Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
Discussion Forums

Manfred Kritzler's Forum Activity | 68 posts in 3 forums


Forum: General Discussion Sun, 24 Feb 2013
Topic: Person-Centered World Peace

Dear Ruth,

I agree totally what you wrote and I was really touched by your message. And although my English is not so good I will try to give you an answer in simple words.

I think peace starts in ourselves. We have to look inside and see what conflicts are going on. There is no other place to go to, no method, no outside organisation, no teacher. Trying to change things from outside is only increasing the existing conflict or create new ones.

That means war starts early in our lifes, when we are educated to be stronger than others, to know more than others etc. I think we are not educated to be good, we are educated to be better than others, which is a total different thing. The problem I see is that war starts also when we are educated not to do it, to suppress it. We are conditioned for generations. If we try to go against this conditioning we have no chance to win.

For me a way out of this problem is to give the younger generation any possible support to look inside and be aware what is going on without any intention to change it and also be aware when the mind is unaware again, without changing it. That is for me what Krishnamurti called choiceless awareness.

And from my own experience with this, whatever pattern is inside of us it will more and more lose it strength. But the biggest challenge for me was and still is not to do anything, when the mind is drifting away in unawareness again. Manfred

Forum: General Discussion Sun, 24 Feb 2013
Topic: Person-Centered World Peace

I did not know that Rogers was in contact with Bohm. That is very interesting for me, because the real change in my life started with Rogers,Krishnamurti and Bohm.

So can you tell me if there is anything published about the meetings or actions of Rogers and Bohm.

Thank you very much and have a beautiful morning. Manfred

Forum: General Discussion Sun, 24 Feb 2013
Topic: It's the FEELING

Ruth Bass wrote:

Paradoxes propel, incinerate thought, then free up the brain.

That is very interesting. I never saw it this way, although I recognized that paradoxes are a necessary and unavoidable part of language.

Language is based on thought, thought is based on a model and a model is (by definition) always smaller than the whole context. So on our way of deeper and deeper understanding at a certain point a paradox must show up.

If we do not recognize this, we have a tendency to understand what other people say or write by its wording. And I think that can lead to an endless discussion. We try to express ourselves correctly and think at any point in the future we will understand also Krishnamurti in a correct way.

I think there is no way to understand someone a hundert percent in a logical way, because each human being is always talking and acting out of a different context. But clearly also the validity of this statement is limited.

This does not mean communication does not work or we are not able to experience oneness. But I think we can not reach it if we try to do it by exchanging only our limited ways of thinking. The end of this exchange must be a paradox. But there is also a chance to get an insight beyond this (logical) paradox, provided we allow it to come to our mind.

And what I have learned today: Paradoxes might even be a good assistant to go beyond thought, because they can show us its limitation.

Forum: A Quiet Space Wed, 26 Jun 2019
Topic: Theory of Life (2014)

Clive: Is there such a thing as "the life force"? Or is there only the laws of physics/chemistry/biology being played out, for some inexplicable reason?

Manfred:What you are asking here is the question I asked myself for many years. My preliminary result at the moment is that there is only one life force or as I would call it one life source. This view as uncommon it might be can to my understanding be reached by pure logic.

The reason we usually do not see it this way is that science does not start at the base of life which is oneness (or unity, implicate order etc), but on a secondary level wich is separation. This is not because science is wrong. It is because there is no other way using causal logic. For causal logic we need separation, for instance cause and effect. But oneness has no separation. If this is correct it means whatever statement we make it could never be life itself. Life itself must necessarily be always bigger.

The paradox is that any view we have and any statement we make is included in life itself.

The key point is to be aware of the limitation of thinking, feeling and of our senses.

This is theoretically very easy explained, when we start with unity. There is unity and we as human beings make differentiations, being aware that whatever we see as different is part of something bigger we have no access to. So also our view is included in unity. But it is not the truth. The truth is by definition unknown or in Krishnamurti term a pathless land.

Its very difficult to express what I really mean and its completely open to questioning.

