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

All one inquiry


Displaying posts 361 - 390 of 882 in total
Sun, 17 Mar 2019 #361
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5201 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:

But what about the deadly forms we don't pursue like those 1.35 million people dying because of traffic accidents, those millions of children dying of hunger ?
Are we aware of them every living day or just keep them out of our minds to live in peace ?

All over NZ, vigils are being held outside of mosques, hills of flowers are being piled up, in a show of what is called solidarity. And what you point out, Wim, does bring about a question to which I have no immediate answer - why is this sympathy not shown to the 35,000 children in the world who, I read, die every day due to malnutrition, lack of clean water and sanitation, the absence of medical treatment, and other easily preventable causes?

Surely this also is a form of violence?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 18 Mar 2019 #362
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1392 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
why is this sympathy not shown to the 35,000 children in the world who, I read, die every day due to malnutrition, lack of clean water and sanitation, the absence of medical treatment, and other easily preventable causes?

Could it be because the 'I' is not intelligent, is not capable of compassion, cannot feel love? We can see this in our self...is it really a mystery? What is 'guilt'?

This may be all wrong of course

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 18 Mar 2019 #363
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 841 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
All over NZ, vigils are being held outside of mosques, hills of flowers are being piled up, in a show of what is called solidarity.

Yes, we called it solidarity, but it is partly that, could it be also partly be a not identified feeling of guilt, or is this a too optimistic qualification, a hope of mine ?

Clive Elwell wrote:
And what you point out, Wim, does bring about a question to which I have no immediate answer - why is this sympathy not shown to the 35,000 children in the world who, I read, die every day due to malnutrition, lack of clean water and sanitation, the absence of medical treatment, and other easily preventable causes?

neither do I, Clive

I expressed something on this forum about it after the terror attacks in Brussels and just one person replied on that.

With tears in our eyes we have seen the flowers in Sydney after the attack there and were shocked by the que for taking pictures from cafe, where people died.

We are proud to put a man on the moon, to organize tourism to the space, there a lot of money flows, but have no shame for every unnecessary person dying here on earth.

Driving cars with with alcohol behind the wheel, driving at high speeds, incorrectly adjusted traffic lights, all simple causes to solve. And this is just one aspect of our inaccuracy.

I have to stop now because words are insufficient to express what is going through me now, sorry .........

Truth will unfold itself to those who enquire their own actions.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Mon, 18 Mar 2019 #364
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1392 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
But this question now comes....... can a self exist 'on its own'? I mean without being identified with something. Or can the self ONLY exist through identification with something?

It was interesting for me to read again D Bohm's idea of how thought took dominance over instincts...that thoughts 'new' ability to create a past, present and future dazzled the instincts and dominated them. Thought/self, also, adopts a set of 'values', a sense of right and wrong which is limited to its own conditioning and beliefs. This 'valuation' is, unlike 'instincts', limited to ones personal tastes and background and often contradictory. It creates conflicts because each value system is different: "my flag is better than your flag...." (The "Ten Commandments' were a sort of all-purpose set of rules to live by that it seems didn't work out.) So the 'I' or 'me' does have to be "identified with something" to 'exist', doesn't it, but it doesn't 'exist' apart from its identifications, it is those thoughts, beliefs, values, opinions, conclusions etc. K called it the "I-process" That seems a better way to consider the self rather than an 'entity'... When K. asked that group, "Do you want to know my secret?" And then said "I don't mind what happens." That it seems to me is a different 'I' that is speaking...an 'I' without an arbitrary valuation system, without personal beliefs, without need of judgement, or comparison, or even condemnation...?

This may be all wrong of course

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Mon, 18 Mar 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 18 Mar 2019 #365
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5201 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
could it be also partly be a not identified feeling of guilt, or is this a too optimistic qualification, a hope of mine ?

Interesting idea Wim.

Another thing that brings out a huge amount of show of emotion in people is an aeroplane crash. With a death tally of less than 1% of the 35,000 quoted previously. Is it that we feel things when we can imagine they might have happened to us?

I see many people in these vigils in NZ, and maybe elsewhere, have taken up the prime minister's phrase "they are us". Yet there are over 7 billion on this planet who are not "us", not New Zealanders, and so not allowed to live here permanently, only allowed to enter for a while after purchasing a visa.

Out reactions are always partial, aren't they?, we never see and respond to "the whole picture". This applies to our own minds also. Yet I feel more and more strongly there is no such thing as "our own mind", there is only the human mind. Until our actions reflect this fact, this chaos will continue.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 18 Mar 2019 #366
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5201 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
It was interesting for me to read again D Bohm's idea of how thought took dominance over instincts...that thoughts 'new' ability to create a past, present and future dazzled the instincts and dominated them.

