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

Excerpts from "The Question to Life's Answers"


Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 89 in total
Sat, 30 Nov 2019 #1
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5425 posts in this forum Offline

The following is the beginning of this book by Steven Harrison:

The nature of a question is the recognition that we do not know. This most basic of understandings is also the most powerful. The knowledge that trumps all other knowledge is the understanding that we have no certainty.

Not knowing allows an investigation into life that is unobstructed by our conditioning, uncluttered by our information. It is the absence of knowing that allows the discovery of the new.

What we know - the neural pathways we have assigned to a particular circumstance - patterns the experienced. We fit what is new into what is old. This sorting and categorising is a kind of intelligence and certainly not a capacity we could discard. However, as we fit what we find in life into what we remember, perhaps we can remember something else, as well - that to learn we must have abandon the perspective of the past and expose ourselves to the uncertainty of what is new. This is the nature of the question.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 01 Dec 2019 #2
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5425 posts in this forum Offline

Thought cannot know. Thought can only think, and therefore can only think that it knows.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 01 Dec 2019 #3
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5425 posts in this forum Offline

Perhaps the function of our mind is, as Aldous Huxley suggested, a reducing valve for the totality of the universe, a tiny scoop of reality out of the infinite everything. This is what allows us to function. Without the reduction of total input, without everything being cut down to something, we could not live.

Thought does not take this into account. Thought is convinced that its tiny piece is the infinite everything.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 02 Dec 2019 #4
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5425 posts in this forum Offline

Questioner: "Perhaps we are concluding that by observing the absurdity of our suffering we might detach from it. Then the chattering mind might subside, and we might start to see and feel the beauty all around us, and be in that perfect stillness without thought intruding".

SH: The idea of detaching, and thereby diminishing the thought world until we achieve silence, is not the answer to the absurdity, it is the absurdity itself. What if the thought world exists without us doing something with it, such as detaching, diminishing thought, or achieving silence? What if we do nothing with the thoughts as they occur? It is not the thoughts that are the complexity, but the attempt to sort them, control them, organise them, focus them, refine them, avoid them. Without the doing - the attempt to change all of this - we are actually left with being in the world-as-it-is.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 03 Dec 2019 #5
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1590 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
What if the thought world exists without us doing something with it, such as detaching, diminishing thought, or achieving silence? What if we do nothing with the thoughts as they occur? It is not the thoughts that are the complexity, but the attempt to sort them, control them, organise them, focus them, refine them, avoid them. Without the doing - the attempt to change all of this - we are actually left with being in the world-as-it-is.

So what does it mean to let the "thought world" exist without our doing "something" with it? Not "minding what happens"? Yes? There is a freedom from it. Why don't we have that 'freedom'? Because we are identified with the 'thought world'?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 03 Dec 2019 #6
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1590 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Perhaps the function of our mind is, as Aldous Huxley suggested, a reducing valve for the totality of the universe, a tiny scoop of reality out of the infinite everything. This is what allows us to function. Without the reduction of total input, without everything being cut down to something, we could not live.
Thought does not take this into account. Thought is convinced that its tiny piece is the infinite everything.

There is a sadness in this to me. The brain has put away the perception of the 'vastness' and focused on the trivial. Why? It could not handle the 'immensity' and had to reduce it? The brain turned its back on reality and settled for this pettiness? Can it understand its 'wrong turn'? It does not need to know what this is all about. It does not need to protect from what it cannot know.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 03 Dec 2019 #7
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5425 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
So what does it mean to let the "thought world" exist without our doing "something" with it? Not "minding what happens"? Yes? There is a freedom from it. Why don't we have that 'freedom'? Because we are identified with the 'thought world'?

It means just that.Letting thoughts/feelings emerge from wherever they come from, and not reacting to them. Not being reacted to, with no attempt at controlling them, do they not just dies back into where they come from?

