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

'What has been put together by thought can be undone'


Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 49 in total
Sat, 18 Jan 2020 #1
Thumb_open-uri20200202-16653-rg2qz5-0 Mina Martini Finland 418 posts in this forum Offline

To 'listen with one's whole being' is not some romantic notion or a poetic expression

It happens as an actuality in the brain cells themselves that are awakened to vibrate at a frequency which is not accessible FROM thought, although also thinking changes radically with the awakening.

The awakening opens up the observer-observed loop to bloom leaving only the blooming behind, with neither the observer nor the observed...

This new thinking is freed from the dead end of thought pursuing itself. Instead, thinking moves harmoniously aligned with silence.

It continues to be absent from the core of silence but is not contradicted with it. The contradiction was never with silence but inherent in the observer-observed-loop.

............

In the habitual mode of function, the brain reacts from memory/knowledge, which is but a part of the whole of the brain.

Memory appeared to lose contact with the whole when starting to react to itself, feed itself, as an observer and observed.

Having lost contact with its true nature as an undivided living being, memory tried to (or tries to whenever reactions from it occur psychologically) replace the loss with its image of itself.

This image is already a rememberance, a reflection of oneself and never what one actually is.

The good news is that as this image is really not continuous, but re-created through reaction over and over again, it can also be left uncreated at any moment at all.

This 'leaving the contradiction and limitation of thought uncreated' IS an action in total awareness, in 'listening with one's whole being'.

This post was last updated by Mina Martini Sat, 18 Jan 2020.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 2 readers
Back to Top
Sat, 18 Jan 2020 #2
Thumb_open-uri20200202-16653-rg2qz5-0 Mina Martini Finland 418 posts in this forum Offline

Memory is OF the brain but awareness is not. Brain and body can be imbued with it but never hold it anywhere because awareness is not limited unlike memory. Although the body is an expression of awareness, awareness itself is bodiless.

The highest function of the human brain is to keep receiving this centerless energy of awareness, never holding it, from moment to moment.

This post was last updated by Mina Martini Sat, 18 Jan 2020.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Sat, 18 Jan 2020 #3
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3260 posts in this forum Online

Good post Mina (#1)...most of what you wrote is very clear...thanks for the clarification.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Sat, 18 Jan 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 18 Jan 2020 #4
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1718 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
The highest function of the human brain is to keep receiving this centerless energy of awareness, never holding it, from moment to moment.

Though I recall K. and Bohm took this up at one point, is this question answerable: Why did thought feel, need, have the desire, etc. to be permanent? Why could it not see the same beauty in 'ending' as there is in 'beginning'? It saw 'death' around it and realized it was inevitable...why the 'resistance' to the natural process of ending? Causing it to invent all the concepts of spirits, creation myths, afterlives, 'paths' to eternity, etc.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sat, 18 Jan 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 18 Jan 2020 #5
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 93 posts in this forum Offline

To listen with one's whole being.

To listen with one's whole being.

Some people may mistakenly think that "one's whole being" is a matter of will, of exertion. They imagine throwing themselves into it. And certainly this approach can be explored. But you soon notice a split. In clenching your body you see you are exerting force against force, dividing yourself against yourself. And this is so whether done physically or mentally.

So deliberate intention will bring about division instead of wholeness, yes?

Yet with no intention why will there be any listening at all? Won't I continue in my thought, in my indulgent, un-listening self involvement?

It has to be realized that listening is important, and investigated with curiosity, sensitivity, innocence, and not knowing. Then discovery is relaxed, complete, totally natural.

So listening, really listening.

And right away there is also seeing. Also, feeling, tasting, smelling, sensing. In other words, it is the brain that divides off one sense from another. We think attention is limited and can only focus on one sense at a time. But what we find, when we really listen, or look, or feel, is that all the senses are wide open and undivided. Simple clear awareness now. Complete.

Only later can thought ride the silent awareness. It can then see that there was no division, no subject/object, no perception from a center. But actually in it, during the outside of time, the thinking brain has not yet kicked in. Therefore it cannot yet distinguish whether or not there is subject/object or anything else. It cannot recognize. It knows nothing. Just discovery in the moment.

To listen with one's whole being.

What does this really mean? Will you explore it? Because what someone else says is just description. What do you find? Your own direct investigation. That's all that matters.

