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

Do you give 100% of your energy to change?


Displaying posts 61 - 90 of 121 in total
Sun, 28 Oct 2018 #61
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4579 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
If it asked with the whole of one's being.

This "asking with the whole of one's being" IS giving 100% of one's energy to change, is it not?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 28 Oct 2018 #62
Thumb_open-uri20151228-18124-1kyi3s7-0 Jose Roberto Moreira Brazil 26 posts in this forum Offline

I think so!

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 28 Oct 2018 #63
Thumb_open-uri20151228-18124-1kyi3s7-0 Jose Roberto Moreira Brazil 26 posts in this forum Offline

Good question! From my experience, when one gives all his energy, one is not aware of that.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 29 Oct 2018 #64
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2296 posts in this forum Offline

Clive: Perhaps a more fundamental question in response to the initial question:

"Do we give 100% of our energy to change?" is: "How do we do that?". Or, "What does it mean to do that?".

Don’t we normally do that based upon a thought or conclusion or question? Obviously if so, it’s based upon the limited and dividing intellect. If there is a genuine movement of giving one’s total energy, then it must necessarily be spontaneous, no? Anything else is calculated, thus an action of the limited and fragmented ‘me’. If I set out to do this consciously, it’s ‘me’ wanting to change,...and ‘me’ only perpetuates its limitations ...or do you disagree? Do you feel ‘me’/I can actually initiate a movement towards change...or must ‘me’ totally give up...surrender all its own efforts because it/I see my limitation and helplessness in this matter?

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Mon, 29 Oct 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 29 Oct 2018 #65
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4579 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Obviously if so, it’s based upon the limited and dividing intellect. If there is a genuine movement of giving one’s total energy, then it must necessarily be spontaneous, no? Anything else is calculated, thus an action of the limited and fragmented ‘me’. If I set out to do this consciously, it’s ‘me’ wanting to change,...and ‘me’ only perpetuates its limitations ...or do you disagree?

That's how I see it, Tom.

Tom Paine wrote:
Do you feel ‘me’/I can actually initiate a movement towards change...or must ‘me’ totally give up...surrender all its own efforts because it/I see my limitation and helplessness in this matter?

Seeing the fact - and I think it is a fact - that me, thought IS limited, and cannot act to bring about fundamental change, then that IS movement into change, yes. I would rather use the word "into" than "towards".

The important word here is "seeing", isn't it? Do we really see, or is it an intellectual recognition?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 30 Oct 2018 #66
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2296 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Seeing the fact - and I think it is a fact - that me, thought IS limited, and cannot act to bring about fundamental change, then that IS movement into change, yes.

Yes, seeing the fact is the critical factor. Not clinging to an intellectual conclusion. Now we can come back and ask the questions posed in the thread here too. Is this seeing something we can give 100% of our energy to? I think not. Or perhaps giving our energy to understanding the ways of my thought and feeling? Can I forget trying to change what I am and just let it flower...be aware of it without trying to change anything? Just inquiring...

The QOTD perhaps touches on what we’re discussing here....perhaps only tangentially. I may initiate a new thread, but I’ll post an excerpt here:

“Desire is the builder of the wall - desire for title, for bank account, for property, for family, for beliefs. The 'I' is the product of the desire in relation to an object. How does desire come into being? Perception, contact, sensation and desire. There is a car, then perception of it, then contact with it, then a sensation caused by it, and then the desire which says "How lovely it is! I would like to have it", comes. Desire or craving comes through seeing, touching and feeling. It is the outcome of sensate values, the identification through the senses with the object of the senses. Desire with regard to ideas also follows the same process. You like or you do not like a particular idea. When you like an idea, that idea is pleasing and gratifying to you. The acceptance of an idea or the rejection of an idea is based merely on gratification which is sensate. “

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 31 Oct 2018 #67
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4579 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Is this seeing something we can give 100% of our energy to? I think not.

Why do you think not, Tom?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 31 Oct 2018 #68
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4579 posts in this forum Offline

I am reminded of K saying “like living with a poisonous snake in the room. One watches it all the time, intently” (the snake being the self, the ego). Sometimes one feels this way, one sees the absolute necessity of living that way. But other times one ‘forgets’ to watch the snake. And that, perhaps, is “the bad” referred to one the other thread, “All one inquiry”.

