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

What does it mean to deny and yet live with what is?


Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 34 in total
Wed, 06 Dec 2017 #1
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3847 posts in this forum Offline

Below I reproduce the JKOnline daily quote, on denial, entitled: “It is essential to deny thought as remembrance ” I found myself asking, just what does K mean by that word, “deny”, in this context? After all, an essential part of the teachings is the choiceless awareness of what is. He talks a lot about “living with what is” and I understand, I think, the importance of this. For example:

Know what it means to live with actuality. In observing myself I find that I am jealous, anxious, or envious – I realise that. Now I want to live with that because it is only when I live with something intimately that I begin to understand it. (Saanen 1967 talk 5)

it appears at first glance that there may be a contradiction between the “this constant denial of little things” and “living with what is”

After all, I am these thoughts that arise, that K describes. It is a fact that thought wanders all over the place. Memories of other places, other times, DO keep arising. When, as K describes, “I am shaving and I remember the lovely time I had in Switzerland”, what does it mean to “deny” this? It is actually happening.

In looking at this question, we might go into the business of contradiction generally ….. dipping into the teachings at different places, and finding apparent contradiction. Is this contradiction inevitable when things are expressed, described, though thought?

It is essential to deny thought as remembrance

How does one deny? Does one deny the known, not in great dramatic incidents but in little incidents? Do I deny when I am shaving and I remember the lovely time I had in Switzerland? Does one deny the remembrance of a pleasant time? Does one grow aware of it, and deny it? That is not dramatic, it is not spectacular, nobody knows about it. Still this constant denial of little things, the little wiping's, the little rubbing's off, not just one great big wiping away, is essential. It is essential to deny thought as remembrance, pleasant or unpleasant, every minute of the day as it arises.

One is doing it not for any motive, not in order to enter into the extraordinary state of the unknown. You live in Rishi Valley and think of Bombay or Rome. This creates a conflict, makes the mind dull, a divided thing. Can you see this and wipe it away? Can you keep on wiping away not because you want to enter into the unknown? You can never know what the unknown is because the moment you recognise it as the unknown you are back in the known. The process of recognition is a process of the continued known. As I do not know what the unknown is I can only do this one thing, keep on wiping thought away as it arises.

You see that flower, feel it, see the beauty, the intensity, the extraordinary brilliance of it. Then you go to the room in which you live, which is not well proportioned, which is ugly. You live in the room but you have a certain sense of beauty and you begin to think of the flower and you pick up the thought as it arises and you wipe it away. Now from what depth do you wipe, from what depth do you deny the flower, your wife, your gods, your economic life? You have to live with your wife, your children, with this ugly monstrous society. You cannot withdraw from life. But when you deny totally thought, sorrow, pleasure, your relationship is different and so there must be a total denial, not a partial denial, not a keeping of the things which you like and a denying of the things which you do not like.


  • Krishnamurti, Krishnamurti On Education, Talk to Teachers, Chapter 4

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 06 Dec 2017 #2
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 414 posts in this forum Offline

Hello Clive,

Isn’t it the denial of the significance of the memory/thought which has arisen, and of the process of self as the thinker or rememberer, that is meant - NOT denying the actual presence or movement of thought/memory? Denial does not mean making an effort to suppress or prevent memory/thought from moving, or to stop it in its tracks. A memory/thought which arises can be observed without making an effort or choice to accept it, allow it, dismiss it, stamp it out, approve, disapprove, etc.

In fact, isn't it only by being aware of the whole movement or process of thought that one CAN deny it, in the sense of not attributing “selfhood” to it, in the sense of not giving it meaning as good or bad, pleasant or unpleasant? By being aware, one observes the “moral or emotional score or measure” that the mind is in the habit of attributing to memory and it is THAT habitual, mechanical, process which is “totally denied” by being aware. No?

