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

Closer than any word


Displaying posts 31 - 38 of 38 in total
Mon, 13 Jan 2020 #31
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
Mon, 13 Jan 2020 #32
Thumb_open-uri20180717-8420-135f99u-0 Mina Martini Finland 287 posts in this forum Offline

Clive and Tom,

Clive:>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?

Mina: It may really be that something, let us cal it a 'serious spiritual text' for now, feels like complete gibberish (or Chinese, if you wish Tom :) ) without that necessarily meaning that a person is drawing conclusions at all.

(conclusions come in for example when the writer of this text is considered as considering himself as an authority, is concluded to be 'giving lectures to others' etc, to give some examples of reactions which in my opinion already contain subjective judgements)

But, it may also be that simply one understands nothing. A bit like, an example Tom mentioned, one was listening to a foreign language one has never heard before and has no way to make head or tail of it because the brain is not able to decode anything as the knowledge of this specific language is not there.

Now, moving on from this to a very interesting point..

Many may be familiar with experiences of having read a spiritual text or book, and feeling they do not understand it at all.

Time passes and there comes a point when they pick up the same text or book again and it is suddenly opening up in a completely new way than before..

What I am pointing out with this example is the fact that ultimately it is not the text that has changed, it is the same as before , but that something has changed IN US ourselves.

It is never 'the other' or 'the writing of another', but everything is fundamentally about understanding ourselves, not about anything else.

The world that we see and experience IS ultimately the level of understanding within us.

And when the understanding is total, absolute, the world created by the division between thinker and thought, (which is always limited and cannot survive the absolute) ceases to exist.

That is the ultimate gift to the world

This post was last updated by Mina Martini Mon, 13 Jan 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 13 Jan 2020 #33
Thumb_open-uri20180717-8420-135f99u-0 Mina Martini Finland 287 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Except the ones that made this forum possible!

Mina> :Let us elaborate: may all of us be free from psychological constructions.Not even intellect can work properly in such distortion!

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Mon, 13 Jan 2020 #34
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5546 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
K: 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

I saw this expressed (by K) more succinctly yesterday:

Memory is the enemy

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 13 Jan 2020 #35
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5546 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote #27:
the tree makes a strong impression on our senses. Words do not...especially those that we don’t find meaningful.

Perhaps I should not push this any further but .......

It may be that while listening, even if we appear not to understand, we may be "taking something in" at a different level.

In "The Ending of Time" K says to Bohm that listening is the only way out of our mental predicament. Out of the darkness. Listening works, while awareness is not sufficient. These are not quoted words, if I can find the passage I will post it - or perhaps someone else can locate it quickly? I know this sounds revolutionary! And perhaps I am misunderstanding it.

And the important thing is, and now I am sure this is an exact quote: WE CAN LISTEN IN OUR DARKNESS.


Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 13 Jan 2020 #36
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5546 posts in this forum Offline

Ah, I have found the passage now:

We have said that as long as the centre is creating darkness, and thought is operating in that darkness, there must be disorder, and society will be as it is now. To move away from that, you must have insight.

( Later )

K: How am I to dispel this continuous, constant darkness? That is the only question, because, as long as that exists, I create this constant division. You see, this is going round in circles. I can only dispel the darkness through insight, and I cannot have that insight by any effort of will, so I am left with nothing. So what is my problem? My problem is to perceive the darkness, to perceive the thought that is creating darkness, and to see that the self is the source of this darkness. Why can't I see that? Why can't I see it even logically?

(and)

And the darkness is constant. But I have been listening very carefully, and "X' makes a statement which seems absolutely true. That enters into me, and the act of his statement dispels the darkness. I am not making an effort to get rid of darkness, but"X' is the light. That's right, I hold to that.

So it comes to something, which is, can I listen with my darkness - in my darkness, which is constant? In that darkness, can I listen to you? Of course I can. I am living in constant division which brings darkness. `X' comes along and tells me there is no division.

Bohm: Right. Now why do you say you can listen in the darkness?

K: Oh, yes, I can listen in darkness. If I can't I am doomed.

DB: But that is no argument.

K: Of course that is no argument, but it is so!

DB: Living in darkness is not worthwhile. But now we say that it is possible to listen in the darkness.

K: He, `X', explains to me very, very carefully. I am sensitive, I have been listening to him in my darkness, but that is making me sensitive, alive, watching. That is what I have been doing. We have been doing it together. And he makes a statement that there is absolutely no division. And I know that I am living in division. That very statement has brought the constant movement to an end.

Otherwise, if this doesn't take place I have nothing - you follow? I am perpetually living in darkness. But there is a voice in the wilderness, and listening to that voice has an extraordinary effect.

DB: Listening reaches the source of the movement, whereas observation does not.

K: Yes, I have observed, I have listened, I have played all kinds of games all my life. And I now see, that there is only one thing. That there is this constant darkness and I am acting in the darkness; in this wilderness which is darkness; whose centre is the self. I see that absolutely, completely; I can't argue against it any more. And `X' comes along and tells me this. In that wilderness a voice says there is water. You follow? It is not hope. There is immediate action in me.

Please note I am not presenting Mina in the role of John the Baptist! Clearly there is something here that is independent of what Mina might have said.

I think, although I am not sure, K is talking about listening to K, listening to the teachings. But I think at other times he has said it is the act of listening that is important, not what is listened to.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 13 Jan 2020 #37
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5546 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
This brings up the K. statement that "the self arises when thought identifies with the senses, with sensation".

I wanted to return to this issue.

Would you say that this is the ONLY origin of the self, Dan, this identification with the senses? As I brought up, I include thought itself as one of those senses?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 13 Jan 2020 #38
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5546 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
Many may be familiar with experiences of having read a spiritual text or book, and feeling they do not understand it at all.

Time passes and there comes a point when they pick up the same text or book again and it is suddenly opening up in a completely new way than before..

What I am pointing out with this example is the fact that ultimately it is not the text that has changed, it is the same as before , but that something has changed IN US ourselves.

It is never 'the other' or 'the writing of another', but everything is fundamentally about understanding ourselves, not about anything else.

The world that we see and experience IS ultimately the level of understanding within us.

And when the understanding is total, absolute, the world created by the division between thinker and thought, (which is always limited and cannot survive the absolute) ceases to exist.

That is the ultimate gift to the world

I feel this is true, Mina.

One can read some K text, for example, that one may have read many times, and suddenly see a much greater depth of meaning in it. Yes, it ME that has changed. Subtly, without being able to pin down the change at all.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 31 - 38 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.)