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

Denial of the opposites...the negative approach


Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 48 in total
Thu, 30 Apr 2020 #1
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3476 posts in this forum Offline

London, England | 7th Public Talk, 1962

“So the question is, how is this inward change, this total revolution to be brought about? If we make a deliberate, conscious effort to change, we engender conflict, struggle; and change that is born of conflict, struggle is productive only of further misery.
Now, is it possible to bring about a revolution in the psyche without conscious effort?”

“The totality of the mind's conditioning is the known, and that conditioning can be broken, but not through analysis. It can be broken only when it is approached negatively, and this negative is not the opposite of the positive. As love is not the opposite of hate, so this negative is not the opposite of the positive - the positive being examination, analysis, trying to change the existing pattern, or trying to conform to a different pattern. All this we consider to be positive; and the negative we are talking about is not the opposite of that. Nor is it a synthesis. A synthesis implies the coming together of the opposites, but this is productive of a further set of opposites. The negative we are talking about is a denial of the opposites altogether. When one denies totally the approach - which is part of our conditioning - that seeks to change the psyche through effort, through analysis, then one's approach is negative; and it is only in this state of-negation that the mind is innocent. Such a mind is really the religious mind.”

“The religious mind isn't the mind that believes, that goes to church every day, or once a week; it isn"t the mind that has a creed, that is bound by dogmas and superstitions. The religious mind is really a scientific mind - scientific in the sense that it is able to observe facts without distortion, to see itself as it is. To be free of one's conditioning requires, not a believing or an accepting mind, but a mind that is capable of observing itself rationally, sanely, and seeing the fact that unless there is a total breaking up of the psychological structure of society, which is the"me', there can be no innocency; and that without innocency the mind can never be religious.”

“The religious mind is not fragmentary, it does not divide life into compartments. It comprehends the totality of life - the life of sorrow and Win, the life of joy and passing satisfactions. Being totally free from the psychological structure of ambition, greed, envy, competition, from all demand for the `more', the religious mind is in a state of innocency; and it is only such a mind that can go beyond itself, not the mind that merely believes in a beyond, or that has some hypothesis about God.”

Later: “You cannot know the unknown. You can know only that which you have already experienced and are therefore able to recognize. The unknown is not recognizable; and for the coming into being of that immensity, the known must end. There must be freedom from the known. That's why one is constantly talking about the known - to break it down.” (made last sentence in bold for Idiot ?)

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Thu, 30 Apr 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 30 Apr 2020 #2
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3476 posts in this forum Offline

And finally on ‘silence’:

“You see, most of us have problems, inward and outward, and we are always seeking an answer. All outward, mechanical problems have an answer; but inward, psychological problems have no answer. They have to be understood; and a mind that is seeking an answer to a psychological problem is incapable of understanding the problem. If I have a psychological problem, say, in relationship, and I try to find an answer to that problem, then I am avoiding the problem, because my concern with finding an answer prevents me from looking at the fact of the problem itself. To understand the problem, I have to look at the fact without opinion, without demanding an answer.

Questioner: If time permits, may we sit quietly and experience together a few moments of complete silence?

Krishnamurti: You know, that is one of the most dangerous things to do. (laughter). You have been sitting here together for an hour, listening, and while listening you were supposed to have been silent. If you have not been silent during that hour, or even for a few minutes, in the act of listening, then sitting quietly together and trying to experience silence will only lead to various forms of illusion. Silence is difficult and arduous, it is not to be played with. It isn't something that you can experience by reading a book, or by listening to a talk, or by sitting together, or by retiring into a wood or a monastery. I am afraid none of those things will bring about this silence. This silence demands intense psychological work. You have to be burningly aware - aware of your speech, aware oF your snobbishness, aware of your fears, your anxieties, your sense of guilt. And when you die to all that, then out of that dying comes the beauty of silence.”

