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

What is this Life?


Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 71 in total
Wed, 28 Aug 2019 #1
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5194 posts in this forum Offline

In the QOTD Krishnamurti talks of “the love of life”. What is this life? I have been trying to put some thoughts/feelings about 'life' down in words for some days, but so far have failed – I think because I am trying to express something quite new to me.

I think most people at times feel that life is somehow influencing them, interacting directly with them – at least they say this. I suppose one could say we 'personify' life. Is there any truth behind this notion? As far as I can see, this 'personified life' is very akin to the concept of God, if not identical.

We commonly say, feel, that life is presenting us personally with a challenge. I myself have often felt that life will always present me with the challenges that I need. (Although I can see that if we ARE facing a challenge, then it MUST be the challenge we need to face- because we have not yet understood the challenge. I don't know if I am making myself clear?).

Yes, the feeling that life “deliberately” creates situations in our life that we need to learn about is strong within me. Although that word “deliberately” is probably entirely wrong. Perhaps it is a matter of balance – when there is unbalance, as there obviously is, perhaps there is a “restoring force”, a natural movement of the universe to restore balance. And after all, I am part of that universe. Of course I must also be a part of life. But given the nature of the mind, the self, such a statement needs investigation.

For the moment, let us imagine, accept, that life has brought us into a new situation, has created a new challenge for us. Say, for example, a new relationship with a person. So we faced with a new challenge, or a series of challenges. Two points: firstly, I do have a strong feeling that life is INTERESTED, concerned, with how the challenge is met. And secondly, How I meet those challenges is MY responsibility. Not the responsibility of life, but somehow mine. I am aware that such statements seems to separate me from 'life'.

So what is the nature of this responsibility? I am feeling that if I merely respond as people have responded before, if I respond according to the past, then life is just not interested in that. But if I respond with originality, creativity, then life IS interested. And from there life will play an active part in our life. Because life IS always creative, it is always “moving forward”, experimenting

Gosh, dare I say that we are here to be used by life? That that is the purpose of life?

I don't know if other people ever feel the same way about life?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 01 Sep 2019 #2
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5194 posts in this forum Offline

Some disappointment was felt that no has taken up this question with me. I am by no means clear about what I am saying, asking, and sometimes it helps to discuss with others.

Of course it is entirely possibly that the idea of life intervening “personally” in our lives – I won’t use the word “guiding”, it is not appropriate – is precisely that, an idea, pure imagination. But the fact remains I feel strongly it has happened with
me, at various points in my life. And if this is so, is it not of great significance?

I am not suggesting that we just sit back and wait for some entity we call “Life” to come along and do our psychological work for us.I am not suggesting that “life” can make all our decisions for us, can solve all our problems. I am not suggesting that we try to develop a “personal relationship” with life – that sounds too similar to the concept of “God”.

I started to wonder if K has made any statements about this. At first I couldn’t think of amything, but then I remembered this:

"Sir, life is very strange. The moment you are very clear about what you want to do, things happen. Life comes to your aid - a friend, a relation, a teacher, a grandmother, somebody helps you"

This is from “Think on these things”, chapter 15

Later on he makes this statement:

“When you really stand against the popular demand then you are an individual and life comes to your aid.”

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 2 readers
Back to Top
Mon, 02 Sep 2019 #3
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5194 posts in this forum Offline

I wanted to post this quote, from 1930, and because of the reference to 'life', I felt this thread was appropriate. K says that life is in all things:

Questioner:
Why do you maintain that Life has no purpose? If Life has no purpose, the individual life, even in pure being, can have no purpose either; because individual perfection can have a meaning only when there is a purpose in creation.

KRISHNAMURTI:
Life by which I mean, that life which is truth, in which there is no division, in which all things consummate, on which all things depend, in which all things exist that life has no purpose, because it is.

For that which is, there cannot be a purpose, because it is all inclusive. In that exist both time and space, and individual existence; but individual existence, in which totality is not yet realized, has a purpose. That purpose is the realization of this totality.

Individuality is not an end in itself because individuality is imperfection. It is burdened with incompleteness; and so the magnification of that individuality, to however great a degree, will still remain individuality. That which is imperfect cannot by magnification or multiplication be made perfect.

