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

To see thought as merely thought


Displaying posts 61 - 90 of 127 in total
Mon, 10 Feb 2020 #61
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3260 posts in this forum Offline

But there’s no conflict in saying something is false or misleading. It may in fact be false or it may in fact not be false. Let’s look into it together . What else can be done? Just to hold ones tongue? I’m an American....Freedom of Speech is guaranteed in the Constitution....and freedom of religion. Or would you like to live under the spell of any kind of authority .... religious or secular?

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Mon, 10 Feb 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 10 Feb 2020 #62
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1718 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
K once said it’s like living with a poisonous snake in the room. You’re aware of its every move...aware and alert. This is what watching thought....observing...and understanding means.

Maybe and maybe not...He was expressing as I recall that even with an undivided mind, the 'self' is always a threat to re-appear. But...it may be a 'mistake to think that we are that choiceless, undivided mind, observing the activities of the self with no judgement, etc. when the reality may be that it is the 'snake' watching the 'snake'...which is really no 'watching' at all. Only insight into this trickery can 'see' through it. But I think we fool ourselves over and over because we 'want' something: freedom, happiness, enlightenment, a sense of security,etc,etc. anything but 'what is', unless of course, 'what is' is pleasurable.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Mon, 10 Feb 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 10 Feb 2020 #63
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3260 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
it may be a 'mistake to think that we are that choiceless, undivided mind, observing the activities of the self with no judgement, etc. when the reality may be that it is the 'snake' watching the 'snake'...which is really no 'watching' at all. O

T: Of course. It may be fear watching fear (anger, etc) though we pretend to be Not fear....to be an objective observer or analyzer. But the analyzer is the analyzed. “You are the fear.” K.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 11 Feb 2020 #64
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1718 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
“You are the fear.” K.

And "fear is thought"...so 'you' are thought, the material process of thinking? And in that process 'you' are the 'thinker' that is separate from the 'thinking' that 'you' are doing? Is that the way you see it? Or is this all just a process of psychological thought creating and maintaining an 'I', a 'center', a 'you'?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Tue, 11 Feb 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 11 Feb 2020 #65
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3260 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Tom Paine wrote:

“You are the fear.” K.
And "fear is thought"...so 'you' are thought, the material process of thinking?

You’re saying something here that might be very significant. I can see how the thinker is the thought...and all the self images...and images of others (friend, enemy, good or bad)... but ALL thought? I’ve not considered that before. The ‘me’ is the total content of consciousness

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 11 Feb 2020 #66
Thumb_avatar Manfred Kritzler Germany 86 posts in this forum Offline

Manfred:

I thought many times about the question if there is one step or no step necessary. At the moment I think both answers are right. Talking out of separation there is definitely an action necessary to observe from beyond the area of thought. Talking about the assumed area beyond thought there might be no step.
————————

Clive:
Manfred, can you enlarge on this, I'm not quite understanding? As you infer, it is an important question. There are a great many people in the world at the moment who are 'practising' awareness, learning 'how to do it' from another.
——————
Manfred: This is rather difficult for me. It is connected with the question about that what is and what is an ideal or deviation?

And also with that what Mina said. Are we able to express words directly from everything/nothing and how can we recognize the difference between those words and words coming out of separation.

I think our usual state is separation. Being beyond of it is the exemption.
For me it is very difficult to recognize the difference. Seeing separation as separation is probably the only „thing“ we could be conscious of. Or do you think we could be conscious of the area beyond thought? Conscious in the sense we can put it in words?

Quite frankly I thought I can express something, but I am still more confused in the moment. Please give me some more time for coming back to this question and thank you very much for asking it.

This post was last updated by Manfred Kritzler Tue, 11 Feb 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 11 Feb 2020 #67
Thumb_open-uri20200202-16653-rg2qz5-0 Mina Martini Finland 418 posts in this forum Offline

Manfred Kritzler wrote:
And also with that what Mina said. Are we able to express words directly from everything/nothing and how can we recognize the difference between those words and words coming out of separation.

Dear Manfred..first of all, do not feel in any hurry or obligation to reply unless it happens naturally...

On what you say above:

Thought cannot recognise the difference between that which comes directly from the silence of the mind and that which does not.

This is so because thought, in a divided state of thinker and the thought, can only move within the limits of this imaginary (created by image) division.

So, its recognitions move between things that are its own creations, and never touch that which is beyond thought.

