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

Desire


Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 167 in total
Wed, 11 Dec 2019 #1
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3103 posts in this forum Offline

Clive and I were discussing the subject of desire on another thread yesterday and I thought the issue worthy of its own thread. Maybe we can discuss this issue which is such a powerful factor in our lives. From Ojai... May 11, 1980, 4th public talk:

So we are asking whether this pattern of existence in which the brain has established itself, seeking security, because that is the primary need for the brain, to be completely secure; whether that security is in an illusion, or in some fanciful idea, or some romantic concept, or in an image, spiritual, religious, and all that kind of thing, or the image that you have about your wife, or your husband, or your boy friend, or girl friend, or boy friend, and all that business. So the brain is always trying to find security because it is only then that it can function somewhat skilfully. This pattern has been put together by desire; first by thought, by desire, through attachment, through greed, and though it is caught in fear it seems incapable of escaping from that, or overcoming that, or being free from it. If you will kindly examine these three things together; that is, desire, though we examined together yesterday and in the previous talks, the whole movement of thought; desire, greed, attachment, fear. That's the pattern in which we are caught. And is it possible to break this pattern? Please enquire together with the speaker. That is, let's think over the matter together. Not that I am explaining and you are accepting, or you are rejecting and so on, but that is the problem that confronts us.

Desire has created so many problems, both sexual, various forms of objects to which desire drives, and desire to achieve success, desire to be better than somebody and so on and so on. This whole competitive existence of human beings. Perhaps competition is destroying the world - super powers, and so on, the importance given to success, to fulfilment, to achievement and so on. So we have to examine together the nature of desire. We are not saying you must suppress or fulfil desire, or evade, or overcome, but we are examining the whole momentum, the movement of desire. We are following each other?

Religions, that is the institutionalised acceptance of some dogmas, rituals, images and so on, those religions have said, desire must be suppressed: in order to serve God you must come without any desire. I don't know if you have gone into it. We needn't go into that matter now. But we are not saying we must do that, we are examining. If we can understand the nature and the structure of desire, not verbally or intellectually, but actually, factually, then perhaps desire has its proper place. But now desire is so all consuming - instant fulfilment of desire, whether it is in meditation, whether it is in taking coffee, or whether going somewhere or other, it must be fulfilled, it must be acted upon instantly. Restraint is looked down upon, is even denied. But we are saying before we do anything about desire, whether it is right or wrong, whether it is noble or ignoble, whether it has a proper place in society and so on and so on, we must understand the nature of it. Right, sirs? Are we following each other? Good!

What is desire? What is the root of it, not merely the objects of desire which vary according to our age, according to our circumstances, environment, pressure and so on, what is the root of desire, how does desire come into being and why does desire play such an extraordinary part in one's life? Right? Please, sirs, as we said, we are talking over together, seeing the nature of desire, not according to the speaker. As he pointed out earlier, we must have doubt. Doubt is a very cleansing thing. But also doubt must be kept on a leash, as a dog is kept on a leash, you must let the dog go sometimes, run. But also we must keep it on a leash, occasionally. So in the same way doubt is an extraordinary quality of cleansing the mind, but also it must be kept on a leash.

So we are saying together let us talk over the nature of desire, and find out its proper place. What is desire? How does it come into being with all of us; with the most highly sophisticated, educated, intellectuals, with the ordinary person, and also with all those monks and saints who are consumed by desire? You may take a vow of celibacy, like the monks do, all over the world, but desire is burning in them. So we must carefully examine this thing. Right, sirs?

How do you approach this problem? You understand? How do you, when you want to examine the nature of desire, how do you look at it? You understand my question? How do you consider, or observe the movement of desire? If you are conditioned, your approach will naturally be partial. If you are enormously consumed by desire, then it will also be very limited. But to examine the nature of it one must have somewhat a free mind. Right, sirs? So let's do it together.

There is not only visual seeing; that is, you see something very beautiful, and the perception of it, the seeing of it, creates a sensation. Right? There is sensation, contact - right? - the seeing, the sensation, the contact, then what takes place after that? You understand my question, what I am saying? You see something, a woman, a man, a car, a picture; the seeing creates the sensation. Then the touching of it. Then what takes place? You are following this? Please follow it otherwise I will be talking and you will merely be listening, which will lead us nowhere.

