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

The fundamental illusion of thought


Displaying posts 31 - 57 of 57 in total
Sat, 18 Mar 2017 #31
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3729 posts in this forum Offline

Olive B wrote:

Clive Elwell wrote: "Should I accept as authority everything that I read/hear?"

Olive replied: No, in fact we should question authority, let’s start with the teaching of K:

No, lets not just question K, or question Nisargadatta, or Tolle, or anyone. Let's question OURSELVES.

Because that is what is essential, is it not? How can I accept anyone else's words, if I do not question the mind that is doing the accepting? How can I look for clarity from others, if the very mind that is searching for clarity is IN ITSELF confused? Surely one needs to look at that confusion first. Because any action that stems from a confused mind will be confused action, and will merely continue the confusion.

How can I judge the truth of the words of others, how can I accept or deny, when such judgement stems from confusion?

We see the results of confused minds acting (actually only the one confused mind) all around us. And inside us, of course.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 18 Mar 2017 #32
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 388 posts in this forum Offline

Olive B wrote:
I have noticed that K never talks about infinite consciousness. He only talks about the limited human consciousness (ego/me), which is mind.

More a shrink then a spiritual teacher?

Is this not a question put by the thought interested in build the house by the roof and not from the foundations? ... What importance has to know about infinite consciousness when we don't know anything about our own limited consciousness? ...

But it seems that it is enough for someone to talk about infinite consciousness for him/her to be considered an spiritual teacher by that thought ... What a pity the world wanting to go to the moon while disregarding the earth under their feet ... What a pity the world judging others telling them what to do and what to say, just because it does not have any interest in understanding itself! ...

No Olive, K was neither a shrink nor an spiritual teacher, but a simple human being who spent his whole life trying to share with his fellow beings what he discovered by himself about himself (and therefore about all his fellow human beings) ...

Unfortunately he was not aware that the world never wants to know anything about itself ... "Too hard" they say, "Why you don't talk to us about infinite consciousness instead?", they ask ... Or perhaps it happened that he was SO aware of that, that he kept to himself anything related to that infinite consciousness perfectly knowing what would happen if he would do it ...

A shrink? An Spiritual Teacher? ...

He simply said "The world is you, and you are the world" ... And the world answered to him "I am myself, i have nothing to do with the rest of the world", and continued talking about infinite consciousness, and all the rest, far away from itself as usual ... And then he died, and the world then asked to itself "How is it that he said that nobody had understood anything, before he died?" ... Just to continue talking afterwords about infinite consciousness, and all the rest, still far away from itself as it has been for centuries upon centuries and will continue to be for centuries to come ... Because the world prefers to speak of others rather than of itself

"When i talk to audiences, they know what i'm talking about ... another thing is that they do something about it" - K. Brockwood Park (Making ideas of the Teaching)

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Sun, 19 Mar 2017 #33
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3729 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
Is this not a question put by the thought interested in build the house by the roof and not from the foundations? ...

Nice post, Juan.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 19 Mar 2017 #34
Thumb_rodin_de_denker Olive B Netherlands 238 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Which doesn't mean that there is no observation, observation which is not the action of the conditioned mind.

Hi Huguette,

When observation is not the action of the conditioned mind.

Who/what is observing then?

Experience alone must be the test of reality.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 19 Mar 2017 #35
Thumb_rodin_de_denker Olive B Netherlands 238 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
I recall when k. was asked who it was that was doing this observing, he said that "it's not a 'who', but the state of observation"... All inclusive and nonjudgmental, non-accumulative, and non-rewarding, directionless and goal-less, etc.

Hi Dan,
And may be K meant by the state of observation, the act of seeing.

Experience alone must be the test of reality.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 19 Mar 2017 #36
Thumb_rodin_de_denker Olive B Netherlands 238 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Let's question OURSELVES.

Now look at those reactions, by questioning authority I moved the earth!

Yes Clive, I have a few suggestions to question ourselves.
But may be like K it is better to keep it for myself because I already know wat would happen if I talk about ……, some forummembers will start shouting.

