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

Interesting illustration of ego


Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 34 in total
Sat, 07 Apr 2018 #1
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 643 posts in this forum Offline

I came across something I found very interesting that I wanted to share with you all. It might not be interesting to you, or you might already have known about it. I had never heard of Ole Roemer before.

The interesting part is the last paragraph. I mean, the whole thing is interesting, but the last paragraph is an interesting example of the process of self at work.

The speed of light was first accurately estimated by the Danish astronomer Ole Roemer (sometimes written as Rømer) during the 1670s. Up until that time everyone assumed that the speed of light was infinite, i.e. that light arrived at its destination instantly. This isn’t such an unreasonable assumption given that when we look around us light does indeed appear to reach us instantly.

However, during the seventeenth century it was discovered that there was a problem in calculating the orbital time of Io, the innermost moon of Jupiter. It sometimes took "too long" to make an orbit of the planet and at other times was "too quick". It was thought that the problem must be due to a wobble in the orbit of Io, but Roemer took a different, and very radical, view of the matter. He argued that light, instead of being everywhere instantly, had a finite speed and that this would explain the problem of Io. The Earth was known to travel around the Sun and this meant that sometimes the Earth was closer to Jupiter and sometimes further away. Roemer realised that when the Earth was on the opposite side of the Sun from Jupiter the light from Io would take longer to reach us than when the two bodies were on the same side.

This means that the light has to travel further and therefore takes longer, providing, of course, that light has a speed in the first place. During a meeting of the new Academy of Science in Paris in 1676 Roemer demonstrated that the amassed observational data of the astronomer Cassini indicated that Io would next appear at 5.25pm on 9th November of that year. He himself predicted that it wouldn’t appear until 10 minutes and 45 second later, using his theory that light had a finite speed. The day came and virtually every major observatory in Europe was ready to test the prediction. At 5.25pm, the time predicted by Cassini, Io wasn’t visible. Even at 5.35pm Io wasn’t visible. But at exactly 5.35pm and 45 seconds it appeared, just as Roemer said it would. From this it was possible to make the first accurate measurement of the speed of light and the calculated figure was within one percent of what we know it to be today.

You may think that that was the end of the matter and that Roemer was celebrated as a scientific genius, showered with honours and given a secure future. Sadly, that’s far from what happened. He was only 21 when he made his discovery, while Cassini was a well-respected if egotistical elder scientist, who used his powerful friends to back him up to rubbish Roemer’s ideas. Scientists, it seems, are human after all and this wasn’t the first, or sadly, the last time that an ego got in the way of a new discovery. Roemer eventually gave up science completely and later became the director of the port of Copenhagen and then head of the State Council of the Realm. It wasn’t until 50 years later that further experiments convinced the scientific community that Roemer had been right all along.

I came across it here:

http://www.emc2-explained.info/Emc2/Basics.htm#...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 08 Apr 2018 #2
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4656 posts in this forum Offline

Yes, as K said, the self can lie under every stone.

It can, and probably does, lie in the mind of every politician, every big-business man, every leader. And considering what power lies with these people – including the power to utterly destroy the planet – this I find deeply disturbing.

Also disturbing is that this simple fact – that the self lies behind all human problems – is hardly recognised at all. So even when people are concerned with the state of the world, they put their energy into pursuing “solutions” in the political sphere, the economic sphere, the world of technology, trying to bring about change in social systems, pursuing ideologies (including so-called religious ideologies), and ignore the fact that the self – me – is the fundamental problem.

The self is indeed amazingly cunning, self-deceptive. And as in the example that Huguette has posted, it is still there in the one area that is reckoned to be free of its bias – science.

Looking at all the evidence, I can’t help but feel it is going to destroy us, and perhaps most life on the planet.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 08 Apr 2018 #3
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1008 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Looking at all the evidence, I can’t help but feel it is going to destroy us, and perhaps most life on the planet.

