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

Desire


Displaying posts 31 - 60 of 167 in total
Fri, 13 Dec 2019 #31
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 800 posts in this forum Offline

Douglas, Dan, Tom, Clive :o)

Logically, something cannot be “stopped” unless it is SEEN. So the image or emotion which arises IS seen; and the process which produces the image and emotion is seen. Isn’t it? At this point, can the image making process "just stop"? Obviously, effort cannot stop it.

It is observed that thoughts and emotions are constantly arising and falling away, that ALL of life is in constant, eternal movement. So what “maintains” a PARTICULAR desire over time, hold onto it, be obsessed with it? Isn’t it effort and belief? Isn't effort based on the belief that effort can solve all problems?

http://jiddu-krishnamurti.net/en/1983/1983-07-1...:

Our brain is trained to solve problems.

I see that effort cannot prevent the images and thoughts from arising. But I still make efforts to pierce the darkness and end unnecessary thought. Doesn’t effort perpetuate or maintain the images and thoughts? Here I am, discontented, unhappy, troubled, fearful, and “I want, “I desire” to fully understand what K is saying so that I too can “have” what he has. I see the process of that desire, of that image. But do I stop "there" and fully experience "what is", the desire?

Or do I decide to MAKE the effort to “fully” understand? Has the intellect concluded that, if it tries hard enough, it CAN understand the whole? Do I - does the intellect - hold on to the conclusion that I cannot possibly have understood desire since - as I believe or assume - understanding instantly ends desire and effort? After all, didn't K say so? Or did he?

In making the effort then, I am putting desire aside and concentrating on the effort to overcome it, and so I am not fully experiencing the desire. I am actually repressing desire, pushing it away. No?

….. if you could leave desire alone, either to wither away - just leave it alone - that is the very essence of a mind which is not in conflict.

https://jkrishnamurti.org/content/what-signific...:

Can’t the intellect - understanding itself, its own insufficiency or limitation, understanding its habits and processes, understanding, at that moment of desire, that it is only a part of the whole mind, that the part can only understand the part that is within its functions and that the part cannot understand the whole --- doesn’t the intellect at that moment STOP making any effort to understand the whole? Doesn’t this self-understanding end the effort to end desire?

https://jkrishnamurti.org/content/there-evoluti...:

DB: ... is awareness part of the function of the brain?
JK: As long as awareness in which there is no choice ....

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

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Fri, 13 Dec 2019 #32
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 800 posts in this forum Offline

Douglas MacRae-Smith wrote:
Thought does not see

Thought itself - the faculty of thought, the intellect, the ability to think and reason - is only a part of the mind, not the whole of the mind. Therefore, thought - being a part - CAN see, but it cannot see the whole. And what is important is to see the whole of the field of life, action relationship, not just a part.

Desire is part of thought, a product of thought. And so, when thought alone is looking into desire, it can only look through its own conclusions about it, from the point of view of its own experiences, ideas and memories of it. That point of view is only a part of action and relationship; it is incomplete; it is not the whole of action and relationship; it is not the whole of the mind. It leaves out awareness of the actual feeling of desire - the sensations, the experiencing of it in brain, guts, body and heart. And, being partial, the intellect also “leaves out” intelligence, understanding and compassion. The intellect cannot have complete understanding without compassion, as I see it. The whole of the mind is needed to see the whole of relationship and action. If I look only through the intellect - memory, experience, conclusions, theories, and so on - perception and understanding are incomplete.

So, as I see it, thought can see but its perception is incomplete, therefore erroneous - somewhat like the story of the blind men and the elephant who see the part but not the whole; or like the politicians, the business and religious leaders, the educators, and so on, each of whom have their particular approach to man’s problems.

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 13 Dec 2019 #33
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3103 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
And, being partial, the intellect also “leaves out” intelligence, understanding and compassion.

Partial indeed. And based upon memory. Memory is always partial too. My memory of you isn't the whole of you. It's my limited experience and the limited experience of countless others handed down over our long history.

Huguette . wrote:
So, as I see it, thought can see

Thought can think. As K uses the word 'seeing', thought is out of the picture, at least momentarily, no?

but its perception is incomplete, therefore erroneous - somewhat like the story of the blind men and the elephant who see the part but not the whole; or like the politicians, the business and religious leaders, the educators, and so on, each of whom have their particular approach to man’s problems.

