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

How to look


Displaying posts 31 - 60 of 106 in total
Sun, 22 Dec 2019 #31
Thumb_spock Douglas MacRae-Smith France 212 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
We might continue by considering how such personal conflicts arise. And what is their nature? Unless we can learn from them, about them, they don't have much meaning, do they?

Firstly, I'd like to apologise for my lack of skill in negotiating my way through aforementioned conflict.

And I'd love to have a stab at describing its workings:

Recognition is not "Seeing"
Recognition does not release us from the known (it is the known)
In Recognition there is the Naming, and the Naming is Authority.
I am no longer free to See, only to react to the Name, the Known, The Self.
If I recognise that I am in the presence of a "Guru", I now have to obtemper with the appropriate emotion (be it reverence or disgust, desire or aversion) and the cycle of the self continues.
Or in my case, if I recognise that I am in the presence of "Anger"; I now have to deal with all my personal trauma with this issue - I can no longer make the correct choice in the Clarity of Love.

Look, see, let go

This post was last updated by Douglas MacRae-Smith Sun, 22 Dec 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 22 Dec 2019 #32
Thumb_spock Douglas MacRae-Smith France 212 posts in this forum Offline

On dealing with Gurus:

As far as I can tell, there are no "Awakened beings".
At best there are only rare moments of Psychological Death. (As rare as meeting identical twins maybe).
Anyone having "dissapeared" like this, is just someone with an interpretation. (Sometimes with the added burden of wanting to retrieve that moment)
There is no Hierarchy - Someone who has experienced an actual, clinical NDE (near death experience) for example, is not more Advanced than me - They just have a crazy story to tell.

As for me acting like a Guru, this is just a personality flaw - or maybe a psychological illness.

As for the question : What about K? Surely that must be on some other thread?

Look, see, let go

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 22 Dec 2019 #33
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3259 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
One might add that at times we do appear to listen to what a person is saying. And there is consideration, if that is the word, and not reaction. Where does the difference lie? The reason that we don't listen is that we are full of our own opinions, our own knowledge, isn't it?

Or we are mostly concerned with ourselves...our career or our romantic conquests or desires...our goals and ambitions. ‘You’ are secondary. This came starkly into view when my wife had a visit from a physician recently who was clearly not really listening to my wife’s or my own concerns. My wife was quite ill yet the physician showed noT a hint of sympathy or concern. The whole time she was talking to us she was typing on her laptop. Insurance companies today demand that everything be documented, so as we were discussing my wife’s problem she was looking at her laptop. A medication came up during our discussion and I emphatically said, please do NOT prescribe that particular drug as it was tried on my wife’s condition previously and it didn’t help at all. Well to make long story short, later when I visited the pharmacy to pick up my wife’s medicine that drug which I told her to NOT prescribe was the one she did prescribe. And to add insult to injury she originally called the prescription in to a pharmacy in a city 50 miles away from our home, not the pharmacy we always use which is two blocks from our apartment. Her office knows the pharmacy we use....we’ve been using clinicians from that office for around 10 years and they all send prescriptions to the correct pharmacy. So that was an added hassle for me to get straight....to have the prescription re sent to our pharmacy in town. And it took several calls back to the office to get my wife the proper medication. So, all this chaos and confusion came about because the physician simply was not really listening.

Which is the same reason that prevents me from just looking at a tree, no? Somehow the mind prefers to know about things, rather than actually contact things. Does it feel more secure that way?

Part of this is the absolute necessity of learning words and labels for practical matters in our daily living....just for physical survival. I used to work with very severely mentally retarded young men, and while some of them could be blissfully happy and loving at times, there’s no way they could survive on their own. They were for the most part totally non verbal...and not able to learn.

And yet I wonder if we do really listen to a person. Is it that we listen only to the words? Does K not say that true listening only arises when there is love?

True listening with no barrier can be a mind blowing experience...not just the mind is temporarily transformed, but the whole being is changed. There is love...sometimes overwhelming...for all humanity...for life.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Sun, 22 Dec 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 22 Dec 2019 #34
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3259 posts in this forum Offline

Clive: Which is the same reason that prevents me from just looking at a tree, no? Somehow the mind prefers to know about things, rather than actually contact things. Does it feel more secure that way?

Tom: Part of this is the absolute necessity of learning words and labels for practical matters in our daily living....just for physical survival.

