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

Self-knowledge, what exactly do we mean by that ?


Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 54 in total
Sat, 01 Dec 2018 #1
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 1237 posts in this forum Offline

Self- knowledge seems to me a key indication in the Teaching, but what do we understand by that ?

It is certainly not the knowledge of " I/We are the greatest " or " I/ We are the victims " !

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
Sun, 02 Dec 2018 #2
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 1237 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
It is certainly not the knowledge of " I/We are the greatest " or " I/ We are the victims " !

and is that knowledge fundamentally different from the knowledge of Teaching? So the repetition of those concepts will not lead to insight or it must be the insight that's also not the way to self-knowledge.

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
Mon, 03 Dec 2018 #3
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 1237 posts in this forum Offline

is self-knowledge so clear to us that we form a parish or perception, or are we in an information hubble about this subject?

or is self-knowledge so changeable, so fleeting that it needs constant observation ?

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
Mon, 03 Dec 2018 #4
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 1237 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
or is self-knowledge so changeable, so fleeting that it needs constant observation ?

If self-knowledge is a cummulation from past experiences or conclusion is there a difference with thought ?

So self-knowledge must be seen in the present actuality of what is, right ?

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
Mon, 03 Dec 2018 #5
Thumb_001 Sean Hen Spain 728 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
Self- knowledge seems to me a key indication in the Teaching, but what do we understand by that ?

Hi Wim. For me, self-knowledge is the ability to see oneself from an outside perspective. To be able to stand back and see what is going on internally. I suppose it is often linked to awareness of what is going on around one. Perhaps people who are self-aware often are sensitive to how others feel. I think we are talking about awareness here. What do you think Wim?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 03 Dec 2018 #6
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 1237 posts in this forum Offline

Sean Hen wrote:
For me, self-knowledge is the ability to see oneself from an outside perspective.

Isn't that creating a distance and as such space between two aspects, the creation of the observer and the observed ?
To me it seems the knowing, seeing, being aware of the energy behind the doing. Am I at that instance greedy, jealous, showing off or just looking ?

Does the word knowledge not put us in the wrong direction ?

Sean Hen wrote:
I suppose it is often linked to awareness of what is going on around one.

To me it has nothing to do with " around us " but all to do with my inner drive to do the thing I do !£

Sean Hen wrote:
Perhaps people who are self-aware often are sensitive to how others feel.

'Sensitive to how others feel' can one do that or think that one has that sensivity ?

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
Mon, 03 Dec 2018 #7
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 675 posts in this forum Offline

I think self-knowledge is misleading because knowledge is a static thing. Self-knowing may be more descriptive since it implies an action in the present. Knowing one self or one's thought from moment to moment. Not a continues movement but rather understanding each moment and dying to that moment so that there is no residue of the past in the Brain to leave a mark..

This post was last updated by One Self Mon, 03 Dec 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 03 Dec 2018 #8
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 1237 posts in this forum Offline

One Self wrote:
I think self-knowledge is misleading because knowledge is a static thing. Self-knowing may be more descriptive since it implies an action in the present.

Yes,
that seems to me a good impulse for not misunderstanding to what is pointed to.

But does this information make it completely clear ?

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.

This post was last updated by Wim Opdam Mon, 03 Dec 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 03 Dec 2018 #9
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 442 posts in this forum Offline

Self-knowledge is arduously following every thought. Of course, it is extremely important because it is "the beginning of meditation" and "the first step is the last step." It is the way that K sneaks method in! Therefore it has the same danger of any technique: there may be interference by the reminder thought the brain sends to itself to keep being aware of every thought.

I don't see how self-knowledge is any different from mindfulness meditation, but God forbid some tradition like Buddhism might have something the same or similar to K teaching.

Also, what is "arduous?" It is effort, basically. Therefore the same danger of effort exists: the split between the self exerting the effort and the self on which the effort is imposed. A false split of the same self.

And there is the issue of control.