This post was last updated by idiot ? Sat, 18 Jan 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 18 Jan 2020 #6
Thumb_avatar Manfred Kritzler Germany 86 posts in this forum Offline

Mina: This new thinking is freed from the dead end of thought pursuing itself. Instead, thinking moves harmoniously aligned with silence.

It continues to be absent from the core of silence but is not contradicted with it. The contradiction was never with silence but inherent in the observer-observed-loop.
——-
Manfred: Do I understand it correctly that we could say that there is silence and thinking at the same time?

Expressed differently : Choiceless awareness, using a Krishnamurti term, means also proprioception of thought, in Bohm words?

Which means for me that there is thinking, as a movement in time surrounded by the timelessness of awareness.

This post was last updated by Manfred Kritzler Sat, 18 Jan 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 18 Jan 2020 #7
Thumb_avatar Manfred Kritzler Germany 86 posts in this forum Offline

Dan: Why could it not see the same beauty in 'ending' as there is in 'beginning'? It saw 'death' around it and realized it was inevitable...why the 'resistance' to the natural process of ending? Causing it to invent all the concepts of spirits, creation myths, afterlives, 'paths' to eternity, etc.
————-

Manfred: This is a very good question. Why do we not see the ending of thought as useful as the beginning?

Maybe we think there is only the graspable or known and feel uncomfortable with the idea that the basis of life is the unthinkable unknown. If this is correct, we are forced to invent concepts. No matter if these concepts are good or bad, they are always better than facing a world in emptiness.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 18 Jan 2020 #8
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1718 posts in this forum Offline

Yes and thought stopped seeing itself as a part of the whole and began to see itself as an entity unto itself that when the body died it would be facing a terrifying emptiness? Hence all the stories about where it came from, what was it’s ‘purpose’ And where would it ‘go’ after the death of the body. Strange to consider thought in this way isn’t it? Like a misguided, bewildered child.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sat, 18 Jan 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 18 Jan 2020 #9
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 832 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
Memory is OF the brain but awareness is not. Brain and body can be imbued with it but never hold it anywhere because awareness is not limited unlike memory. Although the body is an expression of awareness, awareness itself is bodiless.

What makes you say that awareness is not of the brain, Mina? With affection, I don’t accept it. The human being cannot be aware without the brain. But maybe he can. I don't think it matters in terms of the things we are looking into into.

Do you mean that brain cannot hold awareness “spatially” in the sense that limited space cannot hold unlimited space - like a king-size bed cannot fit into a small room? I too see that memory is limited and awareness is not. I don’t know if we mean the same thing by it.

To me, memory/intellect is limited in the sense that it can act only within the field of the known, including the hypothetical and imaginary. Being limited to the known by its being-ness, the intellect cannot understand the inherent actual meaning of what IS. Understanding meaning does not come from the intellect or through the word. That is one of thought's limitations, as I see it. And so, desiring meaning, the intellect strives to fabricate meaning. Memory/thought is limited also in the sense that it is by its nature inclusionary and exclusionary. By its nature, it can only act by focusing on a limited number of things. It might have the skill or talent to focus on several things at once but it still must focus or exclude.

Awareness is not limited to the known - i.e. to the word, the image, the hypothesis, the explanation, the reason, and so on. Also, awareness is unlimited in the sense that it excludes nothing. It does not “focus” attention ON anything. It is not the activation of the past. Is this so?

The question of meaning is related to the question of limited and unlimited, as I see it. It is not thought/word/memory which GIVES meaning to anything. Everything inherently HAS meaning, simply by virtue of its actual being. Without needing memory, intellect, reason, description or qualification for its meaning, a thing IS - "small", "huge","limited", "limitless", “good”, “bad”, “dangerous”, “safe”, “repulsive”, “attractive”, and so on. The thing IS and the word or reason is then attributed by the intellect. The quality that is attributed by thought is also limited by thought which by nature fragments, in that it separates the quality from the thing without realizing it is doing so.

Awareness sees the whole thing, as well as the judgment or interpretation. Being unlimited in its perception, awareness is open to understanding meaning, which is the action of intelligence. Whereas the intellect thinks that the qualities IT attributes to the thing GIVE the thing meaning. No?

So as I see it, before, beyond or outside the word, the name, the explanation, the idea and reason --- there is inherent meaning in what IS. This meaning is not “given” to what IS by the word, memory and reason. Good, bad, loved, hated, analyzed, ignored, praised, condemned, accepted, rejected, created, uncreated, limited, limitless --- the totality of the thing IS. Good, bad, loved, hated, analyzed, ignored, limited, limitless, and so on - these are the words/explanations/conclusions of memory/thought/reason. But before, beyond or outside the word, these things ARE. Without the word, there can be no reasoning. Memory and reason are essential but they are not the whole of the thing or of the mind.

