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

Do you give 100% of your energy to change?


Displaying posts 91 - 120 of 155 in total
Fri, 09 Nov 2018 #91
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4639 posts in this forum Offline

In this matter of fundamental change – which I would say is the essence of all our investigations into ourselves, and K’s words - it has been coming to me that simply being honest with oneself has great power. To be absolutely honest may have tremendous power. I do not know that I have fully explored that possibility as yet, though.

“Being honest with oneself” implies seeing and admitting to our real motives for our actions. It means recognising our real feelings about something, and not pretending that they are other than they are.

Such things are not at all easy, certainly not trivial. Perhaps even more difficult is being absolutely honest in our responses to other people. That would soon bring our little worlds crashing down, would it not?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 09 Nov 2018 #92
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 999 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
it has been coming to me that simply being honest with oneself has great power.

Hi Clive,

Am I seeing this rightly? If thought/self/mind becomes aware of its total conditioning, it will recognize its limits and will be "still". It will not interfere where it does not 'belong'. It will cease its movement. In this light does your very right-sounding assessment give the self/thought another justification to continue its movement by analyzing the motives behind ones thought e.g., are they honest or dishonest, etc? Also, doesn't this analyses bring in the element of time as well as the duality of the analyser apart from the analysis? In other words, the 'analyst' is deemed to be objective and free from conditioning while what is being 'analysed' is considered to be the conditioned part...when in fact all is conditioned. How do you see this?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Fri, 09 Nov 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 10 Nov 2018 #93
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4639 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
In this light does your very right-sounding assessment give the self/thought another justification to continue its movement by analyzing the motives behind ones thought e.g., are they honest or dishonest, etc? Also, doesn't this analyses bring in the element of time as well as the duality of the analyser apart from the analysis? In other words, the 'analyst' is deemed to be objective and free from conditioning while what is being 'analysed' is considered to be the conditioned part...when in fact all is conditioned. How do you see this?

If analysis enters into things, then it is exactly as you say above. Analysis is a false process, because it is based on the assumption that the analyser (of the self) is more intelligent than that which it is analysing. But it is not, the analyser is still part of thought, a fragment, and so is still limited, still sharing the basic blindness of thought.

But I am not satisfied with the word “limited”, it is too mild, it suggests that thought can see the truth ‘a little bit’. Thought is not truth. I don’t think it can ever be truth. Whatever it does, whatever guise it takes on, whatever it believes, it remains …. merely thought. It has it uses, obviously, but it cannot break through the prison of the self that it has created, continues to create every moment, it can only continue that prison. And it DOES continue to create the prison. Is this continuation precisely because the thinker always considers it self superior, non-conditioned?

If there is to be anything fundamentally different in the brain, thought has to be quiet, because thought is always the known, never the unknown. So no, analysis does not bring about fundamental change.

Are we analysing here? Or are we merely verbalizing, sharing, what has been seen? And is there anything else other than analysis?

There is the possibility of insight, is there not? By insight, I simply mean seeing things as they are, without analysis, without condemnation, without judgement, measurement ….. Am I right in thinking, Dan, that in your mail you are partly responding to mail #17 that I posted on the thread “all one inquiry”? Where I wrote: “It is the perception of this fact that is crucial”. The fact being that thought is 100% conditioned.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 10 Nov 2018 #94
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 999 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
you are partly responding to mail #17 that I posted on the thread “all one inquiry”? Where I wrote: “It is the perception of this fact that is crucial”. The fact being that thought is 100% conditioned.

Absolutely "crucial", as I see it also. And thought as has been said can only cease to continue its desire for continuity, cease to bring 'time' into the psychological' when it sees the falseness and destructiveness of doing that. In much the same way that it sees the falseness of the other 'traps' it has created for itself: organized religions and nationalism, (all the 'isms'). When it is finally seen that it is "100% conditioned" it can let go and be still. (Whether it does or doesn't 'remains to be seen').

Clive Elwell wrote:
And it (thought) DOES continue to create the prison. Is this continuation precisely because the thinker always considers it self superior, non-conditioned?