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Thu, 30 Apr 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 30 Apr 2020 #3
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 182 posts in this forum Offline

Krishnamurti quoted above:
There must be freedom from the known. That's why one is constantly talking about the known - to break it down.

Sure. You must be aware of yourself functioning from the known, responding with thought, with conditioning, with attachment to your likes and dislikes. But the point is freedom from them, not living them forever. When you see again and again this domination of the known, then there is stopping, pausing. And actually, even the seeing of the known in action, the awareness of the reaction of the past of thought, is already a stopping, a moment of freedom.

You and I can talk about freedom from the known because that is the whole point. We don't have to restrict ourselves to the known: "I cannot talk about what I don't know first hand." Well, you will never know the unknown. It cannot be known. But there can be freedom from the known and then the unknown is.

Krishnamurti quoted above:
You know, that is one of the most dangerous things to do.

He really didn't want organized silent sitting by a group. Why? My understanding is that he realized that it can be a coercive activity. That you can feel obliged to sit through the whole period. You can feel pushed into a forced or willful activity. And the kind of silence he was talking about was quite different from that. It was completely free of any authority, leader, control, forcing, will.

That doesn't mean that exploring this on your own wasn't of the utmost importance, involving "intense psychological work. You have to be burningly aware."

My own feeling is that it can be nice to eat a meal by yourself and it can be nice to eat with others. You can sit quietly by yourself and you can sit with others. And one of the things you can be aware of is if there is any feeling of coercion, authority, will. Often a sitting group will have some kind of ritual. But other groups are quite free of ritual. Sometimes people may just bow with palms together.

In India, K bowed with his palms together to people. Why? It is a ritual, a tradition, things he spoke out against. But it is also simple, kind respectfulness to each other. He gathered with people and spoke, where he predominated. Why? Didn't that make him an authority? But it also gave people a chance to hear him, to go into issues with him.

So in any group situation, there can be issues. K wanted to keep meditation well away from any possibility of group issues. But he encourages you to investigate, first with self knowledge, and then any silence which may arise with continued awareness.

This post was last updated by idiot ? Thu, 30 Apr 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 01 May 2020 #4
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 892 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
Sure. You must be aware of yourself functioning from the known, responding with thought, with conditioning, with attachment to your likes and dislikes. But the point is freedom from them, not living them forever.

But to “be aware of yourself functioning in the known” is NOT “responding with thought”. It is not “me-thought” being AWARE. It is awareness functioning. And out of that awareness, a response can come from thought without psychological fragmentation. Such a "thoughtful" response is rooted in awareness and insight. So it does not have the same quality as the response of thought which is rooted in thought itself and is therefore isolated from the wholeness of the mind. Wholeness of the mind includes awareness, love, compassion, beauty, sensation, thought, and so on. The thought which functions in isolation from the whole mind is what causes mischief in relationship. Thought which functions in isolation from the whole is “me”, which cannot be free. Freedom is freedom from fear, compulsion, the authority of tradition - all of which are rooted in the conditioning which produces the "me", the isolation of thought from the whole.

idiot ? wrote:
When you see again and again this domination of the known, then there is stopping, pausing. And actually, even the seeing of the known in action, the awareness of the reaction of the past of thought, is already a stopping, a moment of freedom.

To see the known in action is to see psychological fragmentation and the domination of the known. "You" cannot see thought in action or the domination of the known by deliberately pausing. There is not first "pausing" and then "seeing", or vice-versa.

idiot ? wrote:
You and I can talk about freedom from the known because that is the whole point. We don't have to restrict ourselves to the known: "I cannot talk about what I don't know first hand." Well, you will never know the unknown. It cannot be known. But there can be freedom from the known and then the unknown is.

To be free from the known, we have to look at the whole of life. We have to be aware of the known and we also have to be aware of fleeting movements that are NOT of the known. We have to look at the spontaneous intervals, the spontaneous movements of love, beauty and compassion. Aren't there such intervals?

