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

All one inquiry


Displaying posts 271 - 300 of 720 in total
Sun, 30 Dec 2018 #271
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2564 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
"What you are...what you actually are, is being."

Hi Dan,
Can you say how this applies to the question about being nothing, and also to the notion of the 'totality...'? When I'm angry or depressed or worried, I can speculate about being this 'being'. But will it resolve my anger? My worry? Or can I just miraculously escape from my 'self' with all the conditioning and thinking and emotion and craving that being 'me' entails? What action can I take to end the self and just 'be' free of self? If you can't tell me what action I can take, you aren't helping me one bit to resolve my problem/s by discussing this 'being', right?

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Sun, 30 Dec 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 30 Dec 2018 #272
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 691 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Why is it important to see that “I am nothing” and what does the totality of the human being imply?

For me, the significance lies in understanding the mind, action or behaviour, sorrow and discontent. The significance is not “what it feels like to be the whole” or “what comes after being nothing”.

I cannot understand sorrow, discontent, action, without understanding myself - myself/the mind - which acts in anger, fear, etc.; myself which lives in sorrow, confusion, contradiction, anxiety, depression, anger, fear, compulsion, and so on; the mind which wants “something else out of life”.

It is relatively easily observed and understood that I cannot simply end self by telling myself, “I am nothing”. It is relatively easily observed and understood that I can’t end fear, anger, conceit, self-deprecation, deceitfulness, self-pity, identification with and attachment to my circumstances, and so on, simply by telling myself, “don’t”. It is relatively easily observed and understood that will and effort can't change or resolve any of this.

Whatever it might feel like to be nothing, there's still a human being beyond self. The human being is more than thought alone, more than self, more even than awareness alone, more than a collection of separate, unrelated body parts and psychological states. Wherever awareness, thought, the senses, organs, etc., act, isn’t it the wholeness of the human being acting or moving? Does the liver act alone, in isolation, without the whole human being?

Then what is the action of the human being, beyond self? Thought does not participate in awareness or observation, but thought is still an essential part of the whole human being. Thought is limited and thought acts as needed. Awareness does not direct or order thought to act. Awareness is not limited to certain fields as thought is, but it does not “control” thought, it does not tell thought what to do. And without awareness, thought does not act sanely. Where there’s awareness, thought acts sanely where needed. But even awareness is not the totality of the human being, as I see it. Beyond awareness, there is intelligence, love, compassion. Intelligence, love, beauty, compassion are blocked where awareness is blocked.

So it’s the wholeness of the human being which acts, as I see it. Thought does not have to be concerned about when to act or how to act. Where there is choiceless awareness, that wholeness is free to act. That wholeness which is the human being and which is beyond the human being.

I’m questioning all of this.

This post was last updated by Huguette . Sun, 30 Dec 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 30 Dec 2018 #273
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2564 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Tom Paine wrote:

Why is it important to see that “I am nothing” and what does the totality of the human being imply?

For me, the significance lies in understanding the mind, action or behaviour, sorrow and discontent.

Agreed.

The significance is not “what it feels like to be the whole” or “what comes after being nothing”.

I'm still not sure why these two points were brought into the discussion. A little note: I'm back on my laptop for a bit, and the quoting and multiple quoting functions are working fine. So it's only a problem with an iPhone or iPad, then. Well that's for Dev to fix...or not.

Huguette . wrote:
Beyond awareness, there is intelligence, love, compassion. Intelligence, love, beauty, compassion are blocked where awareness is blocked.

So it’s the wholeness of the human being which acts, as I see it

This point about the 'wholeness...' is alluding me, still. Will look into it further later as I have to get ready for work.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 30 Dec 2018 #274
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1246 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
What action can I take to end the self and just 'be' free of self? If you can't tell me what action I can take, you aren't helping me one bit to resolve my problem/s, right?