This implies no separation as thinker and thought. And this is the fact, is it not? There IS no thinker separate from thought. So there is nothing to be done to bring this 'state' about. (It is the thinker that tries to do)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 03 Dec 2019 #8
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5425 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
There is a sadness in this to me. The brain has put away the perception of the 'vastness' and focused on the trivial. Why? It could not handle the 'immensity' and had to reduce it? The brain turned its back on reality and settled for this pettiness? Can it understand its 'wrong turn'? It does not need to know what this is all about. It does not need to protect from what it cannot know.

As you probably know, Dan, early on in "The Ending of Time" dialogues, K suggests that the wrong term was taken because the human brain could not handle "this vast energy":

K: Wait a minute. Is it that energy -
being so vast, limitless - has been
condensed or narrowed down in the
mind, and the brain itself has become
narrowed because it couldn't contain
all this enormous energy? You are
following what I am saying?

DB: Yes.

K: And therefore the brain has
gradually narrowed down to me', to
the
I'.

DB: I don't quite follow that. I
understand that that is what happened,
but I don't quite see all the steps.
You say energy was enormous and the
brain couldn't handle it, or decided
that it couldn't handle it?

K: It couldn't handle it.

DB: But if it can't handle it, it
seems as if there is no way out.

K: No, just a minute. Go slowly. I
just want to enquire, push into it a
little bit. Why has the brain, with
all thought, created this sense of
"me',"I'? Why?

I don't know that K ever directly responded to Bohm's comment that:
"But if it can't handle it, it seems as if there is no way out"
But obviously K felt that there WAS a way out. But for us that remains an open question.

I am wondering if this is related to K’s “process” - all the intense pain he suffered in the brain, for so long. I have read it suggested that somehow the brain was being purified so that it could, perhaps, contain this vast space
(K said others did not need to go through this process)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 03 Dec 2019 #9
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 781 posts in this forum Offline

Dan, Clive,

Further down in that same passage from the Ending of Time (#8), K says this:

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

`Look, we have been going in the wrong direction, there is only non-movement; and, if movement stops, everything will be correct'

As I see it, it is not when we ask “why am I unhappy”, “what am I doing wrong”, “what is my mistake”, “what should I do”, and so on, that we are “going in the wrong direction”. It is in the act or effort of looking for an answer, a solution to questions regarding psychological suffering that the wrong direction is taken. The wrong direction lies in the EFFORT to find a solution, not in questioning. The questions cannot be prevented from arising, and they are not a problem to be solved by thought. It is seen that there are no solutions to such problems to be arrived at through thought. Persisting in the effort to answer unanswerable questions, pursuing an answer where there is no answer to be gotten, leads to disorder, IS psychological disorder. The questions are not arrived at through effort. The questions are not deliberate; the effort is. It is useless to try to suppress these questions - they arise naturally, spontaneously. It is also useless to try to suppress the effort to find answers. We see that suppression solves nothing. The effort to suppress is the same phenomenon as the effort to solve, as I see it.

Questions arise either because the brain has been trained to look for solutions or because looking for solutions is an inherent function of the brain - or both. Either way, questions are unstoppable, unpreventable. I hear water dripping somewhere and questions arise, “Where is the water dripping? Why is the water dripping? How can I stop it?”. Or the car breaks down, something is burning, the door won’t close, there’s a “wrong” noise, there’s a pain in my ear, I can’t pay the rent, war breaks out, and so on.

http://jiddu-krishnamurti.net/en/1983/1983-07-1...

“Our brain is trained to solve problems. Right? It is trained from childhood to solve problems - mathematical, historical, you follow, examinations, all those are indications of solving problems. So our brain is trained to solve problems. The architectural problems, engineering problems, problems of how to put a motor together. So we approach life with a brain that is trying to solve problems. I don't know if you realize that. So you treat life as a problem and then try to find a solution to the problem. So when the speaker asks you a question like this, what is intelligence [Huguette: or any other question or personal issue that arises], you make that into a problem. Naturally. And then you try to solve that question through a a brain that is trained to solve. Now can one, as a friend I am asking, can one look at this question: what is intelligence, not as a problem? Right? Can you do it? If you do that is the beginning of intelligence. That means the brain is already becoming free from its conditioning. But if you approach this question: what is intelligence? and then try to solve it, you are back in the old muddle. But when one realizes that one's brain is conditioned to solve problems and therefore you approach any question with a mind, with a brain that says, "I must solve it." So we never meet a challenge afresh. To meet a problem, any problem, afresh, is the beginning of intelligence.”

