If thought sees its own limitation, is there not a different kind of intelligence in operation? Then is there not an awakening of intelligence which is above and beyond thought?
1971-09-04 1st_public_talk_brockwood_park

Thought has its origin in the past, recent or remote. Can one be aware of thought as it arises out of the past - the recollections of the past, the action of the past? And can one be aware beyond the past, behind the wall of the past? This doesn't mean still further back in time, it means the space that is not touched by time or memory. Until we discover this the mind cannot see itself in terms of anything other than thought, which is time. You cannot look at thought with thought, and you cannot look at time with time. So whatever thought does, or whatever it negates, is still within its own measurable boundaries. 1968_eight_conversations_6th_conversation

Anyone else see the problem yet?

Jim F wrote:
Anyone else see the problem yet?

if thought sees its own limitation, then looking is through intelligence, since one cannot look at thought with thought.
what is the problem and error in this?
gb

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

Thought can "look" at anything it turns its attention to, including itself, but it can't "see" anything it doesn't already have knowledge of, recognize. It has knowledge of what it can and cannot do, and in that sense "sees its own limitation", but since it can't actually see, the whole truth of its structural limitation is outside of its purview.

So the question is whether thought can know enough about its own function to acknowledge its fundamental limitation, and whether that acknowledgement is tantamount to seeing. If not, then whatever sees thought's limitations would have to be what K called "intelligence", and whether there really is such a thing remains to be seen.

This post was last updated by nick carter Fri, 17 Sep 2010.

Jim F wrote:
Anyone else see the problem yet?

Jim, a problem is only a problem if you make it into a problem.

Using language to express what is non-linguistic creates every kind of paradox. Words are mercurial. What K says in one place is often contradicted in appearance by what he says somewhere else. Take the word 'mind' as an example.

The word paradox, of course, means 'apparent contradiction.' And it is true, K's phraseology often 'apparently' contradicts itself.

And this is why, as occurs on this site, people are able to trade blows against one another using quotes by K as ammunition, trying to prove one thing or another. The human brain is wonderfully adapted to the task of making everything difficult for itself.

Not that I am making a problem out of it . . .

What are you waiting for?

This post was last updated by Paul Davidson (account deleted) Fri, 17 Sep 2010.

'We see the world through thought,' which may be semantically different from the statement, 'thought sees the world' but leaves in its wake another question, who is the 'we' who is doing the seeing through thought?

At the verbal level it is a paradox.

Now, what are 'we' to do about 'it?'

Damn those words!

What are you waiting for?

This post was last updated by Paul Davidson (account deleted) Fri, 17 Sep 2010.

Sometimes 'can' is able and sometimes it's tin.

"See thought arising; watch it. Without that, all else is illusion and becoming."

nick carter wrote:
Thought can "look" at anything it turns its attention to, including itself, but it can't "see" anything it doesn't already have knowledge of, recognize. It has knowledge of what it can and cannot do, and in that sense "sees its own limitation", but since it can't actually see, the whole truth of its structural limitation is outside of its purview.
So the question is whether thought can know enough about its own function to acknowledge its fundamental limitation, and whether that acknowledgement is tantamount to seeing. If not, then whatever sees thought's limitations would have to be what K called "intelligence", and whether there really is such a thing remains to be seen.

That's neatly summarized the whole issue nick.
Now the pertinent question is, "what is thought?".
If that question is honestly asked and no second-hand answer accepted, you might discover the answer to this question of 'intelligence'.

Jim F wrote:
Now the pertinent question is, "what is thought?". If that question is honestly asked and no second-hand answer accepted, you might discover the answer to this question of 'intelligence'.

The question is honestly asked by thought because it wants to know just how much it can know about whatever it turns its attention to. So the question is always in the background as thought goes about its business, but the answer is always the same: thought can never know enough about anything because it is the business of constantly acquiring and discarding information as conditions change and events unfold, and it is always biased in accordance with conditioning and biology.

So if thought is to be seen in context, not just from its own limited perspective, it must be seen from outside, and that seeing from outside must be experienced by the brain for there to be any change in the way thought operates.

I say all this knowing that you would have us believe that for you, this change has actually occurred, and it's not for me to say whether it has or not. I have my doubts, though, because I question the wisdom of telling others what they must either believe or doubt when wisdom would not put another in that awkward, disadvantaged position. Krishnamurti got away with it because it was expected of him and he had no precedent, so when someone subsequently speaks as if coming from the same place as K, I would call that "second-hand".

This post was last updated by nick carter Sat, 18 Sep 2010.

nick carter wrote:
I question the wisdom of telling others what they must either believe or doubt when, if there is any wisdom there, one can talk about the confusion and misunderstanding that keeps us confined in ourselves, and never so much as hint that one is speaking from outside.

Bingo!

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

Jim F wrote:
If that question is honestly asked

After reading you, I honestly asked what is thought, 10 time, loudly.Then I asked slowly, then I asked in brain, but there was no one except thought to reply, so it replied that thought is this and that.
But I continue to ask honestly, then thought laughed and asked another question, that is "can thought ever be honest"?

It is still laughing

Don't need K or any, do yourself

This post was last updated by Soham netti (account deleted) Sat, 18 Sep 2010.

nick carter wrote:
I question the wisdom of telling others what they must either believe or doubt when wisdom would not put another in that awkward, disadvantaged position.

This is insanity!

The vast majority of humanity is suffering from a delusion that causes untold hardship and destruction on a daily basis, and threatens to destabilise the whole global ecosystem. And you're saying that one free from the delusion should pretend not to see?????

