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

An Other Instrument?


Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 106 in total
Sun, 04 Nov 2012 #1
Thumb_stringio lidlo lady United States 4003 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Is there an "instrument" other than thought? Can we know, in some non-thinking way, what is actual, true, objective reality? Since much - perhaps most - of what thought does goes on unconsciously, how much can we really know about thought? I can say that I am thought because, for all intents and purposes, I am. But I must also admit that I can only identify myself as thought at the conscious level; that I can never know the entirety of thought because it is itself, the instrument of knowing.

If you choose to believe otherwise, the burden of proof is upon you. If you say there is an instrument beyond and above thought that can know and understand thought in its entirety, please present your evidence and make a convincing case, because the notion seems grandiose and wishful to me.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Sun, 04 Nov 2012 #2
Thumb_stringio randal patrick United States 3155 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

lidlo lady wrote:
that I can never know the entirety of thought because it is itself, the instrument of knowing.

Darned if I can see even the intellectual logic of this. (it may be true, but your argument is woefully inadequate)

This post was last updated by randal patrick (account deleted) Sun, 04 Nov 2012.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 2 readers
Back to Top
Sun, 04 Nov 2012 #3
Thumb_stringio randal patrick United States 3155 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

lidlo lady wrote:
Is there an "instrument" other than thought?

Hasn't your arguement from the get go been, that there definatly is NOT any other instrument available? Not that we might not have found it or maybe but we don't know , but that you have looked and nothing is there, end of story. This is what you have been promoting as scientific as opposed to the religious approach of the other posters, am I way wrong here?

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 2 readers
Back to Top
Mon, 05 Nov 2012 #4
Thumb_stringio lidlo lady United States 4003 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

randal patrick wrote:
Hasn't your arguement from the get go been, that there definatly is NOT any other instrument available? Not that we might not have found it or maybe but we don't know , but that you have looked and nothing is there, end of story. This is what you have been promoting as scientific as opposed to the religious approach of the other posters, am I way wrong here?

Yes, you're wrong. What I'm saying is that I know of nothing other than thought, and that if you know something I don't know that you can't communicate, find a way to communicate it.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 05 Nov 2012 #5
Thumb_img_7089_copy Eve G. Indonesia 1570 posts in this forum Offline

lidlo lady wrote:
Yes, you're wrong. What I'm saying is that I know of nothing other than thought, and that if you know something I don't know that you can't communicate, find a way to communicate it.

You 'know' nothing other than 'thought' full stop, and you are trying to prove thought is all there is. According to you, the burden of proof is yours. Have you successfully proven it?

The nature of the change from disorder is silence.

This post was last updated by Eve G. Mon, 05 Nov 2012.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 2 readers
Back to Top
Mon, 05 Nov 2012 #6
Thumb_stringio lidlo lady United States 4003 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Eve G. wrote:
You 'know' nothing other than 'thought' full stop, and you are trying to prove thought is all there is, according to you the burden of proof is yours.

You're making me repeat myself. The burden of proof is upon the one making the claim. The K-believer is saying there is an instrument other than thought. Is there? I don't know, and I have my doubts, but if you know better, explain it, provide evidence, demonstrate it, prove it.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 05 Nov 2012 #7
Thumb_img_7089_copy Eve G. Indonesia 1570 posts in this forum Offline

lidlo lady wrote:
You're making me repeat myself. The burden of proof is upon the one making the claim. The K-believer is saying there is an instrument other than thought. Is there? I don't know, and I have my doubts, but if you know better, explain it, provide evidence, demonstrate it, prove

You are repeating yourself agreed! The question is why?

The nature of the change from disorder is silence.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 2 readers
Back to Top
Mon, 05 Nov 2012 #8
Thumb_stringio RICK LEIN United States 4436 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Eve G. wrote:
You 'know' nothing other than 'thought' full stop, and you are trying to prove thought is all there is, according to you the burden of proof is yours. Have you successfully proven it?

