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

Theory of Life (2014)


Displaying posts 31 - 60 of 90 in total
Mon, 01 Jul 2019 #31
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2640 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Arising from the understanding that absolutely nothing can be 'done'

Nothing. No “except....”. That ‘nothing’ is the end of the search, isn’t it?

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 01 Jul 2019 #32
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5099 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:

Tom Paine wrote:

When it’s realized that there is only the noise, then ‘I’ don’t act on ‘it’/myself, right?

Yes that would be just a continuation of the 'noise', wouldn't it?... The 'action' of 'allowing' oneself to be seen is a 'non-action'. Arising from the understanding that absolutely nothing can be 'done' except the 'choiceless awareness' of the 'totality' of oneself.

Yes. The self trying to act on thought, on itself, is merely resistance, battle. The only thing it achieves is conflict and delusion. And yet this is the credo of society. it is insane.

As you say Dan, all this points towards the absolute necessity of passive awareness. Yet I sometimes wonder if the mind has ever deeply experienced this state To quote Tom's signature, if it has ever "let it be" :-)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 01 Jul 2019 #33
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5099 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote #23:
What are we describing with words like : awareness, compassion, intelligence, love, wisdom, etc if not energy or vibrations or whatever you want to call them, of a 'higher' or different 'frequency' say? ('Mind'?) This 'frequency' is available and can be 'received', by a properly functioning, sane, human (and perhaps some other mammal's) brain.
But it's not received (except perhaps partially as 'insights') because of all the things we are talking about here : the self-image, the 'continuous 'noise' of thought: beliefs, ideals, fear, psychological suffering and conflict ,anxiety , becoming, greed,... In other words, the 'contents of consciousness' 'block out' the 'transmission' of 'Love'.

This sounds reasonable. If awareness, compassion, intelligence, love, wisdom, etc, are actually vibrations, then presumably they are associated with some field, like light is associated with an electro-magnetic field. And this suggests the possibility that the field and waves could actually be detected by scientific methods.

Even if this possible, would it have significance? i am inclined to say that I doubt it, since it seems that knowledge of any form is incapable of transforming the brain/mind. But one should remain open. I remember K once asked if instead of all the probing into matter that science does, could it not concern itself "with the other". Something like that.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 01 Jul 2019 #34
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5099 posts in this forum Offline

Manfred Kritzler wrote #15:
https://images.app.goo.gl/HYPMhh2wJTAKSKLx6

The last two minutes of the video are for me in this connection the most interesting one.

For me this link goes to still images, not a video.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 01 Jul 2019 #35
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2640 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Even if this possible, would it have significance? i am inclined to say that I doubt it, since it seems that knowledge of any form is incapable of transforming the brain/mind.

It seems so to me as well, Clive. Knowledge/thought can never touch that which is totally beyond thought....God, the infinite, the ground, love..the timeless. It’s a whole other realm and it’s a fools game for thought to try.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Mon, 01 Jul 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 01 Jul 2019 #36
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5099 posts in this forum Offline

Manfred Kritzler wrote:
Manfred: Yes it does. I have fallen again in the “understand-trap“. In German „verstehen“ (understand) means something which we have understood could be explained to others. In English it seems to me that the word “understand” is much more open. Is it correct that „understand“ could be something which is subjectively received and understood but could not explained in a causal logical way?

I'm glad that you bought up this issue, Manfred.The meaning of "understand" and "understanding" has been puzzling me a lot. I started a thread on it some time ago, but I don't feel that it has produced any great - understanding.

"Understand" must be one of the most commonly used words by K, if not the MOST common. As we know, through his 60 years of speaking, he has emphasised the necessity of understanding oneself, understanding thought, feeling, desire, fear ..... and so on. But what does it mean, to understand? One thing I feel fairly confident about is that it does not mean to draw a conclusion about something. Conclusions invariable come into conflict with other conclusions, and the result is confusion. So it seems that we can reject the past as a source of understanding. Whatever it is, it cannot be accumulated.

