Kindly help me

'K' says when intelligence uses thought it is a state of mind which is holy and only in it the thought runs true meaning straight and not crookedly.He maintains unless this incessant chattering of the thought ceases, the intelligence cannot operate in the mind. ( ..love doesn't have any relationship with hate)

If intelligence does not operate when thought is the chief operator, how does thought operate at all?How does the center as “I” forms?And then it feels alive too !! How?

Ravi Seth wrote:
If intelligence does not operate when thought is the chief operator, how does thought operate at all?How does the center as “I” forms?And then it feels alive too !! How?

Are you asking how thought comes into being? It maybe and automatic function of the brain? How does the heart pumps blood? We maybe programmed that way?

Life is relationship

No, I am not asking the obvious. I am sorry I did not explain.

On the surface, it is understood that thought is in operation & comes into being because of the energy generated from what the body eats and it is an automatic function of brain, meaning when a challenge is thrown at it, it reacts automatically and works in the best mode it has at its command for the protection of the biological structure in which it seems to operate.

It is also understood that the whole of this nature, the entire cosmos is built automatically and mechanically and one small part of this is Evolution through which 'man' as species has evolved. He has thought as a tool at its disposal for the protection of this very structure. As an animal say lion has tremendous power , sharp and strong teeth for its survival so thought is seen as a better tool ( evolved through evolution and therefore man is called the best animal of all the species) for the protection of this biological structure which again obviously is the outcome of intelligence operating .If intelligence wouldn't have been operating , even no automatic action would be possible, because any action in this universe has some cause behind it. This chain of cause and effect seem to be automatic and mechanical though they arise out of that immense intelligence which 'k' talks about.( this chain of cause and effect / time / thought arise from that immense intelligence which 'k' talks about , is my supposition but in absence of any other logic it seems to me as such. Please throw some light on it if there is an error in my supposition because the question coming next is somewhat based on this very supposition)

But when thought moves in a crooked way in man and creates lust , anger, greed, attachment and 'I' as center ( in hindi - kam,krodh, lobh, moh,ahankar) that results in dukha ( psycological pain), it seems there is no intelligence in what it does and it goes haywire .The whole of humanity is seen under its grip and seen to be acting though automatically but without any sense of intelligence in it.... like zoombies without any sanity ( no morality involved but meaning holy as 'k' would put this word) and only automatically.

Now my question is why did that intelligenec allowed thought to go haywire? If it is the response of this intelligence then why did thought not act intelligently as 'k' says it would ?And if intelligence is not operating when it runs crookedly how does it survive at all , because it is a response to that intelligenece only--- an effect of that immense intelligence because of which this whole of the univerese arises?

Ravi Seth wrote:
If intelligence does not operate when thought is the chief operator, how does thought operate at all?How does the center as “I” forms?And then it feels alive too !! How?

Hi Ravi. It seems that you are starting out wrongly, here. It seems you are imagining an Intelligence which is apart from the mental processes (thought/emotion/sensation) and which should be in some way directing them, as if there is some sort of entity called Intelligence that could pull things together rightly - and one then asks, what has happened to it?

But it is not like that. There are three basic states of consciousness that we know of (although there are higher ones that we do not contact). There is sleep, conditioned awakening and conscious awakening. The state K calls intelligence is only present in the latter.

Intelligence comes into being only if and when we awake, which is what all religions have said. Awakening, in this sense, means to be fully conscious, which implies no unconscious element, no hidden internal conflict and no movement away from that. It is from that state of intelligence that death of the self is possible and from that death, rebirth.

True inquiry is the awakening of that intelligence. Thought has a place in that inquiry, along with feeling and sensation, the other capacities of mind. True inquiry brings those capacities together because inquiry is the whole of mind looking at the whole of mind. That is the act of intelligence, creating harmonious functioning.

It is the state of mind that is divided by its capacities that becomes automatic, mechanical and prone to conditioning. This is the state of mind called conditioned wakefullness, which is semi-conscious with very low attention. In this state we allow society to mold us.

What are you waiting for?

Ravi Seth

As Krishnamurti said in the following quotes from 1932 Ojai Camp

'You cannot follow anyone, though you can ponder over his ideas;'

I think Krishnamurti uses Truth and intelligence synonymously in
reference to your quote from 'The Awakening of Intelligence'?
The dialogue of Krishnamurti's appears to me to be coming from a different source and he is using thought as a communication with Bohm, trusting that they will be both reading between the lines, thought being the mechanical process of the brain and evolution.i see thought can be used after seeing, intelligence is using thought.