No he has not..he does seem to have himself convinced though...:)
Does that make "HIM" a believer?:)

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 2 readers
Back to Top
Mon, 05 Nov 2012 #9
Thumb_stringio RICK LEIN United States 4436 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

lidlo lady wrote:
You're making me repeat myself.

so you are the follower...you see being here..or answering a post is all up to you...LOL!:)

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 2 readers
Back to Top
Mon, 05 Nov 2012 #10
Thumb_stringio randal patrick United States 3155 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

lidlo lady wrote:
What I'm saying is that I know of nothing other than thought, and that if you know something I don't know that you can't communicate, find a way to communicate it.

Ok, fair enough, but that does not represent the body of your postings at Kinf., but we'll leave that for now....

Let us suppose that what you ask were possible and that someone might be willing to do it for you....then what? What would you do with a communication/information/knowledge, about something you have had no previous relationship with?

With your own arguement, if you can't think it, which you cannot do with something you have no real contact with (except as a concept/artificial construct), you can't understand it because comprehention is dependant on the context experience/thought provides. Do you see the cunundrum? If you can understand it, it is simply a confirmation of your construct about it. A belief confirming/proving a fairy tale. Which is what much of what goes on at Kinfonet (and everywhere) is.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 2 readers
Back to Top
Mon, 05 Nov 2012 #11
Thumb_stringio randal patrick United States 3155 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

lidlo lady wrote:
if you know something I don't know that you can't communicate, find a way to communicate it.

Again, this is a wonderful example of someone asking that we find a way (the burden of proof) to insert a round peg into a square hole. Masterful piece of shameless propaganda.

Of course the real burden is upon you, to find a way to understand.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 2 readers
Back to Top
Mon, 05 Nov 2012 #12
Thumb_2495 Kara D. United States 182 posts in this forum Offline

Well, doesn't K say that it is thought itself that sees its own limitations? That means that it is the instrument. As below:

So I am asking myself: has thought realized its own limitations? Or is it pretending to be something extraordinary, noble, divine? - which is nonsense because thought is based on memory. I see that there must be clarity about this point: that there is no outside influence imposing on thought saying it is limited. Then, because there is no imposition there is no conflict; it simply realizes it is limited; it realizes that whatever it does - its worship of god and so on - is limited, shoddy, petty - even though it has created marvelous cathedrals throughout Europe in which to worship - A Dialogue With Oneself

Now the problem then is: can thought realise - please listen - can thought realise that it is limited and therefore the moment it learns, it understands that whatever it does is limited and therefore fragmentary and therefore isolating, whatever it does will be this. Therefore can thought - please I am having a dialogue, this is a very important point - can thought realise its own limitation? Or does thought say to itself, I am limited. You understand the difference? Are you all asleep? Thought being me - do I say, thought is limited and therefore it says, 'I am limited'. Or thought itself realises I am limited. The two things are entirely different. One is an imposition, and therefore conflict, whereas when thought itself says, 'I am limited' it won't move away from that limitation. – First Public Dialogue at Brockwood Park, 1977

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 05 Nov 2012 #13
Thumb_2495 Kara D. United States 182 posts in this forum Offline

Anything that might be "other" than thinking would have to be registered by thinking itself. Therefore thinking is the instrument, isn't it?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 05 Nov 2012 #14
Thumb_2495 Kara D. United States 182 posts in this forum Offline

randal patrick wrote:
With your own arguement, if you can't think it, which you cannot do with something you have no real contact with (except as a concept/artificial construct), you can't understand it because comprehention is dependant on the context experience/thought provides. Do you see the cunundrum? If you can understand it, it is simply a confirmation of your construct about it. A belief confirming/proving a fairy tale. Which is what much of what goes on at Kinfonet (and everywhere) is.

Don't things have to register in the thinking mind in order for a person to understand anything? If its new information of some kind then a new context is created.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 05 Nov 2012 #15
Thumb_stringio randal patrick United States 3155 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Kara D. wrote:
Don't things have to register in the thinking mind in order for a person to understand anything?

You might start an entire new thread called "understanding" and you will see many opinions about what it means.

For the thinking process to "understand" it must have what lid calls context, a previous encounter or similar. That is one kind of understanding and a valuable tool when one has the need.