So the true purpose of individual existence is to realize this unity of things, this reality, in which there is no sense of object and subject, “you” and “I”, in which there are no reactions, but only the sense of pure being which is positive, dynamic. (When I use the word “positive”, I do not exclude the negative). This life is in all things in this table, as in the most highly cultured (hu)man.

But the individual in whom there is separation, in whom there is distinction of object and subject, in whom there is division, because of his limitation, his imperfection, must fulfill himself in perfection, in incorruptibility.

Therefore individual existence has a purpose, but life has no purpose

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 03 Sep 2019 #4
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2712 posts in this forum Offline

Thanks for the excerpt Clive! Been super busy so haven't participated much lately. But still visit the forum and read fairly regularly. As I hope others do. I find it has great value...purpose :)

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 03 Sep 2019 #5
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1386 posts in this forum Offline

By imparting 'significance' to things, ideas, beliefs, etc., we separate the world into the significant and the insignificant...at the level of'survival' it makes sense but psychologically it creates division..is this not so?

This may be all wrong of course

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 03 Sep 2019 #6
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 733 posts in this forum Offline

Dan,

Clearly, imparting significance produces illusory divisions and conflict. Such intellectual significance is rooted in thought, effort, time, experience, knowledge, bias, etc., isn’t it?

But there is actual significance which is not ascribed by the intellect. Can’t one just observe and understand the significance of belief, ideas, ideals, fear, effort, pretense, and so on, without willfully “ascribing” significance to them? One observes that beliefs cause division and conflict. Observation is not an intellectual process. Observation does not create division and conflict.

Isn’t there a factual difference between “imparting” significance and “understanding” significance? To impart significance is to conclude - that belief and ideals are the source of conflict, for example. Having imparted significance, one may try to repress the belief or ideal as it arises. And so by imparting significance, one misses their actual significance as well as the movement of repression. That is, by imparting significance, awareness of “what is” is lost.

One might be faced with a challenge or a problem and not know what to do about it. Not knowing what to do, one can simply face it, observe it inwardly and outwardly, not make any effort in any direction to resolve it. And it might be observed that life, intelligence or some other unknown factor acts or “intervenes”, as Clive put it, and the challenge or problem is resolved. No significance is attributed to this. To attribute a significance to it would be to “turn it into an experience” or to incorporate it into consciousness, wouldn’t it?

I don’t know if I’m being clear. I also may be “all wrong of course”.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 03 Sep 2019 #7
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1386 posts in this forum Offline

My aversions and attractions have great significance for me. They define me. But if it is true that we are indeed, in essence one mind, then it is a prison that I am in. And the only thing that is truly 'significant' for me as a human is to realize that 'unity of mind'...there may be a greater 'purpose' beyond freedom from suffering but I can't know what that is.

This may be all wrong of course

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 04 Sep 2019 #8
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2712 posts in this forum Offline

Clive: Yes, the feeling that life “deliberately” creates situations in our life that we need to learn about is strong within me. Although that word “deliberately” is probably entirely wrong. Perhaps it is a matter of balance – when there is unbalance, as there obviously is, perhaps there is a “restoring force”, a natural movement of the universe to restore balance. And after all, I am part of that universe. Of course I must also be a part of life. But given the nature of the mind, the self, such a statement needs investigation.

Yes indeed it does, IMO. I do question what you wrote, as if life is purposely creating such miserable situations that so many find themselves in....the poverty or homelessness or violence one is confronted with. Is this kind of thing an example of the purpose of life? Does+life create misery for man so he will learn? The horrible situations that lead to alcoholism or suicide or mental illness? I think k was asked about the existence of God once, and he replied that if there is a God he must be an insane got to create such immense suffering for man.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 04 Sep 2019 #9
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5194 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
I do question what you wrote, as if life is purposely creating such miserable situations that so many find themselves in....the poverty or homelessness or violence one is confronted with. Is this kind of thing an example of the purpose of life? Does+life create misery for man so he will learn?

A few days ago I shared the perceptions expressed in my first post above with a friend. She has been in a wheelchair for over 40 years due to a spinal injury, and faces only increasing degeneration and pain. And she was indignantly against what I said, rejecting the idea that life had sent her all that suffering in order that she should "learn", whatever that means.

