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

Following up on the Terence Stamp extract


Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 86 in total
Thu, 17 Jan 2019 #1
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5028 posts in this forum Offline

I have received a reply to the inquiry that I sent to the KFA, regarding Terrence Stamps attributing certain words to K. Here it is:

>“Terence Stamp recalls from memory. I would not rely on anybody's memory for accuracy. To study the teachings it is better to go to K's work directly.”

I had also asked this question:

“Can you point me towards some published words of K which point to a similar meaning?”

But there was no answer to this. I will put it again.

Here is a reminder of the words in question:

>"What you are...what you actually are, is being. Being is not the mind thinking. Thinking is a movement, a motion. Being is the silence that precedes the motion. You cannot see it; you cannot grasp it because you are it. The feeling that you are. The unadorned naked awareness that is always there, rarely heeded, is what you always have been, always will be. Cannot not be. You can't look for it, because it is what is looking. It is like space, you can't see it but everything is in it. Everything is it. So I say to you, 'be aware when you are unaware' let its presence warm you, fill you. Be present in the Presence.”

Strangely, minutes after reading the mail from KFA, I came upon this passage, which talks of “being”. And this seems relevant to Peter's recent posts, on 'experiencing'

>Therefore there must be a revolution in the mind. This revolution is not a matter of mere agreement, it is not a matter of conviction, it is not a matter of belief: it must take place. It cannot take place if you believe that there must be a revolution in the mind. That is merely a concept, an ideal, which is worthless.

>You know there is a vast difference between the word and the verb. The word has very little meaning except as a means of communication, and all thoughts, plans, ideals, concepts, theories, speculations, and the pursuit of them are at the verbal level. If you merely live at the verbal level it does not bring about a fundamentally new way of thinking. What does bring it about is "the verb',being' - not in relation to an idea, but action itself. Perhaps this is a little bit difficult, but please just listen to it even if only for intellectual amusement. You see, most of us are caught in words, with slogans, ideas, phrases, concepts. These are entirely different from the verb' - which is not action related to an idea but a state of being, acting. Because the moment you really understand something - which is not just agreeing or being convinced or submitting to pressure, for all these are related tothe word' and do not bring understanding - , you act. When there is an understanding which is the verb' then there is an"acting' which is a state of being. If you think about it a little you will see the difference between the two, the verb and the word, the doing and the thought of doing, the word love and loving. Now most of us are caught in the thought that we should love, as a noble, ideological, perfect thing; that is merely the word. The verb is `loving', unrelated to any action; it is a state of being, of loving.

From first talk at Poona 1958

(Sorry about the confusion in the fonts, it is not intentional, and I can do nothing about it)

This post was last updated by Clive Elwell Fri, 18 Jan 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 17 Jan 2019 #2
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2583 posts in this forum Offline

I think K is simply saying that understanding is a verb, an action. ‘Being’ is a verb....an action...it’s not static. He’s not saying that ‘you are being’ as was claimed by Stamp. Nothing of the sort. I may be misreading....I’m reading and typing on the tiny screen of my iPhone SE.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Thu, 17 Jan 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 19 Jan 2019 #3
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5028 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
He’s not saying that ‘you are being’ as was claimed by Stamp.

I simply don't know what "you are being" means. But I have been pondering K words on being, action in the Poona talk I submitted

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 20 Jan 2019 #4
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5028 posts in this forum Offline

A reminder of K original words from the Poona talk:

