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

What is this Life?


Displaying posts 31 - 60 of 71 in total
Sat, 07 Sep 2019 #31
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1386 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
The herder doesn't realize he is the 'herded' probably.

He doesn't even realize that he doesn't exist as he imagines... that he is actually just a thought/feeling/memory psychological 'illusion'. An imaginary 'cookie full of poison'?

This may be all wrong of course

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 08 Sep 2019 #32
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 837 posts in this forum Offline

pondering on my sickbed!

my body is fighting the injected chemo of the past week. how does that body know that this was unnatural and why does the mind accept this as 'necessary'?

in the meantime, the mind is constantly trying to get out of that awkward situation by bringing up beautiful memories or suggesting a pleasant future situation.

every heartbeat makes my ears ring, my brain seems to be two sizes too small and an unsavory taste of metal plagues my mouth.

what makes that this unnatural cell growth can only be combated with unnatural means?

Why is the same intelligence, that struggle against that unnatural matter, incapable of recognizing the unnatural growth of psychological thinking?

Truth will unfold itself to those who enquire their own actions.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 08 Sep 2019 #33
Thumb_open-uri20151228-18124-1kyi3s7-0 Jose Roberto Moreira Brazil 70 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
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?).

Clive, maybe this is another way of approaching what K said: "I do not mind what happens."

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 08 Sep 2019 #34
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5194 posts in this forum Offline

Jose Roberto Moreira wrote:

Clive, maybe this is another way of approaching what K said: "I do not mind what happens."

Yes, I can see the connection. Feeling that life, at any moment, may present you with a challenge (and maybe a huge one) one somehow is accepting of the challenges. After all, if it is life itself that is behind them, who am I to resist?

I do not think this is a fatalistic attitude, or an irresponsible one. The future will be determined by just HOW I meet the challenges that life sends.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 09 Sep 2019 #35
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 837 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
The future will be determined by just HOW I meet the challenges that life sends.

Instead of the predicted 2 days, the body has more or less already calmed down after 24 hours.
The mind is willing to tackle the garden - which needs maintenance - but at the same time knows that the body is not yet capable of doing so and despite the sun shining invitingly, a fragile balance between these two energies will have to be observed taken. Awareness of the overwhelming willpower will have to give priority to the physical signals of the body. A delicate game of balance that requires constant attention.

No matter how clear and self-evident it is in this situation,
why not that self-evident when looking at psychological and technical thought?

Truth will unfold itself to those who enquire their own actions.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 09 Sep 2019 #36
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5194 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:

No matter how clear and self-evident it is in this situation,
why not that self-evident when looking at psychological and technical thought?

Hello Wim, thank you for sharing from your sick bed. You are living such a real, urgent situation that it is difficult for someone who is not facing such a fundamental thing to respond. But I present some words of David Bohm as a possible, part answer to your question:

The pleasure pain reaction is generally appropriate for the animal, but you can see that for thought it is not. The criterion for coherent thought is that it is true and correct. But if you can get pleasure or pain from thought then coherent thought is no longer functioning. Rather the criterion has become whether the thought gives pleasure or pain, consequently that thought becomes destructive. If thought can be determined by pleasure or pain, that’s already the beginning of a lot of trouble. And we get conditioned by that.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 10 Sep 2019 #37
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5194 posts in this forum Offline

To return to the original issue of this thread, K said:

”You know, in biology there is a phenomenon called the sport, which is a sudden and spontaneous deviation from the type. If you have a garden and have cultivated a particular species of flower, one morning you may find that something totally new has come out of that species. That new thing is called the sport. Being new it stands out, and the gardener takes a special interest in it.

And life is like that. The moment you venture out, something takes place in you and about you. Life comes to your aid in various ways. You may not like the form in which it comes to you - it may be misery, struggle, starvation - but when you invite life, things begin to happen. But you see, we don't want to invite life, we want to play a safe game; and those who play a safe game die very safely. Is that not so?”

I think this is pretty clear. K is saying that “life” does intervene in our particular lives. Not only intervenes, but comes to our aid.

This post was last updated by Clive Elwell Thu, 12 Sep 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 10 Sep 2019 #38
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 837 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Hello Wim, thank you for sharing from your sick bed. You are living such a real, urgent situation that it is difficult for someone who is not facing such a fundamental thing to respond.

Hello Clive,

Is that not the essential difference?
We all live in such a real, urgent situation!
Only now is it just physically palpable for me and the mental and physical energies are there for the taking.

And at the same time, the thought is also physical - brain matter -
and how we deal with it - mental power -
a fragile exercise of equilibrium,
which we do not always consider with this acute attention.

Truth will unfold itself to those who enquire their own actions.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 10 Sep 2019 #39
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2712 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Life comes to your aid in various ways. You may not like the form in which it comes to you - it may be misery, struggle, starvation - but when you invite life, things begin to happen. But you see, we don't want to invite life, we want to play a safe game;

Sure, who in their right mind would want to invite misery or starvation?

