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

Eternity?


Displaying all 17 posts
Page 1 of 1
Tue, 11 Jun 2019 #1
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5098 posts in this forum Offline

This was the QOTD:

You may not accept this. You may not accept what I am saying, but you can experiment. Experiment with these three instances I have given to you, fear, belief, patriotism, and you will see how your mind is tethered, conditioned, and therefore life becomes a conflict. Where the mind is enslaved, conditioned, there must be conflict, there must be suffering. Because, after all, thought is like the waters of a river. It must be in continual movement. Eternity is that movement. If you condition that free flowing movement of thought, of mind and heart, then you must have conflict, and that conflict then must have a remedy, and then the process begins: the searching for remedies, substitutes, and never trying to find out the cause of this conflict. So through the process of full awareness, you liberate the mind and heart from the hindrances which have been set about them through environment; and as long as environment is conditioning the mind, as long as the mind has not discovered the true significance of the environment, there must be conflict, and hence the false answer which is self-discipline.

Referring to the high-lighted section, I see that thought must be in continual movement - how could it be otherwise? (Answer perhaps, when it has frozen itself into belief, when it has created damns of assumptions, conclusions). But what is K getting at when he he says that Eternity is that movement?

The conventional (perhaps a Christian concept) of that word "Eternity" is "an infinite time", but I have a feeling that when K used the word he meant "outside of time". I could be wrong about that.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 12 Jun 2019 #2
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 703 posts in this forum Offline

Hello Clive,

Thought is the faculty which measures and which can BE measured. Awareness, intelligence, understanding, meditation is the faculty which does not measure and which CANNOT be measured. The very stating of this is a measure of and by thought.

The passage or movement of “what is” is measured as second, month, year, millenium, eon, yesterday, tomorrow, lifetime, indefinite, etc. That is measurable time,

Eternity is the movement of time which cannot be measured, which has no beginning and no end, no now, no before, no after, no eventually, no calendar. Eternity is beyond the understanding, touch or reach of thought.

So when thought ruminates on past and future, on what has happened, what should have happened and what should happen, when it clings to its fears, ambitions, beliefs, desires and accomplishments, and so on, it is blocking out eternity from the wholeness of the mind, from the wholeness of the human being. It is “tethering” the mind to and by its measures or measuring.

The human being, the whole mind, is more than thought alone. Thought operating alone, separately from the whole, thinks that it alone understands what is real and that its measures ARE the real. Thought thinks that its reality - the reality it has constructed or put together by measuring “what is” - is the truth, reality. That thinking is the effect of its conditioning, which was perhaps the wrong turn taken.

I’m throwing this out without any certainty at all, experimentally.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 12 Jun 2019 #3
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1310 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
K... as long as the mind has not discovered the true significance of the environment...

I would like to ask also, what is meant by the "true significance of the environment"?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 12 Jun 2019 #4
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1310 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
The human being, the whole mind, is more than thought alone. Thought operating alone, separately from the whole, thinks that it alone understands what is real and that its measures ARE the real. Thought thinks that its reality - the reality it has constructed or put together by measuring “what is” - is the truth, reality.

Could you say that 'thought' acting alone without direction by the "skill of intelligence" and without the awareness of compassion and in ignorance of its own limitation, can be, and has been quite monstrous?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Thu, 13 Jun 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 13 Jun 2019 #5
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5098 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Thought operating alone, separately from the whole, thinks that it alone understands what is real and that its measures ARE the real. Thought thinks that its reality - the reality it has constructed or put together by measuring “what is” - is the truth, reality. That thinking is the effect of its conditioning, which was perhaps the wrong turn taken.

Yes, this is seen more and more. Not just 'seen', but felt. The realisation has a tremendous effect - in effect it negates all that has ever been known. It is an on-going realisation. As soon as the realisation turns into thought, into knowledge, it is lost, of course.

Thought is the faculty which measures and which can BE measured. Awareness, intelligence, understanding, meditation is the faculty which does not measure and which CANNOT be measured. The very stating of this is a measure of and by thought.