You know there is a vast difference between the word and the verb. The word has very little meaning except means of communication, and all thoughts, plans, ideals, concepts, theories, speculations, and the pursuit of them are at the verbal level. If you merely live at the verbal level it does not bring about a fundamentally new way of thinking. What does bring it about is "the verb',being' - not t as a in relation to an idea, but action itself. Perhaps this is a little bit difficult, but please just listen to it even if only for intellectual amusement. You see, most of us are caught in words, with slogans, ideas, phrases, concepts. These are entirely different from the verb' - which is not action related to an idea but a state of being, acting. Because the moment you really understand something - which is not just agreeing or being convinced or submitting to pressure, for all these are related to the word' and do not bring understanding - you act. When there is an understanding which is the verb' then there is an"acting' which is a state of being. If you think about it a little you will see the difference between the two, the verb and the word, the doing and the thought of doing, the word love and loving. Now most of us are caught in the thought that we should love, as a noble, ideological, perfect thing; that is merely the word. The verb is `loving', unrelated to any action; it is a state of being, of loving.

it seems to me that K is making quite a “claim” here – that action itself – the verb, being, brings about a fundamentally new “way of thinking”. I have my doubts if this can be explored verbally at all. “ If you merely live at the verbal level it does not bring about a fundamentally new way of thinking”, he says. But I have not come across K talking in these terms before, and I am going to try - no, not try, one sees that “trying”, with the implication of effort, is not the way at all. I am going to jump in.

“What does bring it about is "the verb',being' - not in relation to an idea, but action itself.”

What is the state of “being”? And if I conceptualise it, is that actually in contradiction to that state? K says it is action itself, and a concept, an idea, is not action, is it?

Examples of “the verb” are looking, seeing, listening, touching, feeling ….. I feel the important thing here is that there is no subject. Is there any entity who looks, who sees, who listens, who touches, who feels? Or is there is only the action itself? Is this the essence of the state of “being”?

“Entirely different from the verb - which is not action related to an idea but a state of being, acting”

Perhaps only in that state, only in the absence of the “do-er”, is there complete experiencing. No experience, only pure experiencing.

“You see, most of us are caught in words, with slogans, ideas, phrases, concepts. These are entirely different from `the verb' - which is not action related to an idea but a state of being, acting"

Thoughts, concepts are essentially abstract, a projection of the mind, a thought. But acting “stands on its own”, it is not related to any idea, it is not repeating anything. It is not an imitation. So it always fresh.

And K is answering my recent question on another thread - “what is understanding?” He talks of “understanding” as an action – not as an abstract noun. If it is an abstract noun then the entity who understands is implied. But in the action of understanding, is there an understander?

“ If you think about it a little you will see the difference between the two, the verb and the word, the doing and the thought of doing, the word love and loving. Now most of us are caught in the thought that we should love, as a noble, ideological, perfect thing; that is merely the word. The verb is `loving', unrelated to any action; it is a state of being, of loving.”

Is K saying – and this may sound ridiculous - that there is no such thing as love? No such THING?

Some words of K from elsewhere come to mind: “For me there is only the teaching, not the teacher”

And a final question, for now: So what is thinking, as a verb? Is there a ‘pure’ action of thinking, free of the thinker?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 20 Jan 2019 #5
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2583 posts in this forum Offline

What is the state of “being”? And if I conceptualise it, is that actually in contradiction to that state? K says it is action itself, and a concept, an idea, is not action, is it?

No, the concept, idea, is of the past. Action is not. Though the concept obviously has its place.

Examples of “the verb” are looking, seeing, listening, touching, feeling ….. I feel the important thing here is that there is no subject. Is there any entity who looks, who sees, who listens, who touches, who feels? Or is there is only the action itself? Is this the essence of the state of “being”?

Yes, I think so.
Bernadette Roberts in the Experience of No Self puts it like this: “The seeing, the eye/one that sees, and what is seen are one.”

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Sun, 20 Jan 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 20 Jan 2019 #6
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5028 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
the concept, idea, is of the past. Action is not.

This is a very fundamental point, isn't it? Action - acting, being - is always in the now, and idea never is. Or perhaps better to say " acting is never in time".

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 20 Jan 2019 #7
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2583 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
This is a very fundamental point, isn't it? Action - acting, being - is always in the now, and idea never is. Or perhaps better to say " acting is never in time".

