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

Why does what happens matter to us?


Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 33 in total
Sun, 23 Dec 2018 #1
Thumb_open-uri20151228-18124-1kyi3s7-0 Jose Roberto Moreira Brazil 48 posts in this forum Offline

As we know, in a 1977 lecture in California, K asked an intriguing question: 'Do you want to know what my secret is?'?"

Then Krishnamurti, "in a soft, almost shy voice", said: "You see, I don't mind what happens."

I think K's "secret" is something worthwhile discussing. Certainly, it does not mean that he did not care about what was going on in the world.

In my opinion, it has a very deep meaning that I would like to discuss here.

Certainly, fear will only totally disappear if we do not mind what happens.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 24 Dec 2018 #2
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4831 posts in this forum Offline

Jose Roberto Moreira wrote:
Then Krishnamurti, "in a soft, almost shy voice", said: "You see, I don't mind what happens."

The first question that arises for me, as there seems some uncertainty about his exact words, is: Did he mean that the didn't mind what happened TO HIM?

or did this "not minding" extend to other people, to the whole world?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 24 Dec 2018 #3
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1108 posts in this forum Offline

Jose Roberto Moreira wrote:
K."You see, I don't mind what happens."

The way I've understood this was in the same way as many others of his statements. That that is the 'view' from "choiceless awareness". From that state, there is no judgement, no condemnation etc. (no minding?). There is either 'choiceless awareness' or there is identification and inattention (minding?). It's a very radical statement for sure, and points at what true freedom means. Free from 'minding' the activities of the self/thought but not a license for disorder. In fact as he has pointed out, that this state of 'choiceless awareness' is a possibility only when 'one's house has been put in order'.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 24 Dec 2018 #4
Thumb_open-uri20151228-18124-1kyi3s7-0 Jose Roberto Moreira Brazil 48 posts in this forum Offline

My understanding is that he was refering mainly to himself. For instance, when he was told he would be paralytic forever, he reacted with indifference. Actually he was paralised for one month and eventually recovered.

But he was very concerned with the chaos in the whole world. There is often a subtle difference between acceptance and resignation.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 24 Dec 2018 #5
Thumb_open-uri20151228-18124-1kyi3s7-0 Jose Roberto Moreira Brazil 48 posts in this forum Offline

Yes, Dan, good point, I also imagine that as true freedom, but it does not mean lack of responsibility or disorder.

I can only imagine that true freedom, because my reality is: I do mind what happens. I do react to some situations in the present or specially in the future.

Why do you think we mind what happens?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 24 Dec 2018 #6
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1108 posts in this forum Offline

Jose Roberto Moreira wrote:
Why do you think we mind what happens?

The answer that comes to mind Jose, is that we "mind" because we are living in the thrall of the 'self'. And we worry that what may happen may be bad or psychologically to our disadvantage...so we 'mind' and that is a kind of suffering, isn't it?. We worry about the 'past' over what we have done and over the 'future' which is always uncertain and what may happen... He used a very interesting word in regard to the self or 'I' process: that we don't realize its "transience". If we did see it for what it is, it could dissolve.

Transience: the state or fact of lasting only for a short time; transitory nature.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Mon, 24 Dec 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 24 Dec 2018 #7
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4831 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
He used a very interesting word in regard to the self or 'I' process: that we don't realize its "transience".

Yes, this is an interesting aspect of 'not minding'. I have often noticed in myself that when I am in a situation that I know is only temporary, then I 'don't mind' things that happen, things that I would mind if I knew they were going to continue indefinitely.

I would say further - that we don't mind what happens in the present. What we do mind is the prospect of the future - future pain, future discomfort, future uncertainty, future loss, and so on. But when things actually happen, there is a sense of not minding. of acceptance. i don't know if others find this?

Even if I am in pain, in suffering, I think if one looks carefully it is still the prospect of more pain in the future that is actually bothering one.