Also in that passage from The Ending of Time:

“That is not the end. Then what is going on? Is that creation?”

This post was last updated by Huguette . Tue, 03 Dec 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 03 Dec 2019 #10
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2913 posts in this forum Online

Clive Elwell wrote:
It means just that.Letting thoughts/feelings emerge from wherever they come from, and not reacting to them.

But one thought reacts to another thought, no? I have a thought that I hate going to church on Sunday. Another thought tells me this is wrong and I SHOULD go to church and worship God.

Not being reacted to, with no attempt at controlling them, do they not just dies back into where they come from?

Thought reacts to thought however....often continuously

This implies no separation as thinker and thought. And this is the fact, is it not? There IS no thinker separate from thought. So there is nothing to be done to bring this 'state' about. (It is the thinker that tries to do)

Does this realization bring about the end to what I described above...of one thought reacting to another thought...one fragment opposing another fragment?

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 03 Dec 2019 #11
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1590 posts in this forum Offline

Can Thought see itself for what it is? A material process, limited? A 'problem' maker when it operates, moves in the psyche? That its rightful place is in the practical realm where it works with material things? Can it come to that realization completely on its own, with no struggle, no effort, no imposed control of any kind? Just because it is the intelligent thing to do?...I'm wondering if these are 'right' questions or just 'more of the same'. When he says below,"what if we do nothing with the thoughts as they occur?", it sounds like the 'we' he's referring to is not thought itself, but it is, isn't it, the 'thinker' trying to act in some way upon 'thought'? It's thought in conflict with itself, there is no outside entity, is there? It's all thought in conflict with itself through the false duality of thinker/thought.

SH: The idea of detaching, and thereby diminishing the thought world until we achieve silence, is not the answer to the absurdity, it is the absurdity itself. What if the thought world exists without us doing something with it, such as detaching, diminishing thought, or achieving silence? What if we do nothing with the thoughts as they occur? It is not the thoughts that are the complexity, but the attempt to sort them, control them, organise them, focus them, refine them, avoid them. Without the doing - the attempt to change all of this - we are actually left with being in the world-as-it-is.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Tue, 03 Dec 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 03 Dec 2019 #12
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2913 posts in this forum Online

Dan McDermott wrote:
Can it come to that realization completely on its own, with no struggle, no effort, no imposed control of any kind?

So it will happen out of the blue? Is that what you're saying? In other words, when K said that self knowledge was 'arduous' he was mistaken? That it's in fact totally effortless?

Just because it is the intelligent thing to do?

Since when has man been able to do the intelligent thing in regards to his violence?

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Tue, 03 Dec 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 03 Dec 2019 #13
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 781 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote at #10:
Another thought tells me.....

The "first" thought in the chain of thought IS me. The "other" thought which reacts to the first thought does not TELL “me” - it IS also me. And the next thought which uses the argument that “one thought reacts to another thought” IS also me.

But we here say we understand that there is no “me”. Is there or isn't there a separate "me"? And can't the process which puts together the illusory “me” be observed? Isn't it observation which reveals the process and nature of the "me"?

Tom Paine wrote:
Thought reacts to thought.....

But observation is not thought, is it? Since there is no thought IN observation itself, the observation of the process is not a reaction. Observation is NOT thought, isn’t it so? Do you disagree? Is the direction or intention of thought not affected by observation?

Tom Paine wrote:
Does this realization bring about the end to what I described above...of one thought reacting to another thought...one fragment opposing another fragment?

The conditioned response of thought/brain does not end instantly but the understanding of the process of the “me” ends the effort to resolve the conflict between thoughts. The reaction still takes place, but the understanding does act, as I see it. And so conditioned thought still arises but it has lost its direction or intention to solve existential problems.