It can deal with AN IMAGE/IDEA of 'words coming from separation' or 'words coming from silence', or choose between the two, or say for example that a certain person speaks from separation but a certain other does not etc, but all of this is its own limited judgements which do not come from real understanding of anything.

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.

This post was last updated by Mina Martini Tue, 11 Feb 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 11 Feb 2020 #68
Thumb_spock Douglas MacRae-Smith France 212 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
What else can be done? Just to hold ones tongue? I’m an American....Freedom of Speech is guaranteed in the Constitution....

Thought is not "merely" thought. Thoughts have great power.

Human Rights, Money, Freedom of Speech, Nationality.

And shared thoughts have greater power still.

Look, see, let go

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 11 Feb 2020 #69
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3260 posts in this forum Offline

Douglas MacRae-Smith wrote:

Tom Paine wrote:

What else can be done? Just to hold ones tongue? I’m an American....Freedom of Speech is guaranteed in the Constitution....

Douglas: Thought is not "merely" thought. Thoughts have great power.

Human Rights, Money, Freedom of Speech, Nationality.

And shared thoughts have greater power still.

I wonder how K viewed Gandhi. Well, here’s a little something about another fellow named Tom Paine:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Paine

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 12 Feb 2020 #70
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5683 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote #38:

Clive: But is awareness "a step we can take"? is it something that we can deliberately set about to do? Or is awareness ...... how to put it? ..... a natural process? ..... something visited upon us?

Dan: Isn't it in 'essence' what we are?

Can you show me this, Dan? Can you show me that, in essence, awareness is what we are?

I am willing to consider that I have had the wrong perception of awareness most of life. But can you show me this? I include Mina in this, she has stated a similar thing.

This post was last updated by Clive Elwell Wed, 12 Feb 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 12 Feb 2020 #71
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5683 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote #44:
What is truly needed is to see and go to the root of that which appears as the separate ego itself and through it to discover the light of the real 'I' or 'Self'.

Can you tell me, Mina, what you mean by "Self" with a capital "I"?

This post was last updated by Clive Elwell Wed, 12 Feb 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 12 Feb 2020 #72
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5683 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote #46:
What makes this clear, nonjudgmental perception so rare I think, is that thought has so dominated the psyche that it resists this 'global' perception through trickery.... It resists by always creating another and another observer/perceiver, subtler than the last one who 'attempts' to perceive oneself 'choicelessly

Yes, this is what thought does, keeps doing, in the guise of the thinker. Another way to put it is that it is somehow perceived that the thought that has just finished is only a fragment, is incomplete, and thought tries, with another thought, to bring about completion. But it does not, and I think it is clear that it can not, under any circumstances.

I say "I think it is clear", but this is contradicted by the fact that thought keeps trying, and so keeps continuing, to achieve this completeness.

This is the basic, repeating state of the human mind, would you not agree? But why does it continue?

Perhaps it is not how I describe. Perhaps there is some completely different reason for thought to keep continuing in the same old pattern. And if we know the reason for it, will that have any impact, will that bring about change in this pattern?

We are asking a fundamental question here - why does thought continue, keep continuing itself? it seems to me as long as it does so, there can be no quietness, and no fundamental change.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 12 Feb 2020 #73
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3260 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Another way to put it is that it is somehow perceived that the thought that has just finished is only a fragment, is incomplete, and thought tries, with another thought, to bring about completion. But it does not, and I think it is clear that it can not, under any circumstances.

I say "I think it is clear", but this is contradicted by the fact that thought keeps trying, and so keeps continuing, to achieve this completeness.

Because what it’s trying to do is get rid of fear, for example. When the fear remains, thought tries again to approach it, but perhaps from another angle, thinking again that it may succeed. Or thought in trying to get rid of one problem, creates additional problems....which lead to more thinking.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Wed, 12 Feb 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 12 Feb 2020 #74
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5683 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Because what it’s trying to do is get rid of fear, for example. When the fear remains, thought tries again to approach it, but perhaps from another angle, thinking again that it may succeed. Or thought in trying to get rid of one problem, creates additional problems....which lead to more thinking.

But why doesn't it see its error?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 12 Feb 2020 #75
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5683 posts in this forum Offline

Douglas MacRae-Smith wrote:
Thought is not "merely" thought. Thoughts have great power.
Human Rights, Money, Freedom of Speech, Nationality.
And shared thoughts have greater power still
And shared thoughts have greater power still.

