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

We have to see what our our actual consciousness is


Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 80 in total
Wed, 03 Jan 2018 #1
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4047 posts in this forum Offline

We have to see what our our actual consciousness is

I have pondered long and hard over K’s famous statement “You are the world”. I take it to be very much associated with the “common human consciousness”, the stream or river of human consciousness that we have so often referred to. And the implication seems to be there is no such thing as individual consciousness at all.

I do have a sense of this. Thoughts/feelings do seem to arise from this reservoir of human experience, to use a term we have used recently. But also I feel the actual perception of some fundamental truth, the real depth of this, is just eluding me.

The quote below, from Saanen 1981 first talk, seems to shed more light on this issue than anything I have previously met – or at least a somewhat different light.

“We have to see what our actual consciousness is. Thought and all the things that thought has put together, is part of our consciousness - the culture in which we live, the aesthetic values, the economic pressures, the national inheritance. If you are a surgeon or a carpenter, if you specialize in a particular profession, that group consciousness is part of your consciousness. If you live in a particular country with its particular tradition and religious culture, that particular group-consciousness has become part of your consciousness. These are facts. If you are a carpenter you have to have certain skills, understand the nature of wood and the tools of the trade, so you gradually belong to a group that has cultivated these special skills and that has its own consciousness - similarly the scientist, the archeologist, just as the animals have their own particular consciousness as a group. If you are a housewife you have your own particular group consciousness, like all the other housewives. Permissiveness has spread throughout the world; it began in the far West and has spread right through the world. That is a group-conscious movement. See the significance of it; go into it for yourself, see what is involved in it.

Our consciousness includes, in the much deeper consciousness, our fears. Man has lived with fear for generation after generation. He has lived with pleasure, with envy, with all the travail of loneliness, depression and confusion; and with great sorrow, with what he calls love and the everlasting fear of death. All this is his consciousness which is common to all mankind. Realize what it means: it means that you are no longer an individual. This is very hard to accept because we have been programmed, as is the computer, to think we are individuals. We have been programmed religiously to think that we have souls separate from all the others. Being programmed our brain works in the same pattern century after century.

If one understands the nature of our consciousness, then the particular endeavour of the `me' that suffers has become something global, then a totally different activity will take place”.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 06 Jan 2018 #2
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4047 posts in this forum Offline

I have been reading more K on this question of the “Stream of Human Consciousness”, (or River), and pondering what seems this deeply significant issue. And I connected it (the mind connected it) with the matter of the deterioration of the human mind. I have brought this deterioration up on the forum before, and especially Tom has been doubtful about whether there is such deterioration, holding (excuse me if I have it wrong, Tom), that human consciousness has always been in this terrible state, with its conflict, violence and misery, etc.

I think my previous wrong perception of the Stream was that it was sort of constant. But the Stream is the depository of all human experience, thought and feeling. So it is constantly being added to. Every lifetime adds to it. Every act of violence. Every selfish action. And so the stream gets bigger and bigger, more and more powerful, if these adjectives are appropriate. Human suffering, sorrow, accumulates all the time in that stream. Think what two world wars would have added to it!

We could take as an example the mass shootings/killings at American High Schools. They used to be comparatively rare (before the Columbine massacre in 1999), now one might describe them as almost commonplace. I suggest such actions entered the Stream of human consciousness, and became established there. Being established, they have to “play themselves out”. And each new one establishes the phenomena more deeply, more firmly, in the Stream – paving the way for even more and perhaps bigger massacres.

In this very real way we can say that human consciousness is deteriorating.

Is this process of adding to the Stream, to the deterioration of the mind, a one way affair? Easy to add to the stream, how about subtracting from it? I suggest very little of that is happening. Perhaps that was the true function of K, to ….. can we say “lighten the load” of human consciousness? And perhaps that was the significance of the Buddha’s life.

There are so many questions. “Stepping out of the Stream” – can we discuss what that means? – is it the diminution of the Stream? Is it one big, final action, or is it …. well, one is reminded of the quote we considered recently:

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.

