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

Closer than any word


Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 38 in total
Sat, 21 Sep 2019 #1
Thumb_open-uri20180717-8420-135f99u-0 Mina Martini Finland 287 posts in this forum Offline

The perception of your true nature, is closer to you than any word,
any image. Therefore no written word, no book, no religion, no ideology, no philosophy, is able to bring about that total perception of yourself, which is what you already are.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 21 Sep 2019 #2
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1647 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
The perception of your true nature, is closer to you than any word,
any image.

It is what 'sees', isn't it? It occurred to me on reading your post that this 'self' or 'ego' or 'me' is loneliness itself. It doesn't 'get' or 'become' lonely, it is loneliness. The loneliness that was/is inevitable when we somehow 'think' and feel that we are essentially separate from everything and everyone else...Each thought is born and then dies...that is the fact. But thought has sought to overcome that by creating a 'thinker' separate, that has a kind of permanency or continuity. The 'problem' with that is that this thinker (and the 'new' brain) unlike all the rest of animal nature knows that it is going one day to die, to end. And that is unpalatable even scary to the 'old'
brain...that this unique 'me' will one day disappear...So the loneliness, suffering, anxiety about the future is 'built in' (is?) the thinker, isn't it? But try as he will, he can not satisfactorily escape the fact that he will die, end, along with the death of the body; which he treats by the way, as some necessary evil, a nuisance. So the very movement of thought in its continual search for security, freedom, etc., just continues the insecurity... because it created the insecurity in the first place.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 09 Jan 2020 #3
Thumb_spock Douglas MacRae-Smith France 144 posts in this forum Offline

The importance of the word, the symbol or thought in our desire for Psychological Freedom.

Why are we here on this Krishnamurti forum? I mean rather than singing Hare Krishna on the street? Rather than paying for a Transcendental Meditation mantra? Rather than kneeling in Prayer?

One Reason is the value we assign to thought. Our faith in the intellect. Our pride in our own gray matter.

Look, see, let go

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 10 Jan 2020 #4
Thumb_spock Douglas MacRae-Smith France 144 posts in this forum Offline

So can the word lead to what it is describing? Can thought liberate itself from itself? Can the signpost point us in the right direction?
What if the signpost is pointing at itself?

K is like a Kind old Grandfather telling us a story for grownups. He shows us patiently that we are struggling to escape from a cage of our own making, and that the more we struggle, the stronger the cage becomes.

From there, any Journey we go on gets us nowhere. The point is not for you to become a specialist in the stories of Wise old men.

Look, see, let go

This post was last updated by Douglas MacRae-Smith Fri, 10 Jan 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 10 Jan 2020 #5
Thumb_spock Douglas MacRae-Smith France 144 posts in this forum Offline

The point of the story - is the story.

When we listen to a story - really listen with total innocence, like a child - that story will find a little home within you.

And there it will stay. And one day, if there is tremendous need, it will give us the courage to let go and dissapear.

Look, see, let go

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 10 Jan 2020 #6
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1647 posts in this forum Offline

Another story,this one by Gurdjieff is a cautionary tale of sorts... that if one gets old enough this ‘self’ business begins to break down under it’s own weight...but by that time it’s too late, not enough energy, I suppose... At that point, one is only capable of “ineffectual yearnings”. A frightening “story* “ by another “wise old man”!


  • G. Gurdjieff 'All and Everything' (The Terror of the Situation)

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Fri, 10 Jan 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 10 Jan 2020 #7
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5546 posts in this forum Offline

Dear Mina, although you did not use the word "surrender" In your post above, it is a word that you often use, and I wondered if you would describe what it means to you.

Connected to this, I came upon the following lately, by K, which sheds a new light on the meaning of awareness for me:

Awareness is the complete and unconditional surrender to what is, without rationalisazation, without the division of the observer and the observed.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 11 Jan 2020 #8
Thumb_open-uri20180717-8420-135f99u-0 Mina Martini Finland 287 posts in this forum Offline

Dear Clive,

Clive:>Dear Mina, although you did not use the word "surrender" In your post above, it is a word that you often use, and I wondered if you would describe what it means to you.

