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

Stepping out of the stream


Displaying posts 31 - 60 of 89 in total
Mon, 12 Feb 2018 #31
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4047 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
Is this being active on the forum not also a form of escape ??

Well, that is up to each of us, to enquire of ourselves if that is so, at any one time.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 12 Feb 2018 #32
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4047 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
Does everything written here make any sense to you (or anyone here)?

Well, I was listening to you fairly intently, and that is what matters, is it not?, rather than making some abstraction about making sense or not making sense?

Juan E wrote:
... So would you like to start anew in our investigation, not about stepping-out of the stream, but about the stream itself? ... I would like it! :-)

Actually, before reading the posts on the forum this morning I wrote something, which I will post at the end, which might qualify as starting anew. (#34)

This post was last updated by Clive Elwell Mon, 12 Feb 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 12 Feb 2018 #33
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 558 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Well, I was listening to you fairly intently

And...?!

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 12 Feb 2018 #34
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4047 posts in this forum Offline

I have stated from time to time that “I have a feel” for being part of the Stream of human consciousness. I was wondering if anyone else has such a feel, such an intimation? I will try to describe how I feel it, and perhaps others will say if this resonates with them or not.

There is a challenge; a normal, everyday challenge. Somebody says something to you. Then, rather than a simple response arising, and perhaps being expressed, it is as if any number of responses start to arise. Non of them dominate the others, None of them seem more important that the others. They are not identified with, so they do not become established in the mind.

One could say they are all 'potential' reactions, responses to the challenge. It is as if ALL possible human responses arise, not one single one. They are as a cloud of possible responses. And I feel this cloud is from the Stream, where all human experiences have been laid down, over thousands of years, waiting to respond, to arise.

Now questions arise about what I have said. It would probably be wrong to say EVERY possible experience arises from the Stream, or are seen, - but a whole bundle do. And also perhaps it is not right to say NONE of them get 'established', or achieve dominance in the mind. If the mind meets the original challenge with a verbal response, one member of the cloud of possibilities has solidified and formed that response. But it could just as easily been another one. And the word “established” is not correct, it is just a thought passing through the mind.

Does this resonate with anyone?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 12 Feb 2018 #35
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 558 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
It would probably be wrong to say EVERY possible experience arises from the Stream

No, every individual experience, either conscious or unconscious arises in, and it's part of, the stream ...

As i felt it this afternoon, there was no K in the conversation with the Buddhists Scholars, but there were five people experiencing that they were actually there as "Walpola Rahula", "Phiroz Mehta", "Stephen Smith", "Mary Zimbalist", and "Shakuntala Narayan", all of them experiencing that they were really listening to a sixth person, that is K, experiencing a seeing and understanding whatever they could have understood during that dialogue about the stream, individually ... But as long as one is still in the stream, all those experiences are-in, and part-of, the stream, therefore one is still subjected to the stream of sorrow ...

As i felt it any seeing in the stream is not an actual seeing, but it has somehow, at some point, the power to "short circuit" the mind to make that mind actually see the stream as-it-is and so step-out of it ... I don't know at all what can bring about that "short circuit" and i doubt it can be known at all, but what i felt this afternoon, and i still feel, is that it is like that ...

Buddha, K, and all the words they uttered to point out the stream, exist only in the stream, not outside of it ... We don't see that because we don't see the stream as-it-is ... So we put Buddha, K, and all what they said as being beyond the stream, but in fact they have been, are, and will be all the time in the stream, never outside of it ...

Enlightenment exists only in the stream, outside of it there's no enlightenment at all ... This is what i feel, and there's a deep feeling that it is so.

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

This post was last updated by Juan E Mon, 12 Feb 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 13 Feb 2018 #36
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 782 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Does this resonate with anyone?

I see it Clive to use this K. analogy of the 'stream' or 'river', is to say that it is all contained in that. The consciousness of all human kind is the stream. The individual manifestations, you, me, we have our differences but in fact we are all the same as regards sorrow, fear, conflict, loneliness, confusion. moments of joy, pleasure, innovation, etc. There is only one way to "step out" that K. has mentioned and that is to ask the question to oneself: Why am I like this? Why this burden of sadness, and despair? Why the seemingly never-ending conflict? Why do we live like this?...The asking of the question leads to an exploration of myself. But the means of the exploration are all important, it can't be based on what has gone before. No system, religion, belief, no motive, nothing but the wish to see and to 'understand' (learn) in the moment. Not to get rid of or make better.. not for the 'reward' of "enlightenment", but just to see what is it that is behind all the conflict, confusion, loneliness etc. What creates it? What maintains it?

