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

All one inquiry


Displaying posts 661 - 690 of 882 in total
Sat, 25 May 2019 #661
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2693 posts in this forum Offline

Is it that we form an image of what "simple observation" is?

I think we have countless images that we identify with and that’s one of them. Probably we don’t see that thought/images is what’s responsible for the problem in the first place. And we try to solve the problem....any problem ....with further images ...of right or wrong etc

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 25 May 2019 #662
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2693 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?

There may have been many insights, yet anger returns, right? If there is anger there is division. Do past insights have any effect on the present anger?

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Sat, 25 May 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 25 May 2019 #663
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5161 posts in this forum Offline

I have been reading through your mails, Tom, and Huguette’s, and the question seems to be: is there a break, a gap, in this succession of thoughts, feelings, reactions, identifications. Or: is there awareness of the process. Perhaps these two questions are not separate – is it that awareness lies in the space between thought?

What brings awareness into the thought/reaction process? Where does insight into the process come from? For me the realisation that the thinker is no different from thought is the key. That they ARE different is the fundamental illusion that the human mind is caught up in. But when the nature of the illusion is seen, something new can take place. There is a realisation that the whole movement of ‘me’ trying to do something about ‘it’ has no meaning.

I was watching a movie last night – a movie that had the virtue of being realistic. The characters, living ordinary lives, behaved, reacted, just as people DO behave. And what came over in the movie is people’s basic approach to life is to fight it. To automatically resist the challenges that come to one. To struggle. Even when someone starts to shed tears, the response from another will most likely be “don’t cry”. All this resistance implies an entity who does the the resisting, an entity who feels he is separate from what he is feeling, what he is experiencing. I suggest this is a fundamental illusion, and illusion that has directed the course of man’s history, and has bought us to the present chaos and misery. And the more we suffer, the more we feel that we must “fight” the suffering.

But we ARE the suffering.

“But I find it impossible to just observe. I condemn or try to get rid of it”.

I think you are right in saying that were there is condemnation, resistance, there can be no awareness, no pure observation. The two are mutually exclusive.

“How can I stop this natural tendency of human beings to try to change or get rid of 'negative'/painful feelings?

I would say that you cannot. It is exactly as you say:

Anything 'I' do here seems another attempt to change or modify or control which is what I'm always doing. ”

So the usual question arises: Do you actually see this?

Why is simple observation so difficult for man?

Is it that the whole thrust of our conditioning is not to observe, but to try to DO something – as touched upon above. And is it that this doing reinforces our sense of self, whereas observing does not?

So we must be prepared to let go, to "let it be", as you sign.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 26 May 2019 #664
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2693 posts in this forum Offline

Clive: All this resistance implies an entity who does the the resisting, an entity who feels he is separate from what he is feeling, what he is experiencing. I suggest this is a fundamental illusion, and illusion that has directed the course of man’s history, and has bought us to the present chaos and misery.

I think this is key as well, Clive. You expressed this point very well in your above post. Going to look further into this before replying. But I think you really hit the nail on the head here. Our parents tell us, “You shouldn’t be so angry (afraid, lazy, selfish, etc)”, and we begin to feel we are separate from our qualities.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Sun, 26 May 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 26 May 2019 #665
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2693 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
All this resistance implies an entity who does the the resisting, an entity who feels he is separate from what he is feeling, what he is experiencing. I suggest this is a fundamental illusion, and illusion that has directed the course of man’s history, and has bought us to the present chaos and misery.

And this ‘me’ entity is a fragment in consciousness ....a fragment of thought. Is it the ‘me’ fragment that brings about all the other fragments? Speaking ‘psychological’ fragmentation....not the fragmentation in the physical world of me and my car or me and my sandwich. But ‘inwardly’ there’s me vs. my problem and me vs. you and the bad me vs. the good me, and so on. All this is based upon a self ...a ‘me’ fragment. It’s thought (inwardly) which brings about all the psychological fragmentation, which is conflict....suffering. Outwardly, in the world, we are all aware of the disastrous effects of this fragmentation leading to war. K once talked about the center (self) ‘exploding’...or the need for this....something in that vein. He also talked of the need for a total mutation in the brain. I just came across this talk today which I’m in the middle of watching on YouTube here: https://youtu.be/reL5R6pHunM

@Clive....or anyone: just past the 17 minute mark he asks, “Is anger separate from me?”

