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

About the unconscious mind......Revisited


Displaying posts 91 - 120 of 135 in total
Tue, 09 Feb 2016 #91
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5400 posts in this forum Offline

Jean Gatti wrote:
Jack one can lead a horse to the water but cannot make it drink ...

Jean, thanks I know that what you say in your above quote is a fact. But still I think you should at least try to see yourself as you are. Think of me as a mirror and see yourself in what you say to me.

Hey listen buddy, I have some extra time so if my leading you to water has a chance of helping you I don't mind trying.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Tue, 09 Feb 2016 #92
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

Jack Pine wrote:
Think of me as a mirror and see yourself in what you say to me.

But Jack I would like to, but the images you send back are so distorted that there is no credibility in the quality of your reflections ... you are making too many assumptions (like I am a woman etc) and not enough facts ... you are far too emotionally involved in your reactions ... which corrupts your vision of reality ... replacing it by a very distorted mind-created movie ...

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 09 Feb 2016 #93
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5400 posts in this forum Offline

Jean Gatti wrote:
I am a woman

Jean you have to admit that your style is often a very feminine one. Don't be ashamed of getting in touch with your "feminine side". Let go of your self images and be who you feel you really are. Jean I don't mean to sound derogatory in any way when I say you often come across as feminine. Some of my best friends are women. Hell my wife is a woman!

Jean it's up to you, of course. But this may be just a marvelous opportunity for you to come out of the closet. Be free my friend.

This post was last updated by Jack Pine Tue, 09 Feb 2016.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Wed, 10 Feb 2016 #94
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

Jack Pine wrote:
Jean you have to admit that your style is often a very feminine one.

No Jack, this is your sexist bias and prejudice ... your movie ...

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 10 Feb 2016 #95
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

Jack Pine wrote:
Hell my wife is a woman!

'Your' wife Jack ... you 'possess' a wife ? How lucky ...

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 10 Feb 2016 #96
Thumb_avatar P Sylvan United Kingdom 309 posts in this forum Offline

"Can one observe the movement of thought, not as an observer looking at thought, but thought itself becoming aware of its own movement”

I am reposting the following quotes taken from posts 62 onwards.

“thought itself becoming aware of its own movement”

And:

“to see the fact of that image without the observer”

And:

“That is, can thought be aware of itself, as it arises?”

And:

“find out if that thinking can be aware of itself. Not you aware of thinking”

And:

“ Now take one thought and see if that thought can know itself.”

And:

“So you are not aware as thought arises, but thought itself is aware as it comes into being.”

When K asks: “can thought be aware of itself”, it may appear that he is suggesting that thought has attributes over and above those of being a purely mechanical functioning. However, I don’t think that this is what K is suggesting, and in the following extract K and Bohm are to my mind quite clear that when there is Perception, a change occurs in which thought is no longer producing the illusion of its being anything other than entirely mechanical in its nature.

“K: Yes. No, let’s get this clear, I’m not quite… Let’s get… There is total perception. In that there is no thought. And that perception is action.

DB: Yes, and that will change the quality of thought by changing the brain cells.

K: Yes, and so on – we’ve been into that. Now, thought has only a mechanical function.

DB: By mechanical we mean more or less not intelligent, you see. In the dictionary they are given as more or less opposites.

K: Yes, thought has…

DB: It’s not creative, not intelligent.

K: No, no, it’s purely mechanical.

DB: Yes. Creative is also taken as the opposite of mechanical.

K: Yes, creative, opposite – quite, quite. So if it is merely mechanical then it can operate mechanically in everything without any psychological centre.”

Eighth conversation with Dr Bohm in Gstaad 25 July 1975

And:

“K: That’s right, that’s right. When that is seen, thought is then merely mechanical.

DB: Well, then thought acknowledges…

K: That’s it.

DB: …it is mechanical. You see, thought...

K: No, thought doesn’t have to acknowledge – it is mechanical.

