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

The Precipice


Displaying posts 91 - 120 of 162 in total
Thu, 21 Nov 2019 #91
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2900 posts in this forum Offline

Don't we cause and undergo this suffering because of the fear our understanding of who we 'think' we are, has created the division between us , between us and nature, between us and the universe. A deep (mistaken?) loneliness?

We suffer and cause others to suffer because of conformity to ideals and images and conclusions/beliefs about what we/they should or should not do or be....and images of ourselves or others as being inferior or superior to other images. All the divisions in consciousness caused by psychological images lead to suffering don’t they? Without images we don’t know anything psychologically...we deal with life (and people) as it is(they are) ...not what it should be or what we’d like it to be. It’s these ideas and beliefs that break up life and action....break up wholeness...that have taken us to the precipice. Just my feelings about this question of why we suffer psychologically. I may only be scratching the surface.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Thu, 21 Nov 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 21 Nov 2019 #92
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1578 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
After all is said and done, there is discontent, sorrow - both personal and the sorrow of the world. Not to move away from that fact is all that truly means anything, as I see it. As soon as we, I, you move away from it, there is corruption and continuation of the past.

Yes there is this "discontent" and "sorrow", and to escape into their opposites only prolongs their presence...but when it is seen clearly that the cause of discontent lies in the desire to 'be contented', in other words to 'become' what one thinks one is not, then is it an escape, when seeing that 'mechanism', to just throw it out? If it is stupid to wish to 'become' and bring 'time' into the psyche, which inevitably brings about 'discontentment' and frustration, then isn't it stupid to keep on doing that? The same with psychological suffering, if the 'craving' for this or that brings about a state of suffering, it's not the suffering that has to be alleviated, it's the 'craving' that brings it about that has to be thrown out, isn't it? I'm speaking generally, when there is loss of someone close, there will be intense suffering but whether it is because I have lost someone close, and there has been dependency or the suffering is because the other has lost their life say and will not know the joy of living...only I can discern that in myself. So can we differentiate between the 'escaping' that you say is "corruption" and the 'throwing out' which is the brain 'healing itself' by dropping these habitual movements of thought which create the conflict and sorrow?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Thu, 21 Nov 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 21 Nov 2019 #93
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5417 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Clive: yes indeed. It seems this is the first step. The essential step. If enough people did this, would not that be stepping back from the precipice?

Dan: No, it is enough, if you 'do it'.

I would like you to enlarge on this, Dan. You seem to be saying that if "I", changed from a concluding mind to an enquiring mind, that alone - irrespective of what the other 7 billion+ so-called individuals do - would be enough to move the whole human race from the brink of the precipice. Is that what you are saying? It sounds rather fantastic.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 21 Nov 2019 #94
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1578 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
You seem to be saying that if "I", changed from a concluding mind to an enquiring mind, that alone - irrespective of what the other 7 billion+ so-called individuals do - would be enough to move the whole human race from the brink of the precipice.

No Clive. They will do what they will do. But if you are not free, whatever you do will not effect whether they find freedom or whether they pull back from the brink. Your freedom will have its affect the way k.'s has had on us. The outcome is totally unknown.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 22 Nov 2019 #95
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1578 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Without images we don’t know anything psychologically...we deal with life (and people) as it is(they are) ...not what it should be or what we’d like it to be. It’s these ideas and beliefs that break up life and action....break up wholeness...that have taken us to the precipice.

Yes I see it this way too.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 22 Nov 2019 #96
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1578 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
No. We're talking about fear. So I'm talking about living things, things that live and die biologically. A star in danger of exploding does not seek security or feel fear - as far as I know. So danger in terms of stars is not applicable to what we're talking about, which is fear.