Experience alone must be the test of reality.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 19 Mar 2017 #37
Thumb_rodin_de_denker Olive B Netherlands 238 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
What importance has to know about infinite consciousness when we don't know anything about our own limited consciousness?

Hi Juan,

The importance to know about infinite consciousness is because it is de base of the limited consciousness.

But if you don’t experience infinite consciousness(by the act of knowing), it stays only a belief, and it shows out of your frustration.

Experience alone must be the test of reality.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 19 Mar 2017 #38
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 388 posts in this forum Offline

Olive B wrote:
The importance to know about infinite consciousness is because it is de base of the limited consciousness.

OK, let me put my question in another way ... How can a limited consciousness know about infinite consciousness without fully knowing itself? ... Or still in another way ... Why a limited consciousness wants to listen another talking about infinite conscioussness? ... Or still still in another way ... Why a limited consciousness refuses to listen another talking about its limitation pretending to touch the infinite consciousness with that?

Olive B wrote:
But if you don’t experience infinite consciousness(by the act of knowing), it stays only a belief, and it shows out of your frustration.

Let me say that personally i'm not at all interested in experiencing the infinite consciousness, but only in fully experiencing my limited consciousness without which infinite consciousness is just an imagination (beautiful but utterly empty) ... And let me say also, that a limited consciousness never knows about any frustration when it opens fully to itself (by itself or through listening another talking about it), only those who pretend to touch that infinite consciousness without touching first their own limited consciousness know about such frustration, none else!

"When i talk to audiences, they know what i'm talking about ... another thing is that they do something about it" - K. Brockwood Park (Making ideas of the Teaching)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 19 Mar 2017 #39
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 395 posts in this forum Offline

re 34:

Huguette . wrote :

Which doesn't mean that there is no observation, observation which is not the action of the conditioned mind.

Olive B wrote:

Hi Huguette,

When observation is not the action of the conditioned mind.

Who/what is observing then?

Olive,

Does it matter who or what is observing? Is it thought, is observation the action of our conditioning, is it related to the past? Isn’t THAT what matters in the context of self-understanding?

Thought, consciousness, self, the conditioned mind is looking into itself because it suffers. It observes itself and comes to see its incapacity to solve its existential or relationship problems. Doesn’t it see that all the opinions, ideas, beliefs it has about itself --- e.g. that it has the ability to choose, to control, to decide, to shape its “destiny” --- are all useless in dealing with suffering? Can self, consciousness, solve its own suffering?

And then, is this very observation, understanding, perception of its limitations - is that observation itself an idea, a conditioned conclusion engendered by the past? Does that state of observation ask who or what is observing?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 19 Mar 2017 #40
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 1992 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
Let me say that personally i'm not at all interested in experiencing the infinite consciousness, but only in fully experiencing my limited consciousness without which infinite consciousness is just an imagination (beautiful but utterly empty)

Well said, Juan. I hope you don't mind, but I may quote your reply on a thread on the general forum.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 19 Mar 2017 #41
Thumb_de4 Dan McDermott United States 789 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
And then, is this very observation, understanding, perception of its limitations - is that observation itself an idea, a conditioned conclusion engendered by the past? Does that state of observation ask who or what is observing?

I think that self-observation often does not include the 'controlling I' or 'me' and it becomes a fragment observing other fragments and this 'controlling I' is never brought into the picture. So 'self-observation' takes place some 'times' in some 'places' and becomes a sort of ritual. K. spoke often about seeing every thought, every movement, feeling etc. but then he also spoke about seeing the "whole' of consciousness in a glance. He also used the word "jump" and I understood that as rather than 'preparation', that observation is a kind of psychological 'leap'. I think it is also interesting in this context to reflect on his statements that observation can take place not only when one is 'attentive' but also when one is 'inattentive'.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sun, 19 Mar 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 19 Mar 2017 #42
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 388 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
I hope you don't mind

Not at all Tom, there's a Post rule that says that once the letter has reached the addressee, the sender has no power at all over it

"When i talk to audiences, they know what i'm talking about ... another thing is that they do something about it" - K. Brockwood Park (Making ideas of the Teaching)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 19 Mar 2017 #43
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3729 posts in this forum Offline

Olive B wrote:
But may be like K it is better to keep it for myself because I already know wat would happen if I talk about

Can one be so sure of what will happen in the future? And if one carries such certainty, is that not another way of conditioning oneself?

