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

To see thought as merely thought


Displaying posts 91 - 120 of 127 in total
Thu, 13 Feb 2020 #91
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5683 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote #80 :
m: the word Self was used to describe the true nature of a reflection which appears as the 'self/ego'

Sorry, I am still not clear. A reflection of what?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 13 Feb 2020 #92
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5683 posts in this forum Offline

Douglas MacRae-Smith wrote #81:
Maybe we need to investigate quietness and silence.

I am sure that we do need that. Have you any suggestions how to do that, Douglas. Perhaps you could start a new thread for such a fundamental issue?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 13 Feb 2020 #93
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3260 posts in this forum Offline

Douglas MacRae-Smith wrote #81:

Maybe we need to investigate quietness and silence.

Clive: I am sure that we do need that. Have you any suggestions how to do that, Douglas

Isn’t ANY thought in the psychological realm(thinking related to ‘me’) a contradiction? I am this, and I want to be that? I am noisy and I want to be quiet. Perhaps it Might be best to investigate what actually IS at any given moment....to observe what one actually is. Any division from that is contradiction and conflict, no? That’s the whole problem in a nutshell isn’t it...conformity to a pattern of behavior...an ideal? That’s violence (trying to force a square peg into a round hole) and contradiction and fear of not conforming

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Thu, 13 Feb 2020.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Thu, 13 Feb 2020 #94
Thumb_spock Douglas MacRae-Smith France 212 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Douglas MacRae-Smith :
Maybe we need to investigate quietness and silence.

Clive Elwell :I am sure that we do need that. Have you any suggestions how to do that?

The discussion on this thread has already pointed to the fact that : its our Relationship with the concepts that are fundamental, not the concepts themselves.

When it comes to Psychological Freedom, or Freedom of understanding, or Clarity : Thought is not merely thought.
Thought is the prisoner, thought is the cage, and thought is the hope of deliverance.

For the prisoner wanting deliverance : silence is just another bar in the cage.

Look, see, let go

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 14 Feb 2020 #95
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5683 posts in this forum Offline

Douglas MacRae-Smith wrote:
Thought is not merely thought.
Thought is the prisoner, thought is the cage, and thought is the hope of deliverance.

This is my point really. All these things are merely thought.

I remember someone saying to me that life is like a mountain, which one must struggle to climb. And it came to say something like ; "thought has invented both the mountain and the mountaineer".

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 14 Feb 2020 #96
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5683 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
That’s violence (trying to force a square peg into a round hole) and contradiction and fear of not conforming

Yes, the "what should be" is certainly violence. Perhaps it is the very essence of violence

Tom Paine wrote:
Perhaps it Might be best to investigate what actually IS at any given moment....to observe what one actually is

But as soon as the observer comes into existence, is he not in contradiction with what is observed? I am referring to what K calls, I think: observation from a center - that center being me, the past. Isn't contradiction there whenever there appears to be two things in the mind?

If there is to be observation of what one actually is, doesn't that imply there is only one thing - the what is?

I'm not sure of this.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 14 Feb 2020 #97
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5683 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote #78:
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..

Yes, this seems to be so. "Why questions" naturally arise to a mind that is inquiring. But if thought comes up with an answer to such a question, there is always uncertainty. One has only added to the pool of knowledge, and so that means more confusion, psychologically.

So as you suggest, Mina, can we hold that question, being aware of the limitations of any answers?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 14 Feb 2020 #98
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 832 posts in this forum Offline

Clive,

The “why” can be choicelessly observed - just as anger, fear, hate, jealousy, desire, sorrow, and so on, are choicelessly observed. Is there any reason to give the “why” more weight, more importance, greater significance, than is given to fear or anger which arise? Is the psychological effort to find an answer any different from the effort to overcome fear etc? Just to see the movements or process of the "why" is to learn, wordlessly, isn't it?

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Fri, 14 Feb 2020 #99
Thumb_open-uri20200202-16653-rg2qz5-0 Mina Martini Finland 418 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Yes, this seems to be so. "Why questions" naturally arise to a mind that is inquiring. But if thought comes up with an answer to such a question, there is always uncertainty. One has only added to the pool of knowledge, and so that means more confusion, psychologically.

