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

When nothing is everything (To Manfred, Clive and all)


Displaying all 19 posts
Page 1 of 1
Wed, 05 Feb 2020 #1
Thumb_open-uri20200202-16653-rg2qz5-0 Mina Martini Finland 418 posts in this forum Offline

Dear Manfred, Clive and all,

In another thread Manfred says the following:

“The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth.” Niels Bohr
That means for me that any profound truth which is put into words has an opposite which is interconnected with it. This led to Niels Bohr‘s complementary principle, that the world can not be described in one statement.
Manfred continues:My interpretation: To describe the world as a whole we are forced to make a statement and a second one which means the opposite of it. Or at least are conscious of an existing opposite.

Mina: I cannot say what Niels Bohr might have meant, but new things appearing with regards to the above, to be shared and looked into.

The profound truth(s) (the plural only means that there are different ways language may be pointing to them and not that there are many truths!) do NOT have an opposite in the sense of an experience of those opposites as separate!

But they do have an opposite in the fundamental sense that the opposites, or that which has appeared as opposites in a divided state of the observer and observed, are perceived to be ONE.

This does not mean that 'two things are seen as one', but that it is seen that the two do not exist, instead ONLY ONE IS.

I will try to take an example..

This statement:

To be nothing is to be everything.

..

For thought which IS the creation and experience of opposites by itself, the above statement will remain a paradox it is unable to realise. This is absolutely understandable because thinker/thought IS the very division between opposites, here between 'everything and nothing'.

It is only when thinker/thought/mind as mental creation is completely still, does not react itself into its contradictory existence, makes no choice or movement whatsoever, it is realised that being nothing is the same as being everything.

Exactly because you are nothing you are everything.

No one united the opposites, it is discovered they mean exactly the same!

This world as the absence of an experience of mental opposites is undescribable, whole, by itself.

The 'interconnectedness of profound truths' is being lived in total focus in the moment in which no thought, no experience of opposites, can enter.

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 05 Feb 2020 #2
Thumb_open-uri20200202-16653-rg2qz5-0 Mina Martini Finland 418 posts in this forum Offline

Manfred I am sorry that the quoted part in the beginning, when choosing to put in in bold letters, appears without the correct spaces between some sentences. My technical skills are fairly (severely to be more exact :-) ) limited, but wanted somehow to make a clear difference between what you say and my comments below, for the sake of a clearer presentation....

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 05 Feb 2020 #3
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1718 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
Exactly because you are nothing you are everything.

This is what had occurred to me when considering the violence in the world and its causes. When it's realized that the 'me' feeling/image/construction/bundle/center, whatever name is put on it, when that is seen through as the root of all this suffering and violence, then if there is no 'me' as an entity apart,...then there is also no 'you' and no 'they'. There is just human thought/thinking, identifying itself with the sensations of the body and creating this illusion of a living, separate entity. K. has said this was the result of the brain seeking security. Why did it need this false security?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 05 Feb 2020 #4
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3259 posts in this forum Offline

When it's realized that the 'me' feeling/image/construction/bundle/center, whatever name is put on it, when that is seen through as the root of all this suffering and violence, then if there is no 'me' as an entity apart,...then there is also no 'you' and no 'they'. There is just human thought/thinking, identifying itself with the sensations of the body and creating this illusion of a living, separate entity. K. has said this was the result of the brain seeking security. Why did it need this false security?

Hope you don’t mind Dan, but I’m copying this to my ‘violence’ thread. It’s very relevant to what I want to look into.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 05 Feb 2020 #5
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5683 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Why did it need this false security?

This is an interesting question. Presumably the brain was feeling insecure before this creation of false security. Was this the insecurity of the body? - which to some extent must be the case, as the body has its frailties.

Or the self, as soon as it was/is created (of course it never was really created, as it never has existed) must necessarily feel insecure. Although there is a pretence of continuity and stability, the self is thought, which is transitory in the extreme.

Sorry, this is probably going off at a tangent.

This post was last updated by Clive Elwell Wed, 05 Feb 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 05 Feb 2020 #6
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5683 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
My technical skills are fairly (severely to be more exact :-) ) limited, but wanted somehow to make a clear difference between what you say and my comments below, for the sake of a clearer presentation....

Remember the power of the ">" symbol when composing

Here I have started the same line with it, although it does not actually appear:

Remember the power of the ">" symbol when composing

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 06 Feb 2020 #7
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3259 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Offline
Dan McDermott wrote:

Why did it need this false security?
This is an interesting question. Presumably the brain was feeling insecure before this creation of false security. Was this the insecurity of the body? - which to some extent must be the case, as the body has its frailties.

Is it simply that thought by its very nature creates fear? Thought/memory creates fear, then needs to create a center/me to give a sense of control /security?

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 06 Feb 2020 #8
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1718 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Is it simply that thought by its very nature creates fear?