From #85
Right, fear. I had a taste of psychological fear this AM. It was about dying, not being here at some point, gone, etc...it gets more and more obvious the meaning or the truth of K.'s statement: "thought is fear", does it to you all? Without the thought and its images, is there fear at all? Thought presents an image that is sad, scary, terrifying, etc. and there is the 'thinker's' reaction to move away from the image. Is that what we feel as fear: the attempt to escape, get away, change what is there? The image of my no longer being here on this beautiful earth among people I care for and who care for me? So time is an element here, right? I'm not dead now but I will be. So thought with time is fear. Isn't this the major pollution in our lives?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 22 Nov 2019 #97
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5417 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:

Clive Elwell wrote:

You seem to be saying that if "I", changed from a concluding mind to an enquiring mind, that alone - irrespective of what the other 7 billion+ so-called individuals do - would be enough to move the whole human race from the brink of the precipice.

No Clive. They will do what they will do. But if you are not free, whatever you do will not effect whether they find freedom or whether they pull back from the brink. Your freedom will have its affect the way k.'s has had on us. The outcome is totally unknown.

Indeed the outcome is unknown. All outcomes are really unknown, even scientifically there is always a certain amount of uncertainty in the world of matter and energy. The self seems basically a struggle to try make everything known, certain, but clearly this is a futile effort.

But I was referring back to this exchange between us:

Clive: yes indeed. It seems this is the first step. The essential step. If enough people did this, would not that be stepping back from the precipice?

Dan: No, it is enough, if you 'do it'.

Perhaps I misunderstood the meaning you were putting on the word "enough". Clear all I can do is enquire into freedom within myself, and perhaps share that enquiry with the few that might be interested. And yes, the "outcome" of that enquiry is unknown - yet it must be done. And if there is a motive for the enquiry, then it will not be freedom.

So what did you mean by "enough", Dan?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 22 Nov 2019 #98
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5417 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
So thought with time is fear. Isn't this the major pollution in our lives?

Yes, as I expressed in the thread "Can fear actually, really, end in me?, fear is seen here, experienced here, as the major element of the mind, of our lives. Small fears and big fears, although I am not sure the distinction has much significance.

Following my intense experience of fear, and seeing how terribly limiting, destructive, it is, I was left, when the intensity has abated somewhat, to “do something” about fear. Perhaps live in a way that at least reduced the ways fear could arise. But I am seeing, and saw then, that this might be a superficial and futile gesture. It could be regarded as an experimentation. And perhaps in a way “facing fear”

Hmm, having written that “facing fear”, I am now wondering if it is true, and actually my resolution, if that is the term, was actually AVOIDING facing fear?

Does all action about fear, on fear, actually come from fear itself, and so continue fear?

Anyway, what I actually did, was start to live in a more ‘open’, transparent way. The idea was: there would then be less fear of ‘exposure’. I would be being what I was, admitting what I was, and not pretending. Put simply, I would be more honest in the details of my life. So then perhaps fear could not get at me. But actually this turns out to be far more complicated than it might appear, because “what I am” is not fixed, it is constantly changing. And we cannot ignore the fact that thought is fragmented. So to be honest to one fragment, is to be dishonest to another fragment.

Anyway, to shorten the narrative, I found trying to act on fear was a “whack a mole” game. It may disappear in one area, but as a result of the action, new fears turn up in other areas.

But having said, I should add ...... I feel something has actually moved in me. The ‘resolution’ has had some effect on my life, my actions, in a not inconsequential way.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 23 Nov 2019 #99
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1578 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
I found trying to act on fear was a “whack a mole” game. It may disappear in one area, but as a result of the action, new fears turn up in other areas.

Is it because it is all the same thing? The 'you' acting on what you perceive is the same as what is being acted upon? A 'closed' system where one element 'you' thinks that it is outside of it? But is just part of it, the 'thinker', the 'observer'..? But it is all just the process of thought? Hard to swallow. But if it is 'swallowed' then "passive awareness" becomes the only thing that is 'apart'...that is 'free'. 'You' don't exist. There is a beauty in that.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 23 Nov 2019 #100
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2900 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
But it is all just the process of thought?