Obviously, the unknown cannot be known but it is understood that there IS the unknown. Even the isolated “me” understands that there is the unknown but it is dismissive of the unknown. The known thinks that the known is what really matters, that what "I think" and "what I know" is what really matters --- that my ideas, conclusions, beliefs, and so on, are what really matter.

And beyond the unknown-which-can-become-known, there is the unknowable. The known can think that it knows the unknowable. It names it God and then thinks it knows God, it knows Truth or whatever other words there are for the unknowable. But can there be freedom from the known as long as the field of ideas, conclusions, beliefs, and so on, are given this primacy? Can there be freedom from the known as long as there is fear?

idiot ? wrote:
Krishnamurti quoted above:
You know, that is one of the most dangerous things to do.

He really didn't want organized silent sitting by a group. Why? My understanding is that he realized that it can be a coercive activity. That you can feel obliged to sit through the whole period. You can feel pushed into a forced or willful activity.

It is one of the most dangerous things to do because, as K says in this passage:

[it] will only lead to various forms of illusion ..... It isn't something that you can experience by reading a book, or by listening to a talk.

The questioner - who has supposedly been LISTENING to K - has asked if they can sit quietly and experience silence together. But there is no listening without inner silence, so what is being sought by the questioner?

This post was last updated by Huguette . Fri, 01 May 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 01 May 2020 #5
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 182 posts in this forum Offline

I am pretty much in agreement with your post, Huguette ., until the end where you say why K says that sitting silently in a group is "one of the most dangerous things to do."

The questioner, who asks about sitting in silence together, is not talking about reading a book or listening to a talk. He or she may have read a book. They just listened to a talk. He or she says: Let's explore this directly right now.

The questioner doesn't want an image or idea about silence, from K's talk or from anywhere else. That is illusion. The questioner wants to look directly. That is exactly what K encourages. K's "danger" warning must be due to the group situation.

And it is quite ironic. K is all for going into questions "together." He's all for discussing freedom from the known. But when it comes down to actually doing it, it cannot be done together but only on your own.

This post was last updated by idiot ? Fri, 01 May 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 01 May 2020 #6
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 182 posts in this forum Offline

To go further:

Here I thought dangerous activities were things like pointing a loaded gun at someone, jumping out of an airplane without a parachute, driving at high speeds through crowded areas. Silly me. The real danger is sitting with a group of people and no one talking.

It's no wonder the audience laughs when K says this.

Clearly the danger is psychological and not physical. So how is it dangerous?

K doesn't want investigation into silence organized. And doing it in a group, even without any instruction whatsoever, is a kind of organization. What's wrong with organizing? It freezes spontaneous discovery into ritual and tradition. It takes the alive and kills it. It turns beyond thought into something with pre-planning, which is thought.

Listening to someone talk, even Krishnamurti, is not the same as silence. The talker is conveying ideas. Yes, they may point beyond ideas. But to listen to them is still to take ideas into the brain. It's not the same as when there are no ideas.

This post was last updated by idiot ? Fri, 01 May 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 01 May 2020 #7
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 892 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine quoting K wrote at #2:
Questioner: If time permits, may we sit quietly and experience together a few moments of complete silence?


idiot ? wrote at #5:
The questioner doesn't want an image or idea about silence, from K's talk or from anywhere else. That is illusion. The questioner wants to look directly. That is exactly what K encourages. K's "danger" warning must be due to the group situation.

Why can’t the questioner sit by himself (or herself) and “experience complete silence”? Does he or she need K in order to experience silence? Why does he need K to sit with him in silence, or why doesn’t he? Doesn’t the questioner’s very request indicate that he has expectations of what experiencing silence together with K will result in? For example, it may be the expectation that the quality of silence in K’s presence is deeper or more meaningful than the silence which is experienced alone. What can K’s presence “do”? Isn’t all this the stuff that illusion is made of?