To 'remain' with the sorrow, the conflict, the loneliness, etc. without "the interference of thought" (not to suppress it)...That as I understand it now, is a 'different' consciousness than that of the 'stream', (which is the acceptance, the 'putting up' with sorrow, loneliness, conflict, the changing or the suppression of 'what is', etc.) Actually a different 'dimension' of human consciousness.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Tue, 13 Feb 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 13 Feb 2018 #37
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4047 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
All this works only within the stream, outside of it it has no meaning at all ... Buddha, K, exist only in the stream, outside of it there's no Buddha, no K, no Juan, no Clive ...

I have transfered your comment to this thread, as you do not explain how it is is relevant to where you put it.

I want to question if anyone DOES exist in the Stream. In the Buddhist discussion K says K does not exist in the stream, but whether he also meant A, B and C also is not clear. Well actually K does insist that there IS no individual in the stream, only the collective human consciousness which manifests as you and me.

Above somewhere I quoted from K's Journal:

"Consciousness is its content: the content makes up consciousness. The two are indivisible. There is no you and another, only the content which makes up consciousness as the "me" and the not "me"

And furthermore K says that we can ony claim to be individual when we are outside the stream.

This post was last updated by Clive Elwell Tue, 13 Feb 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 13 Feb 2018 #38
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4047 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
No, every individual experience, either conscious or unconscious arises in, and it's part of, the stream ...

What I meant was that there are a great many possible reactions in the stream that DON'T normally arise in this brain. Although potentially they could, I think.

Juan E wrote:
As i felt it this afternoon, there was no K in the conversation with the Buddhists Scholars, but there were five people experiencing that they were actually there as "Walpola Rahula", "Phiroz Mehta", "Stephen Smith", "Mary Zimbalist", and "Shakuntala Narayan", all of them experiencing that they were really listening to a sixth person, that is K, experiencing a seeing and understanding whatever they could have understood during that dialogue about the stream, individually ... But as long as one is still in the stream, all those experiences are-in, and part-of, the stream, therefore one is still subjected to the stream of sorrow ...

Yes, It was the stream manifesting in the 5 brains. In effect it was the stream talking to itself, would you say?

Juan E wrote:
Buddha, K, and all the words they uttered to point out the stream, exist only in the stream, not outside of it ... We don't see that because we don't see the stream as-it-is ... So we put Buddha, K, and all what they said as being beyond the stream, but in fact they have been, are, and will be all the time in the stream, never outside of it ...

I am not sure at all about this, Juan. There was what I felt to be a deep perception on waking this morning, which I will try to describe in another post.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 13 Feb 2018 #39
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4047 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
The consciousness of all human kind is the stream.

And would you say, Dan, that that is ONE consciousness? Actually one whole thing, but somehow it has become broken up? Into you, me, etc?

Dan McDermott wrote:
There is only one way to "step out" that K. has mentioned and that is to ask the question to oneself: Why am I like this? Why this burden of sadness, and despair? Why the seemingly never-ending conflict? Why do we live like this?...The asking of the question leads to an exploration of myself.

It is certainly important, essential, even natural to ask these questions. But I cannot say with certainty that the asking of them leads to the stepping out of the stream. For that is not insight necessary? The insight that does not dependent on any action of ours?

Dan McDermott wrote:
To 'remain' with the sorrow, the conflict, the loneliness, etc. without "the interference of thought" (not to suppress it)...That as I understand it now, is a 'different' consciousness than that of the 'stream', (which is the acceptance, the 'putting up' with sorrow, loneliness, conflict, the changing or the suppression of 'what is', etc.) Actually a different 'dimension' of human consciousness.

Does this imply, Dan, that consciousness is then not divided into thinker and thought?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 13 Feb 2018 #40
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4047 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote in #34:
I have stated from time to time that “I have a feel” for being part of the Stream of human consciousness. I was wondering if anyone else has such a feel, such an intimation? I will try to describe how I feel it

There is more that could be said about the thoughts (and we should not forget feelings) that appear to appear from the Stream, as I described for myself in # 34.