K. has said that thought doesn't create fear, but more directly that "thought is fear". As we all approach death we may have occasion to contemplate that.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 06 Feb 2020 #9
Thumb_open-uri20200202-16653-rg2qz5-0 Mina Martini Finland 418 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
This is what had occurred to me when considering the violence in the world and its causes. When it's realized that the 'me' feeling/image/construction/bundle/center, whatever name is put on it, when that is seen through as the root of all this suffering and violence, then if there is no 'me' as an entity apart,...then there is also no 'you' and no 'they'.

Mina: Yes. Without an image of me (observer) there is no image of you (observed), so no experience of separate entities psychologically. It was/is all happening in oneself, there never was another psychologically. This is why the whole psychological world of imagined separations can end in oneself, nowhere else.

And unless the whole of it ends, none of it ends.

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 06 Feb 2020 #10
Thumb_open-uri20200202-16653-rg2qz5-0 Mina Martini Finland 418 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
There is just human thought/thinking, identifying itself with the sensations of the body and creating this illusion of a living, separate entity.

M: No, there is not even that unless the experience of a separate entity persists, in a more 'impersonal disguise'...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 06 Feb 2020 #11
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5683 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:

Dan McDermott wrote:

There is just human thought/thinking, identifying itself with the sensations of the body and creating this illusion of a living, separate entity.

M: No, there is not even that unless the experience of a separate entity persists, in a more 'impersonal disguise'...

It is not clear, Mina, how it can be said that human thought/thinking, with its identifications and illusions, can be said "not to exist". The evidence of its existence is all around us, it is the very foundation of the man-made world. I can understand that the thinker, the individual, does not actually exist. But thought/thinking? How does that "not exist?"

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 06 Feb 2020 #12
Thumb_open-uri20200202-16653-rg2qz5-0 Mina Martini Finland 418 posts in this forum Offline

Dear Clive,

Just letting you and others know that I am leaving on a trip soon and will not be able to participate here while I am away, if anyone happened to address posts to me. -Unfortunately there is no time to go into your question now either...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 06 Feb 2020 #13
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3259 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Tom Paine wrote:

Is it simply that thought by its very nature creates fear?

Dan: K. has said that thought doesn't create fear, but more directly that "thought is fear". As we all approach death we may have occasion to contemplate that.

But it is pleasure as well...and security (false?). I think of a painful visit to the dentist I had last year. I need to go again this year and there is fear. There is no fear without the memory/thought of the pain. In that sense it seems thought is creating fear...and memory creates pleasure as well. I’m not getting your distinction between creating fear/pleasure and being fear/pleasure. And not seeing the significance of your last sentence.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 06 Feb 2020 #14
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1718 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
There is no fear without the memory/thought of the pain. In that sense it seems thought is creating fear...and memory creates pleasure as well. I’m not getting your distinction between creating fear/pleasure and being fear/pleasure.

It's a good question and it may be minor but I recall being struck when I first read or heard K. say that "thought is fear" with the emphasis on "is"...it may lie here: that the very movement of thought in the psyche is out of place. Whether it be as you say for pleasure or fear. It has no business there. In its proper place, it is a magnificent 'tool', another 'sense' as it were. When the eyes look at the image of the tree, thought can inform as to what is being seen. It can name it, bring up knowledge about it, etc. Same with hearing and with touch, taste and smell. It is a tool for survival, measurement, calculation, planning, etc., not rivaled by any other creature on the planet. But in the psyche with its division of observer/observed, likes and dislikes, beliefs, the "me and the mine", it is poison. So it's not that it only is the creator of fear and pleasure, it is the fear and pleasure itself.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Thu, 06 Feb 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 10 Feb 2020 #15
Thumb_open-uri20200202-16653-rg2qz5-0 Mina Martini Finland 418 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
When the eyes look at the image of the tree, thought can inform as to what is being seen. It can name it, bring up knowledge about it, etc. Same with hearing and with touch, taste and smell. It is a tool for survival, measurement, calculation, planning, etc., not rivaled by any other creature on the planet. But in the psyche with its division of observer/observed, likes and dislikes, beliefs, the "me and the mine", it is poison. So it's not that it only is the creator of fear and pleasure, it is the fear and pleasure itself.

Mina: Yes! This is the crucial point. Thought is fear itself. Thought is violence itself.

Inherent in thought is the observer/observed division.

So, when thought tries to see that 'it is fear itself' , it cannot do it, because it can only experience a divided state that it itself is, in the form of 'thought is the creator of fear and pleasure'.