Everything HAS meaning, independent of description or qualification, simply by virtue of its actual being. Actual being, without description or qualification, includes its meaning, significance or truth. That meaning is revealed to heart, body and mind where there is no self-centre. So death, life, love, corruption, injustice, compassion, beauty, the cosmos, disease, order, chaos, and so on, have the meaning that is part of what they ARE, as I see it. Naming/explaining them does not confer meaning but naming and explaining are used for communication and dialogue others or with oneself.

The totality of the known and the unknowable is what IS. EVERYTHING, of every kind and nature, is included in what IS --- the limited, the limitless, the tree, the forest, the explanation, the idea, the doubt, the hope, the conceit, the face, the ant, the tiger, life, death, the oceans, the cosmos, eternity, time, mystery, the mundane, the petty, the known, the unknown, the unknowable, wonder, passion, greed, selfishness, sorrow, suffering, disease, love, pain, fear, jealousy, worry, anxiety, anger, compassion, beauty, starvation, war, belief, deceit, conceit, hate, and so on.

The self-centre is the product of a mind which is restricted BY the intellect TO the intellect, separated from the wholeness of the mind. Where there is no self-centre, heart, body and thought are one, that is, in harmony.

Even if it could be surgically removed, the word/name/idea/memory is needed. Aphasia, dementia and amnesia are terrible conditions. So is being blind to the meaning inherent in what IS or being cut off psychologically from what IS.

No?

This post was last updated by Huguette . Sat, 18 Jan 2020.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 2 readers
Back to Top
Sat, 18 Jan 2020 #10
Thumb_avatar Manfred Kritzler Germany 86 posts in this forum Offline

Dan: Strange to consider thought in this way isn’t it? Like a misguided, bewildered child.
———-

Manfred: Yes. But how does someone change from acting only inside of his thought system to go beyond it?

For me it took a very long time only to understand it intellectually and much more time to live it at least frequently. I still fall back in my old patterns and when I recognize that it sometimes makes me really angry. Which makes no sense at all.

In communication with others it is very difficult, even to explain the different attitude. I would be very happy if you or anyone else has an easy understandable verbal explanation.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 18 Jan 2020 #11
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 832 posts in this forum Offline

re: #10

Manfred,

Communication is certainly difficult. Conditioning stands in the way of understanding. The conditioned mind cannot distinguish between fact and thought. Conditioning produces the thinker. That’s what makes "the thinker" “act only inside of his thought system”, as you put it. No?

When anyone “explains” action, relationship, and so on, the explanation is not necessarily a reflection of the explainer's understanding. The explainer himself must observe the actual thing as the words are spoken. Without such observation in the moment of speaking, explanation is based on past perception, not on observation. Such a ready-made explanation inevitably distorts and corrupts the truth about anything, doesn’t it? Past perception is not perception at all. “Past perception” is a contradiction, an oxymoron. Communication based on “past perception” blocks communication.

Also, the explainer's explanation of something cannot make the listener understand the thing, can it? Without the listener actually looking at what is pointed to, there can be no understanding of it merely because someone is explaining it. Isn’t it so?

So for communication to take place, there must be a shared interest between speaker and listener, mustn’t there? By “shared” interest I don’t mean a thing “outside” of speaker and listener that is shared, as one might share food. The same interest must be there in both speaker and listener.

K said, “To understand anything, there must be observation.” This fact can be seen and understood. Can’t it? The observation of something opens “the way” to the understanding of it. It is the “opening” that is important, not “the way” as a method to follow. Observation, awareness, attention, is the opening necessary for understanding to enter the mind, like opening the door provides a way for someone to enter the house.

Is observation/awareness/attention the "attitude" or action you are talking about?

This post was last updated by Huguette . Sat, 18 Jan 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 18 Jan 2020 #12
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1718 posts in this forum Offline

Manfred Kritzler wrote:
But how does someone change from acting only inside of his thought system to go beyond it?

