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

What is the ‘self’?


Displaying posts 91 - 115 of 115 in total
Mon, 18 Feb 2019 #91
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5159 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
The problem exists as long as I am separate from the problem, does it not? I wonder if you are getting this?

I mentioned that somewhere in "The Ending of Time", when someone says that the self (or the thinker) is illusory, K responds with something like "illusion, real, call it what you will, it is THERE". Nevertheless, whether the self is seen as illusion or real, actual, seems a very important distinction to me. If the self (and with that is included the thinker/thought division) is seen as real, as a fact ....... well, one cannot change a fact, can one? Seeing a fact does not change the fact. A fact cannot be changed, it just IS. So if the self is an actual fact, then we are stuck with it, are we not?

On the other hand, if the self is an illusion, if the mind's division into thinker and thought, controller and controlled, etc, is actually a false thing (false meaning a projection of thought only, with no reality than that), what happens when an illusion is seen as an illusion? it ends, doesn't it? it disappears. It no longer is (it never was anyway).

And "disappears" means that we don't have to do anything to MAKE it disappear. As soon as the branch on the path is seen as a branch, and not the snake that a moment ago it was thought to be, that is the end of the mistake, isn't it? Nothing more to be done.

Any comments?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 18 Feb 2019 #92
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1358 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
On the other hand, if the self is an illusion, if the mind's division into thinker and thought, controller and controlled, etc, is actually a false thing (false meaning a projection of thought only, with no reality than that), what happens when an illusion is seen as an illusion? it ends, doesn't it? it disappears. It no longer is (it never was anyway).

And "disappears" means that we don't have to do anything to MAKE it disappear. As soon as the branch on the path is seen as a branch, and not the snake that a moment ago it was thought to be, that is the end of the mistake, isn't it? Nothing more to be done.

Logically, rationally, it is an 'illusion'. It is "transient" as k pointed out, not permanent...and the way I see it, the self, 'me' is 'desire'. I 'want'. Maybe just to change one thought, or one feeling for another, it can be very slight but it seems to always be moving in that way: desiring to change one pattern for another but always'moving'...always 'becoming' in one way or another, always 'wanting'...it is part and parcel with 'time' ( the psychological 'future'). The self is time. So as K has said: It's time that must have a stop. (and as you say, any effort no matter how subtle has that element of moving away from 'what is' toward a 'future' that doesn't exist.)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 19 Feb 2019 #93
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1358 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
On the other hand, if the self is an illusion, if the mind's division into thinker and thought, controller and controlled, etc, is actually a false thing (false meaning a projection of thought only, with no reality than that), what happens when an illusion is seen as an illusion? it ends, doesn't it? it disappears. It no longer is (it never was anyway).

Well I can have a phobia about something and have a violent reaction each and every time that I come into contact with the object of the phobia...but I can fairly easily understand that the reaction I am having is way over the top (irrational) and that something else is going on that is out of 'my' control...Doesn't the 'I'/'me' 'illusion' have an even greater influence and seem to be more deeply, globally, embedded than any phobia which 'I' am also helpless to 'discard'?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Tue, 19 Feb 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 19 Feb 2019 #94
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5159 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Maybe just to change one thought, or one feeling for another, it can be very slight but it seems to always be moving in that way: desiring to change one pattern for another

Yes, even in the most trivial things, the self always wants 'to have the last word'. And with the thinker/thought division, it wants the last word over itself, a process that seems to go on forever.

Dan McDermott wrote:
Doesn't the 'I'/'me' 'illusion' have an even greater influence and seem to be more deeply, globally, embedded than any phobia which 'I' am also helpless to 'discard'?

That is an excellent way to put it: the I illusion is deeply globally embedded. Embedded so deeply that generally it is not seen to be embedded, or is taken to be 'normal' It is ubiquitous in human society, and so rarely fundamentally challenged. The trouble is, the self is not seen as the fundamental cause of human problems, and so most human energy is wasted in chasing things that appear to be the problem, although actually they are not causes, they are effects, they are manifestations of the self.