Yes, it comes now that only thought can make measurement. That is one of its true functions, is it not? It can measure matter/energy, including itself. Which implies that the things you mention, intelligence, understanding, meditation, are NOT matter, not material processes, no?

Eternity is the movement of time which cannot be measured, which has no beginning and no end, no now, no before, no after, no eventually, no calendar. Eternity is beyond the understanding, touch or reach of thought.

This is profound. The mind does not know what to “do with it”. When you state this, Huguette, is it not another measurement of thought?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 13 Jun 2019 #6
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5098 posts in this forum Offline

What can be achieved by time, the use of time, and what sort of thing cannot be achieved by time? At first sight, it appears that EVERYTHING can be achieved by time (is this what K means when he talks of “the field of time”?). Food can be grown, houses can be built, skills learnt, wealth and power accumulated, illnesses (sometimes) cured, relationships cultivated, organisations built. And, significantly, the mind can be conditioned in time, over time. In fact one might say this is the function of the brain, to become conditioned in various ways, and act from that conditioning. Time can bring about that conditioning.

And that conditioning might be, and often is, interpreted as progress. (Of course things happen in time that we might not choose to happen, or want to happen, like growing old, becoming poor, etc)

Really our society and minds (the two really being one) are built on time, on becoming. We tend to think this is the very essence of life, the meaning of life. Which might be regarded as a little odd when we see that death lies at the end of it all. But we strive to become, struggle to “become more”, to “improve”, and that idea has infiltrated the psychological and so-called spiritual field. We think that we can become “better” human beings, wiser, more understanding, closer to God, getting to Heaven, achieving Nirvana, enlightenment, “improve our Karma”. And we think some process in time can bring this about. I don’t think many people would question this notion of time and becoming. Perhaps the whole science of psychology is based upon it. I was reading an article yesterday by the Dalai Lama, where he claimed the meaning of life lies in “becoming happy”. And yet I would say that there is very little evidence that one can become happy through a process of time, except maybe the claims of some Gurus. And there is always failure, disappointment, frustration.

It is very radical to question the time process, or at least ask where time “works” and where it doesn’t work, But I am questioning it as I write.

I think K has said that the self cannot be made “better”. The self will always be the self. One’s observations certainly point to that, and yet one also observes the self carries on trying to improve itself. Can anyone explain clearly why this is so? Perhaps if it can be put into words, the self might have to come face to face with this contradiction.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 13 Jun 2019 #7
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 703 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
When you state this, Huguette, is it not another measurement of thought?

“The skill of intelligence is to put knowledge in its right place” link text:

or, as Dan put it above:

... 'thought' acting alone without direction by the "skill of intelligence" and without the awareness of compassion and ignorance of its own limitation, can be, and has been quite monstrous”

So it is a measurement of thought but isn't the question whether thought is necessarily or inevitably “acting alone”?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 13 Jun 2019 #8
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1310 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
I think K has said that the self cannot be made “better”. The self will always be the self. One’s observations certainly point to that, and yet one also observes the self carries on trying to improve itself. Can anyone explain clearly why this is so? Perhaps if it can be put into words, the self might have to come face to face with this contradiction.

Speaking as a 'self', myself, something that I don't understand is this: it seems true that in sleep without dreams, I disappear. I trust that it is the same with you and yourself...but in the morning we are there, again and have been each morning since childhood. And I am here now writing this question to you. If you are successful in putting an end to the self, yourself, somehow, who or what is going to take your place? And where did you go? You just disappear as you do each night but now you never come back upon awakening? Who is going to replace you...us? And why would you want to 'get rid' of yourself anyway? It would make sense if you are extremely unhappy or troubled but if that isn't the case...? Who is going to take your place in your body? A stranger?