In big ways or little ways, perhaps the most important aspect of this is to fully realise that WE, you and I, may be adding to the Stream all the time. Our every action stemming from the self. Perhaps our every selfish thought. Does this not bring about a terrible sense of responsibility? It means that all the time we may be feeding violence, conflict, suffering, fear, into the stream – and IT MAY REMAIN THERE FOREVER! Affecting all the people who are yet to be born, and indeed perhaps all people living at this moment. We cannot pretend it is “only our affair”, that “I will take the blame for my actions”. All our selfish actions are there in the stream, affecting all human beings. (in this respect my post #7 in the thread “A Jewel on a Silver Platter” may be relevant)

I would very much appreciate people's comments on this. Please tear it apart, if that is appropriate. But there is a feeling here of insight.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 06 Jan 2018 #3
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 558 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
But there is a feeling here of insight.

I do think it is so, Clive ...

When you say...

Clive Elwell wrote:
It means that all the time we may be feeding violence, conflict, suffering, fear, into the stream – and IT MAY REMAIN THERE FOREVER! Affecting all the people who are yet to be born, and indeed perhaps all people living at this moment.

And right after that you say...

Clive Elwell wrote:
We cannot pretend it is “only our affair”, that “I will take the blame for my actions”.

It means to me that there have been certain insight, or deep questioning if you prefer, to what has been seen not with physical eyes ...

Now let's say that we've seen that, that we feed continuously not only our own stream but the 'global' stream too with our 'blind/ignorant behavior ... What's next, then? ... Or perhaps there's no "next", which can possibly mean that one has stepping out of the stream? ...

So my question is: is there a 'next' after having deeply seen what you say or not?.


BTW! ... HAPPY NEW YEAR TO 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, 07 Jan 2018 #4
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 558 posts in this forum Offline

Some minutes later...

What do you think it would happen if i try to help others to step out of the stream without me being completely out of the stream? … Because there are many who think they have step out of the stream telling others how to get out of it, not realising that in fact they have never stopped feeding the stream (their own as well as the ‘global’ one, and therefore still not being free of it) with their own ignorance which they don’t mind to call it “wisdom” …

Have i heard someone asking “who will tell me what does it mean ‘stepping out of the stream’, then?” ?!

"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, 07 Jan 2018 #5
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4047 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
not only our own stream but the 'global' stream too with our 'blind/ignorant behavior .

But Juan, my understanding/perception of the stream is that there is no such thing as "our own stream". The stream is common to all human beings. I may be wrong, - what does "our own stream" mean to you?

This post was last updated by Clive Elwell Sun, 07 Jan 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 07 Jan 2018 #6
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 558 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
what does "our own stream" mean to you?

If there's no such thing as 'our own stream' there's no 'outer stream', and therefore no 'common stream' at all ... In other words if there's no such a thing as 'our own stream' can there not be any contribution/feeding to the 'general/global/common stream', from which follows that there's also not such a thing as a 'common stream', because it not being feeded it is as empty as the son of a barren woman ...

So, no 'own stream' == no feeding of a 'common stream' == no 'stream' at all ... which seems to render your question about "Does this not bring about a terrible sense of responsibility?", become a non sense question ... Or in other words, what individual responsibility can 'i' have in relation to such 'common stream' if i have nothing to do with it as there's no such a thing as 'my own stream' feeding such 'common stream'?

Therefore let me ask: have the decisions yourself take in life been taken by that common stream or by your own stream? ... Furthermore, if there's no 'own stream' but just a 'common stream' what is the meaning of one meditating on the possibility of stepping out of the stream? ... What is the meaning of 'one' stepping out of a stream that is not feeded by 'himself'?

Would not be the Ganges non-existent if not were feeded by other 'own-stream' rivers?
Do their 'own streams' cease when they join the Ganges or they 'own streams' continue flowing to it?

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 07 Jan 2018 #7
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 558 posts in this forum Offline

Some more words before going to bed...

Did i seem to hear someone asking "Will not be then, that there's no such a thing as a 'common stream' beyond an illusion created by individual 'own streams'?"? ... Did i heard someone asking "Is there any 'common stream', then?

So, let me ask: is the well known statement that "you are the world, and the world is you", talking about a similarity or of a 'common stream'?

Good night! ... Follow you tomorrow

"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, 07 Jan 2018 #8
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4047 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
If there's no such thing as 'our own stream' there's no 'outer stream', and therefore no 'common stream' at all ... In other words if there's no such a thing as 'our own stream' can there not be any contribution/feeding to the 'general/global/common stream', from which follows that there's also not such a thing as a 'common stream', because it not being feeded it is as empty as the son of a barren woman ...