“Forgets” is not the right term. But we are negligent, and we don’t always see what is. So then we are not giving 100%.

I am not saying that it IS possible to give 100% all the time. K has said we cannot be aware “all the time”, that is just an idea.

I have just found this quote:

Questioner: I find it impossible to be
aware all the time.

Krishnamurti: Don’t be aware all the
time! Just be aware in little bits.
Please, there is no being aware all
the time—that is a dreadful idea! It
is a nightmare, this terrible desire
for continuity. Just be aware for one
minute, for one second, and in that
one second of awareness you can see
the whole universe. That is not a
poetic phrase. We see things in a
flash, in a single moment; but, having
seen something, we want to capture, to
hold it, give it continuity. That is
not being aware at all. When you say,
“I must be aware all the time,” you
have made a problem of it, and then
you should really find out why you
want to be aware all the time. See the
greed it implies, the desire to
acquire. And to say, “Well, I am aware
all the time,” means nothing.

London, 3rd Public Talk, June 10, 1962

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 31 Oct 2018 #69
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2296 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Tom Paine wrote:

Is this seeing something we can give 100% of our energy to? I think not.
Why do you think not, Tom?

I meant to say that it’s not something ‘I’ can choose to do. It may happen spontaneously out of deep interest....suddenly there’s insight...seeing. Or it may happen totally unexpectedly. Back later, time permitting. Have to get ready for our bus.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 31 Oct 2018 #70
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 978 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
“All one inquiry”.

Is it that we make an image of what 'awareness' is, of what 'freedom' is, of what 'love' is? We can't 'know' any of these. can we? Because they only exist in the present? My eyes can see the sunlight on the leaves being blown by the wind, or the eagles briefly squabbling as they sight a fish, etc. But I can't 'know' these moments...only when they are recalled an instant later and are in memory. But while they are occurring they cannot be 'known'. It is only when an image of the present is made, and there is recognition and 'naming' that they become things of the past,
things that I 'have known'...That is why as I think Mina was saying that 'freedom' can't be known, it only exists in the 'now'. It is a "state of mind" not a reaction to something, not a breaking away from something.
Freedom is learning and knowing in the present without accumulation?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Wed, 31 Oct 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 01 Nov 2018 #71
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4579 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
I meant to say that it’s not something ‘I’ can choose to do. It may happen spontaneously out of deep interest....suddenly there’s insight...seeing. Or it may happen totally unexpectedly.

Yes indeed. It came, totally unexpectedly in the night, that the answer to the question of this thread is simply no. It is impossible for me to give 100% of my energy to change, because if 100% of energy is manifesting, then there is no ‘me’ , there is no me to manifest it. The me is always a dissapation of energy.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 02 Nov 2018 #72
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4579 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Is it that we make an image of what 'awareness' is, of what 'freedom' is, of what 'love' is? We can't 'know' any of these. can we?

Without disputing the essence of what I think you are saying, Dan, I would say “knowing them” is exactly what we do. That is, the mind forms images of them, those images become part of consciousness, memory, and the images interact in the mind, in what we call ‘reality’.

Of course these images are not the actual things that they represent. As you say:

Because they only exist in the present? My eyes can see the sunlight on the leaves being blown by the wind, or the eagles briefly squabbling as they sight a fish, etc.

Such things actually exist, independently of the mind (although the brain may be necessary for awareness of them to be).

But I can't 'know' these moments...only when they are recalled an instant later and are in memory. But while they are occurring they cannot be 'known'.

Yes

It is only when an image of the present is made, and there is recognition and 'naming' that they become things of the past,
things that I 'have known'...

Yes

That is why as I think Mina was saying that 'freedom' can't be known, it only exists in the 'now'. It is a "state of mind" not a reaction to something, not a breaking away from something.

Yes, and I think you are right to put that phrase “state of mind” in quotation marks. It is not a “state” in the sense of anything static.

Freedom is learning and knowing in the present without accumulation?

Yes, psychologically this “without accumulation” is absolutely essential. Accumulation is the very basis of the prison of human consciousness, with all its conflict and misery.

And "the first step" into the change that this tread has been exploring must be the ending of psychological accumulation, no?

