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

I am the problem


Displaying posts 31 - 60 of 69 in total
Thu, 17 Oct 2019 #31
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1489 posts in this forum Online

I posted this in the general forum this morning...I'll post it here in case anyone has some input:

Here is something different but related to 'transformation' I think. I watched recently a report about psilocybin being administered in a controlled medical environment...I was struck with the result one woman had who had stage 3 cancer of some kind. To look and listen to her after her experience was over, the session under the drug had 'transformed' her. As a result of what she had experienced psychologically, her intense anxiety had disappeared and she saw life and her own situation in a new way...My guess (and from my own personal experience) is that her transformation will not last. Why I'm bringing this up is what the researchers found with these experiments. That under the psilocybin the brain made more connections within itself. There was a side by side of a before and after brain scan photos and there was this dramatic increase in connections after the drug. The question that arose in me and maybe others have a view on this, the 'before' brain on the left is 'stuck' in certain grooves and patterns. It functions but it suffers, it fears etc. The 'after' brain is 'freed' from its usual routines, ruts, etc and seeing 'things' in new ways, frees itself from the fears and anxieties that were the result of its limited functioning that the 'before' brain lived and 'put up' with...So is it that 'freedom' then lies in the physical brain not being as limited as it has been conditioned to be? If that is so and given that drugs are not the way, how does this increased connectivity happen? If I can connect K. to this...it is that by seeing totally the 'limited' functioning of our brain without any judgement or desire to 'change' it, these new connections will take place naturally by the brain itself? Because any judging or desire to change what is choicelessly seen is simply another 'pattern' by the limited patterns already formed? So unless the 'self/psychological thought' is seen in its 'actuality', the brain stays 'stuck' there...its 'potential' stifled?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 17 Oct 2019 #32
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5344 posts in this forum Online

Manfred Kritzler wrote:
But when it is interpreted as something false it is a thought reaction? No?

I do not see 'negation' as an operation of thought. This is very difficult, because thought is now trying to describe negation.

Now it is seen that thought cannot possibly describe negation. Is this in itself a negation? This seeing. Thought was on a certain path, and because something is seen, it can no longer continue on that path. Is this not negation of that path?

Now thought is being used to describe what has been seen. Words are used, but the desription in itself is not negation.

Negation is certainly not an act of will. It is not something that I can do. It is not deliberate. generally, I would say, it is associated with seeing that thought is operating where it should not - in the psychological area.

Manfred Kritzler wrote:
Choiceless awareness is for me not an interpretation of what is recognized.

Yes, exactly.

It is one with the recognized. Seeing that I am not choiceless aware is the starting point.

This is the only possible starting point, isn't it? And is this not a sort of negation - seeing that where there is recognition, there is no choiceless awareness? The recognistion process is negated, is it not? At least temporally.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 17 Oct 2019 #33
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5344 posts in this forum Online

Dan McDermott wrote:
Here is something different but related to 'transformation' I think

This is certainly very interesting Dan.

What would say is the nature of these "new connections"? What does it mean?

And if new physical connections have been made in the brain, why would it be, as you suggest, that they will not last? (I am associating these connections with transformation, as you have done)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 17 Oct 2019 #34
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5344 posts in this forum Online

Manfred Kritzler wrote:
In the moment I am aware of this choicelessness, awareness and what I am aware of is not one any more. The observer is separated from the observed again.

This is an interesting point, Manfred.

In fact, does not the very phrase "I am aware" contain an error? If the I is acting, can there be awareness?

Hmm, this begins to formulate something that has been at "the back of my mind". It is relevent to the question "is the basic problem that the I is, related to what the I is obscuring" - or something like that.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 17 Oct 2019 #35
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5344 posts in this forum Online

Dan McDermott wrote:
This excerpt from the QOTD is a good reminder it seems to me, (but what does "set thought free" mean?)

Well, there is certainly the sense that thought is not free, it is ever constrained, condemned, controlled, limited, etc, by itself in the guise of the thinker.

