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

QOTD: Demand and duality


Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 58 in total
Sat, 04 Apr 2020 #1
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3477 posts in this forum Offline

This is a good one on the duality that's present in most of us. Feel free to share any comments or questions for discussion.

Talks in Europe 1967 | 1st Public Talk Paris, 16th April

To be free of demand and satisfaction necessitates investigation into oneself; it necessitates understanding the whole nature of demand. Demand is born out of duality. 'I am un- happy and I must be happy.' The demand that I must be happy, in that very thing is unhappiness. The opposite always contains its own opposite. So when one makes an effort to be good, decides to be good, in that very goodness is its opposite, which is evil. If one could only understand this and therefore that any demand of life, any demand that you must experience the truth, reality, that very demand is born out of your discontent with 'what is', and therefore that demand creates the opposite.

In the opposite there is what has been. So one must be free of this incessant demanding: the mind that is always comparing, measuring, which breeds illusion. And one must know the nature and the structure of this effort, the effort of duality (the mind is really non-dual, but there's not time to go into that). This means knowing oneself so completely that the mind is no longer seeking, asking, demanding, and therefore it is completely quiet. All that is part of meditation; not the endless prayers, repetitions and the forcing the mind to be still. That breeds conflict and conflict must inevitably exist when there is duality. There is the duality that is created by the observer and the thing he wishes to be, which is observed. And there is the mind that is trying, not to experience, but to uncover, to discover - not follow, not imitate, not become something. The becoming is another form of duality and therefore of conflict.

All this process of knowing oneself is the beginning of meditation - not putting the mind to sleep, not having visions or transcendental experiences through some footling word - but to uncover the conditioned and the state of mind which is ourselves in its relationship to society, in its relationship to another. To discover oneself and penetrate deep - all that is meditation. One has to go into it very deeply, but not in the sense of time and measure - one must use the word 'deep', but when one uses it, it has its opposite which is 'shallow'. For when one wants to be deep, then there is conflict and therefore depth is the shallow. So the mind investigating all this becomes highly sensitive, highly aware; and obviously a mind that is tremendously alert, awake, is silent. A chattering mind says 'this is' distraction, because I want to concentrate on 'this other; but such a division is also a distraction. And being highly intelligent - for intelligence is to be completely sensitive, aware, in which there is no choice at all and hence no conflict - then out of that comes a silence which is not the opposite of noise, nor the cessation of noise. And it is only in such a silent mind that there is no demand, no illusion, because of no desire to be satisfied and therefore no desire for wider and deeper experiences; it is only such a mind that can discover what is sacred. That is meditation and in that meditation to discover it - not to be told or to copy and obey and all that immature nonsense. Then in that silence, which is really not an experience at all, but a state, in that silence one discovers, one comes upon something that has no word, that is not measurable - when the mind with its brain, which has stored up so many memories, when all that becomes extraordinarily quiet - and it is only in that state there is a possibility of discovering something that man has sought throughout the centuries.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 05 Apr 2020 #2
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5949 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote, quoting K:
Demand is born out of duality. 'I am un- happy and I must be happy

My first thought is that the opposite is true - that duality is born out of demand. But on consideration I see it is one movement.

Yes, I have been especially concerned with this issue of 'becoming', after some little exchange with Dan. I was meaning to take it up again, but I won't search it out now - the issue stands on its own. But yes, in "The Ending of Time", K suggests the origin of this wrong turn that mankind took, and is still suffering under, was this 'impulse' (if that is the right word) to become. I continually see in myself how deeply this is ingrained, and no amount of watching seems to shift it - it simply keeps changing its object. Of course the very phrase "shift it" suggests another, subtle, form of becoming.

Tom Paine wrote, quoting K:
For when one wants to be deep, then there is conflict and therefore depth is the shallow.

I would say that when one wants to be anything, psychologically, then there is conflict. Why does the mind not see this clearly, absolutely? i assume that if it did so see, the movement of trying to become would end. Is this a wrong assumption? And can the mind ever stop trying to overcome what is with what should be?

This post was last updated by Clive Elwell Sun, 05 Apr 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 05 Apr 2020 #3
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1856 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
I would say that when one wants to be anything, psychologically, then there is conflict. Why does the mind not see this clearly, absolutely? i assume that if it did so see, the movement of trying to become would end. Is this a wrong assumption? And can the mind ever stop trying to overcome what is with what should be?

The question implies : "I am not this now...Can I become it"? This 'questioner' has to be included in what is seen, doesn't it? And every questioner that follows it...

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sun, 05 Apr 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 05 Apr 2020 #4
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3477 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:

I would say that when one wants to be anything, psychologically, then there is conflict. Why does the mind not see this clearly, absolutely?