I think that this is where "I don't know" (the state of 'not-knowing') needs to be realized. We don't 'know' the what or the why of 'life'. We have named it: 'Life'... that which is us and all that is around us. We think it should (hope it will) continue...endlessly? Why? Does 'life' have a 'function' here that 'should' continue? What if it is only a necessary 'interim' period in the life of the planet? What if it isn't necessary at all that it continue? "I don't know" seems to be for us the true state in looking at all this, isn't it? K. has said his secret is that "I don't mind what happens". What happens, happens.

But in ourselves, we can face and not run from the anxiety and the fear and the conflict in us and see it for the 'mistake' (wrong turning?) that it is. I don't see how we can do more. But as we all must say, "I may be wrong".

(But all that aside, human beings gassing and killing other human beings shows that something has gone drastically 'wrong'!)

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sun, 08 Apr 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 09 Apr 2018 #4
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4656 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
(But all that aside, human beings gassing and killing other human beings shows that something has gone drastically 'wrong'!)

And phosphorous bombs, depleted Uranium, land mines in people’s fields, napalm, unbelievable disparity in wealth, starvation, record numbers of refugees, incredibility brutality, callousness, bombing of hospitals, ……… all that is happening to children. But I was not claiming I know with certainty what the future holds, Dan. I was simply extrapolating the present trends (as I once did as a statistician), paying heed to what so many scientists, and our own everyday observations, are now revealing; about climate change, the degradation of the soil and oceans, the catastrophic loss of species, insects, birds …… I am sure you are not saying we should be blind to what is going on. And it seems to me it would be foolish to blindly hope for some miracle, some unexpected change to occur, no?

To face the facts does not imply anxiety, fear, conflict. Those things come with escaping from the facts, do they not? Not that one should not react, and react strongly to the daily atrocities, one hopes one does. To “get used to them” would be dreadful in itself.

Yes, in an absolute sense I don’t know what the future holds – certainly personally, and for the world generally. But rationally, logically, I don’t see what might bring about a fundamental change in society and human behaviour. Do you? Please note, this is not said in pessimism or despair.

But one continues to enquire, perhaps with a greater sense of urgency because the world is collapsing around us. Why? All I can say is, “It seems the right thing to do”.

I don’t know if things have a purpose ….. but if they do, surely it is not this chaos, this madhouse, that we are creating?

What do you say? What does anyone say?

This post was last updated by Clive Elwell Mon, 09 Apr 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 09 Apr 2018 #5
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1008 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
I don’t know if things have a purpose ….. but if they do, surely it is not this chaos, this madhouse, that we are creating?

The "madhouse" was created long before we came here. The question to me is , can I stop perpetuating it?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 10 Apr 2018 #6
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 643 posts in this forum Offline

Clive and Dan,

I first found this story interesting as actual information, on the level of knowledge. I never knew and had never wondered or given any thought to who it was that had figured out that light even HAD a speed to it. As mentioned in the article, it is not evident from simple observation or experience that there is a delay between light leaving its point of origin to light reaching the eye.

Then also interesting is that it was not Church opposition that ended Roemer's research but that of the (scientific et al.) establishment supporting a powerful rival. Such reaction is seen in every sphere and level of relationship, in every field of activity, today as then, isn't it? It strikes me as not unsimilar to the support given to all the powerful personalities in every sphere of activity. We can see that this is the way of the of cunning self, as you say Clive, the way of the world, where action is driven by desire, fear, calculation, not by love.

Then as Dan asks, can I step out of this ocean of madness? And then further, as K says, the answer lies in the question itself. My understanding of this is that the answer lies in the question itself where the question itself is not a product of the stream or ocean, and where the answer is not purposefully sought from within the stream, if that makes sense. Not pursued, avoided or theorized about. Is the very arising of such a question - which is innocent of the world - action which is of a different order than that which is engendered by the (dis)order of the world?

This post was last updated by Huguette . Tue, 10 Apr 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 10 Apr 2018 #7
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4656 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
The "madhouse" was created long before we came here. The question to me is , can I stop perpetuating it?