Mina: 'Surrender' describes the moment when the psychological mind put together by thought, is let to dissolve. It is like letting all the armour/resistance drop, without a dropper. It is an action of intelligence.

Clive:>Connected to this, I came upon the following lately, by K, which sheds a new light on the meaning of awareness for me:

Awareness is the complete and unconditional surrender to what is, without rationalisazation, without the division of the observer and the observed.

Mina: Yes, the surrender is to awareness, and happens as an action of awareness/intelligence itself. Awareness cannot rationalise, it is not of the intellect/mind. There is no observer or observed in pure awareness, no mind.

...

Surrender to 'what is', awareness, absence of observer/observed, absence of psychological mind, all describe and point to the same undescribable reality beyond thought.

When I say 'closer than any word' in the original post or mention 'pure perception', again I am pointing to the same reality.

Actually, fundamentally, everything is pointing to it, one way or the other, more or less directly depending on the level of awareness, since only one Reality IS.

(the experience of 'many realities' are subjective experiences within the split between observer and observed. They are all creations of thought, image. They have a beginning and end, they come and go. To be rooted in awareness, AS awareness, is to be rooted in that which neither comes nor goes.)

This post was last updated by Mina Martini Sat, 11 Jan 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 11 Jan 2020 #9
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1647 posts in this forum Offline

Good to see Mina's post this morning. Clive you asked me a while back what I meant when I posted that 'thought' overpowers the senses...Watching this morning, a warm morning along the river as an eagle left its perch and began its search for the warm air thermals that would take it higher and higher, thought entered and began to comment on what was being seen. I think that is what I meant, the sense of sight of hearing are 'delicate' and 'pure' it sees, it hears what is there...but thought's commentary comes between the sight of the eagle and what it is doing, the naming, the describing. And the senses have no way to keep the thought quiet and just allow the watching, the listening (or the tasting and the touching). The 'glamour' of what thought can do: go back in time, recall the past, judge what is being sensed, etc overcomes the simple direct sensing. Thought really has no place there, but there it is unless there is the awareness that that is what is going on.

Also these senses that we share are all more or less one, the same as is our brain... it is the ‘thought’ and its accumulations that creates the separating ‘realities’, personalities, between us, isn’t it?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sat, 11 Jan 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 11 Jan 2020 #10
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5546 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Good to see Mina's post this morning.

Yes, Mina's posts are always exceedingly challenging, especially to our intellectual constructions. But then there is nothing, no challenge, as I see it, that cannot jolt us, lead us to discover preconceptions that we might have been unconsciously holding on to.

Dan McDermott wrote:
.Watching this morning, a warm morning along the river as an eagle left its perch and began its search for the warm air thermals that would take it higher and higher

I have been wondering from time time to time how that eagle, that you have described before, is doing. Sounds like you are very fortunate, Dan, to live so close to raw nature.

Dan McDermott wrote:
And the senses have no way to keep the thought quiet and just allow the watching, the listening (or the tasting and the touching).

As I may have mentioned before, I remember reading K saying that thought is also a sense. I have often wondered about this. Does anyone have any comments on it?

But also K has suggested that when all the senses operate together, as a whole, then that state is more powerful (my words) than thought, and thought goes into abeyance. I have experimented with this, but have not got "very far". Again, any comments?

Dan McDermott wrote:
The 'glamour' of what thought can do: go back in time, recall the past, judge what is being sensed, etc overcomes the simple direct sensing.

Interesting word that, "glamour". Is it like the glamour of watching nature programs on TV? - somehow they appear much more interesting, fascinating, that boring old real nature. Well, maybe not the eagle :-).