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 10 Sep 2019 #40
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5194 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
Is that not the essential difference?
We all live in such a real, urgent situation!

Indeed you are right, Wim. We all actually live in a world that faces extremely urgent challenges. A world that is collapsing all around us. Not just the world "outside" of us, but human consciousness itself is in extreme crisis. "Our house is burning", as K often said.

But somehow we not respond to this crisis. And that is actually the crisis.Somehow we don't realise the fact. Why?

Is it because we are concerned with my house, my own little world? I have realised lately how much I have been doing that. As if the chaos of the world "out there" is but a dream, not an actuality.

Wim, can you describe what it is to have these sense of urgency which your condition brings about?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 11 Sep 2019 #41
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1386 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Sure, who in their right mind would want to invite misery or starvation?

True on one level. But if we were in our "right" mind, we might not "care what happens"? Which is to say that I understand what is going on here on one level, through my conditioning...but that that seeing may not be the only way. I think that we have to leave that possibility open, that things could be quite different than what we imagine. Radically different.

This may be all wrong of course

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Wed, 11 Sep 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 11 Sep 2019 #42
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2712 posts in this forum Offline

Dan: I think that we have to leave that possibility open, that things could be quite different than what we imagine. Radically different.

No doubt about that, Dan. But I don’t think there’s any doubt about the meaning of the word ‘misery’ in Ks statement. He seems to be saying that life comes to your aid in the form of misery. As if anyone would invite that. Perhaps I misread the quote

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 11 Sep 2019 #43
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 837 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Wim, can you describe what it is to have these sense of urgency which your condition brings about?

I do not see this physical situation as essentially different from the world situation, possibly only the physical difficulty.

the similarity with unnatural growth is also very striking for me.

we don't feel that physical difficulty, is that the key?

Truth will unfold itself to those who enquire their own actions.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 11 Sep 2019 #44
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1386 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
He seems to be saying that life comes to your aid in the form of misery.

I would leave it at "Life comes..." and never stops. What it brings,whether misery or joy, all we can do is to not attach to it, not make a psychological problem of it, not cling to it, but negate it. "Freedom" is, as has been said, not at the end but at the beginning. 'Enlightenment', it seems to me, is the absence of personal consciousness. There is no-one to 'experience' it. Perhaps that is what Mina was pointing at with "no-mind"?

This may be all wrong of course

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Wed, 11 Sep 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 11 Sep 2019 #45
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2712 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
I would leave it at "Life comes..." and never stops. What it brings,whether misery or joy, all we can do is to not attach to it

It was K who said life comes to our aid....in the form of starvation even. “Life comes to your aid in various ways. You may not like the form in which it comes to you - it may be misery, struggle, starvation ”

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 11 Sep 2019 #46
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 733 posts in this forum Offline

Tom,

Of course, no one in their right might seriously WANTS to starve, to struggle, to live in misery. But, like Dan suggests, does anyone in their right mind seriously believe that they possess the power or ability to control or to avoid misery? And if one understands that ultimately there is no such power of security (there isn't, is there?), then one can’t “mind” what happens. To mind what happens means “it shouldn’t happen”. So to mind what happens indicates that the process of division, effort, resistance, justification, and so on, has gone into motion. Life happens, the universe unfolds. Isn’t it foolish of man to think that he can control what happens in the universe through willpower, through the power of his personal mind?

To question what happens is not divisive. To mind what happens is. I need to understand the process of “minding what happens”, what is involved in it. So obviously, “not minding what happens” cannot be used as a ploy.

I observe the thought processes which produce division, time, consciousness, fear, effort, and so on. And I see that I am still attached to my petty pleasures, habits and comforts. I kvetch about discontent, joylessness, struggle, conflict, misery, the bondage of fear, but I’m not willing to or can’t give up my attachments. I see all this very clearly. I see very clearly that I am attached to the known. I see that in spite of observing and understanding it, I am unable to resist it, change it, escape or end division. I am still divided psychologically. I want to change and I can’t change. I see “the falsity of want” --- but still I want. I understand the danger and process of attachment, and I am still attached. This is my life. This is me. This is life as it is.

To relinquish the known is to invite life as it is, without conditions or exclusions, isn’t it? What will happen if I neither accept nor resist duality and contradiction; neither try to change nor resign myself to my problems; neither try to overcome nor accept my flaws. Those dualities are life as it is, life as I know it. And if I invite life - as it is and isn't - that is the unknown, and I may not like the unknown.