OK...knowledge is absolutely necessary in daily living....yet in my relationship with you this same kind of knowledge is a barrier...CAN be a barrier, anyway. I need to know if you are a physician or a plumber, for example. But we listen through the screen of knowledge....to our wife or child...never really listening in the sense K talks about.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 22 Dec 2019 #35
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5683 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote #26:

Clive Elwell wrote:

But I can perceive when someone is talking from the authority of knowledge can’t I ?he pa

I don't know, Tom. Can we really tell where someone is "coming from"? Even with K, can we, with absolute certainty, know from where he was speaking? Past experience, or a direct perception/understanding, of what is?

Why should we conclude about where another is speaking from? Why cab we not simply consider what is said? However, I would think (my conclusion?) that someone who is speaking from direct perception, from insight, would always be willing to question the things that he says, that he has said. Since truth is never static, is it?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 22 Dec 2019 #36
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3259 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
. Can we really tell where someone is "coming from"? Even with K, can we, with absolute certainty,

Maybe not with absolute certainty but I think I can tell with some degree of certainty. Why is this important? Because knowledge closes a person off from listening to what the others are saying. Have you read much of Bohn? With K and without? I did, years back and he’s a good example of someone who never seems to assert or make proclamations based upon knowledge. OK I may be off base, I’m willing to admit that possibility. On phone so will have to return to this later

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 22 Dec 2019 #37
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5683 posts in this forum Offline

Douglas MacRae-Smith wrote #32:
Firstly, I'd like to apologise for my lack of skill in negotiating my way through aforementioned conflict.

Thank you for the apology, Douglas.

Douglas MacRae-Smith wrote:
As far as I can tell, there are no "Awakened beings".

Well, there may or may not be. The important question, is it not?, is how we could tell if they were enlightened or not. Hmm, one indication might be if they claim to be enlightened beings, we can be pretty sure they are not? Would an enlightened being carry an image of himself? Or is an enlightened being one who has NO psychological images? Which is to say that psychologically he does not exist.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 22 Dec 2019 #38
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3259 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
one indication might be if they claim to be enlightened beings, we can be pretty sure they are not? Would an enlightened being carry an image of himself? Or is an enlightened being one who has NO psychological images?

It’s quite meaningless for me to have an image about K or anyone else , but we are all aware that k spoke about total mutation of the brain. And reaching the source of all energy . Lots of similar stuff. Perhaps he was an enlightened being. I have no idea...honestly. If I’m suffering it won’t help me to hold an image of K or Buddha or Christ

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 22 Dec 2019 #39
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5683 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Because knowledge closes a person off from listening to what the others are saying.

I am a bit confused here, Tom. I may have misunderstood you, but if I assume that someone is speaking as an authority, have I not closed myself from listening to that person?

Tom Paine wrote:
Have you read much of Bohn?

Some, certainly. Yes, he had the true scientific mind, and it is fascinating to read of that mind meeting the true religious mind in K. But K said the religious mind encompasses the scientific mind, but the scientific mind does not encompass the religious mind.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 22 Dec 2019 #40
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3259 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Since truth is never static, is it?

A fact is a fact. It doesn’t change does it? If we see that thought is limited can we not speak from that direct perception? And of course be willing to be questioned about what we perceive as fact? But will the truth of that fact change in the next moment? Is that what you’re implying, Clive? Or are you saying something else?

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 22 Dec 2019 #41
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5683 posts in this forum Offline

We were discussing whether thought, the thinker, can ever be in real contact with “the real world” - perhaps better described as actuality. Or whether thought can only be in contact with itself – if such a virtual phenomena can really be described as “contact”.

Are we really in contact with, for example, our suffering? Or are we always trying to avoid it, escape from it. Is analysis of suffering contact with it?

Is the watcher forever trying to distance himself from what he is watching? And is what he is watching his own creation?

Here is an interesting excerpt from Steven Harrison, in the book “Doing Nothing”:

“The problem is that the conflict is in the watcher, the one who is aware, not the objects of our awareness. Our lives ARE out of control [he is referring back to something he said previously]. What happens if we don’t distance ourselves from that fact?

The fundamental contact with the chaos of what we are, what we think, is very important. Without anything to buffer us from this contact, our world is unified. With this contact, there is only one thing happening

This unification changes us, it is the expression of change”.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 22 Dec 2019 #42
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3259 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
if I assume that someone is speaking as an authority, have I not closed myself from listening to that person?

Have you never listened to the talk or writing of a guru or religious teacher or priest?

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 22 Dec 2019 #43
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5683 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Have you never listened to the talk or writing of a guru or religious teacher or priest?

Not very much, no. A friend recently invited me to a gathering with his guru figure. I looked at it, read what the friend had to say, watched a video, and failed to detect any element of enquiry going on, and so said no to the invitation.