Is there any 'action' that the self can take to end the self? Are 'your problems' really your problems or are they everyones? Is the main 'problem' that we see our problems as our own? Let's suppose that K. is right when he says that "you are nothing". If that is so, how can 'nothing' have any problems at all? Being 'nothing' means to me, no attachments, no psychological accumulations, no fear, etc. We can't 'aspire' to be this 'nothing' if that, as he says, is what we already are. Can anyone help us to discover what we already are? Isn't this 'nothingness' the seed that he intended to plant while he was here? Where, and if, it begins to germinate depends on who knows what forces.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sun, 30 Dec 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 30 Dec 2018 #275
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2564 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Is there any 'action' that the self can take to end the self? A

Are we trying to end what we are? I would imagine that that would be a total self deception .

Dan McDermott wrote:
Let's suppose that K. is right when he says that "you are nothing". If that is so, how can 'nothing' have any problems at all?

Supposing is thinking....another trick of 'me' to continue, I would think.

Dan McDermott wrote:

". If that is so,

But we haven't established that it IS so.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Sun, 30 Dec 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 30 Dec 2018 #276
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5008 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote #263 quoting K:
K. "You want to know what will happen when you feel that you are 'the whole'. Feeling as 'the whole' comes perhaps later. But first, you are nothing and you are not concerned with what comes after. If you are concerned with what is beyond the nothingness, it means you are frightened of being nothing. 'Be nothing'. Life then becomes extraordinarily simple and beautiful."

Thanks Dan, this quote is a very complete (whole?) reply to my question. He was quite a guy, that K :-).

Such resistance the self has, to being nothing. Of course the self cannot BE nothing, it has to be something - or think that it is something.

Yet looking again, actually it IS nothing, just a projection of thought.

Perhaps only in this perception lies our salvation. Because this is what is, independently of any projection of thought.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 30 Dec 2018 #277
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5008 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
If you can't tell me what action I can take, you aren't helping me one bit to resolve my problem

Tom, if I point out to you - or if someone points out to me, and I am really listening, that there is no action that I can take to resolve my problem, I find that is a very great help indeed. Because seeing this, I am free from all the confusion of choice, free from the fear of not getting a result, free from all the conflict involved in trying to find solutions (psychologically).

The seeing that 'there is nothing that I can do' has bought clarity, and is that clarity not "help"? But let us focus on the clarity, rather than the word "help", which is dubious.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 30 Dec 2018 #278
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5008 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
If that is so, how can 'nothing' have any problems at all?

Being nothing probably can have no problems. Being nothing implies "I don't mind what happens". But turning being nothing into an idea, THINKING that I am nothing, will have many problems, just like all ideas from limited thought, no?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 30 Dec 2018 #279
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5008 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
I hope that you don't mind my posting the Terrance Stamp quote from his interview with K. ca. 1986 to reply to your question

First of all, Dan, are you sure about the authenticity of this quote? I'm not saying it is NOT authentic, but a google search does not come up with it.
The words, the expression, is quite "un-K-ish", aren't they. And that gives them a certain fascination.
As I remember, in "The Ending of Time", K says several times "Because we are nothing we are everything", and Bohm seems to go along with that concept. it doesn't logically follow to me. Does it to you?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 31 Dec 2018 #280
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2564 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
If you can't tell me what action I can take, you aren't helping me one bit to resolve my problem

Tom, if I point out to you - or if someone points out to me, and I am really listening, that there is no action that I can take to resolve my problem, I find that is a very great help indeed.

My statement needs to be read in the context of my reply to Dan’s post about being ‘being’...#271, I think. But I DO agree with what you say above. Seeing that any action I take is a conditioned action, and just more of the division that created the problem/s in the first place (me separate from my fear, anger, etc.), leads to inaction in the ‘psychological’ realm. Not sure about that ‘and I am really listening’ above. There would need to be some self understanding otherwise just hearing the words would be meaningless. I need to have some understanding as to WHY what you said is the truth.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 31 Dec 2018 #281
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2564 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
If that is so, how can 'nothing' have any problems at all?

Clive: Being nothing probably can have no problems. Being nothing implies "I don't mind what happens"

I think you are quoting Dan, Clive. I don’t recall writing that.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 31 Dec 2018 #282
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1246 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Are we trying to end what we are? I would imagine that that would be a total self deception .

Tom: If you can't tell me what action I can take, you aren't helping me one bit to resolve my problem/s by discussing this 'being', right?

