Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
A Quiet Space | moderated by Clive Elwell

Why don't we give our whole heart, mind, to the inquiry? .......


Displaying posts 31 - 60 of 69 in total
Tue, 12 Sep 2017 #31
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 532 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
"Research" in the sense of 'learning' maybe. 'Learning' where there is no goal and no accumulation of knowledge. The true religious search then would be without "purpose". K.'s "choiceless awareness? Ultimately joining the "observer" with the "observed"?

why did this answer make me sad?

Is it because I do not feel heard because it is a repetition of words that seem as if I did not have the knowledge of unity and / or duality of observer / observed ??

Is it because the repetition thereabouts resembles the Prayer beads that are used by members of various religious traditions such as Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, Sikhism and the Bahá'í Faith to mark the repetitions of prayers, chants or devotions, such as as the rosary of the Blessed Virgin Mary in Catholicism, and dhikr in Islam.

It's already proven that One can repeat certain iconic words like a mantra endlessly with the only affect to make the mind dull.

And still it's not clear if the connotation with the words 'search' ( Dutch: zoeken) and 'research' (Dutch: opzoeken) is in english the same is not answered.
The chain of meaning with the use of certain words is important to recognize because one word can have a big difference to meaning, this is what among other things became clear in The Teaching.

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
Tue, 12 Sep 2017 #32
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3646 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
And still it's not clear if the connotation with the words 'search' ( Dutch: zoeken) and 'research' (Dutch: opzoeken) is in english the same is not answered.

Wim, the word "research" is usually used in an academic sense - especially 'scientific research'. It is a study of existing facts and theories, with the end in view of coming up with some "new conclusion", new idea, perhaps new fact or theory. (And get awarded a PhD or some other letters after your name in the process).

Research is exclusively concerned with knowledge, it is study of a fragment, and not the whole.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Tue, 12 Sep 2017 #33
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3646 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
The true religious search then would be without "purpose". K.'s "choiceless awareness?

It seems odd to talk of "search" without a purpose, almost contradictory. But yes, to search means one must have an idea what one is searching for - and that idea is created by the mind, by thought. It is something that we already 'know', or have an image of.

So when searching, isn't the mind "chasing its own tail"?

So one sees the folly of search, of pursuing a goal. Then what is the state of mind that perceives this, that sees, even if partially, the falseness, the illusory nature of becoming? I had written more on this earlier, but feeling now I just want to be quiet, and watch, not assert.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 12 Sep 2017 #34
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 1889 posts in this forum Offline

The following is an excerpt from one of John Raica's posts today. It's from one of the Commentaries on Living. It touches on the subject of searching that we've been discussing. The commentary in parentheses is from John:

"
Our desire to 'experience' Truth must be (wisely) understood - if there is ( any personal) motive in this search, then Truth does not come into being. Can there be a search without a motive, conscious or unconscious? if you have formulated an 'end' (result) , then your search is a means to achieve that end, which is self-projected. Therefore your search is for (personal) grati?cation, not for truth.

The understanding of 'what is' needs no ( personal) motive; since ( based on ) choiceless awareness, is not a search for something; it is to be aware of the (psychological) craving for (reaching a self-projected?) 'end' and of the (cunning ) means to it. This (excellent quality of) 'choiceless' awareness brings the (insightful ?) understanding of 'what is' . It is odd how much we crave for ( our personal ) permanency, for continuity. This (subliminal form of ) desire takes many forms, from the crudest to the most subtle. With the obvious forms we are well acquainted: name, shape, character, (property), and so on. But the subtler (aspect of this ) craving (for temporal continuity) is much more dif?cult to uncover, (expose ?) and understand. ( The 'psychological' sense of one's ) identity as ( 'my') ideas, as ('my') being, as ( 'my') knowledge, as ( my high hopes of ?) becoming (better) , at whatever level, is dif?cult to perceive and bring to light ( especially if we are personally committed to upgrading & consolidating it?) .

We only know ( our own ) continuity, and never non-continuity. We know the continuity of (our ) experiences, of (our personal) memory, of incidents, but we do not know that state in which this (sense of our 'personal') continuity is not. We call it 'Death', the 'Unknown', the 'Mysterious', and through naming it (and acquiring all the available informations about it ) we hope somehow to capture (the ultimate truth about ? ) it - which again is the (expression of the same subliminal ) desire for continuity."