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Sun, 26 May 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 26 May 2019 #666
Thumb_open-uri20151228-18124-1kyi3s7-0 Jose Roberto Moreira Brazil 62 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
All this resistance implies an entity who does the the resisting, an entity who feels he is separate from what he is feeling, what he is experiencing. I suggest this is a fundamental illusion, and illusion that has directed the course of man’s history, and has bought us to the present chaos and misery. And the more we suffer, the more we feel that we must “fight” the suffering.

This seems to be a key point: "we feel that we must fight the suffering". Sometimes I feel an uneasyness in my body, something I know it is false, it is only psychological. If I think of my feet or any part of my body they start to tingle as if an energy would be flowing there, making that part of the body warm. Depending on the situation, this psychological uneasyness may be very irritating. The more I fight it, the more irritating it becomes. If I do not fight it, it disappears. The decision to fight or not to fight is not conscious.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 27 May 2019 #667
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 722 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Is it the ‘me’ fragment that brings about all the other fragments?

Is there actually a specific, static, constant “me fragment” which is constant, separate and distinct from “all the other fragments” of consciousness? The totality of consciousness IS this vast accumulation of fragments of memories, thoughts and emotions, isn’t it? And isn’t the whole content of consciousness “me”? Isn’t it a different fragment or 2 or more contradictory fragments which rise to the surface of consciousness to act as the “me” at a given moment? So in that moment, “I” feel angry, confused about what to do, fearful, jealous, solicitous, conceited, in love, dutiful, resentful, and so on. And later I say, "I was angry (confused, afraid, etc.)". Is the "me" that was angry the same as the "me" that remembers the past? Does the "me" actually consist of a fragment or is the "me" just the mind's belief in a constant, separate "me"?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 27 May 2019 #668
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2693 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:

Is there actually a specific, static, constant “me fragment” which is constant, separate and distinct from “all the other fragments” of consciousness?

Sometimes it appears to be a constant or static, yes. Not saying that it is actually true, however.

The totality of consciousness IS this vast accumulation of fragments of memories, thoughts and emotions, isn’t it? And isn’t the whole content of consciousness “me”?

I don’t know, Huguette. It often seem that some fragments are not me and some are, right?

Isn’t it a different fragment or 2 or more contradictory fragments which rise to the surface of consciousness to act as the “me” at a given moment?

Right, two or more fragments, like ‘I’m angry’ vs. ‘I shouldn’t be angry’ or ‘I have a right to be angry’.

So in that moment, “I” feel angry, confused about what to do, fearful, jealous, solicitous, conceited, in love, dutiful, resentful, and so on. And later I say, "I was angry (confused, afraid, etc.)". Is the "me" that was angry the same as the "me" that remembers the past?

No to the last question, though we may think this me fragment is constant.

Does the "me" actually consist of a fragment or is the "me" just the mind's belief in a constant, separate "me"?

What about will...effort? The me isn’t just a belief but an action ...behavior ...it acts in fragmentation and reaction. Self control is obviously fragmentation. You bring up some interesting points here, Huguette. I need to look further into them. Hopefully others will join the discussion

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Mon, 27 May 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 27 May 2019 #669
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1362 posts in this forum Online

Huguette . wrote:
Is the "me" that was angry the same as the "me" that remembers the past? Does the "me" actually consist of a fragment or is the "me" just the mind's belief in a constant, separate "me"?

I would say the latter. But sometimes the actions taken are so contradictory in oneself that there is a shock: "How could I have done that?" Or "I don't know what came over me!" There is this assumption that all these 'me's or 'I's are one, and not separate, partitioned, not-in-communication, parts of the self. But the fact is that one 'I' will do something that another 'I' could not imagine doing. That causes a lot of misunderstandings and blame and grief of course; this idea that we are in control of ourselves: that there is a controlling 'I'. That we are 'one'. The 'I' is given a 'permanent' status but can go up in smoke in a second.