DB: No, no, it is mechanical. Yes, all right. Thought has changed so that it is mechanical and thought no longer attributes to itself – I want to put it that thought ceases to attribute to itself the non-mechanical."

K: Yes, that’s right.

Eighth conversation with Dr Bohm in Gstaad 25 July 1975

So the question arises as to how can thought be aware of itself, if it (thought) is a purely mechanical ‘thing’? Is there another way of understanding what K is saying here?

Paul S

In the spirit of dialogue

This post was last updated by P Sylvan Wed, 10 Feb 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 10 Feb 2016 #97
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1339 posts in this forum Offline

P Sylvan wrote:
So the question arises as to how can thought be aware of itself, if it (thought) is a purely mechanical ‘thing’? Is there another way of understanding what K is saying here?

It may or it may not be "mechanical" and whatever conclusion someone else has come to is irrelevant... the experiment has to be tried by oneself again and again, it seems to me, to 'see' if thought CAN "awaken to itself" instead of its normal functioning (in ignorance?) That is why I think he is suggesting this experiment: to bring thought to a different relation with itself? (Also it is "fun").

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Wed, 10 Feb 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 10 Feb 2016 #98
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5400 posts in this forum Offline

Jean Gatti wrote:
No Jack, this is your sexist bias and prejudice ... your movie ...

Jean Gatti wrote:
'Your' wife Jack ... you 'possess' a wife ? How lucky ...

Oh, I see. You are either divorced or have never been married. Certainly understandable Jean. You do show strong anti-social tendencies and a rather glaring lack of personal integrity. Not the best traits to have to find a life partner. Don't give up Jean. You may still find someone.

This post was last updated by Jack Pine Wed, 10 Feb 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 10 Feb 2016 #99
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

P Sylvan wrote (quoting Krishnamurti):
. . . thought doesn’t have to acknowledge – it is mechanical.

How can thought be mechanical? Thought is the result of the brain's process of thinking, and thought is therefore totally psychological. How can the psychological be mechanical?

It is the brain that functions mechanically. Thought is the self, an imaginary construct by the brain.

max

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 10 Feb 2016 #100
Thumb_avatar P Sylvan United Kingdom 309 posts in this forum Offline

max greene wrote:
P Sylvan wrote (quoting Krishnamurti):

. . . thought doesn’t have to acknowledge – it is mechanical.

max greene wrote:
How can thought be mechanical? Thought is the result of the brain's process of thinking, and thought is therefore totally psychological. How can the psychological be mechanical?

It is the brain that functions mechanically. Thought is the self, an imaginary construct by the brain.

Hello Max,

When you say that “thought is therefore totally psychological”, are you saying that all thought has within it the sensed division of the observer and the observed? From previous conversations I think that perhaps you might be? What K and Bohm seem to be saying in the particular quote that I posted is that in Perception, thought no longer takes itself to be something that it isn’t, and therefore, in the absence of the observer/observed division, thought then functions mechanically as required in its correct area of functioning. So in relation to thought, K and DB have said:

K: "No, thought doesn’t have to acknowledge – it is mechanical.

DB: No, no, it is mechanical. Yes, all right. Thought has changed so that it is mechanical and thought no longer attributes to itself – I want to put it that thought ceases to attribute to itself the non-mechanical.

K: Yes, that’s right."

In the same conversation, K also states in relation to thought that:

K: "Yes, creative, opposite – quite, quite. So if it is merely mechanical then it can operate mechanically in everything without any psychological centre.”

Eighth conversation with Dr Bohm in Gstaad 25 July 1975

Paul S

In the spirit of dialogue

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 2 readers
Back to Top
Thu, 11 Feb 2016 #101
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

P Sylvan wrote:
When you say that “thought is therefore totally psychological”, are you saying that all thought has within it the sensed division of the observer and the observed?

Yes. As I see it, there is a thinker with every thought. Thinking creates thinker and thought as one. The self is a psychological entity, actually imaginary as it does not exist, and since thought cannot be separated from the thinker both are, we have to say, imaginary! Which makes sense to me, as I see awareness and memory fully capable of handling any life situation.

