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

All one inquiry


Displaying posts 631 - 660 of 882 in total
Mon, 20 May 2019 #631
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5194 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
I see it that way too, Clive. In observing thought, some thoughts are perfectly clear either as images or as words. And there are many other thoughts which are barely audible to the mind’s “ear” or visible to the mind’s “eye”. Then there are “thoughts” which the mind can barely perceive, vague disturbances or sensations. I understand all of this to be psychological movement at various depths of consciousness. So sometimes, there is or seems to be a clear link between thought and action and at other times, not.

This last point is very interesting.

Although, as you describe Huguette, there are many thoughts at different "depths", of different solidity, would you say there is always only one thought "in consciousness" at any given moment. I am not sure that I can explain what I mean by "in consciousness". One thought that makes the me? One thought at a time, but always only one thought in the present?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 20 May 2019 #632
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5194 posts in this forum Offline

I received a mail this morning from a friend, in response to the latest horrendous reports on the climate catastrophe unfolding – some links I has sent him. This approximately is what I replied in a voice mail.

I just read you mail, and sent off a brief reply, but this is what actually just appeared in my mind, spontaneously: Instead of asking “what to do” just suffer. In saying that, the beauty of the word came to me – suffer as in Jesus’s words “suffer the little children to come unto me”. Allow what ever comes, to happen. (Just like Tom’s signature, “Let it be”). Do you understand? In asking that, I am also asking if I understand.

Whatever answer we find to the question “what to do” will be a partial answer, an answer from confusion. And so any answer will be confused, incomplete.

“Let what comes, come” This is certainly not indifference. This is the actual answer to what “what to do”. Because, when there is no resistance, no reaction to a thought, that thought is ‘burnt up’. Feeling that suffering in this sense has a great power.

But were you asking what to do about the climate catastrophe, or asking what should be your response to it? Do you see the difference? IS there a difference? I’m not sure now, but I felt there was a little while ago.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 21 May 2019 #633
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2712 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
One thought at a time, but always only one thought in the present?

One thought that is the result of thousands or millions of other past thoughts...my own and all the countless thoughts that have gone to make up society...me.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Tue, 21 May 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 21 May 2019 #634
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2712 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
it is always a fragment, yes. Never complete, never whole. I am always a fragment, never whole. If this was seen throughout the world, it would be a different world, would it not?

Can you elaborate on this, Clive?

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 21 May 2019 #635
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 733 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote at 626:
I was using the word "reality" in a particular way,in a way quite different from how you are using it here, Huguette. Sorry, but such is the word. I was meaning 'how things actually are', and in particular how the mind is, its structure, its conditioning, how it behaves. We spend a lot of time on this forum discussing this, and we find a certain amount of common ground, because the mind does behave in particular ways, in predictable ways, and each of us can observe this in ourselves.

The mind, thought, is like a machine, it is mechanical, and so it can be described, like any machine; one can attempt to describe how it works, in terms of cause and effect. But some descriptions can be 'better', more accurate, more refined, than others. Some descriptions may be downright false (as those involving concepts of god, religious beliefs).

Do these descriptions, this 'model making', serve a useful purpose? As you say, Huguette, they play a part in communicating with each other, discussing together. And including perhaps communicating to oneself. But descriptions, all descriptions, are not direct observation, although they may stem from direct observation, no? We all see, I think, they are not 'the real thing'.

Do descriptions, concepts, help in 'understanding' the mind? I think this is doubtful. The mind IS a mass of concepts, of ideas, of descriptions, is it not? As you say, Huguette, concepts do not free the mind. - in fact don't they add to the mind?

There is a feeling that the more one proceeds with descriptions, the more lost one becomes.

Clive, I was using “real” in this sense:

“Krishnamurti: I think it is tremendously interesting - to see that anything that thought touches is not the real. Thought is time. Thought is memory. Thought cannot touch the real.” (in the quote at 582)

K understandably used the words “real” and “reality” with different meanings in different contexts. Thought is real in that it exists. But surely “thought cannot touch the real” doesn’t mean that thought cannot touch thought, if you see what I mean. The real that thought cannot touch is the real that lies beyond thought, isn’t it? What is real beyond thought is unknowable - the ground of all creation, of love, intelligence, the eternal (if there is such a thing). The known cannot touch the unknowable. But both known and unknowable are real.

