Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
Discussion Forums

Paul Lanzon's Forum Activity | 55 posts in 5 forums


Forum: Insights Fri, 10 Jul 2009
Topic: Future is Now

Michael Cecil wrote: Thought (rather than 'thinking') is, of course, an "action" performed by a 'thinker' in "time", which is thought in the first place. That I am able to see clearly as well.

Hello Michael

Sorry if this seems pedantic, but here is a very common confusion which is adding to the general confusion. Thought is not performed by a thinker. This confusion comes from taking the conventions of grammar or syntax to be parallel with reality - a verb requires a subject. But in reality only a series of thoughts is found which come about through certain causal laws and which are the product of the brain; no thinking subject as such is to be found anywhere in reality. The (illusion of the) thinker as subject has been generated by the actual thoughts themselves. K himself has made this abundantly clear on many occasions.

Paul

Forum: Insights Sat, 11 Jul 2009
Topic: Future is Now

Hi Michael

I am certainly interested, but unfortunately don't think I can add much that would broaden understanding of the 'now'. For me the 'Now' is inexplicable in its essence and I feel sure that to understand it would actually negate it by relegating it to the field of knowledge and time; for it surely is out of time. Sorry if it sounds like a dead end.

Paul

Forum: Insights Sun, 12 Jul 2009
Topic: Future is Now

Hi Max

Just to clear up a misinterpretation. I did not actually say the 'Now' was a dead end; I said it seemed like one,(in regard to what Michael was looking for).

Paul

Forum: The answer my friend is blowing in the wind Sun, 12 Jul 2009
Topic: What then?

When there is no question; when the answer is questioned; when the sacred is ever present; when things are as they are; when emptiness is as it is; when things and emptiness do not conflict: what then?

Forum: The answer my friend is blowing in the wind Thu, 16 Jul 2009
Topic: What then?

Hello Richard,

I was under the wrong impression that this forum was a no-answer forum, so what I posted was not intended as a 'proposition' or a subject either for agreement or disagreement. It is not surprising that it was totally misunderstood.

Paul

Forum: The answer my friend is blowing in the wind Sat, 18 Jul 2009
Topic: What then?

Hello Richard,

Please don't think that you have caused confusion - and if I make any other posts I will try to make them more 'replier friendly'.

Paul

Forum: The answer my friend is blowing in the wind Mon, 20 Jul 2009
Topic: the most famous observer is the observed

Words,words,words! It's time someone destroyed this illusion that there is an observer and an observed; there is only the act of observing. And that does NOT imply an observer or self or any other substantive entity.

Forum: Insights Mon, 20 Jul 2009
Topic: Theory of Everything

Thank you Thomas, you saved me the trouble of ranting on about the sheer vanity of some of these so-called scientists. If it is clear to a numbskull like me that the very notion of a theory of everything is verging on insanity, how is it that these 'brillliant' chaps don't seem to get the joke?

Forum: Insights Tue, 21 Jul 2009
Topic: Theory of Everything

I take it we are talking of psychological suffering and not physical suffering. Would it be of any use to say that, just as there is no thinker but only thinking, there likewise is no sufferer, only suffering. Would it be allowed to say that suffering is dependent on the attachment to the notion of self or ego? - and without that attachment there is no suffering. Isn't suffering self-created and self-generated?

Forum: Insights Wed, 22 Jul 2009
Topic: Theory of Everything

Yes Thomas, I know it's easy to say, 'the self is the cause', indeed, but what do we do about it? None of this talk is of any use without continuing meditation, bare attention to what is present inwardly and outwardly - that is the minimum requirement to 'tame' thought and keep it in its proper place; it is only the start though. But the difficulty is that most people fail in meditation because they are too keen for a quick result so they make strenuous efforts of will which are self-defeating since effort is the very last thing needed in meditation. Meditation would be so much easier if people had acquaintance with that weird thing called Love (the one that comes from nowhere and has no motive, except, perhaps, to remove all seperation and unify all things, both animate and inanimate).