This post was last updated by Clive Elwell Fri, 02 Nov 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 02 Nov 2018 #73
Thumb_open-uri20151228-18124-1kyi3s7-0 Jose Roberto Moreira Brazil 26 posts in this forum Offline

Actually, I think the right question is: what is my real drive in life? Naturally, I would give all my energy to that. A fanatic muslim would die for his crazy drive in life.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 02 Nov 2018 #74
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2296 posts in this forum Offline

Jose Roberto Moreira wrote:
Actually, I think the right question is: what is my real drive in life? Naturally, I would give all my energy to that. A fanatic muslim would die for his crazy drive in life.

I wonder if our motives are fundamentally different from those of the fanatic Muslim. I mean, they're all based upon the search for pleasure and/or psychological security. His are quite insane, of course, but ours have their roots in the same fundamental drives. Here's the QOTD which may touch upon our motives since it speaks to what we are and our motives are based upon this conditioning as are those of the religious fanatic:

K: You are the result of your past and present environment, and what you express, calling it individuality or self-expression, is nothing but the expression of that conditioning environment.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 03 Nov 2018 #75
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 978 posts in this forum Offline

Jose Roberto Moreira wrote:

I think the right question is: what is my real drive in life? Naturally, I would give all my energy to that.

Dan: It's ourselves isn't it? Get satisfaction, recognition, be safe, secure, have a cause, seek pleasure and rewards, avoid psychological pain, get "free from the known" etc. We're #1 thats where all the energy goes. If that is true then anything we do or try will, as Tom suggests, have the motive of 'self' behind it...So maybe this is what K. is referring to when he says the whole thing is so "simple". It's all there for the watching, not only when we're 'attentive' but when we're 'inattentive'. The 'self', the 'me' is always right there to be seen. The 'thinker' is always acting as if it's separate from thought. The observer is always pretending that it's separate from what is being observed. And the 'effort' to join them is just more dissipation of energy. Just 'seeing' without condemnation, without judgement, without choice, maybe is all thats needed?

What K. said was his "secret" comes to mind: "I don't mind what happens."

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 04 Nov 2018 #76
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4579 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote, quoting K,:
K: You are the result of your past and present environment, and what you express, calling it individuality or self-expression, is nothing but the expression of that conditioning environment.

Yes, I was especially struck by these words. They are another way of saying "you are the world", are they not?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 04 Nov 2018 #77
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4579 posts in this forum Offline

It seems to me to be a fact that everything is in a state of flux. Everything is changing, moving, all the time. Nothing is static. Some people claim that they perceive something that is non-changing, but while I cannot deny its possibility, that is not my perception. The words of an old Christian hymn come to mind:

Swift to its close ebbs out life's little day
Earth's joys grow dim, its glories pass away
Change and decay in all around I see
O Thou who changest not, abide with me.

The whole hymn (“Abide with me”) reflect the insecurity of change all human beings feel, and the knowledge that everything passes, while hoping there exists something beyond change, something unchanging.

But the more scientists investigate matter, the more its changing nature is revealed, And in human consciousness, there is no doubt that there is nothing permanent. Thought follows thought, feelings replace one another. A desire is, sooner or later, superseded by another desire. That which brought pleasure, satisfaction, no longer does so.

But I suggest all this is a problem only to an entity who imagines himself as permanent, non-transient – that is, the self, the ego. If one “moves with the change”, as sometimes one finds happening, this is ….. well, what it is cannot be described by words which in themselves are static. But this moving with the change, I would say, is the “state” described by Tom Maxwell (see the “all one enquiry” thread) as:

We live in a series of infinite nows, which are always dying, and always being reborn. To be immersed in this reality is to be transformed, for it is there that eternity is available.

So why is this state so rare? It is certainly not the norm in the world, which holds on to its images, on to the past, so fervently. This question surely has relevance to this “100%” question? My own (suggested) answer is that it is a matter of energy. To constantly move, be in flux, psychologically, to follow the ever changing “what is” takes a lot of energy, which we often don’t have. Whereas not to change with what is, to be static, to live according to a belief, to follow a pattern, for today to be a repeat of yesterday, to hold on to conclusions – that state does not require much energy.

I am aware that K has said things perhaps the contrary. He has at times dismissed the idea that we lack the energy to change fundamentally. “You have plenty of energy”, he said, “when you want to fulfill yourself”. But still I suggest, tentatively, that change IS a matter of energy, and I wonder what others think about this?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 04 Nov 2018 #78
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 978 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
And "the first step" into the change that this tread has been exploring must be the ending of psychological accumulation, no?