And indeed I do not think that I have ever said this. Surely it is clear that overwhelmingly mankind does such a good job of creating its own suffering - both outward and inward - that it has no need of any help at all from some nebulous quality called "life"? (Although K has said that suffering is a "wake up call")

No, it seems that mankind has devoted most of his energy and ingenuity to trying to make himself independent of life, to forge his own way. He has tried to push life further and further away. Perhaps there was a certain amount of necessity in this movement, if he was to fulfil his purpose. But most likely in that process he has destroyed himself.

But obviously life is something far vaster than the development of human beings on this little planet. The idea that we can live outside of it is ridiculous. But the question I have raised is this, perhaps: Is life indifferent to man's ignorance? I strongly feel that I have had many intimations that it is not. I think David Bohm raises a similar question in "The Ending of Time", but in terms of "The Ground of all Things" rather than life. I do not remember if any answer was forthcoming, but I may check it out again in the book.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 04 Sep 2019 #10
Thumb_open-uri20180717-8420-135f99u-0 Mina Martini Finland 262 posts in this forum Offline

Krishnamurti:>"Sir, life is very strange. The moment you are very clear about what you want to do, things happen. Life comes to your aid - a friend, a relation, a teacher, a grandmother, somebody helps you"

m: 'To be clear about what one wants to do' cannot be a desire of an ego, since there is no clarity in its contradictory desires.

To be totally clear and to act in that clarity means there is no inner division, so no experience of 'oneself' and 'life' as separate.

This means that one lives as the totality of life, which is intelligence, instead of a separate experiencer of ideas of life.

So, how could not this very totality, this intelligence, be completely connected, without seam or division, in the intelligence within you? -It is one and the same. How could all of life not be supporting, helping, moving as one with 'you' who IS all of life? The grandmother, friend, teacher, appear IN this wholeness that you all fundamentally are.

As much as this intelligence acts in us, that much one is aligned with the whole of life, letting life take care of one in unknown and unexpected ways without resistance (ego) coming in the way. One IS the unknown, the unexpected oneself, instead of things happening to an idea of oneself. Ultimately there is only intelligence in action.

This post was last updated by Mina Martini Wed, 04 Sep 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 04 Sep 2019 #11
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 733 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
My aversions and attractions have great significance for me. They define me. But if it is true that we are indeed, in essence one mind, then it is a prison that I am in. And the only thing that is truly 'significant' for me as a human is to realize that 'unity of mind'...there may be a greater 'purpose' beyond freedom from suffering but I can't know what that is.

Dan,

What do you mean by “realize” unity of mind? Do you mean to "achieve", or do you mean to "be aware of", to "understand"?

And by “unity of mind”, do you mean unity with “the one mind” or do you mean unity within “one’s personal mind”?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 04 Sep 2019 #12
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 733 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
But obviously life is something far vaster than the development of human beings on this little planet. The idea that we can live outside of it is ridiculous.

Wonderfully put, Clive. It reminds me of what Manfred had said in “Negative thinking” (#12):

When we ask what is absolutely necessary for the life the eagle lives, what could be put aside?

The tree, the wood, the prey of the eagle, the surrounding of the prey, the planet earth, our sun system, the milky way, the universe, the whole of existence?

So, on the one hand, one/I/the mind observes intimations of an actual “relationship” between my own observing mind (which is mankind’s mind) and what we variously call life, the Ground, God, the source of all things, and so on. A “relationship” --- meaning an actual contact or connection between me/mankind and life/the Ground, an actual flow of energy or “something” between us, connecting us.

And still, on the other hand, the personal mind questions these intimations and whether there really is such a connection or whether “life” is ultimately indifferent to man’s suffering, to your friend’s suffering. Is there an actual “something” that is not concocted by the personal mind?

Of course no one can answer that for me. No one can lead me to understanding. There is no certitude in these matters. Certitude is in the field of thought, and thought provides no sustenance. The limitations of thought are understood. So - being fully aware of all aspects of this burning question and of what I am experiencing - I understand that I have no choice but to leave it at that. Either the truth will reveal itself or it won't.