I would like to reproduce the whole of the QOTD, before it disappears into the past. I see at as a sort of summary of the essence of K's teachings:

Krishnamurti Quote of the Day

Ojai, California | Third Talk in The Oak Grove, 1946

Questioner: From the amoeba to man the intelligence to be secure, to self-expand is inevitable and natural, it is a closed and vicious circle.

Krishnamurti: That may seem so, but the activity to be secure has not led man to security, to happiness, to wisdom. It has led him to ever-increasing confusion, conflict and misery. There is a different activity which is not of the self, which must be sought out. A different intelligence is needed to experience the timeless, which alone will free us from incessant strife and sorrow. The intelligence that we now possess is the result of craving gratification, security, in crude or subtle form; it is the result of greed; it is the outcome of self-identification. Such an intelligence can never experience the real.

Questioner: Do you say that intelligence and self-consciousness are synonymous?

Krishnamurti: Consciousness is the outcome of identified continuity. Sensation, feeling, rationalization, and the continuity of identified memory make up self-consciousness, do they not? Can we say precisely where consciousness ends and intelligence begins? They flow into each other, do they not? Is there consciousness without intelligence?

Questioner: Does a new intelligence come into being if we are aware of the self-expansive intelligence?

Krishnamurti: We shall know, as experience, the new form of intelligence only when the self-protective and self-expansive intelligence ceases.

Questioner: How can we go beyond this limited intelligence?

Krishnamurti: Through being passively aware of its complex and interrelated activities. In so being aware the causes that nourish the intelligence of the self come to an end without self-conscious effort.

Questioner: How can one cultivate the other intelligence?

Krishnamurti: Is that not a wrong question? I wonder if we are paying interested attention to what is being said. The wrong cannot cultivate the right. We are still thinking in terms of self-expanding intelligence, and that is our difficulty. We are unaware of it and so we ask, without thought, ''How can the other intelligence be cultivated?'' Surely there are certain obvious, essential requirements which will free the mind from this limited intelligence: humility, which is related to humor and mercy; to be without greed, which is to be without identification; to be unworldly, which is to be free from sensate values; to be free from stupidity, from ignorance, which is the lack of self-knowledge, and so on. We must be aware of the cunning and devious ways of the self, and in understanding them virtue comes into being, but virtue is not an end in itself. Self-interest cannot cultivate virtue, it can only perpetuate itself under the mask of virtue; under the cover of virtue there is still the activity of the self. It is as though we were attempting to see the clear, pure light through colored glasses, which we are unaware of wearing. To see the pure light we must first be aware of our colored glasses; this very awareness, if the urge to see the pure light is strong, helps to remove the colored glasses. This removal is not the action of one resistance against another but is an effortless action of understanding. We must be aware of the actual, and the understanding of what is will set thought free; this very understanding will bring about open receptivity, transcending the particular intelligence.

Questioner: How does the intelligence with which we are all familiar come into being?

Krishnamurti: It comes into being through perception, sensation, contact, desire, identification-all of which give continuity to the self through memory. The principle of pleasure, pain, identification is ever sustaining this intelligence which can never open the door to truth.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 17 Oct 2019 #36
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5344 posts in this forum Online

idiot ? wrote:
And as Wm Opdam pointed out above, this means going into the question of what the I, the self, is.

On reflection, I realise now when I made the statement "I am the problem", by "I" I meant the observer, the thinker, the analyser, the controller, the condemner, etc. Of course I am not suggesting that these things represent any separate entity. They appear, the self appears, in this conditioned, dualistic movement of thought.

The "I" is a movement of thought trying to be other than thought. It is impermanent thought trying, pretending, to be permanent.

No?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 18 Oct 2019 #37
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 855 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:

idiot ? wrote:

And as Wm Opdam pointed out above, this means going into the question of what the I, the self, is.

On reflection, I realise now when I made the statement "I am the problem", by "I" I meant the observer, the thinker, the analyser, the controller, the condemner, etc. Of course I am not suggesting that these things represent any separate entity. They appear, the self appears, in this conditioned, dualistic movement of thought.

The "I" is a movement of thought trying to be other than thought. It is impermanent thought trying, pretending, to be permanent.

in other words, what would we be without an 'I' working harmoniously within a whole healthy human being ??