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 11 Jan 2020 #11
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3093 posts in this forum Offline

Mina: 'Surrender' describes the moment when the psychological mind put together by thought, is let to dissolve. It is like letting all the armour/resistance drop, without a dropper. It is an action of intelligence.

Why would all we’ve built up over a lifetime be ‘let’ to drop? ‘Me’ would suddenly decide to drop everything ... everything he’s holding on to? Why? What brings about this dropping or letting?

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 11 Jan 2020 #12
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3093 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Mina's posts are always exceedingly challenging,

Didn’t you mean incomprehensible? Just teasing...no offense intended

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Sun, 12 Jan 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 12 Jan 2020 #13
Thumb_spock Douglas MacRae-Smith France 144 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Why would all we’ve built up over a lifetime be ‘let’ to drop? ‘Me’ would suddenly decide to drop everything ... everything he’s holding on to? Why? What brings about this dropping or letting?

An urgent need is essential - like giving up smoking.

A faith also that this is possible and desirable; and a regular habit of mindfulness.

Look, see, let go

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 12 Jan 2020 #14
Thumb_open-uri20180717-8420-135f99u-0 Mina Martini Finland 287 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Yes, Mina's posts are always exceedingly challenging, especially to our intellectual constructions. But then there is nothing, no challenge, as I see it, that cannot jolt us, lead us to discover preconceptions that we might have been unconsciously holding on to.

Mina: Yes..may you and all of us be jolted out of all intellectual constructions! :-)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 12 Jan 2020 #15
Thumb_open-uri20180717-8420-135f99u-0 Mina Martini Finland 287 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Didn’t you mean incomprehensible? Just teasing...no offense intended

Mina: Tom, you are absolutely right in fact!

But this needs a tiny bit of clarification however...:-)

It is completely understandable and true that the divided mind, the mind put together by an illusion of an observer and observed, can never make sense of that which lies beyond it. It is true for all of us, as much as this divided mind is active in any of us.

The very experience of 'something being incomprehensible' is already an indication, by itself, that what is being said is attempted to be understood in the mind, by the mind.

That is not possible, ever, so from that aspect your comment is to the point!

:)

This post was last updated by Mina Martini Sun, 12 Jan 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 12 Jan 2020 #16
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3093 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
t is completely understandable and true that the divided mind, the mind put together by an illusion of an observer and observed, can never make sense of that which lies beyond it.

I was just teasing of course, and I'm glad you took it in the spirit of how I wrote it. But I have to ask...then who are you talking to? If your words are not understandable by ordinary human beings, are you only talking to 'enlightened' beings...if there are such? I can understand Krishnamurti much of the time. He seemed able to speak to the ordinary man...not reserving his utterances for those already beyond the ordinary divided mind (they obviously had no need for K's talks). He spoke of observing ourselves as we are...in the 'mirror of relationship'. What he was saying could not be more simple to understand....to look at oneself...observe...listen... without judging or comparing. Not that we can actually look free of the 'me'. Most of us probably cannot. But we can look at how this 'me' operates...observe the 'me' in operation without judging it right or wrong. But the average man can understand the words of K's 'teaching' very well. They're not incomprehensible in the talks... for the most part.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Sun, 12 Jan 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 12 Jan 2020 #17
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1647 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
I have been wondering from time time to time how that eagle, that you have described before, is doing. Sounds like you are very fortunate, Dan, to live so close to raw nature.

Very true Clive it is the way I feel. Having grown up in a city, it is wonderful to be able to be here and in relationship with all that goes on here. There are three eagles that visit where I am on the river.

Clive Elwell wrote:
Interesting word that, "glamour". Is it like the glamour of watching nature programs on TV? - somehow they appear much more interesting, fascinating, that boring old real nature. Well, maybe not the eagle :-).

