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

Seeing the whole


Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 31 in total
Wed, 27 May 2020 #1
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5970 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:

To me, “the whole” is not the whole of the universe. Whatever “I know” about the universe is not “awareness of the whole”. Knowledge of the universe IS part of the whole, but it is not the whole and it cannot contain the whole. I can’t actually see the whole universe. I can’t be directly aware of the whole of it.
I’m aware of the chaos, confusion and suffering in the world, even though I do not directly witness it.

Then I think you must be giving a somewhat meaning to the word “Awareness” than I am used to giving. I'm not saying that you are wrong, and I know there is a common usage that supports your use – as in “I am aware of the current political climate”, and “I am aware of what he said about me”. To me this suggests knowledge rather than direct awareness.

To me “the whole” is everything that I’m directly aware of, that I can actually perceive or sense in any way, including through TV, internet, and so on. It is the whole of what I actually see, hear, sense, feel…

So does this suggest that there is a possibility of a 'greater whole'?

(cut)

Then to “see the whole” refers to the quality of the seeing. Seeing the whole is seeing which is unfragmented - unfragmented perception, feeling, emotion, sensation and thought. It is not labeled inner and outer, before, now and later, good and bad, you and me, and so on. There is awareness of the whole of it, without identifying or naming the parts.

Somehow I am not grasping this. That term “quality of the seeing” seems to be what is important – rather than what is seen. I think K once said something like “there is no more or less in awareness – one either sees or one doesn't”. Does this imply if one sees, whatever is seen, that IS seeing the whole?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 27 May 2020 #2
Thumb_leaping_fire_frog_by_sirenofchaos natarajan shivan India 99 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote (quoting H):
Then to “see the whole” refers to the quality of the seeing

Yes, to 'see the whole' refers to the quality of seeing, having the choicelessness and therefore sufficient freedom in observation though bound to the situation one is in. It is not with reference to the contents of the seen that the word 'whole' is used but with reference to the attitude, with reference to the gathering of the whole energy of one's being to see what is to be seen and to somehow be able to sustain the same attitude event after event, situation after situation.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 27 May 2020 #3
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 190 posts in this forum Offline

The whole, the actual, totality, the unknown. These are all words, which means they are thoughts, which reference what is beyond thought. When the mind is naturally silent, open, alert, then the whole is. Although thought can reference it, can point to it, thought cannot touch it.

This post was last updated by idiot ? Wed, 27 May 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 27 May 2020 #4
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3498 posts in this forum Offline

Id: The whole, the actual, totality, the unknown. These are all words, which means they are thoughts, which reference what is beyond thought.

Yes, beyond thought...but the whole or the actual is present in the part (the tree, flower, bird, child, sunset, etc) when the part is perceived free of the past...free of the 'me'? Free of thought/image/memory. So the whole is in the part.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Wed, 27 May 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 27 May 2020 #5
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3498 posts in this forum Offline

Clive: I think K once said something like “there is no more or less in awareness – one either sees or one doesn't”. Does this imply if one sees, whatever is seen, that IS seeing the whole?

See my above post on this, Clive.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 27 May 2020 #6
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5970 posts in this forum Offline

natarajan shivan wrote:

Yes, to 'see the whole' refers to the quality of seeing, having the choicelessness and therefore sufficient freedom in observation though bound to the situation one is in.

So would you say it might be more correct to say "seeing with the whole"?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 27 May 2020 #7
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5970 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
The whole, the actual, totality, the unknown. These are all words, which means they are thoughts, which reference what is beyond thought. When the mind is naturally silent, open, alert, then the whole is. Although thought can reference it, can point to it, thought cannot touch it.

So, I am not sure - are you saying the contrary to Natarajan? That the whole does refer to the content of what is seen?

Or is it that in that state, there is no distinction between the whole, and me?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 27 May 2020 #8
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5970 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Yes, beyond thought...but the whole or the actual is present in the part (the tree, flower, bird, child, sunset, etc) when the part is perceived free of the past

That is very interesting, Tom. That is indeed 'holistic seeing'.