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 12 Sep 2017 #35
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 1889 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
For the state of non-continuity to be, thought has to be silent, has to realize that it cannot 'know' the 'unknown'.

And that can be an intellectual conclusion as well. But does thought really want this non-continuity? Or the unknown? 'What is' is the desire for continuity and/or fulfillment.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Tue, 12 Sep 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 12 Sep 2017 #36
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 366 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:

For the state of non-continuity to be, thought has to be silent, has to realize that it cannot 'know' the 'unknown'.

Tom Paine wrote:

And that can be an intellectual conclusion as well. But does thought really want this non-continuity? Or the unknown? 'What is' is the desire for continuity.

Dan, We are not seeking “the state of non-continuity” here, are we? Isn’t it that we want to understand our own mind, the human mind?

As I see it, it is not enough for thought “to realize that it cannot know the unknown”. Isn't it essential to see the source of the desire for continuity? Isn't it fear? As K says:

The understanding of what is needs no
motive; the motive and the means
prevent understanding.
Search, which
is
choiceless awareness, is not for
something; it is to be aware of the
craving for an end and of the means to
it.

[bolded by me - Huguette]

(The above segment was erroneously quoted by John as follows: “The understanding of 'what is' needs no ( personal) motive; since ( based on ) choiceless awareness, is not a search for something; it is to be aware of the (psychological) craving for (reaching a self-projected?) 'end' and of the (cunning ) means to it.”)
[Huguette: the word "since" should be “search”, as can be seen from the original K quote. The words I bolded in K's original quote were omitted by John])

The desire for continuity is not just the desire for eternal life, is it? Isn’t the desire continuity also present from moment to moment? The mind does not want to end for even a moment. In THIS moment - let alone for eternity - the mind does not want an ending, does it? Doesn’t the mind want continuity in THIS very moment? Tom, doesn’t it KNOW at THIS moment that it wants continuity? Isn't the very thought of ending, of not pursuing this “search”, any search, or any train of thought, frightening to “it”, to “me”? This is the frightening, uncomfortable, void we always talk about, isn’t it? This fear can be seen on the spot, in THIS moment, can’t it? Isn’t the desire for eternal life merely an extension of this moment’s desire, rooted in fear?

This post was last updated by Huguette . Tue, 12 Sep 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 12 Sep 2017 #37
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 1889 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
The desire for continuity is not just the desire for eternal life, is it? Isn’t the desire continuity also present from moment to moment? The mind does not want to end for even a moment. In THIS moment - let alone for eternity - the mind does not want an ending, does it? Doesn’t the mind want continuity in THIS very moment? Tom, doesn’t it KNOW at THIS moment that it wants continuity?

It/I knows that it wants the continuity of some pleasurable experience, that's all. And it is frightened or feels insecure if that pleasure or experience is denied to it. Does the mind fear ending? I'm not sure. We can only fear what we know, and we don''t know this ending. We may fear loneliness or failure or poverty or rejection, but all those fears are based upon the known. We fear that our girlfriend/boyfriend might be attracted to someone else and leave me. Then I'm alone. I might fear being alone....most of us do, I think. There's real feelings of insecurity in that. But, how can we fear ending....something we know nothing about?

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 12 Sep 2017 #38
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 1889 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Isn't the very thought of ending, of not pursuing this “search”, any search, or any train of thought, frightening to “it”, to “me”? This is the frightening, uncomfortable, void we always talk about, isn’t it?

The thought of not being a success is frightening to the one who pursues success. But is it because of the fear of the void? Or is it fear of being a failure....and all that entails, like not having enough money or status...of not getting the respect and acceptance we get when we're success at something? And again, without respect and acceptance from our peers we might be very lonely...so there's that fear again.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Tue, 12 Sep 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 13 Sep 2017 #39
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 366 posts in this forum Offline

re 39:

Isn’t thinking one such pleasurable or comforting activity? Isn’t thinking an “occupation” which is viewed as doing something "positive” towards effecting a desired change? And isn’t occupation of any sort valued above inactivity? The prized occupations are entertainment, school, work, showing off one’s skill, knowledge, intelligence, beauty, possessions, and so on. “Doing nothing” is not prized at all or valued, it seems to me, except as a temporary period to recover from exhaustion, illness, danger or some other such experience.