That is interesting. No it's nothing like the the nature shows which seem to cater to our need for the 'sensational'. A two hour film focused on an eagle sitting on a branch occasionally preening itself wouldn't make the cut, but that is the reality...even with the occasional excitement caused by the local group of black crows who do whatever they can to make it move on, screeching and getting as close as they dare but usually themselves moving on while the eagle stays put. Yes it's "boring" and yet marvelous. Everything going about its business quite harmoniously for the most part. No drama, no hysterics...sleeping, feeding, mating, sleeping. Humanity can appear to look quite 'mad' in comparison.

Clive Elwell wrote:
But also K has suggested that when all the senses operate together, as a whole, then that state is more powerful (my words) than thought, and thought goes into abeyance.

This brings up the K. statement that "the self arises when thought identifies with the senses, with sensation". There is a disharmony between the parts of ourself, the body. the mind, the emotions. Thought bringing time into the psyche has obscured the nowness of the senses, it seems. It is operating in the 'wrong' place and hence this obsession with more and more stimulation, accumulation, the obsession to always be occupied, amused, excited, etc. (unlike these boring eagles.:)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 12 Jan 2020 #18
Thumb_open-uri20180717-8420-135f99u-0 Mina Martini Finland 287 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
But I have to ask...then who are you talking to? If your words are not understandable by ordinary human beings, are you only talking to 'enlightened' beings...if there are such?

m: I am talking as a human being to other human beings..cannot feel any division of 'who talks' or 'to whom' is being talked, actually neither exist in wholeness.

An experience of division demands identification with thought/labels, and it is only at that level where concepts of 'ordinary' vs. 'enlightened' can exist.

It is only an idea of oneself (experience of division) that could ever make psychological choices, such as 'reserving one's utterances for those already beyond the ordinary divided mind' (quoting your words)

So, seeing this, in total negation of this state of identification, one is actually extraordinarily ordinary, extraordinarily simple!! :)

The problem is that we are not ordinary in the sense of being 'simple in spirit', but get caught in ideas of 'ordinary'...identify with 'us as ordinary people versus someone who claims to be or appears to be not ordinary..'

See how the mind works!! Always making up excuses for its existence!

It is not enough to understand K at the level of words, that is no understanding.

It would be more precious to have one in a million to live the teaching to the core than to have thousands of people 'understanding K's teaching well', yet remaining at the conceptual and intellectual level.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 12 Jan 2020 #19
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3093 posts in this forum Offline

I am talking as a human being to other human beings..cannot feel any division of 'who talks' or 'to whom' is being talked, actually neither exist in wholeness.

An experience of division demands identification with thought/labels, and it is only at that level where concepts of 'ordinary' vs. 'enlightened' can exist.

I guess you missed my point or points. I wasn’t saying or implying what you think I was saying. But thanks for the lecture. May return to your post later. On the way out for the dsy

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Sun, 12 Jan 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 13 Jan 2020 #20
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5546 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote #12:

Clive: Mina's posts are always exceedingly challenging,

Didn’t you mean incomprehensible? Just teasing...no offense intended

No offense taken, but what you said started off a chain of reflection:

I found myself pondering over this word “incomprehensible”. What does it mean, and what are its consequences? But first of all, what does it mean if something is “comprehensible” to us? Does it mean that we meet something new, something unknown to us, and we slot it into our existing framework of what we already know? Have we then comprehended anything? Have we learnt anything? Or have we merely reinforced some conclusion, strengthen ourselves in some prejudice?

I find this an interesting viewpoint, no doubt other viewpoints are possible.

So is there another way to meet that which we do not understand? Isn’t meeting what is essentially unknown a great opportunity? Perhaps one can draw a simile with K asking if we can look at a tree without recognising it, without naming it? Is there another ‘way’ to comprehend some statement, some question, without reducing it to what we already know? Because i cannot see any meaning in incorporating the unknown into the known. Can we remain without reaction with someone’s words, Krishnamurti’s, Mina’s, anyone’s, and then perhaps the they can open up, unfold their meaning in an entirely new way?