This has to change.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 19 Feb 2019 #95
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5159 posts in this forum Offline

It is not at all easy to see, to accept, that I am not in charge of the mind, that there is no entity in charge. But is this statement too much of a generalisation? In some ways I appear to be in charge of my life - although with definite limits.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 19 Feb 2019 #96
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1358 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
It is not at all easy to see, to accept, that I am not in charge of the mind, that there is no entity in charge. But is this statement too much of a generalisation? In some ways I appear to be in charge of my life - although with definite limits.

Would another way to say this Clive, is that there is always 'someone' in charge, but it changes every moment...and calls itself 'I'?...And the 'radical' part of all this is that 'I' don't actually exist...'I' suffer and 'I' have moments of joy, 'I' have memories of pain and pleasure, but 'I' actually don't exist! Truly what we are is Nothing?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Wed, 20 Feb 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 21 Feb 2019 #97
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5159 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Would another way to say this Clive, is that there is always 'someone' in charge, but it changes every moment...and calls itself 'I'?.

Yes, that sounds right to me.

Most people. i think, would paint a completely different picture, and bring in some concept of a "permanent I". But it is not.

Dan McDermott wrote:
! Truly what we are is Nothing?

For what it is worth "I agree". But the movement that we are describing, the perpetual movement of thought appearing to create the thinker, seems to deny that. Wait, "obscure is a better word than "deny"

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 21 Feb 2019 #98
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5159 posts in this forum Offline

Sometimes "I" seem to understand it, sometimes not.

Let us look at it differently. If there is no watcher apart from the watched, if there is no observer apart fromthe observed, how can there be effort? There is effort only as long as there is a watcher who is trying toalter the thing watched. But if you understand that the watcher is the watched - which is not an intellectualformula, it is a tremendous experience to know that there is no thinker apart from thought - then you willfind that there is no effort at all. Then quite a different process comes into being, quite a different way oflooking at what you call envy, or whatever it is that is watched. As long as there is an observer who ismaking an effort to reach a certain state, there must be conflict, and it is not through conflict that there isunderstanding.

Now, this total process is the mind, and when the mind understands its total process, it becomes quiet,utterly still, because there is no desire to be or not to be. Such a mind is not made still, or induced to be still,but it becomes still because it has totally understood the content of itself. Then only is it possible to find outfor yourself whether there is reality or not. Until your mind has come to that state, your assertions thatthere is or is not reality, God, or the atma, have no meaning whatsoever. They are merely the repetitions ofa mind that is conditioned like a gramophone record to repeat a phrase over and over again

New Delhi 1956 talk 4

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Thu, 21 Feb 2019 #99
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1358 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
But the movement that we are describing, the perpetual movement of thought appearing to create the thinker, seems to deny that. Wait, "obscure is a better word than "deny"

I don't think that we realize the extent to which the self/thinker/thought "obscures" the "beauty and extraordinary depth" of the world around, and in us. A Huxley used the words "cleansing the doors of perception"...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 21 Feb 2019 #100
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5159 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
I don't think that we realize the extent to which the self/thinker/thought "obscures" the "beauty and extraordinary depth" of the world around, and in us.

I am fairly sure that must be true.

Dan McDermott wrote:
A Huxley used the words "cleansing the doors of perception"...

So can you say what the nature of this 'cleansing' is, Dan? Both according to Huxley, and your 'own' perception. Our very tool of perception is faulty, isn't it? And I am that tool, there is no other tool separate from the problem, is there?

Reminded of some favourite words from K:

"It seems to me that the real problem is the mind itself, and not the problems that the mind creates and tries to solve"

I am going to a weekend gathering at a place where there is no phone signal or WIFi, so will not be able to post for 2-3 days.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 24 Feb 2019 #101
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1358 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
So can you say what the nature of this 'cleansing' is, Dan? Both according to Huxley, and your 'own' perception.

No, I don't remember what Huxley said about it, but K. talks about "insight" that sheds light on the "darkness" of the self. And then there can be, in that light, perception. I think that that is how it works.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sun, 24 Feb 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 24 Feb 2019 #102
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2691 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
K. talks about "insight" that sheds light on the "darkness" of the self. And then there can be, in that light, perception. I think that that is how it works.

Does he say how that insight comes about, since 'I' can't do anything to bring the 'light'? Since 'I' am the darkness of the self. Of course 'I' don't see that, so that's one major hurdle right there. I always think 'I' can act upon the darkness in some way....think 'I' am separate from it.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 24 Feb 2019 #103
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1358 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Does he say how that insight comes about, since 'I' can't do anything to bring the 'light'? Since 'I' am the darkness of the self. Of course 'I' don't see that, so that's one major hurdle right there. I always think 'I' can act upon the darkness in some way....think 'I' am separate from it.