The denial lies not in an effort or pretense to deny the fact of it. We can see that effort and pretense are not only ineffective but actually feed and strengthen memory or thought. The denial is in NOT giving, NOT ascribing significance to it as being either a pleasant or unpleasant; it is in NOT identifying it as “my” memory. It is in being attentive. Isn’t that what is meant?

So denial is not denial of awareness.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 07 Dec 2017 #3
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3847 posts in this forum Offline

Hello Huguette

I still think the word “denial” is an unfortunate choice. In recent times the word has become associated with the denial of facts, the denial of what is true. And the word suggest that there is the one who denies, the denier, and that denial is the action of the self, with some motive behind it. But I won't get caught up in a mere word. When the word awareness is used instead, as you do, Huguette, then it makes perfect sense.. Awareness has its own action, which is free of motive, isn't it?

Huguette . wrote:
in the sense of not giving it meaning as good or bad, pleasant or unpleasant?

Or one could say, “not attributing value”. I came upon K using this word “value” recently, when in discussion with others, and it puzzled us, to deny value, but I see here it makes perfect sense.

Huguette . wrote:
isn't it only by being aware of the whole movement or process of thought that one CAN deny it, in the sense of not attributing “selfhood” to it

To see thought for what it is, yes. One could say, perhaps, to deny reality. Would it be fanciful to say that such seeing, such actions as K describes in the passage that I cited, is to take a small step out of the common human consciousness, and that is the thrust of what K is getting at in this extract?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 07 Dec 2017 #4
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 414 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
I still think the word “denial” is an unfortunate choice. In recent times the word has become associated with the denial of facts, the denial of what is true.

I think I know what you mean: denial of the holocaust, denial of sexual or any other kind of misconduct, denial of lies, pretense, fear, anger, or of “what is” generally. I think that at different times K used “denial” and other words in different senses. These are surely some of the difficulties of language ... but which a shared, unshakable interest can overcome, don't you think?

Clive Elwell wrote:
Or one could say, “not attributing value”.

Yes, exactly. That’s what I was trying to say by “the habit of attributing a moral or emotional score or measure to memory”.

Clive Elwell wrote:
Would it be fanciful to say that such seeing, such actions as K describes in the passage that I cited, is to take a small step out of the common human consciousness, and that is the thrust of what K is getting at in this extract?

This denial of “the lovely time I had” or “the terrible time I had” seems at first glance to be such a small, insignificant thing. But it is this attribution of value which is the mechanism of “selfhood” - which is "the common human consciousness" - isn’t it? Therefore to deny such value is to deny the self and consciousness. Each remembering of “the lovely (or terrible) time I had” is the birth of the “continuous” self. Each attribution of value to memory is the birth of self and the illusion of continuity. Is it so?

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 08 Dec 2017 #5
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 414 posts in this forum Offline

It occurs to me that to deny knowledge in relationship is to be in a state of innocence. After all, doesn’t innocence mean a mind which is uncontaminated by knowledge? So this too must be “denied”, mustn't it.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 08 Dec 2017 #6
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 765 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
K-...Still this constant denial of little things, the little wiping's, the little rubbing's off, not just one great big wiping away, is essential.

Speaking of seeming contradictions, I think that many people interested in his talks and writings just gave up after a time when the big 'transformation' (mutation) didn't materialize. So often had he said that once the truth was seen, there was no going back, that 'time' couldn't be a part of the process. No gradualness, etc... but here (and in other places) he speaks about "the little wipings", these daily motiveless 'efforts' that are necessary, even "essential".

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 08 Dec 2017 #7
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2045 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
It occurs to me that to deny knowledge in relationship is to be in a state of innocence. After all, doesn’t innocence mean a mind which is uncontaminated by knowledge?

Absolutely....it's this knowledge of 'me' and 'you' which is the underlying cause of much, if not all, of the world disorder. In the family ...in 'me'....and outwardly, the Jew vs. the Arab, etc. All the labels and knowledge and memories which divide. It's 'psychological' knowledge which denies love.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Fri, 08 Dec 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 08 Dec 2017 #8
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2045 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
'efforts'

Glad you put that in quotes, Dan, because if you're making an effort to deny there's self deception there.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 08 Dec 2017 #9
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 765 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
because if you're making an effort to deny there's self deception there.