Yes....I imagine that that’s why thought can’t conceive of it...can’t touch it.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 21 Jan 2019 #8
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5028 posts in this forum Offline

It is indeed a huge business, Tom. The issue of becoming – using that word for the moment. We can describe it over and over again, analyse it, bemoan it, question it - but it there THERE. It is the mind reaction’s to itself.
Is it that we are conditioned into this movement, constantly encouraged from childhood to try to overcome what is with what should be, by people who do not understand the destructive outcome of so doing? Is that sufficient explanation for its existence? Or is the movement intrinsic to the existence of the self? Is it that the self simply cannot exist with this movement of becoming? That this is the way it carries itself forward in time?

I feel that the precise object of the movement of becoming is immaterial. Wanting to be secure, wanting pleasure, wanting to be enlightened, wanting to go beyond pain and conflict – they are all basically, the self wanting to enlarge itself, continue itself. Even wanting to understanding itself. Is there really ‘good’ and ‘bad’ becoming, or is it all the same movement, with the same outcome, or lack of outcome – the outcome being a certain state of mind, of conflict?

It is a tremendous thing to see, to feel – I am not convinced that I do fully feel it. To contemplate an existence where there is no possibility of becoming other than one is. Which means, not to feel there is TIME in which we can change. No future, psychologically.

And yet the feeling that we have to become other than we are, that “what we are” is in itself unsatisfactory, needing to be changed – how can there be peace, harmony, with this feeling as our constant companion?

Later. It suddenly comes that either there is "being", awareness in the present moment, or there is this movement of becoming, this effort to change the present. The two are mutually exclusive.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 21 Jan 2019 #9
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1259 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Later. It suddenly comes that either there is "being", awareness in the present moment, or there is this movement of becoming, this effort to change the present. The two are mutually exclusive.

Yes this is how I understood the Stamp quote: "Being" is what we are...before the 'movement' or motion.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 22 Jan 2019 #10
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2583 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Clive: there is "being", awareness in the present moment, or there is this movement of becoming, this effort to change the present. The two are mutually exclusive.

Dan: Yes this is how I understood the Stamp quote: "Being" is what we are...before the 'movement' or motion.

However there was no ‘we’ in that statement of Clive’s. But there is a ‘we’ underlying the movement of becoming.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Tue, 22 Jan 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 22 Jan 2019 #11
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2583 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
It is a tremendous thing to see, to feel – I am not convinced that I do fully feel it. To contemplate an existence where there is no possibility of becoming other than one is. Which means, not to feel there is TIME in which we can change. No future, psychologically.

If we actually see that we are momentarily at peace, no?

And yet the feeling that we have to become other than we are, that “what we are” is in itself unsatisfactory, needing to be changed – how can there be peace, harmony, with this feeling as our constant companion?

But it’s not anything we have any control over. It’s much more than a feeling. Much of it is unconscious....the immediate condemnation or suppression of what is...of what we are.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Tue, 22 Jan 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 22 Jan 2019 #12
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1259 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
However there was no ‘we’ in that statement of Clive’s. But there is a ‘we’ underlying the movement of becoming.

Good point.
As I see it, the 'we' of 'Being' includes everything that 'IS'. Not just on earth but everything in the universe...out of the silent, immovable 'Being' comes 'motion' or 'movement', all 'manifest' life, matter, etc. The psychological 'we' (or 'I') of human life is an illusion put together from the past, it doesn't actually exist as something apart from memory? There is no psychological 'I', only movement of memory as K. has suggested...? If so, that's a big deal and we need to discover if that is a fact. Because if there actually is no psychological 'me', then 'who' is bearing all this psychological suffering and confusion? The non-existent 'I'?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Tue, 22 Jan 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 22 Jan 2019 #13
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5028 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
"Being" is what we are...before the 'movement' or motion.

So you seem to be suggesting, Dan, that the state of 'being' has no movement in it. Is this so? I can readily see that being has no objective; it is not trying to reach anything, to attain ....... but it is static? Or can it encompass 'flow', or 'flux'?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 22 Jan 2019 #14
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5028 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
But there is a ‘we’ underlying the movement of becoming.