Hi Manfred

By awareness of the thoughts as they emerge into consciousness. Where the thoughts come from is a mystery isn't it? They may be a "response of memory" but that doesn't explain the mystery of their birth in the brain. Where the 'awareness' comes from is also a mystery, isn't it? Maybe it is the thoughts being aware of themselves...I don't agree with Huguette when she says or how I understood what she said, that unless one is aware of one's thought as they speak or post they are not communicating truth... true, they may be memory trying to express the experience of this 'awareness of thought' but words will ever be an approximation...truth, whatever that is, cannot be 'captured in words whether english, german or french canadian. In witnessing thought, it immediately seems to "straighten out". "Getting angry" that this awareness comes and goes is only a kind of greed that thought is susceptible to, to want to hold on to what it 'thinks' will give it, its pathetic, 'misguided' need for 'security'. Thought is an 'accumulator, awareness is not.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 19 Jan 2020 #13
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5683 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
awareness is open to understanding meaning,

and

Huguette . wrote:

The question of meaning is related to the question of limited and unlimited, as I see it. It is not thought/word/memory which GIVES meaning to anything. Everything inherently HAS meaning, simply by virtue of its actual being.

In fact pretty much your whole post is about 'meaning'.

This may seem a very childish, silly question, but still I am asking it - what is the meaning of "meaning", in the sense you are using it.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Sun, 19 Jan 2020 #14
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3260 posts in this forum Online

Huguette . wrote:
The question of meaning is related to the question of limited and unlimited, as I see it. It is not thought/word/memory which GIVES meaning to anything. Everything inherently HAS meaning, simply by virtue of its actual being.

Clive: In fact pretty much your whole post is about 'meaning'.

This may seem a very childish, silly question, but still I am asking it - what is the meaning of "meaning", in the sense you are using it.

Interesting question Clive. As an example, let’s take a stream or a river. Does it have any meaning to someone with severe mental retardation...or dementia? I used to work with young men who’s brains functioned at the intellectual level of an infant or a pre verbal 1 year old. If they looked at a river they would obviously see it...perceive it...and they might delight in the seeing...but it would have no meaning to them. It’s thought that says I can bathe in the river...I can catch fish...I can cool off on a sweltering hot day. What is the inherent meaning of a river?

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 19 Jan 2020 #15
Thumb_open-uri20200202-16653-rg2qz5-0 Mina Martini Finland 418 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
most of what you wrote is very clear...thanks for the clarification.

-m: Tom, I was not aware I was clarifying any specific issue..:-) but good to know if something feels clearer at that end anyway :-)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 19 Jan 2020 #16
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 878 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
In fact pretty much your whole post is about 'meaning'.

This may seem a very childish, silly question, but still I am asking it - what is the meaning of "meaning", in the sense you are using it.

This is what the center always is after, looking for meaning, while what is is meaningless it's nothingness in its pure existence.

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

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Sun, 19 Jan 2020 #17
Thumb_open-uri20200202-16653-rg2qz5-0 Mina Martini Finland 418 posts in this forum Offline

Dan,

Dan:>Though I recall K. and Bohm took this up at one point, is this question answerable: Why did thought feel, need, have the desire, etc. to be permanent? Why could it not see the same beauty in 'ending' as there is in 'beginning'? It saw 'death' around it and realized it was inevitable...why the 'resistance' to the natural process of ending? Causing it to invent all the concepts of spirits, creation myths, afterlives, 'paths' to eternity, etc.

Mina: I have to say that personally, instead of speculating upon the possible reasons that may have led thought to detach itself from the totality of life into its own little isolated compartment, the only thing that really matters, and all our energy should be focused there, is to understand the illusory nature of the psychological aspect of thought so completely that the 'wrong turn' is being undone in this complete awareness, in oneself, timelessly, NOW.

This post was last updated by Mina Martini Sun, 19 Jan 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 19 Jan 2020 #18
Thumb_open-uri20200202-16653-rg2qz5-0 Mina Martini Finland 418 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
To listen with one's whole being.

What does this really mean? Will you explore it? Because what someone else says is just description. What do you find? Your own direct investigation. That's all that matters.

Mina: Dear ID, thank you for your reply. Since there is accordance with what you point out in it, I will only comment on this paragraph which appears to contain a question for me.

The exploration of 'listening wholly' is taking place in this listening itself..the words that are coming appear in it...

Yes.. listening with one's whole being is listening without the listener, the observer, without the limited mind being there to receive what is listened to. Ultimately, fundamentally, it is wholeness or silence listening to itself. Such quality of listening could never be an act of will/listener which is absent in it. In being empty from content, it is empty from both what one oneself, or what anyone else says ;), it is total attention.