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Mon, 13 Jan 2020 #21
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5546 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
Mina: Yes..may you and all of us be jolted out of all intellectual constructions! :-)

Except the ones that made this forum possible!

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 13 Jan 2020 #22
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5546 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Why would all we’ve built up over a lifetime be ‘let’ to drop? ‘

The clear perception that it is not possible to build anything up, to accumulate anything psychologically.

I suppose one needs to expand on that. the brain is accumulating all the time, hurts, pleasures, fears ...... And of course we have constructed a society that allows the legal accumulation of material things, wealth. But can we accumulate insight, understanding, intelligence, or love?

it is not that I accumulate, in fact - I AM that accumulation.

As K said, "memory is the enemy".

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 13 Jan 2020 #23
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5546 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote #17:
It is operating in the 'wrong' place and hence this obsession with more and more stimulation, accumulation, the obsession to always be occupied, amused, excited, etc. (unlike these boring eagles.:)

Yes, I become more and more convinced that the main reason that the mind does most of the things that it does, is that it is seeking occupation, seeking to keep itself occupied, busy.

Why? Why is it frightened of non-occupation?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 13 Jan 2020 #24
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5546 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
The perception of your true nature, is closer to you than any word,
any image. Therefore no written word, no book, no religion, no ideology, no philosophy, is able to bring about that total perception of yourself, which is what you already are.

Mina, I am going to take advantage of your rare drop-in to the forum to put the following to you:

As I am seeing it at the moment, from various things that have been said in the past, you and I, “your understanding” and “my understanding”, are fundamentally at opposite poles. North and South. I am in no way insisting that I am right, neither am I bowing to your perception, but can we enquire and see if there is a meeting place where none appears at the moment.

As I understand many of your posts, you are pointing to something which is ..... eternal, non-changing. Something beyond the mind, with its fragmentation and contradiction. Please correct me if I am making a wrong interpretation. Some constant perception?
My ever increasing perception is that there is only change. The human mind is changing all the time, in the sense that one thought dies and another, perhaps carrying entirely a different meaning, content, replaces it. Feelings come and go in rapid succession – sometimes they may stay for a while, but always eventually they are replaced by different feelings.

And also outside of the brain, the natural world is always in a state of flux. Day follows night, the seasons come and go, flower bloom and die, every night the planets move in the sky (yes, I have been watching Venus), and scientists tell us that the stars themselves grow old and die. And at the other end of the scale of matter, what seems firm and solid actually consists of ephemeral particle/waves, always in motion, even flashing in and out of existence.

So I tend to say: “all is change”. And the interesting thing is, when it is seen that all is change, movement, actually NOTHING IS. Nothing can really be said to exist. I believe the ancient Greeks had this idea. But at times it is more than a mere idea to me.

Is there a meeting point between this perception that nothing IS, and your perception of the unchanging? I cannot see it at the moment, yet there is a slight intimation that there might be. But over to you.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 13 Jan 2020 #25
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1647 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
the mind does most of the things that it does, is that it is seeking occupation, seeking to keep itself occupied, busy.

Why? Why is it frightened of non-occupation?

Is it a kind of addiction...like the lab rats that once they experience cocaine will choose that over food, even to the point of death? When 'boredom' comes over you, isn't there a movement to escape from it? Have we equated 'living' with being stimulated?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 13 Jan 2020 #26
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5546 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
When 'boredom' comes over you, isn't there a movement to escape from it?

So what is 'boredom'? Is it separate from the movement to escape?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 13 Jan 2020 #27
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3093 posts in this forum Offline

Clive: But first of all, what does it mean if something is “comprehensible” to us? Does it mean that we meet something new, something unknown to us, and we slot it into our existing framework of what we already know? Have we then comprehended anything? Have we learnt anything? Or have we merely reinforced some conclusion, strengthen ourselves in some prejudice?