Not sure about this.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 24 Dec 2018 #8
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4831 posts in this forum Offline

Hoping this is not too much of a diversion, but here is an extract from the book "Down and out in Paris and London" by George Orwell. He was living precariously (financially) in Paris, and one day found himself (because of a theft) almost penniless. This is how he describes his reaction:

These three weeks were squalid and uncomfortable, and evidently there was worse coming, for my rent would be due before long. Nevertheless, things were not a quarter as bad as I had expected. For, when you are approaching poverty, you make one discovery which outweighs some of the others. You discover boredom and mean complications and the beginnings of hunger, but you also discover the great redeeming feature of poverty: the fact that it annihilates the future. Within certain limits, it is actually true that the less money you have, the less you worry. When you have a hundred francs in the world you are liable to the most craven panics. When you have only three francs you are quite indifferent; for three francs will feed you till tomorrow, and you cannot think further than that. You are bored, but you are not afraid. You think vaguely, 'I shall be starving in a day or two—shocking, isn't it?' And then the mind wanders to other topics. A bread and margarine diet does, to some extent, provide its own anodyne.

And there is another feeling that is a great consolation in poverty. I believe everyone who has been hard up has experienced it. It is a feeling of relief, almost of pleasure, at knowing yourself at last genuinely down and out. You have talked so often of going to the dogs—and well, here are the dogs, and you have reached them, and you can stand it. It takes off a lot of anxiety,

http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks01/0100171h.html
end of chapter 3

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 24 Dec 2018 #9
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4831 posts in this forum Offline

Jose Roberto Moreira wrote:
My understanding is that he was refering mainly to himself. For instance, when he was told he would be paralytic forever, he reacted with indifference. Actually he was paralised for one month and eventually recovered.

But he was very concerned with the chaos in the whole world. There is often a subtle difference between acceptance and resignation.

Actually when something (I hesitate to use the word 'bad' or 'disturbing') happens, there is no point in 'minding', is there? In the sense of worrying, despairing, etc. Such emotional reactions do not rectify the situation, they are a waste of time. There is a point in investigating if anything needs to be done, and if there is anything that can be done. If there is not, then - why worry?

In any case, we do not really know the full consequences of what happens, and sometimes what is seen as a disaster is later on seen as a blessing.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 25 Dec 2018 #10
Thumb_open-uri20151228-18124-1kyi3s7-0 Jose Roberto Moreira Brazil 48 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
And we worry that what may happen may be bad or psychologically to our disadvantage.

Dan, the word disadvantage is very interesting indeed! If I refuse to go to war and go to jail because of that, my mind would automatically think in terms of disadvantage, which would be, obviously, a comparison between the life out of prison and the life in prison.

It is pretty obvious, at least intellectually, that one needs freedom in order to do the right thing. The right thing cannot be compared with anything else. Then we come to matter of choice!

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 25 Dec 2018 #11
Thumb_open-uri20151228-18124-1kyi3s7-0 Jose Roberto Moreira Brazil 48 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Even if I am in pain, in suffering, I think if one looks carefully it is still the prospect of more pain in the future that is actually bothering one.

Clive, this is something I can assure it is true. The prospect of more pain in the future is the main fuel of fear, maybe its only fuel. I have a lot of experience on that! If I do not mind what happens, there is no fear. This is a fact, I see this in my daily life. The transience of the "I", as Dan mentioned, is very tricky, I think, if applied as a means to accept things.

I think realizing the transience of the "I" has a much deeper significance, which, of course, I do not know. I just suspect it has something (or everything) to do with not minding what happens.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 25 Dec 2018 #12
Thumb_open-uri20151228-18124-1kyi3s7-0 Jose Roberto Moreira Brazil 48 posts in this forum Offline

Very interesting, Clive.

Do you think the "ultimate" dog is to be nothing?

When I had panick attacks, it vanished miraculously whenever I threw the towel. But we seldom throw the towel because we mind what happens!