Is this a book by Bohm? Did he go into the question of what "instincts" are?

Dan McDermott wrote:
So the 'I' or 'me' does have to be "identified with something" to 'exist', doesn't it, but it doesn't 'exist' apart from its identifications, it is those thoughts, beliefs, values, opinions, conclusions etc. K called it the "I-process"

Yes, it does seem this way to me. There is only a process, not a thing - which is something that Bohm explored quite a lot.

It comes to me that not only is the self greedy, fearful, ambitious, competitive, demanding, etc, it has another characteristic that might be even more destructive. It denies what it is. it pretends to be the opposite of what it is - intelligent, loving, noble, generous. Unless we see ourselves as we actually are, can there be any possibility of change?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 19 Mar 2019 #367
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1392 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Is this a book by Bohm? Did he go into the question of what "instincts" are?

No, not a book as far as I know but right next door in John R's last edited cca 1972 discussion about Intelligence and the dominance of thought:

Bohm: Yes, I was thinking about that a little. If you go back to the animal, then there is instinctive response towards pleasure and security would be right. But now when thought comes in, it can 'dazzle' the ( natural ) instincts and produce all sorts of ( psychological) 'glamour' - more pleasure, more security. And our natural instincts were not intelligent enough to deal with the complexity of thought, therefore thought 'went wrong', because it excited the natural instincts and then these instincts demanded more.

This may be all wrong of course

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Tue, 19 Mar 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 19 Mar 2019 #368
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1392 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
It (the self) denies what it is. it pretends to be the opposite of what it is - intelligent, loving, noble, generous. Unless we see ourselves as we actually are, can there be any possibility of change?

No, as long as this self-centered process persists in us, the chaos will continue.

This may be all wrong of course

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 19 Mar 2019 #369
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 841 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:

Wim Opdam wrote:

could it be also partly be a not identified feeling of guilt, or is this a too optimistic qualification, a hope of mine ?

Interesting idea Wim.

Looking into it it became more and more clear that this is the possible start of denying, of escaping, of...etc....etc,
of identifying with: " what was".

In terms of the vocabulaire of K. and Bohm: the start of the I-process !

in the news about the shooting incident in Utrecht was mentioned that this guy acted upon the the NZ-incident as a kind of revenge and promoted by the election activity of Erdogan in Turkey.

Later on the program one song-text hit me in the face:

"We lost Davy in the Korean war
And I still don't know what for, don't matter anymore

Ya' know that old trees just grow stronger
And old rivers grow wilder ev'ry day
Old people just grow lonesome
Waiting for someone to say, "Hello in there, hello"

From 'Hello in there' John Prine.

It seems that all is present here, Heaven, Hell and this Human on earth.

Truth will unfold itself to those who enquire their own actions.

This post was last updated by Wim Opdam Tue, 19 Mar 2019.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Tue, 19 Mar 2019 #370
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5201 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
in the news about the shooting incident in Utrecht was mentioned that this guy acted upon the the NZ-incident as a kind of revenge and promoted by the election activity of Erdogan in Turkey.

I sometimes wonder if there is not another explanation for so-called "copy-cat" atrocities. I wonder if some once committed enter the common human consciousness, and so manifests from there, over and over again. In fact as each act gets registered in the common human consciousness, it takes up a bigger and bigger space in there, becomes more dominant, and so manifests both more frequently and more - extensively. That is, the phenomena keeps growing as it is fed.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 19 Mar 2019 #371
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5201 posts in this forum Offline

Does the (conscious) mind have any other 'options' other than exist with this thinker/thought movement? Can there be a mind that does not have this duality, or is it inherent?

When this question occurred to me yesterday I would have answered "no", but now, after a quiet night, I am not so sure. it seems that there is a state where thought just follows thought, without them being in conflict with each other.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 20 Mar 2019 #372
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 841 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
In fact as each act gets registered in the common human consciousness, it takes up a bigger and bigger space in there, becomes more dominant, and so manifests both more frequently and more - extensively.

Is it that each act is registered or is it that that kind of energy in the common human consciousness is intensified ?.....and wasted ?

One can be full of thoughts, which in one swipe is wiped out, by one clear insight.
It seems that quantity is not the factor for change but the quality.

In that way I understand the statement by K. that with only 4 or 5 people,
in that quality of mind, humanity would radically change.

Clive Elwell wrote:
it seems that there is a state where thought just follows thought, without them being in conflict with each other.

