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

Why don't we give our whole heart, mind, to the inquiry? .......


Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 69 in total
Sun, 03 Sep 2017 #1
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3816 posts in this forum Offline

Juan wrote:
So, perhaps you, or anybody else here, could tell me what prevents this observation, that looking for a better life, from being made in a religious way ... that's it: as "something to which you give your whole heart and mind and body, everything that you have"
I await your answers ;-)

Rather than awaiting answers, I hope we can inquire together into this. As you see, I have even started a new thread for the purpose.

I cannot look at the question theoretically, though. Which means, I can only ask the question of myself, what prevents this observation, this looking for ….. but I will not use the word “better”. Surely “better” has no meaning in a religious inquiry? So I will change your question. How about:

“Why don't we give our whole heart, mind and body, everything we have, into the religious life?”

Is that ok with you, Juan?

My starting point into the inquiry is that I don't know. But, as a start, here is something that I wrote to a friend, after having passed on the quote about “Religion is like bread”:

Have been moved by the passage that I just sent you, K's “Religion is like bread”. Cannot help but look at “my” life in the light of his words. How that life is dominated by the search for pleasure and the illusion of security. Seeing, if I am honest, how one puts one's own comfort and priorities above all else.

But it is all too easy to react to such perceptions, to create as opposite various ideals and try to work towards them. This is not an adequate response; this does not meet the challenge, does it, tempting as it is? That is really an escape.

So what is an adequate response to to seeing one's own triviality? Given that the responses of a trivial mind must also be trivial? What does it mean to really be serious? Without drawing any conclusion, it comes to me that this implies not turning away from the intensity of one's perceptions, not trying to escape in ANY ideals, ideas. Which leaves K's “choiceless awareness” of what is, doesn't it? Except it is not K's, it has to be mine. And not merely as an idea.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 03 Sep 2017 #2
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 399 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Rather than awaiting answers, I hope we can inquire together into this.

Of course, and thanks for opening a new thread ...

Clive Elwell wrote:
Is that ok with you, Juan?

It's ok

Clive Elwell wrote:
But it is all too easy to react to such perceptions, to create as opposite various ideals and try to work towards them. This is not an adequate response; this does not meet the challenge, does it, tempting as it is? That is really an escape.

Here we have one of the ... emmm, how to say this? ... problems?

There's a perception, let's say of my egotism ... I can only react (just using your words) to that perception and create the various ideals and try to work towards them, if thought stops that perception and enters to evaluate what has been seen.

There are to types of action: the one that is brought about by perception itself, and the one that arises once thought stops perception and begins to act on its own.

So the question is why thought is always in a hurry to evaluate what is being seen?
Why thought quickly stops perception to tell her: "wait!, wait! I'll tell you what you're seeing"?

Clive Elwell wrote:
So what is an adequate response to to seeing one's own triviality?

Only one: no response!
That seeing has its own response which has nothing to do with 'us' responding to it.

Clive Elwell wrote:
What does it mean to really be serious?

To see what has to be seen without any fear, without any acting on it ...
... just see allowing that seeing to act freely upon us.

Clive Elwell wrote:
it comes to me that this implies not turning away from the intensity of one's perceptions, not trying to escape in ANY ideals, ideas.

Yes, that is so ...
But thought will fight hard to enter in that intensity and corrupt it with ideals, ideas.

This fighting has been described by many (of any sign) along human history as "spiritual combat" between heart and thought, which on the other hand is innevitable for anyone wanting to actually discover what's happening "here" ...

Demons (christians, jewish, muslims) and Maras (buddhists) are not external demons, but inner ones ... our own thoughts ... Unfortunately (specially in western religions) organized religions have taking much care to make us believe that they are external and hence the need for an external God with which to have us all subjugate ... Anyway, those said also that one is not free of that combat until death.

NOTE: now, 'combat' is just a word that we all know what it means and what K said about it, but i hope you'll go beyond it and will not be caught by the word ;-)

Clive Elwell wrote:
Except it is not K's, it has to be mine.

Not mine, perception is never ours ... at least we want to start again with the same old pattern.

"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 Sun, 03 Sep 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 03 Sep 2017 #3
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3816 posts in this forum Offline

I have put my previous comments, which you have quoted, Juan, in bold format.

