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

Being what you are


Displaying all 28 posts
Page 1 of 1
Wed, 11 Oct 2017 #1
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3736 posts in this forum Offline

There are distinct, different streams now running through Mina's thread “Why are we continuing in the same path...”, so I thought we might start anew.

People have been talking about “being what one is”.
Dan wrote:

emphasized text So here is my question (I think) K. is saying "be what you are,and be aware of it".

And I want to bring in what Huguette wrote:

“To me, what you say here is crucial, Dan: to see “what I am", not to try to deny or hide it. And doesn't "what I am" include the desire and effort to become "what I should be", the fear of being seen "as I am", and so on? In the actual seeing, there is no desire, no fear and no effort, is there? The perception of desire, fear and effort is free of thought. ”

At first glance, it seems impossible NOT to be what one is. What else can one be? How does the feeling arise that one IS'NT what one is?

Seems to me that in trying to discuss this issue, thought gets confused even more quickly and even more deeply than it does with other issues. It comes upon such contradiction as: “what I am includes states of not being what I am”, or “I desire to be other than what I am, what does it mean to be that desire?”. And so on.

Is such confusion merely an outcome of thought turning the actuality of what I am into an idea of what I am?

Being what I am is not a pursuit, is it? Not an act of will? Is it what is left when one ceases to to try to move away from what is? We could enquire into that movement away, its mechanism, the forms it takes.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 11 Oct 2017 #2
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3736 posts in this forum Offline

Of late there have been two recurrent movements in me, that have manifested as great tension. I won't go into personal details, but one was clearly a fear – of not “performing well” in public – another an intense frustration. The frustration in particular seemed immovable. It comes back with the slightest stimulus - image forming certainly playing a part in that stimulus. Having read a bit of K { :-) } I told myself to be with these things, not try to resolve them, not to escape through any action whatsoever. What happens – I will just talk of the frustration for simplicity - is the feeling gets more and more intense. It threatens to “overwhelm me”. And I start to fear the very intensity of it.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 12 Oct 2017 #3
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 398 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
At first glance, it seems impossible NOT to be what one is. What else can one be? How does the feeling arise that one IS'NT what one is?

Of course it’s impossible NOT to be what one is. But one does WANT to be other than what one is, doesn’t one? For example, here on the forum - if I DON’T SEE that “the observer is the observed”, that “the word is not the thing”, that “I AM the content of consciousness”, etc., but I DESIRE to see it - the desire to see it is wanting to be what I’m NOT, isn’t it?

The pursuit lies in trying to become "what I'm NOT" - not in trying to be "what I AM". If I'm afraid, fear is "what I am". Who WANTS to be afraid? There is no will in being afraid.

The desire to be other than what I am takes many forms. I might be want to shine, to stand out, to be special through "the world" of politics, business, science, education, religion, entertainment, and so on - and I think that such recognition can be reached through my wisdom, intelligence, power, wealth, ruthlessness, inflexibility, flexibility, kindness, sensitivity, etc., as the particular desire requires. No?

There are opposing pressures from the environment. One is the tremendous pressure TO CONFORM to the authority of political, moral, religious and social correctness and to the authority of tradition. One who doesn’t conform to the authority of social pressure, is a traitor, a coward, an idiot, a bad parent, selfish, and so on.

And there is also the pressure NOT TO CONFORM - to be special in some way, to stand out, to be a hero, an innovator, a maverick, to be different, isn’t there?

I like to see myself as having integrity, as not being influenced by pressure. But I’m also afraid not to conform to pressure.

I like to see myself as fearless, willing to follow the dictates of my inner being, but I’m afraid to fail, to be inadequate, to be a laughingstock, and so on.

This conflict between what I am and what I desire to become is the factor of disorder, I think.

If this conflict in all its complexity is looked at closely, isn't it seen that it is driven by fear? --- the fear of being what I am: inadequate, foolish, afraid, incapable, weak, stupid, a loser, a coward, and so on?

This post was last updated by Huguette . Thu, 12 Oct 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 12 Oct 2017 #4
Thumb_de4 Dan McDermott United States 796 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
If this conflict in all its complexity is looked at closely, isn't it seen that it is driven by fear? --- the fear of being what I am: inadequate, foolish, afraid, incapable, weak, stupid, a loser, a coward, and so on?