Hi Clive

I would take your 'energy' inquiry back to your above question...Does it take 'energy' to not accumulate? Or does it take energy to constantly 'update' the fictional 'I'? To constantly have the 'movement' of thought where it really has no function but causes conflict through the duality of observer/observed or thinker/thought? The senses function effortlessly in the immediate now. Can the 'movement' of thought which creates the interval of psychological time between those dualities, can it end? By 'awareness' of what it is doing, awareness that there is no ultimate security for itself by this constant movement. That the creation of a permanent 'I' is to always bring the dead past into the living moment? The true present is the unknown isn't it? Is it the fear of that not-knowing that brings the 'self' through thought's movement into the present and 'obscures' and 'makes old' the now-ness of the senses, the seeing, hearing, smelling touching, tasting, all made old by memory?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 04 Nov 2018 #79
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2296 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Quoting Tom Maxwell: We live in a series of infinite nows, which are always dying, and always being reborn. To be immersed in this reality is to be transformed, for it is there that eternity is available.

Clive: So why is this state so rare? It is certainly not the norm in the world, which holds on to its images, on to the past, so fervently.

For one, Clive, there’s the issue of physical security. To secure even basic food, clothing, and shelter has been a terrible struggle for man. Well, in colder climates or areas like Northern U.S. and Northern Europe anyway, where harsh winters made finding adequate food and shelter very difficult for early man. Without basic physical security, man won’t have freedom from fear I don’t think. Well, I only know from my own experience that physical insecurity seems to create psychological insecurity. In times when all is well in the physical realm, I have occasionally found myself launched into a timeless state of observation...what Mr. Maxwell is referring to above. One day during a visit to a stunningly beautiful university campus on a quiet summer day I was moved in and out of this state of observation for a period of hours....throughput the afternoon. This has been an occurrence throughout much of my life, but usually only in brief moments. But to keep food on the table and a roof over one’s head, a lot of action and thought and planning is necessary, it seems to me. I’m not sure one can remain in the state of observation when working at a factory or a supermarket, for instance. Or repairing or programming computers or being a plumber or auto mechanic. It may be possible....not saying it’s not, but one would need to transform the workplace for most of us, I think, before that would be a possibility for man. Transform the workplace by transforming ourselves perhaps. Bernadette Roberts (‘What is Self’) has gone so far as to say that without the self...the ‘me’...the world of technology wouldn’t be possible.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 04 Nov 2018 #80
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2296 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
But this moving with the change, I would say, is the “state” described by Tom Maxwell (see the “all one enquiry” thread) as:

We live in a series of infinite nows, which are always dying, and always being reborn. To be immersed in this reality is to be transformed, for it is there that eternity is available.

I returned to this topic to make the point that what’s crucial for man is not entering this ‘infinite now’, but rather understanding oneself as one is ...self-knowledge. Without self knowledge there can be no end to suffering and chaos... outwardly and within.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Sun, 04 Nov 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 06 Nov 2018 #81
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4579 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
For one, Clive, there’s the issue of physical security. To secure even basic food, clothing, and shelter has been a terrible struggle for man. Well, in colder climates or areas like Northern U.S. and Northern Europe anyway, where harsh winters made finding adequate food and shelter very difficult for early man.

I have read from several sources that the provision of the necessities of life was not actually a big issue for so-called "primitive man", it only took up a few hours of the day, leaving the rest of the time for more creative pursuits.

Over population has changed this for the "developing world". And perhaps the desire for psychological security has had its part to play in that over-population. In the "developed world", the efforts of most people are not directed towards the provision of the basic necessities of life, are they?, but so-called luxuries, status symbols, expensive toys for entertainment. i am generalizing, of course.

But i am not sure where this inquiry is going. I am sure we are all agreed that the fundamental issue is the transformation of the consciousness, and beyond certain minimum necessities, the circumstances of our lives are not so relevant to such transformation. What is relevant? - we spend a lot of time discussing this question.

Tom Paine wrote:
I returned to this topic to make the point that what’s crucial for man is not entering this ‘infinite now’, but rather understanding oneself as one is ...self-knowledge.