And yet if you make no effort to deny, no 'effort' to make these "little wipings", these "little rubbings off" etc., you 'do' nothing. So who or what is doing this "essential" work?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Fri, 08 Dec 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 09 Dec 2017 #10
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3847 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
These are surely some of the difficulties of language ... but which a shared, unshakable interest can overcome, don't you think?

Yes, where there is the interest, the passion to understand.

Huguette . wrote:
Each attribution of value to memory is the birth of self and the illusion of continuity. Is it so?

I see that to attribute value is to define “who we are”, it is solidify conditioning, yes.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 09 Dec 2017 #11
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3847 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
It occurs to me that to deny knowledge in relationship is to be in a state of innocence. After all, doesn’t innocence mean a mind which is uncontaminated by knowledge? So this too must be “denied”, mustn't it.

This is a huge thing, a vast thing, isn't it, knowledge in relationship. Can it be denied - negated, to bring in another word? Can it end? As all life seems to be a matter of relationship, you are basically asking, are you not, can knowledge end. I certainly have a feel for this question (of course we are talking about psychological knowledge, not necessary technical knowledge).

Your question prompts me to do something I was uncertain about – describe a very powerful dream I had very recently. See the new thread entitled simply “a dream”.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 09 Dec 2017 #12
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 414 posts in this forum Offline

Re: 9, 10, 11

Tom, Dan, Clive,

Isn’t the one ”doing” the wiping the same as the one who is “doing” the seeing and understanding of what “denial” IS? --- namely, “no one”. Isn't awareness of a different nature or quality than thought-time-self, not bound to memory? So awareness is not a "me" or a "who", it cannot be put in the same basket as the process of self, thought, consciousness. Awareness is not "me” because “me” consists of thought - and awareness is not thought. Awareness is not a "what" because it is not observable. There IS awareness, isn't there? Does anyone deny that there is awareness? But it is not observable, is it? It's maddening, beyond the ability of thought to express it fully, it seems to me. All of which does not mean that awareness is separate from, in opposition to or in conflict with thought/memory, any more than awareness is separate from, in opposition to or in conflict with breathing, digesting, cell activity, laughing, crying, and so on. So awareness is not separate from “me”, not separate from the wholeness of the human being, not separate from experiencing. Awareness is just NOT a “me” or a “who”, just as breathing and laughing are not done by a “me” or a “who”. It seems to me.

But where thought/consciousness is cut off from awareness, where thought is “independent” of awareness and “acts” out of its self-attributed independence or separation, where it acts from its position in the centre of "the world" and beyond, then ever expanding chaos ensues. And this is the situation in “the world”. Isn’t it?

So doesn’t the seeing, the awareness itself act to wipe away, rub out or deny “my” sentimental reminiscing? In seeing the whole process of reminiscing, it is not thought which acts. The action of awareness is not rooted in thought. A fact which is not directly observed or seen cannot be verbalized accurately or truthfully, can it? Verbalization which is engendered solely by the content of consciousness - which is psychological time - is therefore incomplete and false. It is missing the element or quality of truth because it is isolated, cut off from awareness, understanding, intelligence. Am I imagining all this or is it so?

In our self-examination, we usually talk about, “concentrate on”, facing fear, anger, jealousy, greed, and about staying with THOSE as they arise. For the most part, we don’t include PLEASURE in our talks of observation - rather we exclude it from consideration. Is it that the mind thinks something along the lines that “pleasure is harmless”, that “after all, pleasure doesn’t make me suffer and, though it is not joy or deep contentment, it IS .... pleasure ... so where’s the harm in it”. We're after the big fish, the ones which make us suffer. But pleasure - like anger, fear, jealousy, greed - is value-added memory, emotion that is attached to memory. Which is the same reactive process as anger and fear, isn’t it?