Forum: A Quiet Space Wed, 26 Jun 2019
Topic: Theory of Life (2014)

Dan:It has the ability to 'resonate' to the 'higher' but has become entrapped almost exclusively in the 'lower'

Manfred: Yes. Expressed from the view of separation as base of our life we block the “higher” by using only thought as the “lower”. We think the „higher“ is pure speculation.

Expressed from the assumption of unity as base of our life there remains only the question if we are aware of something or not. To be aware of our thoughts as a limited “lower” means being opened to the “higher” as far as this awareness is thoughtless or choiceless. There is no way to the „higher“. There is only that what is, and that is recognized as a limited lower; even when we are not aware of it.

In short form: To be aware of the lower is living the higher. Correct?

My question is: Why is it so difficult to live a life in the “higher“? Out of my own experience I suppose that as more as I live the higher as more my ego is threatened.

Forum: A Quiet Space Thu, 27 Jun 2019
Topic: Theory of Life (2014)

Dan: I think I see why K. often objected to this word "difficult" when describing all this. I think it is, myself. But 'difficult' implies, doesn't it, some task to be done, some effort to be made, something to be overcome, etc...and from the way we're looking at this in terms of higher /lower, finer/coarser...any 'difficulty' felt at all means the 'lower' is attempting (making an effort) to change 'what is' in order to get to the 'higher' and not seeing the futility in that reaction.

————— Manfred: The reason that we think an effort is necessary to get to the “higher” is rooted deeply in our way of thinking. This thinking in the Western world is based on “either/or”. It is either this or that but never this and that. But life as a whole is this and that at the same moment and therefore unknown.

Whenwe start our journey to understand life we could ask what belongs together as a unity? Let’s assume everything belongs to a unity what is necessary for its surviving. For my finger it could be the following: Finger, hand, arm, body,earth,gravity, universe. If you take one part out my finger will not be able to live anymore. It doesn’t matter if you take out the finger, the earth or the whole universe. So the universe is necessary for the surviving of my finger. My finger and the universe is one unity which means living in inseparable wholeness.

So we see that on the base of our life is inseparable wholeness, which we have no possibility to understand. Therefore it should be clear that the real ground of life is unknown.

That means everything known is limited. Staying in our thought-system we can only jump from one limitation to another one. Observing our thoughts without intention to change is different. It is an inclusion of thought in the whole. The “lower” is integrated in the “higher”. Change is happening without creating a new opposite. The psychological thought will diminish, because it has no reference outside of us. The material thought, which is necessary for our survival, will stay whenever we are in contact with matter in our daily life.

Accepting the unknown “higher” as life source including the knowable “lower”, will change our behavior. We look at the knowable, but see it as something which has to be questioned any time.

I am aware that these statements are a try to explain, that there is an unknowable “higher” with the instrument of the knowable “lower”. But I see no other way to do it here in the internet.

Forum: A Quiet Space Thu, 27 Jun 2019
Topic: Theory of Life (2014)

Maybe this video featuring Augusto Shantena Sabbadini could be helpful for understanding. For me he explains in a very understandable way that the named and the unnamed which is for me the same as the lower and the higher or the known and the unknown arise together:

https://images.app.goo.gl/HYPMhh2wJTAKSKLx6

The last two minutes of the video are for me in this connection the most interesting one.

Forum: A Quiet Space Sun, 30 Jun 2019
Topic: Theory of Life (2014)

Clive:....but out of scientific interest, can you explain the step from "Earth" to Universe. If everything in the Universe outside of our solar system suddenly disappeared, in what way would that effect your finger? Speaking scientifically I think the gravitational perturbation would be quite small. I am not aware that starlight plays a great part in life on Earth - I could be wrong. ——— Manfred: No I have no idea. I used the word universe instead of all, everything, implicate order, unity, the whole, not knowing or God. All words for something we cannot really express in words. Maybe it was not the best idea. What I wanted to convey is that we don’t know and there is a big chance we never will in a causal logical way anything about our existence.

There is an interesting development in autonomous car driving. If I understood it correctly the computer installed next to the driver is not programmed any more in a logarithmic way. What he is doing is to make a decision how to act or react in certain situations. If the driver does not make the same decision he corrects his program. When he does it a million times or more it seems to me that this is a copying of human behavior. Maybe that means there is a new approach to understand life, even when I see it as a dangerous one. The computer learns without our knowledge, so we probably cannot find out how, to imitate the behavior of human beings. Maybe he is better than any single human being existing and not controllable anymore.