So as you suggest, Mina, can we hold that question, being aware of the limitations of any answers?

Mina: Huguette alreade gave a wonderful answer to your question without answering it in a conventional way (conventional way: as a limited 'because-answer'to a just as limited 'why'-question from the mind :-) ).

Just adding some arising thoughts:

Agree with you Clive, but on a closer look....where would you hold your question if at the same time there is awareness of the limitation of any answers?

Isn't this awareness, being choiceless by its nature, the same aware of the limitation of the question itself?

In awareness of all this, where could anything be HELD without the holding meaning the mind holding onto itself, the questions clinging to answers?

Yes, holding the question, holding everything, but not in the dualistic mind which is created through this very holding onto itself.

Holding it in the embrace of awareness itself in which it is dissolved.

That is the only holistic 'answer' to all/any questions.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 14 Feb 2020 #100
Thumb_spock Douglas MacRae-Smith France 212 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Is the psychological effort to find an answer any different from the effort to overcome fear etc?

Embracing doubt is not the same as avoiding fear. Coming to conlusions would be more akin to avoiding fear.

Transcending fear is not the same as trying to find an answer.

Look, see, let go

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 14 Feb 2020 #101
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 832 posts in this forum Offline

Douglas MacRae-Smith wrote at #100:
Embracing doubt is not the same as avoiding fear. Coming to conlusions would be more akin to avoiding fear.

Transcending fear is not the same as trying to find an answer.

Douglas,

Isn’t psychological effort driven by the conclusion, belief or idea that this is the way to find the answer to a “why”? Is it “embracing doubt” to make such psychological efforts?

Is fear transcended by making efforts to transcend it? Doesn’t the effort to transcend fear in fact entrench fear, driving it to depths where it is not seen consciously but where it still acts to darken man’s days?

Maybe I have misunderstood your meaning.

This post was last updated by Huguette . Fri, 14 Feb 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 14 Feb 2020 #102
Thumb_spock Douglas MacRae-Smith France 212 posts in this forum Offline

The question "Why?" is not an effort to escape doubt; it is doubt - Usually, we want answers (conclusions) : ie. the end of doubt/uncertainty.

When I am afraid, uncertain, angry - I make no effort to be so. The effort is to end this state of affairs for a "better" one.

Look, see, let go

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Fri, 14 Feb 2020 #103
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 832 posts in this forum Offline

Douglas MacRae-Smith wrote:
The question "Why?" is not an effort to escape doubt; it is doubt - Usually, we want answers (conclusions) : ie. the end of doubt/uncertainty.

When I am afraid, uncertain, angry - I make no effort to be so. The effort is to end this state of affairs for a "better" one.

True, I make no effort to be angry. Anger arises mechanically, automatically, without "me" soliciting it. In the same way, I make no effort to ask "why". The question arises without me seeking it, perhaps because of a subconscious expectation or belief that contradiction, conflict, sorrow, and so on, are "supposed to" end with self-understanding. Having this or some other conclusion of which I'm not consciously aware, the question "why" arises in reaction to sorrow, fear, etc.

What matters wherever anger, fear, sorrow or a "why" arise, is the source or nature of the response to it, as I see it. Is it rooted in thought trying to solve the anger or the question? Or is there silent observation of all that unfolds, without any effort to solve the problem?

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 3 readers
Back to Top
Sat, 15 Feb 2020 #104
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5683 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote #99 on a closer look....where would you hold your question if at the same time there is awareness of the limitation of any answers?

I love this question! I had dutifully repeated the K phrase about "holding the question", as if it was some deep insight of my own, and with a stroke you sweep it away! Or rather not with a stroke, with a question.

What does it mean to "hold a question"? What does it mean to hold that question? Clearly one is not holding a question if one produces an answer.

What does it mean to "hold" anything, in this rushing stream of the mind, where everything is continually swept away?