Is a mind not occupied by thoughts but in service of awareness
not a mind without conflict ?

Truth will unfold itself to those who enquire their own actions.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 20 Mar 2019 #373
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5201 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
Is it that each act is registered or is it that that kind of energy in the common human consciousness is intensified ?.

That seems a reasonable way to put it, also.

Wim Opdam wrote:
One can be full of thoughts, which in one swipe is wiped out, by one clear insight.
It seems that quantity is not the factor for change but the quality.

Surely

Wim Opdam wrote:

In that way I understand the statement by K. that with only 4 or 5 people,
in that quality of mind, humanity would radically change.

There seems to be a great diversity of opinion over whether that radical change is happening or not.

Wim Opdam wrote:
Is a mind not occupied by thoughts but in service of awareness
not a mind without conflict ?

I don't know, Wim, there is not that sort of mind here. There is very much the occupation by thought, with very limited space. Although it is not the case that there is "something", some entity that is occupied, there is only the occupation, and this perception is very significant.

And there is not, as far as can be seen, identification with any particular thoughts. Thought arises, and falls back. From where does it arise?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 20 Mar 2019 #374
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5201 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
What is 'guilt'?

Don't we all know that feeling of guilt?

I read recently, K replying to someone who was saying he feels guilty (I think he was looking for a way out of the feeling) "You jolly well SHOULD feel guilty! By having food and comfort, while others had none, he elaborated. Even by having talents, capacity, which others lacked.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 20 Mar 2019 #375
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5201 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Your question is posed by the 'thinker' isn't it: "Since the 'fact' is that 'I' don't really exist, why does thought keep on creating me?" The question itself brings the 'I' into existence! No?

I am going back a while in quoting this, Dan, it was #349

Can you enlarge on this "the question itself brings the I into existence"?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 21 Mar 2019 #376
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 841 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:

Wim Opdam wrote:

Is a mind not occupied by thoughts but in service of awareness
not a mind without conflict ?

I don't know, Wim, there is not that sort of mind here.

How then can you be aware that such a mind is not present ?

Clive Elwell wrote:
there is only the occupation, and this perception is very significant.

So the occupation seems that thoughts arises and falling back and as long as there is no identification there is no conflict, right ?

The moment identification take place, we gonna run behind the facts.

Truth will unfold itself to those who enquire their own actions.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 21 Mar 2019 #377
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1392 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Can you enlarge on this "the question itself brings the I into existence"?

I have been thinking about this and it is anything but clear. But the short (unclear) answer is that is when I think about this idea of a duality in the brain: thinker/thought i.e. there is along with it the idea that it 'should' not be this way...that it was a 'wrong turning' etc....and subtly or not so subtly, 'I' make it into a 'problem': the problem of the 'observer separate from the observed'. If that is so and as you say only I can know my own 'motives' but if I see it as a 'problem', then that problem must somehow be resolved. And if that leads me to deeper and deeper analysis, a search in fact..then that creates 'noise'. That approach is what is necessary in the technical world but in the psychological where it may be that intelligence can only exist when there is silence, then noise of any kind impedes it. But I also think that discussing all this is very necessary to bring about clarity in thinking about these things...

This may be all wrong of course

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 21 Mar 2019 #378
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5201 posts in this forum Offline

I think that I see what you are seeing, Dan. To put it very very simply, could we put it this way: I am the problem, no matter in what guise I appear?

This post was last updated by Clive Elwell Thu, 21 Mar 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 21 Mar 2019 #379
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1392 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
To put it very very simply, could we put it this way: I am the problem, no matter in what guise I appear?

Appears to be doesn't it? And that is an enormous realization!

This may be all wrong of course

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 21 Mar 2019 #380
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5201 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Appears to be doesn't it? And that is an enormous realization!

Yes. The only response (not "my" response) is to die, psychologically, isn't it?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 22 Mar 2019 #381
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1392 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
The only response (not "my" response) is to die, psychologically, isn't it?

Empty the contents? Or is it that without the desire to 'hold on' to things, the 'contents' empty themselves? Did the biological need for food, clothing, shelter, protection pass into the psychological and become the 'need' to accumulate, to 'create' an order where none was perceived? To 'resist' the movement of life, of 'what is', out of a fear of being 'nothing'...to protect oneself? And yet as was said, to be nothing is to be everything...the 'contents' will eventually get swept away in the stream won't they? The only real 'security' is the stream itself. And there the idea of security, of 'holding on', etc. loses all its meaning.