You say "beyond thought', but could not the whole be in thought also, as in the tree, child, etc?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 28 May 2020 #9
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 190 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
So, I am not sure - are you saying the contrary to Natarajan? That the whole does refer to the content of what is seen?

I am neither agreeing nor disagreeing with anything she said. I'm saying what I say. Which is that "the whole" or any of those kind of terms is beyond thought.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 28 May 2020 #10
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3498 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
You say "beyond thought', but could not the whole be in thought also, as in the tree, child, etc?

I will tentatively say, yes, Clive. When thought is not in service of the ‘me’, perhaps.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 28 May 2020 #11
Thumb_leaping_fire_frog_by_sirenofchaos natarajan shivan India 99 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
So would you say it might be more correct to say "seeing with the whole"?

Put it this way, whole/action/doing is in the seeing and vice versa.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 28 May 2020 #12
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 892 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote at #1:
Then I think you must be giving a somewhat meaning to the word “Awareness” than I am used to giving. I'm not saying that you are wrong, and I know there is a common usage that supports your use – as in “I am aware of the current political climate”, and “I am aware of what he said about me”. To me this suggests knowledge rather than direct awareness.

Maybe but I don't think so. Isn't the whole of awareness, the totality of what is perceived IN THE MOMENT - including the thoughts and images, the sights, sounds, smells, touch, and so on? In a moment of anger, for example, am I seeing the whole of it, the totality of what contributes to it - the feeling, the thoughts or intimations, the provocation, the environment, and so on. I don't have to include the whole cosmos, which inclusion can only be thought.

So it includes the ideas one may have of what the whole is, but those ideas are not the actual thing.

And then, can the seeing be separated from the seen, or are they part of one whole? The mind perceives what is "out there" and what is "inside" - that whole thing is the whole. There is no seeing without the seen.

I don't know if I'm making my meaning clearer or muddier.

This post was last updated by Huguette . Thu, 28 May 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 28 May 2020 #13
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3498 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
In a moment of anger, for example, am I seeing the whole of it, the totality of what contributes to it - the feeling, the thoughts or intimations, the provocation, the environment, and so on. I don't have to include the whole cosmos, which inclusion can only be thought.

If there's thoughts and judgments about the anger, I'm not seeing the whole of it. I'm seeing a fragment or fragments...thoughts, images, knowledge, belief....which are not the actual anger, but only my judgment or opinion about anger.

I think today's QOTD is a good one which touches on how we act and react according to our conditioning. And the question we need to ask about awareness is, "am I aware of all that K describes here? or am I aware only partially?" Group Discussion 29th December, 1947 | Madras, India

"the past is controlling and modifying the present - i.e. the cause which was in the past brings about an effect in the present. The past modified by, or flowing through, the present produces action which is also conditioned. The old, meeting the new challenge, produces modified action - i.e. the new is always modified by the old. The past is the 'me' and in conjunction with the present, the 'me', produces action. The past itself was a series of modifications- yesterday was a modification of the day before yesterday in conjunction with yesterday's present; similarly, the day before yesterday was the modification of the day before in conjunction with the present of the day before yesterday. Today is a modification of yesterday in conjunction with today's present. Thus, the 'modifier' is the continuous entity of the days before yesterday, yesterday and today. The modifier is the actor and he is the result of modification of the innumerable days before yesterday. Therefore, he is the creator of time - the time of memory not chronological time. As the actor is the result of the past, he necessarily causes modification to the present when he meets the present which is new. This meeting of the past with the challenge of the present which is new, leads to conflict which results in modification of the new into the old. In other words, your feeling now is conditioned by what you felt yesterday and all the days before. Therefore, in meeting a new challenge today you act in a conditioned manner and therefore you feel pain."

