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

All one inquiry


Displaying posts 721 - 750 of 795 in total
Fri, 05 Jul 2019 #721
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5098 posts in this forum Offline

In the excerpt below, K asks the question "When does your thought function?" And he replies immediately "When you are protecting yourself, isn't it?

I had never quite seen thought this way. It needs watching.

Question: Please explain clearly what part memory has in our life. You seem to distinguish between two forms of memory. Actually, is there not only memory, which is our only means of consciousness, and that which makes us aware of time and space? Therefore, can we dispense with memory, as you seem to suggest?

Krishnamurti: Let us investigate the question anew. Let us forget what has been said, and let us try to find out what we mean. We said this morning that thought is a result of the past, which is an obvious fact; whether you like it or not, it is so. Thought is founded on the past. There can be no thought without being conscious; and, as I said, consciousness is a process of experiencing, terming, which is recording. That is what you do all the time: if you see that, (pointing to a tree) you call it a tree and name it, and you think you have had an experience. This process of naming is part of memory, is it not? And it is a very convenient way of experiencing. You think you have experienced a thing by naming it. You call me a Hindu, and you think you have understood all Hindus; I call you an American, and it is over. So we think we understand something by giving it a name. We give it a name in order to recognize it, as a species, or this or that; but that is not understanding, experiencing a thing. And we do it out of slackness - it is so much easier to dispense with people by giving them a name.

So, this process of experiencing, which is contact, sensation, desire, consciousness, identification, and experience - this process, with naming, is considered consciousness, isn't it? Part of that consciousness is awake, and the other part is dormant. The conscious mind, our everyday mind, the upper level of our mind is awake. The rest is sleeping. Now when we sleep, the conscious, upper mind, is silent; and therefore it is able to receive hints, intimations, translated as dreams, but which need further interpretation. Now, the questioner wants to know what we mean by memory, what is its function, and whether we can dispense with it. So, the question really is: What is the function of thought? Memory has no function apart from thinking. So, the question is, what is the function of thought? Can thought be divided at all? Is it to be dispensed with?

So, what is the function of thought? We say, thought is the response of memory, which it is; and memory is incomplete experience, termed and thought out for self-protection, and so on, and so on. Now, if thought is the result of memory, what function has thought in life? When do you use thought? I wonder if you have ever considered this? You use your thought when you want to go to your home, do you not? You think how to get to your place. This is one kind of thought. When does your thought function? When you are protecting yourself, isn't it? When you are seeking security: economic, social, psychological. Isn't that so? When you want to safeguard yourself. That is, thought functions when there is the urge for self-protection. When you are kind to another, is that a thought process? When you love another, is that a thought process? When you love another and use that love as a means of self-enrichment, then obviously, it is a thought process; then, it is no longer love. So, thought process comes into being when there is fear, when there is the desire to possess, when there is conflict - in other words, thought process comes into being when the self, the me, becomes important. Surely? Because, after all, thought is concerned with me; when the I, the me, predominates, then the thought process as self-protection begins. Otherwise you don't think, you are unaware of your thought process, are you not? It is only when there is conflict that you are aware of the thought process - either to protect or to discard, to accept or to deny.

Now, the questioner wants to know what part memory plays in our life. If we understand that the thought process begins only when the me becomes important, and that the me is important only when there is the desire to safeguard itself, then we see that most of our life is spent in safeguarding ourselves. Therefore, thought has a very important part in our life; because most of us are concerned with ourselves. Most of us are concerned with how to protect ourselves, how to gain, how to arrive, how to achieve, how to become more perfect, how to have this virtue and that virtue, how to discard, how to deny, how to be detached, how to find happiness, how to be more beautiful, how to love, how to be loved - you know how we are concerned with ourselves.

So, we are consumed in the thought process. We are the thought process. We are not separate from the thought. And thought is memory; how to be more of something. That is, when there is the urge to be the more or the less, the positive or the negative, then thought process comes into being. The thought process does not come into being when there is the recognition of what is. A fact does not demand a thought process; but if you want to avoid a fact, then the thought process begins. If I accept that I am what I am, then thought is not; but something else takes place when I accept what is. Quite a different process, which is not the process of thought, comes into being. So, as long as there is the desire for the more, or the less, there must be thought, there must be the process of memory. After all, if you want to be a very rich man, a powerful man, a popular man, or a man of God, if you want to become something, you must have memory. That is, you must think about it; the mind must constantly sharpen itself to become something.

