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

Stepping out of the stream


Displaying posts 31 - 58 of 58 in total
Wed, 14 Feb 2018 #31
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2263 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 #32
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 914 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 #33
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2263 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 #34
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4432 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 #35
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4432 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 #36
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4432 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 #37
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 914 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 #38
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4432 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 #39
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4432 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
Thu, 15 Feb 2018 #40
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 914 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
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.

Yes I think it may be a language problem. 'We' are not separate from the (beleaguered?) 'stream'. We are 'manifestations' of it, given a name, a cultural conditioning, experiences, preferences, desires, characteristics, talents etc. as one cloud has a different form than another. But we are all in the stream of human anguish and confusion. So yes, in that sense, you can say that it is necessary for the "stream to understand itself." Or as John R., I think, suggested a while back, that it is the "brain" awakening to the situation.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Thu, 15 Feb 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 15 Feb 2018 #41
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4432 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
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?

Yes. Just as "what to do about" any psychogical problem are "seen" to be false. But I have to doubt that 'seeing', since the momentum of that falseness continues. It may not take root, but it keeps arising.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 15 Feb 2018 #42
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4432 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote #46:
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?

Yes. I also find the question "Does there have to be a shadow of conflict in the mind" also very meaningful. It amounts to the same thing as suffering, I guess. On asking the question, immediately it is seen that effort, striving, can play no part in the elimination of conflict, since they are conflict-producing. So definitely one does not know how to solve the problem of conflict, or suffering.

So what is left? Only watching the conflict, and enquiring into it, no? The principle enquiry being: how does one watch?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 15 Feb 2018 #43
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4432 posts in this forum Offline

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.

This is very interesting, Dan.

Are you suggesting that when one is "A light unto oneself" one is naturally out of the stream?

I find myself asking this question now: does the stream contain only the psychological experiences of mankind, or ALL experience (like language)? If the latter, then clearly we can never be completely out of the stream.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 15 Feb 2018 #44
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4432 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:

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

Juan: Not even "the one" who sees that.

I think if my statement came from insight, then yes, there is no one who has an insight. In fact insight only comes when the one, the me, is in abeyance, does it not?

Suddenly tired - so much questioning today.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 15 Feb 2018 #45
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 737 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
Passion is never tired by questioning, only thought gets tired ... There is no "so much questioning" for passion, only for thought.

Good morning all!

Good morning to you too, Juan

One should be careful with this sentence too.!

Although I'm sure you did not meant to say that, but passion is also the word which is used by believers to hold on their believe or human beings to hold on to something !(sport, capital, career, ......etc. at.).

So the understanding of what is meant must be without the word !

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.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 15 Feb 2018 #46
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 737 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
Therefore the passion that holds on to anything (believing, sports, capital, career, etc.) is not passion at all being something static and lacking movement.

Dear Juan,

That was all implied in #69 but

So the understanding of what is meant must be without the word

Is an indication that understanding must be outside the stream and the seeing what's not is within the stream, right ?

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.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 15 Feb 2018 #47
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2263 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
I think if my statement came from insight, then yes, there is no one who has an insight. In fact insight only comes when the one, the me, is in abeyance, does it not?

But we may have insight into anger, for example, in the midst of being angry. With the 'me' in full throttle, no? Does insight, in that case, penetrate the thick walls of the 'me'?

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 15 Feb 2018 #48
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 605 posts in this forum Offline

#73:

Tom Paine wrote:
But we may have insight into anger, for example, in the midst of being angry. With the 'me' in full throttle, no? Does insight, in that case, penetrate the thick walls of the 'me'?

Does insight need to “penetrate the walls” of the self? Does the self have an interior core protected by exterior walls, or does “the self” include both its own “interior” and “exterior”? Insight is not an action of the self; it is not “done” by the self, is it? If one examines the nature and processes of self, it is seen (maybe) that self simply cannot have insight, can it? Wouldn’t “self having insight” be a contradiction, an example of an oxymoron?