But of course it is up to you what you post or do not post.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 19 Mar 2017 #44
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 388 posts in this forum Offline

Olive B wrote:
But may be like K it is better to keep it for myself because I already know wat would happen if I talk about ……, some forum members will start shouting.

K never kept anything for himself because fear of listeners start shouting at him ... In fact there's no public talk without someone shouting at him ... and despite that he talked for 60 or so years! ... Anyway, why do you compare with K if i may ask?

"When i talk to audiences, they know what i'm talking about ... another thing is that they do something about it" - K. Brockwood Park (Making ideas of the Teaching)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 19 Mar 2017 #45
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 388 posts in this forum Offline

Hey Clive, have you noticed that lately we write similar things (each one with his own words and expression) almost at the same time? ... How curious, isn't it?!

"When i talk to audiences, they know what i'm talking about ... another thing is that they do something about it" - K. Brockwood Park (Making ideas of the Teaching)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 19 Mar 2017 #46
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3729 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Thought, consciousness, self, the conditioned mind is looking into itself because it suffers. It observes itself and comes to see its incapacity to solve its existential or relationship problems. Doesn’t it see that all the opinions, ideas, beliefs it has about itself --- e.g. that it has the ability to choose, to control, to decide, to shape its “destiny” --- are all useless in dealing with suffering?

This is exactly right, Huguette. This is logical, sane. This is a natural process, and it does not involve any act of will, any decision, choice, on behalf of me (thought), so it does not carry the corruption of thought.

Unfortunately it seems that most people - both the ordinary person and the politicians, the people with power, are stil holding on to the idea that thought (us) CAN solve the problems we have created. They have some formula, some conviction, some ideology, that they are blindly convinced will eventually work.

And one sees the same in oneself (of course). Thought will not give up entirely this movement of knowing, of thinking it is able to put things right - even though what it is trying to put right is itself!

So when you ask

Huguette . wrote:
Can self, consciousness, solve its own suffering?

The answer is certainly no - but the movement to do so continues. This movement manifests as the contoller/controlled division of thought, does it not?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 19 Mar 2017 #47
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3729 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
Hey Clive, have you noticed that lately we write similar things (each one with his own words and expression) almost at the same time? ... How curious, isn't it?!

I had noticed Juan, but you write far more eloquently that I do!

But we have to be careful that because we find agreement, we do not stop questioning.

By the way, my understanding is the letter becomes the property of the addressee once it is in the post box! :-). You had better check!

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 19 Mar 2017 #48
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3729 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
I think it is also interesting in this context to reflect on his statements that observation can take place not only when one is 'attentive' but also when one is 'inattentive'.

He said, did he not, that in the state of inattention one could be attentive to that state, realise one was inattentive? And so suddenly there is the end of inattention. This has always seemed to me illogical. Nevertheless, it seems to be true.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 20 Mar 2017 #49
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 388 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
But we have to be careful that because we find agreement, we do not stop questioning.

No, i was not talking about agreeing, but just about the curious coincidence ... And there's no need to worry about questioning, on the contrary, i like a lot questioning for the sake of understanding as well as people questioning myself for the sake of looking at my own mistakes/misunderstandings ;-)

You made me doubt about the Post rule, i will check tomorrow at work and i'll tell you.

And to the rest, apologizes for this short off-topic :-)

"When i talk to audiences, they know what i'm talking about ... another thing is that they do something about it" - K. Brockwood Park (Making ideas of the Teaching)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 20 Mar 2017 #50
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 395 posts in this forum Offline

re 46:

Huguette . wrote:
Can self, consciousness, solve its own suffering?
Clive Elwell wrote:
The answer is certainly no - but the movement to do so continues. This movement manifests as the contoller/controlled division of thought, does it not?