Doesn’t the mind fear “doing nothing”? As you say, it doesn't fear the unknown. Isn't thinking the last occupation the mind always resorts to? When I’m depressed, anxious, bored, lonely, jealous, angry, psychologically frightened, when I fear my "girlfriend/boyfriend might be attracted to someone else and leave me” as you say, why do I endlessly think about it? Does thinking about it ever fundamentally solve fear, anger, depression, jealousy, etc.? Isn't there another kind of action to try, to experiment with? But one clings to thinking as the only thing left for “me” to do, as "my" last resort before “the void”, doesn't one?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 13 Sep 2017 #40
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 366 posts in this forum Offline

re 40:

Certainly, there’s fear of failure, fear of ridicule, of inadequacy, of weakness, of losing everyone and everything I have, of death, of sickness, and so on. So we think and think and think about what to do…. We don’t WANT to stop thinking, do we? Has thinking ever fundamentally resolved our existential problems? One problem may get solved or somewhat better and another one surfaces or an old ones re-surface. But we don’t want to give up on thinking, do we?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 13 Sep 2017 #41
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 1889 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
We don’t WANT to stop thinking, do we? Has thinking ever fundamentally resolved our existential problems? One problem may get solved or somewhat better and another one surfaces or an old ones re-surface. But we don’t want to give up on thinking, do we?

This 'we' is thought. Can we say that thought doesn't want to stop? Does thought itself have wants? Is thought separate from wanting? I don't think so, except when it's functioning in a strictly practical manner. Is there any 'we' outside of thought?

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 13 Sep 2017 #42
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3646 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote (#36) :
Thought can appreciate this 'intellectually', that there must be this state of non-continuity. But the bind is that any movement of thought enquiring into this perpetuates the state of continuity. For the state of non-continuity to be, thought has to be silent, has to realize that it cannot 'know' the 'unknown'.

I would say that in the space between thought there is the realisation that thought is not continuous. And so the “me”, that owes its existence to identification with thought, is also not continuous. This is a continual (not continuous!) realisation, a continual 'shock', because thought has built the self with the intention of continuity, that is the fundamental assumption behind it. But the assumption is false.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 13 Sep 2017 #43
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3646 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
So one sees the folly of search, of pursuing a goal. Then what is the state of mind that perceives this, that sees, even if partially, the falseness, the illusory nature of becoming?

I wrote this, and a question was being born, at some depth of the mind, at the time. The question has just 'surfaced'.

Does one fully see this? See this folly, this illusion? Asking the question of myself of course. I said originally “that sees, even if partially”. But is there such a thing as partial seeing? Or is it that either one sees or one does not see?

Although one may negate goal after goal, projected image after projected image, at the root of the mind, if that phrase means anything, does time-future still cast a shadow? Referring to psychological time of course.

As always, one is left with the necessity of watching, watching acutely. And the barrier to this watching is self-condemnation. The division of the mind into watcher and watched.

I have started to read the post from Commentaries on Living, via John and Tom. That phrase “subliminal desire” seems to cover what I was trying to express above. Yes, the quote is very relevant. But then, when is K not relevant?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 13 Sep 2017 #44
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 366 posts in this forum Offline

43:

Huguette . wrote:

We don’t WANT to stop thinking, do we? Has thinking ever fundamentally resolved our existential problems? One problem may get solved or somewhat better and another one surfaces or an old ones re-surface. But we don’t want to give up on thinking, do we?

Tom Paine wrote:

This 'we' is thought. Can we say that thought doesn't want to stop? Does thought itself have wants? Is thought separate from wanting? I don't think so, except when it's functioning in a strictly practical manner. Is there any 'we' outside of thought?

Yes, agreed, Tom. This “we”, “me”, “you”, is put together by thought or the mind - the mind which depends on the brain for its functioning, the mind which is situated in the brain in the sense that it is a conglomerate of the brain’s various functions or abilities having to do with thought, such as remembering, language, reasoning, recognition, pattern recognition, organization and planning, calculating, measuring, comparing, and so on.

