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

Nothing to understand


Displaying all 11 posts
Page 1 of 1
Fri, 30 Aug 2019 #1
Thumb_open-uri20180717-8420-135f99u-0 Mina Martini Finland 265 posts in this forum Offline

The actual realisation of the thinker being the thought, is in essence a realisation of NOTHING AT ALL.

It is the discovery of emptiness (no content, no container, no mind and mind content which are the same).

There is no one to realise anything, and that is the nature of seeing the whole, being the whole.

This is the direct perception K also talks of. It does not come FROM the mind, it does not come TO the mind, the mind is completely out of it and there is no way the mind can go to it either.

Actually, it is being revealed in this direct perception that the mind has never existed so what is being said about the impossibility of the mind to grasp, to see directly, is now seen in a new light, in the light of no mind, in the light if 'not minding!'

So, even the 'not from the mind or to the mind', is in a way irrelevant, having no meaning, redundant.

We are only talking about seeing the illusion for what it is, which is the same as seeing only what is true, and there is no illusion at all.

At the level of human brain, (of which the unlimited is not dependent), the realisation that is talked of ,manifests as a mutation of the brain cells themselves.

This mutation, once it has happened, is as irreversible and irrevocable as death itself. There is no going back. It is not possible to imagine a state prior to this realisation, because it is exactly the image-world that has dissolved, both the 'prior' and the 'after'. There is no time, and no experiencer of any of this.

This post was last updated by Mina Martini Sat, 31 Aug 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 30 Aug 2019 #2
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5369 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
The actual realisation of the thinker being the thought, is not even a realisation of what has just been stated,

Have you missed some part out here, Mina? You refer to "what has just been stated" - what is that?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 31 Aug 2019 #3
Thumb_open-uri20180717-8420-135f99u-0 Mina Martini Finland 265 posts in this forum Offline

Thank you Clive for your observation. The sentence should be verbally clearer now.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 01 Sep 2019 #4
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1516 posts in this forum Offline

Wonderful Mina!

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 02 Sep 2019 #5
Thumb_open-uri20180717-8420-135f99u-0 Mina Martini Finland 265 posts in this forum Offline

Dan,

Good to see there is a person in whom being 'nothing, no one' appears to resonate :-)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 08 Sep 2019 #6
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1516 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
This mutation, once it has happened, is as irreversible and irrevocable as death itself. There is no going back. It is not possible to imagine a state prior to this realisation, because it is exactly the image-world that has dissolved, both the 'prior' and the 'after'. There is no time, and no experiencer of any of this.

Mina what do you say 'stands' in the way of this 'direct perception' (if anything)?

Later:

I'd say that it must be seen that the 'thinker' and thought are one. While that false duality persists all perception is perverted by the 'thinker', the 'me'. It is this thinker or center that imagines that it is doing the perceiving so perception is filtered, limited by being processed through this false entity made from memory.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Tue, 10 Sep 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 10 Sep 2019 #7
Thumb_open-uri20180717-8420-135f99u-0 Mina Martini Finland 265 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Mina what do you say 'stands' in the way of this 'direct perception' (if anything)?

Later:

I'd say that it must be seen that the 'thinker' and thought are one. While that false duality persists all perception is perverted by the 'thinker', the 'me'. It is this thinker or center that imagines that it is doing the perceiving so perception is filtered, limited by being processed through this false entity made from memory.

m: Yes. And to see the truth of the above, is an action of pure perception! Thought can never see the whole of itself, it exists and perceives only within the limitation that it is.

Direct perception is not thought and therefore sees no thought.

In the direct perception there is no world (as a creation of thought) to be perceived. It only perceives itself, realises itself, and nothing else is there.

(note the dualistic nature of language in the words 'perceives itself'..it does not mean any duality, although language carries it..but it is only an impression at the verbal level and we can leave it at that)

further down something written as a reply to your initial question:

......

Mina what do you say 'stands' in the way of this 'direct perception' (if anything)?

m: Fundamentally, as you also seem to be sensing, nothing stands in the way of direct perception, and the very seeing of this IS direct perception into the nature of direct perception! :-)

Direct perception is not thought so how could thought stand in its way?

......

Thought holding on to itself, as an observer and observed, does not allow space for anything else but itself. This imaginary state of division is what direct perception free from the boundaries of thought, is NOT.

So, we could say that in this way, indirectly, thought can stand it the way of perception.

But it still feels wrong to say so, yes it is wrong, because it suggests a relationship between thought and perception, as if perception was limited, conditional, as if anything could be done to it, as if it could be obscured or revealed etc.

There is no duality, no time, no content, no subject or object in the perception we talk of.   

So, even 'thought obscuring it' is a relative truth created and experienced by thought, appearing as true only from its own limited perspective, to its imaginary existence.

Nothing real can ever stand in the way of that which alone is.

This post was last updated by Mina Martini Tue, 10 Sep 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 12 Sep 2019 #8
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1516 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
So, we could say that in this way, indirectly, thought can stand it the way of perception.

This 'direct perception' is another way to say 'Love', isn't it? What thought with it's 'center' or 'self image' stands in the way of, is 'Love'. It fears the vulnerability and the total insecurity of this unknown thing Love, Compassion, etc...so we hide and die behind this wall we have built against the only thing that could save us and that could make this life worth living: Love.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 12 Sep 2019 #9
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1516 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
Nothing real can ever stand in the way of that which alone is.

True. Nothing "real". K. put it "where the self is, the other is not".

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 13 Sep 2019 #10
Thumb_open-uri20180717-8420-135f99u-0 Mina Martini Finland 265 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
This 'direct perception' is another way to say 'Love', isn't it? What thought with it's 'center' or 'self image' stands in the way of, is 'Love'. It fears the vulnerability and the total insecurity of this unknown thing Love, Compassion, etc...so we hide and die behind this wall we have built against the only thing that could save us and that could make this life worth living: Love.

m: Absolutely so, thank you!

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 13 Sep 2019 #11
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2848 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
It(thought) fears the vulnerability and the total insecurity of this unknown thing Love, Compassion, etc..

T: Are you sure Dan? Love is the unknown isn’t it? We fear the known....the loss of job, status, being broke...bankrupt...humiliated...loss of the spouse we are attached to...the known...the loss of what we’ve become attached to.

D: so we hide and die behind this wall we have built against the only thing that could save us and that could make this life worth living: Love.

T: We build the wall to protect against what we fear...the known. Not against love, which we don’t even know. You may think I’m nit picking, but what you said seems somewhat confusing, as if we know love and are protecting ourselves from that. Perhaps I’m mistaken.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Fri, 13 Sep 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying all 11 posts
Page 1 of 1
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.)