So you imply, Tom, that there has to be an entity who becomes? Or at least a projection, an imagining of an entity ie the self? A self image. This seems to be so.

So the ending of becoming implies the ending of the self-image. And the ending of the self-image implies the ending of becoming.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 22 Jan 2019 #15
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5028 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
It’s much more than a feeling.

You are right Tom, it is much more than a feeling.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 22 Jan 2019 #16
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5028 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
If so, that's a big deal and we need to discover if that is a fact. Because if there actually is no psychological 'me', then 'who' is bearing all this psychological suffering and confusion? The non-existent 'I'?

It is indeed a big deal. And it is a very significant question.

Without the idea of a permament entity, an entity that exists through time, so much of human consciousness becomes impossible to continue.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 23 Jan 2019 #17
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2583 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
So you imply, Tom, that there has to be an entity who becomes?

No

Or at least a projection, an imagining of an entity ie the self? A self image.

Yes....if I want to become a great musician or painter there’s an image of ‘me’ getting accolades...and/or making a lot of money from my success. The joy of painting itself has no self image.

So the ending of becoming implies the ending of the self-image. And the ending of the self-image implies the ending of becoming.

Logically this seems to be the case, but I have not verified it by seeing the actual fact/truth of what you’re saying.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Wed, 23 Jan 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 23 Jan 2019 #18
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2583 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Dan McDermott wrote:

If so, that's a big deal and we need to discover if that is a fact. Because if there actually is no psychological 'me', then 'who' is bearing all this psychological suffering and confusion? The non-existent 'I'?

Clive: It is indeed a big deal. And it is a very significant question.

I can speak for the issue of fear here. It’s felt in the body as extreme physical discomfort. Normally with a physical fear, this discomfort compels us to action. We see a bear in the woods and we run away. However with psychological fear, there’s often no obvious action one can take, so the fear builds upon itself when our action feels blocked. Fear and anxiety becomes something we live with, with sometimes significant consequences for our actual physical health and well being (high blood pressure, ulcers, headaches, etc). But this idea of a “ psychological me” in relation to fear is something that warrants further discussion, I think. I for one would welcome any input into this.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 23 Jan 2019 #19
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5028 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Normally with a physical fear, this discomfort compels us to action.

Just to clarify, by "physical fear" your mean there is some actual situation or entity out there which is threatening the integrity, the safety, of the body, - a car bearing down on us, a violent drunken person accosting us, for example - and the body reacts to protects itself, as much as might be possible. And in this bodily response there is no thought, no imagination?

And by psychological fear, you mean something imagined by thought, something that might happen in the psychological realm that threatens, or seems to threaten, our "psychological integrity", whatever that might be, our self image.

Probably the two, physical and psychological fears, do not always exist in separate, convenient categories, but lets just keep that in the back of the mind for now.

Tom Paine wrote:
However with psychological fear, there’s often no obvious action one can take, so the fear builds upon itself when our action feels blocked. Fear and anxiety becomes something we live with, with sometimes significant consequences for our actual physical health and well being

Let us question that "there is often no obvious action one can take". Isn't simply being aware of the psychological fear, giving it full, choiceless attention, action? Action that is complete and sufficient, so that the fear flowers fully, and so dies away?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 23 Jan 2019 #20
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5028 posts in this forum Offline

And here is an extract from K we might consider:

“Is it possible to look out of silence at fear?”

It seems to me that beauty, love, death and creation all go together. But they obviously cannot exist when there is fear in any form. Having heard this statement, you may approve, agree or disagree; it doesn't matter which. The facts are obvious; one can observe them.
.

Is it possible for you and me to step completely out of this system of time and pleasure? Is it possible to look out of silence at fear, without thought and without feeling, and not look upon it as something that one must find the cause of analyse and eliminate ? It is fairly simple to look at a flower non-botanically, because the flower is not of great importance in one's life; it doesn't interfere, it doesn't mess up our life. But to look at our activities, at our problems as they arise, without thought or feeling, and therefore to observe without time, is not so easy.
.