It cannot go further, it cannot see that the observer is the observed!!! It can say so but not SEE AND BE THE ACTUALITY OF IT

In the sensing of this, not thinking, comes the total cessation of all contraction that thought is...and as the mind is being emptied the heart is being filled..as one movement..the dying of the false is the birth of what is true...

this is what we all 'long for', but thought/conditioning gets involved in this pure longing and makes us THINK that some thing of thought is what we need instead and 'neediness' replaces this one and only natural need to be whole within...that is why it is so important that there is enquiry into the nature of thought itself...

thank you all

This post was last updated by Mina Martini Mon, 10 Feb 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 10 Feb 2020 #16
Thumb_open-uri20200202-16653-rg2qz5-0 Mina Martini Finland 418 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Dan McDermott wrote:

There is just human thought/thinking, identifying itself with the sensations of the body and creating this illusion of a living, separate entity.

M: No, there is not even that unless the experience of a separate entity persists, in a more 'impersonal disguise'...

It is not clear, Mina, how it can be said that human thought/thinking, with its identifications and illusions, can be said "not to exist". The evidence of its existence is all around us, it is the very foundation of the man-made world. I can understand that the thinker, the individual, does not actually exist. But thought/thinking? How does that "not exist?"

Mina: I understand your puzzlement...I will try to shed light on it more...not sure if i will be successful in it however..:-)

What I said to Dan was describing the ending of all thought.

One always talks of the ending of thinker/thought in oneself, because it is seen and acutely lived that the nature of this ending is WHOLE, in it all creations of psychological thought of all of us, end. Existence at the level of thinker/thought ends.

Not 'my existence' but all existence. (I use the word existence as a synonym to experiencing thought-created reality as true, as existing)

Of course I am not claiming that the illusion of observer/observed-division and its creations on earth would not be continuing in most people, so that is not what is meant.

So, talking of the quality of wholeness that lies in the discovery of the illusory nature of ALL the reality has created/is creating.

I am afraid i cannot find the words...i cannot convey in words the absolute meaning of freedom in oneself...that 'oneself' IS the whole world.

We have to see and live the essence, the truth of the whole world ending in us..

It is not any denial of 'most not seeing this', of 'the madness of the world continuing'..

..but in the realisation of the illusory nature of the psychological world lies tremendous energy, totally free from the past of all of us, (the essence is that EVERYTHING that has ever been, all thought, all past of all ends in it, it is not a personal matter!!) and IN IT THERE IS NO TRACE OF THE PSYCHOLOGICAL WORLD

Therefore even if it is not of course denied that the world is still there for most, it is also seen that the world is not truly there for anyone!!!!!

This post was last updated by Mina Martini Mon, 10 Feb 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 10 Feb 2020 #17
Thumb_open-uri20200202-16653-rg2qz5-0 Mina Martini Finland 418 posts in this forum Offline

Added to my reply no 16

Let's put it this way....the total focus remains in one's 'own' awareness

This is not an act of selfishness, that one would only be concerned of 'what is happening in oneself and not caring about the world' as any movement of division, (as it could again be interpreted by the divided mind) but actually this total focus in silence in oneself is lived to be of the nature of carrying total responsibility for the state of the whole world as it is....if one truly cares, one's sole desire (which is not ego-driven and limited) is to be the true change in the world

This post was last updated by Mina Martini Mon, 10 Feb 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 11 Feb 2020 #18
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3259 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
in the realisation of the illusory nature of the psychological world lies tremendous energy, totally free from the past of all of us, (the essence is that EVERYTHING that has ever been, all thought, all past of all ends in it, it is not a personal matter!!) and IN IT THERE IS NO TRACE OF THE PSYCHOLOGICAL WORLD

I had an interesting insight the other day into the fact that each psychological thought drags along with it the whole history of mankind since the beginning of psychological thinking. The total conditioning of man. The whole is carried in our every thought in the psychological realm. I don’t know if I expressed it clearly, but at the moment of seeing this it was completely clear to me.
So our consciousness is the consciousness of mankind. k’s “You are the world” is a bit clearer to me now.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Tue, 11 Feb 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 12 Feb 2020 #19
Thumb_open-uri20200202-16653-rg2qz5-0 Mina Martini Finland 418 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
I had an interesting insight the other day into the fact that each psychological thought drags along with it the whole history of mankind since the beginning of psychological thinking. The total conditioning of man. The whole is carried in our every thought in the psychological realm. I don’t know if I expressed it clearly, but at the moment of seeing this it was completely clear to me.
So our consciousness is the consciousness of mankind. k’s “You are the world” is a bit clearer to me now.

Mina: This is beautiful, exactly so!

It is through such an insight that the psychological consciousness dissolves into the pure undivided consciousness.

The illusion of separation can only continue if we do not fully realise the truth and implications of the statement 'I am the world', because the truth of it can be understood only in the absence of this division.

When the division is absent, the WHOLE WORLD CREATED by it, is absent.

...

This is how immeasurably important is the shift in consciousness in any one of us!

When seen from division/thought, it is not uncommon to hear statements like, 'But what can one person do..even if you changed it would not matter much...you are just a drop in the ocean...'

But when seen without the dividing mind, it is realised that any one discovering their true nature will be affecting all in immeasurable unknown ways. The drop is discovered as the ocean itself.

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying all 19 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.)