It struck me that among the burdens that we carry around, 'guilt' figures in some cases very high. But looked at in the way we are looking at and discussing ourselves here, isn't guilt a consequence of our (the self's) thinking about ourself as 'independent'and 'individual'? I.e.,that we 'shouldn't' have acted the way we did in a particular situation... But aren't the elements that make up our 'conditioning' responsible for each and every action that we take? This desire pushes this desire aside and x happens, etc. and then we suffer if the action taken is considered 'wrong' by a part of ourself and/or the 'society' and we then try to hide it. Which is to say that we believe that we are not totally conditioned and have the 'freedom' to choose, which is not the case at all I don't think. So we suffer... but seeing through insight, the falseness of the belief that we are integral, whole, means our actions can be looked at in a more 'compassionate, way, without judgement or condemnation or comparison....And if we can see ourselves in this way, we can see the 'unpleasant manifestations' of others, possibly also in this way.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 11 Nov 2018 #95
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4639 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
And thought as has been said can only cease to continue its desire for continuity, cease to bring 'time' into the psychological' when it sees the falseness and destructiveness of doing that.

Is it thought that sees? I am not saying that it is or it is not, just asking. There is certainly a movement of inner seeing, which I equate with understanding. But just what is it that does the seeing? I think this is a question "worth pursuing". If it is thought, thought in what way? Is there a center or essence of thought? An "over-viewer"? That sounds suspiciously like the 'me'.

Dan McDermott wrote:
But aren't the elements that make up our 'conditioning' responsible for each and every action that we take?

I would say so. But such an idea seems to negate any idea of "being responsible" for our own actions, which is hard to swallow. But seeing that all our actions are conditioned as a fact does not act as license to do whatever one wants. It is not an excuse. I feel and live that, but why is it so?

Dan McDermott wrote:
and then we suffer if the action taken is considered 'wrong' by a part of ourself and/or the 'society' and we then try to hide it.

Do we not feel sorrow also simply because we see, feel, that we have hurt another human being, or animal? But feeling this sorrow does not have to produce a lasting feeling of guilt, does it?

Dan McDermott wrote:
.And if we can see ourselves in this way, we can see the 'unpleasant manifestations' of others, possibly also in this way.

As K said:

When I understand myself, I understand
you, and out of that understanding
comes love.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 11 Nov 2018 #96
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 999 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Is it thought that sees? I am not saying that it is or it is not, just asking.

K. has said this in several instances that I recall. It struck me for the same reasons that you are inquiring into and doubting: "how can thought see"?...He said that there is no other entity other than thought, that is the way I read him. Because to have another entity beside thought gets into thought's ability to create a 'higher' being or 'watcher' who 'oversees' thought. That is how we normally see and think about ourselves, but is it true? 'My' thoughts can be aware of themselves as they appear, in the same way that 'my' hands can move with or without a 'conscious' awareness of themselves moving and 'feeling'. Maybe it's the connotation that the words carry: "thought being aware of itself" but when there is 'attention' thought can hear, feel, sense, itself moving, so is the awareness 'in' the thought patterns themselves or is there an 'outside' agency such as 'attention' or 'awareness' that is separate from the hand or from the thought? Wouldn't that be the 'thinker' or 'experiencer' which is falsely understood as being separate? Or as you said, the 'self', the 'me'?

Clive Elwell wrote:
But such an idea seems to negate any idea of "being responsible" for our own actions, which is hard to swallow. But seeing that all our actions are conditioned as a fact does not act as license to do whatever one wants. It is not an excuse. I feel and live that, but why is it so?

The same thing came up for me when I thought of the conditioning as 'total' or '100%'...But if that is true and we are at least assuming that it may be so, then the implication is that the way we understand 'responsibility' has to change. Our actions are the result of the conditioning not the imagined 'successes' or 'failings' and 'shortcomings' of the 'self'. This is subtle and it may be what K. was pointing at when he said his secret was that he "didn't mind what happens"... which on its face sounds very callous. But when considered in the light of 'total conditioning', it doesn't give license to 'act anyway at all' but perhaps points at the state of 'identification' we are living in.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 12 Nov 2018 #97
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4639 posts in this forum Offline

I was asking the question, given that there is such a thing as inner seeing, understanding, insight, what is it that sees? Does thought itself see? If so, how does that reconcile with the fact of thought being 100% conditioned?

The following snippet of discussion seems to have some relevance to this question.

Q: The 'I' can't understand, can't be aware of suffering, because the 'I' is important. But if there is no observer there is no I. I can't be aware.