Now, what part has that becoming in life? Surely, as long as we want to be something, there must be contention; as long as our desire, our urge, our pursuit, is to be the more, or to be the less - the positive or the negative - there must be strife, antagonism. But it is extremely arduous, extremely difficult, not to be the more or the less. Verbally you may throw it off and say, "I am nobody", but that is merely living on the verbal level, without much significance - it is empty-headedness. That is why one has to understand the thought process, which is consciousness; which means, the whole problem of time, of yesterday, of tomorrow. And a man who is caught in yesterday, can never understand that which is timeless. And most of us are caught in the net of time. Our thought is basically entangled in the net of time - it is the net of time. Our thought is the net of time; and with that thought process - educated, cultivated, sharpened, made keen, subtle - we want to find something that is beyond.

We go to one teacher after another, one hero after another, one Master after another. Our mind is sharpening itself on all these, and thereby hopes to find that which is beyond. But, thought can never find that which is beyond, because thought is the result of time, and that which is of the known, cannot receive the unknown. Therefore, the man who is entangled in the known is never creative; he may have moments of creativeness, as some painters do, some musicians, some writers; but they get entangled in the known - popularity, money, a hundred other things; and then they are lost. And that is why those who are trying to understand themselves - not to find, because that is a wrong process, you cannot find - , must cease to search. All that you can do is understand yourself, understand the intricacies, the extraordinary subtlety of your thought and your being. And that can be understood only in relationship, which is action; and that action is denied when relationship is based on an idea; then relationship is mere activity, it is not action; and activity merely dulls the mind and the heart. It is only action that makes the mind alert and the heart subtle, so that it is capable of receiving, of being sensitive. That is why it is important that there be self-knowledge, before you seek. If you seek, you will find, but it will not be the truth.

Therefore, this craze, this fear, this anxiety to arrive, to search out, to find, must end; then, with self-knowledge, ever wide and deep, there comes that sense of reality which cannot be invited. It comes into being and only then is there creative happiness.

July 17, 1949.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 07 Jul 2019 #722
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1310 posts in this forum Offline

Group Discussion 23rd December, 1947 | Madras, India

"What is the nature of the enclosing wall around you, which gives you psychological protection in relation to your neighbour, your wife and your society? The wall you build around yourself psychologically consists of the values you give to things made either by the hand or by the mind, i.e. of your ideation. These values are merely the outcome of the pleasure or the pain felt by you through your senses, i.e. the outcome of sensory values. They have no substance behind them except the significance or value you give them. In protecting yourself outwardly, you say you can use the outward things to protect you inwardly. You can use property as a means of psychological protection. Property in itself is just a piece of land which can give you food; you give that property a significance which it has not, and with that significance you protect yourself."

This touched me strongly this morning ...it was new for me and seemed remarkably clear. I wrote these thoughts:

When "significance" (importance?) is given to one's thoughts, the direction,say, of one's thinking; then there is 'identification'. When that significance is 'withdrawn', the identification ceases and there is just 'thinking'. Giving significance or importance to one's thoughts necessitates their continuation because if there is interest in what one's next thought will be, that interest creates a demand for the thinking to continue to 'see how it comes out' or develops...It is an interesting experiment to withdraw (not attach) any significance or importance to the present thoughts one is having...like watching the river flow, flowers in the breeze, birds in flight etc. Does 'identification' with one's thinking occur when one attaches significance to it? Thought itself, even when guided by intelligence has no intrinsic "value" other than the value that thought itself assigns to it...? Psychological thought, when given value and significance, creates identification and the 'enclosing wall'!

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sun, 07 Jul 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 07 Jul 2019 #723
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5098 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
These values are merely the outcome of the pleasure or the pain felt by you through your senses, i.e. the outcome of sensory values.

This is very remarkable, and perhaps most people would never accept it. I have been reading similar statements when he spoke in Ojai the following year.

Yes, once again I am pointed to how mechanical the brain is, ie how governed by the pleasure/pain principle. I have been asking myself, as long as the mind is dictated to by this principle, dominated by it, can it even be rational? Can it make rational decisions, can it act as is necessary? Looking at the world as it is, it seems the answer is a clear "no".