So when K says “You may not like the form in which it comes to you”, I don’t understand him to be saying that inviting life WILL inevitably bring misery, struggle and starvation. Isn’t he simply pointing out that we don’t know what “may” happen if we stop giving supreme authority to thought? This may happen, that may happen, or some totally unknown thing may happen. Living under the authority of thought is living in the known. The known is the path of our forefathers, the path of conditioning and continuity. But in spite of using all the skills of the known, life as we know it IS mostly misery and struggle. That’s why we are here questioning. It is part of human nature to question. That’s why Siddhartha left a life of luxury and armed security for a life of starvation, misery and struggle.

Am I being fanciful or is it so?

This post was last updated by Huguette . Wed, 11 Sep 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 11 Sep 2019 #47
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2712 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette: I understand what you’re saying. We can’t know the proper/best action to take in regards to starvation, for instance, as long as we are saying, “This SHOULDN’T be happening”....reacting emotionally...being upset emotionally....’kvetching’. Non of that will help me to deal with the fact...my life....what is. Back to the rest of your post later....heading to work soon.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Wed, 11 Sep 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 11 Sep 2019 #48
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1386 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
To relinquish the known is to invite life as it is, without conditions or exclusions, isn’t it? What will happen if I neither accept nor resist duality and contradiction; neither try to change nor resign myself to my problems; neither try to overcome nor accept my flaws. Those dualities are life as it is, life as I know it. And if I invite life - as it is and isn't - that is the unknown, and I may not like the unknown.

And there is no 'inviter' is there Huguette? Life comes with all it's beauty and fury and I am either one with it all or a pitiful resistance to it. I can "like" it or dislike it but it makes no difference. What stands in the way of the river, what tries to change its natural course, eventually just all gets washed away anyway...Doesn't it?

This may be all wrong of course

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Wed, 11 Sep 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 11 Sep 2019 #49
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5194 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
What stands in the way of the river, what tries to change its natural course, eventually just all gets washed away anyway...Doesn't it?

Somehow we have separated "life" from "ourselves". Is this reasonable? Is this true? On what basis have we done it? We might theoretically say "I am life", but we don't act that way, do we? As is said above, we try to change life, to direct its course, to resist it ....... all of which implies we consider ourselves separate from it.

Probably this concept owes its existence originally to the necessity of struggling against various forces to provide ourselves with food, shelter. All animals act separately in this respect. But the human sense of separateness goes far beyond this.

In intervening in "our lives", is life trying to gather us back to itself?

This post was last updated by Clive Elwell Wed, 11 Sep 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 11 Sep 2019 #50
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1386 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
All animals act separately in this respect. But the human sense of separateness goes far beyond this.

Far beyond...psychologically speaking. Thought created a 'center' which K. and Bohm discuss deeply in John R.'s post today. Each of us 'organizes' the world around ourself. We are at the center. But it is false and as it turns out, a disaster. This it seems to me is the most important realization we can have, that thought and the center are one. Thought and the thinker, me, are one. That is the perception (without a perceiver) that returns thought/time to its proper place. A useful mechanical process...

This may be all wrong of course

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 12 Sep 2019 #51
Thumb_open-uri20180717-8420-135f99u-0 Mina Martini Finland 262 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
I would leave it at "Life comes..." and never stops. What it brings,whether misery or joy, all we can do is to not attach to it, not make a psychological problem of it, not cling to it, but negate it. "Freedom" is, as has been said, not at the end but at the beginning. 'Enlightenment', it seems to me, is the absence of personal consciousness. There is no-one to 'experience' it. Perhaps that is what Mina was pointing at with "no-mind"?

m:Yes, and through responding fully (not from the mind) to whatever life brings,the division between oneself and life (between observer and observed) disappears and the 'what happens' is no longer the issue.

'The what happens' is an issue only in/for a state of division, when the 'what happens' and 'to whom it happens' are held separate.

In complete silence of the mind, without ANY psychological movement, neither the 'what happens' nor the 'to whom it happens' exist.

Instead of reacting to life events, they can be let to act as an invitations to silence. And only the silence is the full response to life. It is the no-mind you refer to above.

This post was last updated by Mina Martini Thu, 12 Sep 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 12 Sep 2019 #52
Thumb_open-uri20180717-8420-135f99u-0 Mina Martini Finland 262 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Somehow we have separated "life" from "ourselves". Is this reasonable? Is this true? On what basis have we done it? We might theoretically say "I am life", but we don't act that way, do we? As is said above, we try to change life, to direct its course, to resist it ....... all of which implies we consider ourselves separate from it.

m:Yes, and this is the case when the observer and observed, the divided mind, is experiencing what it thinks to be life. Life's intervention, at this divided state, is contained in the very suffering and contradiction that this false division creates/is. By its very nature as contradiction, resistance, psychological effort, becoming, suffering, it is being pointed out that something is very wrong in the whole structure.

Clive:>In intervening in "our lives", is life trying to gather us back to itself?

m: Yes, and it all happens within us, not from 'outside'. Life gathers us back to itself through the realisation that we are undivided beings, already the totality of it.

