps, comes later.

Still having trouble with the quote function when using my iPad. And multiple quoting is out of the question. iOS and kinfonet are not on very good terms still. But I’ll try my best to work around the difficulties. I’m not clear on these two above points you’re discussing above. Why is it important to see that “I am nothing” and what does the totality of the human being imply? Obviously there’s more than thought to the human. There’s sensing...the sense organs, the bodily functions, hearing and tasting my food...seeing the face of my neighbor or child. Hearing the dog bark. Instincts. Desires....sexuality. But not sure what is the significance of the two points being discussed. Being ‘nothing’ as well as the ‘totality of the human being’.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 30 Dec 2018 #270
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1419 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Why is it important to see that “I am nothing”

Hi Tom

I hope that you don't mind my posting the Terrance Stamp quote from his interview with K. ca. 1986 to reply to your question. Clive had asked awhile back about it and I recall your and Huguette's thoughts about it but I feel that it speaks directly to our being "nothing":

K: "What you are...what you actually are, is being. Being is not the mind thinking. Thinking is a movement, a motion. Being is the silence that precedes the motion. You cannot see it; you cannot grasp it because you are it. The feeling that you are. The unadorned naked awareness that is always there, rarely heeded, is what you always have been, always will be. Cannot not be. You can't look for it, because it is what is looking. It is like space, you can't see it but everything is in it. Everything is it. So I say to you, be aware when you are unaware, let its presence warm you, fill you. Be present in the Presence."

Private talk with T.Stamp Ojai,CA

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 241 - 270 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.)