Juan, I am glad to have the opportunity to explore this.

The way I am seeing things – and I could be wrong – I am asking, is this model of “our own stream” feeding the common Stream a correct one? That model assumes separation between the two streams, does it not? Is there such separation?

And if there was such separation, how would the one “feed” the other?

I see a different model – one that I think is consistent with all that K has said on the subject (although that is not proof of its correctness, of course). This model is, there is only the common stream. That common stream, that Stream, contains all human experiences. It manifests as you, as me, as everyone. We are inside that stream – I do not want to imply separation with that word “inside”, so better say, “we ARE that stream”. Any experiences that “you” have, are really the experiences of the common stream. Really the word “you” has no meaning in this respect. There is only “us”.

Perhaps it would help to envisage this by thinking of a flock of birds, or a shoal of fish. Maybe an ant’s nest.

So, no 'own stream' == no feeding of a 'common stream' == no 'stream' at all ... which seems to render your question about "Does this not bring about a terrible sense of responsibility?", become a non sense question ... Or in other words, what individual responsibility can 'i' have in relation to such 'common stream' if i have nothing to do with it as there's no such a thing as 'my own stream' feeding such 'common stream'?

As long as “I” am in the Stream, as long as I am part of the Stream, then can I behave responsibly? Or can responsible action only come from OUTSIDE the stream? This question comes now, and I find it has great vitality.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 07 Jan 2018 #9
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4047 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
Therefore let me ask: have the decisions yourself take in life been taken by that common stream or by your own stream? ...

Juan, life is now. There is no “my life”, there is no “my own stream”, and everything that has happened in the past is immaterial. We can say it has been nothing but illusion, and it is of no importance. Only how I see things now has importance, only learning about life – which can only happen NOW – is important.

In the past I have been in the grip of the illusion that I am a separate individual. That is how I was raised and educated, that is how society approaches me, and I accepted that idea. But now I very much question it. And in the questioning, life seems very different.

Looking now, I see that there is no separate individual, no “my stream”. This is sane, this is logical, this fits all the observable facts. I see there is no sanity in the stream, there is only conflict, violence, suffering, fear. Unless “I step out of the stream” (we can explore what that might mean) all that I do only adds to that stream of human confusion and misery, no?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 07 Jan 2018 #10
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4047 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
Would not be the Ganges non-existent if not were feeded by other 'own-stream' rivers?
Do their 'own streams' cease when they join the Ganges or they 'own streams' continue flowing to it?

But Juan, this question is based on the assumption that the "subsidiary" streams are somehow different from the "main" river. If there is a change, a shift, in perception, all the water can be see as one river, no?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 07 Jan 2018 #11
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4047 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
So, let me ask: is the well known statement that "you are the world, and the world is you", talking about a similarity or of a 'common stream'?

I think that K's statement "you are the world" means "you are the common stream of consciousness"

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 07 Jan 2018 #12
Thumb_img-0590 Mina Martini Finland 215 posts in this forum Offline

Dear Juan and Clive,

Hope you do not mind my stepping in, but coming across the following word from Juan this morning, made my heart sing...as there is the sharing of the following perception which seemed to bring immense joy...

Juan:>If there's no such thing as 'our own stream' there's no 'outer stream', and therefore no 'common stream' at all ... In other words if there's no such a thing as 'our own stream' can there not be any contribution/feeding to the 'general/global/common stream', from which follows that there's also not such a thing as a 'common stream', because it not being feeded it is as empty as the son of a barren woman ...

So, no 'own stream' == no feeding of a 'common stream' == no 'stream' at all ... which seems to render your question about "Does this not bring about a terrible sense of responsibility?", become a non sense question ... Or in other words, what individual responsibility can 'i' have in relation to such 'common stream' if i have nothing to do with it as there's no such a thing as 'my own stream' feeding such 'common stream'?

Mina: Yes! No 'own stream' means 'no common stream', no stream at all

The realisation that the individual IS the collective, or, in other words, that I AM the world, takes place in the absence of both the individual and the collective, because indeed, they are one. They are one when they do not exist!! This is the total negation, or total understanding of that which never existed! :-)

The existence of individual/collective lies exactly in the division between the two!

