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

Discussion on "In the light of Silence, all problems are dissolved"


Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 74 in total
Wed, 11 Mar 2020 #1
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5946 posts in this forum Offline

I have started a new thread called “In the light of silence, all problems are dissolved”. As an experiment, I have locked that thread, so no-one else can post on it. Please understand that this is not because I do not want comments, discussion on what is posted there, but perhaps all discussion can take place on THIS thread. As I say, this is an experiment – all of you know that discussions tend to wander from the original point of a thread. I am not saying this is necessarily a bad thing, but ….... well, let us see how this approach works.

My intention for the “In the light of silence, all problems are dissolved” thread is to only post quotations from K from the booklet of that name. So all the quotes are about “silence”, or stillness, or quietness.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 11 Mar 2020 #2
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5946 posts in this forum Offline

So what is this "silence"? I imagine all of us on this forum have come see that thought is limited, very limited. It is essentially fragmented, and so can never act wholly, can never see the whole picture. So there is a movement to 'put aside thought'

As K said:

Thought cannot solve any human problem, for thought itself is the problem.

So seeing this, one becomes concerned with something we call "silence". A state where the noise of thought is not acting. Yet we have to be immensely careful, because this might be a thing invented by thought as a reaction.

So I ask, starting afresh, taking it slowly, what is this thing we call silence? The usual sense of the word is the absence of, or reduction in, physical noise or sound. Yet K (and many other teachers) give a significance to Silence far beyond that. In quote #1 K talks of "The light of Silence". So surely the state of Silence is not dependent on the level of noise around one? It must be far more than this.

As soon as one starts to discuss silence, does it become something imagined by thought? Then 'silence' becomes a problem. I am posting a second quote on the "in the light of silence, all problems are dissolved" thread.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 12 Mar 2020 #3
Thumb_stringio Rich Nolet Canada 31 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Is it at all possible to describe or to talk about this silence K. spoke of ?

K. : Are you ever conscious of being silent? Have you experienced silence? If you have experienced silence, then it is not silence, is it? If there is an observer observing silence, then it is the projection of the experiencer - the experiencer wishing to be in a state of silence. Therefore it is not silence. Reality can never be experienced; if you do experience reality, then it is not reality because then there is the division between the experiencer and the experience. That division signifies duality and all the conflicts of duality. So silence can never be experienced.

If you really understand that, if you are listening and learning the fact that silence can never be experienced, then what is the state of the mind that has no experience of silence, that is silence? I begin to see that a mind which is silent is not conscious that it is silent. So also with humility. If you are conscious that you are humble, then that is not humility. If I am conscious that I am holy, spiritual, I am not; if I am conscious that I know, then I am ignorant. If I am conscious that my mind is silent, then there is no silence. So silence is a state of mind in which there is the absence of the experiencer.

Fifth Talk in Bombay, 1958

This post was last updated by Rich Nolet (account deleted) Thu, 12 Mar 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 12 Mar 2020 #4
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3474 posts in this forum Offline

As K said:

Thought cannot solve any human problem, for thought itself is the problem.

So seeing this, one becomes concerned with something we call "silence".

I'm a little confused. Being concerned with is more 'noise'/thought, isnt' it?

A state where the noise of thought is not acting. Yet we have to be immensely careful, because this might be a thing invented by thought as a reaction.

Well, it IS a thought...unless it's actual silence.

So I ask, starting afresh, taking it slowly, what is this thing we call silence? The usual sense of the word is the absence of, or reduction in, physical noise or sound. Yet K (and many other teachers) give a significance to Silence far beyond that. In quote #1 K talks of "The light of Silence". So surely the state of Silence is not dependent on the level of noise around one? It must be far more than this.

As soon as one starts to discuss silence, does it become something imagined by thought? Then 'silence' becomes a problem.

It seems to be so, yes. Thought makes it a problem Io solve. We're not observing what actually is...life as it is...the noise in us?... but moving away from it towards a goal of silence. I don't know, but it seems to be so

I am posting a second quote on the "in the light of silence, all problems are dissolved" thread.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 12 Mar 2020 #5
Thumb_stringio Rich Nolet Canada 31 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Clive Elwell wrote:
As soon as one starts to discuss silence, does it become something imagined by thought? Then 'silence' becomes a problem. I am posting a second quote on the "in the light of silence, all problems are dissolved" thread.