Whenever something is put in a new place in the home, my first reaction when I want that “something” is to go to the old place, and then I remember that the thing is in a new place. When a limb is amputated, there is (sometimes? always?) the phenomenon of a phantom limb. It takes chronological time for the brain to get used to these things. These 2 examples are not exact parallels to the fragmentation of thought into me and not-me, but I think they shed some light on the question of conditioning. No?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 03 Dec 2019 #14
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1590 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
So it will happen out of the blue? Is that what you're saying? In other words, when K said that self knowledge was 'arduous' he was mistaken? That it's in fact totally effortless?

What is 'arduous' is the not-doing anything about the ""thought world" as the writer calls it. Any 'doing' or effort is the thought world relating to itself, struggling with itself. 'Observation' or "integral awareness" or "choiceless awareness" is not thought, right? These are 'not-doing', they are effortless. What is arduous is the 'keeping' these from becoming entangled in the 'thought world'? (Some would say 'impossible') Aren't these the 'stepping out' in the moment? Aren't these the "freedom from the known"?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 03 Dec 2019 #15
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 781 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote at #11
When he says below,"what if we do nothing with the thoughts as they occur?", it sounds like the 'we' he's referring to is not thought itself, but it is, isn't it, the 'thinker' trying to act in some way upon 'thought'?

Can't thought itself - i.e. that part of the brain whose functions are memory, thinking, reasoning - realize that "it", "it" being the brain, CAN’T DO ANYTHING ABOUT the thoughts that occur? Thought cannot decide, "I will think such and such a thought", can it? It can't decide to think a particular thought BEFORE it thinks it. Thought/brain does not MAKE thoughts arise. Thoughts arise mysteriously and then thought WANTS to act on them, likes them or dislikes them, thought makes efforts. But thought cannot choose the thoughts that arise. Since it can remember, think and reason, can’t thought itself - not “me” or “I”, not the self - understand what the nature of self is?

And thought also can't choose or decide to BE or BECOME silent. But thought can understand what silence is and what it is not, can't it? Just as I don't have to be able to fly like a bird in order to understand that I cannot fly. Is there conflict in that? In the same way, I realize, know, understand that I - thought- cannot be silent, that any attempt I make to be silent is not silence. I realize that I cannot prevent thoughts from arising precisely because I (thought) am NOT separate from thought, from the brain. Thoughts arise in the brain and the brain cannot prevent it from happening. But there can be self-understanding, can't there?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 03 Dec 2019 #16
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 781 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote at #12:
...when K said that self knowledge was 'arduous' he was mistaken?

K said that self-knowledge is arduous. He didn’t say impossible … if we are to care what K said at all. If I assert that it’s impossible, then it’s impossible for me. And if I determine that it’s possible, it might still be impossible.

I think we all realize that self-understanding IS arduous, that observing the workings of one’s mind is arduous, that attention is arduous. It is observed that it is so very easy for the mind to fall back into inattention, back under the spell or illusion of time and of self as the separate controller, in an instant, isn’t it? In a flash of inattention, the illusion of conditioning commandeers the brain and drags it back into the field of conflict. That is the mysterious momentum of conditioning, of consciousness. That is the mysterious unknowable movement of the whole of life, as I see it.

Thought, the brain, the mind can realize or understand that inattention has happened. Attention mysteriously returns but cannot be MADE to return. And neither inattention nor attention is permanent, solid, static.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 03 Dec 2019 #17
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5425 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Does this realization bring about the end to what I described above...of one thought reacting to another thought...one fragment opposing another fragment?

I am finding that the realisation that the thinker is the thought DOES have an action. Or in this case let us say “The react-or IS the reaction”. In the realisation – and I would say that the realisation stems from observation, from awareness – the sharp separation between the two (and let us remember that it is not a REAL separation, only an imagined one, only one projected by thought) starts to dissolve.

I am trying to choose words carefully here. I am not suggesting that some sudden breakthrough occurs, that instantly wipes the mind clear of all separation/divisision, once and for all (or perhaps it does, for some). Nevertheless, some change occurs, a gradual dissolving of the separation. It becomes more and more clear that the separation is illusory. But one needs to be very careful with the word “gradual”. I am not talking of a process of gradually becoming. It is not that “I” am becoming anything, achieving some state. Rather the opposite, if anything, there seems to be a process of de-construction going on.