Thank you Douglas, for returning to the original topic of this thread, and for questioning me.

Yes, it it cannot be disputed that thought has great power. It is also indisputable that that power can be for good and bad. As it seems to have brought the whole world to the brink of destruction, it is reasonable to say that the bad has out-weighed the good. But certainly power thought has.

And as you say, that power is maginified when people work together to a common aim – but again this can be for good or bad.

So what did I mean when I stated that thought is merely thought? Off the cuff, I would say I meant that thought is not truth. Thought created realities out of its own material, and we tend to live in those realities (the word “illusion” could also be used). To put it simply, just because I think something – no, better to say just because something is thought, doesn't mean that it is true. Because I think the USA is the greatest nation on Earth, does not mean that it is. Just because someone says “I will always love you”, does not mean that they will. Just because I might think some Guru will lead me to truth, does not mean that he will. Just because I think that I will gradually reach enlightenment, does not mean that I will. Just because someone asserts that “the Atman is in everyone of us, being reborn and continuing until it realises that it is Brahman. And we must go through sorrow to come to that reality. That we live in illusion, the world is illusion, and there is only one reality”– and so on. All the religious dogmas. All the ideologies that promise happiness and security – they are merely thought-induced.

All these statements are “merely” thought, something imaginary created by the thought process.

Thought asserts, or assumes, that there really is a self, a permanent entity independent of thought, and the human world has been built upon this assumption – but it is merely thought, merely a concept, and there isn't really such a self.

All that I hold to be true (if I hold anything) is merely thought, and really has no claim to truth.

Do you disagree with any of this?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 12 Feb 2020 #76
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3260 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
But why doesn't it see its error?

That’s the question...yes. Will look further into that later. May have to shut down soon.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 12 Feb 2020 #77
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1718 posts in this forum Offline

Tom: I say "I think it is clear", but this is contradicted by the fact that thought keeps trying, and so keeps continuing, to achieve this completeness.
This is the basic, repeating state of the human mind, would you not agree? But why does it continue?

Dan: Considering my dreams where there is an insecurity and anxiety, it may be that there are these subterranean fears of 'insecurity'...something is afraid of what may happen, a fear of the 'future' ..and yes as you say thought always wants a 'conclusion' and yet there is no 'conclusion'. the nature of thought is to come to a conclusion ...and in life, moment to moment, there is no such thing.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 12 Feb 2020 #78
Thumb_open-uri20200202-16653-rg2qz5-0 Mina Martini Finland 418 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
But why doesn't it see its error?

Mina: Duality cannot see its own absence. In itself it is the blind spot, the unawareness.

To ask or answer the 'why'-questions, whatever they appear to be asking about, in this blindness, is not going to make one see.

Can the 'why' be let to deepen and extend itself so that it can act as a force of negation of this error that you mention instead of replying to it in any way from the limited mind..(it can, just asking this as an invitation to it and not theoretically)..

Any reasons or explanations or ponderings given by thought will be limited and fundamentally not replying to the 'why' anyway..

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 12 Feb 2020 #79
Thumb_spock Douglas MacRae-Smith France 212 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Thank you Douglas, for returning to the original topic of this thread, and for questioning me.

I was actually trying to communicate with Tom Paine - I thought it might be interesting to look at what he had said about "holding one's tongue, free speech, and being an American"

What we say can be very revealing (Relationship as the mirror of the self).

Discussing thought is great - because if we are not careful we become the puppets and the words our masters. There is danger in concluding that we are this thought, or concept or ideal without realising what the concept implies, and what being that concept implies. It is confusion.

Look, see, let go

This post was last updated by Douglas MacRae-Smith Wed, 12 Feb 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 12 Feb 2020 #80
Thumb_open-uri20200202-16653-rg2qz5-0 Mina Martini Finland 418 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Can you tell me, Mina, what you mean by "Self" with a capital "I"?

m: the word Self was used to describe the true nature of a reflection which appears as the 'self/ego'

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 12 Feb 2020 #81
Thumb_spock Douglas MacRae-Smith France 212 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
We are asking a fundamental question here - why does thought continue, keep continuing itself? it seems to me as long as it does so, there can be no quietness, and no fundamental change.

Someone once said that our first mistake was to have come down out of the trees - but I reckon the horse had already bolted long before that.

As we mentioned in some other thread : stuff (quarks and gluons?) keeps bubbling up out of nothingness. Maybe this should this be considered the fundamental "problem"?