Thought and action conforming to thought.... which is based upon (has its root in) fear.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 23 Nov 2019 #101
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2900 posts in this forum Offline

Isn’t all action based upon intent (or resolution) ultimately based upon fear and conformity? Questioning...

Clive: Hmm, having written that “facing fear”, I am now wondering if it is true, and actually my resolution, if that is the term, was actually AVOIDING facing fear?

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Sat, 23 Nov 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 23 Nov 2019 #102
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1578 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Clive: I am now wondering if it is true, and actually my resolution, if that is the term, was actually AVOIDING facing fear?

Are we saying that the 'facing' of fear can only be done by 'passive awareness'? All else is "avoiding" facing fear? Because the 'frightened one' is fear?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 23 Nov 2019 #103
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2900 posts in this forum Offline

I think that’s a good way to put it, Dan. Still looking further into this ....it’s the key issue I think...observer separating from observed. In reality, ‘I’ am a manifestation of fear...and desire?

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Sat, 23 Nov 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 23 Nov 2019 #104
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1578 posts in this forum Offline

No peace or security possible for the 'I' because of its fragmentation...one minute a 'saint', next minute a 'sinner'.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 23 Nov 2019 #105
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2900 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
No peace or security possible for the 'I'

If the ‘I’ is only an image, as we’ve been discussing previously, how can an image have peace...or have anything at all, actually? It’s like saying my photo of my wife has security or peace....or saying the photo has intelligence because my wife may be intelligent. It’s just an image!

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Sat, 23 Nov 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 23 Nov 2019 #106
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1578 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
It’s just an image!

Yes but it's me. I'm the one going through all the fear, suffering, etc. but I don't see that I am the image. That seems to be thought's trick, that the 'thinker' never sees that it is only thought. That it's not realized that I don't actually exist, I am only this "image". It's quite a strange, very strange insight...but as I posted to Clive, there is a great beauty in it, in being 'no-thing'. As I see it, it's the meaning of the "observer is the observed".

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sat, 23 Nov 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 23 Nov 2019 #107
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2900 posts in this forum Offline

Yes but it's me. I'm the one going through all the fear, suffering, etc.

No....there’s suffering but no actual person suffering...just the thoughts and emotions present. But I take your point.It sure feels like ‘I’ suffer

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 23 Nov 2019 #108
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1578 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
No....there’s suffering but no actual person suffering...just the thoughts and emotions present.

What I'm saying is that there is no actual person, just an image of a person: a you or a me. The great trick of thought is that we don't feel ourselves as images, we think that we are real. But we're not. It's a false reality created by thought.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 24 Nov 2019 #109
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5417 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Is it because it is all the same thing? The 'you' acting on what you perceive is the same as what is being acted upon? A 'closed' system where one element 'you' thinks that it is outside of it? But is just part of it, the 'thinker', the 'observer'..? But it is all just the process of thought?

Yes, is the very movement of the self the action of fear? And yet this is something that the self seems incapable of seeing.

What is the self, the I, in action? K says that it is a bundle of memories. And yet this does not seem an entirely adequate description to me. Can we say that fear is enfolded in the action of the self? Not just fear. but all of the movements of the human mind - the desire, the conflict, the pursuit of pleasure, ambition, etc, are so enfolded? In fact the whole of human experience since time immemorable has become enfolded into the action of the self - every action, not just particular actions.

Which implies, does it not, that all action of the self, no matter how well intentioned, can only act to continue that which is enfolded in it, can only continue and extend the 'reservoir of human consciousness', with its inherent conflict and suffering?

Dan McDermott wrote:
But it is all just the process of thought? Hard to swallow. But if it is 'swallowed' then "passive awareness" becomes the only thing that is 'apart'...that is 'free'. 'You' don't exist. There is a beauty in that.