So the "small" (but not insignificant) wipings away, rubbings out or denials we are talking about are the action of awareness, aren't they? Are they?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 09 Dec 2017 #13
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2045 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Isn’t the one ”doing” the wiping the same as the one who is “doing” the seeing and understanding of what “denial” IS? --- namely, “no one”. Isn't awareness of a different nature or quality than thought-time-self, not bound to memory?

I was just going to reply to Dan's question in #9 by saying 'no one'. The idea of the one doing the wiping away is more of the same image making and time. It's a denial of awareness. It's the dividing 'me'. Going to re-read your post again when I have time. What you're saying about awareness is very interesting! But I haven't had time to fully digest it. Will come back to it later, time permitting. Busy day ahead...snow is in the forecast and much to attend to here.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 09 Dec 2017 #14
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 765 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
So the "small" (but not insignificant) wipings away, rubbings out or denials we are talking about are the action of awareness, aren't they? Are they?

For my part Huguette, I say yes to all you have written. I think that we are looking at the same 'situation'. I also considered what word could be used to describe the 'actor' of the "wipings away", you say "awareness" and I agree, but what about 'Intelligence'? Intelligence is aware of the actions (the movement) of the 'self/thought' and that awareness is the denial in that moment. It becomes very clear when the 'fear of your own death' arises. Imagination goes into high gear and there is then, the 'awareness' that thought itself IS the fear. And that you are that thought! That is the 'stream' I'd say that we are 'stuck' in. Thought desperately tries to find a way out of this sensation but intelligence understands that the only 'true' way out is for thought to cease, to cease trying its subtle ways to escape.(from itself)

And yes "pleasure" is also part of the 'stream', nothing is 'outside' of it. But thought wishes to keep and enhance the pleasures and avoid and escape from what seems to threatens its security. But Intelligence (sometimes) can see that they are both sides of the same false 'coin'. So the small "wipings" of all of it are significant.

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 10 Dec 2017 #15
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3847 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:

And yet if you make no effort to deny, no 'effort' to make these "little wipings", these "little rubbings off" etc., you 'do' nothing. So who or what is doing this "essential" work?

Speaking from the insight of Huguette's post #12, it is awareness that is doing that essential work, is it not?

Do we really know this effortless state which you infer, Dan? Or do we merely THINK that we know it, as a result of speculation? And can we really say that “we do nothing” in such a state?

Besides, feeling that phrase “do nothing” is ambiguous. You are not implying the pure state of non-action which, according to K, is the highest form of action, are you?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 10 Dec 2017 #16
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3847 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
There IS awareness, isn't there?

It seems to me that awareness has the power to dispel illusion. It “destroys” what is false. But it is not correct to put it that way – illusion, the false, never existed in the first place – so how can it be destroyed?

But awareness sees that the false does not exist. Without awareness, the false is convinced that it is NOT false. So awareness is needed to undo, to unravel, this false conviction. But this undoing – which I would say is not different from K's original “denial” - is not positive action, not effort, not doing in the conventional sense of the word. It is simply seeing what is.

I was going to add that awareness has no effect on a fact, but your statement, Huguette, that:
“ A fact which is not directly observed or seen cannot be verbalized accurately or truthfully, can it? ” challenges that assertion.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 10 Dec 2017 #17
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 765 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Besides, feeling that phrase “do nothing” is ambiguous. You are not implying the pure state of non-action which, according to K, is the highest form of action, are you?

Being a part of the 'stream' (being the 'stream') means that you cannot not 'do' something. 'I' am always trying to keep the ship on an even keel. To say it differently, I must try to 're-inflate' after 'deflation'. 'Life' itself seems to be a source of deflation, humiliation, etc. since at the end of it all there is this unspeakable, unimaginable thing called 'death'. (also physical pain, beside the mental) The 'stream' has rationalized this thing called 'death' in a million different ways, some quite bizarre (even for humans) but nothing can really free one except the "stepping out of the stream". (this is what is implied in the phrase "pure state of non-action") That is what this is all about isn't it? To step out of the stream of human thought before physical death? Everything else just adds and strengthens it, doesn't it?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 10 Dec 2017 #18
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 410 posts in this forum Online

Clive Elwell wrote:
It seems to me that awareness has the power to dispel illusion. It “destroys” what is false. But it is not correct to put it that way – illusion, the false, never existed in the first place – so how can it be destroyed?