Forum: A Quiet Space Sun, 30 Jun 2019
Topic: Theory of Life (2014)

Clive: When you say that we have no possibility to understand that the base of our life is inseparable wholeness, I presume you mean thought cannot understand? What meaning are you putting on the word "understand", in fact? In a way your post represents a sort of understanding, does it not?

———— Manfred: Yes it does. I have fallen again in the “understand-trap“. In German „verstehen“ (understand) means something which we have understood could be explained to others. In English it seems to me that the word “understand” is much more open. Is it correct that „understand“ could be something which is subjectively received and understood but could not explained in a causal logical way?

Forum: A Quiet Space Tue, 02 Jul 2019
Topic: Theory of Life (2014)

Clive: „Understand" must be one of the most commonly used words by K, if not the MOST common. As we know, through his 60 years of speaking, he has emphasised the necessity of understanding oneself, understanding thought, feeling, desire, fear ..... and so on. But what does it mean, to understand? One thing I feel fairly confident about is that it does not mean to draw a conclusion about something. Conclusions invariable come into conflict with other conclusions, and the result is confusion. So it seems that we can reject the past as a source of understanding. Whatever it is, it cannot be accumulated.

Manfred: To understand what „understand“ means is really difficult. In addition to that Krishnamurti changed very often the meaning of words in his own interpretation (for instance meditation).

So it seems only possible for me to talk about my subjective interpretation, which has no claim that this is in any form obligatory for any one else.

To “understand” in the sense of the German word “verstehen” means for me something which can be grasped or is limited to something else.

To “understand” in the way I think it is used by Krishnamurti is different. It also encompasses what we experience beyond the limitations of thought. In a short provocative form: To understand is not to understand. Like the observer is the observed. Both is causal-logical a paradox.

Or in a more comprehensible way: Understanding means that life as a inseparable whole is always active, but can only be grasped in a limited way. The limited grasping is also included in the inseparable whole.

The understanding is here, that there is not a whole and a part, but that whole and part are present at the same time, but only the part can be recognized.

Understanding in this interpretation cannot be expressed correctly, because any expression has to use parts (the word is not the thing).

The whole cannot be recognized. It is an assumption. But seeing its parts, constructed by the human mind, without changing it (the seeing is the doing) might be „understanding“ in the „best“ way. In this way there is no understander. It is for me the same as choiceless awareness.

For me, understanding means here to be one with the whole it doesn’t matter what I am aware of as long as I am aware. And also this awareness cannot be forced through any will, intention or action. It comes and goes without being pushed.

Forum: A Quiet Space Wed, 03 Jul 2019
Topic: Theory of Life (2014)

Peter: What then is awareness? And what it that is aware? And also what is the I that you refer to in the quote above?

Manfred: Between awareness, what is aware and what we are aware of is no difference anymore. In the widened meaning of understanding they are one. The „I“ is for me a differentiation of the whole like the finger is a differentiation of the hand and the hand of the body. But it is not separate, because it cannot survive separately.

Forum: A Quiet Space Wed, 03 Jul 2019
Topic: Theory of Life (2014)

Clive: Yes, I have been puzzling over the separation implied by statements like "I have understood". How can there be understanding if there remains an entity apart from the understanding? I think you have put it perfectly, Manfred.

And "oneness with the whole" explains the joy that comes with pure understanding.

————- I think that the problem is that usually understanding excludes the understander. In thinking we do not start with the first level of unity, which includes the thinker. We start with the second level which is the world of the „ten thousand“ things, created by the thinker. So we try to bring together something which is already united. We do it with science, religion, myth, esoteric etc., starting from the complicated (variation) going to the simple (unity).

When we turn it around starting from the first (simple) level, unity is always active, no matter what we think or do. The unknown, the pathless land, the implicate order is always with us. We are unlimited beings (we are the world), although our ability to recognize is limited.

