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

Your daily life - QOTD


Displaying posts 31 - 44 of 44 in total
Thu, 30 Jan 2020 #31
Thumb_spock Douglas MacRae-Smith France 292 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Is the source of those statements “nothing”?

Douglas MacRae-Smith wrote:
Good question! I won't try to answer. I can't see how to make a correct statement.

Huguette . wrote:
Don't answer then. Can't one look inwardly and see what is fueling our words?

I actively wanted to indicate that this was my answer : as in, it is neither this nor that. I cannot describe the source of what we are.

As for looking inwardly, what is there to look in at, and who is doing the looking?

Even when we observe the material world, Physicists tell us that it is 99% space (I won't say empty space because there might be more to "space" than we can understand), and the rest is "probability", "Relationship" and "mystery" (as in we Don't understand it).

And between "matter" and "consciousness", I'd say observing matter was the easy part.

I Don't know is the only honest answer - As soon as "I" "decide" to look at "me", there is confusion and conflict.

I Don't know and an open heart. Total acceptance of mystery - which may or may not be revealed.

Look, see, let go

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 30 Jan 2020 #32
Thumb_spock Douglas MacRae-Smith France 292 posts in this forum Offline

"What is" must not be known. Or we will only find what we expect to see.

Someone observing Something may provide narrow certainty, at the expense of the whole, at the expense of what is.

Open possibilty is essential to invite in the unknown. Open possibility is not gained through knowledge or effort, but via innocence.

Look, see, let go

This post was last updated by Douglas MacRae-Smith Thu, 30 Jan 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 30 Jan 2020 #33
Thumb_open-uri20200202-16653-rg2qz5-0 Mina Martini Finland 418 posts in this forum Offline

Douglas MacRae-Smith wrote:
"What is" must not be known. Or we will only find what we expect to see.

Someone observing Something may provide narrow certainty, at the expense of the whole, at the expense of what is.

Open possibilty is essential to invite in the unknown. Open possibility is not gained through knowledge or effort, but via innocence.

Mina: Beautiful, thank you.

Was just living the blessing, in/through a beautiful connection with another, to sense and share the innocence, the joy, the simplicity of 'having no problems' :), the energy that embraces/is everything it encounters...no separation, only love and flowering goodness..

This post was last updated by Mina Martini Thu, 30 Jan 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 30 Jan 2020 #34
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 892 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette wrote:
I think K might be mistaken about certain things.

Clive Elwell wrote:
Would you care to go into those things? That may have relevance to our self understanding.

When K spoke about “fundamental questions”, one could see him going deep within, in total attention and energy. There was or is no fear or contradiction in such moments, no mistakes.

I see a mistake/contradiction when, for example, Bohm said something very perceptive and accurate and this seems to offend K. K would skirt around acknowledging such perceptions of Bohm’s. I also see a mistake when K talked condescendingly, divisively, to or about Buddhists. It seems to me in such moments that K is inwardly inattentive.

I remember one specific "mistake" when K was talking to a group (of scientists, I think) which included a brain specialist. (Sorry, I can’t find the reference.) K stated that he didn’t know why we need brain specialists at all, that all we have to do is to look inwardly. The brain specialist said something to the effect that it was because there are certain brain pathologies that cause great suffering. And I see his point - epilepsy and Tourette’s, for example, cause great suffering and no amount of looking inwardly can cure that. But K completely disregarded it.

K didn’t claim to “have” insight and didn’t claim that we should therefore listen to him. He talked about insight but not in a personal way. He didn’t say that insight was a permanent state, a continuous thing. He also he didn’t claim to be an oracle, to know the truth, or to be infallible. He entreated us to doubt everything, including what he said.

I’m not certain about it but I sometimes see fear, conflict and conceit in K. In moments of fear, it follows that there is no clear perception or understanding. In moments of fear, the mind makes mistakes. Again, the fact that K was not infallible, that he did make mistakes, does NOT invalidate everything he said. On the contrary, it means that - being fallible - what he understood, we can all understand. Which reminds me of another mistake I think he made. He seemed at times to encourage the perception that he WAS organically different from everyone else. From various things he said, he seems to have thought so himself at times.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 30 Jan 2020 #35
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 892 posts in this forum Offline

Douglas MacRae-Smith wrote:
As for looking inwardly, what is there to look in at, and who is doing the looking?