Isn't this an asking of "ending what you are" Tom: "I'm suffering, how can this come to an end"?... Maybe I don't understand.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 31 Dec 2018 #283
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1246 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
First of all, Dan, are you sure about the authenticity of this quote? I'm not saying it is NOT authentic, but a google search does not come up with it.
The words, the expression, is quite "un-K-ish", aren't they. And that gives them a certain fascination.
As I remember, in "The Ending of Time", K says several times "Because we are nothing we are everything", and Bohm seems to go along with that concept. it doesn't logically follow to me. Does it to you?

Stamp wrote it in a memoir and I read the quote on this site....I was not in the room with them so 'sureness' doesn't apply here. I know Stamp is 'serious' but farther than that I can't go... I don't have a problem with K.'s "because we are nothing, we are everything".

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Mon, 31 Dec 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 31 Dec 2018 #284
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2564 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Isn't this an asking of "ending what you are" Tom: "I'm suffering, how can this come to an end"?... Maybe I don't understand.

I see the confusion in the two sentences you’re quoting Dan. Rather than ‘ending what you are’, I would substitute ‘understand myself’.....’understand what I am’. Substitute ‘understanding’ for ‘ending’, perhaps. We can’t end suffering by contemplating this ‘being’ in the midst of suffering, can we? I’m a bit confused about the Stamp quote, I must admit. It doesn’t sound like something K would have said. He must have asked 100 times, ‘when you are angry, are you separate from the anger?’

Just saw today’s QOTD on understanding the ‘I’. It might be relevant here:

Ojai, California | 8th Public Talk 14th July, 1940

“There is a complete answer to our problem of suffering and conflict, which is not based on dogmatism or on theories. This answer is to be found when we approach the problem integrally from the centre; that is, we must understand the process of the I in its relationship with another, with action, with belief. In the voluntary transformation of the process of the I, intelligently and sanely and without compulsion, lies the complete solution of our conflict and sorrow. As most of us are unwilling to concentrate thought on the fundamental alteration in the centre, legislation and institutions force us to adjust ourselves to an outward pattern in the hope of achieving social harmony, but this does not eradicate the cause of conflict and suffering. Compulsion does not create understanding, whether it is from outside or from within.“

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Mon, 31 Dec 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 31 Dec 2018 #285
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5008 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Stamp wrote it in a memoir and I read the quote on this site....I was not in the room with them so 'sureness' doesn't apply here. I know Stamp is 'serious' but farther than that I can't go... I don't have a problem with K.'s "because we are nothing, we are everything"

Well, let assume that the quote is authentic. Would you post the link to these memoirs, Dan? Do you know if it was transcribed from an audio recording of the discussion, or it is from Stamp’s memory?

"What you are...what you actually are, is being. Being is not the mind thinking. Thinking is a movement, a motion. Being is the silence that precedes the motion. You cannot see it; you cannot grasp it because you are it. The feeling that you are. The unadorned naked awareness that is always there, rarely heeded, is what you always have been, always will be. Cannot not be. You can't look for it, because it is what is looking. It is like space, you can't see it but everything is in it. Everything is it. So I say to you, be aware when you are unaware, let its presence warm you, fill you. Be present in the Presence."

How does one approach such a statement?

Given the momentous nature of the statements – since time immemorial it seems that people have been asking the question “What actually am I?” - why would the only place/time K made such a statement be in this particular interview? I might well be wrong in saying that, of course. Can anyone cite any similar statement by K in any of his talks and dialogues? Or any words that point in this direction?

I cannot think of any statement by K that actually denies these words. But I am asking myself again, how does one approach the words? The ‘natural reaction” is for thought to try to evaluate them, to agree or disagree. But this is thought trying to grasp understanding, and K says that you can’t grasp it, because you are it. So it seems that I can’t do anything with the words, in the conventional sense.

Is it possible to observe in oneself the fact of what K is saying? Obviously the prerequisite for this to happen is for thought to be silent. K says that you can’t look for it, because it is what is looking.

If it is a fact, if it is what is, if it is truly what I am, then the seeing of it should not need anything from me, no effort, no movement in any direction, any action at all. This seems to be the challenge, the challenge of doing nothing, which the mind tries to turn into the challenge of doing something, something called 'nothing'.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 31 Dec 2018 #286
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5008 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
But even awareness is not the totality of the human being, as I see it. Beyond awareness, there is intelligence, love, compassion. Intelligence, love, beauty, compassion are blocked where awareness is blocked.