I was only trying to point out that K spoke in a way that for the most part was easily understood by the average listener. Not that they could actually go beyond the words and actually understood what he was pointing to... but his language was simple and straightforward. “Observe your fear...observe yourself in the mirror of relationship. Be aware of your judgments, your beliefs, your ideals. See how they prevent observing. See how they divide.” Much of what Mina writes is like trying to read Chinese! I never felt that when reading K....we’ll not often anyway.

I find this an interesting viewpoint, no doubt other viewpoints are possible.

So is there another way to meet that which we do not understand? Isn’t meeting what is essentially unknown a great opportunity?

Not if it makes no sense. If someone is speaking Chinese and I have no translator available, I have to leave it, right? I don’t ponder or inquire into something that makes no sense at all or something that seems fundamentally false, like when a friend decided to become a Jehovah Witness and tried to share her beliefs. I simply said, “I don’t want to discuss your religious beliefs”. I don’t see something like that as a “great opportunity”. A lot of what Mina posts simply doesn’t resonate or else it seems false or misleading....or even coming from the authority of knowledge and experience. It’s only my subjective impression, and I’m not meaning to be insulting about any of this.

Perhaps one can draw a simile with K asking if we can look at a tree without recognising it, without naming it? Is there another ‘way’ to comprehend some statement, some question, without reducing it to what we already know?

Hmmmm....the tree makes a strong impression on our senses. Words do not...especially those that we don’t find meaningful.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Mon, 13 Jan 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 13 Jan 2020 #28
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3093 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
So I tend to say: “all is change”. And the interesting thing is, when it is seen that all is change, movement, actually NOTHING IS. Nothing can really be said to exist.

Interesting! Just saw this on Facebook tonight:
“The fundamental understanding of oneself does not come through knowledge or the accumulation of experiences, which is merely the cultivation of memory. The understanding of oneself is from moment to moment; if we merely accumulate knowledge of the self, that very knowledge prevents further understanding, because accumulated knowledge and experience becomes the center through which thought focuses and has its being.” The Book of Life

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 13 Jan 2020 #29
Thumb_open-uri20180717-8420-135f99u-0 Mina Martini Finland 287 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
So is there another way to meet that which we do not understand? Isn’t meeting what is essentially unknown a great opportunity? Perhaps one can draw a simile with K asking if we can look at a tree without recognising it, without naming it? Is there another ‘way’ to comprehend some statement, some question, without reducing it to what we already know? Because i cannot see any meaning in incorporating the unknown into the known. Can we remain without reaction with someone’s words, Krishnamurti’s, Mina’s, anyone’s, and then perhaps the they can open up, unfold their meaning in an entirely new way?'

Mina: This is beautiful, thank you!!

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 13 Jan 2020 #30
Thumb_open-uri20180717-8420-135f99u-0 Mina Martini Finland 287 posts in this forum Offline

Dear Clive and Dan,

Hope you do not mind my stepping in a little...

Clive>the mind does most of the things that it does, is that it is seeking occupation, seeking to keep itself occupied, busy.

Why? Why is it frightened of non-occupation?

Dan>Is it a kind of addiction...like the lab rats that once they experience cocaine will choose that over food, even to the point of death? When 'boredom' comes over you, isn't there a movement to escape from it? Have we equated 'living' with being stimulated?

Mina: Why does the mind occupy itself, we are asking. -Because that is all it is able to do, that is its very nature as a psychological structure of an observer and observed.

So, when we ask why the mind keeps itself busy, does the question subtly imply that it could do something else??

More important than asking why the mind does this or that if the asking still moves within the limitation of the mind itself, is to understand its very nature completely, at a timeless glance.

Since this 'me', in other words the division between the observer and observed moves and exists only through occupying itself, through reacting to itself constantly, a state of total mental non-occupation is not possible for it.

The total non-occupation of the mind, the lack of any movement from it, equals with its death and non-existence. And yes, the mind can sense this danger to its very existence which explains why so many people turn away, sooner or later, from inquiring too deeply into themselves.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 38 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.)