Something imagined by thought, therefore speculation. My feeling is that that silence he speak of is the end of the me, of the self. Then awareness as K. said in the quote (http://www.kinfonet.org/krishnamurti/excerpts/1...) , have a different quality : This awareness is not aware that it is aware.

That is probably the most difficult part of his teaching.

So what is awareness of the self ? What is the dissolution of the self? Again in the same quote from Urgency of Change:

K.: But when there is a psychological response to the tree ( thought , feeling, emotion ) the response is a conditioned response, it is the response of past memory, past experiences, and the response is a division in relationship. This response is the birth of what we shall call the 'me' in relationship and the 'non-me'. This is how you place yourself in relationship to the world. This is how you create the individual and the community. The world is seen not as it is, but in its various relationships to the 'me' of memory. This division is the life and the flourishing of everything we call our psychological being, and from this arises all contradiction and division. Are you very clear that you perceive this? When there is the awareness of the tree there is no evaluation. But when there is a response to the tree, when the tree is judged with like and dislike, then a division takes place in this awareness as the 'me' and the 'non-me', the 'me' who is different from the thing observed. This 'me' is the response, in relationship, of past memory, past experiences. Now can there be an awareness, an observation of the tree, without any judgement, and can there be an observation of the response, the reactions, without any judgement? In this way we eradicate the principle of division, the principle of 'me' and 'non-me', both in looking at the tree and in looking at ourselves.

The Urgency of Change/Awareness.

So no doubt that in the light of silence, all problems are dissolved.

P.S. Sorry for so many quote lately, but for the teaching, it is sometime a good thing to go to the source.

This post was last updated by Rich Nolet (account deleted) Thu, 12 Mar 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 12 Mar 2020 #6
Thumb_spock Douglas MacRae-Smith France 292 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
So there is a movement to 'put aside thought'

Who is "putting thought aside"?

Look, see, let go

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 12 Mar 2020 #7
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3474 posts in this forum Offline

Douglas MacRae-Smith wrote:
Clive Elwell wrote:

So there is a movement to 'put aside thought'
Who is "putting thought aside"?

Good question!

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 12 Mar 2020 #8
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5946 posts in this forum Offline

Reading all the comments and quotes above, I am not sure that there is anything to add. All the responses of thought are seen as so much noise. All limited, fragmented, not the truth. This perception seems to pose a challenge to the mind not to react at all. Yet the mind IS reaction, is it not?

Some fundamental negation seems to be demanded. Yet the nature of that negation is not any act of will, it is not something 'to be done', in the normal sense of those words. Better described as a non-doing, perhaps. But all descriptions are merely that - descriptions, and descriptions are not action.

But I will continue to post quotes from the booklet "in the light of silence ...." They may or may not generate comment. Perhaps at some level the mind can listen, and that listening can have its own effect, beyond thought. I remember K saying in "The Ending of Time": "We CAN listen in our darkness".

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 12 Mar 2020 #9
Thumb_spock Douglas MacRae-Smith France 292 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
mind IS reaction

Surprising supposition. What do you mean? Thought is reaction? Consciousness? Intelligence?

Reminds me of the hypothesis :"Data integration is directly correlated to consciousness" (G. Tononi, Neuroscientist)

Look, see, let go

This post was last updated by Douglas MacRae-Smith Thu, 12 Mar 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 12 Mar 2020 #10
Thumb_stringio Rich Nolet Canada 31 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Clive Elwell

This perception seems to pose a challenge to the mind not to react at all. Yet the mind IS reaction, is it not?

But I will continue to post quotes from the booklet "in the light of silence ...." They may or may not generate comment.

This awareness, this perception, is not an hindrance to discuss anything.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 13 Mar 2020 #11
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5946 posts in this forum Offline

A quote on Silence, by Jean Klein

Silence is our real nature. What we are fundamentally is only silence.

Silence is free from beginning and end. It was before the beginning of all things. It is causeless. Its greatness lies in the fact that it simply is. In silence all objects have their home ground. It is the light that gives objects their shape and form. All movement, all activity is harmonized by silence.

Silence has no opposite in noise. It is beyond positive and negative.