He doesn’t want an image or idea about silence, but he does want silence. Why does he want silence? Isn't it because he already HAS an image or idea about silence? And doesn't illusion lie in that image or idea?

idiot ? wrote at #6:
Here I thought dangerous activities were things like pointing a loaded gun at someone, jumping out of an airplane without a parachute, driving at high speeds through crowded areas. Silly me. The real danger is sitting with a group of people and no one talking.

What is the root of someone pointing a loaded gun, driving at high speeds, etc.? Isn’t it the psychological fragmentation of thought into the desirer and the desire, into the sufferer and his suffering, and so on? Isn’t making the effort, taking the steps or action which will end his suffering also part of the root? The thinker wants silence because he’s unhappy and, from what he’s gathered, he thinks that silence - or controlling others, adrenaline thrills, suicide, violence, etc. - can end his suffering. But the thinker cannot “achieve” silence through effort, whatever form the effort takes.

idiot ? wrote:
It's no wonder the audience laughs when K says this.

Does it? Does it matter?

This post was last updated by Huguette . Fri, 01 May 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 02 May 2020 #8
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3476 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette: But the thinker cannot “achieve” silence through effort, whatever form the effort takes.

K. “The practice of awareness only leads to habit, and habit is destructive of all sensitivity.” From The Dignity of Living collection

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 02 May 2020 #9
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 182 posts in this forum Offline

So what I hear both of you saying, Huguette and Tom Paine, is that any intention, no matter how slight, will take you away from silence. Currently the silent mind is not, and any movement whatsoever toward a silent mind, any attempt to look into the matter is fraught. Therefore, you can only remain with a busy mind forever. Therefore, when K said no one gets it, it was not only true but no one can get it. Therefore, his decades of talking were a complete waste and our interest in what he said is a complete waste.

I do NOT accept this and never will. Yes, effort and intention can strengthen the self. But there can also be discovery of the silent, open hearted mind. In fact, the violence and conflict in the world demand it. And really, it so simple: the silent mind is right there now.

The fact that the two of you are here and are honestly looking into these matters tells me that in some way you must align more with the second paragraph above than the first. But what you are saying seems more aligned with the first.

This post was last updated by idiot ? Sat, 02 May 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 02 May 2020 #10
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3476 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
Currently the silent mind is not, and any movement whatsoever toward a silent mind, any attempt to look into the matter is fraught.

It's based upon the image of silence which is noise.

Therefore, you can only remain with a busy mind forever.

That's an inference. Observe...be attentive to what is...be it fear or loneliness or whatever. Don't project an idea of silence which is meaningless...a fantasy. It's the labeling of what is that prevents looking and learning, right?

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 02 May 2020 #11
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3476 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
I do NOT accept this and never will. Yes, effort and intention can strengthen the self. But there can also be discovery of the silent, open hearted mind. In fact, the violence and conflict in the world demand it.

We want to understand violence yes. Projecting the idea of a silent mind or striving for it is division from what actually is...the violence or conflict that we live with.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 02 May 2020 #12
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 182 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Observe...be attentive to what is.

That is an intention. It is not choiceless.

Tom Paine wrote:
be it fear or loneliness

You see only fear, loneliness, and such when you look? That is what is? You don't see the aliveness of this moment, the energy? To say such things is only a fantasy? Maybe for you, but not for me.

Tom Paine wrote:
We want to understand violence yes. Projecting the idea of a silent mind or striving for it is division from what actually is...the violence or conflict that we live with.

No. We are way too comfy with the violence, the hurt. Way too insensitive. We are the violence. It demands change. It demands ending. That is not a fantasy. The illusion is to just look at it, sigh, and say, "Well, all I can do is look at it." And so misery goes on.

This post was last updated by idiot ? Sat, 02 May 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 02 May 2020 #13
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3476 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
Tom Paine wrote:

be it fear or loneliness

You see only fear, loneliness, and such when you look?

ONLY? Whatever is the fact is what I see. If there's no conflict or fear then I have no need to look or investigate, right? I'm just living.

