Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
General Discussion | moderated by Dev Singh

Is thought the enemy?


Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 80 in total
Sat, 20 May 2017 #1
Thumb_me_3_reduced_copy Patricia Hemingway Australia 1877 posts in this forum Offline

On his own forum, where I no longer post, Clive Elwell wrote the following:

"Without awareness, there is an infinity of problems. And there is a life spent in trying to solve problems.

With awareness, there is only one issue, the issue of thought. Thought being the creator of all problems.

Strange that for so many thousands of years, mankind has been lost in this way."

This surely begs the following questions, because in all honesty the above statements have the same vacuous sounds as Mr Tolle's misleading
oversimplifications.

Can awareness manifest when thought is an issue?

Is thought as thinking the creator of all problems?

What is the ground for finding out the truth of psychological disorder?

This post was last updated by Patricia Hemingway Sat, 20 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 20 May 2017 #2
Thumb_me_3_reduced_copy Patricia Hemingway Australia 1877 posts in this forum Offline

And I add this:

"To you the word has become important, and not Reality. So you are caught in the verbal level and what you want to spread is the word. That means you will catch what I am saying in the net of words and so cause a new division between man and man. Then you will create a new system based on Krishnamurti's words which you the propagandist will spread among other propagandists who are also caught in words and thereby what have you done? Whom have you helped?"

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 20 May 2017 #3
Thumb_leaping_fire_frog_by_sirenofchaos natarajan shivan India 80 posts in this forum Offline

As I see, the enemy IN thought is it's incapacity to be inclusive of paradoxes (to the extent of considering it's own ending). And when it manages to do that finally to a certain extent, to attempt resolving the paradox employing choice, rather than through an experiential reality wherein it manifests essentially as an awareness of thought OR thinking. 'Think on these things' is one of the titles of his book.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 20 May 2017 #4
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 443 posts in this forum Offline

What is a problem?

What problems concern us now, collectively and individually?

Has not thought solved many technological problems? Hasn’t our success as a society been due almost completely to solving problems using thought?

We know that escapism, drowning out our concerns with alcohol or various other means of distraction, only temporarily “solves” our problems. Eventually the escapism must end and the problems return, perhaps stronger than ever. The natural quieting of the mind to awareness is really the opposite of escapism. It is directly facing and not being separate from what is. K says the problem then transforms. Have we actually done this? Does the problem really transform or does it return like in the case of escapism?

K seems to think quite deeply. And yet at the same time he is grounded in clear, open, still mind. Must the question of thinking be either/or? After deeply clarifying the naturally quiet heart/mind, isn’t reintegration possible, whereby the ground of clear awareness remains even while deep, investigative thought flows?

However, we can be too quick and fool ourselves. We can believe we have rooted out a sense of self, eliminated thought, reached whatever, and are ready to challenge everyone, perhaps here on kinfonet, who obviously still are ego bound and confused. In fooling ourselves, we see problems in those around us and not in ourself.

So while reintegration of clear openness and careful thought may be possible, most of us need to clarify the silence, the quiet sensitivity to tree and bird. That clarification is none other than real meditation.

This post was last updated by idiot ? Sat, 20 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 20 May 2017 #5
Thumb_nolet Rich Nolet Canada 288 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
After deeply clarifying the naturally quiet heart/mind, isn’t reintegration possible, whereby the ground of clear awareness remains even while deep, investigative thought flows?
So while reintegration of clear openness and careful thought may be possible, most of us need to clarify the silence, the quiet sensitivity to tree and bird. That clarification is none other than real meditation.

May I respectfully ask you what you mean by : deeply clarifying the naturally quiet heart/mind. And by reintegration ? And also : to clarify the silence? It seems for the least rather vague.

This post was last updated by Rich Nolet Sat, 20 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 21 May 2017 #6
Thumb_nolet Rich Nolet Canada 288 posts in this forum Offline

If I may try, do you mean that if the mind/heart is tranform, the problem also is transorm ? That from that new ground, from that quality of silence, everything is look afresh ? That from intelligence , or awareness, thought would have a different quality ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 21 May 2017 #7
Thumb_me_3_reduced_copy Patricia Hemingway Australia 1877 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
Hasn’t our success as a society been due almost completely to solving problems using thought?