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Thu, 28 May 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 28 May 2020 #14
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 892 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
If there's thoughts and judgments about the anger, I'm not seeing the whole of it. I'm seeing a fragment or fragments...thoughts, images, knowledge, belief....which are not the actual anger, but only my judgment or opinion about anger.

Tom Paine wrote, quoting K:
The old, meeting the new challenge, produces modified action - i.e. the new is always modified by the old.

Are you saying that there can be awareness of "the whole" - EXCEPT thought? K himself said in many ways things to the effect that one needs to be aware of every movement of the mind. So "every movement" includes --- every movement; including thought. No? How can there BE self-knowledge, self-awareness, self-understanding, WITHOUT awareness of the movements of thought?

Awareness is NOT "the old meeting the new challenge". Awareness IS the new, isn't it? "New" in the sense we are talking about. It is awareness that is seeing, not "me seeing". That is, it is "the new" seeing - meeting - the new challenge, which new challenge includes thought and all the other inner and outer facets of the present moment - thought, emotion, sensation, sourroundings, and so on.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 28 May 2020 #15
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3498 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Are you saying that there can be awareness of "the whole" - EXCEPT thought?

No...I'm saying we can't be aware of anger, for example, if there's an idea or image or judgment of the anger. Of course we can be aware of these thoughts and judgments as well, but usually we're not. We take it for granted for example that anger is wrong...or anger needs to be eliminated...or that it's not 'K. like' or something. And a lot of that is unconscious...the judgments and condemnations and conclusions. Therefore there's no awareness of the anger itself. Or am I mistaken about this? Or...I'm aware of my neighbor. I have an image about him/her. He's a bore...he's a Christian and I'm a Jew...he's a Democrat and I'm republican. He frightens me or he repulses me or I have a positive image of him because he likes similar sports teams or drinks the same beer. So I'm never seeing my neighbor as he is, but only through the screen of images, good or bad, positive or negative. There's no real awareness of my neighbor but only images and ideas and opinions and emotional reactions. I'm NOT saying that one cannot be aware of all those conditioned reactions however.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Thu, 28 May 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 29 May 2020 #16
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5970 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Maybe but I don't think so. Isn't the whole of awareness, the totality of what is perceived IN THE MOMENT - including the thoughts and images, the sights, sounds, smells, touch, and so on?

Clive: This is what I assume, yes.

In a moment of anger, for example, am I seeing the whole of it, the totality of what contributes to it - the feeling, the thoughts or intimations, the provocation, the environment, and so on. I don't have to include the whole cosmos, which inclusion can only be thought.

Clive: So you are using the term “the whole” in a relative sense, are you not? I think this is what has puzzled me. You are talking of the whole movement of anger. And there may be other things happening outside that movement?

So it includes the ideas one may have of what the whole is, but those ideas are not the actual thing.
And then, can the seeing be separated from the seen, or are they part of one whole?

Clive: This is the question. A friend said to me recently: “there is no tree, there is only the seeing of the tree” and I still find myself pondering that. Do you have any comment on those words?

The mind perceives what is "out there" and what is "inside" - that whole thing is the whole. There is no seeing without the seen.

Clive: So are you saying that one's senses might be taking in other sensations at the same time as this whole movement of anger?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 29 May 2020 #17
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5970 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Awareness is NOT "the old meeting the new challenge". Awareness IS the new, isn't it? "New" in the sense we are talking about. It is awareness that is seeing, not "me seeing". That is, it is "the new" seeing - meeting - the new challenge, which new challenge includes thought and all the other inner and outer facets of the present moment - thought, emotion, sensation, sourroundings, and so on.

Here are a couple of quotes by K, where to me he puts awareness in a new light for me:

That process is your life, and in that there is ceaseless struggle and pain, conflict and suffering. If you realize that, if you really feel with your whole being - that is, emotionally as well as mentally - the futility of choice, then you no longer choose; then there is discernment; then there is intuitive response which is free from choice, and that is awareness.

