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

Following up on the Terence Stamp extract


Displaying posts 61 - 86 of 86 in total
Tue, 29 Jan 2019 #61
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2437 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:

Which is to say, thought becoming aware of itself and 'piercing' the illusion of a duality between 'me' and 'it'.

Clive: Yes. Would you say another way to put this is "for thought to see its own falseness"?

I don’t see how thought can see anything(!), though I could be mistaken. Perhaps what you’re describing is intelligence shining it’s light on the thought process?

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 29 Jan 2019 #62
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1108 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:

I don’t see how thought can see anything(!)

Tom: Perhaps what you’re describing is intelligence shining it’s light on the thought process?

No though that can be the case, but how I'm seeing this is that you and I are 'thought'. We are the 'thinker' that thought has projected...so in the same way that I 'feel' that I can 'see' things; saying that 'thought can see things' is just cutting out the middleman, the thinker, me. I feel the separation between me and thought is an illusion...I, as 'self' am the movement of thought. You don't see it that way, right?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Tue, 29 Jan 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 30 Jan 2019 #63
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2437 posts in this forum Offline

Dan: in the same way that I 'feel' that I can 'see' things; saying that 'thought can see things' is just cutting out the middleman, the thinker, me.

I may say that I understand or have insight into a particular issue, but saying that doesn’t imply that thought understands or has insight. It’s simply a way of speaking. Saying ‘I understand’ doesn’t necessarily imply an ‘I’ that has understanding.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 30 Jan 2019 #64
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4831 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Reading your words, Wim, a very strong realisation came to me – I think it could be called an insight; that we – I – live all the time with an utterly false sense of permanency.

I don’t think I really conveyed my perception, my insight, when I talked about “impermanency”. That word might suggest things ending next week, next year, the end of my life, but I was trying to convey a sense of “dying all the time”. And of course where there is ending, there is a new beginning.

Words cannot really capture this feeling, this perception. By their very nature, words create static images, as if what they describe is “always there” - or at least there for an extended period of time. Words cannot capture the ACTION that is life.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 30 Jan 2019 #65
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 799 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Words cannot really capture this feeling, this perception. By their very nature, words create static images, as if what they describe is “always there” - or at least there for an extended period of time.

is not that always the case when you want to transfer something?

Take for example the story of the tooth fairy, which you once accepted as truth, or Santa Claus. the moment that the truth came to light, that had no influence on your behavior anymore, but seeing for what it was, is not completely gone.

So the false truth was replaced by the real and the beauty of the false remains seen for what it is, and that is no longer an obstacle to reality of life.

To me this explain a lot of K. attempts to convey the true meaning of a lot of common used words, like " Love, Intelligence, Compassion etc., etc....".

Truth will unfold itself for those who enquire their own actions and only to them and for them and to or for no one else.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 30 Jan 2019 #66
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1108 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
And of course where there is ending, there is a new beginning.

And not even that...are there any 'opposites' at all or only words? K. addressed this when he said no endings only beginnings...'living' is on the 'knife point' of the now, isn't it? That's where the physical body always is. That's where the senses always are. Thats where the 'wonder' is. The burden of the past along with the projection of a 'future' smothers it all: the 'wonder', the 'love', the 'bliss'. Thought with time passes itself off as 'living' but its all just 'groans' and fears with the occasional flashes of joy. Our greatest 'responsibility' it seems to me at this point is to see through this attachment to the past and be released from it's thrall.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Wed, 30 Jan 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 30 Jan 2019 #67
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2437 posts in this forum Offline

Saw this quote from K on the general forum just now: “We are a collection of memories: the memories of experience, the memories which we have gathered through life, through education; and the 'I' is the result of identification with all that." Krishnamurti

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 30 Jan 2019 #68
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4831 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Perhaps what you’re describing is intelligence shining it’s light on the thought process?

Yes, perhaps this is so. But I would not like to make any definitive statement about the origins of perception.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 31 Jan 2019 #69
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4831 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
is not that always the case when you want to transfer something?

Yes, I would say that is always so - even when one is using words to try to convey the opposite; when one is trying to describe the transiency of the mind, and of existence. One needs to be aware, when trying to communicate, that "the word is not the thing", as K puts it.

Wim Opdam wrote:
So the false truth was replaced by the real and the beauty of the false remains seen for what it is, and that is no longer an obstacle to reality of life.

I am not sure that i am following you here, Wim. What do you mean by "the beauty of the false"? Do you mean the beauty of DISCOVERING the false?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 31 Jan 2019 #70
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4831 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
And not even that...are there any 'opposites' at all or only words? K. addressed this when he said no endings only beginnings.