Fear?

i assume that if it did so see, the movement of trying to become would end. Is this a wrong assumption? And can the mind ever stop trying to overcome what is with what should be?

Dan: The question implies : "I am not this now...Can I become it"? This 'questioner' has to be included in what is seen, doesn't it? And every questioner that follows it...

All this is thinking right...and images...and time? Want to explore this further but very busy here due to the crisis we’re in due to Coronavirus

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 05 Apr 2020 #5
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1856 posts in this forum Offline

Desire, whether to be rich, powerful, or famous...is it any different than wanting a quiet mind? The root is the same: "I'm not this now, and I want to become that". Psychological desire for anything creates a path, long or short that must be traversed (in time) to reach the goal. It denies 'what is', for what it desires there to be. Isn't this so?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sun, 05 Apr 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 05 Apr 2020 #6
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3477 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Desire, whether to be rich, powerful, or famous...is it any different than wanting a quiet mind? The root is the same: "I'm not this now, and I want to become that". Psychological desire for anything creates a path, long or short that must be traversed (in time) to reach the goal. It denies what is for what it desires there to be. Isn't this so?

So, why are we afraid to be what we are?

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 05 Apr 2020 #7
Thumb_spock Douglas MacRae-Smith France 292 posts in this forum Offline

Because what we believe feels so real.

The sense of self feels like more than just a feeling. My skin is the frontier between me and not me - this feels very very real.

No amount of thinking can break this down. Awareness must be allowed to dissipate what is not. Awareness must be allowed to embrace the whole.

Look, see, let go

This post was last updated by Douglas MacRae-Smith Sun, 05 Apr 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 05 Apr 2020 #8
Thumb_avatar Manfred Kritzler Germany 111 posts in this forum Offline

Tom: So, why are we afraid to be what we are?
————
Manfred:
This a key question for me. I do not have a real answer, but some suppositions.

Where is our ego when we are what we are?

For me any change triggered by ourselves must be limited and leads to another limitation. The ego is happy because it has its way to think and act for. Without limitations there is no ego and this seems to me the reason that fear arises.

When we are what we are, there is no limitation. We live in wholeness, provided we are not trying to change what we are. Change now does not come from ourselves, but from wholeness through ourselves.

This post was last updated by Manfred Kritzler Sun, 05 Apr 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 05 Apr 2020 #9
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1856 posts in this forum Offline

Douglas MacRae-Smith wrote:
No amount of thinking can break this down.

Thought can 'entertain' and pursue the idea of silence, of quiet, of peacefulness in the psyche because it means 'accomplishing' it in time...which means the continuation of its activity, its 'search, its quest... Desire is a 'trap', it is the carrot leading the donkey.

So is this a result of "fear"? Or is it that thought resists the realization, that it is a "material process" and not the 'essence'? That it is simply operating in the 'wrong' place and that only an "awareness" of its limits can bring about its cessation of 'desire' and 'becoming'?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sun, 05 Apr 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 05 Apr 2020 #10
Thumb_spock Douglas MacRae-Smith France 292 posts in this forum Offline

There is nothing to be realised - that I shall be so clever as to free myself through some breakthrough understanding on my part must be seen to be a joke.
Hubris.

The Sense of self is part and parcel of the human animal, it is not a tool for understanding - it is a tool for survival and reproduction. Thought will not lead to its own dissapearance.

Awareness on the other hand does not lead to anything. In awareness there is no intention, nor accumulation. Awareness is, when the observer, the judge, the interpreter is seen. When the Observer is seen, it dissapears.

Look, see, let go

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 05 Apr 2020 #11
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5949 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
This 'questioner' has to be included in what is seen, doesn't it? And every questioner that follows it...

Can you enlarge on this Dan?

I am wondering if you mean something similar to what I wrote on my latest thread: "There is a deep contradiction in the mind"?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 06 Apr 2020 #12
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1856 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Dan: This 'questioner' has to be included in what is seen, doesn't it? And every questioner that follows it...

Clive Can you enlarge on this Dan?

Maybe. Psychological thought gives value and significance to what it deems important at any moment...but what it actually produces is a kind of 'blockage' to the 'present'? It is a 'desire' to solve,. understand, something, etc. but really is just another way to keep us out of the 'present" which is always uncertain , the 'what is', in which it can not find safety and security.

Can thought be of use in understanding the traps it has (unwittingly?) created? Can there be intelligent thinking that sees through the traps of desire?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 06 Apr 2020 #13
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3477 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Psychological thought gives value and significance to what it deems important at any moment...but what it actually produces is a kind of 'blockage' to the 'present'? It is a 'desire' to solve,. understand, something, etc. but really is just another way to keep us out of the 'present" which is always uncertain , the 'what is', in which it can not find safety and security.