But a question that has meaning, that has depth, that has a real relationship to our lives, will naturally keep "re-occurring". Re-emerge.

A quote from K suddenly comes to mind, which I will not push away: "A fundamental question is one that has no answer".

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 16 Feb 2020 #105
Thumb_spock Douglas MacRae-Smith France 212 posts in this forum Offline

In the Rinzai Zen tradition, the first question that a monk must hold is the "Mu!" koan.

Its a short story:
A monk asks Zhaozhou, "Does even a dog have Buddha nature?"
Zhaozhou replies, "Mu!"

"Buddha nature" refers to a kind of sacred and all pervasive "that which is" that transcends Birth and death.

"Mu" expresses a negation. "Zhaozou" would be a famous Guru (like K)

Your mission, should you accept it, would be to hold this short story in your mind with the view to piercing its secret, finding out what its about - Something pretty important apparently.

(Traditionally one is advised to come back to the "Mu" as often as possible - especially during any thought processes that might occur throughout the day)

Look, see, let go

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 17 Feb 2020 #106
Thumb_open-uri20200202-16653-rg2qz5-0 Mina Martini Finland 418 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:

Mina Martini wrote #99 on a closer look....where would you hold your question if at the same time there is awareness of the limitation of any answers?

Clive:I love this question! I had dutifully repeated the K phrase about "holding the question", as if it was some deep insight of my own, and with a stroke you sweep it away! Or rather not with a stroke, with a question.

Mina: To realise any moment in oneself where one is not authentic, but repeating something someone else has said or written, (all psychological past is composed of that) is an immeasurably precious insight into the very core of the conditioned mind in oneself/the world.

Clive>What does it mean to "hold a question"? What does it mean to hold that question? Clearly one is not holding a question if one produces an answer.

Mina: First of all, let us be clear what this writer meant by her question about where you would hold a question if there is awareness of the limitation and nature of any answer coming from the mind/thought.

She was pointing to the fact that no question or answer, in essence no psychological mind, is able survive the total awareness of its nature.

But it is possible to 'hold a question', if we want to use the same word, in one's whole being, without any effort to answer anything. This is exactly how this writer 'answers' questions appearing on the forum. It is not a deliberate thing one does. A question just naturally sinks in to unknown depths in oneself from where a reply may (or not) come...

So this latter way to use the word is obviously what K is meaning by it.

Clive>What does it mean to "hold" anything, in this rushing stream of the mind, where everything is continually swept away?

Mina: Right, the 'holding in the mind' is a very hard thing to do, taking into account the impermanent streamy nature of the mind, thoughts appearing and disappearing...

However, you can, as has already been said above, hold it in your very being, inseparably...that is the silence in which the question dissolves and which is the essence of any answer to it as well. Also words may arise from that silence, words which can again be fully understood only in the same silence beyond them. It is silence talking to itself and when two (or more) people live it together, 'mountains are being removed', the world is radically changed!!

Clive>But a question that has meaning, that has depth, that has a real relationship to our lives, will naturally keep "re-occurring". Re-emerge.

Mina: Not only a question, but any reaction from the psychological memory, keeps re-occurring, since that is the very nature of it! It can only keep re-occurring, never renewing itself. It is the past repeating itself. This will keep going on until a true response from/in total silence of the mind ends this cycle.

This post was last updated by Mina Martini Mon, 17 Feb 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 17 Feb 2020 #107
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5683 posts in this forum Offline

I can go along with what you say above.

Mina Martini wrote:
: Not only a question, but any reaction from the psychological memory, keeps re-occurring, since that is the very nature of it! It can only keep re-occurring, never renewing itself.

This is not quite what I meant by re-occurring. In fact I am asking if it is the same question that re-surfaces? As a result of this holding that we are discussing, does not the question go through soe sort of 'maturing' process. I mean it deepens. Deepens is the best word that I can find.