This is what one has been trying to point to, in different ways, always, but it is only in the silence of the mind (or absence of the mind in other words) that the truth of this can be seen/lived. When not, it leads to all sorts of interpretations and misunderstandings...

m

This post was last updated by Mina Martini Sun, 07 Jan 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 07 Jan 2018 #13
Thumb_img-0590 Mina Martini Finland 215 posts in this forum Offline

Juan:So, let me ask: is the well known statement that "you are the world, and the world is you", talking about a similarity or of a 'common stream'?

Clive:I think that K's statement "you are the world" means "you are the common stream of consciousness"

Mina: Clive...yes, but that is not the whole truth...because the whole truth is not in the realm of the mind at all...(the mind can equated with individual/common consciousness put together by thought)...

here is the most crucial 'point'...to let the truth of 'your being the world', the truth of there being no division between you and the world, or the individual and the collective, ACT...to let the truth of this and only, ACT...the mind not taking a single step...to let the silent empty truth of this ACT and transform the very core of your being...No, better say, to let the core of your being be fully exposed, because it has always been there...

.....

In this silence there is the transformation, of both the individual and the collective which were never separate

This transformation is what K points to, in the quote you presented, as follows:

If one understands the nature of our consciousness, then the particular endeavour of the `me' that suffers has become something global, then a totally different activity will take place”.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 07 Jan 2018 #14
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4047 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
here is the most crucial 'point'...to let the truth of 'your being the world', the truth of there being no division between you and the world, or the individual and the collective, ACT...to let the truth of this and only, ACT...the mind not taking a single step...to let the silent empty truth of this ACT and transform the very core of your being...No, better say, to let the core of your being be fully exposed, because it has always been there...

Yes Mina, I understand this. Only the seeing of the truth of what is can truly act.

Any step the mind might take is further/deeper INTO the stream - because any such step originates FROM the stream already.

Good to hear from you on the forum "again", Mina, although of course there is no sense of that "again".

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 07 Jan 2018 #15
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 558 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
Hope you do not mind my stepping in

I don't mind, infact i knew somehow that you could not keep silent and this would make you step in ;-)

Mina Martini wrote:
When not, it leads to all sorts of interpretations and misunderstandings...

This is in short the human history: interpretation after interpretation of something that can only be seen or not seen ... And it happens that ALL those who supposedly saw it, and used interpretation to try to show others what they saw said thousand times "the word is not the thing", so don't trust the word ...

But unfortunately, we, ordinary human beings gave/give/and-probably-will-continue-giving more meaning to the words than the seeing of it by ourselves without any word.

It is said at the very beginning of some Buddhist text (that i have quoted sometimes in this forum):

[1] "Arising," "enduring," and "disintegrating;" "ex­isting" and "non-existing;" "inferior," "middling," and "superior" do not have true existence. These terms are used by the Buddha in accordance with worldly conventions.

But we gave existence to all those words, writing thousand books trying to explain what all those words mean, moving away more and more of their real meaning ... which is that they have no real meaning at all beyond being mere tools to help us go beyond them.

The Buddha said:


  1. Rely on the message of the teacher, not on his personality

  2. Rely on the meaning, not just on the words

  3. Rely on the real meaning, not on the provisional one

  4. Rely on your wisdom mind, not on your ordinary, judgemental mind


And someone else commenting on them said:

If you do not have such understanding,
Then, like a blind man leaning on his staff,
You can rely on fame, mere words or what is easy to understand,
And go against the logic of the four reliances.

Thanks a lot for stepping in, Mina

"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, 07 Jan 2018 #16
Thumb_img-0590 Mina Martini Finland 215 posts in this forum Offline

Clive, thank you love.

CLive:>Yes Mina, I understand this. Only the seeing of the truth of what is can truly act.

Any step the mind might take is further/deeper INTO the stream - because any such step originates FROM the stream already.

Mina: Yes...and what happens when the mind takes no step at all? (not asking for a verbal answer as such)

This post was last updated by Mina Martini Mon, 08 Jan 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 08 Jan 2018 #17
Thumb_img-0590 Mina Martini Finland 215 posts in this forum Offline

Dear Juan,

Thank YOU, it was the wisdom of your words (and beyond) that was lived as pure , energy at this end, and the joy of it went on expressing itself on the forum...:-)

Juan:>This is in short the human history: interpretation after interpretation of something that can only be seen or not seen ... And it happens that ALL those who supposedly saw it, and used interpretation to try to show others what they saw said thousand times "the word is not the thing", so don't trust the word ...