Experimenting with 'dying to oneself' brings this home, i.e. I find myself embroiled in this or that, worrying over something, trying to figure out what this or that means and right in that moment, right in the middle of it, 'die' to it. Just let it go, 'wipe it away' and do the same with whatever comes next until the awareness slips away and you 'wake up' later and maybe, pick up the experiment again...It is so 'unusual' to do this but there comes with it, along with the sensation of dropping a burden effortlessly, a 'glimpsing' of what is meant by not bringing the past, the 'I' and its 'stuff' (the contents of consciousness) into each present moment...In reading Huguette's post, I found myself struggling to understand what she was saying; to see it as clearly as it seemed she did. That meant I was bringing my past, my experience, my knowledge, my effort and through that trying to see her meaning. But is that really 'listening'? Or is 'true listening' just to let her words come into me without any of that and let them reveal their truth (or not) without my twisting them to conform with what I 'know'?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 27 May 2019 #670
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5161 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Hopefully others will join the discussion

I started to look at the issue raised about the nature of the self, and then I realised that I was merely looking through what "I already know", through existing knowledge, and no insight could arise that way. So I wondered if the question could be looked at starting with the unknown? I am not saying that is possible or not.

Tom's post crystallized in me as "what is the content of the self?". It is clearly made up from thought, and thought is clearly from memory. Is the self a reaction of a single memory, or some sort of conglomeration of memory? I think Tom's earlier post is relevant here, when he 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.

Is it not the same for the self?

I should pause to explain here that by "the self" I am not suggesting the self is an entity, or something constant. But I think we all recognise the movement of the self, as implying a centre, and a separateness - I mean the pretence of separateness.

K has said the self is a bundle of memories. (I have put the emphasis on "Bundle"). I admit this is an ambiguous statement, but I think it could be taken to imply that many memories, many experiences, go into each movement, each action (reaction) of the self. And that the self is constantly being modified, as memories, experiences, are added.

This is something I glimpsed vividly a few weeks ago, in fact, but I waited too long before trying to express it, and I lost it. I may have used these words: "the self has wholistic properties". Yet it seems strange to use the word wholistic for something so obviously fragmented. Strange but not impossible.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 27 May 2019 #671
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2693 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
I should pause to explain here that by "the self" I am not suggesting the self is an entity, or something constant. But I think we all recognise the movement of the self, as implying a centre, and a separateness - I mean the pretence of separateness.

K has said the self is a bundle of memories.

It’s memories yes, but there’s more to it than pure memory. I remember where I live and where I work, and I remember how to brush my teeth and cook my breakfast. So what makes memory into a ‘me’ or a you or a ‘self’? Is it pleasure and fear. Memory creates both....one we want to pursue and the other avoid. Does this create the self....the pursuit of pleasure...the desire to have it repeated? Also, I feel that I am separate from you. I am a separate person...a separate self. How is this feeling related to memory? I feel that I am the one who acts, who thinks, who is afraid, who wants, who desires, who is in control. But it’s conditioning that’s in control. is there this me who is separate from conditioning...separate from the fear...who desires? Or is there just fear or desire and conditioning?

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Mon, 27 May 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 28 May 2019 #672
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 831 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
This is something I glimpsed vividly a few weeks ago, in fact, but I waited too long before trying to express it, and I lost it. I may have used these words: "the self has wholistic properties". Yet it seems strange to use the word wholistic for something so obviously fragmented. Strange but not impossible.

Clive, have you studied the ideas of David Bohm as seriously as those of K.? His proposal of 'holomovement' is very helpful to get a better look on this !

A fragment is of an broken whole and the intertwining of wholes makes a superwhole. All those wholes have different lifetimes and and the psychological whole " I " should have a much shorter lifetime than the physiologic one. It's a whole part when dying but a fragment by continuing.

I've put an article from Bohm on the 'general discussion' " information and meaning " lots of views but no comments on " Change of meaning = change of being "

Is this too difficult to understand ?

Tom Paine wrote:
But it’s conditioning that’s in control. is there this me who is separate from conditioning...separate from the fear...who desires? Or is there just fear or desire and conditioning?

TOM, there is fear, desire and all those other things as there is awareness. Observation and all those parts that make up the superwhole, but holding on those makes up the 'ME/I've.

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 28 May 2019 #673
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2693 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
TOM, there is fear, desire and all those other things as there is awareness. Observation and all those parts that make up the superwhole, but holding on those makes up the 'ME/I've.

Can you elaborate, Wim, on what this holding on entails? Is there someone or something doing the holding on? Or is one fragment reacting to another, thereby giving it continuity?

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Tue, 28 May 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 28 May 2019 #674
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2693 posts in this forum Offline

Today’s QOTD touches on our discussion of what is the ‘me’, I think.