I am not sure how you are using the word "we" here, Dan. I simply meant the human race, since, probably, time immemorial. But yes, I am unlikely to get anyone else to stop perpetuating, it is up to me.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 10 Apr 2018 #8
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4656 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Then as Dan asks, can I step out of this ocean of madness? And then further, as K says, the answer lies in the question itself. My understanding of this is that the answer lies in the question itself where the question itself is not a product of the stream or ocean, and where the answer is not purposefully sought from within the stream, if that makes sense. Not pursued, avoided or theorized about. Is the very arising of such a question - which is innocent of the world - action which is of a different order than that which is engendered by the (dis)order of the world?

Can we go into this? How does the answer lie in the question itself? Is it possible to give an example of this, Huguette? - or anyone of course.

And what is this "different order"? Does it lie outside of the brain?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 11 Apr 2018 #9
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 643 posts in this forum Offline

K talked of the thought process involved when various sorts of questions are put.

For example, if you ask me “what's your name?”, I can easily answer immediately. If you ask me what my favourite movie is or what I did yesterday, I might have to think about it a bit to come up with the answer or I might be unable to answer. If you ask me the distance between Athens and New York, I say “I don’t know”. These kinds of answers come wholly from memory-thought, don’t they? Answering them from thought-memory is appropriate. In these instances, there is no need to “stay with the question” of what my name is or to “observe desire, fear, anger,” and so on. Observing desire etc. is not applicable here because it is a question related to the order, field or content of memory, of the known.

But if you ask me (or I ask myself) what is the right action to take in the face of conflict, there is no readily available, immediate answer in memory, is there? This is a question of a different order, isn’t it? It is not a question which can be answered by thought or memory. It is not a question whose answer lies within the field of the known, or whose answer can be shaped by what I already know. And if I think that it IS answerable by the known, then I approach it as I approach the question of my name - through the known, through the intellect. Which means that I put together an answer in accordance with my ideas, prejudices, conclusions, opinions, and so on.

If I think that it IS answerable by the known, isn’t it because I don’t understand the limits of thought? Isn’t it because I think that my efforts to come up with an answer can bear fruit?

But if the mind understands its limits and the nature of the maker of the effort (i.e. self), isn’t it only then that it also understands the significance of the question? Then the question itself is not put together by the calculating intellect and the intellect does not try to answer it.

What then is the approach to answering such a question? Before I start looking for an answer to the question, the question itself must be fully understood, mustn’t it? DO I truly understand what action is, do I understand my motives in asking the question, do I understand the process of conflict, and so on? So I see that awareness is necessary just to actually understand the question. And in understanding the question fully - in understanding action, self, fear, time, and so on - the answer is there.

DB: I think that it would help if we could see with regard to the brain whether it has any activity which is beyond thought. You see, for example, one could ask, is awareness part of the function of the brain?

JK: As long as it is awareness in which there is no choice.

(The Future of Humanity Chapter 2 2nd Conversation with David Bohm Brockwood Park 20th June 1983)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 11 Apr 2018 #10
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4656 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote *6 :
Then also interesting is that it was not Church opposition that ended Roemer's research but that of the (scientific et al.) establishment supporting a powerful rival. Such reaction is seen in every sphere and level of relationship, in every field of activity, today as then, isn't it?

It is, and it is obviously a tremendously distortings thing, when people don't want to see the facts, but instead want to confirm themselves in their preconceptions, their prejudices.

Einstein was another example, even though when young he revolutionised scientific thinking, laying waste to so much of previous thinking, he became somewhat calcified, and would not accept the new ideas of Quantum Theory.

"God did not intend the Universe to be run by throwing dice", he famously said.

This post was last updated by Clive Elwell Thu, 12 Apr 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 11 Apr 2018 #11
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4656 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
In these instances, there is no need to “stay with the question” of what my name is or to “observe desire, fear, anger,” and so on.

This may be an irrelevent comment, but actually I do find it has meaning to "stay with the question" when memory doesn't provide the answer immediately. Instead of getting anoyed with myself, of giving up, if I just wait, the answer often appears after a period of time, as if my magic. Obvously the mind has been working on it at some deep level.