K: Sir, I said sir, the 'I', the centre, is created and put together by thought. Right sir? Do you see that? That's a reality, isn't it? Go step by step, sir, I'll show it to you. Thought in its demand for security has created the centre - right? Agree, sir? That centre is independent of thought. Right? Now is the centre aware of this process? Is the centre aware that thought has created it, and the centre becomes independent of it, and tries to control, shape thought? Is the centre aware of this movement, and does not think it is independent?

Q: But it is thought itself.

K: Wait, sir. I am going into it. You go to the ultimate. Do we see this, sir, that thought has brought the centre about, and this whole process, are you aware of it, is the centre aware of it?

Q: (Inaudible)

K: No, sir. I am just asking a very simple question. Is one aware, is the centre aware of this movement of thought? If one is aware then the question is, who is aware? Is the observer looking at the centre, says, 'I am aware', or is the centre itself aware of the movement of thought, which has created it? If it is aware, then who is the entity that says, 'I am aware that thought is doing this'? It is still the centre. Right? So are you aware of that?
So what next then? The centre is always responding, observing, correcting, discriminating, chastising - right? All that is the movement of thought. Is one aware of all this? Is the centre aware of this?

Q: May be.

K: Not, 'may be'
.
Q: I don't know.

K: Leave it alone then. If you don't know, watch it, learn about it, see if the centre can be aware of itself of the movement of thought.

Q: There is still an observer.

K: No, sir. Look, sir, you are aware of this tent, aren't you? Yes? You are not the tent, are you?

Q: I don't know.

K: No. ……….

End of 5th public discussion in Saanen 1975

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 12 Nov 2018 #98
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4639 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
K. has said this in several instances that I recall. It struck me for the same reasons that you are inquiring into and doubting: "how can thought see"?...He said that there is no other entity other than thought, that is the way I read him. Because to have another entity beside thought gets into thought's ability to create a 'higher' being or 'watcher' who 'oversees' thought. That is how we normally see and think about ourselves, but is it true? 'My' thoughts can be aware of themselves as they appear, in the same way that 'my' hands can move with or without a 'conscious' awareness of themselves moving and 'feeling'.

But surely it is not a case of ‘the hands being aware of themselves’, and ‘thoughts being aware of themselves’, and my big toe being aware of itself, and so on? Surely there are not separate awarenesses?

So many questions arise, so much is unknown. It is odd that the issue of awareness is so central to K’s teachings, and central to our life, and yet, to my knowledge, it is so little explored. Let us explore it! But we won’t get far purely verbally, obviously. We have to dive into ourselves.

Dan McDermott wrote:
Maybe it's the connotation that the words carry: "thought being aware of itself" but when there is 'attention' thought can hear, feel, sense, itself moving, so is the awareness 'in' the thought patterns themselves or is there an 'outside' agency such as 'attention' or 'awareness' that is separate from the hand or from the thought?

Yes, this seems a good question, if I understand you correctly.
Or is awareness ( I am not drawing a distinction between awareness and attention here) a natural state of being, a characteristic of all living things. But somehow, in the wrong way we live, it gets covered up, obscured? And emerges only partially.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 12 Nov 2018 #99
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 999 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Let us explore it! But we won’t get far purely verbally, obviously. We have to dive into ourselves.

I don't know how to express this but when this as you say: "diving into oneself" is absent the whole thing is just intellectual. I think that many interested in these 'ideas' (facts?) don't get further than that. Never discover the 'state of not-knowing' even if only to touch upon it for a moment. The idea of transformation itself goes through transformation from the gross imagined permanent state of bliss or 'enlightenment' to an understanding that it is the 'what is' that is "sacred". It is the activity of one's 'own' psychological thought, that denies a 'stillness and so must be totally 'understood'. Perhaps that is the true 'responsibility'... to know oneself?

What about starting here: what does it mean to be 'identified'? What or who is 'identified'? With a country? With a culture? With a 'family'? With a 'religion' or an 'ism'? 'Thought' it has been said is a "material process". Is there identification with thought, as 'my' thought'? With 'feelings', as 'my' feelings? With the body as 'my' body? Etc.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Mon, 12 Nov 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 13 Nov 2018 #100
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 999 posts in this forum Offline

Continuing on from where I started with thoughts about 'identification'. I have been upset by the trend in government that is going on in the US currently. This 'rise of the strong man' etc. Tracing it back through the animals, the 'alpha male' among the apes and now the human versions...one thing came up for me very strongly that K. has said, that the usual way we understand the process of 'government' is to create a relatively fair structure that is equitable to some degree and that will affect those within that structure...but he said it won't work that way, that the human mind must change, must become 'free' and out of that free human mind a structure of government can form which would be truly fair...