This may be all wrong of course

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Fri, 22 Mar 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 23 Mar 2019 #382
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5201 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Empty the contents? Or is it that without the desire to 'hold on' to things, the 'contents' empty themselves?

Indeed Dan, that is a much better way of putting it. There is no one who can empty the contents, because all "ones" who might try are part of the content itself.

Dan McDermott wrote:
Did the biological need for food, clothing, shelter, protection pass into the psychological and become the 'need' to accumulate, to 'create' an order where none was perceived?

That is how I have come to see things - actual, necessary movements in the material world passed over into the psychological world, created the psychological world.

Dan McDermott wrote:
And yet as was said, to be nothing is to be everything..

We have touched upon this before. I cannot say that I have a feel for it - perhaps because I have never truly been 'nothing'. Hmmm, how can one "be nothing"?

Dan McDermott wrote:
The only real 'security' is the stream itself

Do you mean in constant movement, in infinite flexibility to meet what comes?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 24 Mar 2019 #383
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1392 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Do you mean in constant movement, in infinite flexibility to meet what comes?

Yes in the sense of 'being nothing'.

This may be all wrong of course

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sun, 24 Mar 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 24 Mar 2019 #384
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5201 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
The only real 'security' is the stream itself.

I am still considering these words. Do you mean in the stream of thought/feeling, in the absence of the thinker/division, there is only movement and so no thing, and so no thing to be insecure?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 25 Mar 2019 #385
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1392 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Do you mean in the stream of thought/feeling, in the absence of the thinker/division, there is only movement and so no thing, and so no thing to be insecure?

The 'stream' to me, is the 'energy' of life, behind/in every living thing ..but in me, a human, this energy is 'focused', distorted through this process made up of past events, thoughts, feelings, experiences...The 'me' resisting this 'flow of life' because it fears to be nothing and yet it is nothing, nothing but a relic, an impediment, a frightened thing that yearns for a psychological security it can never have because there is no such thing...there is only the 'movement' of life/death and that movement clings to and collects... nothing.

We 'know' don't we, that the thinker and thought are not separate yet I continue, or better put, thought continues to 'talk to itself' as if there was a 'listener' separate from itself...K suggests that this process continues because of a "numbness"; that thought has done this for so long that even though it knows it is an illusion, it has become too 'numb' to break out of it, to be shocked by it. Seeing or awareness of this numbness, according to K then, is what is needed...

This may be all wrong of course

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Tue, 26 Mar 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 26 Mar 2019 #386
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5201 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
We 'know' don't we, that the thinker and thought are not separate yet I continue, or better put, thought continues to 'talk to itself' as if there was a 'listener' separate from itself...K suggests that this process continues because of a "numbness"; that thought has done this for so long that even though it knows it is an illusion, it has become too 'numb' to break out of it, to be shocked by it. Seeing or awareness of this numbness, according to K then, is what is needed...

I take it, Dan, that your putting "know" in inverted commas points to the futility of knowledge, psychologically, so called 'spiritually'. Knowledge does not appear to have the power to bring about change psychologically. So it is as you say, the artificial separation between thinker and thought continues, though we 'know' it is false, illusory. On the occasions that I actually SEE that it is false, then perception is suddenly fundamentally different, and the mind is a different place.

I don't know about numbness; it is certainly a very deeply ingrained habit. Thought seems to have convinced itself that that separation can solve its problems, no matter how often that is shown to be false. It is shown to be false whenever it occurs, in fact, sometimes by the second.

Is it that thought is unable to give up its creation of a "permanent entity"? Is it that thought thought, in its transience, cannot contemplate the truth, that there is no permanence, anywhere? And life does not have a purpose?

There must be something very big, something with huge energy, that is carrying this illusion forward, given that the illusion is responsible for all the conflict, inner and outer, in the world. At least that is how it seems to me. And contained in the illusion there must be a huge yet hidden factor that is unable to SEE itself AS illusion. Is this K's "numbness"?

Do you have a reference for this talk of numbness, Dan?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 26 Mar 2019 #387
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5201 posts in this forum Offline

This is the QOTD

Existence is painful and complex. To understand the sorrow of our existence we must think-feel anew, we must approach life simply and directly; if we can, we must begin each day anew. We must be able each day to re-evaluate the ideals and patterns that we have brought into being. Life can be deeply and truly understood only as it exists in each one; you are that life and without comprehending it there can be no enduring joy and tranquillity.

Referring to what I have emphasized, I am wondering if K is implying that life exists in each one of us in some sort of different or separate way?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 26 Mar 2019 #388
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1392 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Do you have a reference for this talk of numbness, Dan?