No 'insight' is out of our hands it seems...no 'way' to get it. But if we accept as at least possible that we are living in a state of 'darkness, that we are this darkness then we can begin to understand that darkness cannot bring light. Thought cannot 'think' its way out of the darkness, it is the 'darkness, etc. In short, I can't 'do anything about the situation. So does that intellectual understanding have any bearing on 'insight' at all or is insight just something that may or may not happen, a totally random event? I think that it does in this sense: if I am all the time 'escaping' from this or that feeling, or seeking this or that amusement or trying to 'become' psychologically this or that (enlightened?) ...is all that activity an 'impediment' to insight into 'my' true situation which is one of living in 'darkness? I don't know. What do you think? Is possible insight 'crowded' out of the picture by all that 'movement'?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Mon, 25 Feb 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 24 Feb 2019 #104
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2691 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
if I am all the time 'escaping' from this or that feeling, or seeking this or that amusement

I think it's true that where there are a lot of easy escapes and enticing entertainments available, man will always choose to escape from his conflicts and problems. But as soon as they aren't readily available, he may begin to look into the problem he's facing. But if there's a great movie to watch, he'll turn to that until he finds that the problem is so urgent that he'll turn off the TV because the problem needs attention. I don't know if that makes sense. Having problem typing at the moment. Will try to come back to this later.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 24 Feb 2019 #105
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1358 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
But if there's a great movie to watch, he'll turn to that until he finds that the problem is so urgent that he'll turn off the TV because the problem needs attention.

I don't see a problem with entertainment, movies etc. The 'problem' as I see it is going through this life without coming into touch with these 'ideas' of not being in conflict, confused, violent etc....that there is a possibility to not live that way. A possibility to not meet hate with hate i.e....A possibility of a "radical revolution" psychologically. That "the observer is the observed". For whatever reasons, one may not be capable of going very deeply into all this, but that to me is a million times 'better' than not having come into contact with this 'message' at all. Regarding the question of how 'insight' comes about, could inquiry into oneself be a factor? It seems absolutely necessary that questioning all this must take place... not just intellectually but actually inquiring into how one operates. What we all share beside a brain and body is this sensation of our separateness from everything and one another...questioning the validity of that feeling of 'division' and experimenting (meditating?) in whatever way one approaches it, does bring about insights into this what we are calling 'darkness'...

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Mon, 25 Feb 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 26 Feb 2019 #106
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2691 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:

But if there's a great movie to watch, he'll turn to that until he finds that the problem is so urgent that he'll turn off the TV because the problem needs attention.

Dan: I don't see a problem with entertainment, movies etc.

No, not per se. If I’m obsessed with my Netflix because it gives me an escape from my domestic problems or my problems at work, then I’m using it like a drug, to escape facing those problems, no? You wrote about insight and inquiry. Yes, I agree. That’s my point about movie watching. One never bothers to inquire when the escapes are plentiful. You can see how modern culture is centered around entertainment and sports.

Regarding the question of how 'insight' comes about, could inquiry into oneself be a factor? It seems absolutely necessary that questioning all this must take place... not just intellectually but actually inquiring into how one operates.

Yes!

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Tue, 26 Feb 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 26 Feb 2019 #107
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5159 posts in this forum Offline

Tom wrote:
Does he say how that insight comes about, since 'I' can't do anything to bring the 'light'? Since 'I' am the darkness of the self. Of course 'I' don't see that, so that's one major hurdle right there. I always think 'I' can act upon the darkness in some way....think 'I' am separate from it.

When one says “I can’t do anything about it”, what is actually happening? It seems to me there are two possibilities. Firstly, one is merely repeating those words from memory. They come from some conclusion that the mind has drawn, from something one has read, or some observation that one has made oneself. So the words really are merely an idea, and have become a sort of authority. This indeed is a “major hurdle” as you say, Tom.