I dare say that what we do here is reason - through induction, deduction, desire, authority, temper, fear, hope; correctly and incorrectly, accurately and inaccurately; necessarily and unnecessarily; and so on. For good or bad, accurately and inaccurately, reasoning is used in applied science and technology, social science, politics, business, the academic fields of philosophy, religion and arts, and so on. The capacity to reason, the action of reasoning, is also self-observed, together with the limits of the capacity of reason and memory/thought.

Memory is the building block of consciousness and reasoning shapes consciousness into "my" personal “reality”: what "I" think, feel, know and remember. My personal reality may be that Blacks are lazy (or hardworking), that Jews are vermin (or admirable), that Americans are evil (or good), that Indians are dirty (or clean), that belief in God is necessary, and so on and so on. Clearly, all thoughts, opinions, conclusions, beliefs do exist, so they are “real” in that sense. This personal consciousness, physically recorded in the brain as memory/consciousness, determines "my" personal actions. The recording of thought in the brain, the neural movements that produce thought, are as real as the words on the page or on this screen. But they are not ultimate truth. They are personal truth, different from person to person.

Ultimate truth (if there is such a thing, and to me there is) is universal, beyond the personal, unknowable as knowledge. It is not a product of reasoning. It is not reached (touched) through reason. It is beyond reasoning. The ultimate is not opinion, belief or conclusion. The unkowable ultimate truth (if there is such a thing) is beyond the known personal reality. Both are real but the one cannot touch the other.

Reason and consciousness or personal reality cannot figure out how to “touch the other”. Consciousness cannot reason its way to “the other” - this is observable fact. So reason/thought/the mind either concludes that there is no "other". Or it stops fighting and struggling against this immovable, unalterable fact and simply acts as and where life demands, in awareness. Can this be meditation?

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Tue, 21 May 2019 #636
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2712 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Reason and consciousness or personal reality cannot figure out how to “touch the other”. Consciousness cannot reason its way to “the other” - this is observable fact.

Yes, and consciousness can't pray or sacrifice to reach this 'other'...both are a product of conditioned thought. That may be obvious to most of us here, but to much of the world, it obviously isn't. I was recently looking at some photos and videos of some of the totally awe inspiring cathedrals built during the Middle Ages by devout Christians trying to reach their God. These same Christians willingly went to war against their perceived enemies.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 22 May 2019 #637
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5194 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
One thought that is the result of thousands or millions of other past thoughts...my own and all the countless thoughts that have gone to make up society...me.

Gosh Tom, I felt real excitement, a shock even, to read this. It feels such an insight.

You are saying, are you not, that in one thought is contained all other thoughts? Well, one might argue about that "all", better say that thoughts are holistic, in the true, scientific, sense of that word.

It feels so right.This puts a new slant on the phrase "You are (I am) the world"

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 22 May 2019 #638
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5194 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:

Clive Elwell wrote:

it is always a fragment, yes. Never complete, never whole. I am always a fragment, never whole. If this was seen throughout the world, it would be a different world, would it not?

Can you elaborate on this, Clive?

When I truly see that I am thought, fragmented thought, it cannot help but have an effect on me, on consciousness, no? what I somehow took to be real, is suddenly seen not to be real. Only a projection of the mind.

This perception cannot be ignored, I cannot carry on in the "old way" when its truth is seen.

So if the perception brings about a change in me, then it can similarly bring about a change in anyone, no? And if enough people saw it, it would bring about change in the whole world. I think K used to say this (not that that makes it true).

Over to you.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 22 May 2019 #639
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2712 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
This perception cannot be ignored, I cannot carry on in the "old way" when its truth is seen.

I am no longer violent then? Is that what you mean? What is the change that comes about when seeing this? Do you mean that the sense of self importance is gone? Or the sense of separation? If I am only an image than the image/thought is all that separates me from you?

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 22 May 2019 #640
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2712 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
This puts a new slant on the phrase "You are (I am) the world"

Yes...’your mind is the mind of mankind’, I think K said.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 22 May 2019 #641
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2712 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
what I somehow took to be real, is suddenly seen not to be real. Only a projection of the mind.

What about all the other images....do they cease to have any power over one...all the shoulds and should nots and ideals...beliefs...religious, etc.?

This perception cannot be ignored, I cannot carry on in the "old way" when its truth is seen.

So fear, ambition, worry, greed, are all wiped away by this perception? Just questioning.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 22 May 2019 #642
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1387 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Clive: This perception cannot be ignored, I cannot carry on in the "old way" when its truth is seen.

I see it as, the reaction that habitually met the challenge of the present moment before, i.e. "the old way", having been seen through as false (self-centered, limited, ignorant, etc.) no longer arises in the old way, with the old amount of energy or intensity. In short, it no longer creates a psychological 'problem'?