To put this in the context of 'identification' I realized that I had 'taken sides' in what is going on here and in other places in the world. Rather than seeing it all as an 'unfolding', I had become emotionally involved with 'right' and 'wrong' according to 'my' conditioning. Identification, with anything, no matter how seemingly 'right' or 'noble' is not 'freedom'. It is a form of slavery isn't it? But this doesn't mean that 'evil' can't be discerned and seen for what it is and what it does.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Tue, 13 Nov 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 13 Nov 2018 #101
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4639 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
What about starting here: what does it mean to be 'identified'?

That sounds right, Dan, that true responsibility is to know oneself. It seems that without that ‘knowing’ we will always create mischief in this world, however ‘good’ our intentions are. By knowing oneself I am meaning being aware of the movements of thought/feeling from moment to moment, not the accumulation of knowledge, of course.

What does it mean to be identified, you ask? And who or what IS “identified”? “My” first response to that is that is it thought that identifies, but them I realise the inadequacy of that reply. What is this ‘thought’ that can act in this way, or act in any way? If thought is merely the response of memory, how can it act? Yet of course it does act, in so many ways.

And this question has been with me: is the self the way that thought manages to act? I don’t know if you follow me? Does thought create a self, the idea of a self, in order to act, in order to carry out some intention it has conceived of?

And as a corollary to that, we usually (after reading K and self study, that is) see the self as a ‘bad thing’, a destructive thing. But does it have a necessary role in day to day living? I don’t know if this has gone off on a tangent from your question, Dan, sorry if it has.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 13 Nov 2018 #102
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 999 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
I don’t know if this has gone off on a tangent from your question, Dan, sorry if it has.

I'm considering what you are questioning but wanted to say something in relation to 'discussing' or 'enquiring' together... All the many discussions that I've read and listened to between K and others all had a certain similarity. The people he talked with were always bright and thoughtful and the questions were on point but...and this is what I wanted to say, is that the discussion always 'centered around K in the sense that he was always there to direct it. He was to me a master of inquiry. He brought it back when it went off in some way. To me it seemed that he knew where he wanted it to head. He knew the point he wanted to make. He knew what he wanted to 'show' (as he often used that word: "I am going to show you..") and so we here can not have that kind of discussion because there is no-one here who seems to see the 'totality' of our situation as he did. What we can do is to relate as best we can, what we actually do discover through insight into ourselves what is seen as important. Quoting and reciting K is enjoyable to me but it is useless as far as self-discovery is concerned. I'm pretty sure that there is agreement around that but I just wanted to state it.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 13 Nov 2018 #103
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 999 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
What is this ‘thought’ that can act in this way, or act in any way? If thought is merely the response of memory, how can it act? Yet of course it does act, in so many ways.

Is there an 'identifier' apart from what it is identifying with? Or is it one thing, 'identification'? Could we say that the 'self', the 'me' is identification? That they are not separate? There is no duality? Identification with anything is to be 'attached' to that thing, isn't it? The house (if you have one), the bank account, the family, the partner or spouse...what makes up the 'self', the 'me' is what I like as well as what I don't like. What I want and what I don't want. What I fear and what I love. That is what along with my name creates 'my' identity.

.

Considering your question of is the self useful in daily life since it has been given a 'bad rap' in K.'s talks and writings ( he called it "evil" in one instance). Going into this reveals that the 'self' or 'ego' or 'personality' is formed very young as a psychological protective structure. I get hurt deeply as a child and it creates a memory or scar and there is a reaction to it in the same way if I am rewarded or flattered, I remember that sensation and 'like' it...but as I see it, it is basically built on the fear of the outer world. It navigates me away from what might be dangerous to this image of myself that is forming and toward that which is satisfying and pleasing. It shuts out part of the world and lets in another part and it is all formed of the 'past'. As has been said it is a kind of 'wall'. So it's "usefulness" in a competitive, brutal world serves as protection and as such perpetuates itself. But the question here is if that is a fact and the world of man is what it currently seems to be: the result of greed and fear, then unless there is an ending to the self-centeredness, the image of an individual 'self' or 'me', it will only become worse.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Wed, 14 Nov 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 14 Nov 2018 #104
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 597 posts in this forum Offline

Dan wrote: "Is there an 'identifier' apart from what it is identifying with? Or is it one thing, 'identification'? Could we say that the 'self', the 'me' is identification? That they are not separate? There is no duality? "

As seen here there is a seeming duality in the same way that there seems to be a duality of space and time. One cannot see the oneness of space and time without having some understanding of special relativity. We have yet to have a grasp of the oneness of the two things we might call self.