So where does desire begin? Seeing, contact, sensation. Then thought creates the image and when thought has created the image through that seeing, sensation, contact, then thought creates the image, you, thought makes that desire to possess or not to possess. Right? I wonder if you are following this. You see a shirt, or a suit, or a dress, a car, or a beautiful woman, or a man, whatever it is. There is the sensation, contact, then thought creates the image, you in that shirt, in that dress, or in the car, at that moment desire is born. You are following all this? It is not what I am telling you; you are discovering this for yourselves. Right? Are we going together?

So desire is born when thought creates the image; when there is seeing, contact, sensation, then thought with its image sitting in the car, driving the car, or wanting, you follow, the whole momentum takes place. Then arises the question, if you are interested in it, is it possible to see something - the sensation is natural, the contact is natural - but to see when thought arises with its image, desire creates all kinds of complications. Right? I wonder if you are following all this. So the question is: is it possible for thought not to create the image at all? You understand? That is, seeing the car, the sensation, thought creating the image of you driving in that car - the power, the position, you know all the fun of it - but before thought creates the image not to allow that image to be formed. I wonder if you are following this. Vous avez compris? Have you understood something at all? Are we moving together?

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Wed, 11 Dec 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 11 Dec 2019 #2
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1651 posts in this forum Offline

Let's take what you just posted and see if it works as an example. I read what he is saying. It sounds right. that is the "contact". Now the 'desire' is born to understand it totally, completely, etc. Because I think that if I can understand this about 'desire' that that will be of 'help' to me. (greed?) And if I don't understand it, I will go living in this pattern he mentions.(fear?) ...So the problem 'image' arises as soon as 'time' enters, projecting a 'time' when I will understand. (future?)

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Thu, 12 Dec 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 11 Dec 2019 #3
Thumb_spock Douglas MacRae-Smith France 148 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
the time when I will understand. (future?)

Hello,

You seem to be equating understanding with time. How so? Data accumulation may progress over time; or conclusions may be reached via logical progression. Is this what you are referring to?

Look, see, let go

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 11 Dec 2019 #4
Thumb_spock Douglas MacRae-Smith France 148 posts in this forum Offline

Regarding the text:

What stands out for me is that : to feel secure is a primary need - this begins long before us humans. So the Momentum of "seeing, contact, sensation… thought… image… wanting" doesn't start when I see. It is already part of me. Its a part of our evolutionary conditioning

And the great questions K asks :

1)Imagination : Does what we wish for actually exist?

2)Mindfulness and sensitivity : can we be aware of thoughts as they arise?

Look, see, let go

This post was last updated by Douglas MacRae-Smith Wed, 11 Dec 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 11 Dec 2019 #5
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1651 posts in this forum Offline

Douglas MacRae-Smith wrote:
You seem to be equating understanding with time. How so? Data accumulation may progress over time; or conclusions may be reached via logical progression. Is this what you are referring to?

No in my mind the two are separate. What I was trying to say was that when I see or 'contact' something beautiful and there is a sensation... an image arises of me having (possessing) the thing I've seen. This is where time enters the picture. It is the part of the pattern where 'desire' enters. The 'understanding' has already taken place in the moment of seeing: the thing is beautiful, period...(Understanding as I see it can only take place in the moment as regards the psychological).But the image-making goes on to create a picture of me in the future, near or far, of having the beautiful thing I've seen or in this case, 'understanding' the beautiful thing I've read. So could you say that if we listen with the 'desire' to understand, that we don't understand? (Because we are listening with a motive, an effort,rather than just listening?)

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Thu, 12 Dec 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 11 Dec 2019 #6
Thumb_spock Douglas MacRae-Smith France 148 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
So could you say that if we listen with the 'desire' to understand, that we don't understand? (Because we are listening with a motive, an effort,rather than just listening?)

Agreed - motive and desire being "me", I can only see my own dirty cage.

Look, see, let go

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 12 Dec 2019 #7
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1651 posts in this forum Offline

Douglas MacRae-Smith wrote:
motive and desire being "me", I can only see my own dirty cage.

It's interesting because it points at a whole new way of 'listening'...and of, 'being'. The "dirty cage" it seems is simply what's responsible for all the violence, brutality, etc.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Thu, 12 Dec 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 12 Dec 2019 #8
Thumb_spock Douglas MacRae-Smith France 148 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
The "dirty cage" it seems is simply what's responsible for all the violence

The conflict between "you" and "me" will eventually make itself evident. Unless, for the sake of ensuring our security (Desire/Survival mechanism) we become "Us".