(It can be rational in small, specialised areas, as in the field of technology. But not in its relationships, when the self-protective movements of the self always seem to dominate)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 07 Jul 2019 #724
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5098 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Giving significance or importance to one's thoughts necessitates their continuation because if there is interest in what one's next thought will be, that interest creates a demand for the thinking to continue to 'see how it comes out' or develops..

This seems right, Dan.

Dan McDermott wrote:
Thought itself, even when guided by intelligence has no intrinsic "value" other than the value that thought itself assigns to it...?

But would you not say that the "value" of thought lies in protecting the body, and organising the supply of what the body need to continue - ie food, shelter, clothing?

And this question comes - does such activity by thought imply identification with the body? Hmmm ... probably a certain amount of identification IS necessary, just to live.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 07 Jul 2019 #725
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1310 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
But would you not say that the "value" of thought lies in protecting the body, and organising the supply of what the body need to continue - ie food, shelter, clothing?

Yes I think that is the point: thought has value when it is concerned with taking care of 'business', survival, invention, the technical...what I think K. is getting at here is that psychological thought has no value at all. It is 'noise'. But when given 'significance' in the case of beliefs, ideals, memories, nationalism, religions etc. it creates and solidifies the psychological barriers between us. I found this to be a powerful realization. Thank you for picking up on it Clive.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 07 Jul 2019 #726
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5098 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
.what I think K. is getting at here is that psychological thought has no value at all.

The implications of this are rather incredible, aren't they? Thinking now of all those books, endless shelves in libraries, in bookshops ..... thinking of philosophy,sociology, even perhaps psychology .... "self-help books .... all the knowledge, on the internet, in human consciousness .... all that human activity in the psyche ..... all useless? All without meaning?

Of course psychological knowledge is far worse that useless. Not only does it have no value at all, it is highly destructive. I think we would all accept that here, without argument. With its identifications it has bought the human race to its present position, on the edge of a great chasm.

So can we say that practical knowledge, useful, essential for human survival, has somehow "switched" to psychological knowledge? Obviously a great disaster. The "wrong turn"?

This post was last updated by Clive Elwell Sun, 07 Jul 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 08 Jul 2019 #727
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2639 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Of course psychological knowledge is far worse that useless. Not only does it have no value at all, it is highly destructive.

Yes. It’s division....like all the other divisions....nationalism, racial, religious, economic, class, etc.

I think we would all accept that here, without argument. With its identifications it has bought the human race to its present position, on the edge of a great chasm.

So can we say that practical knowledge, useful, essential for human survival, has somehow "switched" to psychological knowledge? Obviously a great disaster. The "wrong turn"?

It’s the denial of love, isn’t it?

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 08 Jul 2019 #728
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1310 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
So can we say that practical knowledge, useful, essential for human survival, has somehow "switched" to psychological knowledge? Obviously a great disaster. The "wrong turn"?

I think that's it. We do need thought to communicate verbally with one another...but the 'thinking', for example, that my prayers and sacrifices to the 'corn god' will maybe get me a better crop brought a 'new' idea ( and a 'takeover' of the human psyche?) into this world of Mankind: that something invisible behind the scene was orchestrating what was going on here and that I could 'petition' that 'something' or 'someone' to look upon me (and mine) with favor...so something , in this case the 'corn god' was given great significance and value in my own, and other's thought. The rituals of petition, prayer and sacrifice became more and more elaborate...and this has all come down to us today.

And we perpetuate it in different ways as 'manifestations' of the 'stream' of human consciousness?

And as k. is suggesting, by giving value or significance to what psychological thought adopts or is attracted to?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Mon, 08 Jul 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 09 Jul 2019 #729
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5098 posts in this forum Offline

I am not sure just how much of the passage below to quote. The whole quation/answer in from Ojai 1949 Talk 4 . The whole talk can be found at:
http://jiddu-krishnamurti.net/en/1949/1949-07-24-jiddu-krishnamurti-4th-public-talk

The question asked does not give much clue to the reply, but it was:

Question: I have been a member of various religious organizations, but you have destroyed them all. I am utterly bored, and work because hunger forces me to it. It is difficult to get up in the morning, and I have no interest in life. I realize I am merely existing from day to day, without any human sense of value; but I can feel no spark of enthusiasm for anything. I am afraid to commit suicide. What on earth am I to do? (Laughter

Here is the excerpt:

……… We say, "I am lonely, I am in despair; I am this, I want to understand it." That is, we establish a relationship between ourselves and that thing which we call loneliness, emptiness, by giving it a name. I hope you understand what I am talking about. By verbalizing our relationship to it, we give it a neurological as well as a psychological significance. But, if we do not name it, but merely regard it, look at it, then we shall have a different relationship to it; then it is not away from us, it is us. We say, for example, "I am afraid of it." Fear exists only in relationship to something; that something comes into being when we curb it, when we give it a name, as being lonely. Therefore, there is the feeling that you and that loneliness are two separate things. But is that so? You, the observer, are observing the fact, which you term as being lonely. Is the observer different from the thing which he observes? It is different only as long as he gives it a name; but if you do not give it a name, the observer is the observed. The name, the term, acts only to divide; and then you have to battle with that thing. But, if there is no division, if there is an integration between the observer and the observed, which exists only when there is no naming - you can try this out and you will see - , then the sense of fear is entirely gone. It is fear that is preventing you from looking at this when you say, you are empty, you are this, you are that, you are in despair. And fear exists only as memory, which comes when you term; but when you are capable of looking at it without terming, then, surely, that thing is yourself ……..

If I may summarise the passage very briefly, K is saying the reason for the thinker/thought division, the division which is so fundamental to the thought process, is a result of naming. I don’t know if I am over-simplifying, but this seems to be the essence of it.

“Is the observer different from the thing which he observes? It is different only as long as he gives it a name; but if you do not give it a name, the observer is the observed. ”

I do not know if I have ever looked at the observer/observed issue in this light. Is it so? On the surface it seems so simple. There seems no point in questioning (probing) this intellectually, obviously I just need to look. Easier said than done!

But I am sharing the question with others; maybe someone has some insight to share.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 09 Jul 2019 #730
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5098 posts in this forum Offline

As I said, I do not want to turn the question posed above into an intellectual discussion purely. But this question comes strongly:

Is this the very origin of the self?

Did the self appear when the human brain, cortex, had developed enough complexity to start giving names (abstractions) to things? Did it HAVE TO do this, this separation, once naming had started?

Was this the wrong turning?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 09 Jul 2019 #731
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2639 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Did the self appear when the human brain, cortex, had developed enough complexity to start giving names (abstractions) to things?

The tree was named because it had edible fruit and wood for building shelter. I don’t think the self must result from this kind of naming.

Did it HAVE TO do this, this separation, once naming had started?

Naming is based upon memory and divides yes. I eat the apple and give it a name....and value....it’s good.

Was this the wrong turning?

Not what I’ve so far described, I don’t think. There’s no ‘me’ yet. But naming is also applied to ‘you’ making you appear as an object in consciousness ....and to myself....making ‘me’ appear as an object in consciousness. And I begin to ascribe value to you....good or bad....like vs dislike. Is that the beginning of the wrong turn? Just questioning...investigating...

What do you say? Anyone...

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Tue, 09 Jul 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 10 Jul 2019 #732
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5098 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
The tree was named because it had edible fruit and wood for building shelter. I don’t think the self must result from this kind of naming.

What is the consequence, or consequences, of giving a name to a tree? One that I see is to separate the tree from its background, no? We now say that the tree "exists". That is an interesting word, because i read that its root meaning is to "stand out". So with a name, the tree stands out from its background, from its environment. We regard it as having its own separate existence. Separate from the forest, separate from the sky, the earth. Separate from the universe. And perhaps most significantly, separate from ME, the name-er.

Another example. Say our early human being, starting out on this naming journey. Say as a hunter he had not been very interested in the soil. So it was an amorphous mass to him. He would not see the details of things that exist in the soil, the tiny creatures, the fine roots, the different sorts of minerals. But as a farmer, would he not start to notice the differences?

Having a thought about something, having knowledge, DOES effect how we see that thing - it has been demonstrated scientifically, I read this recently.

I suggest when we look without naming, then there is no separation from what is looked at. There is observing, without an observer.

So does not a name imply there has been a name-er?

I had more to say, but not feeling too well at the moment.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 10 Jul 2019 #733
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2639 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
So does not a name imply there has been a name-er?