The division between the observer and the observed is the division between the physical and the psychological. Take away the imaginary self, and there is no sense of division.

Thought cannot be said to be mechanical as it is a purely imaginary product of the brain's mechanical process of thinking. It is the belief in the reality of the psychological (thought and the self) that is the basic human problem, not whether or not thought can be considered mechanical.

max

This post was last updated by max greene Thu, 11 Feb 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 11 Feb 2016 #102
Thumb_avatar Ravi Seth India 1573 posts in this forum Offline

P Sylvan wrote:
that in Perception, thought no longer takes itself to be something that it isn’t,

Good,Sylvan.

Therefore there is another factor as pointed out by k , that of 'perception' , that makes the thought realize its limitation.

Hearing this the thought then asks 'how to have that perception?', little realizing this question itself is arising from its mechanical activity :-)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 11 Feb 2016 #103
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 1274 posts in this forum Offline

P Sylvan wrote:
thought no longer takes itself to be something that it isn’t, and therefore, in the absence of the observer/observed division, thought then functions mechanically as required in its correct area of functioning.

thanks for the quotes.:-)

where does this division take place??

By the seeing the parts as parts and not as a whole??

The whole being more than the sum of its parts add something to the parts which is there without someone doing something.

So being and seeing it as one whole, not by distracting a part, adds something.

every part has its place but if one part is being over or under participated ruins the whole and this something elusive.

Truth will unfold itself for those who enquire their own actions and only to them and for them and to or for no one else.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 11 Feb 2016 #104
Thumb_stringio natarajan s India 257 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

P Sylvan wrote:
When K asks: “can thought be aware of itself”, it may appear that he is suggesting that thought has attributes over and above those of being a purely mechanical functioning. However, I don’t think that this is what K is suggesting

Paul,

Could we consider both (i.e. observer as memory united with the observed in awareness and also the progressive movement of awareness from then on towards some sort of action)as a part of one and same situation, i.e. Seeing, effortlessly flowing into Doing. The tension held in the situation of observer/observed translating into action. Awareness which signified the relationship, moving towards action which contains it as Unity.

Thinking being aware of itself, as I see, implies decoupling of it from memory as its starting point, but nevertheless contains it as inseparable from itself.

DO (BE)-BE(DO)-DO (BE)-...Doing(Seeing)-Seeing(Doing)-Doing(Seeing)--back and forth.

contraria sunt complementa

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 12 Feb 2016 #105
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5400 posts in this forum Offline

Jean Gatti wrote:
'Your' wife Jack ... you 'possess' a wife ? How lucky ...

Jean, I know it must be very difficult for you to be so isolated, rejected perhaps, but don't ridicule another for having a warm, intimate relationship. It's not only bad form but it shows just how hollow, superficial and empty your own life must be. Envy, my friend, is a very destructive personality trait to have. It is akin to hate. Use this chance to understand your envy and hate and rid yourself of it.

Good luck with that Jean.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 12 Feb 2016 #106
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

Jack Pine wrote:
Jean, I know it must be very difficult for you to be so isolated, rejected perhaps, but don't ridicule another for having a warm, intimate relationship.

Jack, you are making a 'movie' in your head again ... what makes you think I am 'isolated' ? This is pure invention of yours ... and you draw all kinds of conclusions from this imaginary assumption ...

But maybe there is more to this, what about your 'need' to answer a second time to the same challenge ? Your first answer was clearly a superficial emotional reaction ... now you bring some deeper response, but still based on erroneous assumptions ... maybe the third time you could stick to facts ... and see the message rather than attacking the messenger as you usually do ... for this you need to look deeper inside yourself Jack ... and see what happens there ...

But do you really want to do this ?

Why resist 'what is' ?

