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

'There is no opposite'


Displaying posts 31 - 49 of 49 in total
Wed, 29 Jan 2020 #31
Thumb_open-uri20200202-16653-rg2qz5-0 Mina Martini Finland 418 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
if I treat something as having an independent existence when it actually does not, that MUST bring about problems and illusion.

Or, most important, ‘someone’. Good point, Clive! This is the meaning of ‘You are the world’, isn’t it?

Mina: Yes, and I treat something or someone as having an independent existence for as long as I act from an experience of my own separation.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 30 Jan 2020 #32
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5683 posts in this forum Offline

Yes Mina, I have no issue with anything that you say above.

it is interesting to reflect that you and I, and everyone on the forum, and everyone in the world, has the "same brain". generally we do not act as if that is so. And whenever I try to discuss this with anyone, they immediately start talking about the differences between people, and seem to think that these differences are far more important than the similarities. That seems odd to me.

Are some brains "more enlightened" than others, would you say?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 31 Jan 2020 #33
Thumb_avatar Manfred Kritzler Germany 86 posts in this forum Offline

Clive: it is interesting to reflect that you and I, and everyone on the forum, and everyone in the world, has the "same brain". generally we do not act as if that is so. And whenever I try to discuss this with anyone, they immediately start talking about the differences between people, and seem to think that these differences are far more important than the similarities. That seems odd to me.
———
Manfred:I also had and still have problems with a clear understanding of the statement that we all have the same brain.

What I can see is that our way of thinking is the same. It is dualistic, reductionistic and can therefore never grasp the whole of life. But what we see and exchange is always different and subjective.

In short form: The brain is the same. What it sees is different.

Any other idea?

This post was last updated by Manfred Kritzler Fri, 31 Jan 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 31 Jan 2020 #34
Thumb_spock Douglas MacRae-Smith France 212 posts in this forum Offline

Manfred Kritzler wrote:
The brain is the same. What it sees is different.

My "me" is in here, your "me" is over there.

Look, see, let go

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 31 Jan 2020 #35
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5683 posts in this forum Offline

Manfred Kritzler wrote:
In short form: The brain is the same. What it sees is different.

Any other idea?

Does the brain "see" Anything? or does it always interpret, according to its conditioning? Our condition, reflecting how we were raised, educated, the influences we were subject to, differs in different brains. And so no two people can ever agree.

Is it the function of the brain to 'see'? Or is its function to create models, from what the senses perceive? Is the brain, at least as it functions now, not basically an image-creator? A 'reality creator'?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 31 Jan 2020 #36
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5683 posts in this forum Offline

I am reposting the text that started this discussion on another thread, giving slightly more of it.it will be seen that K actually said:

It is only when there is no illusion that what is is most sacred.

Questioner: I must meditate on this.

Krishnamurti: If there is no illusion, what is left?

Questioner: Only what is.

Krishnamurti: The "what is" is the most holy.

Questioner: If the "what is" is the most holy then war is most holy, and hatred, disorder, pain, avarice and plunder. Then we must not speak of any change at all. If "what is" is sacred, then every murderer and plunderer and exploiter can say, "Don't touch me, what I'm doing is sacred".

Krishnamurti: The very simplicity of that statement, " 'what is' is the most sacred", leads to great misunderstanding, because we don't see the truth of it. If you see that what is is sacred, you do not murder, you do not make war, you do not hope, you do not exploit. Having done these things you cannot claim immunity from a truth which you have violated. The white man who says to the black rioter, "What is is sacred, do not interfere, do not burn", has not seen, for if he had, the Negro would be sacred to him, and there would be no need to burn. So if each one of us sees this truth there must be change. This seeing of the truth is change.

Questioner: I came here to find out if there is god, and you have completely confused me.

Krishnamurti: You came to ask if there is god. We said: the word leads to illusion which we worship, and for this illusion we destroy each other willingly. When there is no illusion the "what is" is most sacred. Now let's look at what actually is. At a given moment the "what is" may be fear, or utter despair, or a fleeting joy. These things are constantly changing. And also there is the observer who says, "These things all change around me, but I remain permanent". Is that a fact, is that what really is? Is he not also changing, adding to and taking away from himself, modifying, adjusting himself, becoming or not becoming? So both the observer and the observed are constantly changing. What is is change. That is a fact. That is what is.

Questioner: Then is love changeable? If everything is a movement of change, isn't love also part of that movement? And if love is changeable, then I can love one woman today and sleep with another tomorrow.