For what??

So as not to make those that are still deluded feel awkward?

Soham netti wrote:
After reading you, I honestly asked what is thought, 10 time, loudly.Then I asked slowly, then I asked in brain, but there was no one except thought to reply, so it replied that thought is this and that. But I continue to ask honestly, then thought laughed and asked another question, that is "can thought ever be honest"?
It is still laughing .

So those are all second-hand answers.
I suggest that you use the word 'memory' rather than thought. Wouldn't that be more accurate?

Now, rejecting all answers from memory, observe during your daily life and see what is discovered.

Jim F wrote:
This is insanity!
The vast majority of humanity is suffering from a delusion that causes untold hardship and destruction on a daily basis, and threatens to destabilise the whole global ecosystem. And you're saying that one free from the delusion should pretend not to see?????
For what??
So as not to make those that are still deluded feel awkward?

If you do see, pretending not to doesn't diminish the fact or make the seeing any less effective. Seeing is what matters, not whether others give you credit for it.

But anyway, I've distracted you from your subject. If I'd known you'd over-react like this, I wouldn't have brought it up. It's a side issue and I can see now that you can't handle it. You need to be seen as a seer. Suit yourself.

Jim F wrote:
This is insanity!

Stay with that sir!

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

Jim F wrote:
For what??

Sir,for what implies seeking a result,which involves time,and effort,gain,or avoidance?

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

Jim F wrote:
So those are all second-hand answers.

You missed the very simple truth that Soham pointed to.

"See thought arising; watch it. Without that, all else is illusion and becoming."

Jim F wrote:
For what??

To stand alone is to be uncorrupted,innocent,free of all tradition,of dogma,of WHAT ANOTHER SAYS,and so on.Such a mind does not seek;being free,such a mind is still without a want[desire],without movement.But this state is not to be achieved.

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

Dear Jim,

No problem, no error, seen whatsoever. :-)

Jim and paul and all,

Paul:'Jim, a problem is only a problem if you make it into a problem.'

Right, and the experience of a problem (contradiction/paradox) IS the experience of the one to have the problem. One does not exist without the other.

Paul, by the way, loved what you wrote about paradox ..Paradox in thought, for thought/language, which is contradiction by nature. No wonder it can never unite the fragments it is composed of, into one whole..

This post was last updated by Mina Martini Sun, 19 Sep 2010.

Mina Martini wrote:
Dear Jim,
No problem, no error, seen whatsoever. :-)

K's error was in saying that thought can see its own limitation. It can't. It can only acknowledge that it can't see; that seeing is not a function of thought.

Dear Nick,
Nick:
K's error was in saying that thought can see its own limitation. It can't. It can only acknowledge that it can't see; that seeing is not a function of thought.

mina: yes, understood. Clearly thought cannot see the whole of itself, being divided by nature. But if you read further the quote, it is also described how this seeing means there is a different kind of intelligence in operation in this seeing that is above and beyond thought.

Nick, something was felt...

Nick:K's error was in saying that thought can see its own limitation. It can't. It can only acknowledge that it can't see; that seeing is not a function of thought.

m: just felt, do not know if i can find words, how thought cannot even see what you describe above, it cannot see anything. it is blind by nature. (blind to wholeness) Even its acknowledgemnt that it can't see, has nothing to do with Seeing. It is already imagining an idea of "seeing" when it says " i acknowledge that seeing is not a function of thought". Thought is completely totally blind to anything that is truly alive!

Dear Soham,

Soham:'But I continue to ask honestly, then thought laughed and asked another question, that is "can thought ever be honest"?

It is still laughing

m: Well, a good sign, that laughter! It feels like an indication that there is more involved in realising the very relative "honesty" of thought, than mere thought. :-)

Go on laughing, with all your heart! :-)

Mina Martini wrote:
Dear Soham

Yes, Dear Meena.

Don't need K or any, do yourself

Mina Martini wrote:
Go on laughing, with all your heart!

But heart is crying, only thought is laughing.

Don't need K or any, do yourself

Jim F wrote:
Now, rejecting all answers from memory, observe during your daily life and see what is discovered.

Well, you have suggested two times, so now my turn.Suggestions are:

1. Don't reject anything, Don't accept anything,let happen whatever happen, don't appreciate or criticizejust stay with thought.

2.If above is tough, the second easy suggestion is, just stop thinking.

And please do it immediately, because world is burning, and we have to save it.

Don't need K or any, do yourself

This post was last updated by Soham netti (account deleted) Sun, 19 Sep 2010.

'Mina Martini wrote:
Go on laughing, with all your heart!

Soham:But heart is crying, only thought is laughing.

m: Is it so dear friend? Then it is not laughter....take your heart along, do not leave it out, only then is there healing in laughter...

But heart is crying, only thought is laughing.

m: I am with that crying heart. It does not matter if it's crying, there is still a heart there! you have not hardened yourself, and there is nothing nothing more precious than that! immediately, timelessly, upon reading about the crying heart, compassion was in this heart, feeling yours.

Mina Martini wrote:
dear friend

Tell me how much honey, sugar, ice cream you eat!How sweet you are, Thank god..I am still not diabetic..so can taste it.If you don't mind please tell me,whether are you so sweet from childhood? Or it is after transformation.I think with K it happened in 1929, But we don't know the exact year of yours.Please share, after all you are among friends.

Don't need K or any, do yourself

Mina Martini wrote:
take your heart along

But they don't walk together, what can I do?

Don't need K or any, do yourself