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

What's Next?, contd.


Displaying all 17 posts
Page 1 of 1
Fri, 22 Oct 2010 #1
Thumb_stringio nick carter United States 777 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Who's to say what the next thought should be? Is it chosen or does it logically follow? What's the determining factor? Can the thought process check its own movement for logic and internal consistency; for honesty and truth, or does it have a double standard? If it does, what is the mechanism for maintaining duplicity? Could the thought process be too complex for the average brain to understand? Could "the average brain" be what we call the failure to fathom the faculty of thought?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 23 Oct 2010 #2
Thumb_tampura ganesan balachandran India 2204 posts in this forum Offline

useful energy?
gb

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 23 Oct 2010 #3
Thumb_img001 Dr.sudhir sharma India 1889 posts in this forum Offline

The logic, honesty, truth, choice etc are sub-servient to self concern/interest/fulfillment/satisfaction etc. It is the centre "I" that is always controlling the circumference whatever may be its size.

Passive awareness give right understanding of thought process and as long as this centre "I" is existing, one can not be passively aware.

FLOW WITH LIFE!

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 23 Oct 2010 #4
Thumb_stringio nick carter United States 777 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Dr.sudhir sharma wrote:
Passive awareness give right understanding of thought process and as long as this centre "I" is existing, one can not be passively aware.

Apparently the doctor thinks he has no "I".

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Sat, 23 Oct 2010 #5
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Dr.sudhir sharma wrote:
as long as this centre "I" is existing, one can not be passively aware.

I doubt this thing you call passive awareness is any more than the absence of internal noise.

This internal noise predates the 'I'. The I is the attempt to control the noise through a central point of authority, to bring order to the chaos. But it is a vain attempt, being itself part of the noise and therefore adding to it. The 'I' is not a daemon but a wrong strategy. Only with the ending of this strategy of 'I' can the noise be fully heard and the crisis it engenders fully understood. Only when the 'I' goes is one aware of the underlying noise. We are constantly trying to avoid the pain of that.

"The ego is first and foremost a body ego." S. Freud

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 24 Oct 2010 #6
Thumb_stringio nick carter United States 777 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Paul Davidson wrote:
Only when the 'I' goes is one aware of the underlying noise. We are constantly trying to avoid the pain of that.

Apparently Paul thinks he has no "I", too.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Sun, 24 Oct 2010 #7
Thumb_028 mike christani United States 1904 posts in this forum Offline

I don't think it's the thought process that checks its own movement, i think that may be analysis, but, 'intelligence'- I am aware that the word isdangerous!- or awareness, that can bring about insight into thought. Perhaps the thought process is too fast, has too much momentum for the 'average' low-energy brain to see without getting caught in it. But then, maybe watching brings energy?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 26 Oct 2010 #8
Thumb_028 mike christani United States 1904 posts in this forum Offline

If the thought process is duplicitous, dishonest, then how can'thought' check itself. That is duality, the next thought trying to act on the preceeding thought. But this thought is still thought, it is of the same material, fromthe same origin. what can it do? I think, the best it can do is to question- eg, "am I being logical, or dishoest, or having a double standard?". Any Action of thought, that is a decision not to be dishonest, etc, will really not touch the problem, because it will just try to adhere to a idea of what it believes honesty is. But if you plant the question, and look, and wait- watch, be aware that you may be, say, dishonest, illogical, and you see it, catch youself at it, that brigns an action or realisation that is beyond all deciding Not to be this or that.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 26 Oct 2010 #9
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

nick carter wrote:
Apparently Paul thinks he has no "I", too.

That is your 'I' jumping to conclusions about others to avoid facing itself, Nick. It was nowhere implied in any comment I have ever made on this site or elsewhere.

But 'I' understand you are just trying to be contraversial, as always.

"The ego is first and foremost a body ego." S. Freud

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 26 Oct 2010 #10
Thumb_stringio nick carter United States 777 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Paul Davidson wrote:
Only when the 'I' goes is one aware of the underlying noise. We are constantly trying to avoid the pain of that.

If you have an "I" and you say the above, you're making stuff up because you know nothing about "when the 'I' goes".

This post was last updated by nick carter (account deleted) Tue, 26 Oct 2010.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 27 Oct 2010 #11
Thumb_tampura ganesan balachandran India 2204 posts in this forum Offline

nick carter wrote:
you know nothing about "when the 'I' goes".

The analytical brain says so.how did you get this conditioning when it need not be so.
gb

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 27 Oct 2010 #12
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

nick carter wrote:
If you have an "I" and you say the above, you're making stuff up because you know nothing about "when the 'I' goes".

This is logic, Nick, but spurious logic. It depends upon a wrong assumption, that is, that the absence of the 'I' is a once and forever thing, which it is not.

I have had plenty of experiences when the 'I' has suddenly been absent. But it comes back. This coming and going of self-centred mind according to strong external (and sometimes internal) stimulae is an involuntary and temporary thing and means very little. It is not transformatory. But it does afford sufficient experience to know something.

Sometimes when the 'I' goes I am aware of the multitude of voices within me, which is the noise I am talking about, all the petty resistances, conflicting demands and tendences that drag me unconsciously this way and that. The confusion is usually repressed by the central authority of 'I' but for me, more and more, it is a conscious factor in my everyday life and I see more exactly in what ways my actions are being driven.

Intellectually I have seen for a long while that the 'I' of 'Paul Davidson' is an ugly illusion and a block to comprehension, but it is more recently that I have felt this emotionally true also, in my everyday action. And it means that it is increasingly difficult for me to believe in the smallest thing I do . . . unless I can sense that it is a true thing, which also occurs.

And it is this growing sense for right action which is most fascinating but also, ordinary, not extraordinary. It is the blindness we live under which is the truly extraordinary.

For me, the question 'what next' has become less important than 'what now?'

"The ego is first and foremost a body ego." S. Freud

This post was last updated by Paul Davidson (account deleted) Wed, 27 Oct 2010.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Wed, 27 Oct 2010 #13
Thumb_stringio nick carter United States 777 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

If the "I" returns, you can't be certain that it was ever gone at all.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 27 Oct 2010 #14
Thumb_avatar max greene United States 2240 posts in this forum Offline

Mike,

'Thought' is incapable of action. Thought is a passive and lifeless construct, the result of the action of thinking.

The action of thinking is recall from memory, image making and the creation of thought. Thinking deals exclusively with the past and thinking therefore cannot solve a present psychological problem. For this, awareness and observation are needed.

max

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 27 Oct 2010 #15
Thumb_028 mike christani United States 1904 posts in this forum Offline

Max,
I agree but what is it that questions, doubts?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 28 Oct 2010 #16
Thumb_img001 Dr.sudhir sharma India 1889 posts in this forum Offline

mike christani wrote:
Max, I agree but what is it that questions, doubts?

If one can identify the 'questioner', then it is wrong answer as it will come from memory.

FLOW WITH LIFE!

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 28 Oct 2010 #17
Thumb_avatar max greene United States 2240 posts in this forum Offline

Mike,

" . . . what is it that questions, doubts?"

At the very moment of action, any action - - at that very moment there is only the action. There is no separate actor or entity. The result of action, the act itself - - in this case the question - - becomes a part of consciousness. We mistakenly believe that consciousness is the questioner doing the questioning.

As Dr. Sharma points out, any attempt to identify the questioner will come from memory (consciousness).

max

This post was last updated by max greene Thu, 28 Oct 2010.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying all 17 posts
Page 1 of 1
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.)