These strange questions were somehow prompted on reading this, this morning after a 'meditation':

(from the 5th talk in Madras my bold):

K.: Self-knowledge is not a conclusion, an end; it has no beginning and no end. You must begin where you are, reading every word, every phrase, every paragraph of the book of self-knowledge. To understand its contents there must be no condemnation, no justification, for all identification and denial put an end to the stream of self-knowledge. To be awake to the movement of the self, there must be a certain freedom, a spontaneity, for a thought that is disciplined, controlled, molded, can never pursue the swift current of the self. A disciplined mind is shaped in a mold, and so cannot follow the subtle promptings of the different layers of consciousness. But there are rare moments when the disciplined mind, the drugged mind, is spontaneous, and in these moments there is a comprehension of conditioned responses, when thought can go beyond its own limitations.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Thu, 13 Jun 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 13 Jun 2019 #9
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2639 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Who is going to replace you...us? And why would you want to 'get rid' of yourself anyway?

True....if one isn't suffering there's probably no motivation to 'get rid' of the self. But are we seeking just another object to hang on to when we ask the question you asked....some security...something 'higher'? Just asking. I would think that without a self, intelligence would be present...and observing, looking, listening, acting...love, compassion, doing what needs to be done for the body...to stay healthy and have a roof over your head, etc. Plus the practical aspects of thinking....K. could still brush his teeth and comb his hair even if he was free of the 'me', right? When you're really listening or observing is there a 'me' present...or only the listening?

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Thu, 13 Jun 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 13 Jun 2019 #10
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5098 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Could you say that 'thought' acting alone without direction by the "skill of intelligence" and without the awareness of compassion and in ignorance of its own limitation, can be, and has been quite monstrous?

Yes, I would go along with this.That thought just developed in the human brain, along with the rest of the evolutionary movements of life. Although evolution guaranteed it would be a tool that aided physical survival - for mankind as he was then - nothing guaranteed that thought would be a force for general good, that it was compassionate, intelligent, etc. If hate,tribalism, violence, were aids to man's physical survival,then so be it.

It seems to me that in a more overall sense, thought must be destructive, unless it operates in the intelligence that the light of awareness brings.

I could be wrong.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 13 Jun 2019 #11
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5098 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
So it is a measurement of thought but isn't the question whether thought is necessarily or inevitably “acting alone”?

Yes, as I suggested above.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 14 Jun 2019 #12
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 703 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote: So it is a measurement of thought but isn't the question whether thought is necessarily or inevitably “acting alone”?

Clive Elwell wrote: Yes, as I suggested above.

Sorry Clive, I missed that last paragraph at #10.

As I've mentioned to you before, I question the validity of biological evolution. I don't question the fact of mutation, change or transformation. I question the interpretations given to biological evolution.

What IS evolution, what is the underlying energy or intelligence of it? Is it - in the sense you are using it - something that is separate from the “eternal movement” of life? Is evolution a process or “thing” that is independent from intelligence, from creation, from the ground? Are “the evolutionary movements of life” something other than the eternal movement of life itself?

In the way you are using it, evolution sounds to me like a kind of wizard or doctor Frankenstein who willfully, knowingly, deliberately, insanely shapes and orchestrates matter, gives it tools, and then stands back to see how it all turns out, stands back to see the results of what it/he has put together. Did or does “evolution” guarantee anything? I question the implication that evolution is a movement towards the "better" or even towards the "perfect".

I don’t know how to express what I want to say other than as these questions. Do you see what I’m getting at and is it total nonsense?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 14 Jun 2019 #13
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1310 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
That thought just developed in the human brain, along with the rest of the evolutionary movements of life. Although evolution guaranteed it would be a tool that aided physical survival - for mankind as he was then - nothing guaranteed that thought would be a force for general good, that it was compassionate, intelligent, etc. If hate,tribalism, violence, were aids to man's physical survival,then so be it.