In what way is our society a success idiot ? ??

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 21 May 2017 #8
Thumb_me_3_reduced_copy Patricia Hemingway Australia 1877 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
What is a problem?

The etymological meaning of the word 'problem' is: 'anything thrown forward, a question put forward for discussion. A casting, to cast.'

Or in K's words: 'A problem is something that is thrown at you.'

Therefore, is it possible to understand thinking - in its place - and not just react to it as a problem?

What is thinking?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 21 May 2017 #9
Thumb_me_3_reduced_copy Patricia Hemingway Australia 1877 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
We can believe we have rooted out a sense of self, eliminated thought, reached whatever, and are ready to challenge everyone, perhaps here on kinfonet, who obviously still are ego bound and confused.

Does the ending of self eliminate thought?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 21 May 2017 #10
Thumb_me_3_reduced_copy Patricia Hemingway Australia 1877 posts in this forum Offline

Rich Nolet wrote:
That from that new ground, from that quality of silence, everything is look afresh ? That from intelligence , or awareness, thought would have a different quality ?

Rich - is there 'silence' without understanding the movement of thought?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 21 May 2017 #11
Thumb_nolet Rich Nolet Canada 288 posts in this forum Offline

No Pat, evidently. In the understanding of thought silence can take place, but is not a result of thought or desire. I find that what idiot? is saying is interesting. If I understand correctly, one have to put order in ourselves first. Thought can't help in that field. When the heart/mind is quiet, sensitivity, intelligence, awareness is then possible. Then thought have a different quality. May I suggest a quote from the Awakening of Intelligence ?

Krishnamurti: We are trying to find out what is the relationship in action, of thought and intelligence. Because everything is action or inaction. And what is the relationship of all that to intelligence? Thought does produce chaotic action, fragmentary action.

Bohm: At present that is, when it is not ordered by intelligence.

Krishnamurti: Of course. And it is not ordered by intelligence in the way we all live.

Bohm: That is because of what we have just said.

Krishnamurti: It is fragmented activity, therefore it is not an activity of a wholeness. The activity of wholeness is intelligence.

Bohm: But intelligence also has to understand the activity of thought.

Krishnamurti: Yes, yes, we said that.

Bohm: Now would you say that when intelligence understands the activity of thought, then thought is different in its operation?

Krishnamurti: Yes, obviously. That is, if thought has created nationalism as a means of security and when one sees the fallacy of it, the seeing of the fallacy of it is intelligence and thought then creates a different kind of world in which nationalism doesn't exist.

Bohm: Yes.

Krishnamurti: And therefore division, conflict, war and all the rest.

Bohm: That is very clear. Intelligence sees the falseness of what is going on. Now that falseness stops. When thought is free of this falseness it is different. Then it begins to be a parallel to intelligence.

Krishnamurti: That is right.

Bohm: That is, it begins to carry out the implications of intelligence.

Krishnamurti: Therefore thought has a place.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Sun, 21 May 2017 #12
Thumb_nolet Rich Nolet Canada 288 posts in this forum Offline

Patricia Hemingway wrote:
The etymological meaning of the word 'problem' is: 'anything thrown forward, a question put forward for discussion. A casting, to cast.'

Or in K's words: 'A problem is something that is thrown at you.'

Therefore, is it possible to understand thinking - in its place - and not just react to it as a problem?

What is thinking?

Exactly.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 22 May 2017 #13
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 443 posts in this forum Offline

Rich Nolet wrote:
May I respectfully ask you what you mean by : deeply clarifying the naturally quiet heart/mind...

To sit in silence. If thoughts arise, to watch them, like you might watch a leaf floating by in a stream.

Or to walk alone in nature, without a conversation or story running in your mind, or songs, just quietly walking, open to tree, flower, sky.

Meditation is so important. When K gave multi-day talks, he saved it for the final day, the culmination. But he gave so many warnings, saying it is not this and not that, there is no method. K goes so far as to say there cannot even be any conscious or deliberate intention. Is it any wonder that many K-interested people don't investigate meditation? It's just supposed to magically happen. And then they wonder why it doesn't.