But to come into contact with something that we will call "now", the comparison process won't handle it because "now" never came before. Nothing to compare it to, no context therefore no understanding. If the procees can't accept/like it or reject/dislike it (understand it), it goes into default (fear) and uses anger/aggression to deal with the confusing situation.

like what we see here at kinfonet and in personal relationships of all kinds.

Relationship, is a form of "now".

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 2 readers
Back to Top
Mon, 05 Nov 2012 #16
Thumb_stringio randal patrick United States 3155 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Kara D. wrote:
If its new information of some kind then a new context is created.

In human relationship, what you call context I call bias/distortion/blindness.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Mon, 05 Nov 2012 #17
Thumb_stringio randal patrick United States 3155 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Kara D. wrote:
If its new information of some kind then a new context is created.

I don't know how any new context could be created. The old one is either confirmed/reinforced or the information is rejected, or put before the firing squad.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Mon, 05 Nov 2012 #18
Thumb_stringio randal patrick United States 3155 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Kara D. wrote:
Well, doesn't K say that it is thought itself that sees its own limitations?

He is asking if you see the difference between the limitation, and a belief that you see the limitation.

one of the above is a continuation of the limitation. What the other is or isn't, is not an issue.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Mon, 05 Nov 2012 #19
Thumb_beautiful-nature-wallpaper pavani rao India 541 posts in this forum Offline

randal patrick wrote:
I don't know how any new context could be created. The old one is either confirmed/reinforced or the information is rejected, or put before the firing squad.

New contexts do get created , happen if not all the time , but most of the time .now what do we do with that context ? As you said we mostly assess them with the old one's . But after some time when one comes around  realizes and says why am I doing this ? What is  there in it that is causing such responses from me , let me examine it , what it is all about ? In other words one is assessing oneself , why are we acting and responding in the most predictable,rpeated ,routine way .I'm afraid all this looking , assessing oneself is very much needed ,if not for any thing just to keep a check on one's own set patterns of behavior .All this activity is still  very much in the field of thinking . But that is the best we can do I guess . 

This post was last updated by pavani rao Mon, 05 Nov 2012.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 05 Nov 2012 #20
Thumb_img_7089_copy Eve G. Indonesia 1570 posts in this forum Offline

Kara D. wrote:
Anything that might be "other" than thinking would have to be registered by thinking itself.

Really? Why do you say that?

The nature of the change from disorder is silence.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 05 Nov 2012 #21
Thumb_img_7089_copy Eve G. Indonesia 1570 posts in this forum Offline

Kara D. wrote:
Now the problem then is: can thought realise - please listen - can thought realise that it is limited and therefore the moment it learns, it understands that whatever it does is limited and therefore fragmentary and therefore isolating, whatever it does will be this. Therefore can thought - please I am having a dialogue, this is a very important point - can thought realise its own limitation?

Using discernment, is it possible to observe the limitation of 'thought' in the field of experience?

The nature of the change from disorder is silence.

This post was last updated by Eve G. Mon, 05 Nov 2012.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 05 Nov 2012 #22
Thumb_beautiful-nature-wallpaper pavani rao India 541 posts in this forum Offline

Eve G. wrote:
What is so difficult to understand?

Hi Eve 

I hav'nt interacted with you earlier , sorry I couldn't respond to your earlier post addressed to me in some other thread . 

Well I think to some extent we all understand that thinking is limited . But to be able to see the new do we have the ability to observe it completely without our old notions of the past coming and interfering , interpreting the new ? Thinking in the sense our prejudices , images , biases which is part of us , is that completely put to rest , so that we look at the new without all those tinted glasses ? 
Well it's just sharing of a perspective . Any how welcome from my side ,it's good to have more female members being  actively involved in this forum , otherwise our male counterparts keep moving in circles in endless verbatim . 

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 05 Nov 2012 #23
Thumb_img_7089_copy Eve G. Indonesia 1570 posts in this forum Offline

pavani rao wrote:
Well I think to some extent we all understand that thinking is limited .

I am not sure this is a fact or it may appear to be so?