So all these important issues that K points out must be examined and understood with respect to self knowledge. At the same time, the most important thing is to just DO IT! But the brain will always find a way to avoid that.

This post was last updated by idiot ? Mon, 03 Dec 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 03 Dec 2018 #10
Thumb_001 Sean Hen Spain 728 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
Isn't that creating a distance and as such space between two aspects, the creation of the observer and the observed ?

Hi Wim. A situation - I get angry when I see my father-in-law and we argue. This is a pattern. It happens on a regular basis. Can I become aware of this pattern and understand what is behind it? What is my father-in-law saying that triggers anger in me? Why does his words trigger anger in me? What is the root of all this? How has this pattern become established?

I would say that in the above situation there is a possibility of self-observation that can lead to understanding. Is there a distance between two aspects creating the observer and the observed? I don't know. Do we know anything at all about the observer and the observed beyond an intellectual understanding? When you look at a tree is there separation between you the observer and the tree as the observed? Or is there no separation at all? Do we have any real experience of this? Have we had glimpses perhaps or is it just an idea?

Surely both inward observation and outward observation require a great deal of attention.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 03 Dec 2018 #11
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 1237 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
Self-knowledge is arduously following every thought. Of course, it is extremely important because it is "the beginning of meditation"

By 'following' you're already lost, seeing the source of thought , if it's initiated by defending yourself, or keeping yourself inline, or whatever ........, one must be very honest....one must be not holding on it ....no pride ......no goal...no effort...

idiot ? wrote:
It is the way that K sneaks method in!

If That's how you're seeing it, are you not concluding pro or contra , why call it sneaky, a system and compare it whit mindfulness, this are all activities of thought.

And to me is clear that thought and self-knowing are mutually exclusive.

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
Mon, 03 Dec 2018 #12
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 480 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
It is the way that K sneaks method in! Therefore it has the same danger of any technique: there may be interference by the reminder thought the brain sends to itself to keep being aware of every thought.

The effort to be or become - to be or become the smartest, richest, most admired, feared, famous, philanthropic, and so on - is not made because of actual danger. The effort to be or become is made out of conceit, fear, greed or desire for self-aggrandizement, and so on. I can still take a break, rest, vacation or sleep, or pursue pleasure so that, God forbid, I stop being a well-balanced individual, and so that I can resume my ruthless ambitions!

The effort to follow or observe every thought is more akin to keeping my eyes on "the cobra in the room", or the effort of bailing out a leaky boat, or the effort to carry a child in my arms and flee from war. Is it an idea, belief or ambition that I "should" follow the cobra’s every move? Or that I should keep bailing, or carry the child? Are these efforts of becoming? Isn’t it that the danger and the necessity to act are seen and understood?

And therefore every thought is observed, my eyes are kept on the cobra, I keep bailing out the water, I hold the child ..... and the brain and body necessarily get tired. So it is termed arduous as a matter of fact. Such action is not the effort of self to be or to become, is it?

This post was last updated by Huguette . Mon, 03 Dec 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 03 Dec 2018 #13
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 442 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
By 'following' you're already lost...

-

Krishnamurti, The First and Last Freedom, Self-Knowledge:
To understand that process there must be the intention to know what is, to follow every thought, feeling and action; and to understand what is is extremely difficult, because what is is never still, never static, it is always in movement. The what is is what you are, not what you would like to be; it is not the ideal, because the ideal is fictitious, but it is actually what you are doing, thinking and feeling from moment to moment.

-

Wim Opdam wrote:
And to me is clear that thought and self-knowing are mutually exclusive.

Then I suggest you read the chapter on Self-Knowledge from The First and Last Freedom that I quoted above.

This post was last updated by idiot ? Mon, 03 Dec 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 03 Dec 2018 #14
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 442 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Such action is not the effort of self to be or to become, is it?