Juan E wrote:
Here we have one of the ... emmm, how to say this? ... problems?

Clive: yes

Juan: There's a perception, let's say of my egotism ... I can only react (just using your words) to that perception and create the various ideals and try to work towards them, if thought stops that perception and enters to evaluate what has been seen.

Clive : The “I” that you mention being thought, no?

Juan: There are to types of action: the one that is brought about by perception itself, and the one that arises once thought stops perception and begins to act on its own.

Clive: Yes, that is well put, “thought begins to act on its own”. In isolation.

Juan: So the question is why thought is always in a hurry to evaluate what is being seen?
Why thought quickly stops perception to tell her: "wait!, wait! I'll tell you what you're seeing"?

Clive: yes, exactly. And why does thought always think that it has the answer? Why does it always think that it has something useful to contribute? Is this part of the intrinsic blindness of the self that I have talked of lately?

Juan: Clive Elwell wrote:
So what is an adequate response to to seeing one's own triviality?
Only one: no response!
That seeing has its own response which has nothing to do with 'us' responding to it.

Clive: But thought turns this into another idea. But that reaction can be seen.

Juan: Clive Elwell wrote:
What does it mean to really be serious?
To see what has to be seen without any fear, without any acting on it ...
... just see allowing that seeing to act freely upon us.
Clive Elwell wrote:
it comes to me that this implies not turning away from the intensity of one's perceptions, not trying to escape in ANY ideals, ideas.
Yes, that is so ...
But thought will fight hard to enter in that intensity and corrupt it with ideals, ideas.

Clive: Which is what I said above.

Juan: This fighting has been described by many (of any sign) along human history as "spiritual combat" between heart and thought, which on the other hand is innevitable for anyone wanting to actually discover what's happening "here" ...
Demons (christians, jewish, muslims) and Maras (buddhists) are not external demons, but inner ones ... our own thoughts ... Unfortunately (specially in western religions) organized religions have taking much care to make us believe that they are external and hence the need for an external God with which to have us all subjugate ... Anyway, those said also that one is not free of that combat until death.
NOTE: now, 'combat' is just a word that we all know what it means and what K said about it, but i hope you'll go beyond it and will not be caught by the word ;-)

Clive: No, that's ok, I think you make a valid point. I have met some of those demons. Tolle calls them "the pain body"

Juan: Clive Elwell wrote:
Except it is not K's, it has to be mine.
Not mine, perception is never ours ... at least we want to start again with the same old pattern

Clive: Well, I think you know what I mean. If it is not an idea, then it must be somehow living inside me, as perception.

This post was last updated by Clive Elwell Sun, 03 Sep 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 03 Sep 2017 #4
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3816 posts in this forum Offline

I wrote the words below before reading any posts on this thread, deliberately, so as not to be influenced by the words of others. It is interesting, Juan, how similar my reflections have been to yours.

Yesterday and this morning I ….... cannot find appropriate words here ….. lived these words, or tried to.

““Why don't we give our own heart, mind and body, everything we have, into the religious life?””

And yet immediately it became clear there was something wrong. I could not really understand what the words meant. What is it “to give”? As soon as one tries to actually DO something, there is the realisation it is the self acting. When thought tries to act according to the words, all it has is an an image of what the words mean, and surely to live according to an image is not the true religious life? In fact living according to an image is exactly what conventional religious life is, is it not? Living according to precepts, beliefs, following some so-called sacred book, or the words of someone who has been accepted as an authority?

So it seems that as soon as one thinks one KNOWS what is the religious life, that is NOT the religious life.

Where does this leave one?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 03 Sep 2017 #5
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3816 posts in this forum Offline

I wrote the words below before reading any posts on this thread, deliberately, so as not to be influenced by the words of others. It is interesting, Juan, how similar my reflections have been to yours.

Yesterday and this morning I ….... cannot find appropriate words here ….. lived these words, or tried to.

““Why don't we give our own heart, mind and body, everything we have, into the religious life?””