We look at things from a centre which creates space around itself. I look at you from my centre of memory; that centre creates a space around itself, and through that space I look. I never look at you directly; I only observe you through my space, which has been created by my centre, which is experience, knowledge, memory. I can really look at you, as I can look at the flower, only when there is no centre, but I never observe without that centre which is time-binding in nature, which is the result of pleasure. That centre is always creating illusion, and I never come face to face with fact.
.

I can look at a flower, a cloud or a bird on the wing without a centre, without a word, the word which creates thought. Can I look without the word at every problem - the problem of fear, the problem of pleasure? Because the word creates, breeds thought; and thought is memory, experience, pleasure, and therefore a distorting factor.
.

This is really quite astonishingly simple. Because it is simple, we mistrust it. We want everything to be very complicated, very cunning; and all cunning is covered with a perfume of words. If I can look at a flower non-verbally - and I can; anyone can do it, if one gives sufficient attention - can't I look with that same objective, non-verbal attention at the problems which I have? Can't I look out of silence, which is non-verbal, without the thinking machinery of pleasure and time being in operation? Can't I just look? I think that's the crux of the whole matter, not to approach from the periphery, which only complicates life tremendously, but to look at life, with all its complex problems of livelihood, sex, death, misery, sorrow, the agony of being tremendously alone - to look at all that without association, out of silence, which means without a centre, without the word which creates the reaction of thought, which is memory and hence time. I think that is the real problem, the real issue: whether the mind can look at life where there is immediate action, not an idea and then action and eliminate conflict altogether.
.

From: London 1965 public discussion 6

http://jiddu-krishnamurti.net/en/1965/1965-05-0...

This post was last updated by Clive Elwell Wed, 23 Jan 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 24 Jan 2019 #21
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2583 posts in this forum Offline

Isn't simply being aware of the psychological fear, giving it full, choiceless attention, action? Action that is complete and sufficient, so that the fear flowers fully, and so dies away?

Is this something you do, Clive, or is it an idea you’ve appropriated from K? Don’t mean to be overly personal, but if you’ve done it, are you free of fear?

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 24 Jan 2019 #22
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2583 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
However with psychological fear, there’s often no obvious action one can take, so the fear builds upon itself when our action feels blocked. Fear and anxiety becomes something we live with, with sometimes significant consequences for our actual physical health and well being

Clive: Let us question that "there is often no obvious action one can take". Isn't simply being aware of the psychological fear, giving it full, choiceless attention, action? Action that is complete and sufficient, so that the fear flowers fully, and so dies away?

I want to come back to this because I really didn’t make myself clear in my post above. I meant there is no obvious path forward ‘outwardly’ to resolve my conflict....with my wife (I may have fear that she will leave me for another man, for example), child, at work, with finances(fear for my family’s financial future for example), etc. I will attempt to clarify later, just felt I should add this little bit here.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Thu, 24 Jan 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 24 Jan 2019 #23
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1259 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
I meant there is no obvious path forward ‘outwardly’ to resolve my conflict....with my wife (I may have fear that she will leave me for another man, for example), child, at work, with finances(fear for my family’s financial future for example), etc.

It's been said and I think that it's true, that a certain amount of "leisure time" is necessary to go into all this. Being 'under the gun' so much of one's time can be a huge drain of energy...No?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 24 Jan 2019 #24
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2583 posts in this forum Offline

It's been said and I think that it's true, that a certain amount of "leisure time" is necessary to go into all this.