You are continuing with the point I'm making. To K, method implies becoming, trying to change what is into something else. What I and you (I believe) are both saying is that we must be careful with self-knowledge not to make it a means to become something. If we do, we are just engaging in a kind of spiritualized expansion of the self, to become something greater than we are.

And as I said there are other traps related to control, effort, and the supportive reminder thoughts.

But self-knowledge is something K suggests we explore. He does consider it important. And he says it is the beginning of meditation. So I say it really is a method, albeit one where happening truly there is no motive, no control, no aiming to become, and so on. It is a method in the sense that it is a suggested activity. When I say he snuck a method in, I mean he is pointing out an important activity to investigate.

And is doing it arduous? If so, then there is the whole question of effort.

Everything does not have to be perfect to begin. We can begin imperfectly, maybe trying to get something at first before we realize the futility of ambition. Because most people ain't gonna do it if they don't see a reason for it. Of course, really being aware is the opposite of doing something for a reason. Doing something for a reason means trying to change what is into something else. Really being aware is what is. Not separate from it.

This post was last updated by idiot ? Mon, 03 Dec 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 03 Dec 2018 #15
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 480 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
But self-knowledge is something K suggests we explore.

I’m not sure if it can be said that K suggests we explore self-knowledge. I don't understand this.

idiot ? wrote:
He does consider it important. And he says it is the beginning of meditation.

K does consider self-knowledge important and so do I. Don't you? He says it’s the beginning of meditation and I understand that.

idiot ? wrote:
So I say it really is a method, albeit one where happening truly there is no motive, no control, no aiming to become, and so on. It is a method in the sense that it is a suggested activity. When I say he snuck a method in, I mean he is pointing out an important activity to investigate.

But where or what is the method? If I suggest to you to love your neighbour, that loving your fellow man is an important activity, is that a method? It seems to me that you're trying to bend the word "effort" to your will! :o)

"method”: a particular form of procedure for accomplishing or approaching something, especially a systematic or established one; orderliness of thought or behavior; systematic planning or action (Google definition)


idiot ? wrote:
And is doing it arduous? If so, then there is the whole question of effort.

The word “effort” is not the thing, just as the words “love”, “understanding”, etc., are not the thing. There is the effort of becoming, and there is the arduous action flowing out of understanding, as I explained earlier that I see it. The same word is used but to me they are 2 totally unrelated sorts of actions. One activity is engendered by thought, the other action is driven by intelligence which is not thought.

Similarly, the brutal husband says he "loves" his wife but his "love" is totally unrelated to the “love” of intelligence.

Still, I’m not trying to convince you. If you see it all as the same “effort”, the same action, the same movement, I can only leave it at that. I could be wrong.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 04 Dec 2018 #16
Thumb_001 Sean Hen Spain 728 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
Doing something for a reason means trying to change what is into something else. Really being aware is what is. Not separate from it.

This seems like a very interesting insight. Could we say that in the moment of becoming aware, the self dissolves?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 04 Dec 2018 #17
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1311 posts in this forum Offline

Sean Hen wrote:
Could we say that in the moment of becoming aware, the self dissolves?

Also when psychological thought becomes aware of itself in the moment, the 'thinker' dissolves. and the 'identification' between the thinker/self/me and 'my'/'its' thought process dissolves?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 04 Dec 2018 #18
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 442 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
But where or what is the method? If I suggest to you to love your neighbour, that loving your fellow man is an important activity, is that a method? It seems to me that you're trying to bend the word "effort" to your will! :o)

Okay, so when K talks about "method" he is referring to methods of meditation and how these are not real meditation, yes? He usually cites mantra meditation as a method and says that you may as well chant "Coca-cola." He does this to point out its ridiculousness. This, despite the fact that he sometimes chanted mantra even later in his life.

According to K, mantra meditation done over and over tends to dull the mind.

Anyway, mantra meditation is an example of a method. As I said, K seems to associate method with seeking a result. People do these various meditation techniques to try to spiritually improve themselves in some way.