Silence dissolves all objects. It is not related to any counterpart which belongs to the mind.

Silence has nothing to do with mind. It cannot be defined but it can be felt directly because it is our nearness.

Silence is freedom without restriction or center. It is our wholeness, neither inside nor outside the body.

Silence is joyful, not pleasurable. It is not psychological. It is feeling without a feeler.

Silence needs no intermediary.

Silence is holy. It is healing. There is no fear in silence.

Silence is autonomous like love and beauty. It is untouched by time.

Silence is meditation, free from any intention, free from anyone who meditates.

Silence is the absence of oneself. Or rather, silence is the absence of absence.

Sound which comes from silence is music. All activity is creative when it comes from silence. It is constantly a new beginning.

Silence precedes speech and poetry and music and all art.

Silence is the home ground of all creative activity. What is truly creative is the word, is Truth. Silence is the word.

Silence is truth.

The one established in silence lives in constant offering, in prayer without asking, in thankfulness, in continual love.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 14 Mar 2020 #12
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5946 posts in this forum Offline

Douglas MacRae-Smith wrote #6:
Who is "putting thought aside"?

I was talking about a general movement, an intention, without any specific action. I was referring to the perception that thought is always limited, never true. Doesn't does perception point towards a "putting aside"? This perception is very much tied up with the perception that I AM thought, and there is no independent me to 'put it aside'

Douglas MacRae-Smith wrote #9:

Clive Elwell wrote: >mind IS reaction

Surprising supposition. What do you mean? Thought is reaction? Consciousness? Intelligence?

Is it a supposition? As thought is observed here, each thought seems to be a reaction, or at least a response to something. There is the obvious reaction when someone says something, or something is done, that seems threatening to the self-image. There is the more subtle reaction of thought to something perceived by the senses - I see and tree, and some thought arises in response to the seeing, etc.

More generally, isn't thought a series of associations? And are these associations a form of responses?

How do you see it, Douglas?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 14 Mar 2020 #13
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3474 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Doesn't does perception point towards a "putting aside"?

'Putting aside' in the future? Do you mean actually 'putting aside' (thought's traps are understood and put aside choicelessly), or thinking about putting aside. Huge difference of course.

Here's K from the QOTD. It might touch on this question:

"Or else the mind in conflict, in struggle, which is without understanding, seeks a future, a future that you call a belief, a goal, a culmination, an achievement, a success("putting aside"?), and escapes to that. It is the function of memory to be cunning and to escape from the present." Ojai, California | 8th Public Talk 25th June, 1934

Here's the whole excerpt:

Krishnamurti: What is living fully in the present? I will try again to explain what I mean. A mind that is in conflict, in struggle, is continually seeking an escape; either the memory of the past unconsciously precipitates itself in the mind, or the mind deliberately turns back into the past and lives in the delight of that past, which is one form of escape. Or else the mind in conflict, in struggle, which is without understanding, seeks a future, a future that you call a belief, a goal, a culmination, an achievement, a success, and escapes to that. It is the function of memory to be cunning and to escape from the present. This process of looking back is but one of the tricks of memory which you call self-analysis, which but perpetuates memory, and therefore limits and confines the mind, banishing intelligence.

So there are these various forms of escape, and when mind has ceased to escape through memory, when memory no longer clouds the mind and heart, there is then that ecstasy of living in the present. This can only be when mind is no longer taking delight in the past or the future, when mind does not create division; in other words, when that supreme intelligence which is truth, which is beauty, which is love itself, is functioning normally, without effort - then in that state intelligence is timeless, and then there is not this fear of not living in the present.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Sat, 14 Mar 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 14 Mar 2020 #14
Thumb_spock Douglas MacRae-Smith France 292 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
I was talking about a general movement, an intention, without any specific action. I was referring to the perception that thought is always limited, never true. Doesn't does perception point towards a "putting aside"? This perception is very much tied up with the perception that I AM thought, and there is no independent me to 'put it aside'

Thought perceives that it is lacking and thus intends to put itself aside?
I worry that there is something judgemental, conflicting and incomplete about this.
Any reaction and intent set in motion by thought will still remain within the realm of the self. If I feel I have to choose, some kind of understanding is lacking.