Wondering if I have lost a friendship there.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 23 Dec 2019 #44
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1718 posts in this forum Offline

Gurus are a 'dime a dozen'...god bless them, but they make a 'racket' out of it. They have something to sell that people want: the belief that people are more than this. and that they can help them in some way to attain that realization...to steer them onto the right track....They are just feeding their 'ego', exalting themselves and tricking others into following their lead.

It seems that there have been 'leaders' forever both 'spiritual' and political, and now we have the psychiatrists as well. Must we be led? Like zebras or wildebeests?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Mon, 23 Dec 2019.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Mon, 23 Dec 2019 #45
Thumb_spock Douglas MacRae-Smith France 212 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
is an enlightened being one who has NO psychological images? Which is to say that psychologically he does not exist.

Then he would no longer be human.
When the Buddha accidently hits his thumb with a Hammer does he say a rude word?

The best we can do is to fulfill our potential as humans. In no way is it possible to be outside of what is, no way to remain permanently disengaged from the body/mind, disengaged from all that has come before, that has given us a brain etc.

Unfortunately, science has never been able to observe the phenomenon known as Psychological death, enlightenment, nor even the "second Wind" of the athelete -so rarely does it occur and also because it cannot be intentionally provoked. I certainly wont presume to explain exactly what it is - from where I stand it appears akin to some kind of cosmic magic.

If we take the long distance runner's "second Wind" (less emotionally charged than enlightenment) - One moment he is like us, a suffering self, charged with emotion caused by his brain and body telling him that if he doesn't stop running he will die. He is painfully aware of the psychological turmoil within, but conditioned to stay with it. And suddenly he dissapears. No more suffering. No more pleading, physical pain. No more Runner, only the running.

And then he's back - with some additional baggage which he will interpret according to his intellectual interests.

No more Runner - only the running. What does this mean for Seeing?

Look, see, let go

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 23 Dec 2019 #46
Thumb_spock Douglas MacRae-Smith France 212 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Gurus are a 'dime a dozen'

There is only One who has been able to say the unsayable : The One

maybe 2, if you count K

Look, see, let go

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 23 Dec 2019 #47
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1718 posts in this forum Offline

Douglas MacRae-Smith wrote:
There is only One who has been able to say the unsayable : The One

maybe 2, if you count K

And now there are 3... with Trump?

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Mon, 23 Dec 2019 #48
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3259 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
And now there are 3... with Trump

Yes, he’s clearly moved totally beyond the intellect.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 23 Dec 2019 #49
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5683 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Must we be led?

I was listening to a K talk yesterday, I think it was Madras 79-80 talk 3, where he was asking why the Brahmatical culture has disappeared from India practically "overnight". And why was there such corruption and degeneration in India, in business, in politics, etc? The answer he suggested was that people accepted the words of others as truth - through Gurus, through the "sacred" books, they no longer enquired themselves.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 23 Dec 2019 #50
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5683 posts in this forum Offline

I am taking a trip today, but will come back to some of the questions above.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 24 Dec 2019 #51
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5683 posts in this forum Offline

Douglas MacRae-Smith wrote:
Then he would no longer be human.

and

The best we can do is to fulfill our potential as humans.

Douglas, I think you recently said - it may have been someone else , or you may have been quoting - something about reaching the state where it is just impossible to draw conclusions. I resonated with that, this mind also finds it is not possible to draw conclusions. Impossible because conclusions are simply projections of thought, and as such they are not true.

I ask, were you not drawing conclusions when you wrote the above words?

How do we know what it means to be human? How do we know what our potential as humans is?

K said that the brain had infinite potential, in fact, although that is immaterial to me - the fact for me is that I don't know what 'my' limits are. Not knowing, all I am left with is enquiry. Is there space in enquiry for conclusions?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 24 Dec 2019 #52
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5683 posts in this forum Offline

In #9 of this thread "how to see" I quoted from K on the issue of "seeing totally".

Later on in that talk he comes back to the issue (perhaps he never left it) and said the following:

And later K says:

There is only one thing which I want to convey this morning, if I may: not ideas, not feeling, not some extraordinary` spiritual' thing, but how important it is to see totally. And to see totally implies seeing without judgment, without condemnation, without evaluation. It also implies that the brain is not reacting to what it sees, but merely observes in that state in which there is no thinker as separate from the thing observed. That is enormously difficult, so do not think you will get it by just playing with words. It means understanding the whole question of contradiction, because we are in a state of contradiction.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 25 Dec 2019 #53
Thumb_spock Douglas MacRae-Smith France 212 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
I ask, were you not drawing conclusions when you wrote the above words?