Like a bird wanting to perch on a branch, our mind wants to find certainty on which to perch. But to create certainty out of desire can only be a mistake, a delusion. No? No matter how strong our desire to understand or to find meaning, desire cannot lead us to truth, can it.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 05 Sep 2019 #13
Thumb_open-uri20151228-18124-1kyi3s7-0 Jose Roberto Moreira Brazil 70 posts in this forum Offline

Clive, it seems you read my thoughts. Very insteresting this subject. Will reply soon

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 05 Sep 2019 #14
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2712 posts in this forum Offline

Clive: rejecting the idea that life had sent her all that suffering in order that she should "learn", whatever that means.

And indeed I do not think that I have ever said this. Surely it is clear that overwhelmingly mankind does such a good job of creating its own suffering - both outward and inward - that it has no need of any help at all from some nebulous quality called "life"? (Although K has said that suffering is a "wake up call")

I see your point I think, Clive, and I’ve said something similar when my ‘significant other’ has asked why God created all her terrible suffering....especially as a (psychologically) abused and neglected child. It’s man and the sick society that creates most our suffering, not God. I mean, if I am a victim of violent crime or war, it’s not life that created war and crime, but the mind of man that’s responsible. Well perhaps we can question....what created the mind of man with all its violence and madness?

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 05 Sep 2019 #15
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 733 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
perhaps we can question....what created the mind of man with all its violence and madness

Tom,

Years ago, I heard this joke (more or less - I’m not good at remembering jokes): a woman looks into her friend’s baby carriage and exclaims, “What a beautiful baby!” The mother at once pulls out a photo of the baby and says, “That’s nothing. Wait till you see this photo!”

Don’t we in fact understand the disorder of the mind that is responsible for all the violence, hatred, conflict? (We have disagreed about this before.) Isn’t psychological fragmentation the factor that causes all the violence and madness? Doesn't psychological fragmentation lie in our belief in and attachment to the images, words, explanations and ideals we shape, in the jurisprudence, knowledge and experience we have accumulated, in the supposed social/legal/political evolution of the human mind, and so on?

Doesn't mankind believe that, to understand something, it is not enough to observe the thing itself, that truth does not lie in observing the thing itself? Don't we believe that truth lies in what we think and not in "what is" observed? Because of this, we - the human being, the mind, the thinker - can’t let things just BE what they are. Can we? We feel compelled to explain it, name it, mould an image of it, interpret it, memorialize it, analyze and debate it, and so on. Only then do we think that we understand it.

And based on our explanations, images, interpretations, and so on, we act - or rather, react. We think that our REactions are the actions which can solve the violence. But our reactions are part of the madness. No? Isn't seeing the violence and madness all the "explanation" we need? We can see and say that it all starts with conditioning in childhood - and that is not wrong. But do we have to keep on explaining it, breaking it down into a multitude of examples?

Does all the explaining and naming end it? Obviously not. Obviously, action is needed. But it must be the right action, a totally new action from a totally new source. Otherwise, we are bound to perpetuate the madness. No?

If I don’t know what to do and I face the fact that I really don’t know what to do, what can I do? If anything, isn’t it better not to act rather than to do the wrong thing, anything - out of the darkness of ignorance - based on the theory that any action is better than no action?

Nor am I saying that we should simply resign ourselves and learn to live with the violence, or close our eyes to it and pretend not to see it, or pretend that it doesn't bother us. To "do nothing" out of the clarity of observation - that is not resigning myself to the chaos, is it?

To “do nothing” doesn’t mean to escape “what is” through drugs, sex, gambling, shopping, hobbies, travels, work, and so on. To escape, to try to overthrow the government, to give lectures about corruption, to expose conspiracies --- those are reaction. No reaction, no "action" that is built on a foundation of knowledge, belief and experience can bring about a new, healthy society. Can it?

To do nothing in the face of the inner and outer chaos and in the face of my impotence to do anything about it, is actually a new kind of action. Is it? Maybe not.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 05 Sep 2019 #16
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2712 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Isn’t psychological fragmentation the factor that causes all the violence and madness? Doesn't psychological fragmentation lie in our belief in and attachment to the images, words, explanations and ideals we shape, in the jurisprudence, knowledge and experience we have accumulated, in the supposed social/legal/political evolution of the human mind, and so on?