Argentina | Public Talks 27th and 28th July, 25th and 27th August, 1935

“Most of us are not individuals, but merely the expression of a collective system of traditions, fears and ideals. There can be true individuality only when each one, through conflict and suffering, discerns the deep significance of the environment in which he is held. If you are merely the expression of the collective, you are no longer an individual; but if you understand the whole significance of the collective consciousness which now dominates the world, then you will begin to awaken that intelligence which becomes the true expression and fulfilment of the individual.

We are now but the expression, the result of past and present environment. We are the result of compulsion and imposition, moulded into a particular pattern, the pattern of tradition, of certain values and beliefs, of fear and authority.”

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Tue, 28 May 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 28 May 2019 #675
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 831 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:

Wim Opdam wrote:

TOM, there is fear, desire and all those other things as there is awareness. Observation and all those parts that make up the superwhole, but holding on those makes up the 'ME/I've.

Can you elaborate, Wim, on what this holding on entails?
Is there someone or something doing the holding on?
Or is one fragment reacting to another, thereby giving it continuity?

Hi Tom,

One can look at it from different perspectives !

if one is whole, one is part of a superwhole or a whole from a higher order.
if one is not whole one is fragmented and also fragmenting.

if someone is jealous and does not want to be jealous, it is that reaction that breaks the whole down into fragments and gives energy to that situation, thus continues.

if someone is jealous and observation is the only action, then that jealousy gets the chance to be extinguished, no-one does nothing, and " is ".

Manifested energy has so much different lifetimes and occurences and is always in flux.

Hoping it's somewhat clearer with this description. ;-)

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 29 May 2019 #676
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2693 posts in this forum Offline

if someone is jealous and does not want to be jealous, it is that reaction that breaks the whole down into fragments and gives energy to that situation, thus continues.

Yes....makes sense.

if someone is jealous and observation is the only action, then that jealousy gets the chance to be extinguished, no-one does nothing, and " is ".

That may be so, but what breaks the pattern of constant reacting?

Manifested energy has so much different lifetimes and occurences and is always in flux.

It’s thought that make the movement of energy become static, right?

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 29 May 2019 #677
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1362 posts in this forum Online

Tom Paine wrote:
That may be so, but what breaks the pattern of constant reacting?

isn't it the 'intelligence' that sees the futility (in-sanity) of thought reacting against itself?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 29 May 2019 #678
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 831 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:

wim opdam wrote:
if someone is jealous and does not want to be jealous,
it is that reaction that breaks the whole down into fragments
and gives energy to that situation, thus continues.

Yes....makes sense.

And this is also the birth of ME....... thought in action, so to say !

Tom Paine wrote:

wim opdam wrote:
if someone is jealous and observation is the only action,
then that jealousy gets the chance to be extinguished,
no-one does nothing, and " is ".

That may be so, but what breaks the pattern of constant reacting?

Why 'that may be so?' everything living needs energy and dies without it !

Dan McDermott wrote:

Tom Paine wrote:

That may be so, but what breaks the pattern of constant reacting?

isn't it the 'intelligence' that sees the futility (in-sanity) of thought reacting against itself?

Whatever it is called , It's not something from me, but something acting through me, something which I'm open for,......
Love, compassion, intelligence

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 29 May 2019 #679
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5161 posts in this forum Offline

The ego is a vast thing. It is not really a “thing” at all, is it? - it is a movement.

The source of that movement is certainly the past, memory, but it is not limited to “my memory”, whatever that is supposed to mean. The self arises from the stream of human consciousness, which we have often discussed, the reservoir of ALL human memory, the memory of everyone who has ever lived on this Earth – and perhaps also our animal ancestry. At least this is how it seems to me. I do actually have a sense of it, watching thought arise. Does it really mean anything to talk about “my thought”? Or even “my suffering”, or “my fear”? To say this is not to deny suffering or fear, not to pretend they no not exist. Neither is one advocating trying to overcome them, transcend them. One can do this no more than one can transcend the self (see the inference of two selves in that sentence, and the contradiction of such words). All action to do so, to overcome, is a trick; yet another trick the mind plays on itself.

And so one is left with – just watching. And perhaps that watching is vaster than the self. Because in the watching comes ending.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 29 May 2019 #680
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5161 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
So what makes memory into a ‘me’ or a you or a ‘self’?

This is a very interesting, very basic question, one I have never really asked before.

Would you say the memory is not "made into a me", it already contains a me? And if a memory does not contain a me (ie purely technical) then it appears in thought without one?