In the citation that Dan has given, K says to Terence Stamp:

The unadorned naked awareness that is always there, rarely heeded, is what you always have been, always will be.

So K seems to be saying that we ARE awareness. At least that is the probably over-simplified concept of his words that has been stored in this brain, perhaps erroneously.

I am not trying to ‘pull K as an authority’ on you, not trying to argue. Sorry if it sounds like that. But perhaps we could go into this? For example, what do you mean by “beyond awareness”? Beyond? Somehow I cannot put these two words together. Do you mean ‘that which is there when awareness comes to an end?’

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 31 Dec 2018 #287
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2564 posts in this forum Offline

Clive to Huguette: For example, what do you mean by “beyond awareness”? Beyond? Somehow I cannot put these two words together.

Hope you don’t mind me jumping in to this question addressed to Huguette. Isn’t love beyond awareness....and intelligence...insight? The ‘lower animals’ surely have awareness, but intelligence....love? Then there’s the “you” in the quote of Stamp. That confuses me a bit. Is there a separate me or ‘you’ other than the ego...the self? This self(“you”) cannot be awareness, as self is what prevents awareness, isn’t it?

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Tue, 01 Jan 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 01 Jan 2019 #288
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 691 posts in this forum Offline

There ARE many things K said or which are attributed to K which, to me, are questionable and puzzling, having to do with his apparent superstitions, foibles and even seeming deceitfulness. I don’t concern myself with these things since they do not negate what he points to about self-understanding which I can observe for myself.

For the most part, one can observe reflected IN oneself that what K says about the workings of the mind is so. So there is no authority involved, no taking K’s word for it.

As I said some time back, this “quote” of K provided by Terence Stamp is not accurate as far as I’m concerned. Did K really say “What you always have been, always will be”? It is not something I see reflected within. It is meaningless to me. It does not “excite me” as other things he points to do. I have nothing else to say about it.

I echo what Tom says about "beyond". Isn’t awareness “beyond thought”? I mean, awareness is not part of thought, it is beyond thought. In the same way, I see intelligence, love, beauty as being beyond awareness. I don’t see awareness and intelligence as being synonymous or equivalent. I see awareness as being a kind of gateway (I can’t think of a better word) to intelligence. There cannot be right thinking without awareness and right thinking is essential. There cannot be intelligence without awareness, and awareness and intelligence are essential. The wrong thinking which comes of ignorance blocks awareness and intelligence. I don't know though if Tom sees it exactly as I do.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 01 Jan 2019 #289
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1246 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
This seems to be the challenge, the challenge of doing nothing, which the mind tries to turn into the challenge of doing something, something called 'nothing'.

I think that this is so. Any movement at all.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 01 Jan 2019 #290
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 691 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Would you post the link to these memoirs, Dan?

I don't know if you're still interested, Clive, or whether the quote in question (which I bolded below) was in Terence Stamp's memoir but it did appear in the following "article":

http://krishnamurti-america.blogspot.com/2012/09/meetings-with-remarkable-man.html

Posted 19th September 2012 by Andy Gilman:

Terence Stamp Meetings with a Remarkable Man

*Wow. This fella is a diamond, I thought, as the diminutive Indian sat down opposite me. It was Rome 1968. I was working with Fellini.

Initially on being invited to lunch with a Sage, I had been confused. Sage was something I had only encountered with onions inside a Christmas turkey. If a little explanation is needed, although I was a working actor, and had been known for some time, I remained an East-End spiv trying to come to terms with what had happened to me. Jeddu Krishnamurti or Krishnaji to his associates, was extremely well turned out, well-cut strides, wearing two shirts. The Indian silk bottle green under a paper-thin two-button cashmere.