Yes. It matters not whether this disorder was caused originally by life itself, but rather whether or not we can understand disorder as it manifests in ourselves and eliminate it.

Doesn't mankind believe that, to understand something, it is not enough to observe the thing itself, that truth does not lie in observing the thing itself?

Yes, we believe in the intellect....an intellectual understanding, which is based upon what society teaches us when we’re young....in college....church....books.

Don't we believe that truth lies in what we think and not in "what is" observed?

We don’t in fact actually observe....we name...label...compare...judge... and think we understand.

Because of this, we - the human being, the mind, the thinker - can’t let things just BE what they are. Can we? We feel compelled to explain it, name it, mould an image of it, interpret it, memorialize it, analyze and debate it, and so on. Only then do we think that we understand it.

Right.

And based on our explanations, images, interpretations, and so on, we act - or rather, react. We think that our REactions are the actions which can solve the violence. But our reactions are part of the madness. No?

Our reactions are part of the violence? Not quite clear on this point. Will return to it later....at work now.

Isn't seeing the violence and madness all the "explanation" we need? We can see and say that it all starts with conditioning in childhood - and that is not wrong. But do we have to keep on explaining it, breaking it down into a multitude of examples?

Does all the explaining and naming end it? Obviously not. Obviously, action is needed. But it must be the right action, a totally new action from a totally new source. Otherwise, we are bound to perpetuate the madness. No?

If I don’t know what to do and I face the fact that I really don’t know what to do, what can I do? If anything, isn’t it better not to act rather than to do the wrong thing, anything - out of the darkness of ignorance - based on the theory that any action is better than no action?

Nor am I saying that we should simply resign ourselves and learn to live with the violence, or close our eyes to it and pretend not to see it, or pretend that it doesn't bother us. To "do nothing" out of the clarity of observation - that is not resigning myself to the chaos, is it?

To “do nothing” doesn’t mean to escape “what is” through drugs, sex, gambling, shopping, hobbies, travels, work, and so on. To escape, to try to overthrow the government, to give lectures about corruption, to expose conspiracies --- those are reaction. No reaction, no "action" that is built on a foundation of knowledge, belief and experience can bring about a new, healthy society. Can it?

To do nothing in the face of the inner and outer chaos and in the face of my impotence to do anything about it, is actually a new kind of action. Is it? Maybe not.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Thu, 05 Sep 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 06 Sep 2019 #17
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 733 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Our reactions are part of the violence?

As I see it, any activity of thought in which there is fragmentation, pretense, contradiction, suppression, compulsion, effort, and so on, is inward violence. That is, there an inner battle taking place between various fragments, memories, ideals, desires, etc. - and “what is”.

As I see it, as long as I/you make efforts to use willpower in order to attain or accomplish, or to repress, suppress, control, avoid, escape, pretend, disregard “what is”, and so on --- that IS inward violence, violence to myself --- out of self-ignorance. And inner violence unavoidably expresses itself outwardly in relationship, doesn’t it? So I may not be as bad as the dictator in my violence, but inwardly, the same psychological processes operate. The mind is enslaved by these processes of ignorance, violence, fear.

And can a mind which is enslaved, tortured, conflicted discover Truth?

freedom is at the very beginning, not at the end

http://jiddu-krishnamurti.net/en/freedom-from-t...:

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 06 Sep 2019 #18
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2712 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
H: And based on our explanations, images, interpretations, and so on, we act - or rather, react. We think that our REactions are the actions which can solve the violence. But our reactions are part of the madness. No?

T: Our reactions are part of the violence? Not quite clear on this point.

I think I understand your point in the #17, but for some reason the image of a woman in congress that I admire came too mind. She seems to be fighting the good fight against all the corruption in Washington (U.S.) and on Wall Street, but I will look more closely at what you said about all our reactions being part of the problem....the mess we're trying to fix (in Washington our society, our marriage, or wherever). Can one take any outward political action that's not part of the corruption one is trying to fix...that is not also corrupted by our own inner conflict and division and violence....by the 'me'...the conditioned self?