Mantra meditation can in fact be done to seek a result. But it can also just be done for its own sake. Someone can chant a mantra regularly for no reason at all. If they get any result, it's just a side effect, not an intent.

So to me, method is some technique or approach to meditation. It may or may not involve seeking a result.

If self-knowledge involves "the intention to know what is, to follow every thought, feeling and action," as K says in his chapter on Self-Knowledge in The First and Last Freedom, then it too is an approach to meditation. K warns against making it into a method, against seeking a result from it.

But if chanting a mantra is a method, even if done without seeking a result, then why isn't following every thought, feeling, and action also a method, even if done without seeking a result? Following every thought, feeling, and action, which K calls self-knowledge and others call mindfulness meditation is a method, isn't it?

Whether or not one calls it a method, it is very important to explore. To pay attention to my thoughts, feelings, and actions, throughout the day, in solitude and in relationship, in stillness of the body and in activity. This is vital, yes?

K also describes real meditation, quite free of any technique, even self-knowledge. But he kindly offers self-knowledge as a stepping stone, as an approach, to what cannot be approached.

This post was last updated by idiot ? Tue, 04 Dec 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 04 Dec 2018 #19
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 675 posts in this forum Offline

Krishnamurti: Does self-knowledge come through search, through following someone else, through belonging to any particular organization, through reading books, and so on? After all, that is the main issue, is it not?, that as long as I do not understand myself, I have no basis for thought, and all my search will be in vain. I can escape into illusions, I can run away from contention, strife, struggle; I can worship another; I can look for my salvation through somebody else. But as long as I am ignorant of myself, as long as I am unaware of the total process of myself, I have no basis for thought, for affection, for action.

Public talk ojai 16july 1949

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 04 Dec 2018 #20
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 442 posts in this forum Offline

"Doing something for a reason means trying to change what is into something else. Really being aware is what is. Not separate from it."

Sean Hen wrote:
Could we say that in the moment of becoming aware, the self dissolves?

For most of us, a sense of self vanishes and reappears, yes? So while the self may vanish momentarily as there is awareness of what is, soon enough it comes back to grab ownership, to interpret from past experience, and so on.

Why does K say that self-knowledge is the beginning of meditation? Doesn't self-knowledge involve awareness of the thought, feelings, and actions of the self? He explains that this self is the real for most of us. We must not imagine some ideal but rather see what actually is.

Yet really seeing is a kind of stopping. Just by attending to what is there is a suspension, a pause, a moment of wonder. So the sparks of real meditation are there like gems amid the ocean of self-centered thoughts and preoccupations, yes?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 05 Dec 2018 #21
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 480 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
Whether or not one calls it a method, it is very important to explore. To pay attention to my thoughts, feelings, and actions, throughout the day, in solitude and in relationship, in stillness of the body and in activity. This is vital, yes?

Is it important to you to explore? Is it vital to you to pay attention to your thoughts, feelings and actions? If it is, it's not because K says or suggests it, is it?

I see that whenever I'm oblivious to the compulsions, desires, fears, and so on, which drive my behaviour, then I’m obviously not free in the true sense of the word. I don’t mean politically or socially free, but free in relationship, free to act spontaneously, without being tormented by thought.

But consciously, I-consciousness attributes "my" actions to "my" personal intelligence, cleverness, choices, judgments, and so on. There's no self-knowledge in that, is there? If I'm unaware of the vague intimations of unconscious compulsions, desires, fears, and so on, then I am a slave to their dictates. When I'm unaware (when the mind is unaware), I slavishly do the bidding of the unconscious compulsions and fears. So I really don’t know the totality of myself. I know only the conscious self-image.

Self-understanding is not something that can be acquired by blindly following knowledge, opinions, ideas, methods. Knowledge and methods cannot make me SEE the intimations of the unconscious compulsions, fears, etc.

If I am - if the human mind is - a slave to unconscious thought/emotion (which I might be mistaken about), then it follows that no conscious mantra meditation or any other technique or method SUGGESTED to me can free me from the darkness and misery of self-ignorance.