Yes...memory and experience. Very valuable when you need to make breakfast. But is this kind of practical use of memory the 'self'? K certainly used memory all the time...taking a plane, driving the Mercedes, brushing his teeth. Take care Clive...hope you're feeling better soon. The excerpt from 1949 you posted above is certainly worthy of further discussion. At the moment I'm still processing it. It's really the crucial element in the 'teaching', I think.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 11 Jul 2019 #734
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5098 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Take care Clive...hope you're feeling better soon.

Thanks for your concern, Tom. I am still rather ill at the moment, feeling very weak, aching, and I am keeping mostly to my bed. Interestingly, I am feeling that the issue is not "getting better" but accepting the illness. Not resisting it in any way, not wanting to transcend it.Living it through all its 'stages'.

Yes, illness has the virtue of putting you much more in the present (let us hope that death does the same thing :-) ). From that vantage of the present I am seeing that to live in a mind that is almost perpetually divided in itself is pure insanity. But that is what,overwhelmingly, what the human race does. It is conditioned to do so, in fact.

So I think that you are right, when you write about the K quote I posted "It's really the crucial element in the 'teaching', I think."

I turn back to K's original words, and once again quote a portion:

We say, for example, "I am afraid of it." Fear exists only in relationship to something; that something comes into being when we curb it, when we give it a name, as being lonely. Therefore, there is the feeling that you and that loneliness are two separate things. But is that so? You, the observer, are observing the fact, which you term as being lonely. Is the observer different from the thing which he observes? It is different only as long as he gives it a name; but if you do not give it a name, the observer is the observed. The name, the term, acts only to divide; and then you have to battle with that thing. But, if there is no division, if there is an integration between the observer and the observed, which exists only when there is no naming - you can try this out and you will see - , then the sense of fear is entirely gone.

I don't think one can prove or disprove this intellectually. Only observation within oneself will reveal the the truth, or otherwise, no?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 12 Jul 2019 #735
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5098 posts in this forum Offline

I was watching a part of a film, of a Maori tanga, funeral. Quite a group at a traditional Marie. There was solemn and mournful singing. A sense of people coming together to share grief. Absorbing the ethos of the scene, I started to cry.

The thing was, I WAS that scene. I had been completely absorbed into it. There had been no naming, only experiencing, and so - as I put it before - any sense of “selfhood” was contained in what was being observed -no, I take that back, it was contained in the observing. But there is no need to bring in the word “self” at all.

Trouble is language insists that there is an “I” experiencing all this. But that is a lie, that is utterly false.

To describe the scene, to put words on it, it seems that there needs to be a “stepping back” from it. There needs to be a ‘describer’. Which is, separation from it. This is the separation into observer/observed, is it not?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 12 Jul 2019 #736
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1310 posts in this forum Offline

From the QOTD:

K." But to be aware, in our relationship how cruel we are, thoughtless, callous, self-enclosed, is very painful, and being conscious of the immediate pain which direct awareness brings, we would rather think of, or be aware of the universal consciousness, whatever that may mean, which again is a form of escape from the actual, from what is."

I asked myself why is direct awareness painful? Is it the seeing of our smallness, pettiness, fear etc.? Is it that the human brain is capable of 'receiving' and 'radiating' the 'higher', the 'finer' and we see ourselves 'trapped' in the 'lower', the 'coarser'? Like the animals? The qualities of Love, Intelligence, Compassion, 'available' to us but we "hang back with the brutes"? Is that why we avoid seeing what we are, because the truth gives the lie to what we 'think' we are? Are we born with this possibility to resonate to those higher qualities but stay 'encased' in fear and ignorance of what we are? K. has said "beauty is dangerous". It seems that the 'self' with its 'center aspires to those qualities but they can only ever be partial and circumscribed...As has been said "where the self is, the 'other' is not".

Is the 'danger' of Love, that it has no boundaries? Is the 'fear' of Compassion, that it draws no line?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Fri, 12 Jul 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 12 Jul 2019 #737
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5098 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
I asked myself why is direct awareness painful? ......

IS direct awareness painful? I guess we have to ask: "what is direct awareness?" Does "direct" imply: with the interpretation of the word? Without an observer?

If WE ARE that which is observed, without separation, is there then pain? Is there an entity that can feel the pain, the conflict?