Forum: Insights Fri, 24 Jul 2009
Topic: Theory of Everything

Hello Manoj,

I was wondering what one of these scientists would do if he were to suddenly have, as it were, a 'freak' insight into the Nameless, a brief but intense contact with that which destroys all seperateness; a perception that absolutely everything, all life, animate as well as inanimate, is but a part of his extended family. Would he continue doing science in the same analytical way? It's just a thought. Personally I cannot imagine that he would continue if this supposed insight struck deeply.

Paul

Forum: Insights Fri, 24 Jul 2009
Topic: Why are you here?

Yes indeed Thomas, it is fun to be a part of this dialogue - not in the sense of relieving boredom - but in communicating with people who question the values of this society. It is a joy to think that people from all over the world can communicate in this way.

Forum: Insights Sat, 25 Jul 2009
Topic: Why are you here?

Hello Thomas, I was just imagining a shop-front with my name above followed by the words,"Spiritual Enhancement: Discounts for Pensioners". Quite honestly I would run a mile from anything 'spiritual'. That is if the spiritual is the other side of the worldly. Then they are both the same. There is the world, then there is the spirit - you know, the christians and muslims and others always split things up in this way. They never see the suchness of things; they never look, never listen to the voices of things, ordinary taken-for-granted things which are everywhere pointing to their own Minds - the universal Mind. They would rather escape into the 'spiritual', that is, they like being led up the garden path, it's a good outing. Sorry for rambling. Oh, I think I have a customer in the shop. Bye for now.

Paul

Forum: Awareness in our world today Thu, 06 Aug 2009
Topic: Cleaning corruption in Politics by Satyagraha

hello Krishnan,

It seems that corruption in politics is endemic. The Brits have (until recently) usually felt their politicians were reasonably free from corruption, which shows how naive they have been. Firstly, there are apparently no politicians who are sensitive or spiritually aware; and they are all badly educated. Not having associated with wise or aware people, compassionate or rational, they know only those of the same ignorant class as themselves, educated in institutions that promulgate ignorance and disseminate lies and hypocracy. First of all they learn the glib tongue, in which they all excel, and practise how they can convince the populace that black is actually white. But they, of course, are often trained as lawyers which should be reason enough not to trust them.

But all this is rooted in a fundamentally corruptible society. Anyone who is bereft of compassion or wisdom must create problems in the world; that is inevitable. Of course there will sometimes be exceptions to this bleak picture, but they are soon snuffed out by the sheer weight of the opposition. Why, after so many centuries do people still put their trust in this appalling gang of shysters?

Paul

Forum: Awareness in our world today Fri, 07 Aug 2009
Topic: Cleaning corruption in Politics by Satyagraha

Hi Krishnan, You say anything goes in India; I suppose you could say in some sense that it is both a good and a bad thing. But then India has been a kind of fountainhead for so much of the world. I must say I lament the virtual demise of Buddhism in India - not that I think it would have provided a miraculous cure for human corruptibility - but I think it would have brought about a saner way of living. We know that Asoka's reign brought stability to the country. K, as usual, was right to emphasize the vital importance of right education. I can see no other way of creating a well-balanced society. But with the world population as it is, where are the right kind of teachers to come from? Yet the only thing that keeps despair at bay is the feeling that in this world anything may be possible - especially when there is a will, or many wills. Best wishes, Paul.