Can that movement you mention - i.e. the process of division - be observed? Where the whole process of division IS observed, does the controller then still control or try to control action? Where there is unitary observation of the whole process "at a glance", the very observation acts and it acts without fragmentation, doesnt it? Where there is division, it is "me" looking at each component, each image or idea, separately.

Where there is unitary observation - i.e. observation without the “me” - then the "me" is no longer the factor or centre trying to control action, is it?

Isn't the actual moment of being hurt (or jealous, afraid, angry, and so on) followed by the mind putting together the “me who feels the hurt and must do something about it”, the “you who caused the hurt”, and the ideal morality of "should and should not"? This fictional centre then looks outwardly at the components assembled by the mind and the delusional mind tries - “I try” - to find a solution to the hurt.

Isn't that the process of division, more or less? Other than the mental imagery, there is in fact no “me”, no “you” and no morality, is there?

Rather than simply observe the hurt.

Where there are images of "me" and of “you”, then one living breathing being doesn’t really see the other living breathing being. Both are slaves to the same process and their relationship is shaped by the process. There can obviously be no love, no affection, no caring then.

If the fact is seen - if it IS a fact - that there is no “me”, then is there still effort to solve the hurt, to make “you” see your transgression, to make “you” treat me the way you “should”? Isn’t there just observation of the hurt and the hurt resolves itself? The hurt dissipates - it doesn't last "forever" - and it is then not entered into that great big register of past hurts.

I’m questioning, not asserting anything, asking myself as much as you. Over and out.

This post was last updated by Huguette . Mon, 20 Mar 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 21 Mar 2017 #51
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 388 posts in this forum Offline

Apologizes for stepping in ...

Huguette . wrote:
If the fact is seen - if it IS a fact - that there is no “me”, then is there still effort to solve the hurt, to make “you” see your transgression, to make “you” treat me the way you “should”?

No, because at that time the hurt, not having any foundation, will dissolve by itself in that emptiness... But before that moment there has been an effort to solve the hurt, to make “myself” see my "transgression", to make “me” treat you the way i “should ... The same effort Buddha made when he sat down under the body tree with the firm resolution to not get up until find the answer to human suffering ... The same effort K made after the death of his beloved brother Nitya ... And the same effort many others have made too ... That effort is neither good nor bad, but just the engine that leads to "the other" ... or in other words, although it being in time it leads to the timeless having discarded any method while living in total aloneness without any fear.

Huguette . wrote:
Isn’t there just observation of the hurt and the hurt resolves itself?

In which way the not-me could observe the things of the gone-me?

Huguette . wrote:
The hurt dissipates - it doesn't last "forever" - and it is then not entered into that great big register of past hurts.

Why the not-me would have any interest in keeping a register of past hurts? ... At least this not-me uses that register as reference to talk others about their own hurts ... You already know the saying: "i am the world, and the world is me"

"When i talk to audiences, they know what i'm talking about ... another thing is that they do something about it" - K. Brockwood Park (Making ideas of the Teaching)

This post was last updated by Juan E Tue, 21 Mar 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 21 Mar 2017 #52
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3729 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Can that movement you mention - i.e. the process of division - be observed? Where the whole process of division IS observed, does the controller then still control or try to control action? Where there is unitary observation of the whole process "at a glance", the very observation acts and it acts without fragmentation, doesnt it? Where there is division, it is "me" looking at each component, each image or idea, separately.

You are absolutely right to bring in the issue of observation, Huguette.

Can the process of division be observed? One sees the danger of an intellectual discussion on this, and so one has to “jump in”, as you said recently, and immediately look.

The problem with this looking is, Huguette, is that we look – or I look – as if we are different from the thing we are looking at. Of course that is so when looking at the physical world – I am not the tree – but I question if it is so when we look psychologically.

Somehow the mind distances itself from its observations. It thinks it is looking at “me”, but actually the me is what is doing the looking – and so what it is looking at ust be only an image of me, no?

I don't know if this makes any sense to you.

You are basically asking if division, and so conflict, can come to an end in the mind, are you not?