The self that K talks so much about consists of memory and a mistaken identification with that memory. Memory as K points out, is material structure in the matter that is the brain.

There is another "self" that is * seeing* itself, which is always and only in the now, or even nowness itself. Without your being this deeper self there would be no you at all only machinery. This true self has no attributes, no history, it is not person. We are that.

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Wed, 14 Nov 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 14 Nov 2018 #105
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2325 posts in this forum Offline

Peter Kesting wrote:
There is another "self" that is * seeing* itself, which is always and only in the now, or even nowness itself

Nowness is life itself...life itself, without a 'self'? Man is beset by countless problems, however. Where do we begin in our attempt to understand the the wars...the violence...the exploitation and misery most of us live with? The 'nowness' obviously doesn't create problems. Thought and time, however does....and our identification with same. And this identification is very persistent in almost everyone.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Wed, 14 Nov 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 14 Nov 2018 #106
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 999 posts in this forum Offline

Peter Kesting wrote:
The self that K talks so much about consists of memory and a mistaken identification with that memory. Memory as K points out, is material structure in the matter that is the brain.

As well as 'thought', the thinking process is as has been said is also a "material process" emanating from the brain...so if we add the physical body and also 'feelings' we have a kind of machinery that consists of three separate brains: the physical body, thought, and emotion. Now you are saying that behind all this machinery is a "deeper self" without any attributes, history, personality ( K. has called this in his interview with T. Stamp, "being", "the feeling that you are."). But do you agree if this is the case that this 'being' which we are, or 'deeper self' which is in everything; that 'it' can't be 'known' or grasped by the material brain? Also, how do you see 'identification' in this scenario? You use the words "mistaken identification", who or what has made the mistake?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 14 Nov 2018 #107
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2325 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
But do you agree if this is the case that this 'being' which we are, or 'deeper self' which is in everything; that 'it' can't be 'known' or grasped by the material brain? Also, how do you see 'identification' in this scenario? You use the words "mistaken identification", who or what has made the mistake?

Interesting questions Dan! Regarding the understanding of the human problem of suffering, here's K from Mumbai 1948:

"it is extremely difficult to understand what is (the problem), because what is is never static, it is constantly in motion. A mind that wishes to understand a problem must not only understand the problem completely, wholly, but must be able to follow it swiftly, because the problem is never static. The problem is always new, whether it is a problem of starvation, a psychological problem, or any problem."

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Wed, 14 Nov 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 15 Nov 2018 #108
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4639 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Identification, with anything, no matter how seemingly 'right' or 'noble' is not 'freedom'. It is a form of slavery isn't it?

Yes, one is a slave to anything that one has identified with. Because when that thing is attacked, oneself feels attacked, and has to react. When that thing is strengthened, then oneself feels strengthened.

Dan McDermott wrote:
But this doesn't mean that 'evil' can't be discerned and seen for what it is and what it does.

Perhpas only when there is absolutely no identification can this discernment be seen as the truth

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 15 Nov 2018 #109
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4639 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote $102:
Quoting and reciting K is enjoyable to me but it is useless as far as self-discovery is concerned,

Yes, I know that I am rather addicted to quoting K. It proves nothing, of course. I think it often follows from some particular act of self discovery, some insight, when one realises K has used the perfect words to describe the insight.

There is also the fact that a sense of beauty is often felt about K's words.

But I feel it is as you say, the quoting does not bring about self-discovery.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 15 Nov 2018 #110
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4639 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Could we say that the 'self', the 'me' is identification?

That is how I see it, Dan. With any identification, there would be no self. Which implies, does it not, thought acting, when appropriate, without a center?

And without identification, can one then say, truly, "I don't mind what happens"?

Dan McDermott wrote:
Considering your question of is the self useful in daily life .....

It is indeed hard to see that the self such as you describe it can be useful or necessary. And yet I still feel that at times, in practical affairs, thought/action needs to be 'organised', 'managed', and some sort of center, imaginary as it may be, needs to be created by thought, just to do the task at hand (interesting to ask if this might be the origin of the psychological self).