Only when we live in the limitations of our „thought-jail“ and never experience the „first level“, we are living a very restricted life.

To be aware of this restrictions means for me to be aware of the known. To be aware of the known without changing it is to trust in the unknown. The known and the unknown belong together. In Bohm terms the explicate order is embedded in the implicate order. His model, in which the explicate falls back in the implicate and emanates again in the explicate is a very descriptive way, of making understandable what is going on without using a change from A to B. In a certain way it is a timeless state, because falling back in the implicate and emanating in the explicate does for me not mean time. It happens as one undivided process. Only to explain it needs a differentiation.

And yes, most importantly the joy that comes with this kind of understanding is incredible. But to let it emanate was and still is a big challenge for me. Especially because the necessary acceptance of falling back in the old patterns is difficult, knowing that the new understanding is so joyful. To get something without wanting it is still a “big deal” for me.

Forum: A Quiet Space Wed, 03 Jul 2019
Topic: Theory of Life (2014)

Hi Clive, here again the link to Augusto Shantena Sabbadini. I met him several times in the “pari center for new learning” in Pari/Italy.For me his explanation as unspectacular it is as clear it seems to me. Hopefully this time it will work:

https://youtu.be/-dKaok_CV7s

Forum: A Quiet Space Thu, 04 Jul 2019
Topic: Theory of Life (2014)

Hi Clive, coming back to David Bohm later, here is the credo of Albert Einstein:

My Credo, by Albert Einstein “The most beautiful and deepest experience a man can have is the sense of the mysterious. It is the underlying principle of religion as well as of all serious endeavour in art and science. He who never had this experience seems to me, if not dead, then at least blind. To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is a something that our minds cannot grasp, whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly: this is religiousness. In this sense I am religious. To me it suffices to wonder at these secrets and to attempt humbly to grasp with my mind a mere image of the lofty structure of all there is.”

He is also saying that beyond our knowable world is something non graspable. It is the same with Heisenberg, Nils Bohr, Pauli and some other quantum physicists.

Forum: A Quiet Space Thu, 04 Jul 2019
Topic: Theory of Life (2014)

David Bohm was and is for me the unique person who was able to express the whole or unity in a way as close as possible to science. I’ve read „thought as a system“ over the years I think ten to fifteen times. And I always found something new. I have the habit to write notes in books. The first exemplar of “thought as a system” was so fully written with notes that I had to buy a new one.

Thought as a system is available in an e-book version. I have it down loaded to kindle.

I think I also have read some years ago nearly all books from David Bohm, except the technical ones. I also have attended some workshop in the „Pari center for new learning“ ( www.paricenter.com ) and will be there again at the end of August. There is a new movie about David Bohm on the way ( https://thebohmdocumentary.org/the-movie/#promo ).

Nevertheless Bohm, Krishnamurti or any other “teacher” are for me no one to follow. They are rather a starting point for experiencing in my usual life. I think it is more important to experience life as a whole (or sometimes separately) than staying with theories or abstractions of any kind.

Forum: A Quiet Space Sun, 14 Jul 2019
Topic: All one inquiry

I think the question could be: Is the seeing of the division that thought creates in choiceless awareness the end of the division and does this include the seeing when we live not in choiceless awareness?

Forum: A Quiet Space Sun, 14 Jul 2019
Topic: All one inquiry

Dan: But the 'names' were just placed on things to differentiate them but is there any significant difference at all or just parts of a whole? ————- The question for me is, do we start with the named as base of life or is the base the whole and the parts are created or man-made on a secondary level.

When we start with the named we have to put the parts together to get a whole.

When we start with the whole the whole exists as basis no matter what part of it we recognize or create. Whatever it is, it is something created by us as human beings. Although we can only see the parts the whole is always there. In a certain way the parts are parts and wholeness at the same moment.

Forum: A Quiet Space Sun, 14 Jul 2019
Topic: All one inquiry

Dan: But the 'names' were just placed on things to differentiate them but is there any significant difference at all or just parts of a whole? ————- Manfred:The question for me is, do we start with the named as base of life or is the base the whole and the parts are created or man-made on a secondary level.

When we start with the named we have to put the parts together to get a whole.

