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

On change and the changeless (to Clive/all)


Displaying all 25 posts
Page 1 of 1
Mon, 13 Jan 2020 #1
Thumb_open-uri20180717-8420-135f99u-0 Mina Martini Finland 287 posts in this forum Offline

Dear Clive,

Posting this as a new topic for more focus on the specific subject.

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

Mina: First of all, yes, the thoughts, feelings, the body and ultimately all manifestation, all appearances of forms, keep undergoing constant change. Absolutely clear.

The human mind has created an impression of there being something that does not change (which is untrue) which is the idea of a separate unchanging observer which is taken to be who we are, the 'me'. If the mind does not pretend and constantly feed this idea of its continuity, this illusion cannot survive.

Now, we agree that this kind of non-change a thinker is trying to create, is not real, but only an idea of it, right?

So, without the identification with thought that created the illusion of an observer as supposedly something static, we could say that there is no one to experience this state of an observer, right?

Now, carefully...

As there is no one to experience that supposedly static state, there is no one to experience 'that everything changing constantly' either.

This is a very delicate point..

What I say above does not suggest that the manifested world (thought, feeling, body, all forms as was said in the beginning) does not change constantly.

What I am pointing out is that when this constant change is not identified with, there is only the witnessing of the appearances being born, changing forms and dying.

The witnessing happens 'from a place' of no identification, from a place where there is NOTHING HAPPENING, because there is no one to whom anything is happening. And yet it is untouched and independent (but not separate!) from the flow of changing manifestations.

This is the eternal, the non-changing, but not in the dualistic way of there being 'something that does not change'

The most words can do is to say: the eternal, the timeless, the stillness, is beyond both change and no change. It is beyond all opposites and duality. It does not change and it does not 'not change' either. The mind cannot understand it because the mind is 'this' or 'that' but the stillness that is talked of is beyond both.

For this person this timeless or eternal stillness is the same as awareness, love, the source of all manifestations. In itself it never manifests and yet all springs from it.

::::::::::::

This is absolutely serious and it takes even a moment of absolute stillness, (which is exactly the non-changing that is talked of) to start feeling the truth of all this beyond the mere words.

You say 'all is change'...and i say..to see that ALL is change is only possible in total stillness where nothing changes or does not change.

Otherwise the 'all' is not yet all, and there is still subtle identification with the changing.

It is exactly because you are all of the forms, you are none!

At the very core, as its source, of the changing, is the stillness, the awareness, the unchanging.

Perhaps when you say that 'when it is seen that all is change, actually NOTHING IS', there is an inclination of what i am also expressing..

:::::::::::

Now, bare with me a little more...:)

If you say that everything changes, that all there is is change, how about awareness? (you do write about it)

Does awareness change? What is awareness for you?

Isn't it timeless, from moment to moment? Always new?

It is not that it updates itself from moment to moment, and refreshes itself as a continuation of what was and is therefore new, but it is new because it is always timelessly present, it IS timeless presence.

Awareness has no continuation, it has no form, it does not change from one form to another. The 'from moment to moment' is really only one ever present timeless stillness. That is the eternal.

::::::::::::

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

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 2 readers
Back to Top
Mon, 13 Jan 2020 #2
Thumb_spock Douglas MacRae-Smith France 144 posts in this forum Offline

Surely it would be a conclusion to adhere to the dictat of "either or"?

Look, see, let go

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 13 Jan 2020 #3
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3093 posts in this forum Online

Interesting post Mina! It feels like your translation skill from Chinese to English is improving ;) Glad you didn’t take my little teasing personally. Does this little excerpt from The Book of Life resonate with you at all? I shared it yesterday on a different thread.

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

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Mon, 13 Jan 2020 #4
Thumb_avatar Manfred Kritzler Germany 59 posts in this forum Offline

Mina: What I say above does not suggest that the manifested world (thought, feeling, body, all forms as was said in the beginning) does not change constantly.

What I am pointing out is that when this constant change is not identified with, there is only the witnessing of the appearances being born, changing forms and dying.
—————
Manfred: I think this is a crucial point. For me there is constant change and the witnessing of this change without identification or rejection at the same time.

In other words, when the observer is identical with the observed, the observer does not exist anymore. The question I have no real answer for: Does the observed still exist in a separate way, so we can describe it?

