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

Do you give 100% of your energy to change?


Displaying posts 121 - 150 of 155 in total
Mon, 19 Nov 2018 #121
Thumb_open-uri20151228-18124-1kyi3s7-0 Jose Roberto Moreira Brazil 35 posts in this forum Offline

Hi Clive!

Is there any award for record setting? :-)

Actually, I described the answers in thread 22.

I have two other friends in Brazil that also give a lot of energy to the teachings, but I have the feeling that it is just an escape or even fanaticism. In their case, maybe, the teachings became more important than life itself.

One of them just keep on quoting K as if he really had understood it. He is getting old and things are getting worse.

I did not ask them this question. I will do it!

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 19 Nov 2018 #122
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4640 posts in this forum Offline

Jose Roberto Moreira wrote:
Actually, I described the answers in thread 22.

Sorry about that, too long ago for my memory.

Jose Roberto Moreira wrote:
In their case, maybe, the teachings became more important than life itself.

Can you expand on that, Jose?

Jose Roberto Moreira wrote:
One of them just keep on quoting K as if he really had understood it.

Probably we are all guilty of that at times. I have often noticed that thinking that one understands is an utter barrier to actually understanding, which is always in the present, is it not?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 19 Nov 2018 #123
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4640 posts in this forum Offline

Jose Roberto Moreira wrote:
Actually, I described the answers in thread 22.

Sorry about that, too long ago for my memory.

Jose Roberto Moreira wrote:
In their case, maybe, the teachings became more important than life itself.

Can you expand on that, Jose?

Jose Roberto Moreira wrote:
One of them just keep on quoting K as if he really had understood it.

Probably we are all guilty of that at times. I have often noticed that thinking that one understands is an utter barrier to actually understanding, which is always in the present, is it not?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 19 Nov 2018 #124
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4640 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
It is only "alertness' to its movement that can 'put it in its place'.

Yes, only awareness of the thought process can ...... well, the phrase you use, "putting thought in its place" seems the best way of putting it. Which means revealing that thought is ONLY thought.

Dan McDermott wrote:
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."

K's words are so utterly radical, aren't they? So completely different, opposite even, to what we were told as we grew up, what society in general still propagates, consciously and unconsciously. We have to negate it all, not as effort, but through the seeing of what is, step out of the all that is accepted in human consciousness.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 21 Nov 2018 #125
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 999 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
K's words are so utterly radical, aren't they? So completely different, opposite even, to what we were told as we grew up, what society in general still propagates, consciously and unconsciously. We have to negate it all, not as effort, but through the seeing of what is, step out of the all that is accepted in human consciousness.

Especially the seeming paradox of being attentive not only when we are attentive but when we are in-attentive.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Wed, 21 Nov 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 22 Nov 2018 #126
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4640 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Especially the seeming paradox of being attentive not only when we are attentive but when we are in-attentive.

Can you say more on this, Dan?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 22 Nov 2018 #127
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 999 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Can you say more on this, Dan?

This first caught my attention in a talk K was giving to some students perhaps? He was saying that its one thing when one is "attentive", then one can follow one's thoughts , actions, sensations, breath etc. but it is another thing to be attentive when one is inattentive...then he asked them: "Have you got it?" So the paradox or seeming paradox is that 'attention' and 'inattention' are opposites. But what he is saying or pointing at as I see it is that 'attention' as is usually understood is a 'directed attention', it 'aims at following one's thoughts, sensations, movements etc. It is 'self-directed'...it is an 'effort' that aims at a 'result, i.e. to 'see oneself'. But it is the 'thinker' watching thought, one 'part' watching another...ln short, it is thought. And then it is gone and there is 'inattention', until this inattention comes into one's awareness and then there is another period of attentiveness occurs until it once again disappears...and so on. I will leave it to others to try and describe this but my description would be that what is left out of this back and forth attention/inattention is 'myself'...when 'myself is included in the 'picture' all 'effort' disappears because all 'duality' between the thinker and thought dissolves. Thought sees it can't go beyond itself and search is futile. There is 'just' "what is". (Is it that 'intelligence has seen through thought?)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 22 Nov 2018 #128
Thumb_open-uri20151228-18124-1kyi3s7-0 Jose Roberto Moreira Brazil 35 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Jose Roberto Moreira wrote:

In their case, maybe, the teachings became more important than life itself.

Can you expand on that, Jose?

Well, it is like living according to the Bible or an idea. This becomes more important than the nature, persons and eventually life. One indication is no sense of humour. Another one is a sense of superiority because we know "very well" the teachings.

Of course, quoting K is all right, but a statement is anothe matter. If a say that the observer is the observed, it has no meaning. To me it is not a reality.

Actually, I wonder what part of the teachings I could say I see as real.

I could start by saying that I have no love. Or thought has no love.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 22 Nov 2018 #129
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4640 posts in this forum Offline

Jose Roberto Moreira wrote:

Actually, I wonder what part of the teachings I could say I see as real.