And yet immediately it became clear there was something wrong. I could not really understand what the words meant. What is it “to give”? As soon as one tries to actually DO something, there is the realisation it is the self acting. When thought tries to act according to the words, all it has is an an image of what the words mean, and surely to live according to an image is not the true religious life? In fact living according to an image is exactly what conventional religious life is, is it not? Living according to precepts, beliefs, following some so-called sacred book, or the words of someone who has been accepted as an authority?

So it seems that as soon as one thinks one KNOWS what is the religious life, that is NOT the religious life.

Where does this leave one?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 06 Sep 2017 #6
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3816 posts in this forum Offline

So, are you not continuing with this inquiry, Juan? I had a feeling it might be an interesting one.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 06 Sep 2017 #7
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2040 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
““Why don't we give our own heart, mind and body, everything we have, into the religious life?”” Quoting Juan?

Clive: And yet immediately it became clear there was something wrong. I could not really understand what the words meant. What is it “to give”? As soon as one tries to actually DO something, there is the realisation it is the self acting. When thought tries to act according to the words, all it has is an an image of what the words mean, and surely to live according to an image is not the true religious life? In fact living according to an image is exactly what conventional religious life is, is it not?

Well put. This has been my feeling as well whenever I read statements like Juan's above. Such a statement seems to only give strength to the the 'me' and the idea of 'me' doing something...'me' making effort....making an effort towards something we don't even know....the 'religious life'. We only know what others have told us about it, right? Of course many of us feel that the quest to understand ourselves is the essence of the religious life. Do we need to make an effort here? This effort would obviously not be the choiceless observation (of 'what is') K. often spoke of.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Wed, 06 Sep 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 06 Sep 2017 #8
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3816 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Do we need to make an effort here?

Do we need to make any sort of effort? This is indeed an important question. We are certainly conditioned to make effort, to react, to strive to achieve something - which carries the implication we know that something. And this process is applied across the board, in practical and 'spiritual' areas. We feel lost if we do not have a direction, don't we?

And yet, as you say Tom, "This effort would obviously not be the choiceless observation (of 'what is') K. often spoke of".

And if there is effort, can there be peace, harmony?

I feel I want to quietly watch this movement in myself. And yet does thought immediately turn even that into a goal, and so make an effort to bring it about?

Here is a quote from K, rather odd, that I came across yesterday, that seems to have some relevance to this inquiry:

“Enlightenment is an accident, but some activities make you accident-prone.”

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 07 Sep 2017 #9
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2040 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
I feel I want to quietly watch this movement in myself. And yet does thought immediately turn even that into a goal, and so make an effort to bring it about?

Yes!

Clive Elwell wrote:
Here is a quote from K, rather odd, that I came across yesterday, that seems to have some relevance to this inquiry:

“Enlightenment is an accident, but some activities make you accident-prone.”

Yes, that is indeed an odd one. I am at a loss as to what he could be suggesting here.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 07 Sep 2017 #10
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2040 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
We are certainly conditioned to make effort, to react, to strive to achieve something

Always!

Clive Elwell wrote:
We feel lost if we do not have a direction, don't we?

Right, and when we feel lost, we pick up a book by K to give us 'direction', right? But life itself is always demanding some kind of action, so that in itself points us in a direction. I mean, we feel hungry and must make breakfast....we find that we're low in food so we are 'directed' to find a way to get more. Our roof leaks and we must take the direction of getting it fixed. Do we ever have time in our day that is free of that kind of thing? Just asking....asking myself as well. I recall my uncle telling me once many years back that getting older and retiring from one's profession would be a terrible thing, because one would be so bored. And I think a lot of retired senior citizens feel bored because their life no longer has this kind of direction....to go to work every day to earn a living. At the time my uncle told me that, I thought to myself that I would love to retire and have freedom from that kind of 'direction'. I was an amateur painter back then, and would have loved to have time to go out 'in nature' and paint....and get lost in the beauty.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Thu, 07 Sep 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 07 Sep 2017 #11
Thumb_dsci0664 George Lanroh United States 33 posts in this forum Offline

"Why we do not give our whole heart to enquiry?"