My tendency out of experience might be strange: After a certain time it exists and it does not exist. Maybe we can not describe it without creating a paradox?

The main difficulty I see in general is that at one hand we cannot express this situation in words, although we can experience it. On the other hand we have to use words because in an exchange there might be no other possibility.

This means for me, whatever words we use to describe „stillness in change“ can only be an approximation. We have no problem to express the change. But this means we are not talking about a situation where we are a witness or an observer acting moment for moment in the change.Describing the change means, we are part of the change. We are throwing us out of the witness or stillness process.

David Bohm called it: „undivided wholeness in flowing movement“.
But for me it is so difficult to make it really understandable.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 13 Jan 2020 #5
Thumb_avatar Manfred Kritzler Germany 59 posts in this forum Offline

Tom: 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
—————-

Manfred: This is for me something similar what Mina said and also I tried to express. When we try to accumulate experience it will very fast be unconscious. We have created frames we are not conscious of any more. Our further actions will be limited by this frames.

Perhaps for a society to function it needs some of this common frames or common conditionings. But today many of us are strongly influenced by common rules in their emotional, psychological and sometimes religious behavior. This means for me an unnecessary limiting of our freedom.

When we understand ourselves from moment to moment without taking anything in the future we would be able to live a more peaceful and grateful life.

This can not be reached by trying to live moment for moment as an ideal but by being aware when we are not doing it. I am not sure if we are able to really recognize something expressible when we live moment for moment.

This post was last updated by Manfred Kritzler Mon, 13 Jan 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 14 Jan 2020 #6
Thumb_open-uri20180717-8420-135f99u-0 Mina Martini Finland 287 posts in this forum Offline

Douglas MacRae-Smith wrote:
Surely it would be a conclusion to adhere to the dictat of "either or"?

Mina: Yes, there is definitely no 'either or', no choice in wholeness.

The changing and the unchanging are one.

Or.. movement and stillness are one.

Or.. the known and the unknown are one.

Or..the form and the formless are one.

..all the above words meaning the same..

....

But the form, the known, the movement, the change could not exist without the formless, the unknown, the stillness, the unchanging

because the unknown is the source, the known the expression springing from it

But the Unknown can be without any expression, its very nature being the inexpressible

This post was last updated by Mina Martini Tue, 14 Jan 2020.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Tue, 14 Jan 2020 #7
Thumb_avatar Manfred Kritzler Germany 59 posts in this forum Offline

Hi Mina,
this is expressed in a wonderful way. Nothing to add. Thank you very much.
Manfred

This post was last updated by Manfred Kritzler Tue, 14 Jan 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 14 Jan 2020 #8
Thumb_open-uri20180717-8420-135f99u-0 Mina Martini Finland 287 posts in this forum Offline

Thank YOU Manfred for the precious gift of sharing!

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 14 Jan 2020 #9
Thumb_open-uri20180717-8420-135f99u-0 Mina Martini Finland 287 posts in this forum Offline

Tom,

“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

Mina: Yes, the quote (and everything else that K says for that matter), makes perfect sense, not in/for the mind (which is the accumulation of experiences/knowledge/memory) but out of it!

This post was last updated by Mina Martini Tue, 14 Jan 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 14 Jan 2020 #10
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3093 posts in this forum Online

Mina Martini wrote:
But the form, the known, the movement, the change could not exist without the formless, the unknown, the stillness, the unchanging

What about understanding ourselves as we are, Mina? I may be violent, afraid, addicted to booze or cigarettes, greedy, lonely and feeling lost and confused....despondent. K spoke a lot about self knowledge. Where does self knowledge come in in your view?

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 14 Jan 2020 #11
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1647 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
I may be violent, afraid, addicted to booze or cigarettes, greedy, lonely and feeling lost and confused....despondent. K spoke a lot about self knowledge.

Is what you describe 'self knowledge' or self judgement? Isn't the self knowledge that K speaks about as essential, isn't that a seeing without judgment, without naming and in the moment? Not things to be got rid of but to be understood? It's 'thought' isn't it that wants to keep some things, the pleasurable and get rid of somehow the 'undesirable' ones. Self knowledge is the understanding of the ways of thought, its maintenance of the illusory 'me', the 'centre'? Perceiving its activity without a 'perceiver'?