Right because thought is always active in the practical realm when we need to grow food, cook a meal, build a home, fix a car, etc. So you're saying that 'psychological' thought is doing the same thing? Trying to keep us safe and secure? It's not about trying to understand is it? Psychological thought is about security isn't it? Psychological security. I think this is an issue we might go into further. K talked about this and I'm not sure I understand it totally.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 06 Apr 2020 #14
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1856 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Right because thought is always active in the practical realm when we need to grow food, cook a meal, build a home, fix a car, etc. So you're saying that 'psychological' thought is doing the same thing? Trying to keep us safe and secure? It's not about trying to understand is it? Psychological thought is about security isn't it? Psychological security.

Yes, "trying to keep us psychologically safe and secure" and also 'happy'. That was the opening of Pandora's Box, wasn't it? The bringing of greed, desire, jealousy, exploitation, fear, etc. Thought, in its original role of providing physical security was now attempting to do that in the psyche...the need to be 'happy', not bored' always occupied, satisfied, contented, successful, peaceful, in short, not to be what one was in the moment, but what one 'should' be, what one should 'become'... Hence drugs to change one's mental state, accumulation of money and 'things', competition for status, nationalism, religious beliefs to satisfy the fear of 'not being' and to dissolve or infantilize any mystery that couldn't be explained (like who, what, are we and why are we here?)

The list is long.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 07 Apr 2020 #15
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5949 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
It is a 'desire' to solve,. understand, something, etc. but really is just another way to keep us out of the 'present" which is always uncertain , the 'what is', in which it can not find safety and security.

So are you suggesting, Dan, that this is the reason behind the constant movement to 'become' that the mind exhibits? After all, the brain has never yet found security in all its attempts to pursue the what should be, the imagined future, has it? Why should it keep pursuing this path which keeps revealing itself as basically futile? One can see this futility both at the level of the individual and in society generally.

Dan McDermott wrote:
Can thought be of use in understanding the traps it has (unwittingly?) created? Can there be intelligent thinking that sees through the traps of desire?

Thought can grasp the problem, as we are trying to do here, now. We can describe the problem to each other, we can try to find intellectual agreement. No harm in doing this as far as I can see, but this doesn't seem to bring the movement to become, to overcome, to an end. In fact it seems that thought can ONLY try to become, try to solve the problem by becoming what it is not. This is the way thought is conditioned. Thought is time, and time is the problem. So, as with all the issues of the mind, can one just watch, without thought trying to interfere with what is seen?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 07 Apr 2020 #16
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5949 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Desire, whether to be rich, powerful, or famous...is it any different than wanting a quiet mind? The root is the same: "I'm not this now, and I want to become that". Psychological desire for anything creates a path, long or short that must be traversed (in time) to reach the goal. It denies 'what is', for what it desires there to be. Isn't this so?

Yes, I feel all this is so.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 07 Apr 2020 #17
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5949 posts in this forum Offline

Manfred Kritzler wrote:
When we are what we are, there is no limitation. We live in wholeness, provided we are not trying to change what we are. Change now does not come from ourselves, but from wholeness through ourselves.

Manfred, I am not being confrontational when I ask: is this your direct experience? Is this what you live, at least some of the time? Are you free of this movement to become other than we are?

What does it mean, "to live in wholeness"? Does it mean that duality is absent? Does thought still operate in this state?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 07 Apr 2020 #18
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1856 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Psychological thought is about security isn't it?

I see it that the brain that has not realized that there is no division between itself and the rest of the world, only 'difference', that without having that realization, as in K.'s words: "you are the world", the only real 'security' psychologically escapes it; which is to realize the 'oneness' of everything. Lacking that it is compelled to build a 'content' or 'wall' of false protection around a 'center' or 'individual self'.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 07 Apr 2020 #19
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1856 posts in this forum Offline

Douglas MacRae-Smith wrote:
The sense of self feels like more than just a feeling. My skin is the frontier between me and not me - this feels very very real.

No amount of thinking can break this down.

Agreed, but experimenting with this, it seems that it is perhaps, a very 'mistaken' conclusion/misperception...why such a frontier? Why is the information (matter?) flowing into and through the senses: the awareness of the world of sight, color, sound, smell, touch,etc....why is all that not what 'I' am? Why am 'I' not all that? That was the message that K. brought, wasn't it, that "you are the world", but the brain has to realize the truth of that for itself. As I'm seeing it.

There is 'difference' of course: body, tree, plant, animal...but why 'division'?