And to look to the future, to tell oneself that I WILL understand, seems self-deceptive and wishful thinking.

So is understanding always in the present? Is it akin to insight?

Feeling rather tired at the moment, and so I will it there for now, hoping someone will come in to the inquiry. But another question appears - in understanding, what ever it is, is there an understander?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 01 Jul 2019 #37
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 704 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote at #19:
Is he saying that it is “not enough” to be passively aware of one’s mind, of oneself, and one must also “probe” into thought/oneself? Is this probing a different process? What does it mean, “to probe”? Is it an active process? Is it to use the capacity of thought to reason?

Isn’t probing a wordless movement which spontaneously arises as the brain encounters something which it does not comprehend? As long as it is not in a vegetative state, it spontaneously starts questioning wordlessly, observing, examining a thing which challenges, puzzles or disturbs it. In questioning, observing, probing, the brain is its own tool or instrument. In the field of science, the brain has extended its powers of observation and probing through tools and instruments of its own design but even then, it is still fundamentally the tool of probing, questioning, observation.

For example, if I see in the distance a dark object on the ground, I spontaneously want (the brain spontaneously wants) to understand what it is. Is the dark object moving, is it alive, an animal, a human being, a coat…..? Similarly, if the brain encounters a problem or challenge in relationship, it wants to understand it, to make sense of it. That is part of being human, isn’t it?

There can be no probing without attention. If I “see” without “seeing” - if there is only superficial awareness, sensory perception without that mysterious quality of attention - then the “seeing” is merely registered or recorded by the brain without questioning or probing arising ... as I “see” it.

:o)

In order to understand anything, clearly it is necessary to observe it - not merely to register the sensory perception. And in order to observe anything, it is necessary for thought to be still. I cannot understand a child, for example, if I don’t take care to truly observe him - not merely register his activities. To understand this is part of the natural capability of the human brain, part of being human, isn’t it? The brain understands this very fact through self-observation - that I (the brain) cannot observe myself or anything else if there is no break or interval in thinking, interpreting, concluding, desiring, willing myself to to achieve, and so on.

So looking attentively at all the facets of a fact - not merely registering it sensorily - without interpreting it or making any effort to repress or change it - isn’t this probing?

This post was last updated by Huguette . Mon, 01 Jul 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 01 Jul 2019 #38
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2640 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Isn’t probing a wordless movement which spontaneously arises as the brain encounters something which it does not comprehend?

If probing is wordless, how would you differentiate it from K’s ‘choiceless awareness’? Why would he use ‘probing’ instead of simply ‘observing’?

As long as it is not in a vegetative state, it spontaneously starts questioning wordlessly, observing, examining a thing which challenges, puzzles or disturbs it. In questioning, observing, probing, the brain is its own tool or instrument.

Here again it’s not clear....questioning is not totally wordless...or is it? If I’m facing a difficult problem in life, my mind is not normally silent. There’s questioning yes, but thought is involved. If my mind was silent from the very beginning, there wouldn’t be any problem or conflict, would there? A conflict is always between two or more thoughts, images, ideas or ideals...wanting or not wanting...often unconscious. Isn’t questioning and probing different than silently observing?

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Mon, 01 Jul 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 01 Jul 2019 #39
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 704 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
If probing is wordless, how would you differentiate it from K’s ‘choiceless awareness’? Why would he use ‘probing’ instead of simply ‘observing’?

Tom Paine wrote:
...questioning is not totally wordless...or is it? If I’m facing a difficult problem in life, my mind is not normally silent. There’s questioning yes, but thought is involved. If my mind was silent from the very beginning, there wouldn’t be any problem or conflict, would there?

Tom, I don’t see awareness and probing as one and the same. Nor do I see them as separate. Perhaps more as facets of one “thing”. Don’t take my word for it though (I know you wouldn’t)! I’m just probing. I’m not claiming to know.