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 25 Dec 2018 #13
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2437 posts in this forum Offline

Even if I am in pain, in suffering, I think if one looks carefully it is still the prospect of more pain in the future that is actually bothering one.

Yes! I’ve had much physical discomfort due to physical ailments recently, and I often in the past resisted feeling this....wishing I could find a solution...eliminate the discomfort....find the source and be rid of it, etc. And also, as you said, Clive, fearful that it would remain with me in the future. One day I miraculously found myself feeling, ‘so what? It is what it is.’ And I found myself no longer fighting it. And when it wasn’t resisted there was a feeling of peace. The discomfort remained, but since I was no longer fighting it, it meant very little to me. That’s the key. It was simply discomfort, with no emotional component, so rather insignificant. Perhaps that’s how K felt about his attacks of hay fever, which, though not painful, are extremely uncomfortable. I know myself, from having had severe hay fever as a child.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Tue, 25 Dec 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 25 Dec 2018 #14
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1108 posts in this forum Offline

Jose Roberto Moreira wrote:
I think realizing the transience of the "I" has a much deeper significance, which, of course, I do not know. I just suspect it has something (or everything) to do with not minding what happens.

What is seen here is that there has to be a 'movement' of total awareness along with the 'I'. Then there is no 'minding', there is only a non-judgmental 'watching' or a 'staying with'...the minding begins when the awareness ends. Then once again one is caught up (identified) in the 'I' process. Then as I recall K. saying, it has to be "picked up" again. The 'awareness' seems to come and to go...if a memory arises of a past experience and that is followed by a reaction to it such as regret, or a 'wishing' that it hadn't occurred in the way it did, say, if both the memory as well as the negative reaction to it are both seen in the total light of awareness, there is a 'movement' along with them and then there is no 'minding' as there will be if only the memory is observed, but not the subsequent reaction to it. If the reaction goes unobserved, there will be 'identification' with it and the 'I' will feel suffering.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Tue, 25 Dec 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 25 Dec 2018 #15
Thumb_open-uri20151228-18124-1kyi3s7-0 Jose Roberto Moreira Brazil 48 posts in this forum Offline

Just organizing and clarifying my last comment. :-)

Clive Elwell wrote:
Hoping this is not too much of a diversion, but here is an extract from the book "Down and out in Paris and London" by George Orwell. He was living precariously (financially) in Paris, and one day found himself (because of a theft) almost penniless. This is how he describes his reaction:

Very interesting this extract, Clive.

Clive Elwell wrote:
You have talked so often of going to the dogs—and well, here are the dogs, and you have reached them, and you can stand it. It takes off a lot of anxiety,

Do you think the ultimate "dog" is to be nothing?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Dec 2018 #16
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4831 posts in this forum Offline

Jose Roberto Moreira wrote:
Do you think the ultimate "dog" is to be nothing?

I originally thought that you had mis-spelt "doing" as "dog"; that you meant “the ultimate doing is to be nothing”, and this is how I answered. There is no real difference.

Put simply, yes I do. This is my observation. Or “the ultimate doing is to DO nothing, which is really the same thing”.

This is hard to communicate, because the mind insists on interpreting “doing nothing” as “doing something” - that is, it interprets doing nothing as an act of will, whereas in reality it is the complete absence of will. It is complete negation. Again, the mind interprets “negation” as a positive action. It isn’t, it is the complete absence of positive action.

Put it another way, it is letting everything drop away. Not holding on to anything. I finding myself toying with the word “acceptance”, acceptance of everything that comes to the mind, with no resistance, but I am not quite happy with the word, as it still suggests a positive act. And it suggests there is (there remains) an I who does the accepting.

What is the connection between this and “Not minding what happens”? Is there one? Yes, I think there is. I suggest (and I could be wrong) that K was meaning the complete negation of minding. “Not minding” is not a positive action, it is the absence of all “minding”. Am I making any sense? I do feel that this is an important distinction. A crucial one.