The nature of the change from disorder is silence.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 05 Nov 2012 #24
Thumb_stringio B Teulada Portugal 700 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

lidlo lady wrote:
Can we know, in some non-thinking way, what is actual, true, objective reality?

You are barking up the wrong tree L.

Two men are rowing in two different boats. Suddenly, at the same time, they both see a man in the water in front of them, drowning.

The first man thinks "if i get near him, he'll try to get hold of the boat and then i'll fall in the water too" and rows in the opposite direction.

The other man thinks "if i don't get near him he'll drown and die". And rows in the man's direction .

They both perceived the same "actual, true, objective reality" (the man drowning in the water).
They both used thought to perceive it.

So, what, do you think, is the difference? Is there a difference?

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 2 readers
Back to Top
Mon, 05 Nov 2012 #25
Thumb_stringio lidlo lady United States 4003 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

B Teulada wrote:
So, what, do you think, is the difference? Is there a difference?

You haven't addressed the question. Is there another "instrument" as Dean believes? Maybe the question doesn't interest you.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 05 Nov 2012 #26
Thumb_2495 Kara D. United States 182 posts in this forum Offline

randal patrick wrote:
You might start an entire new thread called "understanding" and you will see many opinions about what it means.
For the thinking process to "understand" it must have what lid calls context, a previous encounter or similar. That is one kind of understanding and a valuable tool when one has the need.
But to come into contact with something that we will call "now", the comparison process won't handle it because "now" never came before. Nothing to compare it to, no context therefore no understanding. If the procees can't accept/like it or reject/dislike it (understand it), it goes into default (fear) and uses anger/aggression to deal with the confusing situation.
like what we see here at kinfonet and in personal relationships of all kinds.
Relationship, is a form of "now".

Maybe by insight K simply means that a a new or different context is created, or registered by the conscious mind. This would square with his stating that thinking realizes its own limitations.

It registers as an instantaneous (in the now) realization. It registers in the mind as having an lightening-bolt quality.

For example, say that thought has realized its own limitations. For it to know that it has, it has to compare that realization to what it was doing before, hence a new context.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Mon, 05 Nov 2012 #27
Thumb_stringio B Teulada Portugal 700 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

lidlo lady wrote:
You haven't addressed the question.

you jumped the gun, as usual,

lidlo lady wrote:
Is there another "instrument

Yes there is. It's thought without "LL" getting in the way of intelligent use of thought all the time.

I don't expect you to understand.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 3 readers
Back to Top
Mon, 05 Nov 2012 #28
Thumb_stringio lidlo lady United States 4003 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Kara D. wrote:
Maybe by insight K simply means that a a new or different context is created, or registered by the conscious mind. This would square with his stating that thinking realizes its own limitations.

It registers as an instantaneous (in the now) realization. It registers in the mind as having an lightening-bolt quality.

For example, say that thought has realized its own limitations. For it to know that it has, it has to compare that realization to what it was doing before, hence a new context.

Yes, thought can have an insight into its own operation and this deeper, wider comprehension can be mistaken for something other and beyond thought, i.e., another instrument.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 05 Nov 2012 #29
Thumb_stringio lidlo lady United States 4003 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

B Teulada wrote:
you jumped the gun, as usual,

As I've said so many times to you and to others, please don't make an accusation if you can't be specific. How and when, exactly, did I "jump the gun"? I asked a question which you simply dismissed. Why?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 05 Nov 2012 #30
Thumb_stringio B Teulada Portugal 700 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

lidlo lady wrote:
I asked a question which you simply dismissed. Why?

Dearest, I replied in 2nd part of my # 27, which, typically, you either didn't read or chose not to acknowledge.

In either case, it is becoming increasingly clear, even to one as naive and as ready to give people all the chances they possibly need, that you are here with a very unclear agenda. I don't know what that is but quite frankly i have stopped caring.

You have been useful to me in some way and i am grateful for that. But, all in all, i understand now that there's nothing more there, behind the "LL" name, that is worth exploring.

Thank you for the drawn-out exchange.

Good luck in whatever purpose brings you here.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 106 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.)