Absolutely - Yes and I am sharing my thoughts with whoever cares to listen.

The important bit is not to be blinded by our conclusions, not to be a slave to our beliefs, to be free to use the facts rather than be used by them.

Once the self has been seen (aka dissapears temporarily), its authority is weakened - and the fear, anger, separation has less hold. We build new conclusions, but are now familiar with mystery.

There is infinite potential - but lets not confuse ourselves by pointing at possible sources (the brain, my brain, the void, the multiverse, mind or whatever)

Look, see, let go

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 25 Dec 2019 #54
Thumb_spock Douglas MacRae-Smith France 212 posts in this forum Offline

The issue of how to listen has been troubling me.

So there is whats being said, and there is the listener.
In order to get behind the listeners défenses, what is said must be of the utmost beauty and simplicity - thats the challenge of the speaker : to be a poet.
The challenge of the listener is to be as sensitive and fearless as possible in order to allow another to enter his heart.

Look, see, let go

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 25 Dec 2019 #55
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3259 posts in this forum Offline

Douglas MacRae-Smith wrote:
So there is whats being said, and there is the listener.
In order to get behind the listeners défenses, what is said must be of the utmost beauty and simplicity - thats the challenge of the speaker : to be a poet.

Do you mean that I can't listen totally to my spouse or child when they are confused and suffering? Can I only listen when the speaker is a 'poet'?

Douglas MacRae-Smith wrote:
The challenge of the listener is to be as sensitive and fearless as possible in order to allow another to enter his heart.

Do you see love as a challenge? I find that word, challenge, a little confusing. If I love my child I can listen, no?

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 25 Dec 2019 #56
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5683 posts in this forum Offline

Douglas MacRae-Smith wrote:

Clive Elwell wrote:

I ask, were you not drawing conclusions when you wrote the above words?

Absolutely - Yes and I am sharing my thoughts with whoever cares to listen.

If one sees that one is drawing a conclusion, or becomes aware that one is holding on to conclusions, those conclusions no longer exist, do they?

Douglas MacRae-Smith wrote:
The important bit is not to be blinded by our conclusions, not to be a slave to our beliefs, to be free to use the facts rather than be used by them.

"not to be blinded" means awareness of conclusions/beliefs/assumptions, does it not? But who or what is it that "uses" the facts? And what facts are you referring to, Douglas? Is there a nexus between belief and fact?

Douglas MacRae-Smith wrote:
but are now familiar with mystery.

Isn't "familiar with mystery" a contradiction in terms?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 25 Dec 2019 #57
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5683 posts in this forum Offline

Douglas MacRae-Smith wrote:
So there is whats being said, and there is the listener.
In order to get behind the listeners défenses, what is said must be of the utmost beauty and simplicity - thats the challenge of the speaker : to be a poet.
The challenge of the listener is to be as sensitive and fearless as possible in order to allow another to enter his heart.

I have been questioning if to really listen implies the complete absence of the listener. Isn't the listener the interpreter from the past, which implies the distorter?

Without the listener, isn't there then listening from silence?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 25 Dec 2019 #58
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5683 posts in this forum Offline

"All men, everywhere in the world have a belief, it does not matter what it is, and that belief guides their mind, whereas life should guide and not belief."

This extract from TQOTD reminds me of an old friend, now dead. A remarkable man in many ways, when told he had a "good way of life" at the community he founded, he replied: "not a way of life - life is the way"

Strange how we are so rarely guided by the ways of life, and instead try to dictate how life should be. As K said, instead of reading the book of life, we are busy trying to write it.

"Reading the book" implies the listening/looking that we have been discussing, doesn't it?

But I wonder, if I have a belief as K implies, just what it is? I am not aware of holding to any belief, acting from a belief. I do not know anything in the mind that cannot be questioned.

This post was last updated by Clive Elwell Wed, 25 Dec 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 26 Dec 2019 #59
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3259 posts in this forum Offline

Douglas MacRae-Smith wrote:
The challenge of the listener is to be as sensitive and fearless as possible in order to allow another to enter his heart.

That word challenge has been bothering me. It seems to imply an ideal or goal....rather than simply observing what we are actually doing....our lack of sensitivity or our biased listening...our reactions to whatever is being said.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 26 Dec 2019 #60
Thumb_spock Douglas MacRae-Smith France 212 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Isn't "familiar with mystery" a contradiction in terms?

Sure appears to be - "at ease with mystery" would be another way of putting it.

Look, see, let go

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 31 - 60 of 106 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.)