It is not the case that there is a “me” and “my thoughts”, is it? But the mind has a tremendously strong conditioning to behave this way, to act according to this false perception. It seems to have a huge momentum in this respect. Nevertheless, it seems to be that the on-going perception of the falseness of this movement does bring about change, and more and more it is seen that there is only thought, arising and falling. I AM that thought.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 03 Dec 2019 #18
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5425 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
As I see it, it is not when we ask “why am I unhappy”, “what am I doing wrong”, “what is my mistake”, “what should I do”, and so on, that we are “going in the wrong direction”. It is in the act or effort of looking for an answer, a solution to questions regarding psychological suffering that the wrong direction is taken.

Yes, Huguette, completely one with your post. I do not know anything more important than the realisation that thought does not have any answers to psychological problems.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 03 Dec 2019 #19
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5425 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
In other words, when K said that self knowledge was 'arduous' he was mistaken? That it's in fact totally effortless?

I wonder if "arduous" should be equated with making effort? According to the dictionary, that is one meaning of the word, but also arduous means " requiring or using much energy and vigor; strenuous".

Near the end of a talk, K often asked the audience if they were tired. They usually said no, to which K would reply along the lines "Well, you jolly well should be. If you had been working as hard as the speaker you would be". Yet I am sure that K never suggested that people make an EFFORT to listen to him, to follow him.

Effort, apart from the purely physical meaning of the word, has a peculiar psychological meaning, doesn't it? It implies that one knows what one is trying to achieve, does it not? it certainly implies a great expenditure of energy, in a certain fixed direction, But are there not other movements of the mind (cannot think of a better phrase at the moment) that also need a lot of energy? For example I find to engage fully in dialogue with people requires a lot of energy, and so might be described as "arduous", but it does not involve "effort".

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 03 Dec 2019 #20
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2913 posts in this forum Online

Clive: Near the end of a talk, K often asked the audience if they were tired. They usually said no, to which K would reply along the lines "Well, you jolly well should be. If you had been working as hard as the speaker you would be". Yet I am sure that K never suggested that people make an EFFORT to listen to him, to follow him.

I guess I have a different understanding of hard work than you do, Clive. I don’t want to make an issue of it however. I was responding to something Dan wrote above about understanding being effortless, if I recall correctly. When I first came across K way back in my early twenties I made a great effort to try to understand what he was saying. I was so unhappy at the time that I wanted to find out if this guy had an answer for me. But it was almost like trying to read Chinese! So I made a lot of effort over the ensuing years to understand him.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 03 Dec 2019 #21
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2913 posts in this forum Online

Clive Elwell wrote:
let us say “The react-or IS the reaction”. In the realisation – and I would say that the realisation stems from observation, from awareness – the sharp separation between the two (and let us remember that it is not a REAL separation, only an imagined one, only one projected by thought) starts to dissolve.

Good point Clive. I’ve been looking very carefully at this apparent separation quite a lot lately. At times it’s quite clear that the thinker is the thought. And the reaction is simply another thought....with no ‘re-actor’

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 03 Dec 2019 #22
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1590 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
So I made a lot of effort over the ensuing years to understand him.

I recall him referring to it as the "cult of effort"...Do 'integral awareness', choiceless awareness, have anything to do with making an effort? Does 'passive' awareness, motiveless awareness have anything to do with effort? We're dealing here with self-knowledge, observing the activities of the 'I', right? To observe the activities of the 'I', is effort necessary or is effort actually an activity of the 'I'? (In pursuit of this or that.)

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Tue, 03 Dec 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 03 Dec 2019 #23
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2913 posts in this forum Online

Dan McDermott wrote:
To observe the activities of the 'I', is effort necessary or is effort actually an activity of the 'I'? (In pursuit of this or that.)