Which may be worse as this becomes Us vs Them.

Look, see, let go

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 12 Dec 2019 #9
Thumb_spock Douglas MacRae-Smith France 148 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
it points at a whole new way of 'listening'...and of, 'being'.

Which is only available when we have no other choice. There is no opening of the heart, unless fear and desire has been seen for what it is.

Look, see, let go

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 12 Dec 2019 #10
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1651 posts in this forum Offline

Douglas MacRae-Smith wrote:
There is no opening of the heart, unless fear and desire has been seen for what it is.

And who or what is the 'see-er' of this "fear and desire"?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 12 Dec 2019 #11
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1651 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
K...Then arises the question, if you are interested in it, is it possible to see something - the sensation is natural, the contact is natural - but to see when thought arises with its image, desire creates all kinds of complications. Right?

Is it possible to not "allow" that last part of the process? That would be thought itself realizing what it is doing by creating those images, desires, and ceasing to do it, wouldn't it?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Thu, 12 Dec 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 12 Dec 2019 #12
Thumb_spock Douglas MacRae-Smith France 148 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
who or what is the 'see-er' of this "fear and desire"?

Good question. I Don't know - Whatever I am is changed by the observation.

Look, see, let go

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 12 Dec 2019 #13
Thumb_spock Douglas MacRae-Smith France 148 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Is it possible to not "allow" that last part of the process?

Thought creating more conflict is not Clarity.

This is just the movement of Desire.

More thought is just more bars in the cage

Look, see, let go

This post was last updated by Douglas MacRae-Smith Thu, 12 Dec 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 12 Dec 2019 #14
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1651 posts in this forum Offline

“Allow “ was K’s word not mine. But it would be thought itself that would not be allowing itself to create the image or desire that ‘normally’ follows the sensation and contact. There is no other player beside ‘thought ‘, is there?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Thu, 12 Dec 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 12 Dec 2019 #15
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1651 posts in this forum Offline

Douglas MacRae-Smith wrote:
More thought is just more bars in the cage

Not necessarily though...we need to use thought/language if we are to discuss. We can understand that the description is never the thing. That language is 'conclusive' in its construction. It is judgmental, etc. It is limited.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 12 Dec 2019 #16
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3103 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
But it would be thought itself that would not be allowing itself to create the image or desire that ‘normally’ follows the sensation and contact.

I don't think thought can end this process of images and desire, Dan. Thought is more of the same. Didnt k talk of 'seeing' the whole process? That would be awareness of what's going on...not thinking and concluding and more labeling/images. K: "but to see when thought arises with its image, desire creates all kinds of complications. Right?"

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 12 Dec 2019 #17
Thumb_spock Douglas MacRae-Smith France 148 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
There is no other player beside ‘thought ‘, is there?

If so, we are playing useless mind games - thought cannot escape from its own labyrinth.

If my thinking creates a desire to put an end to desire, whose tail am I biting?

Look, see, let go

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 12 Dec 2019 #18
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1651 posts in this forum Offline

‘Right’ thinking sees the trap of its ‘desire’ to escape the “labyrinth “ that it has created by using ‘time’?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 12 Dec 2019 #19
Thumb_spock Douglas MacRae-Smith France 148 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
There is no other player beside ‘thought ‘, is there?

If so there is no other player but me.

Look, see, let go

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 12 Dec 2019 #20
Thumb_spock Douglas MacRae-Smith France 148 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Right’ thinking sees the trap of its ‘desire’ to escape the “labyrinth “ that it has created by using ‘time’?

Thought does not see

Look, see, let go

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 12 Dec 2019 #21
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1651 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
K...That is, seeing the car, the sensation, thought creating the image of you driving in that car - the power, the position, you know all the fun of it - but before thought creates the image not to allow that image to be formed.

But he's not just saying "see it"- period, he's asking if the image making can be stopped. Stopped because it is 'seen' to be 'unnecessary', divisive, conflictive, etc. An unnecessary 'step' after the contact...If my usual pattern is to see the 'hammer', touch the 'hammer', hit myself on the head with the 'hammer'...he's asking reasonably. I think, if that last step might be dropped:). No?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 12 Dec 2019 #22
Thumb_spock Douglas MacRae-Smith France 148 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
he's not just saying "see it"- period,

There is no period suggested. Seeing changes everything - Seeing is the complete opposite of confusion and ignorance.