But it is absolutely, positively essential! Meditation IS K teaching. And to clarify is to do it.

Then it permeates everything, every part of life.

This post was last updated by idiot ? Mon, 22 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 23 May 2017 #14
Thumb_me_3_reduced_copy Patricia Hemingway Australia 1877 posts in this forum Offline

Rich Nolet wrote:
If I understand correctly, one have to put order in ourselves first. Thought can't help in that field. When the heart/mind is quiet, sensitivity, intelligence, awareness is then possible. Then thought have a different quality. May I suggest a quote from the Awakening of Intelligence ?

Rich, thought is not the enemy, but thought is essential to function sanely.
The question is: What is thought's only action as thinking?

In other words when is thought in order, that is, in its correct place?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 23 May 2017 #15
Thumb_me_3_reduced_copy Patricia Hemingway Australia 1877 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
To sit in silence. If thoughts arise, to watch them, like you might watch a leaf floating by in a stream.

Idiot? - what sort of thoughts? Can one even begin to discuss what is true meditation without understanding the actual role of thinking in the brain?

So when is thought in its place? This is meditation! :)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 23 May 2017 #16
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 443 posts in this forum Offline

Patricia Hemingway wrote:
Can one even begin to discuss what is true meditation without understanding the actual role of thinking in the brain?

So when is thought in its place?

We are discussing thought. And we are discussing when the mind is quiet, still, innocent, and naturally open.

As long as there is only thought, there is division, conflict, separation. There is this idea against that idea. There is the fundamental thought of self and other. There are the divisions of time into past, present, and future.

The very nature of thought is separation, division. Thought looks at this idea on the one hand and that idea on the other, not the whole, not the entirety.

When thinking quiets down and silence is, whole seeing is.

Obviously talking about silence and thinking about silence are not silence.

So finally there has to be sitting down to really look into silence for oneself.

For many who actually do this, for nearly everyone when they first try, the brain just doesn't quiet down and thoughts keep going. In fact it seems astoundingly busy and noisy. It cannot be forced into silence. Well, maybe there are ways but that is not true, natural silence. And techniques are just added thoughts. How will adding a technique thought result in a mind with less thought?

But we can just watch the thoughts flow by. And if your read K in Think On These Things, he describes this very watching of the flow. And very naturally, the thoughts may grow still, gently subsiding, until there is something else altogether.

But maybe not for a long time. If such an investigation is really important to you, there will be patience to find out. If not, thought and its division will dominate your life.

When you have drunk long and deep of the still waters, only then will thought be able to be in the service of silence, to ride silence to understanding.

This post was last updated by idiot ? Tue, 23 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 23 May 2017 #17
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 443 posts in this forum Offline

Krishnamurti, Think On These Things, Chapter 5 Creative Discontent:

Have you ever sat quietly without any movement? You try it, sit really still, with your back straight, and observe what your mind is doing. Don't try to control it, don't say it should not jump from one thought to another, from one interest to another, but just be aware of how your mind is jumping. Don't do anything about it, but watch it as from the banks of a river you watch the water flow by. In the flowing river there are so many things - fishes, leaves, dead animals - but it is always living, moving, and your mind is like that. It is everlastingly restless, flitting from one thing to another like a butterfly.

When you listen to a song, how do you listen to it? You may like the person who is singing, he may have a nice face, and you may follow the words; but behind all that, when you listen to a song, you are listening to the tones and to the silences between the tones, are you not? In the same way, try sitting very quietly without fidgeting, without moving your hands or even your toes, and just watch your mind. It is great fun. If you try it as fun, as an amusing thing, you will find that the mind begins to settle down without any effort on your part to control it. There is then no censor, no judge, no evaluator; and when the mind is thus very quiet of itself, spontaneously still, you will discover what it is to be gay. Do you know what gaiety is? It is just to laugh, to take delight in anything or nothing, to know the joy of living, smiling, looking straight into the face of another without any sense of fear.