Agreed, Dan. K once suggested that people retire from work at age 50 in order to go deeper into the ‘teachings’. Nice idea, but he had no idea what life is like for most middle and lower class workers in the U.S. Retire? And how will they buy food and pay rent? Who will feed ‘me’ if I don’t have a job? He could be so clueless at times. Most folks I know can barely keep their heads above water holding down a full time job. I was fortunate that I had over a year of not working at all to go into the teachings, as well as when employed, finding jobs that weren’t overly demanding of my time and energy. But retire? No way that’s possible for most of us here...certainly not at the age of 50.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Thu, 24 Jan 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 24 Jan 2019 #25
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5028 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:

Clive: Isn't simply being aware of the psychological fear, giving it full, choiceless attention, action? Action that is complete and sufficient, so that the fear flowers fully, and so dies away?
.

Tom: Is this something you do, Clive, or is it an idea you’ve appropriated from K? Don’t mean to be overly personal, but if you’ve done it, are you free of fear?

We have often discussed the nature of the self, the me, the I, have we not? And there seems a general agreement on the forum that “I” am merely a construction, a projection of thought. That is, there is no separate entity as a “me”.

I think this is true – not that it cannot be questioned, of course. And as I see it, what there is in the mind is just a succession of thoughts and feelings – although this succession is not orderly, it is distorted by duality, by this imaginary division between so-called “thinker”, me, and thought.

From this background, this perception, I look at your question, Tom, “Is this something I do?” And then you ask “have you done it?” And “are you free of fear?”. It seems to me that these questions are based on a false assumption, the assumption that “I” exist – exist in a permanent, or semi-permanent sense, rather than a transient movement of the mind.

I don’t think I am trying to wriggle out of your question, Tom, although I am aware that it might well appear that way. Any other answer would seem false, a lie.

So I have to say your question (s) seems a wrong question.

You also ask: “Is it an idea, appropriated from K?”. Leaving the K side of the question aside for the moment, is it an idea? In a way, yes it is. In the sense that anything I describe, anything I try to communicate with others is an “idea”, it is a gathering together of perceptions, it is thought trying putting into words what has been experienced. That doesn’t imply that it is a permanently-held idea, that it is a conclusion, because as soon as it has tried to express it, it ends, and the mind is free to examine again, to inquire.

Looking at the question again, I could reply “no, this absence of an actual “me” is a fact, not a mere idea. If this is true, if it is a fact, then that fact can be, must be, verified by constant observation. And looking inwards again, I say that I cannot see any separate entity that can be called me. So I cannot say, psychologically, that there is an “I” that does anything. Rather there is conditioning at work. Rather (referring back to the extract I posted some days ago, I think) it is the work of the collective, not an individual.

I will stop there and see what is your response. I will be interested to hear it. BTW, I certainly see that this particular mind (what ever that means) has a large area of conditioning stemming from reading/ listening to K.

Oh, you also asked, "Am I free of fear?". But how can I beging to answer that question, except by somehow by-passing the question of whether "I" exist or not? I will say that the "I" intrinsically contains fear, that is part of its nature.
And fear is part of the collective.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 24 Jan 2019 #26
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5028 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
I meant there is no obvious path forward ‘outwardly’ to resolve my conflict...

Yes, I would say there is no path forward to resolve psychological problems within the limits of thought.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 25 Jan 2019 #27
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2583 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
From this background, this perception, I look at your question, Tom, “Is this something I do?” And then you ask “have you done it?” And “are you free of fear?”. It seems to me that these questions are based on a false assumption, the assumption that “I” exist – exist in a permanent, or semi-permanent sense, rather than a transient movement of the mind.

I want to thank you for the very in depth reply, Clive. I need some time to digest all you’v written, but a quick response to the above:

K stated in one of his talks that he was free of conflict. If I recall correctly, he said that he never had a speck of conflict his whole life. He also said in one talk that if you give total attention to what he was saying that you can walk out of the talk free of fear. So in that context I think it’s fair to ask, ‘are you free of fear?’, not that it would be of any use at all to me to know your answer, since the issue for me is the conflict in me....not whether you are free of it or not. In truth I’m not really sure why I even asked you....what my motive for asking was. OK, I must leave it here for now, as I have to start dinner. I will return to this later time permitting. Thanks again for the interesting post!