I know I keep pushing this, but is it not a central part of K's teachings?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 12 Jul 2019 #738
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1310 posts in this forum Offline

Direct awareness reveals the wall we have built around us. It reveals the sham, the facade we show to the world. K is saying I think, go through the pain of resisting seeing what you are. Because if we don't see the 'masks', there can never be a 'going beyond' them. We have enclosed ourselves...but we are not the 'enclosure'.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 14 Jul 2019 #739
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5098 posts in this forum Offline

It has been a long journey. A long journey of self-discovery, self-learning, much of it through the words of Krishnamurti. But one discovers on the route that all maps have to be discarded. Maps always eventually become in conflict with what is.

There remains a fundamental question (not that I gathered any answers en route) about why the human mind (which is my mind, there is no question about that) remains in conflict with itself. At all levels. Of course this manifests in its relationships, and in the violent societies that mind has produced, but I am at the moment feeling it in the very closest way. Why does one thought always seems to oppose another thought? For every thought there is a counter-thought. For every desire there is an opposing desire. For every observation of “what is” in the mind, a “should be” arises.

Why is there a division, and hence conflict, between the observer and the observed? Between me and it?

“Why” does not indicate a philosophical pursuit. It is clearly insane that consciousness is perpetually divided this way, and anyone who even slightly serious must ask why this is – and if the division can end?

In conventional terms, I don’t see any solution. If “I” try to impose a solution on the mind, that again is division, that is more division, more of the same. Any assertion brings about a counter-assertion. But somehow, it has to stop. Is there another question which is more important than this?

Why won’t the human mind budge on this? Why won’t it learn? Is it that it is incapable of learning?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 14 Jul 2019 #740
Thumb_avatar Manfred Kritzler Germany 25 posts in this forum Offline

I think the question could be:
Is the seeing of the division that thought creates in choiceless awareness the end of the division and does this include the seeing when we live not in choiceless awareness?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 14 Jul 2019 #741
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1310 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Why does one thought always seems to oppose another thought?

On the General Forum, Sean put up a video of K discussing the source of thought. What I saw this morning is that the reason that thought is seemingly always active is that it 'thinks' it knows or at least that there is a possibility of knowing. And it can know in the technical, scientific fields... but in the psychological, does it 'know' anything or does it just think that it knows or that is can know something? It has 'named' the world and as a result thinks that it 'knows' it. But the 'names' were just placed on things to differentiate them but is there any significant difference at all or just parts of a whole? As K. demonstrated in the talk, thought becomes active if it feels it can search and provide an answer. But in the case where it is known that it does not have an answer, it will be silent as in the 'state of not-knowing'. A terrifying state it seems. And rather than remain silent in that state, thought would prefer to make up or imagine an answer: speculate.

Belief is a big part of this isn't it? Thought can be active around an unproven belief. It can elaborate it, write books about it, etc. all rather than "I don't know"

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sun, 14 Jul 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 14 Jul 2019 #742
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2639 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Why does one thought always seems to oppose another thought? For every thought there is a counter-thought. For every desire there is an opposing desire. For every observation of “what is” in the mind, a “should be” arises.

Because each assertion contains its opposite? The notion of good is dependent upon the notion of bad....right vs wrong....me vs not me. And desire creates fear and vise versa. Thought is always fragmented this way by its very nature. It can never be anything but fragments. And one fragment is always divided from the others obviously. Is this the cause of conflict....thought never being whole? I’m just exploring....questioning.

Why is there a division, and hence conflict, between the observer and the observed? Between me and it?

Thought is the observer.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 14 Jul 2019 #743
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1310 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Thought is always fragmented this way by its very nature. It can never be anything but fragments

And to certain thoughts 'significance' or 'valuation' is assigned. But in the psychological is that a misunderstanding? In the practical or technical realm one thought may have significance or value relating to the challenge it is addressing. Does thought carry that over into the psychological and assign value to this or that (and be active) when actually silence is what is called for?

K." Every thought which is really the result of the past is a distraction. When the mind realises that thinking itself is a distraction it also realises the futility of thinking. You have only your mind at your disposal and you have been depending only on it for all your understanding; and now you realise that that too is undependable."

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sun, 14 Jul 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 14 Jul 2019 #744
Thumb_avatar Manfred Kritzler Germany 25 posts in this forum Offline

Dan: But the 'names' were just placed on things to differentiate them but is there any significant difference at all or just parts of a whole?
————-
The question for me is, do we start with the named as base of life or is the base the whole and the parts are created or man-made on a secondary level.

When we start with the named we have to put the parts together to get a whole.