But memory is based on experience, and every experience implies an experience-er. This experience is the self. So thought based on experience carries the self?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 29 May 2019 #681
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 722 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote at 676:
what breaks the pattern of constant reacting?


Google dictionary: conditioning - the process of training or accustoming a person or animal to behave in a certain way or to accept certain circumstances.

It is seen that you and I cannot willfully break the reactive pattern of self that has been programmed into the brain from birth through the conditioning process of repetition. “You” and “I” ARE the pattern. HAL the computer can be dismantled (so far) by the human brain which has built it. But the human being cannot dismantle his own brain in order to break the pattern established in the brain!

So the pattern can’t be broken by anything done by the very pattern of self and time which has been passed down from generation to generation, can it? The conditioned brain cannot do anything to break the pattern established by conditioning. But the attentive brain (attention) can see/understand the nature, source and significance of the pattern of reactions which constitute self and time. And attention is not an action OF the pattern. Attention is of the brain but not of the pattern.

As I see it, it is natural for the human being to ask what can break the pattern. That pattern is bondage and bondage causes suffering. But to expect an answer to come from thought and reasoning is not the action of intelligence. The pattern prevents intelligence from acting. Attention lets the light of understanding shine through the darkness of ignorance. Isn’t the light of understanding the action of intelligence? Isn't it seen that only attention, understanding, intelligence - which form a whole that cannot be separated or broken down into separate parts - breaks the pattern?


http://jiddu-krishnamurti.net/en/the-future-of-...:

DB: I think that it would help if we could see with regard to the brain whether it has any activity which is beyond thought. You see, for example, one could ask, is awareness part of the function of the brain?
JK: As long as it is awareness in which there is no choice.


To understand oneself requires, not impetuous urges, conclusions, but great patience. One must go slowly, millimeter by millimeter, never missing a step - which doesn't mean that you must everlastingly keep awake. You can't. It does imply that you must watch and drop what you have watched, let it go and pick it up again, so that the mind does not become a mere accumulation of what it has learned but is capable of watching each thing anew. (As One Is: To Free the Mind from All Conditioning)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 29 May 2019 #682
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2693 posts in this forum Offline

wim opdam wrote:

if someone is jealous and observation is the only action,
then that jealousy gets the chance to be extinguished,
no-one does nothing, and " is ".

That may be so, but what breaks the pattern of constant reacting?

Why 'that may be so?' everything living needs energy and dies without it !

I meant, ‘it may be true for you who are not reacting, who is observing, but if I am caught up in the pattern, it (observation) is not true....obviously.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 29 May 2019 #683
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2693 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
The conditioned brain cannot do anything to break the pattern established by conditioning.

This is clear...at least logically. Until it is seen that ‘I’ am not separate from the conditioning, I will try to act in some way upon it....upon the problem or conflict I’m facing. Normally we feel that we are separate from the problem and can act upon it logically. But this ‘I’/we who thinks about the problem is heavily conditioned....is totally conditioned.

Isn't it seen that only attention, understanding, intelligence - which form a whole that cannot be separated or broken down into separate parts - breaks the pattern?

This seems logical yes, but is it really seen/understood? Will look further into all you’ve written Huguette. Having a busy morning here with chores, etc.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Wed, 29 May 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 29 May 2019 #684
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 722 posts in this forum Offline

How do I know I am alive? How do I know the sun is shining, the rain is falling, the baby is crying, I am afraid or happy? How do I know I am aware?

Such “knowing” is not the knowing of memory, knowledge, words and time. It is the knowing of life. It is life itself telling me. This “I” also is not the me of memory. It is life. In this sense of that word knowing, I know I am aware and that awareness is not of memory and I know I understand or do not understand. It is life telling me. It is intelligence telling me - not “my” intelligence, but the intelligence that is the mysterious unknowable ground of life.

This knowing or understanding is seen without the input or certainty of memory, knowledge, words and time, isn't it?

This post was last updated by Huguette . Wed, 29 May 2019.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Wed, 29 May 2019 #685
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2693 posts in this forum Offline

How do I know I am aware?

Such “knowing” is not the knowing of memory, knowledge, words and time. It is the knowing of life. It is life itself telling me. This “I” also is not the me of memory. It is life.

Yes, I know the sun is shining and I’m aware and alive. This basic awareness we have since we drew our first breath.

In this sense of that word knowing, I know I am aware and that awareness is not of memory and I know I understand or do not understand. It is life telling me.