That is what is? You don't see the aliveness of this moment, the energy? To say such things is only a fantasy? Maybe for you, but not for me.

I'm speaking about at THIS very moment. If you see and feel aliveness right now, then you have no need to look into conflict, obviously. Why is this so difficult to understand?

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 02 May 2020 #14
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3476 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
It demands ending.

How can you end it if it's present now? That's the question I'm asking. You must understand it, or it will never end. It won't end by moving away from it will it?

That is not a fantasy. The illusion is to just look at it, sigh, and say, "Well, all I can do is look at it."

Anything but what is is a fantasy...illusion.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Sat, 02 May 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 02 May 2020 #15
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 892 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote at #9:
So what I hear both of you saying, Huguette and Tom Paine, is that any intention, no matter how slight, will take you away from silence. Currently the silent mind is not, and any movement whatsoever toward a silent mind, any attempt to look into the matter is fraught. Therefore, you can only remain with a busy mind forever.

What IS the “movement toward a silent mind? What does it mean? “What” is it that is “looking into” the mind, into the movements of the mind, into intention, into silence?

“The noisy mind is not”, you say. Then can the noisy mind - being noisy - “move toward” a silent mind? What IS that movement? Can the movements of the noisy mind be going “toward” a silent mind? Can the intention and efforts of a noisy mind “lead” to silence? Can the noisy mind make itself BE silent? Can the noisy mind do anything other than observe its own noise? There is no intention in that. The noisy mind can’t help but observe its own noise, just as the eyes can’t help but see, the ears can’t help but hear, the skin can’t help but feel cold or heat, and so on. The noise consists of fear, anger, jealousy, desire, ambition, and so on. The noisy mind is not in a condition of coma, hibernation or stupor. So there is observation, without intention - superficial observation. That observation can deepen where there is the interest in understanding the workings of the mind; where there is the beginning of questioning what is taking place; where there is the discarding of authority, tradition, propaganda. No? The deepening of observation also cannot come about through effort.

Aren’t there different kinds of “looking into”? If I complain to a company about being billed for a service which I didn’t order or get, they “look into” it (perhaps), go through my file and their records. That is one kind of questioning, one kind of looking into, one kind of answer or understanding that is being sought.

But if I look into the movements of the mind, that’s another sort of questioning altogether which, by its nature, demands another sort of looking into, and another sort of “answer”. There is no clerical error involved here, there are no records or files to be examined, and there can be no testable answer provable in a court of law.

idiot ? wrote:
I do NOT accept this and never will.

OK :o)

idiot ? wrote:
Yes, effort and intention can strengthen the self. But there can also be discovery of the silent, open hearted mind. In fact, the violence and conflict in the world demand it.

Do effort and intention lead to inner “discovery”? Can love be discovered through effort and intention? I’m not saying that love and discovery are one and the same thing. I’m saying that neither one can be found through effort and intention. Don’t discovery, understanding, silence, love, beauty, come about when they are unsought and unexpected?

Yes, the situation is dire. I agree that violence and conflict in the world demand action. But I don’t agree that effort and intention can lead to right action. I could be wrong.

idiot ? wrote:
And really, it so simple: the silent mind is right there now.

What do you mean?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 02 May 2020 #16
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3476 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
No. We are way too comfy with the violence, the hurt. Way too insensitive. We are the violence. It demands change. It demands ending.

From the OP at the top again. K is not talking about silence here, but innocence and the freedom to look, right? Which is denied by thought/memory/ideas/speculation/fantasy/conclusions/beliefs and ideals.

"The negative we are talking about is a denial of the opposites altogether. When one denies totally the approach - which is part of our conditioning - that seeks to change the psyche through effort, through analysis, then one's approach is negative; and it is only in this state of-negation that the mind is innocent. Such a mind is really the religious mind.”