Yes I am all those things (and worse?). Is the root of that fear that I am actually 'nothing'?... That all the labels and the judgements myself makes about myself all take place in, and are part of the outer 'coverings' of the inner 'nullity'?

And that it is true that the only real 'security' is in being nothing.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Thu, 12 Oct 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 12 Oct 2017 #5
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3736 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
The pursuit lies in trying to become "what I'm NOT" - not in trying to be "what I AM". I

It's the same thing, is it not? “Being what I am” becomes an idea, and we pursue that idea, because we feel “I am not being what I am”

Huguette . wrote:
The desire to be other than what I am takes many forms. I might be want to shine, to stand out, to be special through "the world" of politics, business, science, education, religion, entertainment, and so on - and I think that such recognition can be reached through my wisdom, intelligence, power, wealth, ruthlessness, inflexibility, flexibility, kindness, sensitivity, etc., as the particular desire requires. No?

Yes. Is this purely a matter of how we have been conditioned? Or is it the fear of “the inner void” which we have touched upon on the forum previously? And as Dan brings up, I see. Not that these are two separate things.

Huguette . wrote:
I like to see myself as fearless, willing to follow the dictates of my inner being, but I’m afraid to fail, to be inadequate, to be a laughingstock, and so on.
This conflict between what I am and what I desire to become is the factor of disorder, I think.

Yes, it certainly is.

Huguette . wrote:
If this conflict in all its complexity is looked at closely, isn't it seen that it is driven by fear? --- the fear of being what I am: inadequate, foolish, afraid, incapable, weak, stupid, a loser, a coward, and so on?

Yes, this must be so. But still what I described in #2 above is a fact (not in contradiction to what you describe). I see the “what is”, which may be fear, emotional pain, starting to mount when left alone, becoming incredibly strong (one might say “out of all proportions, but that is by the way), until it seems 'unbearable'.

This post was last updated by Clive Elwell Thu, 12 Oct 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 13 Oct 2017 #6
Thumb_de4 Dan McDermott United States 796 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
I see the “what is”, which may be fear, emotional pain, starting to mount when left alone, becoming incredibly strong (one might say “out of all proportions, but that is by the way), until it seems 'unbearable'.

So then what do you do next? Whatever it is is fine,...run, hide, stand up, etc.... just stay with it. you can't do 'right' or 'wrong'! Thats all 'make believe'.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 13 Oct 2017 #7
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 1999 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Whatever it is is fine,...run, hide, stand up, etc.... just stay with it. you can't do 'right' or 'wrong'! Thats all 'make believe'.

Good post Dan. Kill all the ideals...all the shoulds....all the so called 'spiritual teachings'. They have nothing to do with 'what is' As K said, 'what is' is what's most holy. If I condemn my desire to drink or smoke, or turn on the TV...or some craving or other...my fear or anger...I'll never understand it...never understand myself, who IS all that....the craving...the smoking....the fear..the desire.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 13 Oct 2017 #8
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 398 posts in this forum Offline

#5:

Huguette . wrote:
The pursuit lies in trying to become "what I'm NOT" - not in trying to be "what I AM". I

Clive Elwell wrote:
It's the same thing, is it not? “Being what I am” becomes an idea, and we pursue that idea, because we feel “I am not being what I am”

I’m not sure I understand this. Are you saying that when I’m afraid a 2-pronged idea arises to the effect that “deep down, I’m really unafraid but I somehow got the idea into my head that I’m afraid, so I just need to be what I really am”? Are you saying that when fear is felt, I counter it with the idea that I’m not really afraid, that I just think I’m afraid but that’s not “the real me”? Is this what you’re saying?

In the moment of fear, the physical feeling itself not an idea, is it? The actual fact - not just an idea - is coursing through the whole body - nerves, blood, guts, arms, mouth, brain, flesh. Doesn't the idea that “I should be unafraid” arise to oppose this? The idea is that I should be or become "what I’m not", that "what I'm not" is "what I should be".

Where there is NO fear, the idea that I should be unafraid cannot arise, can it? It is only where there is fear that the idea of “should be” arises, isn’t it?

I want to become rich, famous, admired, loved, powerful, and so on. I want to become something else than what I am because what I am evokes some form of fear. And this convoluted thought process is "me".

This post was last updated by Huguette . Fri, 13 Oct 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 13 Oct 2017 #9
Thumb_de4 Dan McDermott United States 796 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
I want to become something else than what I am because what I am evokes some form of fear.