The second possibility is that one is actually seeing that “I can’t do anything about it”. Is this in itself not insight? And so is not this seeing actually acting, having an immediate effect? The mind is changing – before it thought it COULD do something about it, and it was trying to act in this vein. And, I suggest, it was wasting its energy in this occupation. It was bringing about conflict in itself by trying to act. But now it is actually seeing that such movement is false, and so doesn't the conflict and wastage of energy start to break up?

“ I always think 'I' can act upon the darkness in some way....think 'I' am separate from it.”

Indeed Tom, this is the crucial issue. This is what the mind is doing, psychologically, ‘all the time’. This, to me, is the fundamental problem. This is the cast-iron conditioning of the mind. This is what K is always, in one way or another, is always pointing out, going into , in his talks. The more one watches the mind, the more one sees this (even the phrase “one watches the mind contains this concept).

Just to make sure that we are talking about the same thing (I am sure that we are), I will give this quote, from Delhi talk 4 1956

So, how is the mind to understand itself? Is there within the field of the mind an entity who is superior to the mind? Do you understand, sirs? Is there within the process of thought an entity who is above and beyond thought, and who can therefore control thought? Or is the thing that we have called the Atman, the sublime, the soul, merely an invention of thought and therefore still within the field of thought? I think it is very important to understand this; because if there is a super-entity, an outside agent who is beyond our whole process of thinking, then it is no good our thinking about it, because it is not within the field of thought. We can think about something which we already know and are able to recognize; but to find that which is beyond the mind, thought must come to an end.

Most of us believe, do we not?, that there is something beyond the mind, an observer who is watching not only the mind but the things of the mind, who is controlling, shaping, disciplining thought. Until we question whether there is such an entity beyond the mind, beyond the field of thought, we will look to that entity as a means of guiding our life and shaping our conduct. Now, is there such an entity as the Atman, the soul, or what you will, which is shaping, guiding, helping us to live a sane, balanced life? Or is that entity within the field of our own thinking an invention of our own thought, and therefore not real? The mind is the product of time, of innumerable experiences, it is the result of many conditionings. The Communist does not believe in an Atman, a soul, because he has been conditioned to believe otherwise, as you have been conditioned to believe that there is a soul, an Atman. You start with a postulate, an assertion, as he also does, both resulting from a mind which is conditioned. Until one really sees this fact and deeply realizes its significance, the mind is incapable of going beyond itself - or, to put it differently, thought can never be still, the mind can never be completely quiet, because there is always the observer and the observed; there is always the experiencer who is wishing for greater experience, so our life becomes the endless series of struggles which it actually is.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 27 Feb 2019 #108
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2691 posts in this forum Offline

Clive: The mind is changing – before it thought it COULD do something about it, and it was trying to act in this vein. And, I suggest, it was wasting its energy in this occupation. It was bringing about conflict in itself by trying to act. But now it is actually seeing that such movement is false, and so doesn't the conflict and wastage of energy start to break up?

Yes....seeing this false movement of division, there is a total stop. As you said, this inner and outer division created by thought is really the core of K’s ‘teaching’. Division leading to conflict and confusion....in me, and in the world. I will have to come back to this later....haven’t fully digested all you wrote nor the excerpt from K. yet. Been extremely busy with ‘problems’ we face in our ‘practical’ daily living. Yet I’m also observing how the ‘inner’ may be related to the outer problem/s....and the outer are quite pressing at the moment so I need to be very clear headed to deal with them.

This is the cast-iron conditioning of the mind.

Well put :)

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Wed, 27 Feb 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 27 Feb 2019 #109
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5159 posts in this forum Offline

Clive: This is the cast-iron conditioning of the mind.

Tom: Well put :)

And yet it is not quite cast in iron. As you said, sometimes there is a "breaking up". We are using thought to communicate (communicate with each other, and with ourselves) and that thought is NEVER the whole picture, is it? Doesn't the mind always break things up, even its own perceptions of itself? It is simply not possible for the mind to express, or to see the whole.

I find the constant realisation of its own limitation is painful for thought, And yes, it will try to escape from the perception, in whatever way it can. Society is based on these escapes, isn't it? And perhaps the greatest escape is the attempt to become other than one is.