This “doing nothing” cannot be turned into a method, some sort of practice, although that is exactly what the mind wants to do. So, one might ask, what to do when the mind DOES do that, does turn it into a practice? The answer, of course, is to do nothing. No, better put it this way: see that any doing is a mere reaction, and so without meaning.

It is the choiceless awareness of this, of all the reactions of the mind, in fact, that is the real “doing”.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Dec 2018 #17
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1108 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
It is the choiceless awareness of this, of all the reactions of the mind, in fact, that is the real “doing”.

And this sounds so simple, and it is as K. has said...so what is the obstacle, the impediment? Is it the 'self'? The fear of the unknown? The momentum of thought/time? The taking of the 'word' for the 'thing'? That psychological verbal thought creates and sustains its own reality through 'words' in the language we learned as children?

K. "The questioner asks if awareness is different from the object of awareness. We generally regard our thoughts as being apart from ourselves; we are not aware of the thinker and his thought as one. This is precisely the difficulty. After all, the qualities of the self are not separate from the self; the self is not something apart from its thoughts, from its attributes. The self is put together, made up, and the self is not when the parts are dissolved. But in illusion the self separates itself from its qualities in order to protect itself, to give itself continuity, permanency. It takes refuge in its qualities through separating itself from them. The self asserts that it is this and it is that; the self, the I, modifies, changes, transforms its thoughts, its qualities, but this change only gives strength to the self, to its protective walls. But if you are aware deeply you will perceive that the thinker and his thoughts are one; the observer is the observed. To experience this actual integrated fact is extremely difficult and right meditation is the way to this integration."

Ojai 6th Public Talk 1946

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Wed, 26 Dec 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Dec 2018 #18
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4831 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:

Clive Elwell wrote:

It is the choiceless awareness of this, of all the reactions of the mind, in fact, that is the real “doing”.

And this sounds so simple, and it is as K. has said...so what is the obstacle, the impediment?

What is the impediment, or what are the impediments, to choiceless awareness? Rather a vital question, that. I would say the impediment to choiceless awareness is – choice.
In what ways does choice manifest in our daily life? Through desire, wants – wants are generally contradictory, so one appears to be faced with a choice between them. And choice is a factor is becoming, is it not? - what should I try to become? how should I achieve that?

Behind this question is: why is it that choice is inimical to awareness? Why does awareness necessarily have to be choiceless? I want to live with this question for a while.I don't mean that other people can't come in on the question.

This post was last updated by Clive Elwell Wed, 26 Dec 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 28 Dec 2018 #19
Thumb_open-uri20151228-18124-1kyi3s7-0 Jose Roberto Moreira Brazil 48 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
What is the impediment, or what are the impediments, to choiceless awareness? Rather a vital question, that. I would say the impediment to choiceless awareness is – choice.
In what ways does choice manifest in our daily life? Through desire, wants – wants are generally contradictory, so one appears to be faced with a choice between them. And choice is a factor is becoming, is it not? - what should I try to become? how should I achieve that?

Behind this question is: why is it that choice is inimical to awareness? Why does awareness necessarily have to be choiceless? I want to live with this question for a while.I don't mean that other people can't come in on the question.

If I mind what happens is because I would rather modify what is happening, I choose something other than what happened. If I do not choose, whatever happens is OK. It seems logic.

What happens to our mind during the choice process? Obviously, the mind is concerned with the choice only, not with what is going on. This is why one cannot be aware while choosing. Does it seem logic too?

Of course, there are non emotional choices that do not cause conflict, therefore do not prevent awareness. For instance, if I choose a nice apple instead of a rotten one, in the supermarket.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 29 Dec 2018 #20
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4831 posts in this forum Offline

Jose Roberto Moreira wrote:
If I mind what happens is because I would rather modify what is happening,

May I suggest that you don't want to modify what is happening. What you want to modify is the image that you have drawn about what is happening. What is happening is the present, the image is the past.

What do you say to this, Jose?