Yes, it is the actuality of one's own direct perception that matters. Only that makes the difference between lip-service and actuality

This post was last updated by Mina Martini Sun, 19 Jan 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 19 Jan 2020 #19
Thumb_open-uri20200202-16653-rg2qz5-0 Mina Martini Finland 418 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
This is what the center always is after, looking for meaning, while what is is meaningless it's nothingness in its pure existence.

m: Beautiful!

This is the 'living meaning', absolutely meaningful beyond ideas of meanings and meaninglesses..

I hope you are in good physical health also at the moment Wim..as for the 'mental health' which is ultimately the same as 'being whole within' and the most important thing, you appear to be exceptionally well!

:-) Love

This post was last updated by Mina Martini Sun, 19 Jan 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 19 Jan 2020 #20
Thumb_open-uri20200202-16653-rg2qz5-0 Mina Martini Finland 418 posts in this forum Offline

Dear Huguette,

Thank you for your utterly beautiful reply.

Started replying to it, but soon realised there is nothing to say because of the silent accordance that accompanied the reading of it.

Love
m

This post was last updated by Mina Martini Sun, 19 Jan 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 19 Jan 2020 #21
Thumb_avatar Manfred Kritzler Germany 86 posts in this forum Offline

Re# 11 and 12

When I understood it correctly, Huguette said, explaining without observing the underlying thoughts makes no real sense.

Dan said, whatever we try to express in words is limited. So it makes also sense to explain something without observing the thoughts inside ourselves.

Please correct me when the simplification of the statements is not in your sense.

It is strange, when I read Huguette‘s statement I did not really understand it, but there was a strong feeling it has some important „truth“ in it. Reading Dan‘s statement my mind said yes it’s right. Thought is limited and therefore it doesn’t matter if it is observed or not.

As more as I let the contradictory statements work in my mind and body I feel a tendency to say that there is a big difference between observed thought and non observed thought, especially in communication.

I try to put it in words, being aware whatever comes out is limited.

When my thoughts (and feelings) are observed during talking or explaining, what I am trying to say comes from my whole being. My attention is outside and inside myself. For the listener this might mean more openness and trust.

When thought is unobserved it is acting as an isolated part of myself with sharp conditioned boundaries. The listener might feel that he does not have access to my whole being, but only to a small part of it. This could prevent openness.

This afternoon I host a Bohm-Dialogue with eight people. Maybe it is a good possibility for experiencing talking or explaining with and without observing.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 19 Jan 2020 #22
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 878 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
I hope you are in good physical health also at the moment Wim.

when my physical health failed, I noticed that I felt no less whole. The acceptance that that was what is at that time and some speculation about the outcome good or bad would not change the outcome.

that also did not change my sense of relief when I was told this week after the evaluation that the chemotherapy had successfully destroyed all cancercells.

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

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 2 readers
Back to Top
Sun, 19 Jan 2020 #23
Thumb_open-uri20200202-16653-rg2qz5-0 Mina Martini Finland 418 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
The question of meaning is related to the question of limited and unlimited, as I see it. It is not thought/word/memory which GIVES meaning to anything. Everything inherently HAS meaning, simply by virtue of its actual being. Without needing memory, intellect, reason, description or qualification for its meaning, a thing IS - "small", "huge","limited", "limitless", “good”, “bad”, “dangerous”, “safe”, “repulsive”, “attractive”, and so on. The thing IS and the word or reason is then attributed by the intellect. The quality that is attributed by thought is also limited by thought which by nature fragments, in that it separates the quality from the thing without realizing it is doing so.

Mina: It suddenly came to be said that in order to sense and realise the inherent meaning of ANYTHING, without turning it into an an idea, the mind needs to understand its own inherent meaning! And that happens only when it is completely silent, not attributing anything to itself, not moving as an observer separate from the observed.

This post was last updated by Mina Martini Sun, 19 Jan 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 19 Jan 2020 #24
Thumb_open-uri20200202-16653-rg2qz5-0 Mina Martini Finland 418 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
What is the inherent meaning of a river?

-In order to sense the inherent meaning, (as Huguette introduced it) you would have to sense the inherent meaning of the mind that looks at it. For as long as the looking is from the division between observer and observed, from ideation, the most you can do is to give and experience IDEAS OF MEANINGS and the thing itself or its inherent meaning cannot but be overlooked because that is the nature of the divided mind.

The mind has to discover its own inherent meaning, so stop attributing anything to itself, stop creating any more ideas and be silent. It is only then that the inherent meaning of the mind can unfold itself and thus sense the inherent meaning, inseparably from it itself, of all manifestations and beyond!