This may be all wrong of course

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 22 May 2019 #643
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5194 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
What is the change that comes about when seeing this? Do you mean that the sense of self importance is gone? Or the sense of separation? If I am only an image than the image/thought is all that separates me from you?

I said that seeing that thought is merely thought, seeing that “I” am thought, must bring about change, and you are questioning that, asking what is the nature of that change, Tom.

It is not change from one thing to another. Not the substitution of one image by another. It is change itself. It is the revelation that there is only change, and there are no “things”, no fixed points. The realisation that there is no permanence, only transience. Because the self was thought’s attempt to have some sort of permanency, but it could only pretend to do this, and when the pretence is seen through, any sense of permanency is revealed as illusion.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 22 May 2019 #644
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5194 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
The real that thought cannot touch is the real that lies beyond thought, isn’t it? What is real beyond thought is unknowable

I am wondering what is meant by the phrase “anything that thought touches”. What does it mean, for example, for thought to “touch a tree”. Or to touch a person. Does the thing that is touched become affected by the touch of thought? Does thought really touch anything? It can think about things, but is that really touching – or the denial of touching?

“But they [thoughts] are not ultimate truth. They are personal truth, different from person to person”.

I feel strong reservations about using the word “truth” in this context, Huguette. Without claiming to know what truth actually is, I would not associate truth with thought. Personal reality, yes.

Yes, I think it is very clear that thought cannot touch “the other”. If thought has a relationship with the other, it is, by its existence, to keep the other at bay. Thought is ever the known, and I think we are using the word “other” to point towards the unknown.

Can thought let go of itself? It suddenly feel inconceivable that I am merely some sort of movement of brain cells. That such movement gives my sense of existence.

This post was last updated by Clive Elwell Wed, 22 May 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 23 May 2019 #645
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2712 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
It is the revelation that there is only change, and there are no “things”, no fixed points. The realisation that there is no permanence, only transience. Because the self was thought’s attempt to have some sort of permanency,

This is interesting, Clive. Only the images have a sense of permanency. Life itself is always moving....changing. I want to look further into this before replying further....how thought creates the appearance of fixed ‘things’....me and my family...my career...my house...my self image...my spouse, etc. Many of these are important in a practical sense, but when there is psychological attachment to the image/s problems arise.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Thu, 23 May 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 23 May 2019 #646
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2712 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
In short, it no longer creates a psychological 'problem'?

I have a feel for what you say in #642, Dan. Is this because we’re not trying to make life conform to a pattern? Conform to our expectations or desires?

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Thu, 23 May 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 23 May 2019 #647
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1387 posts in this forum Offline

Right...that's a good way to put it. I just happened to read an article praising someone who personally I was not able to have a satisfying relationship with. Reading the article brought up these unpleasant memories...the reaction was to 'calm the waters' almost immediately... which is a kind of psychological conflict, isn't it?i.e.,The self trying to change what is taking place, restore the status quo? But if there is an 'awareness' of this almost instantaneous process, something else can take place. Is it just another form of 'self-calming' now masquerading as 'self-observation?... Or is it 'intelligence' that understands that any psychological problem, conflict, worry, fear, etc. continued, is just a waste of precious energy?

...and aren't these negative feelings or emotions left over from being hurt or snubbed as children? Same sensation but dressed up now in a more sophisticated way?

This may be all wrong of course

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Thu, 23 May 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 23 May 2019 #648
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2712 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
aren't these negative feelings or emotions left over from being hurt or snubbed as children?

Yes. Funny, I’m sitting in a quiet university building relaxing today, and just a moment ago, I heard a man raise his voice, not necessarily in anger, but I felt the shock of the loud voice in my body, and I recalled the fear I felt as a small child of any adult male who raised his voice in anger. It was a powerful self protective fear...fear of being struck or physically hurt. I can see quite clearly how I conformed to the demands of the society....teachers, parents, etc...because of this powerful animal fear....fear of being physically hurt. I mean, why else conform? Approval?

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Thu, 23 May 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 23 May 2019 #649
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5194 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
This is interesting, Clive. Only the images have a sense of permanency. Life itself is always moving....changing.

Yes, that's right, isn't it? And we need a sort of permanency in the physical world, for survival, but we have internalised that need into the psyche, and that seems a disaster.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 23 May 2019 #650
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5194 posts in this forum Offline

I wrote in #644:
It suddenly feel inconceivable that I am merely some sort of movement of brain cells. That such movement gives my sense of existence.