Indeed.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 13 Dec 2019 #34
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3103 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
In making the effort then, I am putting desire aside and concentrating on the effort to overcome it, and so I am not fully experiencing the desire. I am actually repressing desire, pushing it away. No?

Yes...we do the same with any problem when we approach it that way....when we try to solve it...try to get rid of it.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 13 Dec 2019 #35
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3103 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Can’t the intellect - understanding itself, its own insufficiency or limitation, understanding its habits and processes, understanding, at that moment of desire, that it is only a part of the whole mind, that the part can only understand the part that is within its functions and that the part cannot understand the whole --- doesn’t the intellect at that moment STOP making any effort to understand the whole? Doesn’t this self-understanding end the effort to end desire?

Interesting! I've never looked at the problem this way. I need to digest this some more...will reply further later, time permitting.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 13 Dec 2019 #36
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1651 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
. I am actually repressing desire, pushing it away. No?

Can the whole 'thing' be left alone? I say it can. Left alone in the sense that 'what is', whatever is, is allowed to 'be'. Not by a chooser who allows this but resists that, no, that each moment is met as if 'we' were nothing, no shadow of the past, with an 'open hand, etc. The 'arduousness' that we've wondered about is to me keeping the 'hand' open. To open it again after it has grasped this or that thought desire, etc. No resistance to 'what is'...no 'doing', not even no 'doing nothing'. Just a 'watching'?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 13 Dec 2019 #37
Thumb_spock Douglas MacRae-Smith France 148 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
The intellect cannot have complete understanding

Thank you Huguette for your input - I like it. But I cannot grasp this idea of "thought seeing", and so I cannot see how it is a helpful concept.

To me its like "words knowing" or "symbols understanding"

Surely thought is what happens after the fact. More of an analysis of what happened that we can share with others or add to our Library of accumulated knowledge.

Look, see, let go

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 13 Dec 2019 #38
Thumb_spock Douglas MacRae-Smith France 148 posts in this forum Offline

Understanding (ie. Seeing) changes everything - there is no longer any need for effort (of course this isn't an Eternal panacea - the "I" will arise again).

The intellect, cannot see itself. It can only analyse, judge, and come to conclusions about itself within the Framework of itself (Hopefully - we can tell this is a catch 22?)

When it comes to Psychological Freedom from the Known - the only Key to understanding that the intellect can give us, is Doubt.

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 #39
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 800 posts in this forum Offline

Douglas MacRae-Smith wrote:
I cannot grasp this idea of "thought seeing", and so I cannot see how it is a helpful concept.

To me its like "words knowing" or "symbols understanding"

Surely thought is what happens after the fact.

What do you mean by “thought”? As I see it, “thought” means 2 different things. Thought is a product and thought is a function. So the function of thought is the activity, capacity and ability of the brain to produce the product of thought. The product is the words, images, emotions which arise in the brain. Other functions of the brain are the senses, also the ability to balance, to walk, to catch, to breathe, and so on.

So sight, for example, refers both to the activity, capacity and ability of the brain which produces sight; and sight is also the product of that function. That is, “what is seen” does not see; the sight which is seen does not see. And “what sees” - the function, process, capacity, ability of the brain to see - is not the sight that is sensed or seen.

Similarly, the product of thought does not think. What thinks, as I see it, is the function, processes, capacity, ability of the brain to think. So, for example, when you say “I cannot grasp this idea of ‘thought seeing’” or when I say, “I understand that driving on ice is dangerous”, who is the “I” who grasps or understands? Isn’t it the function of thought, the part or parts of the brain which regulate thinking and reasoning? It's not the words which grasp or understand, is it?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 13 Dec 2019 #40
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 800 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Thought can think. As K uses the word 'seeing', thought is out of the picture, at least momentarily, no?

Thought can think, which includes reasoning, doesn't it? Reasoning, as I see it, is partial understanding. It is partial in its scope or ability and it is partial in terms of the kind of things it can understand. Thought, the intellect, can understand matters such as logistics, organization, mechanics, measure, comparison, and so on. And so, the intellect can act in these matters. But in terms of trying to act in relationship, happiness, fulfilment, love, compassion, it is from the outset out of its depth and capacities, as I see it. It is incapable. It does not have the capacity. It can only make a mess. So, as I see it, even in those fields where it has the capacity to act, by acting alone, by acting in isolation, the intellect makes a mess.