Even when we observe the material world, Physicists tell us that it is 99% space (I won't say empty space because there might be more to "space" than we can understand)...

I once heard Stephen Hawking speaking about the origin of the big bang. He said that something CAN come out of nothing; he said that the particle at the source of the big bang (if that’s what happened) was so minute as to be equivalent to nothing. But as I see it, however miniscule that particle was, it was “something”. I have unsuccessfully looked for that video on Youtube several times. I really do wish I could find it.

Whether the material universe is 99% space or some other percentage, we understand that most of everything is space, at the micro and macro levels. But no matter what our perspective is, there IS still that 1% of something, materially.

Douglas MacRae-Smith wrote:
As soon as "I" "decide" to look at "me", there is confusion and conflict.

Psychologically, “I” am nothing; there is no self. But this doesn’t mean that there is nothing - no confusion, no conflict, no anger, no fear, no suffering, no brutality, no joy, no compassion, no beauty. Does it? Those things are not nothing. “Everything” is not nothing, neither materially, psychologically or beyond.

And, as you imply, there is more to nothing than nothing. There are things that are not measurable, perceptible or understandable. This mystery and an “open heart”, as you put it, might be or ARE the most important “things”.

This post was last updated by Huguette . Thu, 30 Jan 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 30 Jan 2020 #36
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3494 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
K stated that he didn’t know why we need brain specialists at all, that all we have to do is to look inwardly. The brain specialist said something to the effect that it was because there are certain brain pathologies that cause great suffering. And I see his point - epilepsy and Tourette’s, for example, cause great suffering and no amount of looking inwardly can cure that. But K completely disregarded it.

Was sitting with a dear friend yesterday who has deep, deep, depression, to the point of not wanting to live anymore. Suddenly I felt what they were feeling...inwardly in myself. It is horrible. I’m convinced that it’s some physical...physiological... malfunction in the brain that’s behind this. No...such a person cannot possibly look inwardly. The pain they are feeling is so extreme they desire to end their life. So, to make a long story short, medication is absolutely necessary at this point, even if it makes the brain tired and dull. It at least can lift the depression somewhat. At the moment my friend is seeking a new psychiatrist as the current one hasn’t been able to help all that much and there are still bouts of the deep depression

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 30 Jan 2020 #37
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 892 posts in this forum Offline

re: #36

I’m not sure about depression, Tom. I have been deeply depressed on and off since I was 10 years old. In facing it, I now see that “my” depression was and is based on the divisive action of thought; I now see that it is rooted in self-pity, in rebellion against “the world”, and so on. In “my” case. It still sometimes happens but it is seen objectively, not as “me” suffering from depression but as the divisive movement of thought’s duality. Perhaps because it is allowed to flower and follow its own course without interference, desire or effort to end it, the observation of depression is often followed by insight, by vital energy. This is my understanding of it. What do you think?

I have always assumed that “everyone’s” depression had the same cause as mine. But hearing about your friend, I am now questioning it. It may be that there are physiological roots to it for some people, just as there are physiological roots to epilepsy, Tourette’s, schizophrenia, and so on. Such brain disorders are terrible things to live with.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 30 Jan 2020 #38
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3494 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
This is my understanding of it. What do you think?

I had depression on and off when young, but the deep, deep, suicidal depression is nothing I ever felt. It’s a different animal I’m certain. My depression pretty much ended when I corrected my horrible eating habits. Sugar and refined carbohydrates were a big contributor to depression in me. For a while I went on the low carb diet and immediately I felt SO much better. Not that I became happy, but the depression lifted. I was still extremely discontented, no doubt about that. And reading K helped a lot in later years. But sitting with my friend yesterday I actually felt their depression in me....and it is like infinite darkness. Oh, one more thing. I had a close relative many, many, years ago who suffered for years with this deep suicidal depression. After they told me one day that they wanted to end it all, I could feel that this was true. Shortly after sitting quietly on my own I felt like I was falling down into an endless abyss. At one point I gave up fighting and fell down into the abyss. Immediately after I totally surrendered, I was whooshed up and out and my own fear and depression was over. True story. This person eventually took their own life. I have tears in my eyes thinking of this several decades later.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Thu, 30 Jan 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 30 Jan 2020 #39
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5971 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
I once heard Stephen Hawking speaking about the origin of the big bang. He said that something CAN come out of nothing; he said that the particle at the source of the big bang (if that’s what happened) was so minute as to be equivalent to nothing. But as I see it, however miniscule that particle was, it was “something”. I have unsuccessfully looked for that video on Youtube several times. I really do wish I could find it.