Look, see, let go

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 12 Dec 2019 #23
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1651 posts in this forum Offline

Douglas MacRae-Smith wrote:
There is no period suggested.

True but the "don't allow" is what I was referring to with Tom. That the 'seeing' may, if it is total, lead to the action of ceasing the "pattern" of creating images of a future when your 'desire' might or will be satisfied, i.e....see the beautiful woman, but you don't have to have the image, desire, of you 'having' her. As I understand what he is saying.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 12 Dec 2019 #24
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5551 posts in this forum Offline

Douglas MacRae-Smith wrote:
More thought is just more bars in the cage

Indeed! it is remarkable to have a feel for this, to see this. How it pulls the rug from under one's feet! (Of course practical thought is necessary) And as you remarked above, Douglas:

Whatever I am is changed by the observation.

So constant seeing is constant changing, isn't it?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 12 Dec 2019 #25
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5551 posts in this forum Offline

Douglas MacRae-Smith wrote:
Thought does not see

I would rather turn this into a question - "can thought see?"

Dan has suggested in #18 that ‘Right’ thinking sees the trap of [itself] - but is there right and wrong thinking? Does this mean that there is thought that mirrors 'what is' reasonably closely, and thought which is pure fantasy? And what would it be that distinguishes the two?

Surely thought cannot experience anything DIRECTLY? And thought cannot be aware of itself? But again, these should be regarded as questions, not statements.

Although perhaps thought cannot SEE, that certainly does not mean that there is no such thing as "SEE-ING". See-ing does not imply a see-er, does it, an entity that sees? And seeing may be that "other player" that Dan referred to. But it is a movement, a be-ing, (cannot find better words), not an entity, not even an imaginary entity created by thought.

Thought may not see, but thought may reflect, express, what has been revealed by seeing, can it not? For the purpose of communication?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 13 Dec 2019 #26
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3103 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
is there right and wrong thinking? Does this mean that there is thought that mirrors 'what is' reasonably closely,

Probably not, as what is is always new and thought is based upon memory/past.

Surely thought cannot experience anything DIRECTLY? And thought cannot be aware of itself? But again, these should be regarded as questions, not statements.

There are certainly facts and there are also questions. It’s possible to state a fact however, isn’t it?

Although perhaps thought cannot SEE, that certainly does not mean that there is no such thing as "SEE-ING". See-ing does not imply a see-er, does it, an entity that sees? And seeing may be that "other player" that Dan referred to. But it is a movement, a be-ing, (cannot find better words), not an entity, not even an imaginary entity created by thought.

Not an entity, no. Not a thing...beyond matter and time as I’m understanding it.

From today’s QOTD:

“to understand a challenge, which is always new, I must also meet it anew, there must be no residue of yesterday; so, I must say adieu to yesterday.” (To thought...Tom) Public Talk 1st February, 1948 | Mumbai, Inida

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Fri, 13 Dec 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 13 Dec 2019 #27
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3103 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
who is doing this seeing and being aware of the thoughts?

Isn’t it the same as the awareness of the tree or the bird? It’s not thought that sees the bird or the sunset is it? It’s awareness

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 13 Dec 2019 #28
Thumb_spock Douglas MacRae-Smith France 148 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
seeing' may, if it is total, lead to

Dear Dan,

What allows the heart to open?

Seeing.

Does this help? Some extra thoughts : I (or You) cannot do it; the seeing happens when I am not. (So what am I? What is seeing? What is desire/fear?)

Yours, Dougdoug

PS. Thinking is not Seeing - Thinking is the Known recycling, trying to obtain satisfaction.

PPS. What allows Clarity? - an open heart (oups!)

PPPS. Sorry Dan, this is a terrible reply

Look, see, let go

This post was last updated by Douglas MacRae-Smith Fri, 13 Dec 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 13 Dec 2019 #29
Thumb_spock Douglas MacRae-Smith France 148 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
So constant seeing is constant changing, isn't it?

I have no experience of constance - its Always ebb and flow

Look, see, let go

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 13 Dec 2019 #30
Thumb_spock Douglas MacRae-Smith France 148 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
"can thought see?"

No. Thought is the translation of what is (at best, at worst its the translation of utter BS) through the lens of my conditioning. (for communication as you mention)

As for the question about "what sees?" - Either its me, the thinker and its thoughts (LOL) or there is Something else other than me.

Look, see, let go

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 167 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.)