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 02 May 2020 #17
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3476 posts in this forum Offline

A 'tremendous inquiry...'

https://youtu.be/_3FnVT_bOKY

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 02 May 2020 #18
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3476 posts in this forum Offline

"Without self knowing, man is caught everlastingly in confusion and misery" ...from the video. That pretty much sums it up, right?

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 02 May 2020 #19
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5949 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
The illusion is to just look at it, sigh, and say, "Well, all I can do is look at it." And so misery goes on.

But that is not looking, is it? That is a reaction to the thing. And it is an assumption.

Real loking is choiceless, isn't it? There is no reaction, no judgement in simple looking. And yet in the looking, that observation, there is real, fundamental action, change. Scientists now accept this with matter, it is an established part of Quantum Theory.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 03 May 2020 #20
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 182 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
And yet in the looking, that observation, there is real, fundamental action, change.

That's what I'm saying, too. I'm saying that if you're just looking at your fear, loneliness and they continue on and on, then that's not really what K points to. He says that the seeing is change. Observing with insight is freedom and transformation, without any time factor at all.

Of course, he also warns about images, ideals, and ideas, that these are illusory. And he talks about staying with, not escaping. But the point is not to just dwell on your misery forever, to go on forever spreading it around the world with violence.

Yet here in this forum there is sometimes a "don't go there" attitude about the freedom and transformation that K talks about.

This post was last updated by idiot ? Sun, 03 May 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 03 May 2020 #21
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 182 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
And really, it so simple: the silent mind is right there now.

-

Huguette . wrote:
What do you mean?

I mean that the silent mind is the natural mind, the automatic, ordinary mind.

What almost all of us do is mess up the natural, stomp all over it with worry, desires, aversions, endless concerns for what is really insignificant, righteous indignation, hurts, opinions, beliefs, feelings of us against them, and god knows what else. But all that mess, that disorder and division, is actually unnatural.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 03 May 2020 #22
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 182 posts in this forum Offline

Krishnamurti Foundation of America is having the second day of their annual gathering today online. The theme is: Can The Mind Be Silent? So people may want to check that out at kfa.org. They have an annual gathering every year around K's birthday, May 11. (There are others who say that K's birthday was May 12.) Anyway, if you want to join in the fun, it's happening now.

This post was last updated by idiot ? Sun, 03 May 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 03 May 2020 #23
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3476 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
idiot ? wrote:

And really, it so simple: the silent mind is right there now.

-

Huguette . wrote:

What do you mean?

Id: I mean that the silent mind is the natural mind, the automatic, ordinary mind.

Why is it 'automatic', Id? I've been around young kids a lot and their minds are not normally silent. Perhaps very young infants, but after they learn to talk theyre far from silent. Do you mean that it's automatic or ordinary to be in a state of meditation? of oneness or non division? Silence IS that, isn't it? I'm not sure why you say it's right there now. Right where? under the noise? That's a supposition.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 03 May 2020 #24
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 182 posts in this forum Offline

It's natural because it is. It's not a result of any forcing.

Why do we think it is not natural? Why do we think it is something extremely special? Do we think that God sends down a magic beam and says, "Bless this son of mine and only him?" Now that is illusion.

Let's say there's someone named Joe. Joe reads or hears K and finds out the silent mind is important. Joe looks at his mind and it doesn't seem silent at all. Lots of thought going on. Joe looks at others and they seemed preoccupied with thought, too. Joe reads more K and finds that any movement toward a silent mind is movement toward an image of the silent mind. So Joe just looks at his mind, watches it. He notices some anger and it drops. He notices some nationalism and it drops. Then he loses interest and doesn't pay much attention to his mind. Then he remembers and notices in relationship he's treating someone poorly. It drops. Then he forgets and finds himself harming someone in relationship again. He seems to keep causing mischief. How can this change? Joe realizes he is violence. K says there is a silent mind but Joe doesn't really know for himself what that means. Maybe once in a while he forgets himself watching a bird or a tree. But mostly it's thought, thought, thought. What can be done? Is the world doomed? So far it has been. We've created this world of conflict and violence. Maybe we make it a little nicer here and there. But by and large the mess goes on. Joe kind of knows he is this world, this mess. K seems to make sense. But this silent mind seems impossible.