I could start by saying that I have no love. Or thought has no love.

I would say that we have to start with what is. And then we discover that ‘what is’ is constantly changing, and we have to move with that change.

You have previously stated, Jose, several times, that what you give all your energy to, is yourself. And as I read that, I wondered if there was an element of condemnation in your words. Was that so? I ask because it seems to me that we cannot give attention to what is, as long as we are condemning, judging, what is. Thus when you say that “I have no love”, what is the feeling behind the words? That you SHOULD have love? That you are somehow failing because you have no love? Or are you in a state of discovery? Are you learning about yourself (or thought, as you say) with a sense of freedom, even joy, because the learning is more important than WHAT you learn?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 22 Nov 2018 #130
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4640 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
And then it is gone and there is 'inattention', until this inattention comes into one's awareness and then there is another period of attentiveness occurs until it once again disappears...and so on.

If inattention comes into one’s awareness, does this not imply that inattention has ended? I guess the paradox appears if one says “if inattention has ended, how can one be aware of it?”. But I don’t want to play with concepts, the fact is that attention does come into and out of existence, does it not? And as you say, it is not something that can be directed. Concentration can be directed.

But surely attention does not come in and out of existence randomly? If not, what are the factors which in some way influence its occurrence?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 26 Nov 2018 #131
Thumb_open-uri20151228-18124-1kyi3s7-0 Jose Roberto Moreira Brazil 35 posts in this forum Offline

Hi Clive,

I thought a lot about this. There is judging behind it, which, of course, prevents pure observation. But I have the impression that the judging is not as strong as it used to be. If that is possible. :-)

Do you think there are grades of judging or just judging?

I was wondering whether any judgment generate conflict, which, obviously, dissipates energy. Actually I was discussing with other friends about conflict. It is not very clear the definition of conflict. We were discussing whether a baby has conflict.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 27 Nov 2018 #132
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4640 posts in this forum Offline

Jose Roberto Moreira wrote:
But I have the impression that the judging is not as strong as it used to be. If that is possible. :-)

Do you mean that it doesn't go on as much as it used to, or that when it occurs it is not as strong?

Jose Roberto Moreira wrote:
Do you think there are grades of judging or just judging?

I feel the comparative approach to self understanding is not understanding at all. What comes out of comparison of any sort is an image, is it not? In fact perhaps the only things that we can judge/compare are images in the first place. Seeing this, I do not feel concerned with "grades", but only with watching judgement when is occurs.

Surely judgement is conflict? It implies the judger and the judged, and as K points out, whenever there is division, there must be conflict.

Jose Roberto Moreira wrote:
We were discussing whether a baby has conflict.

That seems an academic question to me. Opining whether it does or not, does that help the problem of conflict? Do any theories actually ever help solve psychological problems? Does knowledge bring about fundamental change?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 28 Nov 2018 #133
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4640 posts in this forum Offline

Adding this:

As soon as I judge, I cease to enquire, do I not?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 28 Nov 2018 #134
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4640 posts in this forum Offline

This is not very important for the enquiry, but I just came across it and was reminded of your post:

Sir, have you noticed in yourself that
yesterday is not so very important,
the memories of yesterday fall away
very quickly, but the memories of the
past ten years have an extraordinary
hypnotic vitality? I do not know if
you have noticed it. What you did ten
years ago, how you felt ten years ago,
or what you felt when you were a young
boy running about, suddenly capturing
the light on the trees, the memory of
swimming, that freedom, no
responsibility, the fullness of living
where there was no conflict, where
there was a complete sense of joy -
you remember all that, all that has
extraordinary vitality, much more than
the memories of yesterday. That is
influencing us, that is shaping our
thinking.

Bombay talk 8 1961

This is certainly not how I remember my own childhood, which was full of suffering.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 28 Nov 2018 #135
Thumb_open-uri20151228-18124-1kyi3s7-0 Jose Roberto Moreira Brazil 35 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Do you mean that it doesn't go on as much as it used to, or that when it occurs it is not as strong?

When it occurs it is not as strong. Maybe I because I started to doubt it, to question it, which makes it less strong.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 28 Nov 2018 #136
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4640 posts in this forum Offline

Jose Roberto Moreira wrote:
Maybe I because I started to doubt it, to question it, which makes it less strong.

Yes, judgement that is doubted is not really judgement, is it?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 28 Nov 2018 #137
Thumb_open-uri20151228-18124-1kyi3s7-0 Jose Roberto Moreira Brazil 35 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Surely judgement is conflict? It implies the judger and the judged, and as K points out, whenever there is division, there must be conflict.

What K said above is not a reality for me. I do not see division as a conflict, even though, intelectually, it might make sense.

This imply that we live in constant conflict and are not even aware of that. If conflict = suffering => Buda was right regarding the first noble truth: there is suffering. I always suspected that we suffer but are not aware of that.

When I am aware of a conflict it is easy to see that conflict = suffering.