I do not see how the actual, living world could contain any "opposite", no. but I am surprised that K said that there were no endings - can you give a citation to an example of this, Dan?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 31 Jan 2019 #71
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4831 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
I feel the separation between me and thought is an illusion...I, as 'self' am the movement of thought. You don't see it that way, right?

I see it as illusion. So when the self pretends that it is separate, it can think that what happens to world and the brain, doesn’t actually happen to me. Is that right? And does that explain why it (and so mankind in general) can be unresponsive to the world’s crisis?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 31 Jan 2019 #72
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 799 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:

Wim Opdam wrote:

So the false truth was replaced by the real and the beauty of the false remains seen for what it is, and that is no longer an obstacle to reality of life.

I am not sure that i am following you here, Wim. What do you mean by "the beauty of the false"? Do you mean the beauty of DISCOVERING the false?

on reflection, there is indeed nothing beautiful to point to.
Because there is deliberate misinformation in children and violation of the child's trust and at the same time a boost of self-confidence and ego in children, all based on a lie.

and yet we see it in the collective memory as something beautiful,
this is what I unconsciously pointed at.

Truth will unfold itself for those who enquire their own actions and only to them and for them and to or for no one else.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 31 Jan 2019 #73
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1108 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
I do not see how the actual, living world could contain any "opposite", no. but I am surprised that K said that there were no endings - can you give a citation to an example of this, Dan?

No but it was on one of the many videos...what struck me about it was that it seemed that 'no endings, only beginnings' was a realization for him right at that moment...in any case there is a beauty to it. isn't there?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 31 Jan 2019 #74
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4831 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
.so all we can do is to see the 'wrong' road we are on and to stop walking down it? Is that right?

I just have one reservation with what you say, Dan. It may sound trivial, but it is the word “and” above.

Are they two different things, “seeing the wrong road” and “stop walking down it”? Or is it just one movement – the seeing IS the stopping? What do you say? This seems really important.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 31 Jan 2019 #75
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4831 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
No but it was on one of the many videos...what struck me about it was that it seemed that 'no endings, only beginnings' was a realization for him right at that moment...in any case there is a beauty to it. isn't there?

So could you try to explain your own perception of this, Dan? Ia sk because "endings" for me have been a very important and meaningful aspect of K's teachings. He has often talked of dying to the known, dying to the past. So what does it mean, "there are no endings, only beginnings"? Maybe I have been missing something here?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 31 Jan 2019 #76
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4831 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
on reflection, there is indeed nothing beautiful to point to.

Ok Wim, I understand what you were saying now.

Yes, we feed children on a diet of fantasy and untruths. I don't know to what extent this is necessary.

Reminds of something - I once asked an old friend, (in some ways I considered him a wise and compassionate man) to come down to the communal space of the community where we were living, to interact with the children. So one day he came down, and picked up a book from the children library, and gathered the children around him.

He opened it. "What's this", he said "Rabbits don't wear trousers". He got no further.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 31 Jan 2019 #77
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1108 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
"Rabbits don't wear trousers"

Now you tell me!

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 01 Feb 2019 #78
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1108 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
So what does it mean, "there are no endings, only beginnings"? Maybe I have been missing something here?

Only that 'we' have placed upon 'things' in this world, the labels: 'beginnings' and 'endings' and it is artificial. It serves us to say that this 'began' here and 'ended' there'...but ending involves a 'stop', a 'death', but is there ever a 'stop' or 'death or just a transformation of energy? Energy taking on one form or another...always 'beginning' in its newness. always creating the 'new'. No?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Fri, 01 Feb 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 01 Feb 2019 #79
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1108 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Are they two different things, “seeing the wrong road” and “stop walking down it”? Or is it just one movement – the seeing IS the stopping? What do you say?

I would say, "one movement", if the 'seeing' is clear enough that one's search for liberation, say, was just another effort to enhance the ego, expand the 'self, etc....if that were seen clearly enough, the dropping of that effort would be immediate. But if it were only partially 'glimpsed' that one was heading in the 'wrong' direction, there might be the reaction that, yes I see that it isn't right and eventually I'll 'do' something about it. (which is to 'continue' in the wrong direction..!.)

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Fri, 01 Feb 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 02 Feb 2019 #80
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4831 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
I would say, "one movement", if the 'seeing' is clear enough that one's search for liberation, say, was just another effort to enhance the ego, expand the 'self, etc....if that were seen clearly enough, the dropping of that effort would be immediate. But if it were only partially 'glimpsed' that one was heading in the 'wrong' direction, there might be the reaction that, yes I see that it isn't right and eventually I'll 'do' something about it. (which is to 'continue' in the wrong direction..!.)