Suppose that you go down the street and see your best friend in the distance ... So, you run to him/her to say "Hi!" ... But nearer you are of him/her more you realize that it is not your best friend but an stranger ... Now, your best friend was just an "illusion, the false, never existed in the first place" ... Anyway it was created and then destroyed

Now, who created it?
Who destroyed it ... if it never existed in the first place?!


BTW! ...

This thread is worth to be read and deepen in oneself the things shared here by the participants ... of which the ones shared by Huguette are pure Gold! (at least this is so to 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)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 10 Dec 2017 #19
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 410 posts in this forum Online

Huguette . wrote:
Is it that the mind thinks something along the lines that “pleasure is harmless”, that “after all, pleasure doesn’t make me suffer and, though it is not joy or deep contentment, it IS .... pleasure ... so where’s the harm in it”.

Yes, in general mind thinks like this about pleasure ... and although IT KNOWS that such pleasure eventually will turn into affliction, it denies such possibility trying to constantly convince itself of what you say just at the end: "where's the harm in it?"

That's why such minds when they enter in contact with wise minds (whatever the word 'wise' may mean), that talk to them about pleasure being in fact the other side of the coin that leads inevitably to affliction, react against it ... up to the point that sometimes they think that killing the messenger (either physically or psychologically) they will stop the inevitable.

Such ignorant minds, totally devoted to their own pleasure, are unable to see those who are crying now around them ... those who long before them thought also that they could stop the inevitable by denying it.

Really sad that we leave this world without having lived in it but an illusion!

Time to go to bed ... Good night to you all!!

"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, 10 Dec 2017 #20
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 410 posts in this forum Online

Huguette . wrote:
Am I imagining all this or is it so?

"That something which is not me" tells me that there's no imagination in your words
Hope to comment a little bit more on it tomorrow

And thanks a lot for sharing "that something which is not you" with all of us!

"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
Tue, 12 Dec 2017 #21
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3847 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Being a part of the 'stream' (being the 'stream') means that you cannot not 'do' something.

Yes Dan, human consciousness is a matter of continual activity. How many times in the course of the day do I hear from people “I am so busy”? - and I know that that is self-inflicted business for the most part, which I can only see as some sort of avoidance.

And the root of busy-ness is as you infer, the mind trying to correct itself, improve itself, complete itself, as the doer trying to act on what needs to be done. Yes, this is the stream of human consciousness, with its fundamental illusion of thinker/thought separation, which appears to be a thousands of years old pattern.

And the mind may try to quieten itself, cease or at least reduce its incessant activity, but it seems to me this is still part of the same movement of doing. The mind IS this doing. And any attempt to step out of the stream is just more doing. As you say, it just adds to the stream.

So to ask if one can step out of the stream is one of those “impossible questions” of K. It must be asked, but it seems there cannot be an answer.

But also I think it is false to think that there is nothing but a great urge, demand, to step out. There are other factors, factors which want to stay comfortably in the stream, would you not say? These factors could be roughly classified under the banner of “pleasure”, as Huguette recently brought up.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 12 Dec 2017 #22
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3847 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
Now, who created it?
Who destroyed it ... if it never existed in the first place?!

What you describe is just the mind, the senses, making a mis-perception, is it not? So it formed a wrong idea, which we may call an “illusion”. There is no “who” who created it, it was just the brain making a mistake. And when the mistake is realised there is no “who” who destroys the illusion – the brain just accepts new evidence of the senses, and corrects itself, no?