This post was last updated by idiot ? Tue, 23 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 24 May 2017 #18
Thumb_me_3_reduced_copy Patricia Hemingway Australia 1877 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
As long as there is only thought, there is division, conflict, separation. There is this idea against that idea. There is the fundamental thought of self and other. There are the divisions of time into past, present, and future.

The very nature of thought is separation, division. Thought looks at this idea on the one hand and that idea on the other, not the whole, not the entirety.

Your implication that "thought" per se is the root of "division, conflict and separation" is not a fact, especially when you have not established the ground of what type/state of "thought" you are referring to - without this clarity one ends up with a complete misunderstanding and confusion of what K was actually pointing out.

So again - when is thought in its place?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 24 May 2017 #19
Thumb_me_3_reduced_copy Patricia Hemingway Australia 1877 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
When thinking quiets down and silence is, whole seeing is.

Does thinking have to "quiets down" for the brain to see the action and role of thought?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 24 May 2017 #20
Thumb_me_3_reduced_copy Patricia Hemingway Australia 1877 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
For many who actually do this, for nearly everyone when they first try, the brain just doesn't quiet down and thoughts keep going. In fact it seems astoundingly busy and noisy. It cannot be forced into silence. Well, maybe there are ways but that is not true, natural silence. And techniques are just added thoughts. How will adding a technique thought result in a mind with less thought?

Where is "doubt" in all of this? Without "doubt" is there inquiry at all?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 24 May 2017 #21
Thumb_me_3_reduced_copy Patricia Hemingway Australia 1877 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
But maybe not for a long time. If such an investigation is really important to you, there will be patience to find out. If not, thought and its division will dominate your life.

When you have drunk long and deep of the still waters, only then will thought be able to be in the service of silence, to ride silence to understanding.

Time? Patience? Thought in the service of silence?

Again here you appear to be putting the cart before the horse - the still water is when the brain has understood the sole role of thought as technical thinking in the brain, only then psychological time has no ground from which to grow and fertilise.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 24 May 2017 #22
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 443 posts in this forum Offline

Krishnamurti, The Urgency of Change, Awareness:

All the activity of thought is separation, fragmentation.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 24 May 2017 #23
Thumb_me_3_reduced_copy Patricia Hemingway Australia 1877 posts in this forum Offline

So you believe that? Find out for yourself by action and not the vain repeating and regurgitation of other's words!

The root of thought is not separation or fragmentation, it is something else entirely - and I would say the same thing to K and then go into the matter with him.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 2 readers
Back to Top
Wed, 24 May 2017 #24
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 1242 posts in this forum Offline

Patricia Hemingway wrote:
The root of thought is not separation or fragmentation, it is something else entirely - and I would say the same thing to K and then go into the matter with him.

I fully agree with you Patricia
One can say the root of separation and/or fragmentation is thought but not the other way around.

That is something like saying the knife is the cause of me cutting myself, no your inattentiveness or awkwardness or stupidity is the cause.

Truth will unfold itself for those who enquire their own actions and only to them and for them and to or for no one else.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Wed, 24 May 2017 #25
Thumb_me_3_reduced_copy Patricia Hemingway Australia 1877 posts in this forum Offline

Hello Wim -

K always said to not just repeat the words but to take the action of finding out. Words are cheap.

You are on the cutting-edge with the knife! :)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 24 May 2017 #26
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 443 posts in this forum Offline

I have used my own words. And I am encouraging meditation to find out for yourself. I have used K quotes where people may doubt that something is in K teaching. For example, I talked about sitting quietly, without motion, and if thoughts are present watching their flow like a stream. Some might doubt that this is K teaching and might consider it a method of the kind K rejected so I have quoted Think On These Things where K recommends this.

I said, "The very nature of thought is separation, division." Notice I didn't use the word "root." My statement met with rejection and the implication that this is not in K teaching. So I wanted to quote K to show that it IS in K teaching.

Now he may say other things elsewhere which we can also explore. And we can investigate together ourselves. But he does say, "All the activity of thought is separation, fragmentation." At least in one place. And "all" is a pretty strong word.