This post was last updated by Mina Martini Sun, 19 Jan 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 19 Jan 2020 #25
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 93 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
In fact pretty much your [Huguette .'s] whole post is about 'meaning'...What is the meaning of "meaning", in the sense you are using it?

Good question for Huguette .

My two cents:

The dictionary says that "meaning" is what something means. Which is very funny.

Obviously, if someone doesn't know what the word "automobile" means, you can take them to a car and say, "This!" Then you show them a bunch of cars and they establish a memory, an image, a brain association.

So "meaning" implies image, a level of indirection, a step away from actuality.

The question then is, Is there an awareness without any naming, without any mental retrieval, without even any recognition?!

Another definition of "meaning" is "importance" or "significance." This is giving value to something. And again, it seems that thought is involved in valuation, yes?

So like weeds or tentacles, thought sneaks in and tries to grab silent awareness, yes? It wants to turn into experience what is beyond experience. And it will do so in every devious way possible.

This post was last updated by idiot ? Sun, 19 Jan 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 19 Jan 2020 #26
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3260 posts in this forum Online

Mina Martini wrote:

Tom Paine wrote:

What is the inherent meaning of a river?
-In order to sense the inherent meaning, (as Huguette introduced it) you would have to sense the inherent meaning of the mind that looks at it. For as long as the looking is from the division between observer and observed, from ideation, the most you can do is to give and experience IDEAS OF MEANINGS and the thing itself or its inherent meaning cannot but be overlooked because that is the nature of the divided mind.

I’m not sure that that’s what Huguette was trying to say, Mina. But we’ll let Huguette speak for herself. I’ve sat and walked silently in nature for countless hours simply observing...not thinking at all....and there was no one separate from what he observed to attribute meaning to it. The analytical thinking mind was totally gone...as was the separate observer. There was observation of the trees, the sky, flowers, clouds, light, etc, but no naming. Nothing was separate from the observer or separate from anything else

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Sun, 19 Jan 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 19 Jan 2020 #27
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3260 posts in this forum Online

idiot ? wrote:
So "meaning" implies image, a level of indirection, a step away from actuality

I would agree totally id. With your whole post

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 19 Jan 2020 #28
Thumb_spock Douglas MacRae-Smith France 212 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
It is not thought/word/memory which GIVES meaning to anything. Everything inherently HAS meaning, simply by virtue of its actual being. Without needing memory, intellect, reason, description or qualification for its meaning, a thing IS - "small", "huge","limited", "limitless", “good”, “bad”, “dangerous”, “safe”, “repulsive”, “attractive”, and so on.

Just to clarify does this mean that some things are intrinsically "big", other things are fundamentally "small" (or good, bad etc..)

I've probably misunderstood again - as these seem more like relative points of view - comparative classification.

Look, see, let go

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 19 Jan 2020 #29
Thumb_open-uri20200202-16653-rg2qz5-0 Mina Martini Finland 418 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
I’m not sure that that’s what Huguette was trying to say, Mina. But we’ll let Huguette speak for herself. I’ve sat and walked silently in nature for countless hours simply observing...not thinking at all....and there was no one separate from what he observed to attribute meaning to it. The analytical thinking mind was totally gone...as was the separate observer. There was observation of the trees, the sky, flowers, clouds, light, etc, but no naming. Nothing was separate from the observer or separate from anything else

Mina: You are right Tom, I have no idea or I do not know what Huguette meant.

BUT, and here comes the wonderful observation and reality: Exactly in not knowing, in not creating an idea of what another is saying and then further agreeing or disgreeing with this idea that has already been formed, (observer dialoguing with observed or vica versa :) ) when there is reading in silence, there is an understanding that is not divided because it is not a mind reaction.

Now, the core of this kind of understanding cannot be 'one kind for you', 'another kind for me', it is undivided and never deviates into two or more.

While reading her words on this inherent meaning, they were felt inherently, in their essence.

So yes really, do not know! And that is the place i need to stay in, always!

This post was last updated by Mina Martini Sun, 19 Jan 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 19 Jan 2020 #30
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3260 posts in this forum Online

Mina Martini wrote:
While reading her words on this inherent meaning, they were felt inherently, in their essence.

So you know what she meant or you don’t? I’m confused

So yes really, do not know! And that is the place i need to stay in, always!

I guess that answers it.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 49 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.)