The more we enquire the more we come upon the fact that all enquiry if it does not spring from the unborn mind and return to an unborn mind leads the mind into the world of conceptual reality. It takes the mind on a journey of selfhood. As long as that is kept in mind one foot is kept in the grave, a good thing since we are not who we (think) we are. More so the intuition here is we are the unlimited original formless potential that has the potential to take form and not one of the countless manifestations it has produced.

There is no other.

This post was last updated by George Lanroh Thu, 07 Sep 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 07 Sep 2017 #12
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 406 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:

Do we need to make an effort here?

Clive Elwell wrote:

Do we need to make any sort of effort? This is indeed an important question. We are certainly conditioned to make effort, to react, to strive to achieve something - which carries the implication we know that something. And this process is applied across the board, in practical and 'spiritual' areas. We feel lost if we do not have a direction, don't we?

And yet, as you say Tom, "This effort would obviously not be the choiceless observation (of 'what is') K. often spoke of".

And if there is effort, can there be peace, harmony?

I feel I want to quietly watch this movement in myself. And yet does thought immediately turn even that into a goal, and so make an effort to bring it about?

Here is a quote from K, rather odd, that I came across yesterday, that seems to have some relevance to this inquiry:

“Enlightenment is an accident, but some activities make you accident-prone.”

I don’t know that K did say this but it doesn’t contradict anything he said, I think.

Certain existing conditions or a confluence of conditions may contribute to, or cause, an accident: a patch of black ice on the road, inattention, poor visibility, fatigue, a loose banister, a broken latch, rotting wood, faulty construction, inappropriate medication, and so on. But isn’t the essence of "accident" that it is something which happens without forethought, premeditation, will, effort or intent? It is totally unexpected. "I didn’t see it coming."

With respect to enlightenment, what seems clear to me is that - however each one of us understands that word enlightenment - there can be no enlightenment unless “the house” has been put in order, and order comes from self-understanding, not through the effort to create order.

In spite of any cosmetic efforts, a house which has cobwebs in the attic, mould in the basement, dirty floors and walls, garbage strewn all around, clutter filling every space, broken windows, broken floors, doors and walls, cannot be a refined, orderly house, can it?

And a mind - however each one of us understands that word - which is disordered, conflicted, depressed, resentful, jealous, angry, hateful, chasing pleasure, and so on - cannot “by accident” be enlightened. Isn’t this self-evident? One can pretend to oneself that one understands one’s own mind, the fact remains that “pretend” self-understanding cannot - does not - unclutter the mind, cannot end disorder in the mind.

An ordered mind is not an enlightened mind but order might open the door, or the window. And even if enlightenment never enters, isn’t order in itself a joy - in those moments of order or clarity?

Then what is it that moves one to observe oneself, to look into the root of one’s actions, and so on? Isn’t it life itself? Isn’t there within each one of us - whatever “one” is - a flame which we did not invent or seek, a flame which we don’t control, a flame which we are not always aware of, but a flame which is not put together by desire, imagination, effort, pretense or hope? And it is that flame - which we did not light - which “pushes” us to understand. Isn’t it?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 07 Sep 2017 #13
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2040 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
And a mind - however each one of us understands that word - which is disordered, conflicted, depressed, resentful, jealous, angry, hateful, chasing pleasure, and so on - cannot “by accident” be enlightened.

But there can be unexpected(accidental) insight into the disorder, conflict, anger, desire, right in the midst of the disorder...when it's not reacted to. We don't eliminate anger prior to having insight into anger. Do we need to bring about order first, and then there is a possibility for insight? I'm not sure. Lots of Buddhist monks lead a life of order, but that is no guarantee of enlightenment, right? K said that learning can take place in observing our actions and thoughts in our daily living....in observing ourselves as we are. Observing the disorder...not trying to bring about order. Will return to this later when I have time to re-read your post. Sorry if I am missing your point.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 07 Sep 2017 #14
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 406 posts in this forum Offline

re 13:

Yes, Tom, I’m saying that. Insight is an “accident”. But can there be insight where there is NO self-understanding and NO self-observation? Self-understanding, to me, IS the order which “opens the door” to the unknown. And self-observation, as you say, is the action which prepares the ground for learning to take place. There is no effort in this, and no expectation.