Forum: Awareness in our world today Tue, 11 Aug 2009
Topic: Cleaning corruption in Politics by Satyagraha

Hello, Krishnan, I hope you don't mind if I stick up for Buddhism. I mean the real thing, without the ism. You cannot justly call this teaching another ism like the rest. K himself regretted the fact that India chose to ignore, for example, Nagarjuna, (there are several others he could also have named). Of course, there will always be the majority who never see into the whole depth and beauty of the Dharma, that includes most of those who like to call themselves buddhists, and almost all of the so-called scholars. Yes, it's true what you say; you can't teach others until the 'monster' has been tamed and put in his proper place, instead of assuming he is the centre of the universe. But even this unruly beast will prove surprisingly useful when he's finally accepted he has no substance and is truly a nonentity. Thank you krishnan; my little brain has come to a halt.

best wishes

Paul

Forum: Awareness in our world today Wed, 12 Aug 2009
Topic: Young boy kills to please his fiancee``

Hi Krishna, That's a real horror story; but it would be uselful to know just how common such things are; in the U.S. for example, where mind-manipulation is very pronounced. It opens up the question of 'evil', whether a certain person is more prone to evil thoughts and actions than another and why that should be. Is evil just a by-product of ignorance or is it something more active, as some people believe - is it out there, an entity waiting to take possession of any 'promising' subject. I tend to agree with you when you question the explanation of the police. Of course it's difficult to make a judgement without knowing those two youngsters and their backgrounds. But if I may give a purely personal comment, for what it's worth; I should think that both these kids were the victims of the intense negative energy generated by a badly inflamed ego, involving fear on the boy's side and hatred on the girl's. Perhaps there was also sadism involved, who knows. But it all comes down to the image that is hurt; and that is pure ignorance. Of course this does not explain the fact that some people seem to have a natural capacity for compassion while others have none whatever, and cannot empathize at all. Is it all the result of past karma, or is it the mental and moral confusion of the present? Human beings are such bizarre creatures!

peace, Paul

Forum: Insights Tue, 25 Aug 2009
Topic: ALL OF US

hello Jim, I don't know what I'm doing from one minute to the next, and as for reasons I've never been able to find any of those either. It's like being non-existent but conscious. Nothing is the weirdest word there is because, I think, there is nothing that corresponds with it (unless you count my brain). Nothing has never been encoutered actually because if it were it would be a thing, a 'something'. It can only exist as a concept - but isn't a concept a thing? OK, then nothing is something. Is there anything more devious than the human brain when it's gone off onto some rusty old railtracks into a bizarre and pretty hazardous landscape. At the moment I'm trying to apply some 'nothing' to my sciatic nerve which is causing me to end here. Welcome to kinfonet.

Forum: Awareness in our world today Fri, 28 Aug 2009
Topic: Organization per se is not the answer to human problems

Hallo Krishnan & Monic, When I hear the word 'organization' I shiver. I'm sure, however, that there are organizations that work really well, but they are not those that deal with the welfare of people. There is something of a lottery about large organizations which aim at doing 'good'. The education systems, for example in uk, are experts in spreading ignorance and boredom. I spent 21years teaching art (or trying to) in state education and not once did I come across a teacher with even a glimmer of awareness of the issues K discussed. I encountered only 'closed off' mentalities. Yes, there were those with 'good intentions', as usual, and genuinely dedicated and enthusiastic in their own way, but they invariably lacked that insight that makes 'right education' possible. Organizations are certainly not the answer to human problems; they are the result of human problems. The main problem being the misplacing of thought as the primary, most important factor in life, when it is only a secondary mechanism whose function it is to implement the insights of Intelligence and Compassion, and of course, to construct things that are useful to mankind.

Forum: Insights Sat, 29 Aug 2009
Topic: Can one's mind be totally empty of ideas?

We have to be clear first of all what is meant by 'the mind'. On one level the mind stores everything it has ever absorbed and this cannot be erased (except by surgery!). But this does not have to interfere with direct perception of 'what is'. A person is able to use ideas or concepts when and if they are useful in a practical sense, e.g. to design something, without them clouding his perception. But concepts that block true perception, like preconceptions about the nature of things, can only be overcome by constant attention to the physical and mental states, and a complete realization that the word is not the thing. Ideas can be harmful or useful, or neutral. They will take their proper place when the mind becomes quiet - no need to repress or discard them - they will go of their own accord when your mind is 'right', i.e. when you attend to 'what is' and not what should be. It all sounds so easy when put into words; it's neither easy nor difficult, because effort of any kind would be self-defeating. Sorry if this sounds like a sermon -

Forum: Insights Sun, 30 Aug 2009
Topic: Can one's mind be totally empty of ideas?