I appreciate, Tom, that you are needing to put time and energy into your personal life at the moment, and I am not expecting a quick reply.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 27 Feb 2019 #110
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2691 posts in this forum Offline

I find the constant realisation of its own limitation is painful for thought, And yes, it will try to escape from the perception, in whatever way it can

I’m a bit confused here, Clive. When I see the reality of thought’s limitation there’s a relief. I see thought can’t go beyond itself, beyond it’s limitations...so seeing this, thought stops striving to do anything at all psychologically. Every time I have a problem I approach it through limitation....through the past conditioning of thought, but the problem is new. Why do you say this is painful to realize?

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 01 Mar 2019 #111
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5159 posts in this forum Offline

C: I find the constant realisation of its own limitation is painful for thought, And yes, it will try to escape from the perception, in whatever way it can

Tom: I’m a bit confused here, Clive. When I see the reality of thought’s limitation there’s a relief. I see thought can’t go beyond itself, beyond it’s limitations...so seeing this, thought stops striving to do anything at all psychologically. Every time I have a problem I approach it through limitation....through the past conditioning of thought, but the problem is new. Why do you say this is painful to realize?

Thanks for the question, the challenge. I have been looking at it, on and off, throughout the day. Or rather I extended the question, and asked “What is the actual nature of pain in the mind?”. By “pain” (psychological rather than physical) , I include discomfort, disturbance, frustration, conflict, probably including fear. But I don’t just want to list the various sources of this pain, but go into the very nature of the sensation itself. After all, most people spend most of their lives trying to escape from pain, so it seems a valid and important question.

But to return to your post, Tom. I agree there is, there can be, a sense of relief that comes from seeing, factually, that thought is limited. When I really have a sense (not just an idea) that “I” can’t do anything, then the attempt to do something drops away, naturally. And the conflict and confusion that surrounds such “doing” is no longer there. Although I would say such a state is short-lived.

So I am asking myself what did I mean when I wrote:
“I find the constant realisation of its own limitation is painful for thought”?
As far as I remember, the realisation I referred to is ‘waking up to the fact’ that a particular thought is ONLY a thought. What was taken for truth is realised not to be so, it is just a fragment, just a piece of conditioning, Because while a thought is manifesting, it IS taken to be true, taken to be a fact, is it not? That seems to be implicit in the nature of thought. Is that so? - I am questioning it myself.

To put it another way, the pain lies in seeing that what was taken for permanent is actually impermanent. Transient. Which means that the self has been exposed in its illusion of permanence. It has failed to ‘do its job’ - because the job of the self is to provide a sense of permanence, continuity, is it not? But it is continually failing. It HAS to fail, given its nature.

From talk 3 Madras 19th December 1956

<That centre places itself at different levels and calls itself by different names, thinking there is a permanent entity above and beyond the impermanent; but for the impermanent centre to think of a permanent entity, is false, because that which is impermanent obviously cannot create a permanent state. You may conceive of a permanent state and build all your theories, your whole way of thinking around it; but that idea of permanency is also impermanent, it is a mere reaction to the impermanence of life.

That centre places itself at different levels and calls itself by different names, thinking there is a permanent entity above and beyond the impermanent; but for the impermanent centre to think of a permanent entity, is false, because that which is impermanent obviously cannot create a permanent state. You may conceive of a permanent state and build all your theories, your whole way of thinking around it; but that idea of permanency is also impermanent, it is a mere reaction to the impermanence of life.

You may be gone tomorrow. Your thinking, your house, your bank account, your virtues - they are all impermanent. Your relationship with nature, with your family, with ideas, is in a state of flux, of constant movement; everything is transient, and the mind, being aware of that, creates something which it calls permanent. But the very thought which creates the `permanent' is itself impermanent; therefore what it creates is also impermanent. This is not just logical, sequential; it is an indisputable fact, as clear as that microphone. But a mind which has been brought up, which has been trained to escape from life into the so-called permanent, is incapable of thinking afresh, and therefore it is always in battle with anything new.

Now I am not claiming that there is intrinsic pain, unhappiness in the understanding that everything is transient. Far from it. But it is a shock for the mind to first realise this fact, as that mind has been built (distorted) on the assumption of permanence.

I will leave it there for now.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 27 Jun 2019 #112
Thumb_17fb3c103b15073d6425c2d272aac133l-w1xd-w1020_h770_q80 Who am..... I? United States 24 posts in this forum Offline

K:
In this arising, coming into being, in this itself there is no continuity, nothing that can be identified as permanent. Life is in constant movement, action; each moment of this action has never been before, and will never be again. But each new moment forms a continuity of movement.

