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

Beyond the thirst for experience


Displaying all 15 posts
Page 1 of 1
Sun, 02 Feb 2020 #1
Thumb_open-uri20200202-16653-rg2qz5-0 Mina Martini Finland 418 posts in this forum Offline

Experience is created only by an idea of there being somebody to whom something is happening.

In Reality there is no one to whom anything is happening.

Happening, action, takes place but not to anyone, not by anyone.

Action in full awareness of the above is pure, whole, cleansed from all distortion, direction, limitation.

This post was last updated by Mina Martini Sun, 02 Feb 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 02 Feb 2020 #2
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 93 posts in this forum Offline

There's no one to reply to this post and no one to reply to.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Sun, 02 Feb 2020 #3
Thumb_open-uri20200202-16653-rg2qz5-0 Mina Martini Finland 418 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
There's no one to reply to this post and no one to reply to.

Mina: If what you say above is a living reality for you, then wonderful...The Reality of there being no doer or no one to whom anything is done does not of course imply that talking in this lack of inner division cannot happen...on the contrary the world is in great need of such language and talk..

Or....it could be, only you can say, that there is a fine conclusion implied in your words already, as if messaging that since that is the case, there must be nothing to say at all..(which is sensed to be the case)

This post was last updated by Mina Martini Mon, 03 Feb 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 02 Feb 2020 #4
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5683 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
Experience is created only by an idea of there being somebody to whom something is happening.

This idea of a someone, is there (it is not really there) in order to give the illusion of permanency, isn't it? This is the trick of thought. Is it a necessary trick? Was the experiencer, created by thought to make it possible to accumulate necessary knowledge?

This may be so, but unfortunately the experiencer accumulates a lot of (psychological) knowledge which is not only unnecessary, it is downright destructive.

Have I become too abstract for you, Mina? The abstracting comes and goes, and in between what you say is actually seen.

Life must be lived without the experiencer. But the experiencer starts to imagine what such a thing would be like, and get frightened at the prospect, and tries to escape. But the living experiencing of the truth of the matter cannot be totally escaped from. Dying to all experience is never far away.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 03 Feb 2020 #5
Thumb_open-uri20200202-16653-rg2qz5-0 Mina Martini Finland 418 posts in this forum Offline

Dear Clive,

Clive:>This idea of a someone, is there (it is not really there) in order to give the illusion of permanency, isn't it? This is the trick of thought. Is it a necessary trick? Was the experiencer, created by thought to make it possible to accumulate necessary knowledge?

Mina: The experiencer is a necessary trick for the illusion of itself to be created and to survive, not otherwise!

-Or, actually, the experiencer may acquire a totally different meaning when its very existence is let to serve what is true by being seen wholly and ended in this seeing! Then it has played its precious part in the transcendence of human consciousness on earth!

(The story of the prodigal son and its true meaning is there...)

The experiencer (the whole psychological reality) exists in order to be seen as non-existent!

======

Thought is memory. Memory can be accumulated without the accumulator, so I do not feel that an experiencer is needed to accumulate necessary knowledge. On the contrary, the process of accumulating knowledge is disturbed and created energy-waste into, when/if there is the involvement of a psychological factor in it.

Memory does not function as efficiently and smoothly as it could when the psychological factor is involved in it.

Clive:>Have I become too abstract for you, Mina? The abstracting comes and goes, and in between what you say is actually seen.

Mina: You are always 'just right for me' :-), meaning there cannot be any expectation of anyone being in any other way than they manifest at any moment...including myself :-)

Not abstract no, because at this end i feel no abstraction while writing this, and it is independent on whether another is lost in abstractions..(not meaning you are) and if they occurred (by abstarction we mean the psychologcal reality of ideas of things instead of seeing to their core without a single word), again, as was pointed out above, they would be like food for thought which, in awareness, is left untouched..so one lives in a reality where everything is let to serve awareness and only...

Clive:>Life must be lived without the experiencer. But the experiencer starts to imagine what such a thing would be like, and get frightened at the prospect, and tries to escape. But the living experiencing of the truth of the matter cannot be totally escaped from. Dying to all experience is never far away.

Mina:

Who says "life must be lived without an experiencer"..is it thought that is convinced that it is so? Because if you actually live it, from moment to moment, then you do not say 'it must be lived', you are already living it! -Therefore I wonder what is the ground for such utterances..

Mina: Beautiful that last sentence. Not only is the dying to all experience never far away, but it is your own very essence and true nature...:-)

This post was last updated by Mina Martini Mon, 03 Feb 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 04 Feb 2020 #6
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5683 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
Experience is created only by an idea of there being somebody to whom something is happening.

In Reality there is no one to whom anything is happening.

Another thing Mina. Would you say that the (imaginary) experiencer cannot experience that which is real/actual? Being composed of thought itself, it can only experience thought? To put it another way, it can only experience what it THINKS it has experienced?

Can we say, in fact, that all experience is born out of thought? Anything you experience as energy is thought-induced energy. It is not the energy of life.

This post was last updated by Clive Elwell Tue, 04 Feb 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 04 Feb 2020 #7
Thumb_open-uri20200202-16653-rg2qz5-0 Mina Martini Finland 418 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Another thing Mina. Would you say that the (imaginary) experiencer cannot experience that which is real/actual? Being composed of thought itself, it can only experience thought? To put it another way, it can only experience what it THINKS it has experienced?