There is no division when the mind is fully occupied, when it is absorbed in something, a book, television, memory, etc, but we do not mean that. We are talking, I think, of a mind fully awake, aware, yet undivided, not caught up in this process of trying to control itself, change itself. Which I think implies a mind not seeking anything.


Have been sitting quietly for some time watching the mind, and what the senses bring. The issue of the observer and the observed is certainly the crux of the matter, isn't it? It seems the mind, consciousness, operates under some gigantic illusion that the two are separate. (and this seems to create time, but I won't go into that).

Without giving a yes/no answer to your question, Huguette, I ask this question (and as you say asking it equally to myself as to you): Is there an undivided consciousness, or when this illusion, as mentioned above, is seen, there is only the ending of consciousness. I mean consciousness as is generally known.

Perhaps this is asking, in a way, “Is there a consciousness which is free of the me?”. But any attempt to see, any movement, is the me-consciousness acting.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 21 Mar 2017 #53
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3729 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Isn't the actual moment of being hurt (or jealous, afraid, angry, and so on) followed by the mind putting together the “me who feels the hurt and must do something about it”

What does this mean, Huguette, "the mind putting together the me"?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 21 Mar 2017 #54
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3729 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
If the fact is seen - if it IS a fact - that there is no “me”, then is there still effort to solve the hurt, to make “you” see your transgression, to make “you” treat me the way you “should”? Isn’t there just observation of the hurt and the hurt resolves itself? The hurt dissipates - it doesn't last "forever" - and it is then not entered into that great big register of past hurts.

I would say yes, Huguette. If there is no attempt to interfer with it, the hurt, or any emotion, or any thought, it 'plays itself out'.

Unfortunatey the whole emphasis of the world is to interfer, to 'do something about' the problem. WHich means the movement is deeply engrained in us.

But seeing the truth of this, life becomes rather simple, doesn't it?

This post was last updated by Clive Elwell Tue, 21 Mar 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 22 Mar 2017 #55
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 388 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Can the process of division be observed?

No, because this would mean that there's an observer observing that process of division, i.e.: division trying to observe division, which is a nonsense ... Now, the question is how this division can be noticed, or seen, if it can not be observed? ... To me there's something else which is not a conscious observation directed by thought, something that melts with that division as if water poured into water, and which is totally aware of it without any thought, or 'me' observing it ... I don't know if i'm conveying something.

BTW, i checked the post rule yesterday with my co-workers, and you were right! :-)
Going to work now, arriving late as usual! .-) ... Listen to you in the evening.

"When i talk to audiences, they know what i'm talking about ... another thing is that they do something about it" - K. Brockwood Park (Making ideas of the Teaching)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 22 Mar 2017 #56
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3729 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
No, because this would mean that there's an observer observing that process of division, i.e.: division trying to observe division, which is a nonsense .

But must all observation come from a centre? Can there not be observation without any observer at all? And if you say "no", I say "why not"?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 24 Mar 2017 #57
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3729 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote (#50) :
Can that movement you mention - i.e. the process of division - be observed? Where the whole process of division IS observed, does the controller then still control or try to control action? Where there is unitary observation of the whole process "at a glance", the very observation acts and it acts without fragmentation, doesnt it? Where there is division, it is "me" looking at each component, each image or idea, separately.

This question of unitary observation, the observation with duality, without the observer/observed division, is extraordinarily important. If it does not exist, there is only conflict, the path human beings have followed from the start of it all.

At this moment, I dont know if this holistic observation is possible or not. You are saying. Huguette, that there IS such an obervation, since you go on to say:

Where there is unitary observation - i.e. observation without the “me” - then the "me" is no longer the factor or centre trying to control action, is it?

Is this what K calls "seeing the whole"? I came upon this extract recently:

"The mind is then the instrument of total action, and not the creator of total action"

which seems to support your words "the me is no longer the centre"

He goes on to add that total action can only be found through self knowledge.

This post was last updated by Clive Elwell Sat, 25 Mar 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 31 - 57 of 57 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.)