It seems like the above words of K has my peers puzzled, let's see if it can be clarified.

This paragraph is talking about two diffrent things things that fall under the headers of "Truth" and "reality".

The first first two lines fall under the header of "Truth" and have to be left alone as we have been strongly cautioned by K to not go into things that are non-facts for us. The last sentence however falls under the header of "Reality" and can be looked into.

In the first two sentences K has spilled out the truth on the matter of beingness or existence, perhaps as a wake up call to the sleeping. It is a different and unrelated perspective to that of the last sentence. It is a perceptive of someone that has an insight into the workings of the emergence and the continuity of 'beingness' from the perspective of life itself. If life itself could speak it would most likely say the same words. The last sentence however is from the perspective of the conditioned human. Apples and oranges.

Therefore there is no contradiction but they are two very distinct and different perspectives. But since all of us have this very bad habit of adopting other's words, their ideas, their philosophies as our own, either consciously or unconsciously, we get confused between truth and reality. Many are at point where they are no longer even aware of what is their own and what is acquired from other sources. A little reflection might fix that.

In any case, there is no contradiction between the two points, except we cannot factor in or use the first two sentences as they are non=facts to most of us and simply acquired theories or ideas. The breakdown of the last sentence to me is: The "continuity" IS the "self". There is no 'other' continuity other than the self. This self is glued together or threaded by memory.

Clive Elwell wrote:
How? If "each moment of this action has never been before", where is the 'memory', if that word can be used, that can create a continuity?

As we said earlier, the "each moment of this action has never been before" is the perspective of life itself, not ours. Our perspective is, "But each new moment forms a continuity of movement". Life's "moments" don't happen in memory, but our "moments" do.

Hope this hasn't complicated it more.

This post was last updated by Who am..... I? Fri, 28 Jun 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 27 Jun 2019 #113
Thumb_17fb3c103b15073d6425c2d272aac133l-w1xd-w1020_h770_q80 Who am..... I? United States 24 posts in this forum Offline

Furthermore, i would be very cautious in throwing around acquired ideas such as the illusory nature of thought, its impermanence etc, as if they are facts, until i have had insight into the details of these matters.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 28 Jun 2019 #114
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5159 posts in this forum Offline

Who am..... I? wrote:
Furthermore, i would be very cautious in throwing around acquired ideas such as the illusory nature of thought, its impermanence etc, as if they are facts, until i have had insight into the details of these matters.

I presume by "I" you are meaning "me, Clive"?

Thanks for the advice. But I wonder how you can judge the degree of insight of another? Not that insight belongs to any one in particular. But how can we know what another has understood or not? How can we know if another is merely imitating another's words, or he has seen something for himself? If we pretend to, we degenerate into personal judgement, which soon becomes mere argument, rather than mutual inquiry.

Let us stick to stick to being concerned with what a person has said, rather than forming images of the person. Indeed, that is a prerequisite for participation on this forum.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 28 Jun 2019 #115
Thumb_17fb3c103b15073d6425c2d272aac133l-w1xd-w1020_h770_q80 Who am..... I? United States 24 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
I presume by "I" you are meaning "me, Clive"?

No by "I" i meant myself, however, the problem i was trying to highlight is almost an epidemic.

Clive Elwell wrote:
Thanks for the advice. But I wonder how you can judge the degree of insight of another? Not that insight belongs to any one in particular. But how can we know what another has understood or not? How can we know if another is merely imitating another's words, or he has seen something for himself?

It isn’t a question of “judging”, however insight can be ‘measured’ by its effects on the person and by certain indicators that come through in various ways. This is not only applicable in the field of 'insights' but also routinely and commonly used in all fields of expertise. A clear insight is usually self evident and demonstrable.

Clive Elwell wrote:
Let us stick to stick to being concerned with what a person has said, rather than forming images of the person.

Yes, i suppose you saw the comment of Mr Dan to me on the "suffering blog".

P.S.- I spent some energy and time trying to address some of the confusion pertaining to the K quote in my comment above at #112, hopefully the points weren't missed in this silliness.

This post was last updated by Who am..... I? Fri, 28 Jun 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 91 - 115 of 115 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.)