We see (maybe) that insight is not the fruit of thought, and therefore that self (thought) cannot be CONVINCED BY insight. That is, insight cannot be COMMUNICATED TO the self, can it?

Isn’t the question then: Does the self “transform and incorporate" insight into thought as concept, idea, conclusion, knowledge (psychological “alchemy” of sorts!), and then believe IT “has” insight? Can vigilant awareness stop this mental process of “transformation and incorporation” of insight into thought?

Or are we merely fooling ourselves into believing that thought and insight are 2 completely unrelated processes? IS insight free of memory, knowledge, time, or not? IS thought incapable of having insight, or not?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 15 Feb 2018 #49
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 914 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
Are there any actual 'calm water' in the stream other than the illusory 'calm water' brought about by our trying to escape from what-is?

Analogies have their limit. The 'calm water' as I'm using it is the mental state of affairs that we live with each day. A 'relative' peace if we are so lucky. No great disturbances and as you describe it, an "escape from what is". That is how we live...how we get along in a mad world. Now comes the great disturbance, the death of a loved one, or less drastic, someone informs you that you are basically 'stupid' say...the only point I am trying to communicate here is that when there is a disturbance of the psychological status quo, 'damage control' in the form of thinker/thought goes to work immediately to restore the 'relative' calm. Thought goes into operation to mitigate the 'upheaval'. K.'s point (not mine) was that in these moments a great deal of energy is released, energy that could be transformative if it were not dissipated in self-pity or some other suppressive or judgmental re-action of thought. Which is the "remaining with" the sensation...In other words, the energy released in the 'conflict' could be the 'explosion' that blows away the 'normal' state of "escaping from 'what is'. Who knows? By experimenting with this even with small disturbances, we can determine if this is true or false. If the 'explosive' energy released is not dissipated as 'fuel' for the thought/damage control process, what happens to it?

Now is this just another attempt of the 'self' to 'escape' from pain? By 'rehearsing' for possible tragedy in the future, is it using this "remaining with" business to build up a tolerance to any incoming psychological pain and thereby adding another brick in the wall of its 'security'? Where the self is concerned, nothing can be ruled out. I may like the sound of being on an "uncharted journey" while actually staying in the safety of my own bathtub!

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Thu, 15 Feb 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 15 Feb 2018 #50
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2263 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
So it is obvious, it seems to me, that insight can only arise "when the one, the me, is in abeyance",

If we need for 'me' to be absent before there is a single insight we might very well wait forever for said insight.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Fri, 16 Feb 2018 #51
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4432 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote # 72 :
What does it mean "Be a light unto oneself" while in the stream? ... Is that one who's "A light unto himself" in the stream, totally free of the content of consciousness.

Well, I was suggesting - and it was only a suggestion, for enquiry, not an assertion - that if one is a light to oneself, then one is out of the stream. because one is no longer dependent on the stream for understanding.

One is no longer a second hand human being, and the stream is strictly second hand.

So the suggestion is that it is impossible to be a light to oneself, and still be in the stream.

What does it mean to be a light to oneself? I think I will hold on to that question.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 16 Feb 2018 #52
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4432 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote #73 :
But we may have insight into anger, for example, in the midst of being angry. With the 'me' in full throttle, no? Does insight, in that case, penetrate the thick walls of the 'me'?

i have the feeling that insight only arises in a still mind. But that still mind may not be a million miles away from anger. Anger, seen for what it is, can end instantly, can it not?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 16 Feb 2018 #53
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4432 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
I may like the sound of being on an "uncharted journey" while actually staying in the safety of my own bathtub!

Laughing at this, Dan!

Yes, disturbance is an important moment in daily living, it is a wake up call - but there is a tendency to reach out to shut off the alarm clock - or at least put it on "snooze"!

Feeling that "staying with" feelings, emotions, states is crucial to living. And one doesn't have to wait long for disturbance to come along where the self is concerned.

This post was last updated by Clive Elwell Fri, 16 Feb 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 16 Feb 2018 #54
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2263 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
i have the feeling that insight only arises in a still mind. But that still mind may not be a million miles away from anger.