Clive Elwell wrote:
But if you ask me (or I ask myself) what is the right action to take in the face of conflict, there is no readily available, immediate answer in memory, is there? This is a question of a different order, isn’t it? It is not a question which can be answered by thought or memory. It is not a question whose answer lies within the field of the known, or whose answer can be shaped by what I already know. And if I think that it IS answerable by the known, then I approach it as I approach the question of my name - through the known, through the intellect. Which means that I put together an answer in accordance with my ideas, prejudices, conclusions, opinions, and so on.

This is a very good point, Huguette. Would you say 'a different order' could be described as 'a fundamental question'? K said fundamental questions are those which do not have answers.

I have to leave for an appointment now, but will come back to your mail later.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 12 Apr 2018 #12
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4656 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
If I think that it IS answerable by the known, isn’t it because I don’t understand the limits of thought? Isn’t it because I think that my efforts to come up with an answer can bear fruit?

Yes, and this is what most people do, most of the time. It's a real block to enquiry. Life is reduced to a matter of knowledge only. In the production of answers from thought, there is no learning, is there? In fact one is abolishing the very possibility of learning, discovery.

Huguette . wrote:
Then the question itself is not put together by the calculating intellect and the intellect does not try to answer it.

So the question arises from observation alone, in a natural sort of way, is that it?

But I am not sure about the intellect not trying to answer it. At least, it may start to answer, but it sees its limitations before it gets very far.

Huguette . wrote:
And in understanding the question fully - in understanding action, self, fear, time, and so on - the answer is there.

Are you saying, Huguette, that in the light of this understanding, the original question has dissolved?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 14 Apr 2018 #13
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4656 posts in this forum Offline

This is from Commentaries on Living 1:

How eager we are to solve our problems! How insistently we search for an answer, a way out, a remedy! We never consider the problem itself, but with agitation and anxiety grope for an answer which is invariably self-projected. Though the problem is self-created, we try to find an answer away from it. To look for an answer is to avoid the problem - which is just what most of us want to do. Then the answer becomes all-significant, and not the problem. The solution is not separate from the problem; the answer is in the problem, not away from it. If the answer is separate from the main issue, then we create other problems: the problem of how to realize the answer, how to carry it out, how to put it into practice, and so on. As the search for an answer is the avoidance of the problem, we get lost in ideals, convictions, experiences, which are self-projections; we worship these homemade idols and so get more and more confused and weary. To come to a conclusion is comparatively easy; but to understand a problem is arduous, it demands quite a different approach, an approach in which there is no lurking desire for an answer.

"The answer is irrelevant to our problem" - not so eay to see.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 14 Apr 2018 #14
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4656 posts in this forum Offline

In relation to the issue of “The answer to any question lies in the question itself” it came to be that it is of little use thinking ABOUT a question, about a problem. Then it is a purely intellectual exercise. One has to take up the question/problem, actually engage with it, in all its aspects. Even though K says that all problems are dissolved in the light of silence, one has to actually COME to that perception, and that can only be through engaging with the question – not turning K’s statement into an ideal or a precept. Again, that is of little use; in fact it is detrimental to understanding.

In fact “How does the answer the answer to a question lie in the question itself?” is the question that I am engaging in. Which really means, to invite the question, and all the feelings, the confusion, perhaps fear, that may arise from it. I suspect everything, all issues, is contained in any question.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 15 Apr 2018 #15
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4656 posts in this forum Offline

I am wondering if ultimately all human problems do not stem from thought. And so, if "the answer lies in the problem, not apart from the problem", then the answer lies in the understanding of thought itself, and only that.

But thought is projecting all sorts of "answers". We can easily see this, both at the personal level, within ourselves, and at the level of society, where answers are pursued through politics, economics, religions, and so on (all varieties of knowledge) - but they are still the projections of thought, and the pursuit of such answers always ignore the fact that thought itself is the problem.