Jose Roberto Moreira wrote:
What happens to our mind during the choice process? Obviously, the mind is concerned with the choice only, not with what is going on. This is why one cannot be aware while choosing. Does it seem logic too?

Yes, basically that seems right - however, rather than :

"If I do not choose, whatever happens is ok"

I would rather say:

"if no choice presents itself then everything is ok"

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 30 Dec 2018 #21
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 629 posts in this forum Offline

Jose Roberto Moreira wrote:
Why does awareness necessarily have to be choiceless? I want to live with this question for a while.I don't mean that other people can't come in on the question.

Look into what K says about the "what is and the what should be".

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 30 Dec 2018 #22
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4831 posts in this forum Offline

Peter Kesting wrote:
Look into what K says about the "what is and the what should be".

Hi Peter,

The above was my comment, not Jose's.

I don't always want to turn to K's words to find an answer to my questions. Other people's answers, even K's, cannot in the end resolve the issues in me. More and more I feel "answers" can only be found in myself, by myself.

But the term "answers" is not appropriate either. Certainly not intellectual answers. This is what came to me on waking:

"Thought itself, with all its problems, has to dissolve in the waters of awareness"

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 03 Jan 2019 #23
Thumb_open-uri20151228-18124-1kyi3s7-0 Jose Roberto Moreira Brazil 48 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
May I suggest that you don't want to modify what is happening. What you want to modify is the image that you have drawn about what is happening. What is happening is the present, the image is the past.

What do you say to this, Jose?

Well Clive, this is really a good point. Let's take an example. One looses his job. So one creates an image about being jobless. So one wishes he had not lost the job because he start suffering due to the jobless image he created.

So, I would say that one would want to modify the fact that one lost his job because of the image he created about it. I do not see any desire to modify the image itself, unless one tries to find means to deal with the fact by creating a positive image of a jobless person. Optimistic persons are like that.

Would I try to modify any fact if I do not create any image of it? If I see something totally new, would I try to modify it? If I say something terrible happened to me I have already judged it and therefore recognized it, isn't it? I am asking those questions to myself. I do not know the answer.

What do you think?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 04 Jan 2019 #24
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1108 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
"Thought itself, with all its problems, has to dissolve in the waters of awareness"

I was also trying to express something similar...that with our big brain came the possibility to 'create' these enormous psychological (and subsequent physical) problems for ourselves. We look off into the 'future' and know 'death' is waiting. We live with that from the time as children when we see something or someone die. We know that it's coming and we don't know when or how bad it's going to be. It 'cripples' us. The other animals are free to live without this specter of death over them...so they live. We as K. has put it rightly I think, that we are always 'dying'. The challenge for us is to join the two, death and life, living and dying. That is what has to be done: the realization that the separation between living and dying is false and is a creation of psychological time. 'Life' and 'death' were separated and 'death' was pushed away into the future...yet there can't be 'life' without 'death', they are inseparable, in each moment...they are one thing.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sat, 05 Jan 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 05 Jan 2019 #25
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4831 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Clive Elwell wrote:

"Thought itself, with all its problems, has to dissolve in the waters of awareness"

It is 100% certain that the contents of thought cannot change the thought process significantly. So the only other possibility is that thought voluntarily becomes quiescent. Or stops through some random chance, some accident.

Effort, psychologically, must stop. All movement into the (imaginary) future must stop. To ask HOW they can stop is a wrong question, is it not? – such questions imply a “stopp-er”, a non existent entity. They bring us round again to some sort of effort.

The challenge for us is to join the two, death and life, living and dying. That is what has to be done: the realization that the separation between living and dying is false and is a creation of psychological time.