Indeed, Tom.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 06 Nov 2018 #82
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4579 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
I would take your 'energy' inquiry back to your above question...Does it take 'energy' to not accumulate? Or does it take energy to constantly 'update' the fictional 'I'?

Are you basically asking,Dan, does it take energy to change from a non-natural state to a natural state?

At the moment we are wasting energy, dissipating energy, in the way we live, and in the patterns in which the mind is caught – making effort, trying to achieve, become, both materially and psychologically. Wasting energy in comparison, conforming, entertainment, socialising. In mistreating the body, travelling needlessly, in being fearful ……. and so on and on.

I am suddenly reminded of some words of K – that the true meaning of religion is the gathering together of all energy:

And man, including the woman, man, throughout the ages from time nameless has always enquired deeply - if one studies history - if there is a reality, a truth that transcends all time, all circumstances, that is ageless and deathless - this has been his search, asking, groping, enquiring and in these enquiries he has created civilisations, new civilisations, because all civilisations whether new must be born out of religion, not out of Marx or Mao or some clever philosopher, but out of religion. We explained the meaning of that word etymologically. It means gathering together - please listen - not people gathering together as we are, but gathering together - I'll explain presently - collect, be diligent, scrupulously attentive in this enquiry. Not to find, not to achieve enlightenment, not to become something - the meaning is now accepted etymologically that religion means gathering together all your energy so that that energy can, given the right environment, right circumstances, right physical, mental, emotional balance, it can explode.

Madras 1979 talk 2

“It’s your life, for God’s sake don’t waste it”
- K

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 06 Nov 2018 #83
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2296 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
I have read from several sources that the provision of the necessities of life was not actually a big issue for so-called "primitive man", it only took up a few hours of the day, leaving the rest of the time for more creative pursuits.

The peasants/serfs toiled long and hard just to provide the basic necessities in the middle ages. There was much disease and hardship that inevitably led to fear, violence, and superstitions and beliefs of all kinds. But that was in part because the kings and queens and 'nobility' grabbed all the good hunting and fishing land for the King and his chosen 'nobles'...knights, bishops, barons, lords, etc. So it was division and violence that made life miserable for the lower classes, it seems. The upper vs the lower classes....same as today in the U.S. and elsewhere. So, the selfishness and greed of the upper classes leads to misery and suffering in the lower classes. Long hard hours working in a factory or on a farm, just to provide oneself and one's family with enough to survive physically. This may be an answer to one of the questions posed in the thread..."why don't we give 100% of our energy to change?" Interesting what you pointed out about primitive man in the years prior to the large organized societies of feudal middle ages. I didn't realize that. However I did read and interesting book when I was young about life among the 'primitive' pygmy tribes in Africa, and what you point out above seems to be true. Of course they didn't have to provide food to last over the long harsh winters we get in the Northern climates.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Tue, 06 Nov 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 06 Nov 2018 #84
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2296 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Tom Paine wrote:

I returned to this topic to make the point that what’s crucial for man is not entering this ‘infinite now’, but rather understanding oneself as one is ...self-knowledge.

Indeed, Tom.

K. emphasizes this point today in the QOTD:

"Do not seek the bliss of reality, for the mere search for reality only leads to illusion, but comprehend that process of thought, consciousness, focussed in yourself. This demands not mere concentration but pliability of mind and self-sustained interest." Second public talk, 1936

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Tue, 06 Nov 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 07 Nov 2018 #85
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 978 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
I returned to this topic to make the point that what’s crucial for man is not entering this ‘infinite now’, but rather understanding oneself as one is ...self-knowledge. Without self knowledge there can be no end to suffering and chaos... outwardly and within.

Hi Tom

I believe that I get what you are saying here: that any psychological quest on the part of the self, the 'me', can only be a projection of desire to 'become' or 'attain' and as such will only be more of the same...but another way to read it is that a 'true' understanding of oneself in the moment is the entering of the "infinite now" or whatever words we choose to point at this possible other 'dimension' of 'love', compassion, intelligence, etc. But the understanding does not 'lead' in time to the other, the 'infinite now', as I see it, there is no 'time' involved. A true understanding (seeing) of the total conditioning of myself in the moment, is to be free from the 'self'...'free from the known'.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 07 Nov 2018 #86
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2296 posts in this forum Offline

Dan: but another way to read it is that a 'true' understanding of oneself in the moment is the entering of the "infinite now" or whatever words we choose to point at this possible other 'dimension' of 'love', compassion, intelligence, etc.