I am reminded, as I might have mentioned before, of the behaviour of ants, recently discovered. When a task appears for a group of workers - say the disembodiment of a large dead insect, and the transportation of the pieces back to the nest, it appears that a leader appears from the group to organise how it is done. When the task is completed, this ant sinks back into the masses, and may not appear again as a leader, rather a new ant takes the role when the mext task appears.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 15 Nov 2018 #111
Thumb_open-uri20151228-18124-1kyi3s7-0 Jose Roberto Moreira Brazil 35 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
And without identification, can one then say, truly, "I don't mind what happens"?

One can only say that, without any shadow of fear, I think.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 17 Nov 2018 #112
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 999 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
It is indeed hard to see that the self such as you describe it can be useful or necessary. And yet I still feel that at times, in practical affairs, thought/action needs to be 'organised', 'managed', and some sort of center, imaginary as it may be, needs to be created by thought, just to do the task at hand (interesting to ask if this might be the origin of the psychological self).

In "practical affairs" thought doesn't need an "organizer", it organizes itself. It understands the goal of the task and then sets about in an orderly sequence to achieve it. If the goal is to get to the moon or to cure cancer, it gathers all up to date knowledge and plans a strategy to achieve them. The 'center' that thought needs to keep in sight isn't the imaginary 'thinker' behind the thinking process with all his dreams of fame, say, but the goal: getting to the moon or curing cancer.( K. is pretty definitive when he says that there is no place for thought in the psychological realm only in the practical.) In thinking about 'identification' the example of the situation of a young child who is terrified by the prospect of delivering a report, standing in the front of his classroom, arose...the 'report' would be a simple affair, the result of some research, then organized, written out and memorized. The 'terror' of the situation begins with thought's appearance on the scene imagining scenarios where everything goes wrong, where everything is forgotten, where the child is left shamed perhaps even leading to a false or real illness which keeps him from having to give the report ultimately...the question is why did thought act in this way? In another child, that child may even enjoy giving the report, here there are no images of failure coming forth, rather 'success', why in the one did thought create fear of failure? Didn't it know any better than to do that?... That it would cause great anguish and dread? Was it that it is so obsessed with its own 'security' that it needs to picture the worst possible outcomes of an unknown 'future' event, in a perverted, negative way and then the 'self', the child, suffering through the projected psychological preview it has produced that that will somehow anesthetize it against whatever possible negative thing happens in real time? Negative imagining is pretty universal and causes a great deal of pain. This brings me back to "thought being aware of itself", what does it take for it to see the utter uselessness of its own actions where it is only creates pain and suffering? In the 'practical' world, things 'going wrong' definitely do have to be considered and it would be derelict not to, but in the psychological this image making of the future creates a different kind of problem. Thought can't know the future, it can plan but it can't know what the actual present or the next second holds. It is itself impermanent but in creating a more or less static image of permanence in the form of the 'thinker' or 'experiencer' it thinks it has produced a kind of security for itself that can act when things go awry (as they must since this is an artificial construction), but it is the 'self' or the 'me' (in this case, the child) that suffers, and dreads, and fears...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 17 Nov 2018 #113
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4639 posts in this forum Offline

Jose, the discussion has now taken a more general nature, as all threads eventually do. But I think your question has had a good run! I am wondering about how you feel about the discussion, if it has shed any light on the issue for you?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 17 Nov 2018 #114
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4639 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
( K. has called this in his interview with T. Stamp, "being", "the feeling that you are.").

Is this on the web, Dan? Can you link to it, I could not find it.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 17 Nov 2018 #115
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4639 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote $112:
In "practical affairs" thought doesn't need an "organizer", it organizes itself.

But how does it, that is my basic question? The very term "itself" suggests a whole entity, does it not? But it seems to me that thought does not appear as a whole entity, it is a load of fragments only.

Dan McDermott wrote:
If the goal is to get to the moon or to cure cancer, it gathers all up to date knowledge and plans a strategy to achieve them.

The examples that you quote are interesting; with them you step outside the thoughts of a particular brain, and consider thought as a phenomena ..... as a greater entity, of which individual brains are parts.

Dan McDermott wrote:
The 'center' that thought needs to keep in sight isn't the imaginary 'thinker' behind the thinking process with all his dreams of fame, say, but the goal: getting to the moon or curing cancer.