We didn't speak, yet occasionally, when he noticed me checking him out, the edges of those dark eyes would crinkle and make me feel self-conscious and, although I wouldn't have admitted it, shy. Other more assured guests, European stringers from Time and Newsweek, peppered him with questions. He didn't appear fazed. After the meal, delicious vegetarian fare, his secretary asked me if I would like to accompany Khrishnaji on his afternoon walk. Is Maraschino a cherry? The fresh air, the energy of our stride evaporated my timidity, and I went into verbal diarrhea. I recall babbling on about my Uncle Bob who'd had major heart surgery and technically died for a moment. I couldn't stop. He didn't speak. At one point he stopped walking and said "Look at that tree." I did as bid. A tree, a sapling actually. Nothing to write home about.

I looked back at him. He smiled. I smiled back. We continued our stroll. I continued rapping. Some more time passed. He paused again, this time touching my arm and glancing up: "Look at that cloud." I did. A cloud, not evening pink or lit from within, rather mundane as clouds go. He looked back at me and smiled. I smiled back. We turned back, I took note of his shoes, bespoke and tiger-stripe brown.

I can't claim to have had any expectations, so I can't say I was disappointed, however I did feel I had somehow failed the audition. And yet. And yet it is, as they say, as if it happened yesterday. But with the benefit of hindsight and the passage of forty years those two incidents may have been what G. I. Gurdjieff intended with his 'Stop' practice or what a fellow traveller entitles 'The pausing of thought'!

Impressed as I was by the perfume of the little fella's personality, I struggled through his many books and lectures, when I could. Not a lot sunk in: 'The observer is the observed.' Rome. 'When the eagle flies it leaves no mark'. Wimbledon.

His favourite pal, the wondrously named Contessa Vanda Pasigli Scarivelli, basically encouraged me to adopt a vegetarian diet, gave me instruction in her 'Hollow Yoga System' and taught me about 'Complete Breath'. Yet, I suppose I was too coarse a material. I sought instant gratification on the less demanding guru circuit, 'enlightenment light' I think of those years now. I justified it to myself as acts of refinement, a rope ladder up to Krishnaji's austere (no toys) dialectic.

Years passed. Tai Chi forms. Whirling Dervishes, Tantric texts, enlightenment intensives, encounter groups, taste abstinence, continence.

A message from Brockwood Park. It is 1977; Krishnamurti has opened a school for children, he is encouraging artists to visit. I clamber on the Portsmouth train at Waterloo, happy at the idea of seeing him again, bothered by a vague notion that it is the very seeking (during my ten years, forced, sabbatical from filming) which is distracting me from the moment, the 'what is' as Krishnaji terms it.

I find myself beside him at lunch, this meeting is two tiered, starting out as two fellas interested in threads. Current shirt maker, price of bespoke shoes etc. However there occurs a disconcerting shift in his voice and manner best likened to Cole Porter's lyric 'how strange the change from major to minor'."Why do you choose to live superficially?" he asks. I look around at the close proximity of the other diners. "Shall we walk?", he asks.

We stroll toward the ornamental woods and an impressive 'handkerchief tree', which I hadn't seen in bloom before, and is a favourite of his. He takes my hand and fixing me in his glance "I don't mean to be hurtful but you won't get this in a supermarket." He had obviously heard about my sojourn in India, decked in saffron.

"I get caught up in distractions, I guess. I can't grasp your stuff. It's above my ceiling."

"Thought can't grasp it", he replied. "The mind can't grasp it."

"That's what I mean - you always talk about what it isn't."

"Exactly. Any movement of thought is away from it. Yet ask yourself what you can't get away from. Look into it. We'll talk again."

As it turned out, a few years passed while I was looking into it. And then in the Eighties I am in California and I hear he is in Ojai, the place where it 'happened' to him all those years before. On impulse I ring the Foundation and speak to Mary Zimbalist, his current secretary. "Come on up" she says, "He always enjoys seeing you." It is only a two-hour drive on the motorway toward San Francisco. Ojai is an American Indian word; in means 'the nest'. They considered it an enchanted valley and only smoked pipes of peace there. It is high desert festooned with orange groves and often permeated with fragrance of their blossom.