They can appear quite alien. What do I mean by that? That they do not see related to my daily life – or my life at all. That they represent opinions that I have never really held. That they suggest actions that I would probably never do. They respond to challenges that I am not actually experiencing in my present life.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 13 Feb 2018 #41
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4047 posts in this forum Offline

This morning on waking, I reached for a K book that I had been reading intently the day before. But immediately there came a feeling not to read, but to simply watch the mind. What was seen is very difficult to put into words, but at the time I did write down a few sentences:

The way out of the Stream:

Is to see that there is no one in the stream in the first place.

That you are not in the Stream anyway.

That there is no “you” actually.

That there is no thinker separate from thought.

That whenever I think that I exist, then there is a me, then I AM in the stream. Because such thoughts are of the Stream.

To see that one was never in the Stream, means that one is out of it.

How empty descriptions are!

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Wed, 14 Feb 2018 #42
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 641 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:

Wim Opdam wrote:

Is this being active on the forum not also a form of escape ??

Well, that is up to each of us, to enquire of ourselves if that is so, at any one time.

That's also the reason not to keep this question for myself.

Clive Elwell wrote:
How empty descriptions are!

How true, taking the advice of Juan serious, suddenly in the midst of a walk in the Forrest yesterday came this Cristal clear in the mind:
"Somebody is totally different than someone".!

Why don't we use 'someone' for somebody is speaking from a center and 'somebody' when not ??

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

This post was last updated by Wim Opdam Wed, 14 Feb 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 14 Feb 2018 #43
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 782 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
that consciousness is then not divided into thinker and thought?

Right I would say. The division of thinker/thought is what created the 'stream of sorrow'. That unfortunate division of thinker/thought, observer/observed was/is the "wrong turning". As humans we are the inheritors and the perpetuators of that psychological event. As "manifestations" of this 'river of thought', we either 'step out' of it, (die to it) ending consciousness with its content or we strengthen and maintain it. Nothing outside of the 'stream' can 'help' this stepping out or ending, only the 'freedom to inquire' into ourselves to discover, uncover, without goal or suppression what we as manifestations of this 'movement' are. What lies 'outside' we can't 'know' because psychological knowing and knowledge are the substance of the 'stream of conflict and ignorance'. It is the unpolluted, choiceless passion to understand this sadness, misery, suffering, etc. that can be its 'ending'.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 14 Feb 2018 #44
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 476 posts in this forum Offline

#1:

Clive Elwell wrote:
In the restaurants and cafes, in the shops and offices, it seems people are not concerned with the wider picture at all. No, they are concerned with the minutiae of their own lives, their own pleasures and so-called security, and the security of their own families. There is a blindness, an indifference to all the dire trends of society and the environment that can be hard to understand.

Even when there is some appreciation that things are going wrong, this is partial, concerned with particular problems only. The effects and not the basic cause are considered. Solutions to problems are pursued at the same level as the problem – economic problems are pursued through economics; it is thought psychology can solve mental problems, violence is met with violence. There is still the vain and ridiculous hope that politics can bring about a better world.

[...] Or a common response is “human nature cannot change”. This assertion perhaps deserves looking at, as their seems a lot of evidence for it. Over and over again K asked “why don't people change?”.

[...] I think I see “my” thought arising from that stream – indicating that it is not “my” thought at all. It is as if all possible thoughts, many possible reactions, arise from that reservoir of thought and feeling. They are all possible “me's”. I use the word “possible” because seeing them arise, they don't seem to gel, they don't settle in the mind. Perhaps one could say they don't become identified with.

I think that, looking beneath your words at “the thing” itself, what you describe perfectly (to me!) here IS the essence of the stream. Isn’t this "concern" the essence of the stream? But I think you confuse it when you say that, “all possible thoughts, many possible reactions, arise from that reservoir of thought and feeling”. It’s not that there’s a reservoir of thought containing an exact grammatical form and structure (noun, verb, modifiers, qualifiers, etc.) of every “possible” thought, out of which reservoir the mind fishes pre-formed thoughts. Maybe that’s not what you meant. The crux of the issue, as I see it, is not the exact structure of any thought, it is psychological time. Concern, desire, ambition, anger, hate, fear, greed, pleasure, attachment, and so on, depend on time. There can be no "concern" without time, as I see it.