This post was last updated by Huguette . Thu, 07 Sep 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 07 Sep 2017 #15
Thumb_dsci0664 George Lanroh United States 33 posts in this forum Offline

I understand what your saying. There is also great power in doing nothing being anything we do is giving reality to just one out of countless possible manifestations we can project. At least if we understand that truth is a pathless land then at least we begin from the point of view that we are creating our own world view, the observer is the observer. Long time no see dan.

There is no other.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 07 Sep 2017 #16
Thumb_dsci0664 George Lanroh United States 33 posts in this forum Offline

I understand what your saying. There is also great power in doing nothing being anything we do is giving reality to just one out of countless possible manifestations we can project. At least if we understand that truth is a pathless land then at least we begin from the point of view that we are creating our own world view, the observer is the observed. Long time no see dan.

There is no other.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 07 Sep 2017 #17
Thumb_dsci0664 George Lanroh United States 33 posts in this forum Offline

I understand what your saying. There is also great power in doing nothing being anything we do is giving reality to just one out of countless possible manifestations we can project. At least if we understand that truth is a pathless land then at least we begin from the point of view that we are creating our own world view, the observer is the observed. Long time no see dan.

There is no other.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 08 Sep 2017 #18
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 756 posts in this forum Offline

George Lanroh wrote:
At least if we understand that truth is a pathless land then at least we begin from the point of view that we are creating our own world view, the observer is the observed.

Expand on this George if you would, I'm not clear at all what you mean here. Thanks

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 09 Sep 2017 #19
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3816 posts in this forum Offline

George Lanroh wrote:
The more we enquire the more we come upon the fact that all enquiry if it does not spring from the unborn mind and return to an unborn mind leads the mind into the world of conceptual reality. It takes the mind on a journey of selfhood.

Hello George, good to hear from you after all this time.

I wonder if you could explain what you mean by "the unborn mind"?

but putting that phrase aside, I see, I constantly discover, that all enquiry does lead deeper and deeper into this "conceptual reality", which is always centred on the self.

George Lanroh wrote:
More so the intuition here is we are the unlimited original formless potential that has the potential to take form and not one of the countless manifestations it has produced.

This very much puts me to mind a quote I came across yesterday:

Life behind all form is one, the expressions of that life are not of very great importance.

It was claimed on the website these words are K's, but I cannot verify this.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 09 Sep 2017 #20
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 756 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
"Life behind all form is one, the expressions of that life are not of very great importance."

While this may be 'absolutely' true, doesn't thought interpret it as "I am actually this "life behind all form". It is the ultimate 'security' that thought is constantly seeking, isn't it, that it is not this conflicted little "expression" not of great importance but something infinitely 'greater'...?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 09 Sep 2017 #21
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2040 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
It is the ultimate 'security' that thought is constantly seeking, isn't it, that it is not this conflicted little "expression" not of great importance but something infinitely 'greater'...?

I think we DO seek security in ideas such as this. It can be the simple belief of the Christian in his God in heaven or something like the Hindu belief in Atman and Bramin...or what some call the 'Self' with a capital 'S'. George brought up the notion of the 'unborn', and this may be something very different. Perhaps he's pointing to the unknown and unknowable nature of life.... what K was pointing to, perhaps, with his book title: "Freedom from the Known". But we humans do like to cling to something(an idea or concept) known...find security in that. Even if we call it 'formlessness and emptiness', it may still be an identity for 'me'.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Sat, 09 Sep 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 09 Sep 2017 #22
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 756 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
But we humans do like to cling to something(an idea or concept) known...find security in that. Even if we call it 'formlessness and emptiness', it may still be an identity for 'me'.

And we can only know what is going on with ourselves not within anyone else. No matter what words we use, they are only symbols and we can only know what we are attempting to express with them. So when someone speaks of formlessness etc., we can't know if they are expressing their 'reality' or a fervent belief. That brings us back to ourselves though and the problem of 'becoming', our 'wish' to be something else, i,e, formlessness...? (above the fray?)

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sat, 09 Sep 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 09 Sep 2017 #23
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2040 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
That brings us back to ourselves though and the problem of 'becoming', our 'wish' to be something else, i,e, formlessness...? (above the fray?)