Right....it comes right in the midst of anger. That's probably something like what I was trying to say. When do we observe anger? When it's absent....when the 'me'(the anger...the ideas and ideals...the self) is absent? If anger was absent there would be nothing to observe. I can't observe a tree or a flower when it's absent right? Can I observe anger when it's absent? So we observe anger when anger/me is present. Insight into anger comes when there is anger/me present....not when there's no 'me'/anger. Insight dispels the anger which was present...or am I off base?. But this is not a debate (I hope!) and I'm not defending a position. Just telling how it appears to me.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 16 Feb 2018 #55
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 914 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
to observe 'anger' which is 'me' without the 'me', at the moment that 'anger' is there.

I can look at the tree, the bird, the cloud etc. I don't think "my tree","my bird", "my cloud"... That is what is 'outside'. But what goes on 'inside', I consider 'mine', my thought, my feelings, my body...'my anger'. That is what we are calling 'identification' isn't it? I am not identified with the outer but there is this identification with the inner. But why? Why can't there be no identification with either the 'outer' or the 'inner'? Why does the 'identification' stop at the skin? Why the psychological separation between outer and inner?

(It struck me this morning that an enormous responsibility comes along with a serious study of K.'s work, which is to 'bring about' in oneself the psychological "revolution" that he spoke about. People are, I suppose, as violent as they ever were. But here for example, in the US the so called 'leaders' have become so corrupted by money and their positions of power, that they now cannot even enact common-sense laws to keep military weapons out of the hands of children and the mentally deranged...)

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Fri, 16 Feb 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 16 Feb 2018 #56
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2263 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
So wondering if you (as well as the reader that recommended your post #79) still think/perceive/see that this is impossible ... I mean, to observe 'anger' which is 'me' without the 'me', at the moment that 'anger' is there.

I don't say it's impossible....OR possible. Because K said it's possible, I may make it into a goal to achieve or something to make an effort to do, but that would be no different than pursuing any other goal or practice, right? so there's just the 'noise' of the 'me'...the anger or fear or worry. Can I observe that noise and not worry about having a silent mind....a mind free of 'me'? How can I understand 'me'...the noise...if I'm setting a precondition of first having a silent mind....or of being free of 'me'?

Juan E wrote:
in order for a total insight into anger / violence to emerge, the observation of that anger which is 'me' must be made by something which is not 'me'

But I must understand the fact of this 'me' first. The rest(this 'something which is not 'me') would only be speculation on 'my' part.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Fri, 16 Feb 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 16 Feb 2018 #57
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 737 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
No, let me put it that way: understanding is still in the stream which means that it belongs to the content of consciousness ... It may change that content somehow and so consciousness itself, but it is still

I'm realy sorry Juan but ,Understanding has like passion different States of being.

Complete Works CD-ROM | Fourth Talk in Bombay, 1954

To understand the problem requires a mind that is not seeking a result, an answer. If you will observe your own mind, you will see what is happening. If you have a problem you want some one to tell you what to do; so your emphasis is on the solution and not on the understanding of the problem.
In answering this question we are concerned with the problem and not with the answer. If you go away disappointed because your question is not answered, it is your fault, because there is no answer to life. Life has no answer. Life has only one thing, one problem - which is, living. The man who lives totally, completely, every minute without choice, neither accepting nor rejecting the thing as it is, such a man is not seeking an answer, he is not asking what the purpose of life is, nor is he seeking a way out of life. But that requires great insight into oneself. Without self-knowledge, merely to seek an answer has no meaning at all, because the answer will be what is most satisfactory, what is gratifying. That is what most of us want; we want to be gratified, we want to find a safe place, a heaven where there will be no disturbance.
But as long as we seek, life will be disturbed.