Because the brain ultimately regulates ALL the body’s functions - breathing, motor skills, etc. - one cannot say that the brain IS the mind exactly, that the brain and mind are synonymous. But all the functions or abilities which constitute the mind as it is commonly understood are functions or abilities of the brain, aren't they? And this mind, this conglomerate which is located in the brain, has been conditioned by its upbringing to believe that it is subservient to a separate, independent “me” which is NOT part of the brain. No?

Isn’t it the brain, thought or the mind which does and doesn’t want? Doesn’t the brain/mind/thought say “I want” or “I don’t want”? Are we to deny the "what-isness" of desire? I want freedom, I want to tease, I want to disobey or obey, I want to be happy, successful, I want to always be DOING something, etc. So perhaps we have to ask what desire IS? Is there good desire and bad desire?

I tease someone else and I say, “I don’t want to stop”. Who is this “I” who doesn’t want to stop?

Or someone tells me, “Sit down and keep quiet” and I say, “I don’t want to”. Who is this “I”?

Or someone with a gun tells me, “Put your hands up”. What do “I” want then? I don’t know what, but “something”, no?

Not very good examples, I know. I’m not good at thinking of examples.

Isn’t there an inborn “flame” in each human heart which longs for … there is no word that exactly expresses it … something like happiness or fulfilment, well-being. Isn’t there? And any desire “we” have (the mind has) is rooted in this inborn longing or desire, isn’t it? But is it corrupted by conditioning, self-ignorance and duality? So that, in "our" ignorance of what the human being is, "we" want (the mind wants) instead to tease, to disobey or obey, to hurt, to impress, to control, to be powerful and successful, to be occupied, to have pleasure, and so on.

So I’ve been told about a totally new approach to action in the face of conflict, of contradiction, of problems in relationship. This new approach is that thought is not adequate for taking action in relationship. But I don’t WANT to give it up because it is a frightening prospect. At the same time, it is clearly seen that thought IS inadequate for solving conflict. Then there is no choice for the mind - thought - but to end its inappropriate, useless efforts in solving conflict, is there?

So, what is the mind? Obviously, the
mind is our total awareness or
consciousness; it is the total way of
our existence, the whole process of
our thinking. The mind is the result
of the brain. The brain produces the
mind. Without the brain there is no
mind, but the mind is separate from
the brain. It is the child of the
brain. If the brain is limited,
damaged, the mind is also damaged. The
brain, which records every sensation,
every feeling of pleasure or pain, the
brain with all its tissues, with all
its responses, creates what we call
the mind, although the mind is
independent of the brain. You don't
have to accept this. You can
experiment with it and see for
yourself.

(Verbatim Reports) Third Talk in New Delhi, 1959 [This same excerpt was recently quoted elsewhere, I believe.]

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 13 Sep 2017 #45
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 366 posts in this forum Offline

With respect to your opening question - why don't we give our whole heart, mind, to the enquiry - it occurs to me, Clive, that maybe we ARE.... If we are looking for results, if we have expectations, we may conclude that we are NOT giving our whole heart and mind.

So I'm not saying we ARE. I'm saying MAYBE we are. Who can say we are NOT? I just wanted to say it.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 13 Sep 2017 #46
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 1889 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Isn’t it the brain, thought or the mind which does and doesn’t want? Doesn’t the brain/mind/thought say “I want” or “I don’t want”? Are we to deny the "what-isness" of desire? I want freedom, I want to tease, I want to disobey or obey, I want to be happy, successful, I want to always be DOING something, etc. So perhaps we have to ask what desire IS? Is there good desire and bad desire?