Which is the result of escaping from what we actually are....escaping our conflicts, confusion, fear, loneliness, etc. Trying to 'become' something else as you say.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 09 Sep 2017 #24
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 756 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Trying to 'become' something else as you say.

It seems to be the main source of conflict...the very movement of the 'thinker' is the movement away from 'what is'. The 'thinker' represents permanence, but there is no permanence, anywhere, everything is always changing. 'Permanence' is thought's invention.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 10 Sep 2017 #25
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3816 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Trying to 'become' something

Juan started the inquiry with a reference to early Christian mystics, living in isolation in caves, perhaps wandering in the desert, searching for something they called “God”, something beyond the turmoil and meaninglessness of everyday existence. Such action might be called “giving our whole hearts, our minds, to the enquiry”. And many have devoted their lives in similar ways most seriously – in monastic orders, the sanyasis in India, prayer, supplication …...

And Juan asked:

So, perhaps you, or anybody else here, could tell me what prevents this observation, that looking for a better life, from being made in a religious way ... that's it: as "something to which you give your whole heart and mind and body, everything that you have"

There have been been posts following this that I resonate with. What keeps coming to me is that what prevents the true religious search is searching itself. I mean as long as we have an objective in view, as long as we are trying to achieve something, no matter how rarefied that something is, then this is not the religious enquiry, this is the self seeing gratification or security. This is the activity of thought.

As was said, we are so conditioned to seek results, in every field of life. And as soon as the religious enquiry turns in such a direction, it is not the religious enquiry, is it?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 10 Sep 2017 #26
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 756 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
What keeps coming to me is that what prevents the true religious search is searching itself.

The "true religious search" is not a positive thing, not the going out and finding it 'out there', but it is in this discovery here you have made, that the 'search' itself is false, thought's 'search' is false.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 10 Sep 2017 #27
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2040 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
I mean as long as we have an objective in view, as long as we are trying to achieve something, no matter how rarefied that something is, then this is not the religious enquiry, this is the self seeing gratification or security. This is the activity of thought

And we're not observing what we actually are....observing our actions and reactions in daily living...we're attempting to avoid or escape what we are ....searching. And we can only search for what we know...or project as an ideal. If I'm at heart, a very self centered person, can I learn about that by going off on a religious quest? (That quest itself is a self centered action.) It's right there in my actions and thoughts right in my daily living now. Retreating to a cave or wandering in the desert won't help me see myself as I am, I don't think. And there's the notion of time and achievement which is prolonging my conflict.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Sun, 10 Sep 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 11 Sep 2017 #28
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3816 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
The "true religious search" is not a positive thing, not the going out and finding it 'out there', but it is in this discovery here you have made, that the 'search' itself is false, thought's 'search' is false.

Yes. I was reluctant to move from negative statements (you know what I mean by that, I am sure) to a positive statement. Positive statements tend to become new concepts for becoming, achieving. It seems negative statements, like "what love is not" have a deeper impact on the mind. But one can be alert to the dangers of these movements.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 11 Sep 2017 #29
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3816 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
And we're not observing what we actually are....observing our actions and reactions in daily living...we're attempting to avoid or escape what we are ....searching. And we can only search for what we know...or project as an ideal. If I'm at heart, a very self centered person, can I learn about that by going off on a religious quest? (That quest itself is a self centered action.) It's right there in my actions and thoughts right in my daily living now. Retreating to a cave or wandering in the desert won't help me see myself as I am, I don't think. And there's the notion of time and achievement which is prolonging my conflict.

Yes Tom. I have had the sense, in this thread, of a few of us really "thinking together", as K discussed at length.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 11 Sep 2017 #30
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 590 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:

Clive Elwell wrote:

What keeps coming to me is
that what prevents the true religious search is searching itself.

The "true religious search" is not a positive thing, not the going out and finding it 'out there', but it is in this discovery here you have made,
that the 'search' itself is false, thought's 'search' is false.

May be it's semantic or may be it's fundamental but;

"What's the difference between search and research ??

For me, search is purposeful and research is curiosity about how it fits together.

Must we not speak of research ??

Truth will unfold itself for those who enquire their own actions and only to them and for them and to or for no one else.

This post was last updated by Wim Opdam Mon, 11 Sep 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 69 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.)