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Tue, 14 Jan 2020 #12
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3093 posts in this forum Online

Dan McDermott wrote:
Is what you describe 'self knowledge' or self judgement? Isn't the self knowledge that K speaks about as essential, isn't that a seeing without judgment, without naming and in the moment? Not things to be got rid of but to be understood?

But we need to use words to describe the suffering and misery we may be feeling? We may in fact feel that it’s real ...the suffering is a fact, no? ...in ourselves or in a loved one who may be a drug addict or alcoholic or violent or depressed. K himself talked about those same conflicts and difficult issues that man lives with. He used labels to describe them as I must use labels to communicate my own suffering or the suffering of a loved one.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 14 Jan 2020 #13
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1647 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
We may in fact feel that it’s real ...the suffering is a fact, no?

As long as we continue to be identified as the 'self' or 'center', there will be suffering yes. The self is suffering... Maybe this is relevant, this morning the thought arose that: "it would be nice to take a long hot shower". Along with the thought there was the memory of actually taking a hot shower and the pleasant sensations accompanying it...So here was a seemingly ordinary moment but actually it was very 'telling'. Thought had identified itself with the physical sensations of the body...it would be 'enjoying' the sensations of the hot shower, it would get pleasure from that activity, etc. That implies that the 'center' that thought had created for its own security, sense of permanence , significance,etc., that, is what would be enjoying the 'long, hot, shower'...Seems benign. but if you flip it, this same 'center' that was created as a source of pleasure and security becomes a source of suffering, anger, fear, loneliness, etc when it runs up against obstacles in its way in the environment. This is what has gone on forever and it, the whole structure of what thought is (and isn't) and how it has assumed control in us, is now being questioned: "The observer is the observed", "the thinker is the thought". "There is no division".

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Tue, 14 Jan 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 14 Jan 2020 #14
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5546 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
What I am pointing out is that when this constant change is not identified with, there is only the witnessing of the appearances being born, changing forms and dying.

I think I am ok up to this point. Perhaps understanding.

Is there some significance in your using the word "witnessing"? Are you trying to convey something different from "observing", or "being aware"?

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

Tom and Dan,

Mina>But the form, the known, the movement, the change could not exist without the formless, the unknown, the stillness, the unchanging

Tom>What about understanding ourselves as we are, Mina? I may be violent, afraid, addicted to booze or cigarettes, greedy, lonely and feeling lost and confused....despondent. K spoke a lot about self knowledge. Where does self knowledge come in in your view?**

Mina: Dan already started replying along the same lines I would have, but I will still approach this afresh.

So, Tom, on the look of it, you might feel the statement in the first sentence and the self-knowledge K talk of, do not seem to have much connection, right?

But I say they are not only totally connected but point exactly to the same one reality. (It could not be othwerwise because only that One Reality IS)

Since this may again sound 'Chinese' for you, your having pointed out the possibility :), I will try and elaborate more.

When for instance the greediness you mention, which in itself IS an expression of incomplete self-knowledge created by the division between observer and observed, is NOT met with more of the same limitation (thought/judgement) but instead 'perceived without a perceiver' as Dan put it, the limitation is not being fed and therefore it starts dissolving into the light of awareness.

This light of awareness is then realised to be what you really ARE, when the image of yourself together with all its possible expressions (loneliness, jealousy, greediness, hatred, fear etc.etc) dissolves...

This is tremendous..

And THIS IS COMPLETE SELF-KNOWLEDGE

IT IS THE SAME AS THE UNKNOWN, THE FORMLESS, THE STILLNESS, THE UNCHANGING

THIS IS KNOWING YOURSELF AS YOU TRULY ARE, AND NOT WHAT YOU THINK YOU ARE

This post was last updated by Mina Martini Wed, 15 Jan 2020.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Wed, 15 Jan 2020 #16
Thumb_spock Douglas MacRae-Smith France 144 posts in this forum Offline

In zen buddhism there is this idea of "putting a head on top of a head" - which I think is a bit like : Feeling guilty about feeling angry. Thinking that thought is bad etc...

Look, see, let go

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 15 Jan 2020 #17
Thumb_open-uri20180717-8420-135f99u-0 Mina Martini Finland 287 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
What I am pointing out is that when this constant change is not identified with, there is only the witnessing of the appearances being born, changing forms and dying.