When we start with the whole the whole exists as basis no matter what part of it we recognize or create. Whatever it is, it is something created by us as human beings. Although we can only see the parts the whole is always there. In a certain way the parts are parts and wholeness at the same moment.

Forum: A Quiet Space Sun, 14 Jul 2019
Topic: All one inquiry

Dan: But the 'names' were just placed on things to differentiate them but is there any significant difference at all or just parts of a whole? ————- Manfred:The question for me is, do we start with the named as base of life or is the base the whole and the parts are created or man-made on a secondary level.

When we start with the named we have to put the parts together to get a whole.

When we start with the whole the whole exists as basis no matter what part of it we recognize or create. Whatever it is, it is something created by us as human beings. Although we can only see the parts the whole is always there. In a certain way the parts are parts and wholeness at the same moment.

Forum: A Quiet Space Sun, 14 Jul 2019
Topic: All one inquiry

How do you start with the whole when fragments are present in consciousness? —————— When we ask what is necessary for us to live, could it be that for the smallest part of us the universe is inevitable? Or is this chain of necessity wrong: cell, finger, hand, arm, body, earth, our solar system, our galaxy, the universe.

If a cell of our body is dependent to the universe, how can we see it as separate and think that anything we know about the cell is correct? We could do that when we know how the universe is functioning. But as long as we don’t know that, we have to work with assumptions.

One assumption is that only this exists what we as human beings can recognize with our senses or thought.

The other assumption is, that there is unity which can not be grasped by senses or thought.

Both are assumptions which cannot be proved by science at the moment.

So we have to make a decision what assumption is more logical. We only can do it by logic and then try out if it works. For my understanding and experience it is more logical to let together what is dependent on each other and see the differences only as different appearances of one whole, but not “per se” as separate. The result of this assumption is a paradox. Whatever is seen as a different appearance of the whole and not as a separation is the whole and the appearance at the same moment.

I don’t say it is correct or the truth, but for me it is one possibility of approximation.

Forum: A Quiet Space Mon, 15 Jul 2019
Topic: All one inquiry

Why is it necessary to assume some connection with the universe, etc? Is it just another 'belief' to avoid the suffering of not knowing? Just questioning. ———- When we see that everything what we can grasp is what is possible to recognize and beyond of that is “not knowing” no further model or inference is necessary. I agree completely with that what you said.

This is by the way very similar to the science of Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.

But also Bohm’s implicate order and holographic worldview are models in the area of thought with the intention to point to the sphere beyond thought.

I think this models make sense for supporting to see that our usual way of thinking is incomplete. If they are seen as truth or fixed explanation we are in a mental jail again.

But why means not knowing necessarily suffering? Is this also a believe-system?

Clive asked me when I „practice“ wholeness or not-knowing, which is for me the same:

I try to practice it nearly in any part of my life which needs movement, for instance in weeding weeds, cuting bread or vegetables and also in sports . Most interesting in tennis, because there is an opponent who has an intention opposite to mine and there is a brake after each point.

The interesting thing for me is that “not-knowing” cannot be reached by any intention. For a long period of time I tried to suppress thinking through „not knowing“. But that did not work very well. It was a high-level division or a try to throw thinking out of my life in certain situations. This meant to try to know when thinking is appropriate and when not. The result was that thinking become stronger and not weaker.

As a next step I tried to accept thinking, what made it weaker. But there was still not “not knowing”, but a control if I really accept thinking.

Two years ago I started only to being aware whatever I am aware of. It doesn’t matter what it is. For instance that I think, that I watched the ball, that I did not watch it, that my movement is good or that it is bad, that I hit the ball in the out, that I am angry making a mistake and so on. After each rally I have the chance to see if I am only observing or interfering again. Both “actions” have the same “value”. There is no right or wrong anymore.

The status in the moment is that the game itself is getting better in quality, but I lose it very often. There are many great rallies, but my opponents play also much better. So it is a big challenge for my ego not to fall back in the old pattern of willpower.

This is only an attempt to describe a practical situation in words, which means it can not be complete.

Although it was and still is sometimes very tough to stay with this “new” attitude, suffering happens not to much. When it shows up it is my old pattern telling me not to trust in the unknown.