-Randal, have you ever had to design anything? - a house for example where certain restrictive conditions posed problems (practical problems) for the designer and called for ingenuity and imagination. Why this hostility to thought? - constructive thought, not psychological thought. Thought comes from the same source as insight, and 'right thought' is always guided by insight. Do you think the computer you use was designed without thought? Not that insight was involved in that...

Forum: Insights Mon, 31 Aug 2009
Topic: Can one's mind be totally empty of ideas?

Randal Shacklett wrote: No hostility, to thought , or anything else. If I design something I already know about, do I need to think about it? Isn't it when I need to learn something new, that I actually need to think?

If you mean that when you know something so well you kind of do it without thinking, like driving a car, then I suppose that's true; but a good designer is dancing with ideas and often takes apparently crazy risks, like Brunel, or Wren with the dome of St Paul's. Even when it seems you are working without thoughts I guess there is often some kind of unconscious directive at work, a sort of non-verbal thought, if that is possible. I don't think you could design anything if your were in a state of samadhi. I'm not sure whether you were still referring to this design thing in your last sentence, but if you were, then that's surely true that you need thought; it's also true that you need the ability to put aside what you know so that it doesn't obstruct the new 'material'. Sorry if I've gone off down some dusty side road, somewhat away from the main question; but maybe this has some bearing on the subject.

Forum: Insights Fri, 04 Sep 2009
Topic: Can one's mind be totally empty of ideas?

Klaus M. wrote: should be?? Can there be unclouded direct perception of what is? Can it do that when I have one single little idea about myself? Or has the mind to be completely empty of these ideas to be quiet, right, attentive, clear?

Sorry Klaus, I missed your reply. Yes, that is so: there cannot be that perception when there is any idea or image of self - but it is the attachment to these images that is the problem, for, they rest upon that attachment, or identification, and without it they would whither away. I think, perhaps, the question here might have been, "Can one's mind be totally free from ATTACHMENT to ideas?" And by ideas don't we mean identication with an image or concept, and the duality that makes the illusion of a self function?

Forum: Insights Sat, 05 Sep 2009
Topic: Can one's mind be totally empty of ideas?

Klaus M. wrote: So what then is the difference between the idea or image of myself and my attachment or identification with it?

Any notion of 'myself' is an attachment. There is no fundamental difference; the image embodies the attachment, if you'd prefer to put it that way. But when there is no attachment per se then the image would not arise. Attachment is a more fundamental problem than the image which is a secondary factor.

Klaus M. wrote: So what then is the difference between the idea or image of myself and my attachment or identification with it?

Forum: Insights Sun, 06 Sep 2009
Topic: Can one's mind be totally empty of ideas?

Klaus M. wrote: Then who or what is attached to the image?

A series of memories, impulses, desires, values, thoughts,etc., is what is attached, better known as the 'me'.

Forum: Insights Mon, 07 Sep 2009
Topic: Can one's mind be totally empty of ideas?

Klaus M. wrote: A series of images and ideas is attached to the images and ideas, right? And attachment itself? Is it an idea or image, too?

An image is attached to an image; that is the absurdity of the abnormal brain. If one is holding on to an image of oneself, that is a fact, though it is irrational since both images are illusory.

Klaus M. wrote: A series of images and ideas is attached to the images and ideas, right? And attachment itself? Is it an idea or image, too?

Forum: Insights Wed, 09 Sep 2009
Topic: Can one's mind be totally empty of ideas?