Krishnamurti: Is that love? Or are you saying that love is different from its expression? Or are you giving to expression greater importance than to love, and therefore making a contradiction and a conflict. Can love ever be caught in the wheel of change? If so then it can also be hate; then love is hate. It is only when there is no illusion that "what is" is most sacred. When there is no illusion "what is" is god or any other name that can be used. So god, or whatever name you give it, is when you are not. When you are, it is not. When you are not, love is. When you are, love is not.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 01 Feb 2020 #37
Thumb_avatar Manfred Kritzler Germany 86 posts in this forum Offline

Clive:
Is it the function of the brain to 'see'? Or is its function to create models, from what the senses perceive? Is the brain, at least as it functions now, not basically an image-creator? A 'reality creator'?
————
Manfred:
You expressed it much better than me. Thank you very much. Maybe the word seeing was and is not clear to me.

But any way. The key issue for me is, that the brain creates its own models and therefore its own reality, as you said. This reality is influenced by conditioning and by experience inside of it, but as we now know through epigenetic also by inheritance.

The question remains for me, could we survive in our modern world without this self created models. My tendency is to say, this models make sense for us, when we recognize them and their limited character. In the moment we think that there is nothing beyond this “model-world”, or we create models for the “spiritual” world, we are in trouble. The same happens when we assume that others live in the same “model-world“ as we live in.

Another issue can arise, when we accept that thinking is a material process and thought is changing the brain cells. Then it could be unclear if our brains are really the same. But then we have to go one level higher and say this is the same with all the brains of the whole humanity.
It shows that isolated looking at something makes no sense without having looked at the context.

This post was last updated by Manfred Kritzler Sat, 01 Feb 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 01 Feb 2020 #38
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5683 posts in this forum Offline

Manfred Kritzler wrote:
The question remains for me, could we survive in our modern world without this self created models. My tendency is to say, this models make sense for us, when we recognize them and their limited character. In the moment we think that there is nothing beyond this “model-world”, or we create models for the “spiritual” world, we are in trouble.

Trouble indeed.

Can we not survive in this world – I am talking of material survival – simply be meeting 'what is'? Do we need to engage in model making, or become engrossed in other people's models? Perhaps at one level models are necessary, as when I travel, either far or just down the street, when I need a model map inside my head. But I do not see these things as important. As you say, the real issue is our creation of “spiritual” maps/models, the issue is thought's assuming that it knows the answers to our psychological problems, our conflicts, our suffering. Thought creates ideas of what it should do, draws up maps of which way to follow, and acts upon the ideas. This is indeed “trouble”. This is a disaster, in that people have different maps, different models of reality, and all the idea-based actions come into conflict, creating the world we have now.

God save us from those who think they know!

And apart from this, the answers that thought creates to its psychological/emotional/spiritual problems may simply be wrong. I think they always are wrong, because thought is always fragmented, always partial, and its answers are never, in any circumstances, complete, adequate.

So it seems to me what is essential is that all 'models' in the psyche be put aside. All non-material knowledge.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 02 Feb 2020 #39
Thumb_avatar Manfred Kritzler Germany 86 posts in this forum Offline

Clive: So it seems to me what is essential is that all 'models' in the psyche be put aside. All non-material knowledge

————

Manfred: yes. I agree completely with you. The question is how are we able to put this models aside?

Maybe it is possible with our construction of models which are existing only in the area beyond thought. Although this might be for some people the hardest challenge.

But can we really separate the psyche or the non-material knowledge from the material? I think both is mostly created at the same time. So if I see a certain „thing“ it is probably interconnected with my feelings, emotions and all the other images the psyche is providing.

Let’s assume we like very much the color red and we want to buy a red car. Our interest is strongly influenced by our psychical or nonmaterial connection to the color red. Other examples are to buy a very expensive car or house or jewelry to impress others.

I think it is not possible to separate non material/psychical from the material. To observe both without any intention of change is perhaps the solution. The observed and the observer might be dissolved. What might come back again is the material in the outside. Maybe also with the non material/psychical in the beginning, but a little weaker. In repeating the observation only the material is remaining.

Any other idea?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 02 Feb 2020 #40
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3259 posts in this forum Offline

Clive: So it seems to me what is essential is that all 'models' in the psyche be put aside. All non-material knowledge

————

Manfred: yes. I agree completely with you. The question is how are we able to put this models aside?

Manfred, Clive,

Here’s K on freedom. Unfortunately he gives no answer to the question.

“Freedom from something is resistance against something, and therefore is not freedom. I am talking, not of freedom from something, but of being free. Being free is not becoming free, being peaceful is not becoming peaceful. There is no gradual process towards freedom, towards peace.” From “What Are You Seeking?”