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Tue, 07 Apr 2020 #20
Thumb_avatar Manfred Kritzler Germany 111 posts in this forum Offline

Manfred: When we are what we are, there is no limitation. We live in wholeness, provided we are not trying to change what we are. Change now does not come from ourselves, but from wholeness through ourselves.

Clive: Manfred, I am not being confrontational when I ask: is this your direct experience? Is this what you live, at least some of the time? Are you free of this movement to become other than we are?
————-
Manfred: This question is difficult to answer, because whatever the answer is it is a subjective limited one and can therefore only be seen as a pointer.

It is clear for me that I am not free of the movement to become something other than I am. But that is for me included in what we are. I think most of us are in the process of becoming in one or the other way. Seeing this act of becoming in choiceless awareness makes the movement slower or stops it. Its like being aware of inattention is attention. In a causal logical way of thinking with either/or positions it is a paradox.

This kind of seeing happens sometimes to me.But to describe choiceless awareness is not possible. That means there is always a risk that I only mean it is choiceless awareness but it is not. I think there is no way to check it.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 07 Apr 2020 #21
Thumb_avatar Manfred Kritzler Germany 111 posts in this forum Offline

Clive: What does it mean, "to live in wholeness"? Does it mean that duality is absent? Does thought still operate in this state?
————-
I think duality and thought are not absent. It makes no sense to me that something else exists outside of wholeness. The important difference for me is the attitude to what consciousness means. When consciousness means that beyond thought is nothing which influences us, our life is lived in limited duality. When consciousness means that there is wholeness and thought can always only make a part of wholeness conscious, the area beyond thought is still active, no matter what thought is telling us.
So wholeness penetrates duality and thought.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 07 Apr 2020 #22
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3477 posts in this forum Offline

Manfred Kritzler wrote:
It makes no sense to me that something else exists outside of wholeness

But fragmentation in consciousness destroys wholeness. That’s the wron turn K talked about isn’t it?

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 07 Apr 2020 #23
Thumb_avatar Manfred Kritzler Germany 111 posts in this forum Offline

I see it this way: Fragmentation destroys our life when we are not aware of it. In the moment we are choiceless aware of our fragmentary thinking we are beyond the thought process.

But I am not sure if this statement is in accordance with Krishnamurti.

And means to avoid fragmentation not also fragmentation?

This post was last updated by Manfred Kritzler Tue, 07 Apr 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 07 Apr 2020 #24
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3477 posts in this forum Offline

Manfred Kritzler wrote:
Fragmentation destroys our life when we are not aware of it.

Yes...this would definitely be one manifestation of the wrong turn.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 07 Apr 2020 #25
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3477 posts in this forum Offline

Manfred Kritzler wrote:
When consciousness means that there is wholeness and thought can always only make a part of wholeness conscious, the area beyond thought is still active, no matter what thought is telling us.

This part is not totally clear, Manfred. One can see that thought is only a part of wholeness, but this may only be an intellectual understanding. For the area beyond thought to be active fragmentation in consciousness would have to end, wouldn’t it?

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 07 Apr 2020 #26
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1856 posts in this forum Offline

Manfred Kritzler wrote:
But I am not sure if this statement is in accordance with Krishnamurti.

If not Manfred, you understand that there will have to be punishment.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Wed, 08 Apr 2020 #27
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5949 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote #19:
That was the message that K. brought, wasn't it, that "you are the world", but the brain has to realize the truth of that for itself. As I'm seeing it.

Gosh, I have always taken the statement "I am the world" as meaning I am the man-made world, I am society, I am human consciousness. But you are putting a much wider meaning on the statement, Dan, which is very interesting.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Wed, 08 Apr 2020 #28
Thumb_spock Douglas MacRae-Smith France 292 posts in this forum Offline

In any case the sense of division - the illusion of specialness which colours our relationships - though it may have been advantageous for the hunter/gatherer, is dangerous in our current status as potential destroyer of worlds.

Look, see, let go

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 08 Apr 2020 #29
Thumb_spock Douglas MacRae-Smith France 292 posts in this forum Offline

Manfred Kritzler wrote:
And means to avoid fragmentation not also fragmentation?

Desire and aversion, good and bad, up and down, me and you - are all part of the self illusion.

I fill the world with essence and meaning, and thus am confused by my own delusions.

Look, see, let go

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 08 Apr 2020 #30
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1856 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Gosh, I have always taken the statement "I am the world" as meaning I am the man-made world, I am society, I am human consciousness. But you are putting a much wider meaning on the statement, Dan, which is very interesting.

Yes, 'containing' all...all that is, was and ever will be. It means 'no division'.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 58 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.)