Of course there are no guarantees as to whether a question will be held or not.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 18 Feb 2020 #108
Thumb_open-uri20200202-16653-rg2qz5-0 Mina Martini Finland 418 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
This is not quite what I meant by re-occurring. In fact I am asking if it is the same question that re-surfaces? As a result of this holding that we are discussing, does not the question go through soe sort of 'maturing' process. I mean it deepens. Deepens is the best word that I can find.

m: I understand the maturing process that you describe. However, I cannot see the importance of some 'same question' arising, because ANY fundamental question can act as an invitation to silence which is the total response to it.

The very fact that this silence is free from thought and therefore from choice also, it makes no difference WHICH is the question that is fully lived in silence.

The 'which' would only matter to thought which is choice.

This is how it is seen at this end.

It is like saying that ANY thought, and it is beside the point 'which', can be a window that opens up to Silence through its own voluntary death.

Wonder if this resonates there...please elaborate if there is a meaning in what you are saying that you feel has remained unclear here.

Love

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 18 Feb 2020 #109
Thumb_open-uri20200202-16653-rg2qz5-0 Mina Martini Finland 418 posts in this forum Offline

Clive,

Another question to you concerning what is being discussed:

Are not in any fundamental question all questions contained?

Again, it could be the very same specific question coming up, or another, that would not make any essential difference.

What does make a crucial difference is the quality of our response to it.

This post was last updated by Mina Martini Tue, 18 Feb 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 18 Feb 2020 #110
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3260 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
It is like saying that ANY thought, and it is beside the point 'which', can be a window that opens up to Silence through its own voluntary death.

This is the second post of yours I read today, Mina, that has the word 'voluntary', and it's not clear how you use that word. Perhaps it's because you're not a native English speaker, but to an American it is related to the word will and 'willing'. I'm willing to 'die' to thought...or some particular thought. It implies a 'me'/I and choice, doesn't it? First there is 'seeing'/understanding which is choiceless, right? No will or choice is involved. Then, thought dies/ends. It dies because one understands its false nature...limited and dividing.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Tue, 18 Feb 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 18 Feb 2020 #111
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3260 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
Another question to you concerning what is being discussed:

Are not in any fundamental question all questions contained?

All concern the nature of the 'me'...consciousness. Is that what you're getting at, Mina?

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 18 Feb 2020 #112
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5683 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
..please elaborate if there is a meaning in what you are saying that you feel has remained unclear here.

I would not remember. The process of thought dissolving continues to happen here.

Does it dissolve into silence, as you appear to be describing? Thought cannot answer that question, clearly, as thought is only memory, and any memory of silence would not be silence. Thought can only describe itself, is it not? Thought cannot describe, fix, analyze, delineate, silence. Silence cannot be known, can it, since what can be known is only knowledge.

Yes, when one is concerned with the thought process itself, and one sees how it comes and goes, how it is born and dies, then the actual content of thought ("which thought") does not matter in the slightest. In this meditative state, if I can use that word, in the light of awareness, thought is over before it gets a chance to act. So the content is immaterial, it doesn't matter (even though it is material and matter :-).

This is what was meant by the title of the last thread I started - thought is merely thought. And it does not provide "a ground to stand upon", to use a phrase we have both used.

One is talking about psychological thought here - when it is necessary and appropriate for thought to act, then it does so.

However,here much of the time thought acts when it is NOT necessary or appropriate.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 18 Feb 2020 #113
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5683 posts in this forum Offline

Adding to my last post, K HAS described silence most poetically and movingly. he has delineated different 'forms' of silence. But I do not see any "point" in speculating on K's state of mind.,

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 18 Feb 2020 #114
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5683 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
Are not in any fundamental question all questions contained?

Can we say that when a fundamental question emerges, it instantly makes other questions irrelevant?

Can you give an example of a fundamental question, Mina?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 19 Feb 2020 #115
Thumb_open-uri20200202-16653-rg2qz5-0 Mina Martini Finland 418 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
I would not remember. The process of thought dissolving continues to happen here.

Does it dissolve into silence, as you appear to be describing? Thought cannot answer that question, clearly, as thought is only memory, and any memory of silence would not be silence. Thought can only describe itself, is it not? Thought cannot describe, fix, analyze, delineate, silence. Silence cannot be known, can it, since what can be known is only knowledge.