I think I am ok up to this point. Perhaps understanding.

Is there some significance in your using the word "witnessing"? Are you trying to convey something different from "observing", or "being aware"?

Mina: the witnessing, the observation or awareness of, giving all the words the same meaning. Basically what we mean by all these words is 'something other than mind-content in action'...yes, that is quite a good way of putting it..

As there is no observer, no one to witness, no one to be aware as an image in this action of totality, I prefer 'observation' to 'observing' or 'awareness' to 'being aware'..it is of course just a matter of wording but that also has its own preciousness

This post was last updated by Mina Martini Wed, 15 Jan 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 15 Jan 2020 #18
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3093 posts in this forum Online

Mina: When for instance the greediness you mention, which in itself IS an expression of incomplete self-knowledge created by the division between observer and observed, is NOT met with more of the same limitation (thought/judgement) but instead 'perceived without a perceiver' as Dan put it, the limitation is not being fed and therefore it starts dissolving into the light of awareness.

Will read your post over later, Mina, after coffee...had a extremely difficult/exhausting day yesterday and am not fully awake... but this phrase in bold stuck out. The thing is, we are trained since we were young infants to NOT be greedy(angry, afraid, sinful, etc), for example, so immediately the greed when it manifests is condemned. Where does this ‘objective observation or perception‘ come from? Can you elaborate on your first point above? That “the greed itself is an expression of incomplete self-knowledge...”

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Wed, 15 Jan 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 15 Jan 2020 #19
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3093 posts in this forum Online

Dan McDermott wrote:
So here was a seemingly ordinary moment but actually it was very 'telling'. Thought had identified itself with the physical sensations of the body...it would be 'enjoying' the sensations of the hot shower, it would get pleasure from that activity, etc. That implies that the 'center' that thought had created for its own security, sense of permanence , significance,etc., that, is what would be enjoying the 'long, hot, shower'

Interesting Dan. I had never analyzed such a seemingly benign thought before. I sometimes look forward to a nice cup of good coffee for instance, but I don’t feel particularly attached to it. I’m not clear that this is a significant movement of the ‘self’...or not. I mean, I wouldn’t think it would cause great suffering if I ran out of coffee. Now when I was a smoker there was a significant craving, and real suffering if I ran out of cigarettes and couldn’t get out to the convenience store to buy another pack. That example is probably more to your point.

this same 'center' that was created as a source of pleasure and security becomes a source of suffering, anger, fear, loneliness, etc when it runs up against obstacles in its way in the environment.

OK, I am very attached to the game of golf as an example, and take great pride in my skill as well as getting status among my peers for being a championship golfer. If suddenly, due to accident, I could no longer play the game, yes, I can see how great suffering would arise. Like the elderly violinist my mother knew who could no longer play his beloved instrument due to severe arthritis in his fingers. He suffered greatly from his loss. So yes, identifying with pleasure and attachment are significant components of the ‘me’. I’m with you there. Can you explain how your last three sentences in your post (that I quoted below) relate to the above points about attachment and suffering?

"The observer is the observed", "the thinker is the thought". "There is no division".

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Wed, 15 Jan 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 15 Jan 2020 #20
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1647 posts in this forum Offline

Douglas MacRae-Smith wrote:
Thinking that thought is bad etc...

Bad, no but thought can reflect on itself, can't it?: What it is, how it works, what it does...In a way it is our greatest gift. It is one of our senses along with sight, hearing, smell, taste and touch. Thought accompanies all of them and fills in the information that the other senses can't i.e in sight, when an object moves away, it doesn't get smaller as sight perceives it, thought/memory says, that is what happens with distance, it corrects the illusion. The dog reacts to an approaching vehicle because it sees it as something growing and changing shape right in front of its eyes. It has only a rudimentary sense of thought that can eventually accustom it to similar experiences. but it can't comprehend the third dimension in the way we can. The child learns quickly that when the parents hide and play and pop up from behind a chair that they haven't actually disappeared. I look at the painting on my wall and my eyes see the shape of it the colors the images but thought remembers why the painting is there, where it came from, the circumstances by which it was acquired, who the artist was, the location where it was painted, who did the framing and the conversations about it, etc....A much richer experience than just a nameless form on a wall. Clive wrote that K. somewhere said "memory is the enemy". Maybe someone can clear up what he may have meant because to a person with alzheimer's disease or dementia, not having 'memory' can be a hell: to not know where I am, who I am, not recognize people and things I have lived a lifetime with...And we also should be as clear as we can about when 'thought' went in a direction that resulted in the chaos that we are living in: war, suicide, pollution, killing for sport, inequality, greed, nationalism, organized beliefs, cruelty...Thought is not bad, as a calculator or a computer can not be 'bad'.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 15 Jan 2020 #21
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3093 posts in this forum Online