If I look at fear, for instance, and consider it my fear, as if I were separated from it, then, according to K, there is conflict. Can you really see that as a conflict?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 28 Nov 2018 #138
Thumb_open-uri20151228-18124-1kyi3s7-0 Jose Roberto Moreira Brazil 35 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
That is
influencing us, that is shaping our
thinking.

I can feel this is true, but it keeps on shaping my thinking.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 28 Nov 2018 #139
Thumb_open-uri20151228-18124-1kyi3s7-0 Jose Roberto Moreira Brazil 35 posts in this forum Offline

Excelent question! I do not know!

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 29 Nov 2018 #140
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4640 posts in this forum Offline

Jose Roberto Moreira wrote:
What K said above is not a reality for me. I do not see division as a conflict, even though, intelectually, it might make sense.

As soon as I read this, the mind puts aside the assumption that division is conflict, and is open to look at the issue anew.

So can you give an example of a division (psychologically) which does NOT imply conflict?

Jose Roberto Moreira wrote:
This imply that we live in constant conflict and are not even aware of that

Yes, I think it is true that we live in a great deal of conflict, and many people are not aware of the fact. I think K has said this – but I admit that it sounds odd, not to be aware of conflict. But the conflict stems from the division between the observer and the observed, does it not? And is that not the normal state of human consciousness?

However, you said intellectually it makes sense, and so perhaps that is the real issue. Not to present arguments one way or another, not to discuss with words, but to actually SEE the real situation. To FEEL this conflict fully.

Jose Roberto Moreira wrote:
Buda was right regarding the first noble truth: there is suffering

Indeed. Why do we put up with it? Why don't we devote 100% of our energy to transcending that suffering? As K said, while there is suffering, there cannot be love.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 30 Nov 2018 #141
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4640 posts in this forum Offline

Explanations are not understanding

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 01 Dec 2018 #142
Thumb_open-uri20151228-18124-1kyi3s7-0 Jose Roberto Moreira Brazil 35 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
So can you give an example of a division (psychologically) which does NOT imply conflict?

Well, it is easy to observe conflict when there is choice or when I want to become something different from what I am, but I cannot see that the division between the observer and the observed imply conflict. Can you see that?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 02 Dec 2018 #143
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4640 posts in this forum Offline

Jose Roberto Moreira wrote:
Well, it is easy to observe conflict when there is choice or when I want to become something different from what I am, but I cannot see that the division between the observer and the observed imply conflict. Can you see that?

When "I" want to be different from "what I am", does that not mean that already division, separation, between observer and observed established? Similarly, when the mind is faced with choice, has not a chooser been established? Otherwise is there conflict?

Is there ever conflict if there is no observer? i am just inquiring.

It seems to me, tentatively, that ALL human conflict stems from the division between the observer and the observed, directly or indirectly. We could go into that.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 02 Dec 2018 #144
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 597 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Is there ever conflict if there is no observer? i am just inquiring.

Has anyone ever observed the absence of the observer?

Has anyone ever experienced the absence of the observer?

If so what is it that observed or experienced?

How can there be an observation or an experience when there is no observer?

(Also tentatively.)

K (from memory only) "What is it we are talking about sirs?"

Isn't the absence of the observer deep sleep?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 02 Dec 2018 #145
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 597 posts in this forum Offline

I am positing that there is an observer that is not person.

We are that.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 02 Dec 2018 #146
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 597 posts in this forum Offline

That is how it is that the observer (person) can be the observed.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 02 Dec 2018 #147
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 597 posts in this forum Offline

Without this "light" that we are everything (matter moveing) would be going on mechanically, (matter only), as it were, in deep sleep...in the dark...robots.

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Sun, 02 Dec 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 02 Dec 2018 #148
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 597 posts in this forum Offline

Interesting question: (probably a wrong question) How does the one way only connection work? (not by any material means)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 02 Dec 2018 #149
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4640 posts in this forum Offline

Peter Kesting wrote:

Has anyone ever observed the absence of the observer?

Has anyone ever experienced the absence of the observer?

If the observer is absent, is there then any such thing as an experience?

Experience implies an experiencer, does it not? There are an inseparable pair; they are one. Take away the one, and the other does not exist.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 02 Dec 2018 #150
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4640 posts in this forum Offline

Peter Kesting wrote:
K (from memory only) "What is it we are talking about sirs?"

Isn't the absence of the observer deep sleep?

Peter Kesting wrote:
I am positing that there is an observer that is not person.

We are that.

Peter, it seems to me that you are using the word "observer" in a different sense than the way I used it. And K also, in this quote, is using the word in a similar way to you, but different from how he often does.

Are you not using the word observer to mean awareness, being conscious, or just plain the sense of being alive? Whereas I was referring to the observer as the action of the past, of memory. How thought interprets what the senses take in, or how thought plays this trick of dividing itself, of 'looking at itself', while pretending that there is an entity who is looking, a permanent entity. This is how I was using the word, anyway.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 121 - 150 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.)