Maybe we need to investigate quietness and silence. Sometimes people interested in meditation ask whether it is possible to meditate in Noisy conditions (eg. in urban areas with sounds of neighbours, cars, etc) - the answer lies in our Relationship to that noise.

Look, see, let go

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 12 Feb 2020 #82
Thumb_spock Douglas MacRae-Smith France 212 posts in this forum Offline

This is as quiet as it gets :

emptiness video

Look, see, let go

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 12 Feb 2020 #83
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 832 posts in this forum Offline

Manfred Kritzler wrote at #66:
Talking about the assumed area beyond thought.....

Isn’t it thought itself which assumes that there is an area beyond itself? Why assume anything that is not actually seen? To assume in this way IS the act of “separation”. That is, by assuming that there is “something” beyond what I see, the mind is producing a separation or division psychologically, inwardly. The separation is not only between what is seen and what is assumed. It also engenders the “me” who is "separate" from what is seen or from what is assumed - the “me” who must then choose, control, decide his action.

This act of fragmentation is the root of contradiction and conflict. We are full of contradictions --- when we pretend that we are not angry or afraid, when try so hard to conform in order to “fit in”, when we want to “become” something, and so on. We are full of contradictions, and these contradictions create conflict and turmoil in us. We “think” that we can repress, disregard, deny, overrule these inner contradictions and so get rid of them --- which is again separation between fact and desire, between fact and thought. But whether we acknowledge them or not, whether we are aware of them or not, the contradictions act, they create conflict and misery. Isn’t it so?

It’s somewhat like the story of the emperor’s new clothes. The emperor and all the people "know" he is naked, but he and they pretend he is not. The pretense itself is the product of fear and thought. Pretense is the act fragmentation. It is where the illusion of the thinker separate from his thoughts arises. To see this whole process is to understand it, and thought is not involved in the action of seeing and understanding. THIS is seen, isn’t it? It is not pretense. Is it?

If this is so (it is so for me), isn’t it important to be aware of the process of separation as it occurs? Why should I assume anything else when there is so much right there “waiting” to be discovered and revealed? Assumption, pretense, deceit, and so on, aren’t truth. K said that:

the act of seeing is the only truth
(http://jiddu-krishnamurti.net/en/awakening-of-i....

He also said that:

It is truth that liberates, not the means or the system. The truth that silent observation alone brings understanding, must be seen; then only are you free from condemnation and justification
(https://jkrishnamurti.org/content/series-i-chap....

This is actually seen, isn't it?

Manfred Kritzler wrote:
Are we able to express words directly from everything/nothing and how can we recognize the difference between those words and words coming out of separation.

As long as my “perception/understanding” is that “I AM” the source of all “my” thoughts, CAN I understand separation; can I see/understand that intelligence itself is beyond “me”; can I see that intelligence itself acts and that the action of intelligence can include words in its action?

As long as my perception is that “I am” the source of all thought, can I distinguish between words which come out of everything/nothing (i.e. “the area beyond thought”) and those which come out of separation (i.e. “me”)?

So I HAVE TO begin with my understanding as it is, true or false. I can’t start by pretending that I SEE separation if I don’t. I can’t see it as long as it is an abstraction, an idea. But I can actually see the moment where I rush in to “answer” what I don’t understand, can't I? That moment is not an abstraction. Can the intellect (“my” intellect) see the moment where it rushes in to “answer” what it doesn’t understand? Can’t that moment be seen?

Can any “answer” that is not engendered by actual perception be the truth? Isn’t it seen that there is fear underlying my efforts to answer what I don’t understand? So isn’t this act of "answering" a moment of separation? It is the effort to avoid the fact of fear that is the act of separation. And the seeing of it is not an idea. Is it?

Manfred Kritzler wrote:
Seeing separation as separation.....

Yes.

Added:

Manfred Kritzler wrote:
I thought I can express something, but I am still more confused in the moment.

This confusion you perceive is not in doubt, is it? It is not an idea or based on an idea, is it? It is truth. It is a fact, direct perception, just like feeling the burning of fire. There is no separation in this perception.

This post was last updated by Huguette . Wed, 12 Feb 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 12 Feb 2020 #84
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 832 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
To ask or answer the 'why'-questions, whatever they appear to be asking about, in this blindness, is not going to make one see.

Can the 'why' be let to deepen and extend itself so that it can act as a force of negation of this error that you mention instead of replying to it in any way from the limited mind..(it can, just asking this as an invitation to it and not theoretically)..