I agree that it is best NOT to use K as an authority. However, it is useful to quote him when people might question if something is part of K teaching. That has been my intention.

You know there can be tremendous resistance and fear to letting go of thought. I am not saying that people here are resistant or afraid. But I am saying that letting go of thought and opening to silence can be a direct threat to the thinker, which as you know, K says is no different than thought itself. If "I" am nothing but thought, response from the past, then "I" am threatened by a quiet mind. Even if it is only temporary, it means "my" annihilation, and it is reasonable to the reasoning mind to fear that.

But it is nothing (literally in a way) to be afraid of. And in fact it is the doorway to kindness, love, attention to others.

Perhaps we can go into thought a little more together. We're not talking about things the brain does to regulate unconscious body activities, like pumping the heart or maintaining internal systems, etc. Some scientists may consider that thought since it is brain activity but I don't think that is what we mean, yes? Then there is also sensory input. For example, light strikes the eye and the brain registers it. Almost immediately the brain begins a separative process: I look around and the brain distinguishes between the floor and the wall and the desk, etc. We don't often notice this early separative thought because it is so automatic. Mostly, however, we are talking about the internal conversation, stories we tell ourselves, emotional connections we make, logical and rational ideas, practical knowledge, etc. In other words, we are primarily concerned with our conscious mind, although K does also talk about the unconscious, which includes things like racial bias that may be ingrained in a way we don't see. Is that agreed? Perhaps you want to include other kinds of thought I didn't mention?

One of the issues that has been implied but not really stated in this thread is that there is practical thought. I go home to my house and not yours. I go to my job and I have to go on time if I want to keep it. Practical thought is also part of K teaching and he sometimes distinguishes it from emotional thought. But it still IS separative and fragmentary. I am separating my house from yours and my job from yours. Practical thought is necessary and has its place but taken to extreme, it too can elicit violence. Neighbors may fight over encroachment on their property. Someone may retaliate if they feel their job is threatened. So even in practical thought, if there is no awareness and the compassion inherent in awareness, there can arise conflict and misery.

This post was last updated by idiot ? Wed, 24 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Wed, 24 May 2017 #27
Thumb_nolet Rich Nolet Canada 288 posts in this forum Offline

Thought is memory. There are two aspect to memory: the technical and the psychological.

K.: If you are an engineer, you use the memory of technical knowledge to build a bridge. That is factual memory. There is also psychological memory. You have said something to me, pleasant or unpleasant, and I retain it; when I next meet you, I meet you with that memory, the memory of what you have said or have not said. There are two facets to memory, the psychological and the factual. They are always interrelated, therefore not
clear cut.

Interelated, not clear cut.

idiot ? wrote:
So even in practical thought, if there is no awareness and the compassion inherent in awareness, there can arise conflict and misery.

Obvious.

This post was last updated by Rich Nolet Wed, 24 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 24 May 2017 #28
Thumb_001 Sean Hen Spain 731 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
Perhaps you want to include other kinds of thought I didn't mention?

What about spontaneous, creative thought? Is that different? If I respond to a comment here spontaneously or creatively then am I responding from conditioning?

This post was last updated by Sean Hen Wed, 24 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 24 May 2017 #29
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 1242 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
Then there is also sensory input. For example, light strikes the eye and the brain registers it. Almost immediately the brain begins a separative process:

Not entirely true.

There is also automatically an interpretation taking place to fill up the blind spot, which is inherent on the light from the left and the right eye.

idiot ? wrote:
Practical thought is necessary and has its place but taken to extreme

Practical thought can also become psychological by over or under emphasizing ones skills. (I am the greatest, the best, the illuminated)

Truth will unfold itself for those who enquire their own actions and only to them and for them and to or for no one else.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 24 May 2017 #30
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 443 posts in this forum Offline

Sean Hen wrote:
What about spontaneous, creative thought?

That's an interesting question. If spontaneity and creativity are free of conditioning, are they thought at all? Or do they, rather, spring from intuition or insight? Are they not activity without preconceived thought? As you know, K taught about "action without idea."

Yet at the same time, one wouldn't call such action "mindless." On the contrary, it involves the whole being, yes?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 80 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.)