When we start with the whole the whole exists as basis no matter what part of it we recognize or create. Whatever it is, it is something created by us as human beings. Although we can only see the parts the whole is always there. In a certain way the parts are parts and wholeness at the same moment.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 14 Jul 2019 #745
Thumb_avatar Manfred Kritzler Germany 25 posts in this forum Offline

Dan: But the 'names' were just placed on things to differentiate them but is there any significant difference at all or just parts of a whole?
————-
Manfred:The question for me is, do we start with the named as base of life or is the base the whole and the parts are created or man-made on a secondary level.

When we start with the named we have to put the parts together to get a whole.

When we start with the whole the whole exists as basis no matter what part of it we recognize or create. Whatever it is, it is something created by us as human beings. Although we can only see the parts the whole is always there. In a certain way the parts are parts and wholeness at the same moment.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 14 Jul 2019 #746
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2639 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
And to certain thoughts 'significance' or 'valuation' is assigned. But in the psychological is that a misunderstanding?

Yes! It’s still division....the so-called higher divided from the lower.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 14 Jul 2019 #747
Thumb_avatar Manfred Kritzler Germany 25 posts in this forum Offline

Dan: But the 'names' were just placed on things to differentiate them but is there any significant difference at all or just parts of a whole?
————-
Manfred:The question for me is, do we start with the named as base of life or is the base the whole and the parts are created or man-made on a secondary level.

When we start with the named we have to put the parts together to get a whole.

When we start with the whole the whole exists as basis no matter what part of it we recognize or create. Whatever it is, it is something created by us as human beings. Although we can only see the parts the whole is always there. In a certain way the parts are parts and wholeness at the same moment.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 14 Jul 2019 #748
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2639 posts in this forum Offline

Manfred Kritzler wrote:
When we start with the whole the whole exists as basis no matter what part of it we recognize or create.

How do you start with the whole when fragments are present in consciousness?

Whatever it is, it is something created by us as human beings. Although we can only see the parts the whole is always there.

On what basis are you making that assertion? It’s logical of course, but logic is still thought...not whole.

In a certain way the parts are parts and wholeness at the same moment

Can you explain how my image of you is more than a part or fragment based upon memory and experience? It’s certainly not the whole ‘you ‘....it’s not you at all.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Sun, 14 Jul 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 14 Jul 2019 #749
Thumb_avatar Manfred Kritzler Germany 25 posts in this forum Offline

How do you start with the whole when fragments are present in consciousness?
——————
When we ask what is necessary for us to live, could it be that for the smallest part of us the universe is inevitable?
Or is this chain of necessity wrong:
cell, finger, hand, arm, body, earth, our solar system, our galaxy, the universe.

If a cell of our body is dependent to the universe, how can we see it as separate and think that anything we know about the cell is correct? We could do that when we know how the universe is functioning. But as long as we don’t know that, we have to work with assumptions.

One assumption is that only this exists what we as human beings can recognize with our senses or thought.

The other assumption is, that there is unity which can not be grasped by senses or thought.

Both are assumptions which cannot be proved by science at the moment.

So we have to make a decision what assumption is more logical. We only can do it by logic and then try out if it works. For my understanding and experience it is more logical to let together what is dependent on each other and see the differences only as different appearances of one whole, but not “per se” as separate. The result of this assumption is a paradox. Whatever is seen as a different appearance of the whole and not as a separation is the whole and the appearance at the same moment.

I don’t say it is correct or the truth, but for me it is one possibility of approximation.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 14 Jul 2019 #750
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1310 posts in this forum Offline

Manfred Kritzler wrote:
I don’t say it is correct or the truth, but for me it is one possibility of approximation.

I think that I do something similar but questioning: when the tree is in front of me I see it, I don;t have to assume its presence it is there for my senses. But if I mentally associate the tree with everything else, that is not a fact for me, that is a theory about 'wholeness' or 'oneness' isn't it? Since I can't see that 'wholeness' as you say, I have to 'assume' that it is there, logically deduce that there is such a thing as 'oneness'...but is this just a form of escape from the state of "I don't know"? We don't know anything other than 'what is'...why is that not sufficient, the 'not-knowing' and just leave it there? Why is it necessary to assume some connection with the universe, etc? Is it just another 'belief' to avoid the suffering of not knowing? Just questioning...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 721 - 750 of 795 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.)