Yes, if or when this intrinsic limitation of thought - I mean thought in the guise of the self - is seen, then we have a whole new ballgame, as is said. Or perhaps we have NO ballgame, maybe all that is left is this passive awareness. It seems that way. but thought has a tremendous resistance to seeing it limitations, seeing its own real nature.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 24 Nov 2019 #110
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5417 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Isn’t all action based upon intent (or resolution) ultimately based upon fear and conformity? Questioning...

I would say all some deliberate action is ulimately the pursuit of security. Security for the body, and for the self. And as I wrote recently, fear is the ultimate expression of insecurity.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 24 Nov 2019 #111
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5417 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
No....there’s suffering but no actual person suffering...just the thoughts and emotions present. But I take your point.It sure feels like ‘I’ suffer

Would you say that I suffer, when identification with the suffering, with the emotions, takes place? Without any identification, then there is no one to suffer. And so, in a way, there is no suffering? Perhaps better to say without identification there is only sensation?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 24 Nov 2019 #112
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5417 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
The great trick of thought is that we don't feel ourselves as images, we think that we are real. But we're not. It's a false reality created by thought.

Or by identification with thought?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 24 Nov 2019 #113
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1578 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Or by identification with thought?

Who or what is the "identifier"?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 24 Nov 2019 #114
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1578 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Which implies, does it not, that all action of the self, no matter how well intentioned, can only act to continue that which is enfolded in it, can only continue and extend the 'reservoir of human consciousness', with its inherent conflict and suffering?

Which is another way of saying "The observer is the observed". There is 'nothing' outside of this...only awareness?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 24 Nov 2019 #115
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1578 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Yes, is the very movement of the self the action of fear? And yet this is something that the self seems incapable of seeing.

What is the self, the I, in action? K says that it is a bundle of memories. And yet this does not seem an entirely adequate description to me.

Isn't that because you or I can't see ourselves as a "bundle of memories"? We think we are more, that there is a 'me' there apart from whatever is going on. Something permanent: me. Realize the possibility that that is false, an illusion. What lies beyond that 'illusion' is unknown... but I'd say that that is the freedom from the known that has been spoken about.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 24 Nov 2019 #116
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2900 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:

No....there’s suffering but no actual person suffering...just the thoughts and emotions present. But I take your point.It sure feels like ‘I’ suffer

Clive: Would you say that I suffer, when identification with the suffering, with the emotions, takes place?

Yes, when I identify or condemn or resist...when I feel separation from it because of thoughts or labels or images or beliefs or ideas about the suffering. Why do I have images/ideals/beliefs/conclusions at all...other than in practical matters? Asking myself right now...

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 24 Nov 2019 #117
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 775 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
If the ‘I’ is only an image, as we’ve been discussing previously, how can an image have peace...or have anything at all, actually?

I wonder the same thing, Tom.

In the same way, how can an image suffer? This is not clear to me. I understand that suffering is rooted in thought, nonetheless suffering is not thought. Suffering is pain, in the heart, and/or elsewhere, felt physically. The whole being feels the pain of it. Yes, it is thought which gives rise to the pain of suffering but, as you say about peace, Tom, it is NOT the image which suffers.

To give an example which almost anyone can understand: my child is suffering, either physically or psychologically, so I too suffer. Clearly, it is knowledge which causes my suffering to arise. How can this knowledge NOT cause me to suffer? I don’t have dementia, I see my child's pain, and “my heart breaks” for my child. How can it not? This is not self-pity, is it? In this example, it is the human being which suffers - not “me”, not the self-centre.

In fact, it doesn’t have to be “my” child, and it doesn’t have to be a child. Seeing the suffering in the world - I don’t have to give examples, we all know what is happening in the world - breaks my heart. How can it not? Again, it is not the image, it is not the “I” whose heart is broken. This suffering is not centred around the self-image. If we are to say that it IS self-centred, then what do we say about compassion? Somewhere K said that compassion is passion for all, I think. I don't see it that way. I see compassion as feeling suffering from witnessing the suffering of others. In any case, compassion is not rooted in thought, is it?