I take the point that time is the great enemy of seeing.

What is this mysterious thing we call “seeing”, with the promise, the possibility of transformation? Is it mysterious in fact? And does it have degrees of clarity? Does seeing have any precursors, are there any conditions to it? Why is it there at one moment and not at another? Does it have ANY relationship with thought?

Here is a quote from K that struck me forcibly this morning. Most things strike one forcibly when the mind is fresh, alert, when one is really listening, and habit does not have one in its grip, don’t they?

Silence, the movement of silence, is the only field in which there is a change; that is the only constant state from which change can take place.

Is it that this silence is the only place that seeing can come from?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 02 Feb 2019 #81
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1108 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
I take the point that time is the great enemy of seeing.

Psychological time : past, present, future is what we have invented. In what sense is it an "enemy"? The other creatures around us 'live', period. We reflect, remember, imagine. And with those possibilities come, regret, remorse, fear, suffering, pleasure, excitement, hope, etc. We can not be like them. But maybe there is some 'thing' beyond this 'prison' of time that is possible for us to discover? That can "set us free"? A radical transformation? Transformation to what? To be as "nothing" (not-a-thing)? Is 'time' the "enemy" or just an 'illusion' that we live in?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 02 Feb 2019 #82
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4831 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Psychological time : past, present, future is what we have invented. In what sense is it an "enemy"?

I simply meant that when the mind is caught up in time, it cannot see what is, it cannot be present. But having written that, I am asking myself if the very essence of the mind IS time, and can it function outside of time at all?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 03 Feb 2019 #83
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2437 posts in this forum Offline

Dan: Is 'time' the "enemy" or just an 'illusion' that we live in?

Clive wrote that it’s the enemy of seeing.....in the sense that it interferes. I would add that it’s a barrier to self knowledge...of understanding. And a barrier to relationship...to understanding one another. So in that sense it is an enemy. Would there be war without time interfering in relationship?

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 03 Feb 2019 #84
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1108 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
I simply meant that when the mind is caught up in time, it cannot see what is, it cannot be present.

From 'freedom', isn't psychological 'thought/time', the attempt to continue the 'self' image, the 'I process'? To keep it going no matter what? But no matter what 'barriers', walls it erects in its search for 'security', it can never make itself totally 'safe'. Life will always throw something else at it...because the only true 'security' lies in being 'nothing', it seems to me. Nothing to defend, nothing psychological to protect, nothing to fear not being able to hold onto, nothing to 'keep'...seen in this way 'self-knowledge' is the seeing and negating each moment of the total process which causes the fear, the anxiety, the pursuit and the search...all of which involve 'time', the time psychologically to get from here to there...but freedom is 'timeless', no constraints.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 03 Feb 2019 #85
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4831 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
From 'freedom', isn't psychological 'thought/time', the attempt to continue the 'self' image, the 'I process'? To keep it going no matter what? But no matter what 'barriers', walls it erects in its search for 'security', it can never make itself totally 'safe'. Life will always throw something else at it

I have been looking at the truth in this last sentence a lot lately. I have taken the issue up with “perfectly ordinary people”, not perhaps given to reflection, but they instantly recognise that it is a fact, that no matter how carefully one tries to plan the future, life comes along and disturbs things. Certainly this has been the case in “one’s own life”. I can’t fully explain this, but it is very very interesting,

Dan McDermott wrote:
.because the only true 'security' lies in being 'nothing', it seems to me. Nothing to defend, nothing psychological to protect, nothing to fear not being able to hold onto, nothing to 'keep'...seen in this way 'self-knowledge' is the seeing and negating each moment of the total process which causes the fear, the anxiety, the pursuit and the search...all of which involve 'time', the time psychologically to get from here to there...but freedom is 'timeless', no constraints.

Seen another way, this process is the (imaginary) self, the thinker, the controller (attempted control), the censure-er arising in the mind in reaction to the thought/feeling, is it not? The thinker is never satisfied with what thought is (ie, thought is never satisfied with itself). This movement is the only thing that needs to be negated – which means the negation of the very self itself.

Of course thought, no matter what its guise, cannot “do” this negation. Any attempted action on part of thought is the very continuation of the self. Is this not the human quandary? And the only worth-while challenge?

This implies the ending of duality, the ending of conflict.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 04 Feb 2019 #86
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4831 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
This movement is the only thing that needs to be negated – which means the negation of the very self itself.

And it comes to me that this negation is the only action that is not caught up in time. In fact, it is the negation of time.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 61 - 86 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.)