This is the trap that the human race seems to be caught in. The only way out of the trap is through self understanding, but in general this is not seen. And our crises intensify and multiply.

This post was last updated by Clive Elwell Sun, 15 Apr 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 18 Apr 2018 #16
Thumb_open-uri20180717-8420-135f99u-0 Mina Martini Finland 248 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
In relation to the issue of “The answer to any question lies in the question itself” it came to be that it is of little use thinking ABOUT a question, about a problem. Then it is a purely intellectual exercise. One has to take up the question/problem, actually engage with it, in all its aspects. Even though K says that all problems are dissolved in the light of silence, one has to actually COME to that perception, and that can only be through engaging with the question – not turning K’s statement into an ideal or a precept. Again, that is of little use; in fact it is detrimental to understanding.

Mina: It is the very 'thinking about' that creates all psychological issues to start with. Clearly any added 'thinking about' to an already experienced problem is only enforcing the experience of it, even if done under the impression of 'trying to resolve something.'

I cannot see any essential difference between 'thinking about' and the 'engaging with' that you introduce above. I see the ideal, that you also mention, and not perception, at work in both cases. One could appear subtler than the other, but the root is the same. The very act of engaging with the problem is still separating oneself from it. If a problem (thought) is looked at in percpetion in which no thought exists, there is no issue left to engage with. That is the light of silence in which thought dissolves.

Any resonance with this, beyond the mere description?

This post was last updated by Mina Martini Wed, 18 Apr 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 18 Apr 2018 #17
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4656 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
Any resonance with this, beyond the mere description?

“Engaging in” goes beyond mere description, that is its essence. But “Engaging in” is rather a vague term. What did I mean by it? In fact, rather than asking “what did I mean by it”, can I look at it afresh.

Is there a difference between “engaging is” and “thinking about”? Surely there is. Thinking about seems to definitely, firmly, to establish a fixed relationship between what is thought about and a thinker, and not to go beyond that. Whereas “engaging in” sees the falseness of that division, its artificiality.

Thinking about is ultimately sterile. It just extends knowledge, and knowledge cannot bring about change, psychologically, can it? But there is something active, living, in “engaging with”. There is an element of flux, of change, in it.

Thinking about implies a thinker who is constant, consistent, continuous. But in active engagement, one discovers the thinker IS thought. And so one comes upon dying. And so renewal.

This post was last updated by Clive Elwell Thu, 19 Apr 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 19 Apr 2018 #18
Thumb_img_1496 Per . Sweden 99 posts in this forum Offline

A resonance from this body. -To stay with, live with, be with or better to let be any disturbance, pain, greif, sadness, discomfort. Until it opens up to understanding and through inherent action dissolves into presence. No thinking about, no action towards, no handling. In a field of awareness letting healing happen. Period.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 19 Apr 2018 #19
Thumb_open-uri20180717-8420-135f99u-0 Mina Martini Finland 248 posts in this forum Offline

Yes, beautiful! The way of no way, which is that of surrender, not of any engagement from the mind. It is like falling THROUGH any expression of the world of division, into awareness, wholeness.

It is like realising the true essence of division as freedom from it, the total negation/understanding of the division itself.

This post was last updated by Mina Martini Thu, 19 Apr 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 19 Apr 2018 #20
Thumb_open-uri20180717-8420-135f99u-0 Mina Martini Finland 248 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Thinking about implies a thinker who is constant, consistent, continuous. But in active engagement, one discovers the thinker IS thought. And so one comes upon dying. And so renewal.

Mina: :-) Here one starts from the renewal and ends there also, and there is nothing real in between, no 'in between' at all, to engage with. No beginning or end.

Whatever question, issue, might appear, it is not engaged with, but let to do its own undoing in silence. Any interference from the mind resists this natural process of awakening from the dream of the mind.