But unfortunately, we, ordinary human beings gave/give/and-probably-will-continue-giving more meaning to the words than the seeing of it by ourselves without any word.

Mina: The mind IS interpretation/words, so unless the mind itself is understood profoundly for what it is, and so transformed, it will go on listening to, and understanding, words only. It can develop supposed subtlely intellectually, many times in the disguise of 'spirituality', but it will forever remain superficial.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 08 Jan 2018 #18
Thumb_img-0590 Mina Martini Finland 215 posts in this forum Offline

from Juan's reply no 15

Juan:But we gave existence to all those words, writing thousand books trying to explain what all those words mean, moving away more and more of their real meaning ... which is that they have no real meaning at all beyond being mere tools to help us go beyond them.

Mina: Right. Words that come from wisdom appear as invitations to go through them, beyond them, in silence which is the real and only 'meaning'.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 08 Jan 2018 #19
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4047 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
Mina: Yes...but just a moment...can we slow down completely...and say: "Any step any mind might take is the creation (not only going deeper, or rather more and more lost, into it) of the whole of the stream of sorrow."

We’ll see if we can slow down :-)

Yes, I would say that is the case.

So one meets the question: does the Stream of human consciousness actually exist?

Your great grandmother is in that stream, Mina, and mine, as are all the deceased (and the so-called living also) But in what sense can they be said to exist? Did they EVER exist? I mean was there EVER an individual in the stream?

Hmm, it was yesterday when I wrote "Yes, I would say that is the case.", but that perception is not there now, I need to look again (meaning: there needs to be looking again)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 08 Jan 2018 #20
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4047 posts in this forum Offline

Hi everyone

I shall be travelling for the next couple of days (returning to NZ) and there may be a hiatus in my posting. Sorry about that, with this fascinating and vital issue. But we will see, there may be a chance in airport waiting lounges.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 08 Jan 2018 #21
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4047 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
and what happens when the mind takes no step at all? (not asking for a verbal answer as such)

Then one is looking out the window at the trees in winter, the black crows in the field, the gray sky enveloping all, feeling the peace of the countryside. Being one with that peace, really. Or are you saying, Mina, that is more "happening"?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 08 Jan 2018 #22
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4047 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
So, let me ask: is the well known statement that "you are the world, and the world is you", talking about a similarity or of a 'common stream'?

And another similar quote, I think, is:

"You are second hand human beings"

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 08 Jan 2018 #23
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4047 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:

This is what one has been trying to point to, in different ways, always, but it is only in the silence of the mind (or absence of the mind in other words) that the truth of this can be seen/lived. When not, it leads to all sorts of interpretations and misunderstandings...

Well, keep at it Mina, trying - not trying - to find ways of communicating what is seen

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 08 Jan 2018 #24
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2109 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
Mina: The mind IS interpretation/words,

Yes....identification with the contents of consciousness....the mind ...is the 'me'....what is referred to as the 'self'. K saw this as the cause of all human suffering....conflict. Placing importance on this 'me' ....it becoming the center of our being....our living....acting...is the 'wrong turn', isn't it?

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 08 Jan 2018 #25
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 569 posts in this forum Offline

Juan: "If there's no such thing as 'our own stream' there's no 'outer stream', and therefore no 'common stream' at all ... In other words if there's no such a thing as 'our own stream' can there not be any contribution/feeding to the 'general/global/common stream', from which follows that there's also not such a thing as a 'common stream',"

This stream is comprised entirely of matter. Matter as structure in the brain which is memory, which is thought. Matter as words written in books. Things stored in computers. Movies, art, music, all the artifacts that are the product of human activity. There is no division in matter so the stream includes all of nature. Matter is time.

When this person dies the brain here will disintegrate. All memory here will dissapear but the stream... all of the continuing movement of matter will still be there.

Of course it is possible to question the reality of the material world.

And also there is that which is beyond matter, beyond time, that which allows the pointing to a steping out.

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Mon, 08 Jan 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 08 Jan 2018 #26
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 569 posts in this forum Offline

Correction...not a stepping out but rather a seeing beyond.