Then there is self-pity and self-concern of all sorts. These I understand are totally self-centred, centred on the image.

I don’t know what to make of it. The only thing to do that I can see even in regard to this question is to observe the suffering - the suffering of my child, the suffering of the world and my own suffering - in the same way that I observe fear, anger, discontent, and so on. There are no answers to be gotten from thought.

This post was last updated by Huguette . Sun, 24 Nov 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 24 Nov 2019 #118
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1578 posts in this forum Offline

There is a kind of 'cult' around 'suffering'. "No pain no gain..." But we're talking about the psychological kind. If I feel sorrow for the plight of others, that is considered to be a 'good' thing, what passes for 'compassion'. "I want 'them' to not be going through what they're going through"...Their suffering makes me sad. But depending on who 'they' are, this compassion can be very 'selective'. The ones closest to me get the most. Apart from the 'monsters' who feel nothing for anyone and 'enjoy' the suffering of others, this is pretty much the way things stand. Then along comes K. (others too) and he says that his secret is that he "doesn't mind what happens". Yet he doesn't in the way he lives appear in any way to be a 'monster', what does he mean? How can he not mind what happens given the chaos, violence, brutality, cruelty, around him. Not only doesn't he seem to be a monster, he also seems to be extraordinarily sensitive...Yet he says he doesn't 'suffer', he doesn't have psychological problems, no psychological conflict. He also says that he doesn't have a 'self-image'...This from the QOTD touches on this, I thought, when reading it:

K:... Life pursued positively as the me and the mine is conflicting and destructive. When this positive, aggressive wanting or not wanting is put an end to, there is the awareness of fear, of death, of nothingness. But if thought can go above and beyond this fear then there is ultimate reality.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 24 Nov 2019 #119
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 775 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
But depending on who 'they' are, this compassion can be very 'selective'. The ones closest to me get the most.

To me, that's not compassion.

Dan McDermott wrote:
he says that his secret is that he "doesn't mind what happens"

This "secret" of his comes up many times. I don't know what he meant by it. My understanding of it is that he means that he doesn't mind what happens "to him". He spoke for over 60 years. Was it in spite of not minding what happens? Somewhere he had mentioned that he was watching TV news once - I think with Mary Z. - with a meal tray in front of them. And he had to turn his head away because of something brutal that was shown.

This post was last updated by Huguette . Sun, 24 Nov 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 24 Nov 2019 #120
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2900 posts in this forum Offline

”Life pursued positively as the me and the mine is conflicting and destructive. When this positive, aggressive wanting or not wanting is put an end to, there is the awareness of fear, of death, of nothingness. But if thought can go above and beyond this fear then there is ultimate reality.” (K.)

Not sure if I’m totally getting K’s drift, but I think it makes sense. when all I’ve acquired ruthlessly in business for example is taken away by illness or economic disaster like during the Great Depression, there’s great fear. People killed themselves when they lost great wealth after the stock market crash of 1929. I lived my life almost totally for music like the elderly violinist my mother befriended. When he could no longer play due to severe arthritis, it was a tragic loss to him. Kind of like death, perhaps. It seems funny in a way, but I’ve gotten to the point with my music where I can take it or leave it. I still own some cds and mp3s that I cherish, but if I lost them all due to fire or natural disaster I wouldn’t be overly despondent. I probably love walking out ‘in nature‘ even more than listening to a great jazz recording. My music here featuring footage of my amazing wife :) https://www.youtube.com/user/lejaz

There’s so much to living that you lose when there’s one narrow focus in life, be it music, or sports or film or art or making money. Possibly what I just wrote has little to do with the K. quote. I have to be honest...I’m not totally sure what he was getting at.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Sun, 24 Nov 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 91 - 120 of 162 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.)