I am taken to the old house where he and his younger brother were billeted to get them away from the London Blitz during World War II. We pass the old pepper tree he leaned against the night 'the ocean was poured into the drop'. Mary sees my look "Yes, it is still here" she says. He is waiting on an old sofa in the main room. Krishnaji is usually dressed in the style of the country he is in but today it is unusually dry and hot and he is wearing his Indian khadi white pyjama draw-string trousers and knee-length kurta. The house has been kept the same, carpets, furniture, fittings all Twenties period. He is austere without harshness. I sit. We sit in silence for some time.

Finally he says "Haven't seen you in any films lately."

"My films don't pull in big audiences. As it happens my public is almost as small as yours."

This draws a chuckle "It's true."

"Why is that?"

It's like what we were talking about at Brockwood; people choose to live superficiality. They have a vested interest in thought. Years, lifetimes, centuries. Can't give it up or rather can't see beyond it."

I try a different tack.

"It's known you don't like to talk about yourself, but I feel we've known each other a long time." He doesn't appear to object, so I press on. "I heard you liked motorbikes."

"No", he replies, "cars, fast cars."

I take a deep breath. "Before this happened to you." I am thinking of the Pepper tree, "What were you like?"

"I was an idiot." Then he corrects himself and letting his jaw slacken he pulls it down. "No, I was gormless. No thought in the head. My parents would give me money, I would give it to the first beggar who asked. They would send me out for a walk, I would just keep walking. That's why they had my little brother keep an eye on me. When the realisation came that the mind could observe itself, there were no distracting thoughts."

"I find that depressing," I said.

"Why?"

"Well it's been nearly twenty years since our paths crossed. I've sweated through your books, tried to stay alert during your talks, always assuming you had a radio in your head, always on. Now you tell me you're not a free diver but a fish."

His voice segued into its minor key. "You don't have to be Edison to switch on the electric light."

"Listen", I said, "I am a simple guy, self taught mostly..." He reaches out. His hand on my arm warm and dry.

"What you are...what you actually are, is being. Being is not the mind thinking. Thinking is a movement, a motion. Being is the silence that precedes the motion. You cannot see it; you cannot grasp it because you are it. The feeling that you are. The unadorned naked awareness that is always there, rarely heeded, is what you always have been, always will be. Cannot not be. You can't look for it, because it is what is looking. It is like space, you can't see it but everything is in it. Everything is it. So I say to you, 'be aware when you are unaware' let its presence warm you, fill you. Be present in the Presence." He smiles the serene smile. How could I not believe him? It's okay. It's really O.K.

It was to be our last conversation. He passed away shortly thereafter.

"Each of you hold a hand" he told Mary Zimbalist and a young man who happened to be with him in Ojai "and you will feel me go." They did. And, they did.*

Terence Stamp

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 2 readers
Back to Top
Tue, 01 Jan 2019 #291
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2564 posts in this forum Offline

“What you are...what you actually are, is being”, Terence Stamp quoting K, supposedly.

I’ll copy the QOTD here. What K says about conditioning applies to the above assertion if we simply accept it because K supposedly said it.

Ommen Camp, Holland | 3rd Public Talk 4th August, 1937

Questioner: We know there is reality and unreality, and from the unreal we must move to the real.

Krishnamurti: Surely that is another form of conditioning. How do you know that there is the real?

Questioner: Because it is there.

Krishnamurti: You have stopped thinking, if I may say so, when you assert that it is there.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 01 Jan 2019 #292
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5008 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote #287:

Hope you don’t mind me jumping in to this question addressed to Huguette.

I hope that it is understood on this forum that all participants are welcome to contribute to any discussion, although at times we might reply specifically to a specific individual's comments/questions.

Tom Paine wrote:
Isn’t love beyond awareness....and intelligence...insight?

Well, that is what I am asking. And in the asking I am finding I need to question just exactly what is 'awareness'. There is both outer and inner awareness, is there not? Without awareness - what is there? Just a sort of daydreaming?

Tom Paine wrote:
The ‘lower animals’ surely have awareness, but intelligence....love?

It seems to me that the natural world abounds in intelligence. I feel open on the question of love. Certainly one can observe biological love in the parent-offspring relationship, no?

Tom Paine wrote:
This self(“you”) cannot be awareness, as self is what prevents awareness, isn’t it?