Had this filed under 'Please Listen', let me know what you make of it:

K. Please listen. You have not felt the shock of the realization that the Thinker, the you, is in himself the poison; whatever he wishes and does will be poisonous. ?Why is it that you do not feel the shock of this realization? Either because you do not think that the thinker, the 'you', is the poison, or you are numbed. You have agreed all along that the thinker is the thought, that they are not separate, that they exist together. If on seeing that mountain, you do not respond to its beauty and you realize that you do not, then such a realization will give you a shock, will it not? Similarly, when you realize that the thinker himself is ignorance you are not startled by it: you pass on to other things.

You have made yourself shockproof by your reasons explanations decisions, conclusions. Your intellect has built walls of self protection against all discovery and spontaneity, against freedom and understanding. The intellect will never find the answer. But if you allow yourself to enquire into why you are not startled by the thought that the thinker is sorrow, then you will break down the self- enclosing walls. If you live with this dead numbness of the intellect and do not escape from it then you will find that the rock against which you have been beating your head will melt away.

You have become numb, and you do not allow yourself to realize it, to feel it. And only when you are shaken by its reality - the reality of numbness - is there the beginning of the cessation of the thinker and his thought. Then only is there the intimation of the eternal.

This may be all wrong of course

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 28 Mar 2019 #389
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5201 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
K. Please listen. You have not felt the shock of the realization that the Thinker, the you, is in himself the poison;

I find this a powerful piece, thanks for finding it, Dan. It certainly is true. The whole world seems to be in a state of numbness, rather than the state of shock and the drastic attention that the situation, the circumstances, warrant.

It is clear that most of us are carrying on as if there was no great crisis in the world, in human consciousness. Instead we occupy ourselves in little things, in personal acquisition, in family afairs, birthday parties and the like, as if the society that allows this (in some places, in some times) will go on forever. This can certainly be described as a state of numbness, indifferent to the great instability of human affairs. And human problems cannot even be started to be resolved unitl we recognise that there ARE problems.

Bringing the issue much closer to home, it is so profound, so radical, to see that “I am the problem”, the origin of all “my” problems, the poison, as K puts it. If we truly see this, then we see there is absolutely no action we can take to deal with the problem, no? Does all effort then stop? And if not, why not?


Time has passed since writing the above. It is very strange, but I was talking through Whatsapp to a girl, 15, who is intensely experiencing the consequencies of actually seeing this numbness of the world. She sees that the world is in crisis, inner and outer, and she sees there is something terribly wrong about people’s lack of response to the crisis. She sees that the people around her are all in a state of pretence. That they are sleep-walking through life. And that the reality that is presented to her as “normal” is utterly false.

The trouble is, although she has this clarity of perception, the realisation of what the world “is really like” unbalances her, even to the extent of suicidal thoughts. And the world, the establishment, including parents, responds to her display of intense feeling in terms of her having some “mental illness”. She is far saner than those around her, but she is classified as mentally ill, and I fear for her future.

Probably there is much more to look into re this “numbness”, but feeling rather exhausted at the moment.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 28 Mar 2019 #390
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1392 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
The trouble is, although she has this clarity of perception, the realisation of what the world “is really like” unbalances her, even to the extent of suicidal thoughts. And the world, the establishment, including parents, responds to her display of intense feeling in terms of her having some “mental illness”. She is far saner than those around her, but she is classified as mentally ill, and I fear for her future.

Wouldn't the words that Stamp said K. told to him be of value to her:

K: "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."

Private talk with T.Stamp Ojai ca. 1986

Clive: Bringing the issue much closer to home, it is so profound, so radical, to see that “I am the problem”, the origin of all “my” problems, the poison, as K puts it. If we truly see this, then we see there is absolutely no action we can take to deal with the problem, no? Does all effort then stop? And if not, why not?

Dan: All our lives we have met our psychological problems with effort, haven't we? An effort of suppression, of substitution, of distraction. Did we accept problems as being inevitable, that they come and go as the normal course of being alive...? Never really questioning that 'inevitability'? Then along comes K. in this case and says he has no psychological problems, they don't exist for him. Then we look into our 'problems' and try to not 'escape' from them in any form, just be with them and we begin to realize that 'we' are the cause of our own problems and collectively the problems of all humanity! And any action on my part to do anything about it only continues it, changing one 'pattern' for another but never being startled by this truth that the problem is 'me'. Perhaps it is that a lifetime of avoiding things that create psychological discomfort has brought about this "numbness"?

This may be all wrong of course

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Thu, 28 Mar 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 361 - 390 of 882 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.)