One of my earliest recollections of want was actually 'not wanting'. As a young child I'd say to my mother 'I don't want to go to school', and be told that I have to go....I must go. As my father used to tell me when I was a little older, 'You better do well in school or you may wind up digging ditches(laying sewer pipes, etc) all your life!" Was it the desire to go out an play with my friends that was behind this 'not wanting' to go to school, or was it the image of sitting at my school desk being bored and uncomfortable all day? It may have been both. Thought remembers playing with my friends out in the woods and says 'I don't want to go to school'. In the same way thought remembers the extreme boredom of sitting in class and says 'I don't want ...". So this wanting and not wanting is all based upon thought/memory. If someone holds me up at gunpoint, thought says to itself, "I don't want to die" in a similar manner to the little kid not wanting to go to school. The brain wants something other than ending. It wants to continue it's pleasures....it's play....of yesterday or many yesterdays....like the little boy who does't want to go to school. And it fears/imagines some kind of suffering will come with death. So this I who wants or doesn't want is basically thought/memory/feeling, isn't it?

Huguette . wrote:
I tease someone else and I say, “I don’t want to stop”. Who is this “I” who doesn’t want to stop?

Or someone tells me, “Sit down and keep quiet” and I say, “I don’t want to”. Who is this “I”?

Again, it's thinking that says 'I don't want to stop', isn't it. I'm enjoying a cigarette or beer and my wife or girlfriend(if I have one) may say, 'Tom, you need to stop doing that.' I say 'I don't want to stop'. That 'I' is thought/emotion as far as I can tell. So 'I' am this thought/emotion/memory complex that responds to challenges of daily living(based upon fear and pleasure)...creating conflict and disorder in our lives and our relationships. K. tells us that there's another way to live. I'm just trying to lay the problem out there so I, or we, can look at it. It's our whole way of living that we're questioning, so it's best to start simply, I think.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Wed, 13 Sep 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 13 Sep 2017 #47
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 366 posts in this forum Offline

re 48:

I’m puzzled by your reply, Tom. I was responding to your saying (at 43), “Can we say that thought doesn't want to stop? Does thought itself have wants?” - which to me implies that we can’t (say it) and that thought doesn’t (have wants). But then you said (#48): “it's thinking that says 'I don't want to stop'”.

Are you saying that thought HAS “wants” but that there is no desire underlying the words expressing desire, or that thought has no wants, or ..... something else? Then I have to ask “who or what” has desire and where does it originate? Or is there something else altogether which I missed in your response? I just don’t understand.

This question of desire IS crucial, isn’t it? It is what this thread (and perhaps every thread) is essentially about, isn’t it? As I see it, there is a fundamental desire, inborn to every human being - a living “flame” (as I call it but call it something else) which is not rooted in time/thought. This "desire" is a longing for freedom, fulfilment, well-being. None of these words (freedom etc.) capture the actuality of that fundamental desire, but that’s as close to describing it as I can come. Surely you understand what I’m talking about with these clumsy words, don’t you? Don’t we ALL have that longing or desire? We may push it underground, we may distort it, analyze it, try to repress it, sublimate it or ignore it, and so on, but it IS there, isn’t it? It’s not just “me”, is it? And aren’t ALL the OTHER desires rooted in thought?

This post was last updated by Huguette . Wed, 13 Sep 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 13 Sep 2017 #48
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 1889 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
re you saying that thought HAS “wants” but that there is no desire underlying the words expressing desire, or that thought has no wants, or ..... something else?

Thought IS want....perhaps. I perceive a big slice of chocolate cake. The perception is no problem...no 'me' is involved. It's thought/memory that creates the want. Just exploring this issue. I haven't concluded anything. Will come back to the rest of your reply later. I'm on a tablet and have difficulty typing as well as navagating the thread. Sorry if my message was confusing....I'm not clear about the questions we're looking into. Will come back to it later.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 13 Sep 2017 #49
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 532 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:

Wim Opdam wrote:

And still it's not clear if the connotation with the words 'search' ( Dutch: zoeken) and 'research' (Dutch: opzoeken) is in english the same is not answered.

Wim, the word "research" is usually used in an academic sense - especially 'scientific research'. It is a study of existing facts and theories, with the end in view of coming up with some "new conclusion", new idea, perhaps new fact or theory. (And get awarded a PhD or some other letters after your name in the process).

Research is exclusively concerned with knowledge, it is study of a fragment, and not the whole.

So are we except the usually use of the word without even consider the possibility of wrong interpretation. ??

Is this not the great danger to accept the common explination ??