So you are suggesting that the goal itself acts as the organising principle? Hmm, interesting. So "practical thought" implies thought that is trying to achieve a goal - a non-psychological goal. Yes, it is hard to see how thought would have evolved if it was not concerned with, and successful at, achieving practical goals. How the psyche evolved is another matter.

Dan McDermott wrote:
This brings me back to "thought being aware of itself", what does it take for it to see the utter uselessness of its own actions where it is only creates pain and suffering?

It takes seeing and listening, does it not? And perhaps not turning away from that seeing. Not being caught up in all the imagined consequences that you have mentioned? In general, not avoiding, escaping, from the perception of its own futility in the psychological realm?

(My posting of the second talk at Bombay 1953 on the "All one inquiry" thread has relevance to these questions)

This post was last updated by Clive Elwell Sat, 17 Nov 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 17 Nov 2018 #116
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 999 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
(My posting of the second talk at Bombay 1953 on the "All one inquiry" thread has relevance to these questions)

Yes it does. A total 'non-effort' is what he is pointing out here as the only means to a "fundamental" change. Any effort at all in trying to bring about change, can only be superficial and create more conflict and problems because it is the conditioned thought/'self' trying to bring about change in the thought/'self...so "listening" it seems is the only instrument of direct perception that can bring about a fundamental change:

K."There is only fundamental change, radical transformation, when the conscious mind has ceased to make all effort, which means really that there is understanding at the unconscious level. That is why I said that it is very important how we listen to everything about us, not only to what I am saying but to every incident, to every thought, to the sounds about you, to the voice of the bird, to the noise of the sea, so that as you listen you begin to understand without any conscious effort. The moment you make a conscious effort, the process of imitation is set going, the imitation being conformity to the pattern which is already being established through the experience, through the ideal, through the desire to achieve a result. If we really comprehend this, I think there will be a fundamental revolution in ourselves."

To reconcile this quote with the subject of this thread is what? That 100% of ones 'energy' has to go into not making a conscious 'effort' to change what is seen in oneself (and others?) No condemnation, no comparison, no judging for good or bad, no 'choice' whatsoever in what is seen and heard?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sat, 17 Nov 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 18 Nov 2018 #117
Thumb_open-uri20151228-18124-1kyi3s7-0 Jose Roberto Moreira Brazil 35 posts in this forum Offline

Clive, I have been following up all the comments with great interest. I have been thinking a lot about the matter of energy. In my case, I have the impression my real, deep interest is egocentric. One has to be honest, as you said. I even wonder if I am really interested in the teachings or it is just entertainment, an escape. And yet, I think this is what the teachings is all about. It seems to be a contradiction!

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 18 Nov 2018 #118
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4639 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
That 100% of ones 'energy' has to go into not making a conscious 'effort' to change what is seen in oneself (and others?)

This almost sounds like a contradiction. An effort not to make an effort? :-). But the contradiction is a result of trying to express things in thought - thought cannot help but be in contradiction, that is its nature. But I feel I understand deeply what you are saying, Dan.

Can we say that 100% of energy 'has to' go into alertness, rather than being dissipated in any form of pursuit? Alertness which reveals the futility and conflict inherent in condemnation, comparison, judgement?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 18 Nov 2018 #119
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4639 posts in this forum Offline

Jose Roberto Moreira wrote:
Clive, I have been following up all the comments with great interest.

Jose, I think your question has set a record on this forum for "sticking to the topic"!

You originally wrote, back in the first post:

"In Brockwood I have asked the topic question to two persons I consider deeply involved with the teachings. I got two completely different answers"

Would you care to describe these two completely different answers?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 18 Nov 2018 #120
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 999 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Alertness which reveals the futility and conflict inherent in condemnation, comparison, judgement?

And maybe above all the misplacement of thought and psychological 'time'. Thought thinks it can capture 'freedom', make an 'image' of it, 'have' it. It is only "alertness' to its movement that can 'put it in its place'. It is always looking for a 'result', that is its nature but freedom isn't a result, it is movement with the 'now'. Thought as the past can never be free.

K."Creativeness is not a process of becoming or achieving, but a state of being in which self-seeking effort is totally absent. When the self makes an effort to be absent, the self is present. All effort on the part of this complex thing called the mind must cease, without any motive or inducement."

Commentaries... Chap.15

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sun, 18 Nov 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 91 - 120 of 155 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.)