Even if I'm 'bored', I want to do something to change it. If I get 'distracted', I want to bring my focus back to what I was doing. If I am 'worried', about something, I want to be calm. If I have 'unkind' thoughts about someone or something, I want to be more compassionate. etc.,etc. Always adjusting myself according to the 'image' of myself, how I want to be, to be perceived by others. The 'pedestal' that I've (and the society) placed myself on. So there's rarely ever 'awareness' of the actual state before it's judged as 'wrong' in some way and moved away from. As if I didn't do that, chaos would result!
That's how I see this suggestion to "be what you are, whatever you are and be aware of it". Does that sound right? Awareness is what is important.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Fri, 13 Oct 2017 #10
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 398 posts in this forum Offline

Yes, that’s how I see it too, Dan.

Similarly, if I hold to the idea that I should be tough, hard-hearted, ruled by the intellect not by the heart, then conflict arises in me when I feel compassion. When I hold to the idea of “toughness” and compassion does arise, then I think I’m being soft, which I see as shameful.

And if I deliberately harden myself to conform to the ideal of toughness, I cannot then choose to be compassionate where compassion is needed. Compassion cannot be the outcome of a choice and it cannot have limits placed on it, can it? Action based on choice is not the action of compassion. Compassion engenders its own action.

Similarly, if I deliberately try to soften what I am to conform to the idea of kindness, I cannot be stern where needed in the moment.

Is it perhaps one of humanity’s major contradictions, that we extol compassion and, at the same time, we praise ruthlessness? We divide life into areas, places and times where we say compassion belongs and toughness does not, and vice-versa. We hand out Nobel Peace prizes but we continuously prepare for war. We condemn violence but “no one can talk that way to me and get away with it”. We hold up our ethical values as though they were a reflection of “what we are” inwardly but we shake hands with the Devil when push comes to shove.

This is not a condemnation of myself or the world. It’s just being aware of the facts of MY behaviour, which is the behaviour of “the world”. As you say, awareness is what is important.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Fri, 13 Oct 2017 #11
Thumb_de4 Dan McDermott United States 796 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
We hold up our ethical values as though they were a reflection of “what we are” inwardly but we shake hands with the Devil when push comes to shove.

This hypocrisy that you point out seems to be a hallmark of the 'ego', the 'self'. Also have you seen this?, it always comes as a shock that the 'me' who is 'trying' to 'be what I am" gets left out of the picture...The 'experimenter' stays separate from the 'experiment', 'I' get left out, and when it's seen that that is the case, and the 'I' comes into view, it is a shock...(I don't know if that is a good explanation of that moment or if you can relate to it.)

What I'm trying to describe is maybe what K meant when he spoke about the need for a "comprehensive understanding of one's existence and action", that that is what is 'missing' in one's daily life? The awareness is not "comprehensive", the observer is separate from the observed, the thinker from thought, the experimenter from the experiment, etc.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Fri, 13 Oct 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 13 Oct 2017 #12
Thumb_leaping_fire_frog_by_sirenofchaos natarajan shivan India 80 posts in this forum Offline

As I see, there is no contradiction between compassion and ruthlessness other than as a creation of thought. What is compassion if not continual self negation and what is ruthlessness if not the abrupt transformation of self negating process towards taking outward action when we are being confronted with a perceptional challenge demanding it. We think it is ruthless, because, we act as if we accurately know what needs be done in the present(which will always remain unknown). We can't do away with this contradiction by thought but only resolve it in action; by always carrying deep within us the very thing we think is the opposite, therefore it's being ruthlessly compassionate or compassionately ruthless. The very positing of compassion and ruthlessness as opposites has the potential to cripple the sensitive mind, and to cease seeing them as opposites will free us from both, and that is when compassion is engendering it's own action.

contraria sunt complementa

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 13 Oct 2017 #13
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 398 posts in this forum Offline

re 11:

Dan,

I realize that it's hard to put one's perception into words but I just can't understand what you're pointing to. Sorry. Just letting you know. Don't feel obliged on my account to try again.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 13 Oct 2017 #14
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 398 posts in this forum Offline

re 12:

Natarajan,

I’m not saying they’re opposites. Just as love and hate are not opposites, compassion and ruthlessness are not engendered by the same source. They are not related, they are not a "degree" of each other on a continuum. The action of love is not the action of hate; compassion is not ruthlessness. War is not peace. They are mutually exclusive. Can we do anything but leave it at that?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 13 Oct 2017 #15
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3736 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
So then what do you do next? Whatever it is is fine,...run, hide, stand up, etc.... just stay with it. you can't do 'right' or 'wrong'! Thats all 'make believe'.