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 13 Dec 2019 #41
Thumb_spock Douglas MacRae-Smith France 148 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
So the function of thought is the activity, capacity and ability of the brain to produce the product of thought.

Yes - so where is the seeing/understanding?

Look, see, let go

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 13 Dec 2019 #42
Thumb_spock Douglas MacRae-Smith France 148 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
So, for example, when you say “I cannot grasp this idea of ‘thought seeing’” or when I say, “I understand that driving on ice is dangerous”, who is the “I” who grasps or understands?

The Past. Experience as Entity.

Look, see, let go

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 13 Dec 2019 #43
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3103 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Tom Paine wrote:

Thought can think. As K uses the word 'seeing', thought is out of the picture, at least momentarily, no?

Thought can think, which includes reasoning, doesn't it? Reasoning, as I see it, is partial understanding. It is partial in its scope or ability and it is partial in terms of the kind of things it can understand.

But here we've been talking about human suffering...conflict...violence, desire, etc. Reasoning has never been of any help here, has it? Well, perhaps reasonable people can protest a war or make a political or economic protest...but reason never gets to the fundamental cause of the conflict. Probably precisely because it can't 'see' (understand) in the sense K uses that word. It can think about desire but only in limited terms based upon experience and words/ideas. It can't understand the whole of it.

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 #44
Thumb_spock Douglas MacRae-Smith France 148 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
the intellect makes a mess.

Partial understanding is the understanding of a caged animal

Look, see, let go

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 13 Dec 2019 #45
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 800 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
It can't understand the whole of it.

Yes, that's what I'm saying.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 13 Dec 2019 #46
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 800 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette wrote:
...who is the “I” who grasps or understands?

Douglas MacRae-Smith wrote:
The Past. Experience as Entity.

Yes. That's partial understanding, as I see it. It's the "me/you", the self. That partial understanding is not the words themselves understanding partially. It is that part of the brain, the intellect, isolated from the whole, which understands partially.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Fri, 13 Dec 2019 #47
Thumb_spock Douglas MacRae-Smith France 148 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Can the whole 'thing' be left alone? I say it can. Left alone in the sense that 'what is', whatever is, is allowed to 'be'. Not by a chooser who allows this but resists that,

So, what allows Understanding? ie. The Clarity that frees us from the neverending cycle of Desire?

Look, see, let go

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 13 Dec 2019 #48
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1651 posts in this forum Offline

Douglas MacRae-Smith wrote:
So, what allows Understanding?

Are we clear on what we mean by "understanding"? Rather than the intellect assessing in time, or concluding after an accumulation over time, is the meaning of 'understanding' in the sense of self-knowledge simply 'being with'? The 'self' can only be 'understood'i.e., when there is no judgement positive or negative about it in any form. If there is, it is an impediment to 'understanding'. The 'self' is what it is. It is as has been said a totally conditioned 'entity'. Any attempt to change it, improve it, go beyond it is the self acting upon itself. Fragments interacting with fragments. So if this is the case then understanding can only come about through no 'fixing' at all as the author says. That that is a "pathological" activity. Our 'conditioning is to 'welcome' certain memories, and avoid those are considered negative. That is the 'challenge' as I see it, to meet whatever is with an 'open hand'...not with a conclusion, or desire for change or as K. put it no "residue" of the past. Do others see 'understanding' in this way?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Fri, 13 Dec 2019.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Fri, 13 Dec 2019 #49
Thumb_spock Douglas MacRae-Smith France 148 posts in this forum Offline

If we follow the preceeding discussion it sure Looks like it.

So, what allows this Freedom, this Clarity, this Understanding?

What is not allowing this Clarity to shine through?

Why do we not "See"?

Look, see, let go

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 14 Dec 2019 #50
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1651 posts in this forum Offline

Douglas MacRae-Smith wrote:
Why do we not "See"?

Brain is too frightened to let go of its myths of thousands of years?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 14 Dec 2019 #51
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3103 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Brain is too frightened to let go of its myths of thousands of years?