H: "As I see it, as long as I/you make efforts to use willpower in order to attain or accomplish, or to repress, suppress, control, avoid, escape, pretend, disregard “what is”, and so on --- that IS inward violence, violence to myself --- out of self-ignorance. And inner violence unavoidably expresses itself outwardly"

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Fri, 06 Sep 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 06 Sep 2019 #19
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1386 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
What do you mean by “realize” unity of mind? Do you mean to "achieve", or do you mean to "be aware of", to "understand"?

Huguette

As I'm just seeing it, any attempt to 'join' the 'thinker' with 'thought' is conflict. Putting the thinker (me) together with 'my' thoughts requires an effort. What is actually happening is that the thinker has cleverly assumed that role of 'breaking through' the observer/observed duality in order to hopefully experience what it is like when that duality disappears: ('One-mind' or no-mind, unity of mind, etc.) So 'putting together' the thinker/me, with 'my' thought requires time as well as effort and is just another instance of the thinker attempting to modify thought. Only awareness of what is taking place now, it seems, is what is called for.

This may be all wrong of course

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Fri, 06 Sep 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 06 Sep 2019 #20
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 733 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
the image of a woman in congress that I admire came too mind. She seems to be fighting the good fight against all the corruption

What drives action? Is it fear, anger, hate, ambition, the desire to become, etc.? Is it something else altogether, something that is not rooted in thought? We cannot avoid action, can we. Life is action, whatever action is rooted in - love, hate, neglect, pettiness, a generous heart, active, passive, and so on. Whatever our station or circumstance in life, we cannot avoid acting, doing, relating. Can we?

I’m not saying that we "should not" fight the good fight. Such a decision would again be rooted in violence, wouldn't it. In many ways, K and so many others have fought the good fight, haven’t they? We don’t know what the good fight may look like. All we can know (i.e. observe) first-hand is what is driving us to action. Then it is that attention which acts. No?

This post was last updated by Huguette . Fri, 06 Sep 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 06 Sep 2019 #21
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 733 posts in this forum Offline

Dan,

I understand what you’re saying (#19).

It had seemed to me from your wording at #7 that you meant specifically "realizing unity with the one human mind". In either case (i.e. whether an effort is made to join the thinker with thought, or to join the individual mind with the one human mind), I also see it that such an effort is, as you say, conflictual.

This post was last updated by Huguette . Fri, 06 Sep 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 06 Sep 2019 #22
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2712 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
All we can know (i.e. observe) first-hand is what is driving us to action. Then it is that attention which acts. No?

True....I can't know what drives the congress person trying to 'fight the good fight'. There may be ambition there...anger...fear...intelligence...compassion...a combination of all that and more. I can't really know without speaking personally with them. But I can observe my own actions 'first hand', yes.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 06 Sep 2019 #23
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1386 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
I also see it that such an effort is, as you say, conflictual.

And going a bit deeper, it seems any motive or intention to 'realize' the thinker/thought duality brings in time...brings about the duality. Can the self be seen in the same way a flower is looked at or in a K. example, the microphone? Awareness of it without any motive? The 'difficulty' is not in the doing it but that the 'seeing (the awareness without any selfish motive or intent, desire) is swept away by the 'thinker'. Is that right? Is it that choiceless awareness is too simple when it comes to the self, too 'nothing'?...The complex self won't allow it to be present?...Always takes it over? And then the 'taking over' is not 'simply' seen as that and the thinker arises to condemn it and 'bring one back'...(Conflict) Don't know if I conveyed anything there.

From the QOTD today:(my bold)

" When there is no thinker observing, judging, moulding thought, but only choiceless awareness of the whole process of thinking, without any resistance, without battle, without conflict, then the thought process comes to an end."

This may be all wrong of course

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sat, 07 Sep 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 06 Sep 2019 #24
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5194 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
. And inner violence unavoidably expresses itself outwardly in relationship, doesn’t it? So I may not be as bad as the dictator in my violence, but inwardly, the same psychological processes operate.

And both add to sum total of violence in the human mind. From which future action will occur.