Love

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 19 Apr 2018 #21
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4656 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
Whatever question, issue, might appear, it is not engaged with

Well Mina, you seem to insist upon attributing to me as putting a meaning of "engagement" that was never intended. The word came as a way of expressing "to be what is", and NOT to be separate from what is -as I think Per is expressing.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 20 Apr 2018 #22
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2346 posts in this forum Online

Clive Elwell wrote:
Mina Martini wrote:

Whatever question, issue, might appear, it is not engaged with

Well Mina, you seem to insist upon attributing to me as putting a meaning of "engagement" that was never intended. The word came as a way of expressing "to be what is", and NOT to be separate from what is

I think you make a good point Clive. The fear or anger is there. I can't decide to 'not engage' with it. Where there is fear or conflict of some sort one does not have the option to 'not engage' (as Mina seems to be suggesting), unless one is simply escaping 'what is'...covering it up with booze or TV or discussing the favorite football team, for example.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Fri, 20 Apr 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 20 Apr 2018 #23
Thumb_open-uri20180717-8420-135f99u-0 Mina Martini Finland 248 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
I think you make a good point Clive. The fear or anger is there. I can't decide to 'not engage' with it. Where there is fear or conflict of some sort one does not have the option to 'not engage' (as Mina seems to be suggesting), unless one is simply escaping 'what is'...covering it up with booze or TV or discussing the favorite football team, for example.

Mina: I am NOT suggesting what you say above, that is wrong, and calls for immediate correction. I am not talking about engaging with something or not engaging with something, as a reaction, as a thought-movement. I am talking about not-engaging as silence in which any state created by thought dissolves. THAT, for one, is the same as 'being what is'.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 20 Apr 2018 #24
Thumb_open-uri20180717-8420-135f99u-0 Mina Martini Finland 248 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Well Mina, you seem to insist upon attributing to me as putting a meaning of "engagement" that was never intended. The word came as a way of expressing "to be what is", and NOT to be separate from what is -as I think Per is expressing.

m: I am also talking about not being separate from anything, which is the same as having no issue to engage with, fundamentally, because all psychological issues are a creation of the separation between the thinker and thought. If a psychological issue arises, then again I do not see any other 'way' to be totally 'engaged with it', but by not resisting its natural dissolution into nothingness.
Yes, not saying anything different from the essence of Per's post either.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 20 Apr 2018 #25
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1008 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
The fear or anger is there. I can't decide to 'not engage' with it. Where there is fear or conflict of some sort one does not have the option to 'not engage'

What struck me about this when I read it Tom is the 'model' it presents: that emotions come and go in me and that 'I' am helpless in face of them or as you put it, that "I can't decide to 'not engage' with it"...isn't the point, that there really is no 'I' separate from what is going on to 'engage' or not to engage? There is only the emotion of fear, anger, or whatever. Creating that 'I' that is separate from 'what is' is the duality of thinker/thought isn't it? The 'resistance'. Do I see this right?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Fri, 20 Apr 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 20 Apr 2018 #26
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2346 posts in this forum Online

Mina Martini wrote:
I am not talking about engaging with something or not engaging with something, as a reaction, as a thought-movement. I am talking about not-engaging as silence

But you did speak of not engaging, so I'll quote what you said to try to clarify: "Whatever question, issue, might appear, it is not engaged with". So an issue has already arisen, 'appeared' in that case. When the noise(of any 'issue' or question) is present, how does one NOT engage? It's already there...the issue, that is. The mind and emotions are active with the question/issue/problem at that moment. You seem to be saying that an issue/problem/conflict "appears" and it's met instantly by silence as soon as it arises. How did the silence come into the picture at the moment that I'm angry or troubled by some problem?

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Fri, 20 Apr 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 20 Apr 2018 #27
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2346 posts in this forum Online

Dan McDermott wrote:
that there really is no 'I' separate from what is going on to 'engage' or not to engage

Is that actually seen? If so, then there is nothing one can do, so one does nothing.

Dan McDermott wrote:
Creating that 'I' that is separate from 'what is' is the duality of thinker/thought isn't it? The 'resistance'.