There CAN be no method for exploring, for being attentive, alert, interested, and so on.

idiot ? wrote:
But he kindly offers self-knowledge as a stepping stone, as an approach, to what cannot be approached.

If you see it that way, that K is offering self-knowledge as a stepping-stone or approach to what cannot be approached, why not pay him no mind? Each one is free to explore for himself to the best of his understanding. As you said, "imperfectly". Imperfectly is perfect.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 05 Dec 2018 #22
Thumb_001 Sean Hen Spain 728 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Also when psychological thought becomes aware of itself in the moment, the 'thinker' dissolves. and the 'identification' between the thinker/self/me and 'my'/'its' thought process dissolves?

Hi Dan. What you say seems to make sense. When full attention is given to something - maybe looking at an insect - thought diminishes or even disappears. With the disappearance of thought, the self goes as well. Is that what you mean?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 05 Dec 2018 #23
Thumb_001 Sean Hen Spain 728 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
For most of us, a sense of self vanishes and reappears, yes? So while the self may vanish momentarily as there is awareness of what is, soon enough it comes back to grab ownership, to interpret from past experience, and so on.

Yes, I think that is where most of are.

idiot ? wrote:
Yet really seeing is a kind of stopping. Just by attending to what is there is a suspension, a pause, a moment of wonder. So the sparks of real meditation are there like gems amid the ocean of self-centered thoughts and preoccupations, yes?

Yes, well expressed.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 05 Dec 2018 #24
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 442 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
If I'm unaware of the vague intimations of unconscious compulsions, desires, fears, and so on, then I am a slave to their dictates.

Huguette, I don't understand a lot of your post. Clearly I can be aware of my conscious self but my unconscious self is by definition unavailable to me. If I can be aware of something in my unconscious, it has become conscious, yes?

Although I cannot see my own unconscious, it's pretty easy to see others behaving in ways that indicate they are not conscious of something going on inside them. Therefore, if I can see it happening in others, chances are pretty good it's happening in me, too.

K stresses awareness in relationship. This is our best chance for waking up to what we cannot see going on inside ourselves. I watch myself in relationship and I watch the responses of others. In this way, I can begin to see what I was blind to before, yes?

Anyway, I don't quite follow your last post.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 05 Dec 2018 #25
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 480 posts in this forum Offline

As I see it, there are 2 aspects of “unconsciousness”. To my knowledge, this was not stated to be so by K, so it is purely my own understanding.

There is the aspect of the sheer volume of knowledge or information of the content. Merely by virtue of its sheer volume, the whole of the content is not visible at any given moment. This “technical unconsciousness” is not the buried wounds and fears of repressed memories. It is the knowledge or information that becomes available as needed or relevant. At this very moment, I cannot begin to mechanically recite or regurgitate the entire content of “technical” or factual knowledge or information that is stored in memory, until it is all exhausted and accounted for. But when it is solicited by the present moment, it re-surfaces, perhaps with an interval, but effortlessly. It has not been deliberately or wilfully buried. I’m calling this unconscious aspect “technical” but it includes some wounds and fears. These are the wounds and fears that I don’t deny or ignore but there is just nothing soliciting them in THIS moment. I don’t know if I’m being clear.

There is also the unconsciousness which has been buried, repressed, ignored or denied - the childhood wounds which were not understood by the child at all and which the child was powerless to question; the later hurts which were “too painful or shameful” to recall, and so on. This buried unconsciousness makes itself “known” or felt through intimations, vague psychological disturbances of fear, anger, discomfort, shame, etc. Doesn't it?

idiot ? wrote:
K stresses awareness in relationship. This is our best chance for waking up to what we cannot see going on inside ourselves. I watch myself in relationship and I watch the responses of others. In this way, I can begin to see what I was blind to before, yes?