I, being an outsider, seeing some aspects within the English as well in the Dutch language, like the use of 're' before and 'ing' after a noun or verb and also an autodidact for your native language, can see something fresh ??

To me it seems that the adding 're' before' is giving the notion of repetition of where it's pointing to and 'ing' after is giving the pointing to a dynamic energy to it, I belief you call it even 'active present'.

So if you say search without a goal in sight is what K. is pointing to I asked myself is reseach not a better way to express this , now I'm even say it would linguistic correct to say: ' researching'.

I realize this is not usually used nor in the English language nor in the Dutch language, but it would express clear what was ment, isn't it ??

Is this not also included in the quest of how the mind works,
not accept anything and look into it yourself ??

Is giving some words a clear meaning not cleansing your mind from some disorder ??

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, 13 Sep 2017 #50
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 1889 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
As I see it, there is a fundamental desire, inborn to every human being - a living “flame” (as I call it but call it something else) which is not rooted in time/thought. This "desire" is a longing for freedom, fulfilment, well-being. None of these words (freedom etc.) capture the actuality of that fundamental desire, but that’s as close to describing it as I can come.

The way we live, with perpetual conflict, it's no wonder there's a desire for well-being. I'm not sure that that desire is 'fundamental', however. The small child doesn't have it. They're too busy exploring the life all around them....which is all new to them. I recall being with a very little girl when a cat walked into her field of view. "A cat!", she exclaimed with such joy apparent in her eyes and her voice. This event was so extraordinary to her. She didn't seek out some future state of well being, but was living it ....was fully alive...already. :)

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 14 Sep 2017 #51
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3646 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
And this mind, this conglomerate which is located in the brain, has been conditioned by its upbringing to believe that it is subservient to a separate, independent “me” which is NOT part of the brain. No? Isn’t it the brain, thought or the mind which does and doesn’t want? Doesn’t the brain/mind/thought say “I want” or “I don’t want”? Are we to deny the "what-isness" of desire?

“ And this mind, this conglomerate which is located in the brain, has been conditioned by its upbringing to believe that it is subservient to a separate, independent “me” which is NOT part of the brain. No?
Isn’t it the brain, thought or the mind which does and doesn’t want? Doesn’t the brain/mind/thought say “I want” or “I don’t want”? Are we to deny the "what-isness" of desire?etc.

But in actual fact, there is only the conditioning, is there not? Only a set of neurons which have been organised in certain ways by experience, by reacting to experience/sensation, And that organisation of the brain cells has become, to some extent, frozen (not denying that there is a certain amount of modification going on all the time). And this frozen pattern is conditioning.

So in this description of what goes on in the brain, there is no need to postulate an “I” at all, is there? The concept of I is merely part of the conditioning. A concept that sort of feeds on itself. Language itself has encapsulated this concept, and makes it difficult to think without it.

H: “ I want freedom, I want to tease, I want to disobey or obey, I want to be happy, successful, I want to always be DOING something”

But in all these cases, is there any substance to this “I”? Does it really exist, or is there only the brain cells conditioned into the state of wanting?

H: “ So perhaps we have to ask what desire IS? ”

And ask is there desire without the concept of a desirer? This is a genuine question, not a rhetorical one.

H: “But I don’t WANT to give it up because it is a frightening prospect. ”

Or to put it a different way, because the mind has found a certain security in the patterns that it has created and functions in, no? Or rather, it thinks it has found a certain security. That security is actually an illusion, it has to be defended all the time, it is in continual danger of collapse.

Can it be seen as a complete illusion? And if it is so seen, will the mind drop, let go of, the patterns it has created in its search for security? And what might it mean, for the mind to “let go of” anything, if that anything is frozen into the patterns of the brain cells, is part of the physical structure of the brain?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 14 Sep 2017 #52
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3646 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Isn’t there an inborn “flame” in each human heart which longs for … there is no word that exactly expresses it … something like happiness or fulfilment, well-being. Isn’t there? And any desire “we” have (the mind has) is rooted in this inborn longing or desire, isn’t it? But is it corrupted by conditioning, self-ignorance and duality? So that, in "our" ignorance of what the human being is, "we" want (the mind wants) instead to tease, to disobey or obey, to hurt, to impress, to control, to be powerful and successful, to be occupied, to have pleasure, and so on.