Or we don't, and we "burn up" some of that violence from the human mind.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 06 Sep 2019 #25
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5194 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Of course no one can answer that for me. No one can lead me to understanding. There is no certitude in these matters. Certitude is in the field of thought, and thought provides no sustenance. The limitations of thought are understood. So - being fully aware of all aspects of this burning question and of what I am experiencing - I understand that I have no choice but to leave it at that. Either the truth will reveal itself or it won't.

Like a bird wanting to perch on a branch, our mind wants to find certainty on which to perch. But to create certainty out of desire can only be a mistake, a delusion. No? No matter how strong our desire to understand or to find meaning, desire cannot lead us to truth, can it.

Thank you Huguette. This reaches the issue that has been burning within me for some time now.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 07 Sep 2019 #26
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 733 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Can the self be seen in the same way a flower is looked at ... ?

Just to be clear, don’t you mean that THOUGHT can be seen in the same way a flower or microphone can? The flower is THERE, the microphone is THERE, and thought/the word is THERE. By observing thought and emotion, the illusion of the thought/thinker duality is understood. It is understood that wherever the self seems to be “seen”, there is in fact only thought, memory, emotion. No?

https://kfoundation.org/what-is-compassion/
Krishnamurti in Bombay 1958, Talk 7:

“If the word is removed, what have you left?”


Dan McDermott wrote:
The 'difficulty' is not in the doing it ...

https://jkrishnamurti.org/content/series-iii-ch...

"It is difficult not to want to be certain about something."

Apart from mechanical certainties, is there any certainty at all, any psychological permanency? Or is there only impermanency? All relationship is impermanent; all thought, with its symbols, ideals, projections, is impermanent, property is lost, and even life itself ends in death, in the unknown, though man builds a thousand cunning structures of belief to overcome it. We separate life from death, and so both remain unknown. Contentment and discontent are like the two sides of one coin. To be free from the ache of discontent, the mind must cease to seek contentment.

"Then is there no fulfilment?"

Self-fulfilment is a vain pursuit, isn't it? In the very fulfilment of the self, there is fear and disappointment. That which is gained becomes ashes; but we again struggle to gain, and again we are caught in sorrow. If once we are aware of this total process, then self-fulfilment in any direction, at any level, has no significance at all.

Isn't this seen?

This post was last updated by Huguette . Sat, 07 Sep 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 07 Sep 2019 #27
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1386 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
It is understood that wherever the self seems to be “seen”, there is in fact only thought, memory, emotion. No?

What about the body with its habits? The sensations coming through touch? The sounds? What about the 'taste' of yourself (the thinker) that is so familiar, so close that it goes unnoticed, that 'continuity' and accumulation of thought and memory that has forged this sensation of an individual 'you' and an individual 'me'? The "cobra" that I think is being referred to. To be aware of it all as a flower...just seeing it all as if for the first time because it is always for the first time.

From Bombay Mar 1, 1964:

"You don't have to do a thing, because what you do will interfere, because you are greedy, you are envious, you are full of hate, ambition, and all the mischief that thought can make."

This may be all wrong of course

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 07 Sep 2019 #28
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2712 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
What about the body with its habits? The sensations coming through touch? The sounds? What about the 'taste' of yourself (the thinker) that is so familiar, so close that it goes unnoticed, that 'continuity' and accumulation of thought and memory that has forged this sensation of an individual 'you' and an individual 'me'? The "cobra" that I think is being referred to.

And the hate, ambition, envy, greed, K spoke of in the quote below your message. Is that K's 'cobra'? Sensations and sounds and smells and beauty and ugliness. All that is taken in by the senses that thought attaches to....is that what you're referring to also....desire and attachment?

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 07 Sep 2019 #29
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1386 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
All that is taken in by the senses that thought attaches to....is that what you're referring to also....desire and attachment?

The whole 'package'...leave nothing out. The whole flower...the 'good,bad and the ugly'? No "choice" means no choice, doesn't it? Like herding cats and including the 'herder'.

This may be all wrong of course

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 07 Sep 2019 #30
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2712 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Like herding cats and including the 'herder'.

The herder doesn't realize he is the 'herded' probably. So the battle goes on....to control the 'herd'.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 71 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.)