When you say, Dan, "just stay with it", is that not an implied 'right or wrong'? Is not the implication that it is right to stay with it, and wrong not to stay with it?

Also, I think that when I write

Clive Elwell wrote:
I see the “what is”, which may be fear, emotional pain, starting to mount when left alone, becoming incredibly strong (one might say “out of all proportions, but that is by the way), until it seems 'unbearable'.

I mean that the fear of the extremely strong feelings prevents me from staying with them.

Why is that?

Another way of putting it is, perhaps, that there is a sense of loosing all control. Of course when one examines oneself, the idea that one is actully in control of oneself is very dubious indeed.

What does it mean, "to be what one is?" Hovering over all this there seems to be self that is this very denial of being what one is, because it is somehow pretending that it is separate from everything else.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 13 Oct 2017 #16
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3736 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
I’m not sure I understand this. Are you saying that when I’m afraid a 2-pronged idea arises to the effect that “deep down, I’m really unafraid but I somehow got the idea into my head that I’m afraid, so I just need to be what I really am”?

I think what I was saying was that the mind, thought, turns “being what is, being what I am”, into a concept. Concepts are the currency of the mind, are they not? They are what the mind IS. Now once the mind has created a concept, an idea, it immediately wants to realise the idea – to “make it real”. To bring it about. I have often wondered why this is so, but it does appear to be so.

So the mind becomes caught in this movement of “trying to be what is”. Which is equivalent to trying to become anything - fearless, enlightened, unconfused ..... As for the “two pronged idea”, if one is trying to become something, then there is obviously an implication that one is not yet that thing. We don't desire what we already have, as you say.

Of course all this is crazy – the word “convoluted” which you use is an apt one. But I feel it is what actually happens, and the process is a denial of “being what one is”.

We can only watch it, as with all the confusion of the mind.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 13 Oct 2017 #17
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 1999 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
When you say, Dan, "just stay with it", is that not an implied 'right or wrong'? Is not the implication that it is right to stay with it, and wrong not to stay with it?

The implication seems to be that if I 'stay with it', I'll be free of it. So I try to stay with it in order to get rid of it....whatever conflict 'it' may be.trying to get rid of it, I'm resisting it. What a mess I/we make. And we have made K's 'teaching' into a religious belief or dogma....a religious 'path'... the path/dogma of staying with it.

I mean that the fear of the extremely strong feelings prevents me from staying with them.

Why is that?

So you have a goal...an ideal...that you 'should' stay with them. That's crazy right? You 've simply made K's teaching the authority for how you should behave yourself. It would be like accepting the authority of the Catholic church...or am I mistaken?

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Fri, 13 Oct 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 13 Oct 2017 #18
Thumb_de4 Dan McDermott United States 796 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
When you say, Dan, "just stay with it", is that not an implied 'right or wrong'?

Yes, "stay" is the wrong word...if the sun is shining it shines on everything regardless of what it is.

Clive Elwell wrote:
We can only watch it, as with all the confusion of the mind.

Can there be a "passive" watching no matter what is going on? It seems not, right? Didn't K say his "secret" was that he didn't mind what happens. 'We' can watch sometimes and other times not, why is that? Because we 'mind' what happens? Because fear keeps that passive state of observation away?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Fri, 13 Oct 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 14 Oct 2017 #19
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 398 posts in this forum Offline

Aren't there also implications in what you’re saying, Tom? That “I should not” stay with “what I am”, that I refuse to do it because in doing so I turn K’s teaching into a religion and make K an authority? Is that what “staying with it” entails?

The brain-mind operating in its habitual patterns of conditioning can take that to be the implication: that if “I stay with it” I’m expecting something in return. But I (brain-mind) don’t have to approach it that way. The mind can approach it without any expectation but simply wanting to find out, to observe. Then the mind is not saying, “I should” or “I should not”, it is not hoping, it is not bargaining or bartering, it is not seeking, it’s not escaping through heroin or joining a cult, etc. Can’t it just find out?

I have followed the same route forever. Someone says, “try going this other way”. I either refuse to go that way for whatever reason, or I do go that way for whatever reason, or I "try it" for NO reason.