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 25 Jan 2019 #28
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2583 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Yes, I would say there is no path forward to resolve psychological problems within the limits of thought.

Can you elaborate on this point, Clive? I think it’s a crucial one.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 25 Jan 2019 #29
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1259 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
I would say there is no path forward to resolve psychological problems within the limits of thought.

Are you saying here Clive that 'thought' cannot resolve the problems that it has created?... Since "I don't exist" is now in the 'mix' a lot of questions arise involving thought's actions in the psychological realm, don't they? And since the creation of 'I'/'me' is now hypothetically in abeyance, it can only be 'thought' itself asking and trying to answer, questions about itself, about its own activity. So why 'psychological thought/time at all? Why any activity at all? Is it just 'habitual' like a garden hose left running or a leaking faucet with a bad washer. It is one thing for thought to apply its 'know-how' to a technical problem, then it can even co-operate with other 'thinking brains' and work things out without conflict...but now that the illusion of its creation of a 'permanent, individual thinker/'I', struggling against the cold brutal world, has been seen as false, why does it continue to pump out thought after thought with no real 'aim' behind them? What is behind, driving these incessant thoughts anyway? Desire? For what? Does it fear 'silence'? And if it is not thought itself that is afraid of being still,(K. has said that "thought is fear") is it something in the brain? Thought obviously doesn't (can't) know , can it, because it is totally limited to the past and 'life' is in the present, in the Now?... Does any of this make any sense?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Fri, 25 Jan 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 25 Jan 2019 #30
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5028 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott and Tom wrote:

Can you elaborate on this point, Clive? I think it’s a crucial one.
.

It is one thing for thought to apply its 'know-how' to a technical problem, then it can even co-operate with other 'thinking brains' and work things out without conflict...but now that the illusion of its creation of a 'permanent, individual thinker/'I', struggling against the cold brutal world, has been seen as false, why does it continue to pump out thought after thought with no real 'aim' behind them? What is behind, driving these incessant thoughts anyway? Desire? For what? Does it fear 'silence'? And if it is not thought itself that is afraid of being still,(K. has said that "thought is fear") is it something in the brain? Thought obviously doesn't (can't) know , can it, because it is totally limited to the past and 'life' is in the present, in the Now?... Does any of this make any sense?

Yes, I have been asking similar questions, and discussing with a friend. It is very clear that thought is amazing in applying itself to practical problems. People can even cooperate on such issues, as long as selves don’t get mixed up in the issues – although they often do, and then they start to distort, even twist the facts.

I think strong ‘evidence’ that thought cannot solve human psychological issues is that it never has. And surely a tremendous lot of human energy has gone into trying, over millennia? If anything human psychological problems, like conflict, depression, confusion, sorrow, violence, hatred, isolation, etc, have actually got much worse, although I’m not sure that Tom accepts this. Perhaps the problems have got worse because thought has pumped energy into them, in its attempts to solve them. Rather than just letting go.

But coming closer to home, can I see in myself if thought can solve my psychological problems? I say “my problems”, but it is clear these problems are common to everyone. Seeing them as “my problems” may be part of the inability to solve them, in fact.

I am not separate from the problems, am I? I may regard myself as separate from a practical problem, like to replace the battery in my phone, and actually this approach can work. But the me who arises in the attempt to solve a psychological problem is not a separate entity, and if it is regarded as such, any action is based on illusion. How can illusion solve a real problem - like psychological fear as we were discussing?

Fear tries to solve the problem of fear, confusion tries to clear up confusion, the search for pleasure tries to overcome the problems associated with pleasure, frustrations seeks fulfilment, and so on – this is what is actually happening under the guise of me trying to solve a psychological problem, is it not?

As the friend said, it is like trying to pull oneself up by one’s bootstraps.

This post was last updated by Clive Elwell Fri, 25 Jan 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 86 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.)