What I am convinced of is that “not knowing or wholeness” can only be lived but not expresses in words. Nevertheless in the internet we have only words to express the inexpressible.

Forum: A Quiet Space Mon, 15 Jul 2019
Topic: All one inquiry

Tom: „To go beyond the self-enclosing activities of the mind, you must understand them; and to understand them is to be aware of action in relationship, relationship to things, to people, and to ideas. In that relationship, which is the mirror, we begin to see ourselves, without any justification or condemnation; and from that wider and deeper knowledge of the ways of our own mind, it is possible to proceed further; then it is possible for the mind to be quiet, to receive that which is real.”

———-

Manfred: Your question is in no way unclear. It is so difficult to express in words how the process of acting beyond thought works. I also can never be sure if it is really beyond. So what you cited is much more beautiful than I ever could express it.

For me it was for a long time experience and exercises. And also now it is a back and forth movement. In a certain way my „system“ learned to trust in the unknown. But in Tennis when the so called big points are played it has the tendency to fall back in the old conditioned way, which means to use only thought.

The biggest challenge for me is to accept this fall-back even though I know it brings mostly a negative result. It is really difficult to learn the right out of the false.

Another approximation might be: There is emanating awareness, movement of the body inclusive sometimes movement of thought and complete stillness at the same moment. My “system” learns like a small child to stand up by falling down and standing up again without judging anything. The standing up is learned by accepting fully the falling down. Standing up is inseparable connected with falling down.

And for sure these statements are made by looking back. They never can be the actual or what is. Only what has been.

Forum: A Quiet Space Mon, 15 Jul 2019
Topic: All one inquiry

Manfred: Is the seeing of the division that thought creates in choiceless awareness the end of the division and does this include the seeing when we live not in choiceless awareness?

Clive: Manfred, I am not fully understanding your question. Could you rephrase your words a little

Manfred: Thank you for asking. The question is really unclear. I tried to put it as short as possible, but that was perhaps not the best idea. Now a second attempt:

“Can the division end by choiceless awareness or do we need something else?

Does choiceless awareness include being aware that we are not choiceless aware?”

I don’t know if it is more understandable because I made two questions of one?

Forum: A Quiet Space Mon, 15 Jul 2019
Topic: All one inquiry

and more confusing: If we are choiceless aware that we making a choice is that choiceless awareness?

Forum: A Quiet Space Mon, 15 Jul 2019
Topic: All one inquiry

Dan: Do 'we' play any part at all in the process of 'choiceless awareness'...do 'we' initiate it? And if 'we' don't somehow initiate it, what 'starts' it??? —————- Manfred: Good but difficult question. I think, if we try to initiate choiceless awareness it will not work. But what starts it is a question we cannot answer. For me choiceless awareness has no opposite, no movement, no shape. It is the observed without a separate observer. In what way should we be able to describe what brings it in existence?

Forum: A Quiet Space Tue, 16 Jul 2019
Topic: All one inquiry

Clive: Choiceless awareness is not something that I do, surely? Anymore that "I" can love, or be intelligent. ——————

Dan: Well that's the question, how does it come about in you if you don't 'do' it? —————

Manfred: I think this question is not answerable. To answer a question we need an opposite. It is either this or that. Choiceless awareness is a word created by Krishnamurti. In German I call it „absichtslose Achtsamkeit“, which means „awareness with no intention“. For my understanding it has no opposite. It is superposed with that what is observed. Observer and observed are one. It is similar to the superposition in quantum physics, which also is an assumption.

The way to choiceless awareness is different for each one of us. It depends on what mechanism are working in us and prevent us from giving the possibility or chance that choiceless awareness is emanating.

Maybe we could say that there is one thing we can do to create a room for the possibility that choiceless awareness can emanating, which is being aware of our programs which prevent us from choiceless awareness.

I’m in no way sure if this is reasonable.