I think that humanity loves time, the brain’s capacity to remember the past, to situate the present on the continuum of time, and to imagine the future. I know the brain (I) does love this capacity (somewhat like the body loves to swim or run etc.) - all its capacities - BUT (or AND) the brain (I) also sees the limits and dangers of time. The danger is when the word is regarded as the thing, when authority and control is given to time, when time is the basis for action, when there is attachment to time, when time is used to isolate, separate, divide “me” from “them”, when time is seen as the whole or the essence of human life, etc.

We say things like "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it", so we “remember” - memorialize, enshrine - the past and ... repeat it. We say, “You have to learn from your mistakes”, when what we mean is not “learn" or "understand” but "remember" and use the memory as a basis for action.

Buddha, Jesus, Mohammed, Lao Tze, Socrates, and others, lived 1000s of years ago, and their teachings resonated with their contemporaries, so we cannot say that the current self-concern is a new development, can we? Brutality and selfishness are nothing new. To step out of the stream is to see the stream, the momentum and power of the stream - of time. Seeing it, one does not base one’s actions on it ... One cannot step out through will and effort, intention or self-interest but because the falseness of the stream as the basis for action in relationship, its nature and limitations, are actually seen - understood.

Beyond that, aren't questions which still arise as to "what to do to step out of the stream" seen to be false, as being part of the stream?

This post was last updated by Huguette . Wed, 14 Feb 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 14 Feb 2018 #45
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2109 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
It is the unpolluted, choiceless passion to understand this sadness, misery, suffering, etc. that can be its 'ending'.

Is this a belief, Dan? Or a personal experience? Can we act upon the stream of suffering from within the stream? Or are all of our actions an action of the stream itself? Just questioning...

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 14 Feb 2018 #46
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 782 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Is this a belief, Dan? Or a personal experience? Can we act upon the stream of suffering from within the stream? Or are all of our actions an action of the stream itself? Just questioning..

No it is not a "belief". Beliefs, theories, philosophies etc. those are all part of the 'stream of thought'. But the 'freedom to inquire' is also there. Clive asked "doesn't there have to be insight" before this questioning? I'm saying that the questioning can arise from the 'suffering' in the form of " Why is there any psychological suffering at all!? We have 'accepted' it as mankind's lot but is that true, is it 'human nature' or is it only what we have been conditioned to think? That question/insight can begin the 'journey'(out of time) that we take (or don't) alone. The libraries are filled with 'maps' and 'charts' but they aren't of any use here. There's no-one who can tell us or teach us 'how' to remain with the sensations called conflict and suffering etc., without the 'interference' of the thought process.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Wed, 14 Feb 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 14 Feb 2018 #47
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 558 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
What I meant was that there are a great many possible reactions in the stream that DON'T normally arise in this brain. Although potentially they could, I think.

Think about this, every drop of water that form the stream called "river", flow in certain direction, some may go to the left, others to the right, others go forward ... But as you say it may be that at certain moment one of them that previously followed a certain direction may follow now the direction some other have followed (either before or right now), and probably this will happen more than one time and two times ... All that constant movement is the stream which manifest in each and every water drop that forms the stream.

Now, in the case of human consciousness it is the same, the only difference is that human consciousness entertains itself in considering if certain direction is good or wrong, in its intent to control what direction to follow ... This intended and constant movement of the consciousness is the stream of consciousness which manifests in each and every human consciousness that forms the stream of consciousness.

So, it seems that human consciousness, being capable to look at the stream as either good, bad, or indifferent, it is incapable of going an step further and see the whole stream of consciousness without any judgment, image, identification, philosophy, religion, etc.

And i think that this is the right place where the question that came to mind a couple of days ago in one of my daily rounds while listening the discussion between K and Buddhist Scholars could fit quite well:

Let's say that someone comes and tells me: "Reject any idea, religion, philosophy, whatever others may have said about it", and also adds before uttering any word about it: "And go beyond the words because the word is not the thing" ... Could you tell me what is left me, for me to start looking at it? ... Nothing isn't it? ... An empty mind ... But if you observe those in the discussion between K and Buddhist Scholars, all of them had "something" from which observe what was being said by K.

That "something" is what prevents us from "make a journey together", that is the only thing that K asked before starting that "travel" ... That "something" is what make us believe that there's a K there, as well as a Walpola Rahula, and the rest, as well as ourselves listening to all of them ... That is the stream (which includes an existent K as perceived for those in the stream who listen to him).