And I shared that feeling with a friend. He replied:

Is the strong sense of existing that occurs in the brain cell, an obstacle to a much much stronger and more vivid experience of existence that can occur in every cell?

I find that a very intriguing question.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 24 May 2019 #651
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1387 posts in this forum Offline

I don't understand your friend's question...how do you understand what it is asking Clive?

This may be all wrong of course

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 24 May 2019 #652
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2712 posts in this forum Offline

Is the strong sense of existing that occurs in the brain cell, an obstacle to a much much stronger and more vivid experience of existence that can occur in every cell?

And what could one do about this obstacle? One is OF it, no?

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 24 May 2019 #653
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1387 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:(#635)
Ultimate truth (if there is such a thing, and to me there is) is universal, beyond the personal, unknowable as knowledge. It is not a product of reasoning. It is not reached (touched) through reason. It is beyond reasoning. The ultimate is not opinion, belief or conclusion. The unkowable ultimate truth (if there is such a thing) is beyond the known personal reality. Both are real but the one cannot touch the other

The use of "touch" regarding what thought cannot do in relation to the unknown (reality) is appropriate it seems to me. The finger can only touch or feel a certain materiality. It can't 'touch' the sunlight reflecting off the water or the scent of the flower. So it is that thought with reason can't touch or 'grasp' the (finer?) materiality of the truth, of reality. It can probe it with science but what is 'beyond' the material it can never truly grasp. So it 'invents', imagines, theorizes, believes, projects what is there but it cannot 'touch' it. It cannot 'know' it! It is not the 'right' instrument. Its proper place is in the known, not the unknown. The known is the past and reality is not the past. Thought's 'search' is based on the fallacy that the truth is 'out there' and that in 'time' it can be 'found'.

This may be all wrong of course

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 24 May 2019 #654
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5194 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
I don't understand your friend's question...how do you understand what it is asking Clive?

Clive Elwell wrote:

Is the strong sense of existing that occurs in the brain cell, an obstacle to a much much stronger and more vivid experience of existence that can occur in every cell?

I'm just exploring, perhaps speculating. Putting several things together.

I said it was feeling very strange to me, that a physical movement of brain cells gives rise to a feeling that "I exist". I'm not saying that it is or it isn't, just describing a feelings. But it may be this brain cell activity, producing the "me-sensation", by its very existence is obscuring a deeper sense of existence, a non-personal one.

This sounds quite reasonable. I observe that when thought happens, the external senses somehow fade. I'm "lost in thought", and cease to be aware of the world around me. However, I see that it would not be correct to equate the senses with "every cell". But until the mind is still, silent,free of its self-created noise, I am not in a position to say what else might or might not exist. But a cell is a living thing, and probably has a certain amount of 'awareness'. I think science would support that statement. And that would include the cells of "my" body - no, better to say "the body".

Also, I have a memory of K describing himself with a scientific term which I can't recall, but it means, as he explained, experiencing the equivalent of an organism in every cell of his body. And this was his "normal state" of existence. Perhaps I shouldn't write this here, as I cannot back it up with any citation, but the memory of his words had quite an impact, and has remained with me (except that exact scientific term).

I will add another thing that somehow went into my statement, relevant or not. K has said that when there is awareness of ALL the senses together - not just one sense acting fragmentarly - then thought is still. Again, I admit it does seem to be an exaggeration to extend this into "every cell in the body". But still, it does seem possible that that cell awareness is a fact. And in the body, any body, all the cells are working in unison - a fact which is quite amazing.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 24 May 2019 #655
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5194 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
And what could one do about this obstacle? One is OF it, no?

Yes, one IS it, and with that perception, the concept of "doing something about it" becomes obsolete. One is left with pure observation of the fact. And is that observation not action in itself?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 25 May 2019 #656
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 733 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
This perception cannot be ignored, I cannot carry on in the "old way" when its truth is seen.

Tom Paine wrote at 639:
I am no longer violent then? Is that what you mean? What is the change that comes about when seeing this? Do you mean that the sense of self importance is gone? Or the sense of separation? If I am only an image than the image/thought is all that separates me from you?