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 02 Feb 2020 #41
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5683 posts in this forum Offline

Manfred Kritzler wrote:
The question is how are we able to put this models aside?

I have some appointments today, Manfred, but I will definitely return to this question. but please have a read of the new thread I am starting, to me the answer is there. To see thought as merely thought.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 04 Feb 2020 #42
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5683 posts in this forum Offline

Manfred Kritzler wrote #39 :
Clive: So it seems to me what is essential is that all 'models' in the psyche be put aside. All non-material knowledge

Manfred: yes. I agree completely with you. The question is how are we able to put this models aside?

Clive: Sorry it has taken some time to get back to you, Manfred. I have been occupied with 'things of the world'. But it should not matter, as our enquiries are fundamental, universal, eternal. Any question with meaning is always with us.

Manfred: yes. I agree completely with you. The question is how are we able to put this models aside?

Clive: I am going to disagree with you, Manfred. I suggest the question “how are we to put this model aside?” is not the right question, and any answer, any discussion along those lines just leads us more deeply into the quagmire of thought.

Any answer to the question would be further thought, would it not? It would be further “model making”, more imagination. But does thought have the answer? Does thought have answers to any fundamental questions? That to me is the question, or at least a fundamental question.

One again I refer you to my posts on the thread “To see thought as merely thought”, where I tried to express what seemed a deep insight. Ah, I see that you have made a reply there. I will not read it until I have finished with this post.

Maybe it is possible with our construction of models which are existing only in the area beyond thought.

Clive: I don't understand, Manfred. How can there be “models beyond thought”? If anything is “beyond thought” it is actuality, not a model. But even to talk about “beyond thought” is very questionable, doubtful, because it is still thought talking about it. Still thought making models. Still in the area of the known.

Although this might be for some people the hardest challenge.

Clive: If I may suggest, let us put aside ideas of “other people”. Let us look at the world within us. That is the only thing we have really, isn't it?

But can we really separate the psyche or the non-material knowledge from the material

Clive: I am not sure what you mean by “non-material knowledge”. Can you explain? Knowledge is memory, thought, is it not? And as K says, all knowledge is limited. Which means we cannot use knowledge to understand that which is beyond knowledge – if indeed there is anything beyond knowledge

I think both is mostly created at the same time. So if I see a certain „thing“ it is probably interconnected with my feelings, emotions and all the other images the psyche is providing. Let’s assume we like very much the color red and we want to buy a red car. Our interest is strongly influenced by our psychical or non-material connection to the color red. Other examples are to buy a very expensive car or house or jewelry to impress others. I think it is not possible to separate non material/psychical from the material. To observe both without any intention of change is perhaps the solution. The observed and the observer might be dissolved. What might come back again is the material in the outside. Maybe also with the non material/psychical in the beginning, but a little weaker. In repeating the observation only the material is remaining.
Any other idea?

I do not want to be concerned with “ideas”. Ideas are the construction of thought. As such they basically dead. They are a conclusion, they are “the frozen thought of mankind” I want to see what is Although even that wanting is an idea.

As you say, what is important is to observe. But HOW we observe is all important. And if there is a motive for observation, can we truly observe? Is observation a sort of tool that we can use? If that is happening, what is the wielder of the tool? If there is a wielder, how can that wielder, observer, himself be observed?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 07 Feb 2020 #43
Thumb_avatar Manfred Kritzler Germany 86 posts in this forum Offline

Clive: I am going to disagree with you, Manfred. I suggest the question “how are we to put this model aside?” is not the right question, and any answer, any discussion along those lines just leads us more deeply into the quagmire of thought.
———-
Manfred: Dear Clive, thank you very much for questioning. You are right. To try to get an answer to the question, how are we able to put this model aside is a wrong question. It was a fixed question I asked some years ago and did not actually see that there could be no answer.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 07 Feb 2020 #44
Thumb_avatar Manfred Kritzler Germany 86 posts in this forum Offline

Clive: I don't understand, Manfred. How can there be “models beyond thought”? If anything is “beyond thought” it is actuality, not a model. But even to talk about “beyond thought” is very questionable, doubtful, because it is still thought talking about it. Still thought making models. Still in the area of the known.
————
Manfred: Sorry Clive, you are right again. This was expressed very unclear. Reading it again I myself have even problems to understand what I wanted to express. It is absolutely clear that beyond thought is no model and also nothing to talk about.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 07 Feb 2020 #45
Thumb_avatar Manfred Kritzler Germany 86 posts in this forum Offline

Clive: I do not want to be concerned with “ideas”. Ideas are the construction of thought. As such they basically dead. They are a conclusion, they are “the frozen thought of mankind” I want to see what is. Although even that wanting is an idea.