Now what I say is, "Joe, this isn't something you can think your way out of. And paying attention once in a while won't really cut it either, will it? K has a lot to say and maybe that might be helpful. But it actually comes down to you. Authority, even that of K, is questionable. You have to look into it. I don't see why you would, unless you really felt an urgency, unless you felt the suffering acutely. It may be messy at first. You may have to experiment with will even though you know it is a division of intention against resistance. You might have to do more than just conceptually know that. You might have to play with it, live it. But you already intend to do various things. You already choose various things. So you can play with that, too. You may really want to take some time and just sit down and watch, just listen, just open to what is happening. That may be extremely important. Does it take will, choice, or intention to initiate that? Is there motive in it, personal gain? You can explore and find out. It may be messy and not perfect. But if you're numb, if you're dull with respect to the crisis of suffering, why would you look into this? Why would you change? Why would there be any change in the world?"

You and I are responsible for this world. What are we going to do? Can the silent mind naturally be? Or do we just keep fighting, harming, suffering?

This post was last updated by idiot ? Sun, 03 May 2020.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Sun, 03 May 2020 #25
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3476 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
It's natural because it is.

OK??? thats your answer to my questions? I mean if you say silence is natural, why isn't noise natural.? Noise is what is too, right? It's natural for young kids. I raised a beautiful little girl. She was far from silent. But as an infant she would sometimes be just looking...touching...etc.I'll tell a story one time about sharing looking/observing silently with her when she was a year and a half old.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 03 May 2020 #26
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 182 posts in this forum Offline

What matters? What anyone says about the silent mind? Or what you directly discover for yourself?

But it is natural. It's there in nature. It's there very simple like the breeze.

You're right. What I say doesn't matter. But it really is important to find out for yourself about this "silent mind" thing, isn't it? Because, otherwise, the busy mind keeps banging up against reality.

This post was last updated by idiot ? Sun, 03 May 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 03 May 2020 #27
Thumb_leaping_fire_frog_by_sirenofchaos natarajan shivan India 99 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
I don't see why you would, unless you really felt an urgency, unless you felt the suffering acutely.

I think this is an important point, suffering needs be felt first hand to the extend of realizing that one has absolutely nowhere to turn to. This as I see, releases the latent energy (which has so far been dissipated), to come to a state of silence which can totally observe what's ongoing, to be really aware without any contradiction or a splitting off in observation. Silence is therefore paradoxically both natural and also not so until the insight flowering from suffering is materialized. Without suffering acutely, we don't normally see much past the actions and choices we consciously or subconsciously make, and which in itself is the very characteristic of a noisy mind.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 03 May 2020 #28
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3476 posts in this forum Offline

natarajan shivan wrote:
idiot ? wrote:

I don't see why you would, unless you really felt an urgency, unless you felt the suffering acutely.

I think this is an important point, suffering needs be felt first hand to the extend of realizing that one has absolutely nowhere to turn to. This as I see, releases the latent energy (which has so far been dissipated), to come to a state of silence which can totally observe what's ongoing,

Yes...that's been my experience. So without that acute suffering with no escape one would just continue on with the status quo...the movies, music, sports, etc. I definitely wouldn't say silence is natural or ordinary or 'automatic', whatever that means. Desire is automatic. Watch a little child.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 03 May 2020 #29
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 182 posts in this forum Offline

There is a difference between common and natural. To live unnaturally is sadly widespread.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 03 May 2020 #30
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3476 posts in this forum Offline

Is suffering needed to face the necessity to change?
“Suffering is NOT necessary. It’s the most destructive element in life.” From the video.

https://youtu.be/FqILkOZmpaE

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Sun, 03 May 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 48 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.)