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 18 Oct 2019 #38
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5344 posts in this forum Online

Wim Opdam wrote:
in other words, what would we be without an 'I' working harmoniously within a whole healthy human being ??

I don't know about this "in other words". Wim. This is not what I was trying to say, or ask.

You are suggesting that it is possible for an "I" to work harmoniously 'within a whole healthy human being'. If there was such a thing, would he have an I at all? Can an I, which is findamentally separate, isolated, ever be whole?

Certainly the "I" that I describe in &36 cannot. It is always a reaction.

This post was last updated by Clive Elwell Fri, 18 Oct 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 18 Oct 2019 #39
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5344 posts in this forum Online

I am the problem precisely because I think - meaning it is at some level assumed - that I am the solution to the problem.

Based on this assumption, "I" come into existence as a reaction to a particular perceived problem. But it always turns out, doesn't it, that I am not actually the solver, because I am merely thought, and thought has no actual means to solve psychological problems .

Thought CAN solve practical problems, and probably it is this fact that has given rise to the notion that thought can also solve psychological problems.

Thought, as the thinker, pretends to have the answer. Or at least something valuable to contribute. The thinker comes in on the assumption that 'it knows better' than thought. But this is a fallacy, as the thinker IS thought. It is all the same level of ignorance.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 19 Oct 2019 #40
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 855 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:

Wim Opdam wrote:

in other words, what would we be without an 'I' working harmoniously within a whole healthy human being ??

I don't know about this "in other words". Wim. This is not what I was trying to say, or ask.

I understand that Clive, because 'I' has many different levels of existence and you mean the specifically separated psychological level and I talk about the whole and healthy functioning of the 'I'.
That is also the 'I' that is ending time, that is transforming.

In fact, the language lacks a specific word to indicate that difference,
because it can lead to misunderstanding, miscommunication.

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

This post was last updated by Wim Opdam Sat, 19 Oct 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 19 Oct 2019 #41
Thumb_avatar Manfred Kritzler Germany 55 posts in this forum Offline

Many years ago I thought for a long period of time what the I or self means. In the pari center of new learning I met a woman who was half Blackfoot Indian and half white. She told me that the Blackfoots believe that the I is the body and the land where the body is born.

It took me another year to find out what that really means for me. Since that time I feel that the “l” is created by human beings and can be whatever we think it is. It could be my body or me and my partner or a group of people or a country or the universe or whatever I think it is.

I agree with what Wim said and think that we have to clarify first what we mean with this term. And I think we have to accept at least in the beginning any imagination of the “I”.

This post was last updated by Manfred Kritzler Sat, 19 Oct 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 19 Oct 2019 #42
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1489 posts in this forum Online

This is how the 'I' was seen here this morning. When the thought, say, "I am dying" arises, that thought is describing a 'fact'. Death of the body will come. Death will come to all living things...A fact. The 'I', is what arises to 'deal' with that fact. The 'I' is not a fact but a complex of memories that will react to this fact of inevitable death in a spectrum of ways depending on the content that went into making this complex of 'me'; from denying the fact, fearing the fact, rationalizing the fact etc. And for a person (or 'I') that believes in stories of an afterlife, 'I' can even embrace or 'look forward' to the body's death (the Rapture i.e.)...That is just one extreme example of the 'I' arising to meet a challenge and creating the duality of thinker and thought. Ever creating a source of conflict within myself... The only "healthy" 'I' is a nonexistent 'I'?... Is this 'wrong' and if not, it seems important that we see this together.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sat, 19 Oct 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 19 Oct 2019 #43
Thumb_avatar Manfred Kritzler Germany 55 posts in this forum Offline

Clive:
I do not see 'negation' as an operation of thought. This is very difficult, because thought is now trying to describe negation.

Now it is seen that thought cannot possibly describe negation. Is this in itself a negation? This seeing. Thought was on a certain path, and because something is seen, it can no longer continue on that path. Is this not negation of that path.
————
Manfred:
Does that mean negation is something like choiceless awareness? Is it the seeing of thought or whatever is recognized, but not dealing with it? Not like or dislike it, no right or wrong? Negating then could be seeing something without being involved?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 19 Oct 2019 #44
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1489 posts in this forum Online

Manfred Kritzler wrote:
Negating then could be seeing something without being involved?