"Through seeing and contact, you have sensation, from sensation

thinking, and from thinking you have ideas. Thus you have craving

through your perception, through your contact and sensation. There are

many layers of craving, and these layers put together, if I may so

express it, make up the self-consciousness, individuality, the ego,I-

ness, personality."

and later" What you call the ego, which is but resistance, is an

illusion, an error; and an error projected through infinity, however

enlarged, glorified, remains ever an error."

This is where i start to look at what maybe an idea to me,and watch how thought when it arises is continuously looking for completion.Thought i discover is ruling my moments due to an 'error' that craving a solution to a problem and moving away from it for answers is an 'idea' the 'error'. Not that thought per say is the problem but any movement away is just thought.i have seen Intelligence is not thought so 'my' approach to understanding is a wrong movement.'My' desire /craving for truth has been centred in the very thing that is not intelligence and i see this cannot be the right approach. Krishnamurti has pointed to the fact that any movement of thought is the causal effect of the self and i look at what this 'dying to self' is.

Averil

Eve Goodmon wrote:
Are you asking how thought comes into being? It maybe and automatic function of the brain? How does the heart pumps blood? We maybe programmed that way?

we are infact ultimately not programmed to think. thinking is voluntary
and the heart pumping the blood is involuntary.
gb

We are watching, not waiting, not expecting anything to happen but watching without end. JK

ganesan balachandran wrote:
we are in fact ultimately not programmed to think. thinking is voluntary and the heart pumping the blood is involuntary. gb

Good morning Ganesan...
what you say here stuck me....as it is more than very possible...
i have for years this vague impression that mankind started in Goodness because we have everything already, and then...here we are on the verge of finding a way of destruction out of.....whatever..reasons , money ..and a big huge car...

is it a bit of what you imply that we were in goodness? not so much thinking ,then we developed it ? ....but those people long long time ago did not leave anything...because what is the point.?...survive and live is good-ness enough..
like even the Celtics people were not building steady buildings ,so from early Celts and pre-Celts , THEY ( so called people who know )have not one clue about those people.like 2500 years ago..so if we mention like 10 000 years ago , there is not knowledge about those people...
it won't help me right away, i am just interested....

discontentment shows the wrong way , as surely as the fire in Mount Doom destroyed the master ring !

In reply to my post there are varies reactions. For the benefit of brevity as well clarity I have tried to condense these as per my understanding of what you say. I hope you all will excuse me for that because it is very important that I take whatever you say in the right sense and spirit & may not miss the gist of what you have in the mind . Kindly point out wherever I am not correct as per the varies posts.

'Paul Mohaddhib says we could be automatic realization of Mother Nature simple & innocent like plants , animals with added strength of a much superior tool that is thought which has wider possibilities than only the protection of body alone. He sees 'ego' , only a transitional tool which is to take us further towards that intelligence. We have to accept that we are the operator as mother nature has not supplied the complete finished model to let the intelligence operate. He sees we are left with no option than to work for it without any hope of reward .That we have to create conditions to let the intelligence operate in light of the teachings of the great masters like Buddha or Krishnamurti. Thus we have to go down deep inside and do something in the light of teaching of great masters. Any wrong done by us will be visible through our suffering ( ego getting hurt) when it happens to us and then we must see that we are not looking at the source but only at the finger pointing to the source. He finds this is the only way out and says if that doesn't work suicide is the only option otherwise we shall remain forever in never ending cycle of sufferings.'

In all this above he has qualified his statements with ... Maybe...Maybe not, ?,probably... Well it could be simply a manner of speech and I wouldn't much go on it .

Paul Davidson says that I have started wrongly on the assumption that intelligence is apart from the thought--- as a separate entity and then I have started blaming it for that because of in its absence, wrong is being done to the humanity. He helps me by describing three states of consciousness i.e. sleep,conditioned awareness and conscious awareness. As per 'K' , he posits, that intelligence can exist only in the 3rd state... conscious awareness. Therefore unless we are awake the intelligence does not operate. He says only true inquiry is the awakening of that intelligence. He further adds that it is a state of mind alone which is divided by its capacities,which are automatic and mechanical, and therefore are prone to conditioning.