Violent thoughts and emotions still arise but there is insight into their significance and process. No? So they are not identified with “me”, they are not explained, justified, condemned or analyzed, they are not seen as something “I must act upon” or that “I must do something about” or that “I should not be feeling this way”. They are just seen, observed, understood - which does not mean effort to repress or NOT to act on them. They are seen, observed, understood, just as physical pain or sensation is seen, observed, understood. When “I” break a leg, I can explain or analyze how it came about that I broke it; I can take medication for pain, or not; but beyond such thoughts, there is nothing for me “to do” about the pain. It is seen, observed, understood. I don’t pretend there is no pain, I don’t chastise myself for feeling pain, I don’t see myself as a victim or a hero because of it.

Whether or not I try to control the violence which arises in me, the violence eventually subsides. But it can subside “leaving a mark” - which means it is accumulated into consciousness, it has expanded consciousness/self. Or it can subside without leaving a trace, having been observed attentively without the mind making any effort to act on it.

As I see it.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 25 May 2019 #657
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 733 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote at 644:
I am wondering what is meant by the phrase “anything that thought touches”. What does it mean, for example, for thought to “touch a tree”. Or to touch a person. Does the thing that is touched become affected by the touch of thought? Does thought really touch anything? It can think about things, but is that really touching – or the denial of touching?

Thought touches a tree or a person when it explains it, identifies it, condemns or justifies it, desires it, wants to own it, records it into memory and retrieves it from memory, doesn’t it? And that “touch” does not touch the real. It is a barrier that separates from the real. Whereas attention does not erect any barriers (or “keep things at bay”, as you put it), does it?

Clive Elwell wrote:
I feel strong reservations about using the word “truth” in this context, Huguette. Without claiming to know what truth actually is, I would not associate truth with thought. Personal reality, yes.

By personal reality, I mean consciousness or self - I was born on this date not on another date, I have experienced such and such traumatic and joyful events and not others, I have acquired certain knowledge, skills and education and not others, I have these opinions, likes and dislikes and not others, I lived in certain places and not in others, and on and on. That is my personal truth. This is “me”. This is “the real” that thought can touch. This personal truth matters on certain levels, in certain contexts, doesn’t it? There is so much talk and concern about "alternate facts" and "fake news" nowadays.

And there is ultimate truth or reality, which is not on the level or in the context of personal truth, which thought cannot touch. Personal reality or truth, fake news and alternate facts, any form of thought - are irrelevant and meaningless in facing the ultimate (if there is such a thing).

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 25 May 2019 #658
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2712 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Violent thoughts and emotions still arise but there is insight into their significance and process. No?

Insight, when? Normally there is condemnation or justification.

So they are not identified with “me”, they are not explained, justified, condemned or analyzed, they are not seen as something “I must act upon” or that “I must do something about” or that “I should not be feeling this way”. They are just seen, observed, understood -

Why are they not identified with? I'm angry at my neighbor, for instance...perhaps there's intense anger over some transgression or insult. This anger is painful and I want to get to the bottom of it...to understand it. I don't want to continue violent behavior but end it. So k says to just observe it. But I find it impossible to just observe. I condemn or try to get rid of it. How can I stop this natural tendency of human beings to try to change or get rid of 'negative'/painful feelings? Anything 'I' do here seems another attempt to change or modify or control which is what I'm always doing. Why is simple observation so difficult for man? (I ask this of myself as well) Well, it's difficult for almost all of us anyway. Maybe there's one or two who have changed. K said 'no one got it', however.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 25 May 2019 #659
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 733 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Insight, when? Normally there is condemnation or justification.

So are you saying that there is NO insight into the nature of self? That there is no insight into the illusion of division? Is there condemnation or justification of this "insight" (if there IS such insight)?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 25 May 2019 #660
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1387 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
How can I stop this natural tendency of human beings to try to change or get rid of 'negative'/painful feelings? Anything 'I' do here seems another attempt to change or modify or control which is what I'm always doing. Why is simple observation so difficult for man?

Is it that we form an image of what "simple observation" is? Is it something that we 'do', accomplish? Do we imagine that if we could just do it right then all this 'bad' stuff will end? My anger, my frustration, my sadness...? I came across this today and wanted to share it...see what you think:

K. Suppose that you are suffering intensely because of the death of someone, or because someone does not love you. In that suffering you seek happiness, consolation. Therefore you readily accept any theory, any consolation that another has to offer. If, however, you are not seeking happiness as the opposite to your suffering, then you examine impersonally and critically whatever comes before you and thereby discover the true value of each experience, each gift of life. In thus meeting every incident of life with your whole being, not seeking satisfaction or consolation, intelligence is born.

Early Writings, Volume VII | Talks at Adyar, India 1932-33

This may be all wrong of course

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 631 - 660 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.)