Mina: Yes, true. And what you say above applies to all activities of thought when it tries to come into contact with, or even to inquire into, that which is beyond itself. It can only deal with its own images of silence, of love, of undertanding, of awareness, of whatever. They are only images. Therefore the only important thing to understand is the nature of thought itself. And that again cannot be done by thought! Thought is partial and can never see the WHOLE of itself. There IS nothing whole in it.

Clive>Yes, when one is concerned with the thought process itself, and one sees how it comes and goes, how it is born and dies, then the actual content of thought ("which thought") does not matter in the slightest. In this meditative state, if I can use that word, in the light of awareness, thought is over before it gets a chance to act. So the content is immaterial, it doesn't matter (even though it is material and matter :-).

Mina: Yes...and this meditative state is the peace out of this world, it is not identified with any appearing thought..it is the stillness in which thoughts come and go and you discover yourself as that stillness. (stillness, awareness, meditatitive state, all words describing the same)

Clive>This is what was meant by the title of the last thread I started - thought is merely thought. And it does not provide "a ground to stand upon", to use a phrase we have both used.

Mina: Yes and when there is full awareness of the fact of it, when there is no experience of the one 'who has no ground to stand upon' even, one is actually grounded in peace out of this world.

Clive>One is talking about psychological thought here - when it is necessary and appropriate for thought to act, then it does so.

Mina: Yes, beautiful.

Clive>However,here much of the time thought acts when it is NOT necessary or appropriate.

Mina: It does not matter to anyone else but to the image of yourself, ultimately...according to which something should be different than it is...And when I say 'it does not matter' I really mean and feel unconditional love, not some analysis..

Funny, this thought has come these days of 'everything being about love', everything, and how even one's post on this forum are being misunderstood unless there is the realisation that everything is about love and only..

:-) :) ..it may not appear so, with all the talk of the 'observer-observed', :)...all perhaps appearing as intellectual to many...yet everything else but pure love is really missing the essence..

This post was last updated by Mina Martini Wed, 19 Feb 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 19 Feb 2020 #116
Thumb_open-uri20200202-16653-rg2qz5-0 Mina Martini Finland 418 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
But I do not see any "point" in speculating on K's state of mind.,

Mina: Luckily so!

-Even the K-quotes can subtly be re-inforcing an experience of authority. (this does not mean it would always be the case but it can be) This is my feeling here. It appears to be ok to quote K, to discuss what he is saying etc, but to really live and be the teaching and the tremendous centerless uncompromising energy that is involved in it, is an altogether different thing.

And it is sensed at times that K's teaching (or anything else one is identified with, the object could change of course but this is a K-forum and I use this example) can provide for many subtle escapes and forms of psychological security appearing as 'spiritual enquiry' that moves within the 'safety' of 'discussing K' and yet there is still the resistance (unobserved ego) to actually live the teaching.

I want to say to all that I do appreciate the fact that there has been space here for this writer to participate here and my heart does understand if anyone feels that 'she (or her posts) feel a little too much to take in or even totally unintelligible...

Saying this because there is always the danger that people think there is some 'authority acting here', which is not what is really happening.

It is only that when there is this uncompromising centerless energy expressing itself in words, its quality is beyond knowledge of opposites which means beyond an experience of opposites (for instance certainty/uncertainty), beyond duality and relativity and doubt. (although words themselves remain in that realm of opposites and relativity and memory)

This very quality of direct seeing may be mistaken as 'someone acting as if she knew, as an authority or a preacher' if the listener or reader is not fully aware of their own reactions while reading.

This misunderstanding is understandable exactly because the kind of knowing that comes with direct percpetion, the knowing which is NOT the conventional knowledge about this or that, does not waver between this or that since there are no thoughts in its core. This is why language coming from such a place may create the impression there is 'someone there who thinks she knows' when in fact the very reason for this 'knowing' is the very and complete absence of the knower.