Avril Harison says that thought craves for solutions because without want of which it feels not complete. It needs completion for its survival. Whenever thought tries to find solution she has seen it has arisen out of a craving to find solution and craving in any form moves one away from the question or problem and because of the same when we move away we form an idea of the problem which is not an actuality.

Ganeshan says not agreeing to Eve Goodmon's statement
we are in fact ultimately not programmed to think. thinking is voluntary and the heart pumping the blood is involuntary.

I humbly request you all that kindly allow me to continue further only when you all agree this is the gist of what you all wanted to say with of course any change that you may point out in understanding of what you have written. This is not out of any competition with you and with folded hands I say that in the beginning when I wanted to talk to you I couldn't find anyway to talk to you on your replies because your posts were pointing out things more or less indirectly and not directly to my queries except one liner from Ganeshan that too on Eve's post which again relates with mine indirectly.

I request you therefore whatever you want to change in your individual post understood incorrectly by me ( as above), kindly cut and re-paste the same in it after correcting it.( Sorry, silly of me to suggest you the obvious!) This is, I repeat not to gain any stupid attention but for my own clarity alone.

Thank you Ravi, you have recapitulated my thoughts correctly. And I acknowledge that I did not address your questions as directly as I might, which I will remedy now, as briefly as I can.

Ravi Seth wrote:
If intelligence does not operate when thought is the chief operator, how does thought operate at all?

Thought can be intelligent/conscious when it is part pof the harmonious action of an integrated mind. Otherwise, thought does not have access to its own meaning and purpose and it becomes an automatic function, like a computer program, unaware of its own limitations. Intelligence implies meaningful action and meaning is a heart function. Only thought and feeling together create action. When divided both are locked in reaction. Mind, divided, falls into automatic and wrongly related processes, the meanings for which are supplied from the environment, being conditioning and social control, lack of authenticity and creativity. But as long as we keep eating the brain has energy to produce thought, feeling and sensation, all the functions of mind, albeit, dislocated and deranged according to the needs of the social environment.

Ravi Seth wrote:
How does the center as “I” forms?And then it feels alive too !! How?

From the divided mind comes fragmented experience. Each challenge is approached separatively from the various functions of the divided mind. The result is fragmentaion and confusion. A fragmented experience does not devulge its meaning and so there arises an effort to put the jigsaw back together in order to understand what happened in the experience, to discover its inner significance. The fragments are retained as 'memory' until they give up their secrets. A centre is needed to do this work and this centre, or supposed self, is charged with creating criteria to judge the fragments and put them in order. But the centre finds it needs ever new criteria anbd ever more clues, new experiences etc, in order to make its judgements. The basic error is that if meaning could not be found when the experience was actual, then it will not be found when it is dead and all that is left of it is the confusion of its faded remnants. Hence the need for ever more experience, wherein the present is continually eaten by the past in an effort to complete itself.

The self is not a thing, it is a process by which we devote energy to understanding the present throught the darkened shards and splinters of the shattered past. It is the movement of this energy that gives the appearance that the past is alive. But the moment we stop feeding the flames the fire dies, naturally. This begins when we notice that we are identifying with that process and claiming it as our own, as 'me.' When the energy is channeled through observation instead of identification, it becomes clear that we have been vivifying the dead and we stop doing so.

What are you waiting for?

Paul Davidson
Thank you.Yes...this is straight from the heart.Well said!!
I need to muse over both of your replies, make it part of my whole system and then be with you with the balance you say of heart and mind..again thank you for touching my heart which i found was lacking in any krishnamurti dialog.
Keep it up old boy!!

Paul Mohaddhib you have qualified your statements at many places with ...Probably... Maybe...Maybe not and ? ... Well it could be simply a manner of speech but it is the most important of all what you had to say unknowingly. I see this is what 'teaching' has done to you.... To doubt but with a leash... not to be very sure of what this thought concludes... and you are doing it!!! Well done Paul, you are on right track though you may not have known it .( and you need no recognition from anybody including me for that)You need not be alert for the suffering as a marker that tells you if you are on right track or not. Your conclusion are of no value even to your self 'in light of teachings of 'k' ( your own comment) as he has warned against the danger of conclusions. You are all ready following the path of great Jain teerathankars or jinnas meaning the conquerer like Mahavira who was always in an uncertain mode ….May be it is … Maybe it is not which the 'teaching' also posit.