Can you say more on this, Dan?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 05 Jan 2019 #26
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1108 posts in this forum Offline

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

What I don't see is the 'bubble' created by thought that I respond to...Life and death are one 'movement' but I see them as two. There is only the 'instant' but I see a past, a present and a future and that 'illusion' psychologically is my reality but...there is only always the 'instant'. Thought 'shatters' the 'instant' and 'elongates' as it 'thinks' about things. (even the thought has a beginning, middle and an end). And also with Huguette's example of the seeming 'continuity' of the movement of one's hand, is it just our sense of time that it seems to move?...to another sense of 'time' it could be stationary like the hand of the clock or the movement of the sun and moon; just below our perception of 'movement'. (Different scales of time). This is a rich area of contemplation but it is not only intellectual theorizing, the fact that thought is capable of taking the world apart psychologically, creates fear and sorrow and misery not seemingly experienced by the other animals here. The 'genie' can't be put back in the bottle, but 'understanding' deeply in ourselves, what is going on, is probably the only possible way out of the confusion caused by the (erroneous?) way we perceive life and the world?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sat, 05 Jan 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 05 Jan 2019 #27
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4831 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
The 'genie' can't be put back in the bottle, but 'understanding' deeply in ourselves, what is going on, is probably the only possible way out of the confusion caused by the (erroneous?) way we perceive life and the world?

This is question I have been on the verge of bringing up on the forum - what exactly is "understanding". But it doesn't seem right to usurp Jose's thread for that purpose, and so I will start a new one. But also hopefully there continue with your statement:

Life and death are one 'movement' but I see them as two

Do you mean that the ending of living is the start of death, and the ending of death is living? Or do you mean that death, dying, is contained IN living?

I am afraid that I am trying to translate your words into terms that I know, as a means of understanding.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 06 Jan 2019 #28
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4831 posts in this forum Offline

Jose Roberto Moreira wrote:
I do not see any desire to modify the image itself, unless one tries to find means to deal with the fact by creating a positive image of a jobless person.

I am not sure that I properly understand you, Jose. Is "creating a positive image .." really dealing with the fact? Is that not merely playing with images, and so not dealing with the fact at all?

Jose Roberto Moreira wrote:
Would I try to modify any fact if I do not create any image of it?

So I am asking if it is not creating images that is preventing us from dealing with facts? This image forming is what what passes for action for us, is it not? So our actions, or so called actions, are based on belief, ideology - and is this not why they are so destructive, so callous? Is this not why the world is in the terrible situation that it is?

If I see something totally new, would I try to modify it?

Why would you need to modify it?

If I say something terrible happened to me I have already judged it and therefore recognized it, isn't it? I am asking those questions to myself. I do not know the answer.

What does it mean to deal with a fact? If you discover that you have cancer, rather than all the image forming and attendant emotions and judgements, can one simply look at the options, make decisions based on the facts - facts in the widest possible sense? Which brings us back to the issue of "not minding what happens", perhaps?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 09 Jan 2019 #29
Thumb_open-uri20151228-18124-1kyi3s7-0 Jose Roberto Moreira Brazil 48 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
I am not sure that I properly understand you, Jose. Is "creating a positive image .." really dealing with the fact? Is that not merely playing with images, and so not dealing with the fact at all?

Yes, it was a little bit confuse.

I do not think we try to modify the image about the fact, as you suggested. I think we try to modify the fact because we create an image about the fact. When I was in Brockwood in September, I woke up, one morning, and started to see the room that I was using for weeks as if it was the first time I saw it. Then I realized it is not possible to reject anything new. We only reject the past. That seemed very clear at that moment. Not so clear now.

If we do not reject a fact, then we do not try to modify it. Intelectually it seems simple!

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 10 Jan 2019 #30
Thumb_open-uri20151228-18124-1kyi3s7-0 Jose Roberto Moreira Brazil 48 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
What does it mean to deal with a fact? If you discover that you have cancer, rather than all the image forming and attendant emotions and judgements, can one simply look at the options, make decisions based on the facts - facts in the widest possible sense? Which brings us back to the issue of "not minding what happens", perhaps?

This is exactly the point! If I do not mind what happens, I am completely free! Minding what happens makes us prisoners of fate.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 33 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.)