Any reasons or explanations or ponderings given by thought will be limited and fundamentally not replying to the 'why' anyway.

Perfectly put, Mina, if I dare say so. To me, this is "the dog chasing its tail" endlessly.

This question of "why" often comes up. I may have asked it myself.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 12 Feb 2020 #85
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1718 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
This question of "why" often comes up. I may have asked it myself.

'How' and 'why' are important questions for thought. They are the impetus behind our science, our medicine, our invention...'How' something works or 'why' something doesn't work, etc. 'How' do we put the rocket in orbit? 'Why' does my ankle hurt? It's a tool for survival, a 'miracle' problem solver... so isn't it logical that it would try to address any mental disturbances that come up like anger, conflict, loneliness, jealousy, greed, suffering, violence, etc.,etc.? And treat them as any other problem that needs solving? But as we seem to agree here, Thought here is the problem itself! Then, seeing that as the truth, the question arises : why won't it stop doing what it's doing!? And as it's being pointed out here, the 'answer' to that question can only result in more 'doing'. (tail-chasing)...Yet it (thought/time) must stop. K. has put it "thought must have a stop". There is no outside factor that can bring that 'stop' about. Can thought itself do it, cease to move, cease to bring its miraculous chronological 'past/present/future into the 'eternal instant'? Cease to bring its valuable knowledge gathered through the ages into the 'sanctity' of the 'now moment'...the 'what is'?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Wed, 12 Feb 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 12 Feb 2020 #86
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3260 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
But as we seem to agree here, Thought here is the problem itself! Then, seeing that as the truth, the question arises : why won't it stop doing what it's doing!? And as it's being pointed out here, the 'answer' to that question can only result in more 'doing'. (tail-chasing)..

Maybe it’s enough to see that thought is self perpetuating ... self reinforcing. Thought tried to solve the problem of fear for instance but in the process creates further conflict or contradiction or fear. It’s kind of like a feedback loop ...perhaps. This is the merry go round we’re stuck on

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 12 Feb 2020 #87
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 832 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
There is no outside factor that can bring that 'stop' about. Can thought itself do it, cease to move, cease to bring its miraculous chronological 'past/present/future into the 'eternal instant'? Cease to bring its valuable knowledge gathered through the ages into the 'sanctity' of the 'now moment'...the 'what is'?

It can be seen that there is no outside factor such as God, the sacred, the Ground, the expert, the authority, and so on, which can "make me" SEE "why" or which can "stop thought".

The truth of it is in the seeing of it; and it is the truth alone which liberates me from the "why". The seeing is beyond thought but not beyond the vastness of the mind. For the mind is not limited only to thought or to consciousness (as we use that word here):

...there is the vast expanse of the mind which we never touch or know; that mind is vast, immeasurable, but we never touch it, we don't know the quality of it because we have never looked at anything completely, with the totality of our mind...
http://jiddu-krishnamurti.net/en/awakening-of-i...

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Thu, 13 Feb 2020 #88
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5683 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
The ‘me’ is the total content of consciousness

Yes, I read recently K said "The me is the totality of the past"

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 13 Feb 2020 #89
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5683 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote #77:
and yes as you say thought always wants a 'conclusion' and yet there is no 'conclusion'. the nature of thought is to come to a conclusion ...and in life, moment to moment, there is no such thing.

Dan, (incidentally it was me that put this question first, but no matter of course) what you say sounds right. Thought can never come to a satisfactory conclusion, although people try very hard - hence the popularity of the many belief systems prevalent in the world.

But still my question remains! Given it is a futile pursuit, why does thought persist in it? Why does it not see the futilty, and so stop?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 13 Feb 2020 #90
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5683 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
Mina: Duality cannot see its own absence. In itself it is the blind spot, the unawareness.

But duality can see its own presence, can it not, Mina? If it could not, we could not be talking about it. No? So why (sorry to use the word) can duality not see its own error? Its own inconsistency, and drop itself? given the immense suffering it causes, why does it not stop?

You go on to question the very meaning of the idea of the "why". Sorry, for some time now I have been working some 20 posts behind, and cannot seem to catch up, I may just have to skip some posts, and jump to the latest ones.

But I see that the questions that start with "why" imply a cause and effect. Is there anything beyond this cause and effect? Is there anything that is causeless? That seems an important question.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 61 - 90 of 127 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.)