The brain? or is it the body that feels fear? We likely know the saying that we feel fear in the ‘pit of the stomach’. Maybe we should bring the subject of fear into the discussion. Memory based images/thoughts create fear, and interestingly they create desire. Im wondering what the connection is between desire and fear.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 14 Dec 2019 #52
Thumb_spock Douglas MacRae-Smith France 148 posts in this forum Offline

I am too frightened ? (brain/body/mind whatever we want to call this sense of self)

From where I'm sitting fear/desire and thought is my function.
I am here to produce fear/desire with the help of thought.
And paradoxically fear/desire and thought is me.

I am a self preservation mechanism

Look, see, let go

This post was last updated by Douglas MacRae-Smith Sat, 14 Dec 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 14 Dec 2019 #53
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3103 posts in this forum Offline

I am here to produce fear/desire with the help of thought.

Thought is doing that ...no ‘I’ involved. The ‘I’ is thought too, as you say in the following sentence. So we can see, even logically, that thought can do nothing about this plight. Is this false sense of I what keeps it all going? I think one of the previous posts mentioned something about that....or perhaps it was another thread. There IS a crisis...or a precipice which we have arrived at....war, misery, drugs, crime, etc. We’re back to asking how man can change, right? Is there any other question when we see the crisis...the suffering...the insane way we live?

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Sat, 14 Dec 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 14 Dec 2019 #54
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1651 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Is there any other question when we see the crisis...the suffering...the insane way we live?

K. So what one has to do is to find out if one is dealing with the fundamental, or merely with the superficial. And to me the superficial will exist so long as you are merely concerned with the alteration of environment so as to alleviate conflict. That is, you still want to cling to the "I" consciousness as "mine", but yet desire to alter the circumstances so that they will not create conflict in that "I". I call that superficial thought, and from that there naturally is superficial action. Whereas if you think fundamentally, that is, question the very result of the environment which is the "I", and therefore question the environment itself, then you are acting fundamentally, and therefore lastingly. And in that there is an ecstasy, in that there is a joy of which now you do not know because you are afraid to act fundamentally.

Ojai second public talk 1934

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 14 Dec 2019 #55
Thumb_spock Douglas MacRae-Smith France 148 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Thought is doing that ...no ‘I’ involved

What is "I"? The seeing is the change of the inner "I" and the outer "society".

If there is no change it is because we have not really seen; or only seen the signposts.

What is "I"? The Bible story of Genesis gives us another signpost : The "I" is the reason of our fall from grace. The "I" which appears with the knowledge of good/evil.
Fear/desire is not distinct from self.

Thought is not distinct from self.
I am Thinking

Look, see, let go

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 14 Dec 2019 #56
Thumb_spock Douglas MacRae-Smith France 148 posts in this forum Offline

Douglas MacRae-Smith wrote:
I am here to produce fear/desire with the help of thought.

This is the sole function of the sense of self.

(for the purpose of Survival)

Look, see, let go

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 14 Dec 2019 #57
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3103 posts in this forum Offline

Douglas MacRae-Smith wrote:
(for the purpose of Survival)

Survival in what sense? With war, smoking, drug overdoses, alcoholism? I must be missing your point because I don’t see how the self is helping us survive.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 14 Dec 2019 #58
Thumb_spock Douglas MacRae-Smith France 148 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Survival in what sense? With war, smoking, drug overdoses, alcoholism?

One must keep in mind that the mechanism was not created perfect by intelligent design - but rather by selecting from previous models through efficiency.

The mechanism was selected in the past for efficiency at that time; however the environment has continued to change also - what was efficient (but never perfect) in one circumstance may not be the optimum in all.

The desire to gorge on food as a hunter/gatherer may have been a good Survival mechanism at the time, but less so now.

Look, see, let go

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 14 Dec 2019 #59
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3103 posts in this forum Offline

Douglas MacRae-Smith wrote:
The desire to gorge on food as a hunter/gatherer may have been a good Survival mechanism at the time, but less so now.

Yes,that’s a small part of the picture. But eating or smoking or drinking to relieve stress is a result of thought/fear, and anti-survival.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 14 Dec 2019 #60
Thumb_spock Douglas MacRae-Smith France 148 posts in this forum Offline

Ah! I think I see your point. You want to place a value judgement on the concept.

Yes. Killing the neighbouring tribe in order to steal their women and land, may have been a good Survival tactic back in the day; but now that we have invented the nuclear bomb, it is a bad idea. So we can say that the self is bad. That the self leads to annihilation not Survival.

Look, see, let go

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