Yes I'd say. Real 'negation' doesn't take place when there is psychological "involvement". When there is involvement, it is the thinker dealing with the thought. Real negation in the moment, is the thinker becoming aware that it is the thought. That they are one.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 20 Oct 2019 #45
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 855 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
.That is just one extreme example of the 'I' arising to meet a challenge and creating the duality of thinker and thought. Ever creating a source of conflict within myself... The only "healthy" 'I' is a nonexistent 'I'?... Is this 'wrong' and if not, it seems important that we see this together.

BUT Dan, is it not clear to you that the word " I " is used as well for the existing entity as well as for the arising thought and the arising thought can be valid as an awareness-tool to do anything. The various and subtle ways this tool is hidden and/or get out of order is my concern, if IT'S seen together would be a gift.

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 20 Oct 2019 #46
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1489 posts in this forum Online

Wim Opdam wrote:
the arising thought can be valid as an awareness-tool to do anything.

Something happens to the physical body: a pain, an illness. Thought says "I am dying". The 'rational' reaction to that would be, "well yes that's true but maybe not right now." "Perhaps it's just a passing thing and there's nothing to worry about", etc. But even in that exchange there is the 'fear' of death, isn't there? It's coming but not yet. The 'sword of Damocles'...? The 'thinker', the 'I', fears 'death' because it is the unknown...'I' imagine the world going on without me in it. Where will 'I' go? What will happen to 'me' after the death of the body? These questions all frighten and cause anxiety. Why? Is it because of the concept of 'time'? That psychologically 'I' can (and do) project a future where I won't be here. But is there such a 'time' psychologically or is there only ever the 'eternal now'? So the basis of the fear and worry and dread about the 'future' is the existence of the 'I' and its belief in psychological time? A past, a present, and a future? "Becoming"? But that is chronological time. Is it totally out of place in the psyche?

Your concept of 'I' Wim is not clear to me.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 20 Oct 2019 #47
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 855 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Your concept of 'I' Wim is not clear to me.

Your concept of 'I' is clear to me, but not open enough, too limited to an intellectual and non-factual existence.

for example "I" wants to be a good pianist and has to invest time for that, but then it may sneak into "I will never learn it" or "I am the best one there has ever been or will come" that may sneak in unnoticed by your own or by others.

Different existence of what is commomly called "I" and this is just a very simple example, but mostly more in disguise and subtle.

Is this not the reason why K. despised applause for not being exposed to the temptation?

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 20 Oct 2019 #48
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1489 posts in this forum Online

Wim Opdam wrote:
"I" wants to be a good pianist and has to invest time for that, but then it may sneak into "I will never learn it" or "I am the best one there has ever been or will come" that may sneak in unnoticed by your own or by others.

Tell me if I'm understanding you. You are talking about the 'wrong turn' that Bohm and K. discussed. Somewhere in our past things were done simply and directly. Then there appeared the 'self-image', the psychological 'I', the "me and mine", etc.. There is the desire, to use your example, to be proficient on the piano. In order to do that time has to be spent...no 'self-image', no psychological 'I' need be involved there. Then as you say the psychological 'becoming' "sneaks" in and changes what was a 'simple' mastering of an instrument through time and effort, into a way of enhancing or strengthening one's self-image...and that seems to generally be the way things go. Isn't the 'problem' then Wim, the 'self-image' itself? What K. has called a "bundle of memories"?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 20 Oct 2019 #49
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1489 posts in this forum Online

Wim Opdam wrote:
Is this not the reason why K. despised applause for not being exposed to the temptation?

I don't know of course, but maybe he "despised" applause because it implied that his audience was being grateful for 'giving' them something...similar to entertainment...and he knew he wasn't. He was pointing out what had to end: the 'self'.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sun, 20 Oct 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 20 Oct 2019 #50
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 54 posts in this forum Offline

To really investigate "I am the problem," we have to go into what the "I" is. Extremely relevant is K's chapter "What is the self?" Here's how it begins:

Krishnmurti, The First and Last Freedom, Chapter 9, What is the Self?