There should be no intent, no putting aside, no pushing away. In the moment of clarity is also the falling away; the freedom from. Clarity is itself the action without intent.

Look, see, let go

This post was last updated by Douglas MacRae-Smith Sat, 14 Mar 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 14 Mar 2020 #15
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1855 posts in this forum Offline

Douglas MacRae-Smith wrote:
There should be no intent, no putting aside, no pushing away.

Yes any movement at all it seems, is a trap. That is what is so confounding. That any 'desire' to 'do' something with 'what is' is a trap isn't it? Because the desire is to 'become' to move away or to change, substitute, something for 'what is'... Is the 'I' process itself a trap? And is it another trap then, to create an image of myself totally choice-lessly 'aloof' from what is seen and then, desire, crave, that state of affairs: a choice-less, non-identified 'me' apart, free from myself and abiding "ecstatically" in the present moment?

Can there be no identification with thought, with the physical sensations of the body, with sight, sound, touch, taste, smell? No sense of 'me' doing all those things? Just a "choice-less" awareness of those processes taking place in the moment? is that what this is all about?...Or is that a 'goal' and thus, another trap?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 14 Mar 2020 #16
Thumb_stringio Rich Nolet Canada 31 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Tom Paine wrote:
Here's the whole excerpt:

Krishnamurti: What is living fully in the present?

This is very interesting quote. I didn't put all the quote, it's just above. But if any of what is said in the quote is not present, all the escapes and all the rest, then then there is silence, there is a different awareness which is the present. And then , if I may say it that way, life is full of opportunity to learn, to see what really is going on. In this uge space which is present, if I may say ( all this is maybe not very well express), in listening the news on tv, in talking with our wives, or with the neighbour, in walking alone by a river, there is space to learn, in the moment. Whitout the necessity to accumulate.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 14 Mar 2020 #17
Thumb_stringio Rich Nolet Canada 31 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Dan McDermott wrote:
Yes any movement at all it seems, is a trap. That is what is so confounding. That any 'desire' to 'do' something with 'what is' is a trap isn't it? Because the desire is to 'become' to move away or to change, substitute, something for 'what is'... Is the 'I' process itself a trap?

Any desire to do something with what is is a trap...and the self. Since the self is not different from its attributes, it is the self. There is not the desire to become or to escape that is separate from the self. So we can say that the I process, which is not different from his desire to become or find silence, or to escape from himself is the trap.

This post was last updated by Rich Nolet (account deleted) Sat, 14 Mar 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 14 Mar 2020 #18
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3474 posts in this forum Offline

Rich: if I may say it that way, life is full of opportunity to learn, to see what really is going on. In this uge space which is present, if I may say ( all this is maybe not very well express), in listening the news on tv, in talking with our wives, or with the neighbour, in walking alone by a river, there is space to learn, in the moment.

Very well said...thank you!

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 14 Mar 2020 #19
Thumb_stringio Rich Nolet Canada 31 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Douglas MacRae-Smith wrote:
There should be no intent, no putting aside, no pushing away. In the moment of clarity is also the falling away; the freedom from. Clarity is itself the action without intent.

Right.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 14 Mar 2020 #20
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1855 posts in this forum Offline

Rich Nolet wrote:
There is not the desire to become or to escape that is separate from the self. So we can say that the I process, which is not different from his desire to become or find silence, or to escape from himself is the trap.

This is important Rich, thank you. The 'trick' or 'trap' that self creates, is to act as if it is trying to get beyond itself. But it is all just self/thought making 'noise'. Also there actually is nothing but the 'present', is there? That's all there is... no matter what twisting and turning and plotting to 'get there' the self comes up with....The realization that we are totally conditioned...is that the "clarity" Douglas mentions? Is that the realization that sees through the 'trick' of intent?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sat, 14 Mar 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 14 Mar 2020 #21
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5946 posts in this forum Offline

Douglas MacRae-Smith wrote #14:
Thought perceives that it is lacking and thus intends to put itself aside?
I worry that there is something judgemental, conflicting and incomplete about this.