Mina: Yes, all that you describe above finds me in accordance.

Clive:>Can we say, in fact, that all experience is born out of thought? Anything you experience as energy is thought-induced energy. It is not the energy of life.

Mina: Well, if we give the word 'experience' the meaning we have given to it in this thread, yes, all experience is 'thought experiencing itself' as the observer and observed.

I would re-write your second sentence as follows: 'Anything thought experiences as energy is thought-induced and limited.' There is always friction and contradiction in such energy, waste of it in other words. It is this waste of energy, the self, which has brought the world to its present condition.

It is the same 'energy of life', there is no 'other energy elsewhere', but since it is trapped and wrapped around itself consuming itself out, withering itself since it has lost direct touch with its own real source, it appears as limitation. It is bound to have a beginning and an end whereas energy not directed by an observer, has neither.

That which is not constantly being reborn is constantly withering. Either or.

This post was last updated by Mina Martini Tue, 04 Feb 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 05 Feb 2020 #8
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5683 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
I would re-write your second sentence as follows: 'Anything thought experiences as energy is thought-induced and limited.' There is always friction and contradiction in such energy, waste of it in other words. It is this waste of energy, the self, which has brought the world to its present condition.

That seems so, Mina. To tie up with some other recent posts in other posts, the basic problem is thought not being aware of its own nature - that nature being limited. So it runs away with itself, and does all sorts of damage.

Mina Martini wrote:
It is the same 'energy of life', there is no 'other energy elsewhere', but since it is trapped and wrapped around itself consuming itself out, withering itself since it has lost direct touch with its own real source, it appears as limitation

Yes, this is well pointed out, it is not actually a separate energy from life. I perhaps have the tendency to regard it as such.

Mina Martini wrote:
That which is not constantly being reborn is constantly withering. Either or.

What do you mean, "either or"? I am not clear on that.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 05 Feb 2020 #9
Thumb_open-uri20200202-16653-rg2qz5-0 Mina Martini Finland 418 posts in this forum Offline

Dearest Clive,

Mina Martini wrote:

It is the same 'energy of life', there is no 'other energy elsewhere', but since it is trapped and wrapped around itself consuming itself out, withering itself since it has lost direct touch with its own real source, it appears as limitation

Clive:>Yes, this is well pointed out, it is not actually a separate energy from life. I perhaps have the tendency to regard it as such.

Mina: May I add here that you (anyone) will always see separate things for as long as we look or experience life from/in the observer-observed-reality.

Mina Martini wrote:

That which is not constantly being reborn is constantly withering. Either or.

Clive:>What do you mean, "either or"? I am not clear on that.

Mina:I mean that it is not possible to be self-driven in one's actions, and free from all of it, at the same time.

This post was last updated by Mina Martini Wed, 05 Feb 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 05 Feb 2020 #10
Thumb_spock Douglas MacRae-Smith France 212 posts in this forum Offline

Would the realisation that we can never be free of the self, help us in our struggle? And in our compassion?

Look, see, let go

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 05 Feb 2020 #11
Thumb_open-uri20200202-16653-rg2qz5-0 Mina Martini Finland 418 posts in this forum Offline

Douglas MacRae-Smith wrote:
Would the realisation that we can never be free of the self, help us in our struggle? And in our compassion?

M: The realisation that there is no real self to be free from to begin with, puts an end to all struggling with imaginary entities....

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 05 Feb 2020 #12
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5683 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
Mina: May I add here that you (anyone) will always see separate things for as long as we look or experience life from/in the observer-observed-reality.

Yes.

I found myself trying an experiment yesterday. I looked at a tree, and tried to see it as an individual entity, an entity separate from its surroundings. Of course that is impossible. I tried mentally "cutting around the tree" with scissors, tried to see it in isolation, but all in vain. All there is to be seen is the tree in the air, in the sky, emerging from the ground, the leaves responding to the wind, the fallen leaves decaying into the soil, and so on. One can only a whole scene, in which everything is interacting, merging.

Mina Martini wrote:
Mina:I mean that it is not possible to be self-driven in one's actions, and free from all of it, at the same time.

Right. The self is never free, it is always driven. And yet there is a sense of freedom of action, of integrity of being, would you not say?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 06 Feb 2020 #13
Thumb_open-uri20200202-16653-rg2qz5-0 Mina Martini Finland 418 posts in this forum Offline

Mina:I mean that it is not possible to be self-driven in one's actions, and free from all of it, at the same time.

Clive>Right. The self is never free, it is always driven. And yet there is a sense of freedom of action, of integrity of being, would you not say?

Mina: Seeing now from your comment that I should have put my words a little differently, for example as follows: Self-centered action and freedom from it never co-exist.

Yes, there is freedom but it has nothing to do with an image of oneself as free or as anything else.

This post was last updated by Mina Martini Thu, 06 Feb 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 06 Feb 2020 #14
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5683 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
Clive>Right.

A technical point, Mina. You have to put the ">" at the beginning of the line, in order to highlight the text that follows

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 06 Feb 2020 #15
Thumb_open-uri20200202-16653-rg2qz5-0 Mina Martini Finland 418 posts in this forum Offline

A technical point, Mina. You have to put the ">" at the beginning of the line, in order to highlight the text that follows

M: See? I can do it! Thank you love...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying all 15 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.)