Klaus M. wrote: Yes, it may be a fact, but does the attached mind see this fact? Does it see any fact at all? Or is "attachment" just one more idea or image the mind is attached to? What does the attached mind really know about itself?

Of course the attached mind doesn't see this fact. We must be clear that observed attachment is not confounded with attachment as concept or image. The attached mind is unaware that it is attached (maybe dimly aware at times) and therefore the question of the attachment as another image does not figure. Another point may be, is there a mind at all? Nothing is more tiresome than words.

Klaus M. wrote: Yes, it may be a fact, but does the attached mind see this fact? Does it see any fact at all? Or is "attachment" just one more idea or image the mind is attached to? What does the attached mind really know about itself?

Forum: Insights Fri, 18 Sep 2009
Topic: Dreams

Linda & all,

Hallo dreamers, may I chip in here? I don't know whether this is of any use to your conversation, but I once knew someone who was convinced he had never dreamed in his life. Then one day he told me he had been abruptly woken up by a loud noise in the early hours of the morning - and guess what? Yes, he had been in the middle of a dream. My point is how can one be certain one is not dreaming if the dreams are forgotten on waking in the morning? However, I know that it is possible to maintain awareness even in sleep, if the mind is well acclimatized to ( ). Perhaps K has a good reason for seeming so indifferent to dreams. You may well be able to learn from some of the very weird symbolism of dreams, if you can unravel it. But it will most likely not amount to very much in relation to the central problem of overcoming the dualistic mind and the belief in a false self...

Forum: Insights Sat, 19 Sep 2009
Topic: Dreams

Prasanna P wrote: Paul Lanzon wrote: However, I know that it is possible to maintain awareness even in sleep, if the mind is well acclimatized to ( ). Paul, I would thank you to elaborate on this.

Hi, Prasanna, that '( )'. mark was just an indication that I couldn't find an appropriate word for a samadhi-like state of awareness. But there is another quite different 'experience' of being aware in a dream whereby one can actually determine the direction the dream will take, by force of will. I discovered this as an eleven-year old schoolboy who was getting fed up with being pursued by malificent beings, being pushed into cold black bottomless pools, and numerous other terrifying or menacing situations. For a period of about a year or more I could actually 'direct' the dreams like a movie director - but not entirely - it was not always possible to change certain things, but if it got too threatening I could easily wake up - and sometimes could re-enter the dream again with a more definite plan of action; but that was sometimes difficult and fairly infrequent. It sounds loopy, but I began to look forward to dreaming instead of hating it and wondering what torments would be in store.

It is important to mention, I think, that before I could do this I kept a kind of focus of will alive throughout the day with whatever intensity I could manage. It was the sheer joy of being able to more or less be the one who is in control and to determine events that kept the will focussed. Also I had a notion of wanting to turn the dreams into scripted dramas; but not surprisingly that was a total disappointment. Then it all ended - I don't remember whether it just stopped or gradually fizzled out; but I seemed to stop dreaming - or at least the 'monsters' certainly were permanently 'exorcised'. But maybe they continued without my conscious knowledge -who knows?

Prasanna P wrote: Paul Lanzon wrote: However, I know that it is possible to maintain awareness even in sleep, if the mind is well acclimatized to ( ). Paul, I would thank you to elaborate on this.

Forum: Insights Sun, 20 Sep 2009
Topic: Dreams

Hi prasanna, About this 'will': if my recollection is not too distorted, it was an absolute determination that I must at all cost master those dreams. And so I had to keep the intensity of that will, that thought, alive during the waking hours as much as I could; I felt that if I didn't do this the mind would become vulnerable and succumb to the 'demons' once I was asleep. This 'will' is really just a thought, a desire, but very intensified and persistent.

Maybe I should add that I've never tried to repeat the experiments of those juvenile days and at present I occasionally have truly fantastic dreams ( most of which are soon forgotten) though there is no desire to alter or get rid of them; to me they are not that important.