Forum: A Quiet Space Thu, 18 Jul 2019
Topic: All one inquiry

Huguette: Consciousness is fundamentally whole, unbroken, unfragmented. Isn't it the attribution of illusory qualities, measures and values which breaks consciousness down into illusory fragments? Fragmentation does not reside in the fact that thoughts are in themselves incomplete, as I see it. Fragmentation lies in the fact that something which IS whole - like the universe itself - is broken down by illusion/thought. But it is not actually broken. The fragmentation ends as soon as the illusion ends. And illusion ends as soon as thought is still. ——— Manfred:I agree with your statement that consciousness is fundamentally whole, unbroken. A little baby is conscious of the world without thought or fragmentation. When we learn thinking also this process does not mean that the variety or diversity we create necessarily leads to a break of the unity.

As long as we are aware that whatever thought is creating is not separate from the whole, but is only only a differentiation, the whole includes thought. It stays unbroken like the body stays unbroken when we treat our fingers or toes.

The important difference for me is that we can grasp the finger or toe and the body. In a certain way we know the whole finger-toe/body system. When we look at the parts of the whole we can grasp the parts but not the whole. The whole is unknown. So we see diversity embedded in the unknown. This results in the realization that the base for the finger is the body, but the base for the diverse things thought creates is the unknown.

Conflict is arising when we try to put together the parts in undivided wholeness. This works in a certain domain, but never in full. If we do not recognize the limitation of this process we get inevitably in conflict.

As the limits of a domain are either difficult or in no way recognizable, we always have to be as far as possible open for changing any statement we make or view we have.

Forum: A Quiet Space Fri, 19 Jul 2019
Topic: The Work of David Bohm

Hi Clive, it is amazing, this piece of paper I am carrying always with me in my suitcase. There is another one from Albert Einstein which has a similar meaning:

My Credo, by Albert Einstein “The most beautiful and deepest experience a man can have is the sense of the mysterious. It is the underlying principle of religion as well as of all serious endeavour in art and science. He who never had this experience seems to me, if not dead, then at least blind. To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is a something that our minds cannot grasp, whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly: this is religiousness. In this sense I am religious. To me it suffices to wonder at these secrets and to attempt humbly to grasp with my mind a mere image of the lofty structure of all there is.”

My interpretation of both opinions:

There is experience of us as human beings which is in its recognizable form always limited. But when we are aware of this limitations that what is “beyond” is also alive in us. We act in thought but are open for what is beyond. When we hold only our thought system for existing our behavior will only be able to act in this limitations and block out what is beyond.

Again, this is expressed in thought and therefore always open for change through another thought or “beyond”.

Forum: A Quiet Space Wed, 24 Jul 2019
Topic: All one inquiry

Huguette: So it is not awareness which says, “whatever thought is creating is not separate from the whole”, is it? ——— Manfred: Yes. There is no separation of intelligence, thought and awareness. Only when it comes together thought is not separate from the whole. When we treat thought as something which exists by itself we either make a distinction between thought and no thought or we live a conscious life which is only directed by thought.

So you were absolutely right to say that the statement “whatever thought is creating is not separate from the whole” is in its isolated form incorrect and contradictory.

It only makes sense together with awareness which is in unity with thought, the senses and everything we are aware of. Krishnamurti’s “the seeing is the doing” means for me that there is only seeing which encompasses and is identical with the seen. No matter what is seen.

I have been frequently in this state, at least I felt it was this state, some months ago. Then I lost it completely for whatever reason. Last Sunday I had a serious bike accident. And today this state of “awareness unified with what I am aware” of is back. No idea why or what I did for it.

Forum: A Quiet Space Wed, 31 Jul 2019
Topic: Negative thinking

K once said: It is within each one of us that the whole of existence is gathered. ————— Clive: If that is true, then I presume that the whole of existence is gathered in that eagle, in the tree it is perched in, in the rabbit that is its prey. ————

Manfred: When we ask what is absolutely necessary for the life the eagle lives, what could be put aside?

The tree, the wood, the prey of the eagle, the surrounding of the prey, the planet earth, our sun system, the milky way, the universe, the whole of existence?

When the answer is one or more of this above mentioned things or something else, we could say there is only a part of the world in the eagle.

When the answer is nothing can be put away, the logical answer is that the whole of existence must be in the eagle? Do you agree?