There is not always probing in choiceless awareness, is there? Probing arises when there is awareness of something which is not understood, not clear, as in the example I gave of a dark object seen in the distance, or the “misbehaviour” of a child. So it seems to me.

"The thing" - the puzzlement, the lack of clarity - is there before the word, isn't it? As I see it, it is. There can be puzzlement or misunderstanding without inner or outer conflict. If a child "acts up", I'm not all-knowing. Observation is still necessary in order to understand, isn't it?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 02 Jul 2019 #40
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5099 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:

Isn’t probing a wordless movement which spontaneously arises as the brain encounters something which it does not comprehend?

Huguette, I think you miss one other reaction of the mind to a new challenge, that of ignoring it, shying away from it, denying it, pretending it is not there, if it threatens to be disturbing. I’m afraid such a response is all too common. So when you say “Similarly, if the brain encounters a problem or challenge in relationship, it wants to understand it, to make sense of it. That is part of being human, isn’t it?”, I feel that is not the whole story. However, if it happens in oneself, this avoidance, this denial, one can, perhaps, be aware of such a movement, of the germ of the movement, and that in itself is a sort of probing, is it not? Or at least an invitation to probe.

You say probing is a wordless movement. Is that always so? Obviously when one is in discussion with others words must play a part, - yet those words may perhaps be a response to the basic wordless probing. Then the words are just a tool to communicate.

I am not seeing at the moment why words, formulations, cannot be an instrument of probing. I am wondering if inquiry starts with words, and then moves deeper into this wordless observation?

Certainly it is so, that “There can be no probing without attention”. I would add that there is no attention with condemnation, judgement, any form of (attempt to) control, no?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 02 Jul 2019 #41
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5099 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
The brain understands this very fact through self-observation - that I (the brain) cannot observe myself or anything else if there is no break or interval in thinking, interpreting, concluding, desiring, willing myself to to achieve, and so on.

But is it not also true that in order to be still, there must be observation of the noise?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 02 Jul 2019 #42
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2640 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
But is it not also true that in order to be still, there must be observation of the noise?

For most of us, the noise is there. To try to deny it only intensifies it. Our neighbor or spouse does something that causes an intense feeling of anger or confusion or self defense. There is the fact of the anger...the noise, and attending to the noise, not trying to eliminate anything. It's me...what is....and the attempt to do something about it is more noise. So one looks at it....'lets it be' ....lets it tell its story. I apologize...I've probably gone off the topic of probing. Huguette made some interesting points about that, and I want to look more closely at her message when I have more time.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Tue, 02 Jul 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 02 Jul 2019 #43
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 704 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote at 40:
I think you miss one other reaction of the mind to a new challenge, that of ignoring it, shying away from it, denying it, pretending it is not there, if it threatens to be disturbing. I’m afraid such a response is all too common.

Of course, that is a fact - denial, repression, pretense, and so on.

What we are doing right now is probing into “probing”, isn’t it? There is probing because there is non-understanding.

“The function of the mind is to probe and understand. ...
“The function of the mind is not only to probe, to delve, but also to be silent.” (from the quote at #19)

Love, intelligence, awareness, probing, silence, understanding, energy, space, matter, order, and so on, are inseparable, as I see it. Facets of the mysterious ground. Wordless although words arise in them.

When the mind doesn’t understand something, that non-understanding awakens probing, as I see it. Isn't the very “not-understanding something" awakened where there is caring, alertness, attention? The root of all these inner actions - the interest, the caring, the attention, the not-understanding, the probing - is NOT intellectual. They arise out of silence … out of ‘nowhere and nothing’, don't they? There is no effort in the awakening of probing, of understanding, interest, caring - so no division. They arise spontaneously, effortlessly, as I see it.

If probing is ROOTED in thought, that’s not probing - just as love that is rooted in thought is not love, just as awareness is not thought but there is awareness of thought. In probing (or love), words might arise spontaneously to express, to communicate, but the essence or root of probing itself is not thought, as I see it.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 02 Jul 2019 #44
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 704 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
...the noise is there. To try to deny it only intensifies it.