( Alpino talk 2 1933 )

It is only when there is intelligence, that harmony of mind nd heart, that constant awareness which is discernment of the intrinsic value of things, freed from the tradition of the past and the hopes of the future, that there comes the realization of eternity.

(Adyar talk 7 1932-33 )

I am not sure how K is using the word "discernment", a word he used a lot in older talks. I take it as being the equivalent of "seeing", but I could be wrong.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 29 May 2020 #18
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1868 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Are you saying that there can be awareness of "the whole" - EXCEPT thought? K himself said in many ways things to the effect that one needs to be aware of every movement of the mind. So "every movement" includes --- every movement; including thought. No? How can there BE self-knowledge, self-awareness, self-understanding, WITHOUT awareness of the movements of thought?

As I'm seeing it, it can't. The 'whole' for me is everything. It is 'undivided'. It includes all matter as well as non-matter. It is in short, the Universe...Our perception as to there being 'division' is an anthropomorphic result. Only with our evolved brain could we have come up with it: confusing difference with division. As I see it it is our main hindrance. We have psychologically locked ourselves away from the 'immensity' of which we are a part, by an illusion of individuality and separateness that will dissolve with the death of the body... or sooner if it can dissolve while we are still alive. That dissolution is what is understood as 'freedom' but that idea, hope of freedom, etc, is the 'hindrances', the 'self's' idea, the 'self's' hope.... No such slavery actually exists but it destroys the joy of being here, makes earth a hell for many of us as well as our neighbors two legged as well as four. Every motive to escape, is from the hindrance itself. As was said in the QOTD:

Group Discussion 13th November, 1947 | Madras, India

"When we are up against a hindrance, we immediately think of ways and means to overcome or conquer that hindrance; but overcoming leads us nowhere as we shall have to keep on overcoming or conquering an enemy - politically, economically or religiously, because the hindrance repeats itself. You cannot overcome a hindrance; the hindrance has to be understood by approaching it without condemnation, without judging, without a desire to alter it. Unfortunately, most of us either condemn or pursue it. So long as there is this condemnatory and identifying attitude, the hindrance is not understood."

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 30 May 2020 #19
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5970 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote @12:
Maybe but I don't think so. Isn't the whole of awareness, the totality of what is perceived IN THE MOMENT - including the thoughts and images, the sights, sounds, smells, touch, and so on?

Do you mean, Huguette, that it is not a matter of having knowledge of something, but rather of being aware that there is knowledge of something - I mean that there are thoughts about something?

After writing that it doesn't seem to have much meaning, but I will let the question stand.

I don't know if I'm making my meaning clearer or muddier :-)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 30 May 2020 #20
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 892 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette: In a moment of anger, for example, am I seeing the whole of it, the totality of what contributes to it - the feeling, the thoughts or intimations, the provocation, the environment, and so on. I don't have to include the whole cosmos, which inclusion can only be thought.

Clive at 16: So you are using the term “the whole” in a relative sense, are you not? I think this is what has puzzled me. You are talking of the whole movement of anger. And there may be other things happening outside that movement?

Clive,

If by “the whole in a relative sense” you mean a “whole” that relates only to a particular issue - anger or fear, let’s say - then no, I’m not using “the whole” in a relative sense. To me, the whole is ALL that actually IS in the moment - thoughts, images, sensations, emotions - including vague thoughts, images, sensations and emotions - intimations, breathing, heartbeat, desires, energy, sights, sounds, smells, touch, and so on. Awareness sees all of that. That is “seeing the whole”. The effortlessness or choicelessness of awareness is the quality of unfragmented seeing.

Wherever there is the willful exclusion of any part of the whole, or the willful inclusion of anything that is actually external to the whole, the “will” or effort to include or exclude is an effort or choice made by the intellect. If the effort or will to exclude is itself willfully pushed aside, that alters the quality of seeing. But if the effort or will is itself not excluded from the whole, then the quality of seeing is not altered, and the whole is seen.