I don't deny that any of them had some perception about what was being said by K, and that it could bring about some change in any of them with regard to their relation with the stream ... But as long as they keep that "something" with them, that change is not change at all, because that "something" is still part of the stream ... And anybody saying that it is not so, that the change is real, would be admitting that an illusion can be changed, something that it is impossible, because an illusion is something which doesn't exist at all.

Therefore, an illusion can not be changed, only dismissed completely ... Which in terms of the self, it means not-self at all ... As long as we "exist" we continue in the stream, no matter if we see this or that ... Or "those react in this way, while i not" ... Or..., and so on.

Therefore, as long as we are in the stream, any change is in the stream, which is not change at all, because change is only possible when the illusion has been dismissed completely (without changing it by any other thing, which is what we do in the stream all the time - that's why we continue in the stream).

"Love" as K, Buddha, and some others used it, was not the love which we may feel for our neighbors, family members, or others, as many religions advocate ... No, true love is that of the one who, having step out of the stream, wishes that all those within the stream become free of it too ... That love is called also "compassion", which has nothing to do with the compassion in the stream.

I deeply felt that love in K for the first time while listening the dialog he had with those Buddhist Scholars after you posted the link, feeling that the one from the Buddha could not have been much different ... Our love and compassion are much far from theirs ... This should not be considered as good or bad, or something to accomplish, but simply as-it-is.

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

This post was last updated by Juan E Wed, 14 Feb 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 14 Feb 2018 #48
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 558 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Yes, It was the stream manifesting in the 5 brains. In effect it was the stream talking to itself, would you say?

I my self observed what you say, and the expression that came to mind was as if the stream was dreaming itself, which more or less is what you say too ... Yes, i felt that it is so.

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 14 Feb 2018 #49
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2109 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
But the 'freedom to inquire' is also there. Clive asked "doesn't there have to be insight" before this questioning? I'm saying that the questioning can arise from the 'suffering' in the form of " Why is there any psychological suffering at all!?

Of course we are free to inquire. But these kind of 'why' questions are coming from within the stream aren't they? I mean, doesn't almost every serious person look at human suffering and ask 'why'? Will come back to the rest of your post later...at work at the moment.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 14 Feb 2018 #50
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 558 posts in this forum Offline

Some comments to "The way out of the Stream"

Is to see that there is no one in the stream in the first place.

Not even "the one" who sees that.

That you are not in the Stream anyway.

There's no "you" which is not in the stream.

That there is no “you” actually.

Yes, that's what i wanted to say.

That there is no thinker separate from thought.

I would say that there's no thinker separate from the stream

That whenever I think that I exist, then there is a me, then I AM in the stream. Because such thoughts are of the Stream.

One should not forget here the unconscious, which also links us to the stream.

To see that one was never in the Stream, means that one is out of it.

There's no one who sees that was never in the stream ... The seeing belongs to the seer which ends at the very moment of seeing ... If after that there's an inner dialog in oneself about "i was and now i'm not" in the stream, the seer is still in the stream.

How empty descriptions are!

Not at all if one is able to listen to them with an empty mind.

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 14 Feb 2018 #51
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 558 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Can we act upon the stream of suffering from within the stream?

Only when one has stepped out of the stream.

Tom Paine wrote:
Or are all of our actions an action of the stream itself?

Only when one is in the stream.

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 14 Feb 2018 #52
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 558 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
I mean, doesn't almost every serious person look at human suffering and ask 'why'?

Yes, but how many look at it with an empty mind?

It is said that Buddha asked himself the same question Dan mentions in his post #46, and having he rejected any answer to that question from others because none of them came to be satisfactory to him, he took the decision to sit down under the so called "boddhi tree" and not getting up until find the answer by himself (all that while he was in the stream) ... And it is said also, that at dawn he broke free from the stream of suffering (not without a hard fight with his own streaming-mind during the night).

So, when one puts such question to oneself with a mind that has completely rejected whatever has been said before about suffering, and look at suffering from that empty mind, even if all that "process" is in the stream, it is the flame that lights the wick that will make the stream "explode" (not without a hard fight with own streaming-mind).

So it's obvious that the question will always be asked in the stream ... But if you think that it means something with regard to step-out or not of the stream of suffering, i would like to hear what's your "proposal" to step-out of the stream, or if you think that it is not possible to step-out of it while being in the stream.