Yes, the noise IS there! Denial itself is part of the noise. And the mind/brain doesn’t understand it. Therefore there is silent probing, observation, care. It is not the anger, the noise, the confusion, the frustration that is probing. It is “nothing”. Where the light of understanding arises, the probing of that particular “why” effortlessly ends, doesn’t it?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 02 Jul 2019 #45
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2640 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Yes, the noise IS there! Denial itself is part of the noise. And the mind/brain doesn’t understand it. Therefore there is silent probing, observation, care.

I can see that thinking is not the same as observing, yes. An obvious example would be the observation of a beautiful flower. If I'm thinking ...labeling....remembering...distracted...I'm not really observing the flower... or the tree or the bird, whatever. The difficulty comes in when there's anger or confusion due to a strong emotion and I want to observe...to understand what's going on...what it's all about. That is, there's noise... the noise of many thoughts which trigger more thoughts... not silence....not observing. What brings about silent observing? I guess it appears I'm looking for a method of dealing with the strong conflict one is facing, and K has said a million times, there is none.

It is not the anger, the noise, the confusion, the frustration that is probing. It is “nothing”.

And there's nothing I...the noise...effort...thought...can do to bring about the probing or observing. This must be clear, or else I'll create more noise/conflict...the noise of effort and division. So I must understand what this 'I' actually is. This 'me' who wants to do something about the problem he's facing....who feels he can analyze or control...or understand the problem intellectually. This 'me' who is consciousness. It appears you are using probing to mean the same as observing.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 02 Jul 2019 #46
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 704 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
It appears you are using probing to mean the same as observing.

There can be awareness, observation, attention, perception, and so on, without probing. When the flower or beauty or love is observed, there is no probing is there? Probing arises where there is non-understanding. Where there is non-understanding and there is alertness, observation, awareness, observation, perception of that non-understanding, there is probing, as I see it.

Added: ... probing which is not engendered by thought, which comes from "nothing".

This post was last updated by Huguette . Tue, 02 Jul 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 02 Jul 2019 #47
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2640 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Where there is non-understanding and there is alertness, observation, awareness, observation, perception of that non-understanding, there is probing, as I see it.

The part in bold could be said about the observation of a flower too. Will have to look further into this....still not clear about the term probing, but I do understand the rest of what you've been saying on the topic. I just can't quite differentiate probing from the part in bold....observing.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 02 Jul 2019 #48
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1311 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
probing which is not engendered by thought, which comes from "nothing".

This word 'probe' means to go into, to see what is there...this is the 'tool' of thought isn't it? To take things apart and see what 'makes them tick"? So valuable to us a tool for survival and exploration, science, medicine...but what is 'probing' in the psyche? Is that where this 'gift' belongs? We can take ourselves apart psychologically endlessly, can't we? Psychiatry, psychoanalysis ...probing to find the cause of the 'problem'. Is it a wrong use of the 'tool'? I don't know, am just asking...Is it that the 'contents of consciousness' can be endlessly probed and the very probing is what keeps 'the noise' alive?

But if the contents along with consciousness disappear, then there would be nothing there to 'probe'?

When I am jealous or envious and there is not a running away from that sensation, is it necessary to probe? I have compared myself, or attached myself to another and I don't 'measure up' or someone looks at another and 'I' suffer. What is there to probe, there is an 'understanding' that the 'suffering' is 'lawful', as 'when it rains the street gets wet' and it is finished isn't it?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Tue, 02 Jul 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 02 Jul 2019 #49
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 704 posts in this forum Offline

Dan,

I’m peacefully going about my day and suddenly, words I spoke earlier are violently remembered and peace is shattered - there is self-recrimination and blame, anxiety, fear, and “how could I have done that?” The unfolding of the whole thing is observed and not understood - peace, then sudden remembering, then self-condemnation and anxiety. So there is the probing of it all.