So I don’t dismiss or deliberately exclude New York, the ocean floor, the universe or Mount Everest from the whole. They simply are not THERE in this moment’s field of inner and outer vision.

Everything is constantly in motion. “The whole” changes from moment to moment. It is not static. Therefore “the whole of what is seen” changes at every moment. There is not “more to be seen” than what is seen. There is not “more to be aware of” than what is in the moment.

If I take a walk along a country path on a peaceful spring morning, “the whole” and awareness of the whole include the breeze and warmth of the sun on my skin, the sound of the birds and of an airplane overhead, the sight of the trees and the lake, and so on. If a cougar suddenly attacks me, the whole is instantly totally different from the previous moment. Do I still hear the birds? Do I still feel the breeze on my skin? Probably not but, if not, it is not being excluded by choice or effort. The whole has actually changed.

And if I'm overcome by anger, do I see the whole? Has the whole actually changed or do I deliberately and willfully choose to ignore the intimations?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 30 May 2020 #21
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 892 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote at 16:
A friend said to me recently: “there is no tree, there is only the seeing of the tree” and I still find myself pondering that. Do you have any comment on those words?

I don’t know what your friend meant by "there is no tree" so I have no comment.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 30 May 2020 #22
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3498 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
And if I'm overcome by anger, do I see the whole'? Has the whole actually changed or do I deliberately and willfully choose to ignore the intimations?

If I'm overcome by anger there's division, no? My wife or husband does something that angers me. There's division between myself and my spouse...between what they did and what I feel they should do. Where there's division how can there be wholeness? There can't be.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 30 May 2020 #23
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 892 posts in this forum Offline

re: 22

Tom,

Obviously, if there's only division - which is the "me" deciding what to do - then there's no wholeness. There's wholeness where there's choiceless effortless awareness of the whole of what is in the moment. I explained what I mean by those terms "the whole", "seeing the whole", and so on. I'm not claiming that I'm "right", just explaining how I see it.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 30 May 2020 #24
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3498 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Obviously, if there's only division - which is the "me" deciding what to do - then there's no wholeness.

Just the fact that I'm 'overcome by anger' to use your phrase, indicates that there's division. Anger = division, no? I'm angry at you...you made me angry...you should do this not that, which makes me angry, and so on.

There's wholeness where there's choiceless effortless awareness of the whole of what is in the moment.

Perhaps choiceless awareness of anger is the understanding of anger and the ending of anger. I'm not sure, but I've had moments of understanding some conflict or other and the conflict ends. I never considered this in light of what you're calling wholeness. To me it's simply non division...I'm not acting on the conflict as if it's separate from me, but observing it anew.

I explained what I mean by those terms "the whole", "seeing the whole", and so on. I'm not claiming that I'm "right", just explaining how I see it.

OK, I will go back over some of your recent posts time permitting and perhaps understand your meaning.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 31 May 2020 #25
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5970 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Clive,

Huguette,

Thank you for your perseverance in discussing this issue of “wholeness”. I want, I need, to take a fresh look at 'the whole picture' (no pun intended), and to do that I see that I deed to drop what I know, what I think I know about the 'issue'. This may entail some repetition of what has gone before, so I hope you don't mind that.

One approach that occurred to me is to consider what is the state of NOT seeing the whole? Do you think this is a useful approach? I suppose that that is my normal, day-to-day state. Which implies, 'seeing' through the medium of thought. It is clear that thought is never the whole, it is always a fragment. This is its nature. So in 'seeing the whole', obviously the see-er, if there is a see-er, is not thought.

To me, the whole is ALL that actually IS in the moment - thoughts, images, sensations, emotions - including vague thoughts, images, sensations and emotions - intimations, breathing, heartbeat, desires, energy, sights, sounds, smells, touch, and so on.

You must mean all that actually IS for you? For that speck of consciousness contained in that body? I think we have agreed that there is more, a great deal more, outside of what you are calling the whole, no?