Right...I resist the issue because I feel I'm separate from it. Going to look into this further, but I'm freezing here at the moment and I have to find out why the heat is off in our building. It's 57 degrees in our apartment and the radiators are ice cold.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 20 Apr 2018 #28
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 643 posts in this forum Offline

Mina: "Here one starts from the renewal and ends there also, and there is nothing real in between, no 'in between' at all, to engage with. No beginning or end.

Whatever question, issue, might appear, it is not engaged with, but let to do its own undoing in silence. Any interference from the mind resists this natural process of awakening from the dream of the mind."

Mina,

Isn’t "engage with each other" the very thing that we do here? And isn’t that engagement with each other, looking into things together, part of engaging with our burning questions, problems, issues of relationship - relationship with people, ideas, things, circumstances?

We see that silence is essential, that thought cannot answer our questions, problems and issues. Does that perception and understanding end thought? Does that perception and understanding end our questions, problems and issues? I see that it does not. And I see that perception, understanding, silence act as questioning is pursued to its end. Silence is not broken where there is no effort in the questioning, is it? Questions and words arise out of the silence itself and a question is engaged with until only silence remains.

We see that silence is essential but we also see that where a burning question arises, thought must go to the end of it. Such a question cannot be left dangling, can it? Can’t the mind pursue [see correction] the burning questions and problems, while in the same moment understanding that silence is essential and that it cannot solve them, while in the same moment being vigilant for motive, desire, fear, escape, pretense, and so on? So that the verbal enquiry can proceed in silent vigilance, can’t it? Because it arises out of silence, it is fed by silence, not desire or fear.

Correction:

Not pursue. Stay with, face, engage with are more accurate, I think.

This post was last updated by Huguette . Fri, 20 Apr 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 20 Apr 2018 #29
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4656 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Isn’t "engage with each other" the very thing that we do here? And isn’t that engagement with each other, looking into things together, part of engaging with our burning questions, problems, issues of relationship - relationship with people, ideas, things, circumstances?

Yesterday, at various intervals throughout the day, I read a talk by K which has been entitled “The Ending of Sorrow”. I felt it moved me greatly. I felt a great engagement with his words. What does that mean? Some of the things it means is there was a feeling of taking a journey together, step by step. There seemed to be an intensity of listening. When K asked a question, I also was asking that question of myself. What he pointed towards, I could see in myself, and in the world around me.

So I felt completely involved in his words, in the voyage he was taking, and in which he was inviting me to go along with him. I felt the intensity of the matter. All this I think can be described as “engagement”. Without that engagement, I would have been listening to a collection of ideas, and perhaps agreeing or disagreeing with them.


The talk, by the way, was the sixth at Saanen 1963. It has been published as a tiny booklet called “The Ending of Sorrow”, the text can be found at:

http://jiddu-krishnamurti.net/en/1963/1963-07-18-jiddu-krishnamurti-6th-public-talk

and it can be listened to here:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/13bgZrk4H_FGAoi2TLqnP77I8O9z50RmK/view?usp=sharing

This post was last updated by Clive Elwell Fri, 20 Apr 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 21 Apr 2018 #30
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2346 posts in this forum Online

Clive Elwell wrote:
So I felt completely involved in his words, in the voyage he was taking, and in which he was inviting me to go along with him. I felt the intensity of the matter. All this I think can be described as “engagement”. Without that engagement, I would have been listening to a collection of ideas, and perhaps agreeing or disagreeing with them.

Good description of 'engagement' in listening. We can do the same with our neighbor or spouse or child too, right? It becomes a little tricky when we face some problem or conflict in our life. K suggests we can listen to the problem in the same way that you listened to his talk....being engaged with the problem or issue....letting it tell its story. It becomes difficult when the mind is divided however...one part of the mind (the observer or analyzer) battling with another part (the problem) as if it's separate. Will return to this later....work calls.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Sat, 21 Apr 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 34 in total
To quote a portion of this post in your reply, first select the text and then click this "Quote" link.

(N.B. Be sure to insert an empty line between the quoted text and your reply.)