Am I refusing for NO reason? Or is it something else that prevents me?

ADDED:

It is only in the MOMENT where there IS anger, fear, desire, etc., AND I AM AWARE (there IS awareness) of it, that I can “stay with it”. Clearly, the memory of it is not awareness of it. So if I’m not aware of it, if there's no awareness that I’m angry in the moment that I'm angry, I can’t “stay with it”, can I? If I merely remember such a moment, it is merely hypothetical to talk about “staying with it”.

So in the moment I’m afraid, angry, or I desire something, can I stay with it? Meaning, can the awareness of it not be lost through the effort to do something about it?

Where there is awareness of what I am, the question of making K an authority or staying with what I am in order to get something out of it ... the question does not come up, does it?

This post was last updated by Huguette . Sat, 14 Oct 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 14 Oct 2017 #20
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 1999 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Aren't there also implications in what you’re saying, Tom? That “I should not” stay with “what I am”, that I refuse to do it because in doing so I turn K’s teaching into a religion and make K an authority? Is that what “staying with it” entails?

I hope I didn't give that impression, Huguette, that one should NOT stay with it. Only that when there's a conflict that perhaps some other action is needed...or perhaps doing nothing...perhaps just turning on the TV to take one's mind off the issue....perhaps. Who knows what will bring insight into the problem. Not my struggles with it...the mind simply doesn't know the answer to my problem. If I'm feeling great anxiety about my job, perhaps some outward action is in order. Perhaps the anxiety is a sign that I really need to put some effort in finding better employment. If not for some 'outward' actions we wouldn't have child labor laws, civil rights legislation, woman's right to vote, minimum wage, etc. Perhaps 'taking a vacation' from the issues we're caught up in is what is needed. Then when we're more relaxed some insight might come of itself. This has often been my experience. Insight into some problem or other comes totally unexpectedly.

Huguette . wrote:
Am I refusing for NO reason? Or is it something else that prevents me?

Tiredness perhaps. Constant problems tire me out...drain my energy. Perhaps rest is what's needed. Or it may be desire to escape the emotional pain we feel (or that we're afraid of experiencing). Or frustration....we try to stay with it, but our mind goes round and round in circles and we're tired of it, so we turn on the TV, pick up a book by K or go out for a walk...put on some music. That's all. Not saying that one shouldn't 'stay with it' at all. It's not totally clear to me what you're getting at in the last section of your post (ADDED), so I will return to it later after giving it another read....time permitting. Busy day ahead.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 15 Oct 2017 #21
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3736 posts in this forum Offline

Still looking at this “being what it”, and it seems to me the best way to approach it is negatively – that is, examining in what ways we DON'T be what it, and what seems to get in the way.

What came to me, forcibly, is that we live in a world where it's not considered acceptable to simply be what we are. It is not respectable. The word is vastly hypercritical, while being one thing, it pretends to be something else. This is a form of collective “not being what is”.

For example, society is highly competitive. Ruthlessly competitive, it is basically everyman for himself, and who cares what happens to the unsuccessful? There is no question that this attitude is inculcated into the young, at school and by most parents. A friend was just telling me about the exam system in India, and how many commit suicide if they fail. But education claims to inpart “right values” in children.

But is the true nature of society, and the true nature of human consciousness, admitted to? For the most part not, instead there is vague talk of 'love' and being kind to people. While the rich and successful, who have trampled competitors underfoot to get where they are, are practically worshipped. Gentle, unassuming, anonymous people are looked down on – a common word expressing contempt these days is “looser”, he is a looser.

So there is this vast hypocrisy in society, people do not admit to being what they are. Ruthless businesses are always “following best practices”. Politicians do not simply say they are in the business because they are hungry for power – no, they are working “to serve others”, they act “in the best interest of the people”. One could write at much greater length about this, but the simple fact is that society (which is people) presents a deceitful face, it is insincere. The root meaning of the word “Hypocrisy” is “acting on a stage”

My point is the whole thrust of our conditioning is to hide what we really are, to cover up our true impulses. Remembering now some lyrics of Bob Dylan:

“If my thought-dreams

Could be seen

They'd probably put my head

In a guillotine”

:-)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 15 Oct 2017 #22
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 1999 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
My point is the whole thrust of our conditioning is to hide what we really are, to cover up our true impulses.