Do you mean by seeing the whole all that the senses are conveying to you? The physical senses, and also this “inner sense”, the sense of our thoughts, feelings, emotions? And perhaps the sense of something deeper than all this. The distinction is, however, possibly superfluous.

This is a bit of a silly question, perhaps, but how does one KNOW that one is seeing the whole? Can one know, in fact? Does it have a measure? But the fact that you are using the phrase, the fact that you are talking about it, must indicate some sort of knowledge, or some sort of sense of it, does it not?

Is the whole completely in the present moment? Or is it something that is continually unfolding?

, or the willful inclusion of anything that is actually external to the whole,

Can you give an example of this?

If the effort or will to exclude is itself willfully pushed aside, that alters the quality of seeing.

I suppose you mean that it becomes less than the whole?

Everything is constantly in motion.

This is clear

And if I'm overcome by anger, do I see the whole? Has the whole actually changed or do I deliberately and willfully choose to ignore the intimations?

Certainly anger instantly focuses one down, but it is not clear that this is deliberate or willful. It is just a characteristic of anger.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 31 May 2020 #26
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3498 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette wrote:
And if I'm overcome by anger, do I see the whole'? Has the whole actually changed or do I deliberately and willfully choose to ignore the intimations?

My apology Huguette...I totally misread your meaning in my post #24 above. REading it over again, I see your point...that being tied up in anger the mind is closed off to the whole. It's wrapped up in it's own world...the self... with it's beliefs conclusions, ideas, ideals, etc. It's self-enclosed....closed off to the spouse, child, neighbor, friend, the problem itself, insight, intelligence...it's the total isolation of the fragment or fragments that make up the 'me'.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Sun, 31 May 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 31 May 2020 #27
Thumb_open-uri20151228-18124-1kyi3s7-0 Jose Roberto Moreira Brazil 130 posts in this forum Offline

Three years ago, I had to decide whether to retire or not. There was a deadline for that.

I was in deep conflict and could not decide.

One day, walking in the woods, my mind became crystal clear, then there was no choice, no fear. Only retiring came to my mind.

The trees were different, the colors were different, there was a feeling of affection for everthing and everyone. I was in a very peaceful state.

I would say I saw the whole and decided to retire. I order to do that, it takes seeing the whole of that particular situation, but also requires no fear, a quiet mind.

However, I did not change. In order to change, if this is possible at all, I have the feeling one must see other whole, the whole structure of the self, seeing how the mind works.

And there might be the possibility of seeing the real whole, how the universe works, but this is too much for me. :-)

I think we have to start with what is near.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 31 May 2020 #28
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3498 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Huguette: And if I'm overcome by anger, do I see the whole? Has the whole actually changed or do I deliberately and willfully choose to ignore the intimations?

Clive: Certainly anger instantly focuses one down, but it is not clear that this is deliberate or willful. It is just a characteristic of anger.

Is anger a manifestation of will? I'm angry at you because I WANT things to be different. I want you to treat me better for example. Perhaps there's will behind the anger. I deliberately and willfully ignore you and your point of view. And the self is made up of will isn't it? Asking myself too.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Sun, 31 May 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 01 Jun 2020 #29
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3498 posts in this forum Offline

Back to the original post...I found this QOTD on the topic:

Brockwood Park | 4th Public Talk 4th September 1983

You see we never see the world as a whole because we are so fragmented, we are so terribly limited, so petty. And we never have this feeling of wholeness, you follow, where the things of the sea, things of the earth, the nature and the sky, is the universe, is part of us. Not imagined - you can go off in some kind of fanciful imagination and imagine that we are the universe, then you become cuckoo! But, to break down this small self-centred interest, to have nothing of that, then from there you can move infinitely. And meditation is this.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 01 Jun 2020 #30
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 190 posts in this forum Offline

Either totality is, which means thought has stilled to zero, or some subset of totality is considered, which means that thought has seeped back in.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 31 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.)