Dan: And we also should be as clear as we can about when 'thought' went in a direction that resulted in the chaos that we are living in: war, suicide, pollution, killing for sport, inequality, greed, nationalism, organized beliefs, cruelty...Thought is not bad, as a calculator or a computer can not be 'bad'.

Yes, agreed. We need to be as clear as possible about thought creating total disorder in our relationships ...in the outer world and in ourselves...terrible inner conflict and division which is behind our smoking, alcoholism, drugs, depression, anger, violence, etc. I think I recall K saying that thought is violence. I’m beginning to understand his point. Speaking of thought in the psychological realm of course.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
2 days ago #22
Thumb_open-uri20180717-8420-135f99u-0 Mina Martini Finland 287 posts in this forum Offline

Douglas MacRae-Smith wrote:
In zen buddhism there is this idea of "putting a head on top of a head" - which I think is a bit like : Feeling guilty about feeling angry. Thinking that thought is bad etc...

Mina: Yes, the expression describes the observer-observed -loop, when thought keeps reacting to itself within its limits. It is the 'dog chasing its tail' in other words..

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
2 days ago #23
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1647 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
So yes, identifying with pleasure and attachment are significant components of the ‘me’. I’m with you there. Can you explain how your last three sentences in your post (that I quoted below) relate to the above points about attachment and suffering?

"The observer is the observed", "the thinker is the thought". "There is no division".

Considering it in this way Tom, our brains are "damaged" as was discussed By K. and Bohm. My take is that a major symptom of that damage is our sense that we are divided physically and psychologically from the environment, from others. That sense of aloneness brings about the powerful need to attach. To seek 'security' in others, in ideas, in religion, in "tradition". Since that 'security can not actually be attained, there is inevitable 'suffering'. The suffering is blamed on the outer events and not as a result of the damaged brain. This 'tradition of separation' or division, retards the operation of the brain by straight-jacketing it in one 'narrowness' or another. And a lifetime of that ultimately damages the brain itself. And this damaged brain hears those statements "The observer is the observed", "There is no division" and it gets 'understood' by the self (who is the product of the illusory division) and it goes no further. The transformative potential of the statements is stifled. So the 'art of listening', as I see it, is to allow the statement to not be analyzed and 'understood' by the self, which is non-understanding, but to as you say, "let it be".

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott 2 days ago.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
2 days ago #24
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3093 posts in this forum Online

Dan McDermott wrote:
This 'tradition of separation' or division, retards the operation of the brain by straight-jacketing it in one 'narrowness' or another. And a lifetime of that ultimately damages the brain itself. And this damaged brain hears those statements "The observer is the observed", "There is no division" and it gets 'understood' by the self (who is the product of the illusory division) and it goes no further.

Can the damaged brain realize that 'I' am that? That the observer is that? If it is realized that 'I' AM the damage/distortion/confusion/anger/“narrowness”, etc then I can do nothing at all to change it...to act upon it. Anything I do is only inflicting more damage/distortion/confusion. Intelligent action can never come from further thinking by the confused brain. Seeing the truth of that, the mind stops trying to act upon the problem...the distortion...confusion. that's how I understand the statements of K's that 'The thinker is the thought' or 'the observer is the observed'. Will re-read your post later...another busy day here, so I won't try to comment further until I have a chance to re-read what you wrote.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine 1 day ago.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
19 hours ago #25
Thumb_open-uri20180717-8420-135f99u-0 Mina Martini Finland 287 posts in this forum Offline

Tom,

A new thread on thread :) I just initiated is meant to be a reply to you also..

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying all 25 posts
Page 1 of 1
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.)