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Mon, 08 Jan 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 10 Jan 2018 #27
Thumb_img-0590 Mina Martini Finland 215 posts in this forum Offline

Dear Clive,

Mina>>and what happens when the mind takes no step at all? (not asking for a verbal answer as such)

Clive:Then one is looking out the window at the trees in winter, the black crows in the field, the gray sky enveloping all, feeling the peace of the countryside. Being one with that peace, really. Or are you saying, Mina, that is more "happening"?

Mina: More than what exactly? :-) The 'more' can only be in relation to some definition of 'what is happening'.

What I am pointing to, is the essence being in the quality of looking itself, and not in 'what is seen'. Yes, the trees, the cars, the clouds, whatever comes to be seen, is there, but not as objects, not in any distance, but one with the timeless quality of looking without the looker, without thought, past, observer.

This quality is beyond measure, beyond more or less.

"""""

A former exchange between you and Huguette from another thread comes in naturally afresh:

HUguette:So what does it mean to see the whole of consciousness? Doesn't seeing "the whole" of consciousness lie in the quality of the seeing, and not in seeing every single fragment of consciousness?

Clive: Yes Huguette, this clarifies things a lot for me. The wholeness is in the quality of the seeing, not in what is seen. Thanks.

Mina adding to the above: And when the quality of seeing is not from time/mind/thought/fragmented consciousness, THAT is the seeing of the whole of consciousness in a timeless glance! In this seeing, the conscioussness is not there at all, no thing is seen, no one is looking.

Recommend

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 10 Jan 2018 #28
Thumb_img-0590 Mina Martini Finland 215 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Well, keep at it Mina, trying - not trying - to find ways of communicating what is seen

Mina: ....-Hope you had a safe journey back home...it is my turn now to set on a longer journey in a few days, and it is unknown if during it there is any chance to keep up with the forum...but where one goes one goes for the purpose of doing what you suggest above, hopefully heart to heart with others, and that is what matters and not where it happens :-)

This post was last updated by Mina Martini Wed, 10 Jan 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 10 Jan 2018 #29
Thumb_img-0590 Mina Martini Finland 215 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Placing importance on this 'me' ....it becoming the center of our being....our living....acting...is the 'wrong turn', isn't it?

Mina: Yes, the wrong turn which can happen (or not, if there is total awareness of it) any moment. -For thought, which survives only by continuing itself, the 'wrong turn' becomes an idea in time also, as something that has happened long ago and is therefore here also now...-In awareness of what psychological time/wrong turn is, it is not taken.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 10 Jan 2018 #30
Thumb_img-0590 Mina Martini Finland 215 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Mina: Yes...but just a moment...can we slow down completely...and say: "Any step any mind might take is the creation (not only going deeper, or rather more and more lost, into it) of the whole of the stream of sorrow."

Clive:>We’ll see if we can slow down :-)

Mina: Yes love I understand what you are hinting at..:-)

Clive to the first paragraph:Yes, I would say that is the case.

So one meets the question: does the Stream of human consciousness actually exist?

Mina: I would say (not theoretically) that it exists only for an experiencer of it! It is both the experiencer and the experienced, the thinker and the thought. That is what the psychological consciousness is made up of.

Clive:>Your great grandmother is in that stream, Mina, and mine, as are all the deceased (and the so-called living also) But in what sense can they be said to exist? Did they EVER exist? I mean was there EVER an individual in the stream?

Mina: You are again implying that there is a difference between the individual and the collective. Or rather, you are again assuming that the collective remains independently of the individual. In other words that the observed can exist without an observer. That does not seem to be so!

Wait... a person in whom the idea of the individual/self dies, the whole collective sea of individuals dies also...the whole stream can end in 'only one' who discovers their essence as the whole. And neither the individual nor the collective is the whole! Only the whole is the whole and that is not in the realm of consciousness at all.

When the idea of oneself (conscious level) loosens and softens through lessening resistance to what is true, the collective (unconscious) will start exposing itself also. But one does not remain at the level of the collective either, since although it is a deeper or wider layer of the individual, it is essentially of the same relative quality.

oh god difficult to put into words, because in the essence there is only awareness but no words! But remembering your 'keep on 'trying' :-)'...but please just let us stay hand in hand, not starting to form ANY ideas of each other, any division..

Love

This post was last updated by Mina Martini Wed, 10 Jan 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 80 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.)