London, England | 5th Public Talk, 25th June 1955

Questioner: I would like to ask if you recognize the teaching of the Buddha that right understanding will help to solve the inner problems of man, and that inner peace of the mind depends entirely on self-discipline. Do you agree with the teachings of Buddha?
Krishnamurti: If one is inquiring to find out the truth of anything, all authority must be set aside, surely. There is neither the Buddha nor the Christ when one wishes to find what is true. Which means, really, the mind must be capable of being completely alone, and not dependent. The Buddha may be wrong, Christ may be wrong, and one may be wrong oneself. One must come to the state, surely, of not accepting any authority of any kind. That is the first thing, - to dismantle the structure of authority. In dismantling the immense structure of tradition, that very process brings about an understanding. But merely to accept something because it has been said in a sacred book has very little meaning.
Surely, to find that which is beyond time, all the process of time must cease, must it not? The very process of search must come to an end. Because if I am seeking, then I depend, - not only on another, but also on my own experience; for if I have learned something, I try to use that to guide myself. To find what is true, there must be no search of any kind, - and that is the real stillness of the mind.
It is very difficult for a person who has been brought up in a particular culture, in a particular belief, with certain symbols of tremendous authority, to set aside all that and to think simply for himself and find out. He cannot think simply if he does not know himself, if there is no self-knowledge. And no one can give us self-knowledge, - no teacher, no book, no philosophy, no discipline. The self is in constant movement; as it lives, it must be understood. And only through self-knowledge, through understanding the process of my own thinking, obsessed in the mirror of every reaction, do I find out that so long as there is any movement of the 'me', of the mind, towards anything, - towards God, towards truth, towards peace, - then such a mind is not a quiet mind, it is still wanting to achieve, to grasp, to come to some state. If there is any form of authority, any compulsion, any imitation, the mind cannot understand. And to know that the mind imitates, to know that it is crippled by tradition, to be aware that it is pursuing its own experiences, its own projections, - that demands a great deal of insight, a great deal of awareness, of self-knowledge.
Only then, with the whole content of the mind, the whole consciousness, unravelled and understood, is there a possibility of a state which may be called stillness, - in which there is no experiencer, no recognition.

The Mirror of Relationship | Fifth Talk at Rajghat, 1949

I do not know if you have noticed that there is understanding when the mind is very quiet, even for a second; there is the flash of understanding when the verbalization of thought is not. Just experiment with it and you will see for yourself that you have the flash of understanding, that extraordinary rapidity of insight, when the mind is very still, when thought is absent, when the mind is not burdened with its own noise. So, the understanding of anything - of a modern picture, of a child, of your wife, of your neighbor - , or the understanding of truth which is in all things, can only come when the mind is very still. But such stillness cannot be cultivated, because if you cultivate a still mind, it is not a still mind, it is a dead mind.
It is essential to have a still mind, a quiet mind, in order to understand, which is fairly obvious to those who have experimented with all this. The more you are interested in something, the more your intention to understand, the more simple, clear, free the mind is. Then verbalization ceases. After all, thought is word, and it is the word that interferes. It is the screen of words, which is memory, that intervenes between the challenge and the response. It is the word that is responding to the challenge, which we call intellection. So, the mind that is chattering, that is verbalizing, cannot understand truth - truth in relationship, not an abstract truth. There is no abstract truth. But truth is very subtle. It is the subtlety that is difficult to follow. It is not abstract. It comes so swiftly, so darkly, it cannot be held by the mind. Like a thief in the night, it comes darkly, not when you are prepared to receive it. Your reception is merely an invitation of greed.
So, a mind that is caught in the net of words, cannot understand truth.

Not that i claim to be right and quote K. as back support
but a clear description is what it is.

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.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 19 Feb 2018 #58
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4432 posts in this forum Offline

" Your whole brain is filled with memory, not only memories of recent events but also the memory of the deep abiding memory of that which has been the animal, the ape, we are part of that, that memory "

With this quote (Bombay 1985 talk 4) K is indicating that the common human consciousness, the Stream that we have been discussing, actually goes back further than the birth of human thought/memory, but also includes its predecessors, animal consciousnesses. I find this logical, given how the brain has developed through evolution.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 31 - 58 of 58 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.)