That seems to be the case to me.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 01 Jan 2019 #293
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5008 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
I don't know if you're still interested, Clive

Thanks for posting this, Huguette, especially after your saying that you have nothing else to say about it - which I respect. Yes, I am still interested, and in fact I have written to the KFA to ask if they can authenticate the passage.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 02 Jan 2019 #294
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2564 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Tom Paine wrote:

The ‘lower animals’ surely have awareness, but intelligence....love?

Clive: It seems to me that the natural world abounds in intelligence.

Yes, but aren’t the behaviors you’re calling intelligence mostly (or exclusively) instinctive?

I feel open on the question of love. Certainly one can observe biological love in the parent-offspring relationship, no?

Does a horse or a pig love their neighbor...or even their mate? A dog can steal a bone from another dog with no remorse or regret or compassion for the one who might now go hungry.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 02 Jan 2019 #295
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1246 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
I am not trying to ‘pull K as an authority’ on you, not trying to argue. Sorry if it sounds like that. But perhaps we could go into this? For example, what do you mean by “beyond awareness”? Beyond? Somehow I cannot put these two words together. Do you mean ‘that which is there when awareness comes to an end?’

I think that there is a confusion created by using all these different 'words' to describe something where there is actually no difference at all. 'Awareness , love, being, compassion, intelligence, are all the same non-thing, aren't they?. What K. says in essence we are: "nothing", (not-a-thing) this ungraspable being, this unadorned, naked awareness,...he is not speaking here to the 'self' but to the 'essence' of what we are. But the 'self' will have none of it because of the fear of being "nothing". But that fear doesn't negate the truth of what he is pointing out.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 02 Jan 2019 #296
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2564 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
What K. says in essence we are: "nothing", (not-a-thing) this ungraspable being, this unadorned, naked awareness,...he is not speaking here to the 'self' but to the 'essence' of what we are.

Why would he have to speak to the “essence“ in order to point out to the ‘essence’ what it actually is? Does the essence need to be told what it is? If anything, he’s speaking to the self and saying, ‘you are not the self, but something else, something much greater’, right? But can the limited grasp the unlimited? Or must the limited come to know its limitation and cease?

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Wed, 02 Jan 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 02 Jan 2019 #297
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1246 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Does the essence need to be told what it is? If anything, he’s speaking to the self and saying, ‘you are not the self, but something else, something much greater’, right?

He has in a number of places that I've read said that he does 'speak' to a deeper place in us but we prefer to keep, to hear through our "beastly little self". No I don't see him saying to the self, to me, that I'm something much greater...he's saying what we are is "nothing". The 'self' he has said is a bundle of memories, constantly updating itself, continuing itself. But it is the source of sorrow and conflict and anger and suffering...and you had asked what "action" could you take that could free you? And his answer, as I read it, is to die to yourself but we would rather go on with the suffering than to be this no-thing, than to be the "silence that precedes the motion" of thought. Which he says is what we are.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 02 Jan 2019 #298
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2564 posts in this forum Offline

he's saying what we are is "nothing".

But Dan, you shared the Stamp quote telling us we are ‘pure being’, not nothing. And you said that this statement was addressed not to the self, but to the pure being. And you said or implied that this being is intelligence and love, I think. Or you said that awareness, intelligence, and love are not separate. Well, it’s getting me confused as to what we were discussing concerning this supposed quote of K. by Stamp. However I’m also aware that K spoke about being ‘nothing’. That makes more sense than the ‘pure being’ quote from Stamp.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 02 Jan 2019 #299
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1246 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
That makes more sense than the ‘pure being’ quote from Stamp.

Krishnamurti's message has been described as the 'Art of awakening in the moment'...to me that implies that 'something' is asleep. But that something that is asleep and needs to awaken, can't be the 'self', can it? Because the self is the past, a "bundle of memories" of likes and dislikes, an illusion, etc. So what is it in us that needs to 'awaken' in the moment'? Is it that what we truly are, is 'asleep'?

Is it that the "flowering" of the human 'being' can only happen when the 'self', the 'I'process, psychological thought/time has ended? Does that make sense?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Wed, 02 Jan 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 02 Jan 2019 #300
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 633 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Is it that what we truly are, is 'asleep'?

It's not asleep. It just doesn't mind what happens.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 271 - 300 of 720 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.)