Ganeshan maintains thought is voluntary.
It is very much obvious that without a thinker there is no thought – rightly said Ganeshan. There have to be two separate entities for any voluntary action to happen, in this case 'I' and my 'thinking' as in the sense of 'virtual memory' in our computers but what is involuntary in it is, that this thinking does not vanishes by the voluntary action of the thinker which is known and is called Will. Therefore thinking as well thought when combined are involuntary action and hence automatic and are seen to be devoid of any intelligence.

Avril Harison You are very sensitive. That's why you could see it. But I would like to add a bit more to your seeing, not add - a wrong word..... hmmm … well, I don't know how to put it... so I shall say it as such
Moving away from “is”, is itself a problem and not moving away from the problem creates an imagined problem .Craving,lust ,anger, greed, attachment are the result of moving away and not that thought craves, if it did it would go against the natural principals. I don't know if you catch it. All these are in the known and as Paul Davidson said because they are divorced from the whole they are seen to be automatic or mechanical. Mohaddhib also sees this but in his own way.These cravings etc. are in the 'known' and have their requisite effect as per the circumstances we are in. The dvait ( duality ,the known with a center) is itself a problem and is the result of moving away from advait ( oneness ).

Paul Davidson
I can't comment today on your post anymore than say it is beautiful the way you put things... rejuvenating to me ….... shall talk to you later and shall trouble you a lot with my foolish inquiries
My questions were

1.If intelligence does not operate when thought is the chief operator, how does thought operate at all?

2.How does the center as “I” forms?And then it feels alive too !! How?

Then I explained in more details,rather paraphrased again for reason of clarity as:

3.Now my question is why did that intelligence allowed thought to go haywire?
4.If it is the response of this intelligence then why did thought not act intelligently as 'k' says it would ?
5. And if intelligence is not operating when it runs crookedly how does it survive at all , because it is a response to that intelligence only--- an effect of that immense intelligence because of which this whole of the universe arises?

These questions were eating me before I started having any contact with the 'teaching'.I found that 'k' also asked the same question at no. 3( as above) in dialog with Bohm twice or thrice (2nd chapter – ending of time) Though Bohm replied and tried to explain but I wanted to hear what the master has to say on this. But he doesn't.... and the dialog turns away to some other matters in hand. 'k' was in this regard like a true Zen master who would put koans and then not reply at all. Since I consider it a koan you are requested to go and read or re-read e.o.t. yourself, specially you Davidson and you Avril.

Look how the teaching has effected all of us. Mohaddhib unknowingly has started thinking like great masters of Jainism , the great tirathankaaras – the Jinnas ( the conquer) like Mahavira ( not even a shade of pun in this,and I seriously say this) Made Avril sensitive and honest. Davidson a man of heart pointing to the very flaw which dominates the dialog about 'teaching'-- the so called seriousness of some people. We have evolved very fast!!!Cheers! Who said the teachings would die down ? Who? We are all ready a family...... a big one, Aren't we?

I am doing all the above excercise to know you first hand ... sort of introduction.You are free and also requested to comment on me or my observation even to the point of rebuke because i do not wake up to my wrongs easily...

…...shall come again with another question if you all permit...

I was in the grip of schizophrenia from Jan. 2010 till Oct. 2011. I encountered a very different "self" during this period. I have been a reader of K for long, though I have no religious quest--I just happen to like what K says.
So, thoughts were there, but they did not seem to have roots in memory.
Emotions were all dead, except fear and agony.No smiles for ten months; no tears as well.
And "I" was rather scattered.
Still K's words were there, telling to observe if one can.
And when I watched, fear intensified, agony intensified.
Most of the time I was unable to watch.
The point is : K's words were still relevant, alive, vibrant.

Thought itself is inattention.

ganesan balachandran wrote:
we are infact ultimately not programmed to think. thinking is voluntary and the heart pumping the blood is involuntary. gb

Unless one is attentive, thought is not voluntary by automatic. It is attention that stops this automatic action.

Life is relationship

Eve Goodmon wrote:
It is attention that stops this automatic action.

It is through attention that one perceive thought is voluntary. gb

We are watching, not waiting, not expecting anything to happen but watching without end. JK

Perhaps you should examine what is voluntary then because most of us cant stop thinking that is simply a fact.

Life is relationship

Eve Goodmon wrote:
most of us cant stop thinking that is simply a fact.

