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

On 'representing Krishnamurti's teaching'


Displaying all 6 posts
Page 1 of 1
Tue, 02 Oct 2018 #1
Thumb_open-uri20180717-8420-135f99u-0 Mina Martini Finland 262 posts in this forum Offline

Hello all,

From a contact with a friend the following came to be seen. Sharing it with you here.

-It is an impossibility to 'represent K's teaching' in any way if one is really living 'the teaching' (no teaching, only pure energy). Re-presentations are actions of thought re-presenting itself, and there is no real understanding, no perception, no creativity in any of that. For as long as there is not the direct wordless perception operating, everything, including these words that someone may read, will automatically be translated and interpreted and formed more content of consciousness (interpretation/thought) with....-That which is One, and wholly alive, does not 'represent anything' because there is no other, nothing else than itself, in it. It simply IS itself...authentic, alive, real, all-there-is.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 03 Oct 2018 #2
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5194 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
It is an impossibility to 'represent K's teaching' in any way if one is really living 'the teaching

I never before noticed the significance of that word “represent” as “re-present”

I cannot say if I am “living the teachings”.Wondering what that would mean. It is clear it does NOT mean living in a state of constant comparison to a system of ideas – in fact I think that was the first trap I fell into, many years ago when first exposed to K, to turn what one read and heard into ideas. The ideas could be “re-presented”, and discussed, yes – like any ideology, belief, philosophy. But to deal in ideas is not living, as you say, Mina. Yes, it is as you say, the ideas “form more content of consciousness”.

You say, Mina, that there are no teachings, only “pure energy”. Not sure that I understand this. When you first read K, and were really affected by …… the contact ------ what was it, would you say, that was ‘transmitted’, if you will accept this word? Are you saying that that was “pure energy”?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 04 Oct 2018 #3
Thumb_open-uri20180717-8420-135f99u-0 Mina Martini Finland 262 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
You say, Mina, that there are no teachings, only “pure energy”. Not sure that I understand this. When you first read K, and were really affected by …… the contact ------ what was it, would you say, that was ‘transmitted’, if you will accept this word? Are you saying that that was “pure energy”?

Mina: Yes, pure energy. The 'living of the teaching', as it is seen/lived in this person, means the same as being this pure energy.

Yes, it was/is all about discovering/being the pure energy.

...

So what is meant by the words 'pure energy'?

The word 'pure' describes 'something' (no thing in this case) in which there is nothing but it itself in it. That is really the meaning of the word pure. Isn't it wonderful!

-It was in a private contact between you and me where this word with its fundamental meaning came up, actually phrased by you, (although it does not matter by whom :-) )

Also, this pure energy is purely spiritual in the sense that it is not matter. It can appear as manifestations of matter, but it itself is not matter.

That, for one, is the only true Spirituality, Religiousness without religion.

...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 05 Oct 2018 #4
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2712 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
You say, Mina, that there are no teachings, only “pure energy”. Not sure that I understand this. When you first read K, and were really affected by …… the contact ------ what was it, would you say, that was ‘transmitted’, if you will accept this word? Are you saying that that was “pure energy”?

When we talk about the 'teachings', what are we talking about? Is it just pure energy that K transmitted and spoke about over 50+ years of talks? Or 'oneness'? Weren't the 'teachings' about understanding ourselves as we are...understanding, not oneness, but understanding division and conflict...violence, greed, conformity, belief, and so on? Perhaps K transmitted 'pure energy' to some of his listeners, but didn't he also transmit self understanding....self knowledge...insight into the ways of our own thinking...insight into our everyday suffering and conflict? Its not about representing anything. It's about exploring together....'taking a journey together' as K phrased it, isn't it?

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Fri, 05 Oct 2018.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 2 readers
Back to Top
Sat, 20 Oct 2018 #5
Thumb_open-uri20180717-8420-135f99u-0 Mina Martini Finland 262 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
When we talk about the 'teachings', what are we talking about? Is it just pure energy that K transmitted and spoke about over 50+ years of talks? Or 'oneness'? Weren't the 'teachings' about understanding ourselves as we are...understanding, not oneness, but understanding division and conflict...violence, greed, conformity, belief, and so on? Perhaps K transmitted 'pure energy' to some of his listeners, but didn't he also transmit self understanding....self knowledge...insight into the ways of our own thinking...insight into our everyday suffering and conflict? Its not about representing anything.

m. the words 'pure energy', or 'oneness', or 'awareness', for this writer, mean no other, or else, than 'understanding oneself'. -So, here there exists no difference. They are different words for the same that is no word.

Thought/fragmented mind will always be seeing things as different from each other, 'this' meaning other than 'that', here in this context 'the pure energy' other than 'self-understanding', because the insight into the 'this being the same as that', or 'the observer the observed', has not occurred. Concepts are still in control in the way that the discussion moves at the level of choice, mind, at 'this or that', or, again as part of this specific context, 'this representing that'. -So, a representation, repetition of the past, is always happening for and by the mind divided into the observer and the observed, in its every move.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 20 Oct 2018 #6
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2712 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
So, a representation, repetition of the past, is always happening for and by the mind divided into the observer and the observed, in its every move

Yes, and this is ‘what is’....division....and it can be pointed out, as you are doing. That was my point about the teachings not being about oneness (which can’t be discussed in any meaningful way) but about understanding division in the human brain. K may have stated that ‘the observer is the observed’, yes, but he discussed endlessly the ways in which we divide the two...me from you...me from my problems...me from my actions...thought directing action, etc.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Sat, 20 Oct 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying all 6 posts
Page 1 of 1
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.)