I can understand all the objections that are being made over my use of the 'intention', and perhaps I should drop it. But can there not be a diffuse intention to understand oneself? This does not mean one has a plan how to understand. It does not imply that one knows what to do.

it occurs to me that a word that betters conveys my meaning is "orientation". Do we not, on this forum, all have a certain orientation? A "way" of responding to questions/challenges? is there not a certain commonality in our perceptions of life and consciousness? For example, do we not all see the danger of accepting any authority in psychological matters? (Which does not mean that at certain times one might unconsciously fall into the mistake, for a while)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 14 Mar 2020 #22
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5946 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote #15:
Can there be no identification with thought, with the physical sensations of the body, with sight, sound, touch, taste, smell? No sense of 'me' doing all those things? Just a "choice-less" awareness of those processes taking place in the moment? is that what this is all about?..

These are all very valid questions, indeed.

Dan McDermott wrote:
Or is that a 'goal' and thus, another trap?

Of course thought can, and does, turn any perception into a goal, something to be achieved in the future. But this movement can be seen, and it dissolves, no?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 14 Mar 2020 #23
Thumb_stringio Rich Nolet Canada 31 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Dan McDermott wrote:
The 'trick' or 'trap' that self creates, is to act as if it is trying to get beyond itself.

We shall keep in mind that what we are talking about is awareness and what we call our psychological being. If I may, I put here a quote from the same citation from Urgency of Change. This have to be clear.

K.: So there is the superficial awareness of the tree, the bird, the door, and there is the response to that, which is thought, feeling, emotion. Now when we become aware of this response, we might call it a second depth of awareness. There is the awareness of the rose, and the awareness of the response to the rose. Often we are unaware of this response to the rose. In reality it is the same awareness which sees the rose and which sees the response. It is one movement and it is wrong to speak of the outer and inner awareness. When there is a visual awareness of the tree without any psychological involvement there is no division in relationship. But when there is a psychological response to the tree, the response is a conditioned response, it is the response of past memory, past experiences, and the response is a division in relationship. This response is the birth of what we shall call the 'me' in relationship and the 'non-me'. This is how you place yourself in relationship to the world. This is how you create the individual and the community. The world is seen not as it is, but in its various relationships to the 'me' of memory. This division is the life and the flourishing of everything we call our psychological being, and from this arises all contradiction and division. Are you very clear that you perceive this? When there is the awareness of the tree there is no evaluation. But when there is a response to the tree, when the tree is judged with like and dislike, then a division takes place in this awareness as the 'me' and the 'non-me', the 'me' who is different from the thing observed. This 'me' is the response, in relationship, of past memory, past experiences. Now can there be an awareness, an observation of the tree, without any judgement, and can there be an observation of the response, the reactions, without any judgement? In this way we eradicate the principle of division, the principle of 'me' and 'non-me', both in looking at the tree and in looking at ourselves.

This post was last updated by Rich Nolet (account deleted) Sat, 14 Mar 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 14 Mar 2020 #24
Thumb_stringio Rich Nolet Canada 31 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

The trap that K. talk about is about asking the question: can the mind be free of the past.

Krishnamurti: Let us bear in mind that we are discussing awareness. We are talking over together this question of awareness.

There is the tree, and the conditioned response to the tree, which is the 'me' in relationship, the 'me' who is the very centre of conflict. Now is it this 'me' who is asking the question? - this 'me' who, as we have said, is the very structure of the past? If the question is not asked from the structure of the past, if the question is not asked by the 'me', then there is no structure of the past. When the structure is asking the question it is operating in relationship to the fact of itself, it is frightened of itself and it acts to escape from itself. When this structure does not ask the question, it is not acting in relationship to itself. To recapitulate: there is the tree, there is the word, the response to the tree, which is the censor, or the 'me', which comes from the past; and then there is the question: can I escape from all this turmoil and agony? If the 'me' is asking this question it is perpetuating itself.

Now, being aware of that, it doesn't ask the question! Being aware and seeing all the implications of it, the question cannot be asked. It does not ask the question at all because it sees the trap. Now do you see that all this awareness is superficial? It is the same as the awareness which sees the tree. (Urgency of Change/Awareness)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 15 Mar 2020 #25
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1855 posts in this forum Offline

Rich Nolet wrote:
. Now can there be an awareness, an observation of the tree, without any judgement, and can there be an observation of the response, the reactions, without any judgement? In this way we eradicate the principle of division, the principle of 'me' and 'non-me', both in looking at the tree and in looking at ourselves.