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

This post was last updated by Juan E Wed, 14 Feb 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 14 Feb 2018 #53
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4047 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote #43 :
It is the unpolluted, choiceless passion to understand this sadness, misery, suffering, etc. that can be its 'ending'.

Yes, that seems so. Although "understand" does not imply drawing any conclusion, does it? It is not a matter of knowledge. Would you say that understanding lies in the living of what is, without this pretence of separation as thinker and thought?

I cannot see that there is any other tool other than this enquiry

Dan McDermott wrote:
Right I would say. The division of thinker/thought is what created the 'stream of sorrow'.

Yes, that seems the basic cause of our suffering/confusion. Often I notice that there are apparently two "me's" operating simultaneously in consciousness, (as in, the me that notices, and that which is noticed) and I ask, how can this be? Surely it is illusion?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 14 Feb 2018 #54
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4047 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
As "manifestations" of this 'river of thought', we either 'step out' of it, (die to it) ending consciousness with its content or we strengthen and maintain it.

Yes, it does seem as simple as this. These are the two possibities (not saying 'choices').

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 14 Feb 2018 #55
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4047 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Concern, desire, ambition, anger, hate, fear, greed, pleasure, attachment, and so on, depend on time. There can be no "concern" without time, as I see it.

Was not K 'concerned' with the human situation, Huguette?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 14 Feb 2018 #56
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 558 posts in this forum Offline

After having posted the post above (#52) and re-read it, the mind posed this question as if someone else had put it after reading the post: "Well, is it possible to empty the mind in the stream?" ... And itself answered: "If it's not possible, then we are condemned to live in the stream of suffering for ever and ever!"

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 14 Feb 2018 #57
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 558 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Often I notice that there are apparently two "me's" operating simultaneously in consciousness, (as in, the me that notices, and that which is noticed) and I ask, how can this be?

What if what you call "the me that notices" was not a '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
Wed, 14 Feb 2018 #58
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 782 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Would you say that understanding lies in the living of what is, without this pretence of separation as thinker and thought?

Yes, the 'remaining' with what is without the action of the 'thinker' drawing conclusions, rationalizing, judging, condemning, supressing,in other words, 'interfering'. We are so habituated to those actions of thought that we are not aware it is taking place.

Clive Elwell wrote:
I cannot see that there is any other tool other than this enquiry

I don't either...when conflict occurs, when the calm water is disturbed, it is this questioning which arises not to bring calm but to understand the root of the disturbance. Why conflict, sadness, loneliness, sorrow, fear etc.? Why is it here? Not to fall into thought's 'analysis' which it does so easily! Just 'see' it, remain with the sensation. Like a "jewel".(as K. put it regarding 'anger')

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 14 Feb 2018 #59
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4047 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
I think that, looking beneath your words at “the thing” itself, what you describe perfectly (to me!) here IS the essence of the stream. Isn’t this "concern" the essence of the stream?

What are you meaning by the word "concern" here, Huguette. Is not time psychogical time (as you say later) the essence of the stream, the accumulation of experience?

But this is a good question to go into, the origin of the stream

Huguette . wrote:
But I think you confuse it when you say that, “all possible thoughts, many possible reactions, arise from that reservoir of thought and feeling”. It’s not that there’s a reservoir of thought containing an exact grammatical form and structure (noun, verb, modifiers, qualifiers, etc.) of every “possible” thought, out of which reservoir the mind fishes pre-formed thoughts.

I'm not sure, Huguette. It does at times seem that there is a reservoir of 'preformed thoughts' in the stream, waiting fot the chance to express. And as they arise they may be modified in the present, and the modified thoughts sink into the stream, to become part of it.

And I am not sure about the phrase "the mind fishes". What exactly does the fishing? Is there any fisher? I don't claim at all to understand the mechanism of the stream.

I can see that the very attempt to understand the stream is based on a contradiction; it seems to assume that I am separate from the stream. Perhaps what is necessary is for the stream to understand itself.

So what can bring that understanding? Seems it is only the passiveness awareness of the mind, without conclusion or speculation.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 14 Feb 2018 #60
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4047 posts in this forum Offline

At this point I have to leave the home, without having read the posts beyond #44 - and I see there is a lot there. Hope there is the time and energy to return later.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 31 - 60 of 89 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.)