Do we know what we mean by the self? By that, I mean the idea, the memory, the conclusion, the experience, the various forms of nameable and unnameable intentions, the conscious endeavour to be or not to be, the accumulated memory of the unconscious, the racial, the group, the individual, the clan, and the whole of it all, whether it is projected outwardly in action or projected spiritually as virtue; the striving after all this is the self. In it is included the competition, the desire to be. The whole process of that is the self; and we know actually when we are faced with it that it is an evil thing. I am using the word ‘evil’ intentionally, because the self is dividing: the self is self-enclosing: its activities, however noble, are separative and isolating. We know all this. We also know those extraordinary moments when the self is not there, in which there is no sense of endeavour, of effort, and which happens when there is love.

Later it says:

Krishnmurti, The First and Last Freedom, Chapter 9, What is the Self?

Is it possible for the self to be completely absent now? You know it is possible. What are the necessary ingredients, requirements? What is the element that brings it about? Can I find it? When I put that question ”Can I find it?” surely I am convinced that it is possible; so I have already created an experience in which the self is going to be strengthened, is it not? Understanding of the self requires a great deal of intelligence, a great deal of watchfulness, alertness, watching ceaselessly, so that it does not slip away. I, who am very earnest, want to dissolve the self. When I say that, I know it is possible to dissolve the self. The moment I say "I want to dissolve this," in that there is still the experiencing of the self, and so the self is strengthened. So how is it possible for the self not to experience? One can see that the state of creation is not at all the experience of the self. Creation is when the self is not there, because creation is not intellectual, is not of the mind, is not self-projected, is something beyond all experiencing. So is it possible for the mind to be quite still, in a state of non-recognition, or non-experiencing, to be in a state in which creation can take place, which means when the self is not there, when the self is absent? The problem is this, is it not? Any movement of the mind, positive or negative, is an experience which actually strengthens the ‘me’. Is it possible for the mind not to recognize? That can only take place when there is complete silence, but not the silence which is an experience of the self and which therefore strengthens the self.

I strongly recommend reading the entire chapter. If you don't own the book, the pdf can currently be found online.

This post was last updated by idiot ? Sun, 20 Oct 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 20 Oct 2019 #51
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1489 posts in this forum Online

idiot ? wrote:
K: Any movement of the mind, positive or negative, is an experience which actually strengthens the ‘me’.

And it seems that thought won't give up its "movement" until it clearly sees that fact.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 20 Oct 2019 #52
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5344 posts in this forum Online

Dan McDermott wrote:
This is how the 'I' was seen here this morning. When the thought, say, "I am dying" arises, that thought is describing a 'fact'. Death of the body will come. Death will come to all living things...A fact.

This may be a little tangential, but yesterday I came across some interesting scientific research that suggests that the brain actually tries to hide the fact of our death - its own death - from us/itself -

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/oct/19/doubting-death-how-our-brains-shield-us-from-mortal-truth

Dan McDermott wrote:
The 'I', is what arises to 'deal' with that fact.

This is very interesting, Dan. I was pondering that the self always arises in response to some perceived challenge, but this is more specific.

At first sight, I think you are right. I have often said that the self originally arose in an attempt to give permanency to impermanent thought, but you are pointing out that this is happening 'all the time', no?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 20 Oct 2019 #53
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5344 posts in this forum Online

Manfred Kritzler wrote:
Is it the seeing of thought or whatever is recognized, but not dealing with it

Not trying to deal with it because it seen it is impossible to deal with it in a meaningful way.

K says that total inaction is the highest form of action. This is diametrically opposed to all that we have absorbed from the world around us, isn't it?, parents, teachers, peers. And yet surely it is true? Because all forms of actions, so-called positive action, stem from our conditioning, and so can only continue that conditioning.

There is a beautiful freedom in this. No more searching around for what is true.