Looking at what I wrote again, ie:
“It seems to me that awareness has the power to dispel illusion. It “destroys” what is false. But it is not correct to put it that way – illusion, the false, never existed in the first place – so how can it be destroyed?"

In the light of your example, it was never a fact the stranger was my friend. One may say that the illusion itself existed, but that stretches the meaning of the word “existed” :-)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 12 Dec 2017 #23
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2045 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
But also I think it is false to think that there is nothing but a great urge, demand, to step out. There are other factors, factors which want to stay comfortably in the stream, would you not say? These factors could be roughly classified under the banner of “pleasure”, as Huguette recently brought up.

Isn't the stream equivalent to the whole of our consciousness? The urge to step out is a movement of that consciousness, too, wouldn't you say? The desire to change , too. There's nothing 'I' can do that's not an action of the stream. As you yourself said: "And any attempt to step out of the stream is just more doing. As you say, it just adds to the stream." It's an action of the stream....'me'.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Tue, 12 Dec 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 13 Dec 2017 #24
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3847 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote (but I think he has since deleted) :

“Seeing that I am the 'stream' is the "stepping out"

How come?

Dan McDermott wrote :

“ without a total self-knowledge in the moment”

What is this "total self knowledge", Dan?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 13 Dec 2017 #25
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3847 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
The urge to step out is a movement of that consciousness, too, wouldn't you say?

It would seem so. And yet I hold that tentatively.

An "urge" - is that a movement? Is that desire? Or can it be something more subtle? Something akin to passion, seriousness ...... ? Just asking.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 14 Dec 2017 #26
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2045 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Tom Paine wrote:

The urge to step out is a movement of that consciousness, too, wouldn't you say?

It would seem so. And yet I hold that tentatively.

It's a movement in time, isn't it?

Not sure I can answer the other questions you pose, Clive. Will have to give them further consideration before replying further.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 14 Dec 2017 #27
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 765 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
What is this "total self knowledge", Dan?

The so-called 'self', the 'me' is not the model of 'humility', is it?. It holds itself in very high regard. It considers itself to be an absolute necessity, the necessity. It can't imagine how the body/mind could get along without it. Yet actually it is nothing but a 'limitation', an impediment and even more ironic, an illusion. It is the sensation of a 'thinker' that 'feels' separate from what 'he' thinks about. He is the collector of beliefs, he is the 'american' or the 'englishman' or whatever, isn't he? And those attachments and beliefs and goals and desires give him a kind of individuality among all the other so-called selfs that he compares himself to...An illusion based on fear.

Can 'life' go on without him? The question as I'm seeing it is, can there be 'real' life with 'him'?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott 2 days ago.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
2 days ago #28
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 765 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Dan McDermott wrote :
“Seeing that I am the 'stream' is the "stepping out"

Clive: How come?

Because there can be no other action than the 'seeing'. Everything else is conflict or resistance.
'Seeing" is the "attempt without effort", without 'time'. It is the "denial", the negation, the "dying to", the "living with death", the "stepping out", isn't it?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott 2 days ago.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
1 day ago #29
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3847 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Because there can be no other action than the 'seeing'. Everything else is conflict or resistance.
'Seeing" is the "attempt without effort", without 'time'. It is the "denial", the negation, the "dying to", the "living with death", the "stepping out", isn't it?

What you say appears to be true, Dan. As K says in "The Ending of Time":

"In becoming you are always continuing what you are".

Dan, above you said:

“Seeing that I am the 'stream' is the "stepping out"

What does it mean for you "to see that I am the stream"? At times I seem to see this, to feel it in fact. It is certainly a more logical explanation of human consciousness that the idea of a separate human consciousness, where "I think". Yet I am not sure that I totally understand it.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
22 hours ago #30
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 765 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
What does it mean for you "to see that I am the stream"?

Hi Clive

I can't say what it means to me but this reminds me of a question K. posed somewhere: " Can the brain free itself from its self-created bondage?"

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 34 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.)