But we don’t normally observe...we react constantly. So we need to inquire into, or investigate, just what we’re actually doing, right? Investigate why we make an effort to achieve. We’ve been raised on the value of achieving our entire life...achieving in business or sports or becoming a great pianist. Now k says that time and effort are barriers to observing...to listening. Yet recalling my first taste of a K talk, I had no way to comprehend what he was saying, so I worked at it...made effort....struggled with it. Like a stranger in a foreign country struggles to learn a new language.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 03 Dec 2019 #24
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1590 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Yet recalling my first taste of a K talk, I had no way to comprehend what he was saying, so I worked at it...made effort....struggled with it. Like a stranger in a foreign country struggles to learn a new language.

I'd guess that we all did that. Because he seemed to have something that I 'wanted'. And when I want something, I make an effort to get it...but isn't this different? And even though that was our first approach, it can now be seen as just another form of greed. Desire and effort go together it seems.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 03 Dec 2019 #25
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2913 posts in this forum Online

Dan McDermott wrote:
Desire and effort go together it seems.

Well when we suffer we definitely want to find out why. Not just our personal suffering but perhaps our wife or child suffers or we see the horrors of war on the news. But we hear a K talk and K is like reading Chinese

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 03 Dec 2019 #26
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5425 posts in this forum Offline

David Bohm said:

You say energy was enormous and the
brain couldn't handle it, or decided
that it couldn't handle it?

K: It couldn't handle it.

DB: But if it can't handle it, it
seems as if there is no way out.

I happened to come across this little excerpt from a small group discussion at Gstadt, discussion 5 1965

David Bohm: That [thought without frustration, smooth function, no conflict] would not be enough, because there is an energy which is moving towards something beyond all this. As I see it, this energy, being misunderstood, has been the source of man’s misery ......... because it is a tremendous energy, and therefore if it goes wrong, it must go very badly wrong.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 04 Dec 2019 #27
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1590 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Bohm: That [thought without frustration, smooth function, no conflict] would not be enough, because there is an energy which is moving towards something beyond all this. As I see it, this energy, being misunderstood, has been the source of man’s misery ......... because it is a tremendous energy, and therefore if it goes wrong, it must go very badly wrong.

Yes this is what I think that we don't realize, is that we are part of something enormous, energy wise and we have in our ignorance and fear made of existence something very paltry, our little problems, our fear of 'death', our attachments etc. we are fulfilling a 'purpose' that we can't understand. And not understanding, we have gone off on this craziness path of belief and personal achievement of wanting to 'be' someone, something..."Stepping out" of it all is critical.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Wed, 04 Dec 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 04 Dec 2019 #28
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2913 posts in this forum Online

Dan McDermott wrote:
And when I want something, I make an effort to get it...but isn't this different? And even though that was our first approach, it can now be seen as just another form of greed.

No, I don’t see it as greed at all. My loved one has severe depression...my friend is addicted to drugs or alcohol. I live in a neighborhood full of crime, drugs, and prostitution. I don’t want my child to live in such a world. It’s not greed to want to find out if I can change ....and in changing help to change this mad world .

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 04 Dec 2019 #29
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1590 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
It’s not greed to want to find out if I can change ....and in changing help to change this mad world .

Wanting to change is greed in the sense that you think that what you will 'change' into is 'better' than what you are now. A judgement. You want to help change the world because you think the world will be better after you have helped change it...Isn't that all about 'becoming'? I will be better, the world will be better, etc. Bringing 'time' into the situation means that if you do this or that, learn this or that, have this or that insight, that something will come of that. And all through that process of becoming in some future, we can postpone seeing what we actually are. It's necessary, I'd say, to 'step out' of the process of 'becoming', of 'desiring to become', which imagines a fictional time, in a fictional future.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 04 Dec 2019 #30
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2913 posts in this forum Online

Dan McDermott wrote:

Wanting to change is greed in the sense that you think that what you will 'change' into is 'better' than what you are now. A judgemen

Can’t we just see he horror if war and say, ‘this is no way to live’? Is the perception of the suffering of our child...any child... a thought or a perception of a fact? When I perceive the fact that my loved one suffers, is it greed to want to find out why? I saw child abuse right in front of me. I want to find out why this exists. Is that greed to say that this is a horror? Or is it a fact...the perception of the horror of child abuse?

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 89 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.)