And our emotions...our anger and fear. How many of us have been in a situation at work or school where we pretended to like someone in a position of authority that we strongly disliked....our boss or teacher or professor. Or at a family gathering....pretending to like our in-laws? That's really insane right...to pretend in this way?

While the rich and successful, who have trampled competitors underfoot to get where they are, are practically worshipped. Gentle, unassuming, anonymous people are looked down on – a common word expressing contempt these days is “looser”, he is a looser.

That is indeed the way society is. the poor are definitely looked down upon...considered inferior. Yet, most rich people pretend to follow Christian or Judeo Christian values.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Sun, 15 Oct 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 15 Oct 2017 #23
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3736 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
What a mess I/we make. And we have made K's 'teaching' into a religious belief or dogma....a religious 'path'... the path/dogma of staying with it.

It is thought that makes a mess of things, isn't it. Because it turns what is real, what is true, into an idea. And this is all thought CAN do, because thought IS ideas, concepts, a series of conclusions.

We might say thought turns what is living into what is dead.

So can thought actually see this is what it is doing? Or does thought turn THIS into yet another idea, and so create further problems?

Tom Paine wrote:
So you have a goal...an ideal...that you 'should' stay with them. That's crazy right? You 've simply made K's teaching the authority for how you should behave yourself. It would be like accepting the authority of the Catholic church...or am I mistaken?

Perhaps. Certainly, as we pointed to above, thought does turn observations, insights, into ideas and so into goals.

But .... do not all our observations, our inquiry into ourselves, point towards the absolute necessity of not escaping from ourselves? Which means, staying with what one is, or being with what is (is there a difference in those two phrases?) So there is something factual in this, even though thought may play its tricks on it. One sees there is a necessity. So there is a challenge, which won't go away. A challenge which is much more profound that thought setting a goal, no?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 15 Oct 2017 #24
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3736 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Can there be a "passive" watching no matter what is going on? It seems not, right? Didn't K say his "secret" was that he didn't mind what happens. 'We' can watch sometimes and other times not, why is that? Because we 'mind' what happens? Because fear keeps that passive state of observation away?

I don't know Dan. I don't know if this, fear, is the primary factor that prevents or limits awareness. I really don't know. It would be worth starting a new thread on this crucial issue, no?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 15 Oct 2017 #25
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 1999 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
One sees there is a necessity. So there is a challenge, which won't go away. A challenge which is much more profound that thought setting a goal, no?

This challenge sounds like a 'should'...and an ideal. You say you see the necessity of this 'staying with what is', but if you really saw the necessity, you would do it without effort. But you don't. You see it as a challenge. You are 'here' and you want to get 'there'. 'There' is the ideal. I'm using the word 'you' here to mean any 'you'...any of us.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Mon, 16 Oct 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 15 Oct 2017 #26
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3736 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
So in the moment I’m afraid, angry, or I desire something, can I stay with it? Meaning, can the awareness of it not be lost through the effort to do something about it?

Yes indeed, this is a very important point. The effort to do something about (something) means one is not staying with the (something). It is pure escape, in fact. And this is the highly respected movement we are conditioned in.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 16 Oct 2017 #27
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 1999 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
My point is the whole thrust of our conditioning is to hide what we really are, to cover up our true impulses. Remembering now some lyrics of Bob Dylan:

“If my thought-dreams

Could be seen

They'd probably put my head

In a guillotine”

Ha! haven't heard that one in many years. Can't recall what song it's from. Great song lyric though. "You threw the bums a dime in your prime, didn't you?" "You never turned around to see the frowns on the jugglers and the clowns when they did their tricks for you." from "Like a Rolling Stone".

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
22 hours ago #28
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3736 posts in this forum Offline

I see the issue of "being what is" has arisen on the other thread, which is natural enough, being a fundamental issue.

“I” have been watching things acutely in this light. As has been said by Huguette, any effort is effort away from what is. This effort is the action of the self, the thinker who thought has separated from itself. So it seems to me that if one is to truly “Be what is”, without separation, without division, then the division between thinker and thought must end. The thinker, the self, is always a resistance to what is, a reaction to what is. As long as it arises as reaction, it will “interrupt” what is, prevent 'what is' from fully flowering.

But now I ask myself if this last statement is mere speculation – because the usual “what is” is exactly this division between thinker and thought. Which sounds paradoxical. Seems that psychological thought always comes to paradox, to contradiction.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying all 28 posts
Page 1 of 1
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.)