Yes, and I suffer and may NOT understand all that’s involved there.

It is intelligence telling me - not “my” intelligence, but the intelligence that is the mysterious unknowable ground of life.

This knowing or understanding is seen without the input or certainty of memory, knowledge, words and time, isn't it?

Yes. Simple awareness is not related to knowledge or words. Whether it can bring an end to human suffering or not is not clear.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 29 May 2019 #686
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 722 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Yes. Simple awareness is not related to knowledge or words. Whether it can bring an end to human suffering or not is not clear.

Can awareness bring a total end to human suffering? I don’t know. For me, self-understanding is a joy in itself in spite of any suffering that still arises. Self-understanding is a joy in itself, not “because” anything. The mother or father who gives up their life so that their child might have a chance to live surely die knowing both joy and suffering. Such is life, isn’t it? Self-understanding wordlessly gives meaning to what was felt to be meaningless. And this is not meaning that is provided by analysis, theory or explanation, by the intellect or by reason.

With the dawning of understanding and intelligence, there is freedom from fear; there is the freedom to experiment with relationship without bringing time and knowledge into it; there is the freedom to observe whether intelligence and understanding act in relationship; there is the freedom to “go north instead of south”, which means without carrying the burden of inner contradiction and turmoil. There is the freedom to act without action being limited either by certainty and arrogance or by worry and fear.

In facing relationship without time and knowledge, without will and effort, something unpredictable, unexplainable and new is observed. This observation is not accumulated and carried forward. Attention and self-understanding in relationship is still interspersed with the old, with inattention, fear, agitation and anxiety. There is inattention and there is attention. And there is no self-recrimination for inattention.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 29 May 2019 #687
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 831 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:

Wim Opdam wrote:
Why 'that may be so?' everything living needs energy and dies without it !

I meant, ‘it may be true for you who are not reacting, who is observing,
but if I am caught up in the pattern, it (observation) is not true....obviously.

Please don't think I'm never caught up in a pattern, but by observing,
seeing "Oeps, I do it again" or seeing how others slipping away from the real question
by defence or explane.

That's also life !

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

This post was last updated by Wim Opdam Wed, 29 May 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 29 May 2019 #688
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2693 posts in this forum Offline

For me, self-understanding is a joy in itself in spite of any suffering that still arises. Self-understanding is a joy in itself,

There’s certainly no joy when our child is abused or ridiculed or bullied at school. There’s no joy when we live with war or a throughly corrupt exploitive society. Perhaps understanding of the causes of all this madness brings joy, but we don’t normally feel joy when confronted by the world’s madness. Will return to the rest of your message later.

In facing relationship without time and knowledge, without will and effort, something unpredictable, unexplainable and new is observed. This observation is not accumulated and carried forward.

This is interesting Huguette, only because it sometimes happens here....suddenly I’m out of the old patterns and see something new. No it’s not carried forward...one has to meet life always anew otherwise we’re creating another pattern. But without self knowledge it seems we easily get caught up in all the old patterns again.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Wed, 29 May 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 29 May 2019 #689
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1362 posts in this forum Online

Tom Paine wrote:
There’s certainly no joy when our child is abused or ridiculed or bullied at school. There’s no joy when we live with war or a throughly corrupt exploitive society.

No certainly not. But when we don't see that we have created the 'society' with its bullies and wars and exploitation by way of our self-centeredness then we want to be rid of the elements we don't like and keep the ones that we do...By not discovering our own responsibility for all this: the "evils" of the self, we judge what we see based on this ignorance of the fact that we are the society. So maybe the "joy" that is being talked about here is the penetrating the illusion of the self, the center, the 'I' through deep insight into its workings? Through the awakening of intelligence?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 29 May 2019 #690
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 722 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
There’s certainly no joy when our child is abused or ridiculed or bullied at school. There’s no joy when we live with war or a throughly corrupt exploitive society. Perhaps understanding of the causes of all this madness brings joy, but we don’t normally feel joy when confronted by the world’s madness.

I agree, Tom. When there’s no joy, there’s no joy.

And when there is joy, there is joy - whether it is the joy of a happy child, the joy of love, the joy of self-understanding, or any other kind of joy.

Where is the contradiction between moments of joy and moments of no joy? Isn't it as you say, that "one has to meet life always anew otherwise we’re creating another pattern"?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 661 - 690 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.)