We can't be nonjudgmental if we have 'identified' ourself as being the "response"or the "reaction". We don't look at ourselves in the same way we look at a tree. We are not 'identified' with the tree but we are identified with our response/reaction to the tree. The 'tree' is out there and my feelings/thoughts are in here,..they are me reacting to it, my own individual reaction to it.

And he is pointing out, that they are both examples of superficial awareness...both the same.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 15 Mar 2020 #26
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3474 posts in this forum Offline

Dan: We are not 'identified' with the tree but we are identified with our response/reaction to the tree.

And it’s doubly difficult to observe our reactions to fear or greed or anger because we see it as ‘MY’ fear, anger, etc. Is that it? I think this is a crucial point.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 15 Mar 2020 #27
Thumb_spock Douglas MacRae-Smith France 292 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
And it’s doubly difficult to observe our reactions to fear or greed or anger because we see it as ‘MY’ fear, anger, etc. Is that it? I think this is a crucial point.

How so? Could it not be argued that fear (or anger etc) is only fear because it is mine? Or maybe you mean : its not mine, rather it is me? I am fear?

Look, see, let go

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 15 Mar 2020 #28
Thumb_stringio Rich Nolet Canada 31 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Dan McDermott wrote:
We can't be nonjudgmental if we have 'identified' ourself as being the "response"or the "reaction". We don't look at ourselves in the same way we look at a tree. We are not 'identified' with the tree but we are identified with our response/reaction to the tree. The 'tree' is out there and my feelings/thoughts are in here,..they are me reacting to it, my own individual reaction to it.

And he is pointing out, that they are both examples of superficial awareness...both the same.

You are right Dan. Then we have to understand the identification process. Her's what K. say about that.

K: So the whole process of identification - my house, my name, my possessions, what I will be, the success, the power, the position, the prestige. The identification process is the essence of the self. If there is no identification is there the self? You understand sir?

R: Yes, sir, I follow.

K: So can this identification come to an end? Which is, the identification is the movement of thought. If thought didn't say, that is my furniture, identifying itself with that, because it gives it pleasure, position, security, all that, so the root of the self is the movement of thought.

K.: Is it possible to live in daily life, not at the end of one's existence, a daily life without this identification process which brings about the structure and the nature of the self, which is the result of thought? Can the movement of thought end while I am living?

Reflections on the Self

J. Krishnamurti

Second Discussion with Dr. Bohm, Mr. Narayan and Two Buddhist Scholars at Brockwood Park

June 1978

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 15 Mar 2020 #29
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1855 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
And it’s doubly difficult to observe our reactions to fear or greed or anger because we see it as ‘MY’ fear, anger, etc. Is that it? I think this is a crucial point.

You bring in the concept of degrees of"difficulty" here Tom and I'm trying to understand that in relation to "superficial" awareness as K calls it. What is the difference between being aware of my dislike for something or someone and my being 'angry' about something or someone? Why is one more 'difficult' to be aware of than the other. If it is all the same awareness, of the tree, my likes and dislikes, my emotional states, etc? How do you see it? Is it that there are different degrees of 'identification'; none with the tree but much with my beliefs or morals or opinions, say?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sun, 15 Mar 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 15 Mar 2020 #30
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1855 posts in this forum Offline

Rich Nolet wrote:
K.: "Is it possible to live in daily life, not at the end of one's existence, a daily life without this identification process which brings about the structure and the nature of the self, which is the result of thought? Can the movement of thought end while I am living?"

And Rich you also posted this above:

K.:"Now is it this 'me' who is asking the question? - this 'me' who, as we have said, is the very structure of the past? If the question is not asked from the structure of the past, if the question is not asked by the 'me', then there is no structure of the past. When the structure is asking the question it is operating in relationship to the fact of itself, it is frightened of itself and it acts to escape from itself. When this structure does not ask the question, it is not acting in relationship to itself."

And this:

K.:"Now, being aware of that, it doesn't ask the question! Being aware and seeing all the implications of it, the question cannot be asked. It does not ask the question at all because it sees the trap. Now do you see that all this awareness is superficial? It is the same as the awareness which sees the tree."

Can we sort this out?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 74 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.)