——————

This time I do not agree with that what you are saying here.

What are we doing in a forum like that? Is it not only an exchange of ideas? And is this exchange not that was is?

This is no problem for me as long as we are aware of it. Especially of the limited character of this exchange.

As far as I can see participants in this forum are consciously or unconsciously aware of this limitation. That might be the reason that different opinions and views are accepted. The intercourse is respectful and peaceful. I really do enjoy it very much and want to say thanks to all of you.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 08 Feb 2020 #46
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5683 posts in this forum Offline

Manfred Kritzler wrote:
What are we doing in a forum like that? Is it not only an exchange of ideas? And is this exchange not that was is?

Clive: I suppose it depends on what you mean by an idea. K likes to point out the word “idea” means, or originally meant, “something seen”. So perhaps on the forum we are sharing what we have seen. Or think that we have seen. What might be called “our perceptions”. And to test out those perceptions against the perceptions of others.

These might be called “ideas”, although I can see that other meanings are given to the word.

I really do enjoy it very much and want to say thanks to all of you.

And thank you for your participation, Manfred, it is appreciated.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 10 Feb 2020 #47
Thumb_open-uri20200202-16653-rg2qz5-0 Mina Martini Finland 418 posts in this forum Offline

Manfred Kritzler wrote:
This time I do not agree with that what you are saying here.

What are we doing in a forum like that? Is it not only an exchange of ideas? And is this exchange not that was is?

Mina: Either on this forum or anywhere else, whether we exchange only ideas or whether 'there is more to it' depends on our 'state of awareness', as is lived and seen here.

(not that awareness has any states, but putting it like that now here to point to the crucial and only meaningful factor of our own inner state)

If one lives identified with thoughts, words, ideas, then one is obviously exchanging only ideas...but this does not have to be the case...

Through self-understanding, which in itself is NOT a word, idea, there is an action of intelligence operating, and that intelligence can use words without itself being dependent on any word, any expression..(because it IS without any, it is the essence, the unknown, the source)

This intelligence does not 'exchange ideas', even if words can be born in it. It is thought that exchanges ideas with itself in the identified state of the observer/observed.

Are you with me Manfred? Not in any conclusion of course, but in resonating perhaps to what the words that have come, are pointing to?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 15 Feb 2020 #48
Thumb_avatar Manfred Kritzler Germany 86 posts in this forum Offline

Mina: In the very seeing that thought cannot see the difference between the two, (and this seeing is an action of intelligence, not of thought) lies the ability to discern where words come from truth because this truth in oneself is then awakened to sense the difference directly and not as an outcome of any thinking.

————-
Manfred:

Dear Mina,
Now I had some days to let this statement work inside of me. I still doubt if we are able to determine if words come directly from truth or not. I have copied the text and do not find the original any more. But I think it fits also to this dialogue.

Maybe you mean with „sense“ a kind of feeling, which is before or beyond words. This happened in some very rare moments to me. The information is coming in a way that there is no questioning any more. No intellectual or emotional doubt. It’s not even an information. It is more like „that’s it“ and movement are one, embedded in a kind of flow.

But as I already said it is very seldom. Maybe it happens more often and I am not aware of it?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 17 Feb 2020 #49
Thumb_open-uri20200202-16653-rg2qz5-0 Mina Martini Finland 418 posts in this forum Offline

Manfred Kritzler wrote:
Dear Mina,
Now I had some days to let this statement work inside of me. I still doubt if we are able to determine if words come directly from truth or not. I have copied the text and do not find the original any more. But I think it fits also to this dialogue.

Mina: Of course I do not mean knowing about, or determining, 'whether words come from truth or not'. Therefore I talked of 'the ability to discern which is not a result of any thinking.' It is actually the silent mind only that can SENSE the difference and at the same time be totally free from any duality, from ideas of both 'true' and 'not true'. This is silence is not thought, simply.

Manfred>Maybe you mean with „sense“ a kind of feeling, which is before or beyond words. This happened in some very rare moments to me. The information is coming in a way that there is no questioning any more. No intellectual or emotional doubt. It’s not even an information. It is more like „that’s it“ and movement are one, embedded in a kind of flow.

Mina: Yes, exactly, the seeing of what is true is beyond questioning and doubt even, beyond thought.

Manfred:But as I already said it is very seldom. Maybe it happens more often and I am not aware of it?

Mina: You can never, as a thought of yourself be 'aware' of that in which you as image/past are absent...but you can BE THE AWARENESS isntead, but never think about it...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 31 - 49 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.)