Not like or dislike it, no right or wrong? Negating then could be seeing something without being involved?

yes

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 21 Oct 2019 #54
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5344 posts in this forum Online

idiot ? wrote:
Krishnmurti, The First and Last Freedom, Chapter 9, What is the Self?

Do we know what we mean by the self? By that, I mean the idea, the memory, the conclusion, the experience, the various forms of nameable and unnameable intentions, the conscious endeavour to be or not to be, the accumulated memory of the unconscious, the racial, the group, the individual, the clan, and the whole of it all, whether it is projected outwardly in action or projected spiritually as virtue; the striving after all this is the self. In it is included the competition, the desire to be. The whole process of that is the self;

If I may make an outrageous suggestion, a heresy, - non of these things are the self. "I" am not the the things, the thoughts, the feelings that pass through the mind. That is, unless these things are identified with. Then I am these things. I am what the mind identifies with.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 21 Oct 2019 #55
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 855 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
I don't know of course, but maybe he "despised" applause because it implied that his audience was being grateful for 'giving' them something...similar to entertainment...and he knew he wasn't. He was pointing out what had to end: the 'self'.

nor do I know what was or was not going on in k's mind, but this circumstance is just as present as it is now when giving or receiving compliments. it's like his warning for the snake in the room, keep your eyes on it !

The wrong turn isn't something from the past but is every moment possible.

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 21 Oct 2019 #56
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 855 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
To really investigate "I am the problem," we have to go into what the "I" is. Extremely relevant is K's chapter "What is the self?"

To me 'the self' is a much clearer word, it doesn't need explaining about which level of existing we are speaking.

it is abundantly clear that this is a constructed idea.

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 21 Oct 2019 #57
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1489 posts in this forum Online

Clive Elwell wrote:
That is, unless these things are identified with. Then I am these things. I am what the mind identifies with.

I'd say this is a good point Clive. And 'identification' can work both ways: the 'I' can identify 'with' something or someone or it can identify 'against' something or someone...as in thinking of oneself as an 'atheist'. Another point that comes up for me often after hearing K. use the word, is "transient", that the 'self' or 'I'unit or process, is transient. It feels permanent when present but actually doesn't last long. It disappears and reappears as this feeling of: 'Me and Mine'.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Mon, 21 Oct 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 21 Oct 2019 #58
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 54 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
If I may make an outrageous suggestion, a heresy, - non of these things are the self. "I" am not the the things, the thoughts, the feelings that pass through the mind. That is, unless these things are identified with.

Whether you go the route of contraction, not identifying with anything, or expansion, not being apart from everything, you wind up in the same place. But it's all very mental, very clever - and self strengthening - unless there is actual, natural quieting of thought to clear open now.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 21 Oct 2019 #59
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2812 posts in this forum Offline

Wim: To me 'the self' is a much clearer word, it doesn't need explaining about which level of existing we are speaking.

it is abundantly clear that this is a constructed idea.

T: constructed out of thought. Like all ideas, ideals, images, in the psychological realm, it’s a dividing factor....the distortion....the wrong turn. Psychological thought is what I’m seeing as the self. All based upon thinking. We’ve totally identified with thought! It’s who we are....what the ‘me’ is, as I see it. So Clive’s “I am the problem” becomes thought is the problem. Not practical thought obviously.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Mon, 21 Oct 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 22 Oct 2019 #60
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5344 posts in this forum Online

Dan McDermott wrote:
Another point that comes up for me often after hearing K. use the word, is "transient", that the 'self' or 'I'unit or process, is transient. It feels permanent when present but actually doesn't last long. It disappears and reappears as this feeling of: 'Me and Mine'.

Yes, this seems to be so to me. This is how it is actually is. But the sense of tremendous continuity has encrusted around the very word “I”. In a way it is a synonym for ‘continuity'.

What you say is true, isn't it? Human beings have built the whole world, outer and inner, around the assumption of an "I" that is permanent, enduring in time. Perhaps extending even after death. And here we are questioning that, saying that "I", the self, has no permanency. It is just moment to moment - would you go along with that phrase, Dan?

If we are right, then the whole edifice of the world, society, culture, the individual instantly collapses.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 31 - 60 of 69 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.)