Most of us want to think is a fact,unless and until if we don't understand the danger of it, the connections to the conflict outside.gb

We are watching, not waiting, not expecting anything to happen but watching without end. JK

This post was last updated by ganesan balachandran Tue, 14 Dec 2010.

Eve Goodmon wrote:
It is attention that stops this automatic action.

Is attention voluntary or involuntary.
gb

We are watching, not waiting, not expecting anything to happen but watching without end. JK

ganesan balachandran wrote:
Most of us want to think is a fact,unless and until if we don't understand the danger of it, the connections to the conflict outside.gb

Yes sir gb, we get lots of pleasure from thinking don't we? but even when we do understand the danger and we attempt the curb this activity, it is extremely difficult, one has to look at the habits of the mind here and traditional approaches to meditation which is 'forced silence'. E

Life is relationship

ganesan balachandran wrote:
Is attention voluntary or involuntary. gb

Hi gb, is attention voluntary, I hate to repeat myself but what do you mean by voluntary? Are subconscious actions voluntary? One can argue this both ways. What do you mean by voluntary? one realizes that the thinking process is often insane but is helpless in stopping it.

Is attention voluntary???? it is deliberate that is for sure but is it sustainable? K said it is not based on choice it is the total understanding of the absolute necessity of a sane mind. Why then we do not realize this 'absolute necessity'?

Life is relationship

Shakti Kumar wrote:
I was in the grip of schizophrenia from Jan. 2010 till Oct. 2011. I encountered a very different "self" during this period. I have been a reader of K for long, though I have no religious quest--I just happen to like what K says. So, thoughts were there, but they did not seem to have roots in memory. Emotions were all dead, except fear and agony.No smiles for ten months; no tears as well. And "I" was rather scattered. Still K's words were there, telling to observe if one can. And when I watched, fear intensified, agony intensified. Most of the time I was unable to watch. The point is : K's words were still relevant, alive, vibrant.

Shakti...what a lovely name you have. You are very brave to talk about your personal suffering here and I congratulate you, since you know exactly when your insanity began and ended. The rest of us are just insane and we don't even know it. Forget the words, it is not the words that will bring insanity to an end, it is the silence that comes from ending words in your mind that may heal you. K just gives us the key and the permission to open that door. The rest is up to you. Ending words and ending thinking maybe the first step.

Life is relationship

Eve Goodmon wrote:
I hate to repeat myself

Thank you. Let us leave it. i don't recommend a traditional approach. it is enough if we see that thoughts are deadly in relationship (Life is relationship as you say )if thinking is difficult to end on its own .GB

We are watching, not waiting, not expecting anything to happen but watching without end. JK

This post was last updated by ganesan balachandran Tue, 14 Dec 2010.

ganesan balachandran wrote:
Thank you. Let us leave it. i don't recommend a traditional approach. it is enough if we see that thoughts are deadly in relationship (Life is relationship as you say )if thinking is difficult to end on its own .GB

Interesting reaction and response, Meditate on this. E

Life is relationship

eve

am i in tune with you? pl read.

Like a snake, coiling its head back & seeing itself says, "yes i am seeing this ... i am attending and seeing the poison i am spreading".

..... but it keeps on this forever,if asked to 'see' or to 'attend' but it never stops spreading the poison, since it is the same part (which thinks it is different) sees or attends and not the attention per se !!

Ravi Seth wrote:
Like a snake, coiling its head back & seeing itself says, "yes i am seeing this ... i am attending and seeing the poison i am spreading".

..... but it keeps on this forever,if asked to 'see' or to 'attend' but it never stops spreading the poison, since it is the same part (which thinks it is different) sees or attends and not the attention per se !!

He he Dear Ravi,

The snake is just being a snake, it does not pretend to be a sage. It is what it is, the snake does not pretend to be a lamb. If you mess with it you get bitten if you just observe it, you may just learn from this creature.

We recoil in fear when we run into anything that disturbs us, we hurry to put it in a nice box and label it, so it would not disturb us again. The question is, is this attention? Can one loose sleep in attention? Can one be disturb by any question? Would not attention deal with all of it?

I do not pretend that I mastered non-thinking. I do see that attention stops thinking and that there is something outside of the thinking mind. But sustain attention alludes me and I fall into the trap of 'thinking' and acting on the consciousness time and again....the answer I got from K is that the understanding is intellectual and not deep....he I stand.