You’re implying that I learn to understand myself through "awareness". But what you're calling awareness is not direct self-observation but observing the responses of "others" and then intellectually applying that to "me". I see it rather the other way around: through self-understanding, I understand “others”, the same the human being. Where there is awareness in relationship, the intimations from the “unconscious” are seen. Where there is no awareness, I see only what "I want" to see, the conscious self-image that thought has put together, and “I” ignore or dismiss the intimations as unimportant, irrelevant or simply “not there”. No?

This post was last updated by Huguette . Wed, 05 Dec 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 06 Dec 2018 #26
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 675 posts in this forum Offline

"Self-knowledge, what exactly do we mean by that ?" W-

The word Self-knowledge has been around for the past thousands of years. Know yourself then you know God. I don't know that everybody is familiar with that or not. Krishnamurti says that without knowing yourself your thinking is not right. There is where we are presently. We don't think right.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 06 Dec 2018 #27
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 675 posts in this forum Offline

"Self-knowledge, what exactly do we mean by that ?" W-

The word Self-knowledge has been around for the past thousands of years. Know yourself then you know God. I don't know that everybody is familiar with that or not. Krishnamurti says that without knowing yourself your thinking is not right. There is where we are presently. We don't think right.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 06 Dec 2018 #28
Thumb_001 Sean Hen Spain 728 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
For most of us, a sense of self vanishes and reappears, yes? So while the self may vanish momentarily as there is awareness of what is, soon enough it comes back to grab ownership, to interpret from past experience, and so on.

I think it's very interesting to explore this. Does thought completely disappear and the mind become silent for a time before thought appears again? Krishnamurti talked about the lengthening interval between thought and thought:

"The understanding mind is denuding itself of all thoughts and there is also the lengthening of the interval between thought and thought. What happens in that interval? The interval has been experienced. When thought arises in that interval, that thought is examined with greater quickness, anew. The lengthening of the interval between two thoughts gives greater capacity to deal with any thought that may arise in that interval. The experiencing of this interval is what we are now considering. There is a vitality in this interval. In this interval all effort has stopped; there is no choice, no condemnation, no justification, and no identification; there is also no interpretation of any kind."

Madras, India. Group Discussion 29th April, 1948

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Thu, 06 Dec 2018 #29
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 442 posts in this forum Offline

Sean Hen wrote:
lengthening interval between thought and thought...

Have you noticed that in inquiry or investigation of these matters, there is an initial moment of not knowing, and that moment is free of the known, of thought? Very important to pay attention to that not knowing at the start of inquiry, yes?

I don't know if you have noticed how devious and cunning thought is. It weasels its way back in and tries to own silence, to understand silence. But can the known touch the unknown?

This "lengthening" can be a kind of greediness on the part of the thinking brain. The brain says, "Oh, there was a moment of silence. That's good. Let's try to lengthen that." So what is gets turned into a greedy grab by thought.

Lengthening means time and psychological time itself is of the thinking mind. There is no lengthening or measuring in "the outside of time." Duration is a distinction of the brain. Striving to achieve more, to lengthen, is so tempting. But it is another thing to watch, to observe happening in the brain. What is natural unfolds naturally. It needs no coaxing.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 06 Dec 2018 #30
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3139 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
I don't know if you have noticed how devious and cunning thought is. It weasels its way back in and tries to own silence, to understand silence. But can the known touch the unknown?

No. But in observing the noise out of interest in finding out, silence may or may not return. The silence is not important as a goal...only the observing...looking... matters.

idiot ? wrote:
This "lengthening" can be a kind of greediness on the part of the thinking brain. The brain says, "Oh, there was a moment of silence. That's good. Let's try to lengthen that." So what is gets turned into a greedy grab by thought.

Indeed....that's the reason why I question the quote from K.

idiot ? wrote:
Lengthening means time and psychological time itself is of the thinking mind. There is no lengthening or measuring in "the outside of time."

Well said, idiot?

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Thu, 06 Dec 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 54 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.)