It is my understanding (I could be wrong) that science now recognises that something can come from nothing. And that so called "empty space" is a seething mass of creation/destruction. particles and energy spontaneously coming into existance, interacting, and disappearing from existence.

This is consistent with the science of quantum theory, and in particular something called "Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle", which can be expressed very simply mathematically (that is the degree of uncertainty about the measurement of matter, and some claim in matter itself

So, as far as matter goes, it is possible that "something" can arise from "nothing" - subject to certain conditions.

I find this so remarkable that it makes my head spin.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 30 Jan 2020 #40
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5971 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Perhaps because it is allowed to flower and follow its own course without interference, desire or effort to end it, the observation of depression is often followed by insight, by vital energy.

I wonder if there are any psychology/psychiatry practitioners who's treatment is based on this 'principle'?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 30 Jan 2020 #41
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5971 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Shortly after sitting quietly on my own I felt like I was falling down into an endless abyss. At one point I gave up fighting and fell down into the abyss. Immediately after I totally surrendered, I was whooshed up and out and my own fear and depression was over. True story

This is tremendously important. This is the acceptance, the surrender, to 'what is', isn't it?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 30 Jan 2020 #42
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3494 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
This is tremendously important. This is the acceptance, the surrender, to 'what is', isn't it?

Surrender in the sense I gave up resisting. Yet there was no ‘I’ in that surrender. It happened spontaneously...choicelessly

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Fri, 31 Jan 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 30 Jan 2020 #43
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 892 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
And that so called "empty space" is a seething mass of creation/destruction. particles and energy spontaneously coming into existance, interacting, and disappearing from existence.

This is the same contradiction that Stephen Hawking made - as I humbly see it. It is arrogant of me who can't even walk and talk at the same time to doubt Stephen Hawking but I can't help it. "Almost nothing" is not "nothing" as I see it. If "empty space" is a seething mass, then it can't be "nothing", as I see it. "Nothing" can't seethe; a non-thing which is not "something" cannot seethe.

I dare to say that there IS "something" in that nothing, but it is beyond what we know or understand. What we know and understand is not all there is. As Douglas said above, "there might be more to "space" than we can understand" - it is a mystery and even the best scientific minds are limited as humans. Still, perhaps the physicists will discover what this nothing is.

This post was last updated by Huguette . Thu, 30 Jan 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 31 Jan 2020 #44
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5971 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
This is the same contradiction that Stephen Hawking made - as I humbly see it.

.

It is arrogant of me who can't even walk and talk at the same time

What is this?

to doubt Stephen Hawking but I can't help it. "Almost nothing" is not "nothing" as I see it. If "empty space" is a seething mass, then it can't be "nothing", as I see it.

Excuse the use of the word “seething”, it just came to me.

I am not claiming to be any expert. What I was trying to say was that space that used to be considered “empty” is now not regarded so. Where does the idea of “nothing” come into this? What would a scientist regard as “nothingness”? My guess is, when his instruments do not detect anything.

I said that particles/energy are continually coming into existence, doing something, then disappear (subject to certain conditions). From where or what do they come, and disappear into? I would say this is 'nothingness'.

Whether scientists will one day be able to probe into this nothingness, I cannot say. At the moment there is no way to do it. If eventually our senses (through subtle instruments) can detect the birth place of things, that nothingness, then we could no longer call it nothingness.

As Douglas said above, "there might be more to "space" than we can understand" - it is a mystery

Indeed, the nature of space, and empty space, is a tremendous mystery – at least I feel it to be so. As is time. They seem to be the very basis of material existence. K has talked of space, but I have never understood him, he said things like “The microphone creates its own space around it”. That means nothing to me.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 31 - 44 of 44 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.)