Although I have no answer to this question, and do not know how to proceed with it - if there IS any proceeding - I did not want to let it just pass by. So I am making this post to reinforce the question in the mind, and will see what comes, if anything.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 14 Sep 2017 #53
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3646 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
With respect to your opening question - why don't we give our whole heart, mind, to the enquiry - it occurs to me, Clive, that maybe we ARE.... If we are looking for results, if we have expectations, we may conclude that we are NOT giving our whole heart and mind.
So I'm not saying we ARE. I'm saying MAYBE we are. Who can say we are NOT? I just wanted to say it.

And I am glad that you said it. (I will just mention that it was Juan's question originally, although he has not joined in the discussion around it). I think your point is very valid, the question implies a sort of measurement, and such measurement, comparison, is based around outcomes

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 14 Sep 2017 #54
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3646 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
This question of desire IS crucial, isn’t it? ..... etc

Are you suggesting, Huguette, that there is a fundamental desire that is an expression of life itself?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 15 Sep 2017 #55
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 1889 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Huguette . wrote:

This question of desire IS crucial, isn’t it? ..... etc
Are you suggesting, Huguette, that there is a fundamental desire that is an expression of life itself?

Isn't it that we desire fulfillment when we suffer...and the desire is for the suffering to end. Therefore we want to escape the suffering. Not judging this as wrong, but this fundamental desire you're speaking about is the desire to end suffering, as I see it. Therefore we never look at the suffering itself, because we want it to end. Or it's a desire for some experience that is based upon the known. But I dont know freedom, so how can I desire that...which is unknown...which is beyond the 'me'?

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Fri, 15 Sep 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 15 Sep 2017 #56
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 366 posts in this forum Offline

52:

Huguette . wrote:

As I see it, there is a fundamental desire, inborn to every human being - a living “flame” (as I call it but call it something else) which is not rooted in time/thought. This "desire" is a longing for freedom, fulfilment, well-being. None of these words (freedom etc.) capture the actuality of that fundamental desire, but that’s as close to describing it as I can come.

Tom Paine wrote:

The way we live, with perpetual conflict, it's no wonder there's a desire for well-being. I'm not sure that that desire is 'fundamental', however. The small child doesn't have it. They're too busy exploring the life all around them....which is all new to them. I recall being with a very little girl when a cat walked into her field of view. "A cat!", she exclaimed with such joy apparent in her eyes and her voice. This event was so extraordinary to her. She didn't seek out some future state of well being, but was living it ....was fully alive...already. :)

I understand what you’re saying, Tom. But isn’t that same child who is filled with wonder going to feel hurt, be psychologically scarred, when she is yelled at, teased, ridiculed, told that she is bad (perhaps over and over again), and so on? Won’t tears come to her eyes? Though she will cry when a toy is taken from her, being deprived of a toy does not leave a mark or scar on the tender heart of a child, does it - unless it is also done violently, meanly? Psychological violence - being yelled at, told she is bad etc. - DOES leave a mark in her consciousness, doesn’t it?

The hurt she experiences from psychological violence is not based on thought or idea, is it? The hurt of being deprived of her toy, if it is done without violence - IS rooted in thought, isn’t it? “It’s not fair!”

With psychological violence, there is no thought of “it’s not fair!”, is there? There is just hurt. So isn’t there a natural “desire” NOT to feel hurt - which is NOT rooted in thought? One desire that is NOT rooted in thought, and a desire that IS rooted in thought. I say “desire” for both because I don’t know what other word to use for "desire" NOT rooted in thought. But they are not the same process or phenomenon, are they?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 15 Sep 2017 #57
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 366 posts in this forum Offline

58:

Huguette . wrote:
This question of desire IS crucial, isn’t it? ..... etc

Clive Elwell wrote:
Are you suggesting, Huguette, that there is a fundamental desire that is an expression of life itself?