In humility
Thank you all from heart

This post was last updated by Mina Martini Wed, 19 Feb 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 19 Feb 2020 #117
Thumb_open-uri20200202-16653-rg2qz5-0 Mina Martini Finland 418 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Another question to you concerning what is being discussed:

Are not in any fundamental question all questions contained?

Tom>All concern the nature of the 'me'...consciousness. Is that what you're getting at, Mina?

Mina: All concern the nature of 'me'-consciousness, yes, that is a true aspect.

But the core of what one is saying lies in the realisation that to fully understand ANY fundamental question, which is its destruction into silence really, means that ALL CONSCIOUSNESS is stunned to silence in this realisation.

Therefore in one question all questions are.

This is no different to what you said the other day about your insight into the fact that any step in division/duality/past contains the past of all mankind and not just the individual past. The insight actually revealed that there is only ONE, not two. No observer or observed.

Sorry, have not used the same words with which you described your insight, do not remember which they were but the essence is the same isn't it.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 19 Feb 2020 #118
Thumb_open-uri20200202-16653-rg2qz5-0 Mina Martini Finland 418 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Mina>Are not in any fundamental question all questions contained?

Clive>Can we say that when a fundamental question emerges, it instantly makes other questions irrelevant?

Mina: Interesting! What needs to be looked into now is to understand what it is that makes other questions irrelevant.

Again, if thought (choice) is experiencing that other questions are irrelevant with regards to the one at hand, then all our energy is not given to the question but it is scattered in the fragmentation of thought.

But if it is this total focus on this one question and only that makes all other questions not only irrelevant but to disappear completely, then it is our very quality of attention that has made the question absolutely fundamental. As has been said, it is not the words in the question that are the issue but the quality of our attention to it.

So, in the light of this total focus all other questions die and so does this one also that stood out from the rest...

This is not about asking the fundamental question but about bringing the energy of intelligence to embrace and dissolve a question...

Clive>Can you give an example of a fundamental question, Mina?

Mina: It could be anything in fact, contentwise, because it is the content of consciousness that dissolves in silence when the response to the question comes from silence and is therefore complete...

Of course we could say that the closer the question is coming to the realisation that the questioner and the question are the same, that thought has no way to resolve its own problem, the more fundamental the question...but really any question, however limited, from however dark unaware ignorant sources it might come to be phrased, can always act as an inivitation to silence...

(well it is coming now that especially when faced with very destructive energy with its own pull to draw us in, the greater the challenge and also the blessing and possibility to remain in total awareness as a true 'reply' to ANY question)

So, understanding this, there is no need of a specific example of a 'fundamental question' to be presented..

This post was last updated by Mina Martini Wed, 19 Feb 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 19 Feb 2020 #119
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 878 posts in this forum Offline

some questions arised after reading the posts from past week!

seeing the word "here" has appeared regularly lately, I wondered if:

Can be spoken from wholeness as long as there is speaking of 'here'?

Is there a place for 'here' within the totality of wholeness?

is 'here' perhabs a subtle, disguised chameleon form of the ego?

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 19 Feb 2020 #120
Thumb_open-uri20200202-16653-rg2qz5-0 Mina Martini Finland 418 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
some questions arised after reading the posts from past week!

seeing the word "here" has appeared regularly lately, I wondered if:

Can be spoken from wholeness as long as there is speaking of 'here'?

Is there a place for 'here' within the totality of wholeness?

is 'here' perhabs a subtle, disguised chameleon form of the ego?

Mina: I am glad you bring up these questions!

There is no 'here' as opposed to 'there' in wholeness, that is absolutely clear!

So, even if I have been using the expression, for me it does not mean the 'here' as in any place, it is just a word. Even as a word, I admit there is some subtle violence felt every time that word is written.

Actually I see now, since you brought this observation to be looked into, and I am glad that you did, that have been partly using it because of
at times wondering how to express the fact that things are being seen but not by anyone.

But you are absolutely right about the 'here' being excessive in truth!

Perhaps this on I will simply say 'It is seen' :)

Anyway using language which has a dualistic nature is challenging when it comes to speaking in wholeness.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 91 - 120 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.)