I’m peacefully sitting at home, and there is no probing of anything. Then I smell smoke, and there is non-understanding of it and probing into it.

I’m sitting in a boat on a peaceful lake, and there is no probing at all. Then I notice a leak and there is non-understanding of its origin, severity and implications, and probing into it.

My child feels a pain in his leg, and I must probe his leg to understand where the pain is. And so on. No?

So probing is not just for understanding consciousness, is it?

Non-understanding is not an idea; probing - "the thing" - is not the tool of thought, it is not desire, will, fear, as I see it. Is it the action of intelligence?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 02 Jul 2019 #50
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1311 posts in this forum Offline

Probing takes place when there is a 'desire' to know what is going on. That is the motive behind any probing... With 'choiceless observation' or 'understanding' (as in being 'under', 'being with') there is no desire, it is not a movement of the self...probing is a 'search', it takes 'time' to uncover what is being probed.

The way I see 'understanding' is that it is not something that comes as a result of what the probing has found but is a 'state' that is timeless and nonjudgmental and nonanaltical? There is no 'understander'. Understanding is always in the immediate 'now'?.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Tue, 02 Jul 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 02 Jul 2019 #51
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2640 posts in this forum Offline

I’m peacefully sitting at home, and there is no probing of anything. Then I smell smoke, and there is non-understanding of it and probing into it.

Sure, and I start to think, ‘Did I leave something cooking on the kitchen stove.’ ‘Where is the smoke coming from? I better get off my butt and go look.’

I’m sitting in a boat on a peaceful lake, and there is no probing at all. Then I notice a leak and there is non-understanding of its origin, severity and implications, and probing into it.

Thinking what might be causing it.

That’s how I’m seeing it anyway, I may be missing your point about probing wordlessly.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 02 Jul 2019 #52
Thumb_avatar Manfred Kritzler Germany 25 posts in this forum Offline

Clive:
„Understand" must be one of the most commonly used words by K, if not the MOST common. As we know, through his 60 years of speaking, he has emphasised the necessity of understanding oneself, understanding thought, feeling, desire, fear ..... and so on. But what does it mean, to understand? One thing I feel fairly confident about is that it does not mean to draw a conclusion about something. Conclusions invariable come into conflict with other conclusions, and the result is confusion. So it seems that we can reject the past as a source of understanding. Whatever it is, it cannot be accumulated.

Manfred:
To understand what „understand“ means is really difficult. In addition to that Krishnamurti changed very often the meaning of words in his own interpretation (for instance meditation).

So it seems only possible for me to talk about my subjective interpretation, which has no claim that this is in any form obligatory for any one else.

To “understand” in the sense of the German word “verstehen” means for me something which can be grasped or is limited to something else.

To “understand” in the way I think it is used by Krishnamurti is different. It also encompasses what we experience beyond the limitations of thought.
In a short provocative form: To understand is not to understand. Like the observer is the observed. Both is causal-logical a paradox.

Or in a more comprehensible way: Understanding means that life as a inseparable whole is always active, but can only be grasped in a limited way. The limited grasping is also included in the inseparable whole.

The understanding is here, that there is not a whole and a part, but that whole and part are present at the same time, but only the part can be recognized.

Understanding in this interpretation cannot be expressed correctly, because any expression has to use parts (the word is not the thing).

The whole cannot be recognized. It is an assumption. But seeing its parts, constructed by the human mind, without changing it (the seeing is the doing) might be „understanding“ in the „best“ way. In this way there is no understander. It is for me the same as choiceless awareness.

For me, understanding means here to be one with the whole it doesn’t matter what I am aware of as long as I am aware. And also this awareness cannot be forced through any will, intention or action. It comes and goes without being pushed.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 02 Jul 2019 #53
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 649 posts in this forum Offline

Manfred Kritzler wrote:
For me, understanding means here to be one with the whole it doesn’t matter what I am aware of as long as I am aware. And also this awareness cannot be forced through any will, intention or action. It comes and goes without being pushed.