I suppose I was trying to say that what’s crucial is the much needed understanding, not timelessness or the infinite now, though as you say, understanding is in the now...not in the dimension of time.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Wed, 07 Nov 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 08 Nov 2018 #87
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4579 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
I would take your 'energy' inquiry back to your above question...Does it take 'energy' to not accumulate? Or does it take energy to constantly 'update' the fictional 'I'?

One might say, logically, that if one is accumulating then it must take energy to change to a state of none-accumulation. One might say this, but I question it, with its suggestion of ‘becoming different’, ‘achieving a different state’.

So, is it that, at the present, energy is blocked, not flowing as it should? Then one could say it’s not the energy that is the problem, it is the blocking mechanism, the factors of blocking. Like opening a damn and letting the water flow, in its natural state.

I would further ask, are the blocks purely imaginary; projected by thought only? If this is so, in what way would it require energy to ‘undo this block’? I note in the last K quote I gave he talked of “the gathering of energy”, not the expenditure of energy.

“It’s your life, for God’s sake don’t waste it”
- K

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 08 Nov 2018 #88
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 978 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
So, is it that, at the present, energy is blocked, not flowing as it should? Then one could say it’s not the energy that is the problem, it is the blocking mechanism, the factors of blocking. Like opening a damn and letting the water flow, in its natural state.

Hi Clive,

The brain is 'accumulating' experience in order to support the ego or self-image as a protective process in what it perceives as a dangerous physical world as well as a dangerous psychological world of exploiters, etc. When we meet a new person a great deal of 'sizing up' takes place at the 'speed of light'. The 'other' is 'judged' probably a thousand different ways in the space of an instant unconsciously for the most part and judgements are made. Enemy or friend?...and many more categories are checked off. All based on one's experiences in the past and the ancient experience of mankind...this is all for protection and has its place in a brutal, dangerous world. But does it have a place in the psychological world? Or is it totally misplaced there because the ego or self doesn't really 'exist' in the same way the body does? The ego is a sort of construct of the past being constantly 'updated'. Is this the blockage that you are inquiring into? The self, the 'me'. Would the 'energy' flow freely if there was no 'wall' of ego between the body with its senses and the outside world? If there was no 'time' brought between one and the 'now'? If there was no psychological 'center' that 'captures' the energy of 'creation' and filters it through this past, dead, fearful entity with all our attachment to 'things' and ideas and people? Each in our own little 'prison'? It's strange, the brain is conditioned to fear the 'unknown', to fear 'death' yet without 'death' there is no 'life' and without the 'unknown' there is no 'now'.

This 'life energy' is released, 'disentangled' in the moment the 'self', the 'me' is seen as totally conditioned. But it is the self or 'thought' the sees itself as conditioned... not a 'thinker' or 'observer'.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 08 Nov 2018 #89
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2296 posts in this forum Offline

Dan: Would the 'energy' flow freely if there was no 'wall' of ego between the body with its senses and the outside world? If there was no 'time' brought between one and the 'now'? If there was no psychological 'center' that 'captures' the energy of 'creation' and filters it through this past, dead, fearful entity with all our attachment to 'things' and ideas and people?

Yes...I would think so. I’ve spent a bit of time around people with Downs Syndrome, and you get the feeling that there’s no ‘wall’ or ‘barrier’ as you were describing above. I would say it’s the same with very young children. Of course, they cannot survive on their own in the world....not physically, that is. Perhaps they’re too much in the now...the present. The feeling you get being around these special people is really unique....well, very different than the feeling one gets around the neighbors or coworkers, anyway. They’re so relaxed and peaceful that it can have a powerful impact just to be with them.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 08 Nov 2018 #90
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 978 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
The feeling you get being around these special people is really unique....well, very different than the feeling one gets around the neighbors or coworkers

K. and others have talked about the human being not "flowering", we seem to reach a threshold and never go any farther. Is it the 'hardening of the 'self' that keeps the blossoming or flowering from occurring in us? That the creative 'energy' that could (should?) bring it about is entangled and dissipated in the identifications and 'holding on' in fear to the past?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 61 - 90 of 121 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.)