Life is relationship

Eve Goodmon wrote:
The snake is just being a snake, it does not pretend to be a sage. It is what it is, the snake does not pretend to be a lamb. If you mess with it you get bitten if you just observe it, you may just learn from this creature.

... the snake pretends to be sage, it pretends to be lamb and all acrobatics start from thereon...it thinks it is observing, it thinks it is learning but it neither learns nor observes ever.

Eve Goodmon wrote:
We recoil in fear when we run into anything that disturbs us, we hurry to put it in a nice box and label it, so it would not disturb us again. The question is, is this attention? Can one loose sleep in attention? Can one be disturb by any question? Would not attention deal with all of it?

The 'real attention' is just like a flash which does not get recorded.If it was the 'real attention' it won't disturb us neither we shall loose sleep over it and in the light of this flash of insight the darkness is obliterated.We can only know that it was 'real attention' or not only afterwards the effect it creates.The problems get solved immediately without an iota of an effort on our part.It never ever disturbs us rather it clears the cow webs we carry.

Eve Goodmon wrote:
I do not pretend that I mastered non-thinking. I do see that attention stops thinking and that there is something outside of the thinking mind. But sustain attention alludes me and I fall into the trap of 'thinking' and acting on the consciousness time and again....

Till now you and I were in tune but now there is a danger in the statement you make..."I do see that attention stops thinking and that there is something outside of the thinking mind." Is it not that the thinking stops which brings forth attention and not attention stops thinking?
This very point indirectly has been discussed in the dialog between 'k' and sri lankan buddhist Mr. Rahula .

There are i think 10 part video.The following is the 4rth part...for continuation you can go through the first 3 also till i think till 6th.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIiGOkIlXKY&...

This post was last updated by Ravi Seth Wed, 15 Dec 2010.

Eve Goodmon wrote:
I do see that attention stops thinking and that there is something outside of the thinking mind.

could be the reaction of the food we take. Patricia was telling milk induces dreams.
gb

We are watching, not waiting, not expecting anything to happen but watching without end. JK

gb

this the best of the day!!!

Ravi Seth wrote:
the snake pretends to be sage, it pretends to be lamb and all acrobatics start from thereon...it thinks it is observing, it thinks it is learning but it neither learns nor observes ever.

I am not sure what you are talking about, I am talking about a real snake not a metaphoric one....

Ravi Seth wrote:
The 'real attention' is just like a flash which does not get recorded.If it was the 'real attention' it won't disturb us neither we shall loose sleep over it and in the light of this flash of insight the darkness is obliterated.We can only know that it was 'real attention' or not only afterwards the effect it creates.The problems get solved immediately without an iota of an effort on our part.It never ever disturbs us rather it clears the cow webs we carry.

We don't agree....K had not just a 'flash' attention, it was sustainable and some of it was recorded by him and others. Attention as does intelligence, does/do interact with thinking and intelligence determine what will be sustainable or recorded. Refer to the 'nature of the mind' dialogues.:)

Ravi Seth wrote:
Till now you and I were in tune but now there is a danger in the statement you make..."I do see that attention stops thinking and that there is something outside of the thinking mind." Is it not that the thinking stops which brings forth attention and not attention stops thinking? This very point indirectly has been discussed in the dialog between 'k' and sri lankan buddhist Mr. Rahula .

You miss interpret my intent and words....one does in practice and in action, that thinking stops when one attends. All of us experience this for moments at the time, as K said at the sight of a great mountain the mind is silent...and then he says that it is not real silence because we depend on an outside agent, in this case the mountain. We all experience moments of sustained attention in in these moments one does understand that there is another existence outside of the thinking mind....

As for inducing dreams and drinking milk in sounds you may want to suggest this to your friend who has a problem with sleeping....

Life is relationship

ganesan balachandran wrote:
could be the reaction of the food we take. Patricia was telling milk induces dreams. gb

:) you may want to listen to Patricia and use milk when you have a sleepless night as you have recently experienced....this may stop thinking which seems to disturb your sleep. As for me thank you for your advise, I enjoy dreams and sleep. But I don't drink milk thank you.

Life is relationship

Eve Goodmon wrote:
:) you may want to listen to Patricia and use milk when you have a sleepless night

Iam thankful to Patricia and avoiding dairy products. it is a good observation.
gb

We are watching, not waiting, not expecting anything to happen but watching without end. JK