What then is awareness?

And what it that is aware?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 02 Jul 2019 #54
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 649 posts in this forum Offline

And also what is the I that you refer to in the quote above?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 03 Jul 2019 #55
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5099 posts in this forum Offline

Manfred Kritzler wrote:
For me, understanding means here to be one with the whole

Wonderful!

Yes, I have been puzzling over the separation implied by statements like "I have understood". How can there be understanding if there remains an entity apart from the understanding? I think you have put it perfectly, Manfred.

And "oneness with the whole" explains the joy that comes with pure understanding.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 03 Jul 2019 #56
Thumb_avatar Manfred Kritzler Germany 25 posts in this forum Offline

Peter:
What then is awareness?
And what it that is aware?
And also what is the I that you refer to in the quote above?

Manfred:
Between awareness, what is aware and what we are aware of is no difference anymore. In the widened meaning of understanding they are one.
The „I“ is for me a differentiation of the whole like the finger is a differentiation of the hand and the hand of the body. But it is not separate, because it cannot survive separately.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 03 Jul 2019 #57
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2640 posts in this forum Offline

Manfred Kritzler wrote:
Between awareness, what is aware and what we are aware of is no difference anymore.

That's the true meaning of 'oneness' isn't it? No division. "The universe is a seamless whole", David Bohm

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Wed, 03 Jul 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 03 Jul 2019 #58
Thumb_avatar Manfred Kritzler Germany 25 posts in this forum Offline

Clive: Yes, I have been puzzling over the separation implied by statements like "I have understood". How can there be understanding if there remains an entity apart from the understanding? I think you have put it perfectly, Manfred.

And "oneness with the whole" explains the joy that comes with pure understanding.

————-
I think that the problem is that usually understanding excludes the understander. In thinking we do not start with the first level of unity, which includes the thinker. We start with the second level
which is the world of the „ten thousand“ things, created by the thinker. So we try to bring together something which is already united. We do it with science, religion, myth, esoteric etc., starting from the complicated (variation) going to the simple (unity).

When we turn it around starting from the first (simple) level, unity is always active, no matter what we think or do. The unknown, the pathless land, the implicate order is always with us. We are unlimited beings (we are the world), although our ability to recognize is limited.

Only when we live in the limitations of our „thought-jail“ and never experience the „first level“, we are living a very restricted life.

To be aware of this restrictions means for me to be aware of the known. To be aware of the known without changing it is to trust in the unknown. The known and the unknown belong together. In Bohm terms the explicate order is embedded in the implicate order.
His model, in which the explicate falls back in the implicate and emanates again in the explicate is a very descriptive way, of making understandable what is going on without using a change from A to B. In a certain way it is a timeless state, because falling back in the implicate and emanating in the explicate does for me not mean time. It happens as one undivided process. Only to explain it needs a differentiation.

And yes, most importantly the joy that comes with this kind of understanding is incredible. But to let it emanate was and still is a big challenge for me. Especially because the necessary acceptance of falling back in the old patterns is difficult, knowing that the new understanding is so joyful. To get something without wanting it is still a “big deal” for me.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 03 Jul 2019 #59
Thumb_avatar Manfred Kritzler Germany 25 posts in this forum Offline

Hi Clive,
here again the link to Augusto Shantena Sabbadini. I met him several times in the “pari center for new learning” in Pari/Italy.For me his explanation as unspectacular it is as clear it seems to me. Hopefully this time it will work:

https://youtu.be/-dKaok_CV7s

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 04 Jul 2019 #60
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5099 posts in this forum Offline

Manfred Kritzler wrote:
The „I“ is for me a differentiation of the whole like the finger is a differentiation of the hand and the hand of the body. But it is not separate, because it cannot survive separately.

That's nicely put.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 31 - 60 of 90 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.)