Tom Paine wrote:
Isn't it that we desire fulfillment when we suffer...and the desire is for the suffering to end. Therefore we want to escape the suffering. Not judging this as wrong, but this fundamental desire you're speaking about is the desire to end suffering, as I see it. Therefore we never look at the suffering itself, because we want it to end. Or it's a desire for some experience that is based upon the known. But I dont know freedom, so how can I desire that...which is unknown...which is beyond the 'me'?

Where there is being, there is awareness. Where there is awareness, there is being. The 2 are inseparable, aren’t they?

If someone is thrown into a dungeon, being does not want it …. not as a thought, not as a reaction of the past ….. as a fact. Isn’t it so? “Self” may think about it, rage against it, resign itself to it, but this is not what I’m talking about. There is a “desire” to be free, a discontent, which is not formulated by thought. Isn’t there? Maybe “discontent” says it better than “desire”.

If someone is living life wholly bound and governed by idea, belief, superstition, desire, motive, societal pressure, there is also a discontent of being and awareness of it, isn’t there?

Discontent is not rooted in thought. It is the spontaneous action of being, the human being, the wolf being, the ant being, and so on. To dismiss the fact of the discontent as merely thought, to deny its existence, to attribute it to thought is itself thought, isn't it?

The human being is more than thought alone, isn't he? Beyond thought is awareness, and through awareness, intelligence, love, compassion ..... discontent. No? I'm questioning it, not declaring it to be so.

This post was last updated by Huguette . Fri, 15 Sep 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 15 Sep 2017 #58
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 1889 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:

Discontent is not rooted in thought. It is the spontaneous action of being, the human being, the wolf being, the ant being, and so on. To dismiss the fact of the discontent as merely thought, to deny its existence, to attribute it to thought is itself thought, isn't it?

The human being is more than thought alone, isn't he? Beyond thought is awareness, and through awareness, intelligence, love, compassion ..... discontent. No? I'm questioning it, not declaring it to be so.

I understand what you're getting at Huguette, thanks for clarifying. To speak of discontent makes more sense than to speak of a 'desire' for freedom or happiness. But, yes, all the hurt and violence in the world feels wrong on a deep gut level. I saw/felt this deeply as a young child. I recall the first time I found out about the Holocaust when a newsreel came on the TV one night. The feeling was even far beyond discontent. It was I was almost praying that I was having a nightmare and that I would soon wake up. I couldn't believe...face.... that this was the actual reality. That humans did this. Will come back to this later, time permitting. Have to start breakfast.

Maybe “discontent” says it better than “desire”.

Yes...thanks.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Fri, 15 Sep 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 15 Sep 2017 #59
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 1889 posts in this forum Offline

Here's the QOTD from K., which touches on what we were discussing. Is K implying that you and I ....and the young child I/you once was....are responsible for Hitler and the Holocaust?

"What is the relationship between yourself and the misery, the confusion in and around you? Surely this confusion, this misery did not come into being by itself. You and I have created it, not a capitalist or a communist or a fascist society, but you and I have created it in our relationship with each other. What you are within has been projected without, onto the world; what you are, what you think and what you feel, what you do in your everyday existence, is projected outwardly and that constitutes the world. If we are miserable, confused, chaotic within, by projection that becomes the world, that becomes society, because the relationship between yourself and myself, between myself and another is society - society is the product of our relationship - and if our relationship is confused, egocentric, narrow, limited, national, we project that and bring chaos into the world."

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Fri, 15 Sep 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 15 Sep 2017 #60
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3646 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
To me it seems that the adding 're' before' is giving the notion of repetition of where it's pointing to and 'ing' after is giving the pointing to a dynamic energy to it, I belief you call it even 'active present'.

From the dictionary:

“re”:

a prefix, occurring originally in loanwords from Latin, used with the meaning “again” or “again and again” to indicate repetition, or with the meaning “back” or “backward” to indicate withdrawal or backward motion: eg regenerate; refurbish; retype; retrace; revert.

It is hard to explain the word "revolution" (in society) in this way, though, and some other words beginning in "re"

Wim Opdam wrote:
Is giving some words a clear meaning not cleansing your mind from some disorder ??

I have come to the conclusion that it is impossible to tie words down precisely. The best we can do, perhaps, is to ensure that two people are using a word in the same sense at a particular time and place

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 31 - 60 of 69 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.)