Yes, the way I see it Clive at this point is that with the evolution of the brain, more complex thinking arose. It was a tool for survival and very effective but... questions began to arise in early man that were also a result of this more complex thought: questions about the 'death' that he was seeing around him, the suffering, etc. He was able to ask the question that as far as we know was never asked by any other living creature: "Why?" "Why am I here?" "What happens to me when I die?" "Where do I go after this body dies?" etc...... Was this the 'wrong turn', thought posing unanswerable questions and not understanding that they were unanswerable? The questioning created 'confusion' that was unsettling. The brain as has been said needs a sense of security and having these disquieting questions, demanded that they be answered. So thought set about developing the fantastic 'creation' stories all over the world where man inhabited, many of which have come down to us. And we have our own here today. But what has never been addressed deeply in us to this day, I'm realizing, is the original 'confusion' that lies at the center of each of us: this 'not-knowing' or 'innocence', alongside this craving to 'know'. We have run from it for thousands of years rather than face the fact that we can't 'know' what we are. All the stories (religions, gods etc.) are thought's escaping the fact of it's own limitation, its own 'mis-use', this 'original mistake': that we in our naive ignorance posed questions that were unanswerable and then set about answering them as if they had answers, creating the division that has come from all the fantastic stories and beliefs and books about who we are, where we are going, why we are here...All just 'made up'?

Can we bear to 'not-know' in every minute? To be 'nothing'?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sat, 15 Jun 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 15 Jun 2019 #14
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5098 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Do you see what I’m getting at and is it total nonsense?

Yes, total nonsense Huguette. No, just joking :-)

Huguette . wrote:
As I've mentioned to you before, I question the validity of biological evolution. I don't question the fact of mutation, change or transformation. I question the interpretations given to biological evolution.

I also question certain assumptions behind biological evolution, Huguette.

I also don't question the evidence that life evolved in the sense of taking on different forms with the progression of time. And overall, into more and more complex forms - I don't see how the fossil evidence of this can be refuted, or why it should be. And is there not DNA evidence? But like you I question how science seems to deny the place of intelligence in evolution. In fact it seems most scientists deny ANY role for intelligence in the process - I could be wrong.

Is the idea of "survival of the fittest" incompatible with intelligence playing a part in biological evolution? I don't know, I find that somewhat puzzling. And of course the big question is, what do we mean by "intelligence"? It might be good to go into that, if we can. Without claiming to know what it is, I don't imagine intelligence to be something separate from life, from the Universe. So it is not "God".

Huguette . wrote:

In the way you are using it, evolution sounds to me like a kind of wizard or doctor Frankenstein who willfully, knowingly, deliberately, insanely shapes and orchestrates matter, gives it tools, and then stands back to see how it all turns out, stands back to see the results of what it/he has put together.

No, I did not mean to infer the action of any "entity", any sort of will being involved.

Huguette . wrote:
Did or does “evolution” guarantee anything? I question the implication that evolution is a movement towards the "better" or even towards the "perfect".

I doubt if anything, any force, intelligence itself, "knows the future, knows the future of the Universe, the outcome of the "processes" at work. I have a feeling that the Universe is "creating itself", or recreating itself all the time. Of course I cannot prove that, just a feeling, with a touch of self-observation.

What do you say?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 15 Jun 2019 #15
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5098 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Can we bear to 'not-know' in every minute? To be 'nothing'?

Yes, those are questions that I find important, and meaningful. And one sees so much of the confusion and mischief that we as human beings bring about, inner and outer, are the result of refusing to accept that we really do not know. And refusing to be "nothing" - although that may be what we really are.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 15 Jun 2019 #16
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1310 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
I also don't question the evidence that life evolved in the sense of taking on different forms with the progression of time.

Take a look at this theory of the origin of life from 2014 and also recently updated:

https://www.quantamagazine.org/a-new-thermodyna...

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Tue, 18 Jun 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 17 Jun 2019 #17
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5098 posts in this forum Offline

I am not even sure that I have the right thread, but somewhere recently Tom posted these words of K, and "Eternity" seems to fit somewhat:

“But a mind that seeks certainty is never assured. It is the mind that does not seek certainty that can become assured.”

What does it mean, ‘a mind that is assured’? As I continually experience it, there is no assurance (certainty?) in the mind, if the word mind is used to mean thought, knowledge.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying all 17 posts
Page 1 of 1
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.)