This post was last updated by Mina Martini Thu, 12 Sep 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 12 Sep 2019 #53
Thumb_open-uri20180717-8420-135f99u-0 Mina Martini Finland 262 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Yes, I can see the connection. Feeling that life, at any moment, may present you with a challenge (and maybe a huge one) one somehow is accepting of the challenges. After all, if it is life itself that is behind them, who am I to resist?

m:Right, that which resists the natural course of life and its manifestations from moment to moment, is a desire to have it one's own way (ego). When the nature of this ego is fully understood and it is no longer in charge of your life, then you are totally one with 'life's will'.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 12 Sep 2019 #54
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 733 posts in this forum Offline

Clive and Mina,

As I see it, it is not a question of “who am I to resist”. Isn’t “who am I to resist” another way of saying “I should not resist” or “I should resist”, based on conclusion or ideal - which means action is based on thought/time? To SEE that I am basing my actions on a conclusion is not to base my actions on a conclusion. Just to see is enough, isn't it? Then I don't say "I should or shouldn't".

Sorry for interjecting. I just see it differently. I could be wrong. I don't know if I'm clear.

This post was last updated by Huguette . Thu, 12 Sep 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 12 Sep 2019 #55
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2712 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
As I see it, it is not a question of “who am I to resist”. Isn’t “who am I to resist” another way of saying “I should not resist” or “I should resist”, based on conclusion or ideal

Seeing what I’m doing....the resistance...seeing the ideal or conclusion....the judgment....understanding what actually is...the naked fact....rather than talking about NOT resisting which is an idea ...an ideal. The idea, no matter how lofty...always obscures the fact.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Thu, 12 Sep 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 12 Sep 2019 #56
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5194 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
. Each of us 'organizes' the world around ourself. We are at the center

This is how it came to me this morning:

We create a reality from thought. Then we proceed to live according to that reality. Instead of "create a reality" one could say "draw a conclusion". We do this from our basic drive for security, for certainty, to "know where we are". Somehow we cannot bear to live with continual uncertainty. Yet life is uncertain, and to live within our self-created realities is counter-life.

We choose those realities according to how they appear to produce pleasure and pain. And yet to live in a world which thought has projected MUST bring pain and conflict.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 12 Sep 2019 #57
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5194 posts in this forum Offline

I am repeating this, as I made a mistake is attributing the quote in the original post *37:

To return to the original issue of this thread, K said:

”You know, in biology there is a phenomenon called the sport, which is a sudden and spontaneous deviation from the type. If you have a garden and have cultivated a particular species of flower, one morning you may find that something totally new has come out of that species. That new thing is called the sport. Being new it stands out, and the gardener takes a special interest in it.

And life is like that. The moment you venture out, something takes place in you and about you. Life comes to your aid in various ways. You may not like the form in which it comes to you - it may be misery, struggle, starvation - but when you invite life, things begin to happen. But you see, we don't want to invite life, we want to play a safe game; and those who play a safe game die very safely. Is that not so?”

I think this is pretty clear. K is saying that “life” does intervene in our particular lives. Not only intervenes, but comes to our aid.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 12 Sep 2019 #58
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5194 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
As I see it, it is not a question of “who am I to resist”. Isn’t “who am I to resist” another way of saying “I should not resist” or “I should resist”, based on conclusion or ideal - which means action is based on thought/time? To SEE that I am basing my actions on a conclusion is not to base my actions on a conclusion. Just to see is enough, isn't it? Then I don't say "I should or shouldn't".

Sorry for interjecting. I just see it differently. I could be wrong. I don't know if I'm clear.

I don't think I was implying any "should" in this, Huguette. I think I was describing, feeling, something that came, as you say, from actual seeing. And so the seeing WAS the action. Just to see is not only "enough", it is everything, would you say?

"Who am I to resist?". that is an actual question. What is it that resists life's nudgings? And why does it? Feeling that it is the self's overwheming desire for security, for certainty.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 13 Sep 2019 #59
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1386 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
We create a reality from thought. Then we proceed to live according to that reality. Instead of "create a reality" one could say "draw a conclusion". We do this from our basic drive for security, for certainty, to "know where we are". Somehow we cannot bear to live with continual uncertainty. Yet life is uncertain, and to live within our self-created realities is counter-life.

We choose those realities according to how they appear to produce pleasure and pain. And yet to live in a world which thought has projected MUST bring pain and conflict.

it seems that it was all a huge mistake, a "wrong road"...but once taken (as we are learning), difficult to stop going down.

This may be all wrong of course

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 13 Sep 2019 #60
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 733 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
"Who am I to resist?". that is an actual question. What is it that resists life's nudgings? And why does it?

Oh ok, I see, Clive. Thanks.

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