This post was last updated by Jean Gatti Fri, 12 Feb 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 12 Feb 2016 #107
Thumb_avatar P Sylvan United Kingdom 309 posts in this forum Offline

natarajan s wrote:
P Sylvan wrote:

When K asks: “can thought be aware of itself”, it may appear that he is suggesting that thought has attributes over and above those of being a purely mechanical functioning. However, I don’t think that this is what K is suggesting
Paul,

Natarajan S wrote:
Could we consider both (i.e. observer as memory united with the observed in awareness and also the progressive movement of awareness from then on towards some sort of action)as a part of one and same situation, i.e. Seeing, effortlessly flowing into Doing. The tension held in the situation of observer/observed translating into action. Awareness which signified the relationship, moving towards action which contains it as Unity.

Thinking being aware of itself, as I see, implies decoupling of it from memory as its starting point, but nevertheless contains it as inseparable from itself.

DO (BE)-BE(DO)-DO (BE)-...Doing(Seeing)-Seeing(Doing)-Doing(Seeing)--back and forth.

Hello Natarajan S,

I’m not sure if you will see this message as your account has been deleted, but if you do, and if you are interested in exploring the themes in your post together a little further, please send me a PM.

Best,

Paul S

In the spirit of dialogue

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 12 Feb 2016 #108
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5400 posts in this forum Offline

Jean Gatti wrote:
Jack, you are making a 'movie' in your head again ... what makes you think I am 'isolated' ? This is pure invention of yours ... and you draw all kinds of conclusions from this imaginary assumption ...

Jean, I wonder if you see how you accuse others of doing precisely what you are doing? Why do you think your images of others, which you so freely post on the forum, are any different from the images you accuse others of making of you?

Why do you constantly set yourself up as being different from the rest of us? In addition to the examples above, you seem quick to accuse others of emotionalism but you don't see your own emotion being played out. This is the isolation I'm referring to. You think that you are one kind of person who is above what you accuse the rest of us of being? You have isolated yourself in your own mind and at the same time alienated yourself from many others on this forum.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 12 Feb 2016 #109
Thumb_leaping_fire_frog_by_sirenofchaos natarajan shivan India 80 posts in this forum Offline

P Sylvan wrote:
if you are interested in exploring the themes in your post together a little further

Paul, yes, let's carry on.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 12 Feb 2016 #110
Thumb_avatar P Sylvan United Kingdom 309 posts in this forum Offline

natarajan s wrote:
P Sylvan wrote:

When K asks: “can thought be aware of itself”, it may appear that he is suggesting that thought has attributes over and above those of being a purely mechanical functioning. However, I don’t think that this is what K is suggesting

natarajan s wrote:
Paul,

Could we consider both (i.e. observer as memory united with the observed in awareness and also the progressive movement of awareness from then on towards some sort of action)as a part of one and same situation, i.e. Seeing, effortlessly flowing into Doing. The tension held in the situation of observer/observed translating into action. Awareness which signified the relationship, moving towards action which contains it as Unity.

Thinking being aware of itself, as I see, implies decoupling of it from memory as its starting point, but nevertheless contains it as inseparable from itself.

DO (BE)-BE(DO)-DO (BE)-...Doing(Seeing)-Seeing(Doing)-Doing(Seeing)--back and forth.

“Could we consider both (i.e. observer as memory united with the observed in awareness and also the progressive movement of awareness from then on towards some sort of action)as a part of one and same situation, i.e. Seeing, effortlessly flowing into Doing.”

Hi Natarajan,

Are you saying that upon the condition in which the observer (‘as memory’) is the observed, that seeing and action are unified in the sense that the doing is the manifestation of the seeing? Is this what you are proposing?

“The tension held in the situation of observer/observed translating into action.”

Yes, I agree, that the energy previously locked up in the psychological structure of difference is therefore freed into action.

“Thinking being aware of itself, as I see, implies decoupling of it from memory as its starting point, but nevertheless contains it as inseparable from itself.”

I’m not clear as to what you mean here. Are you saying that “decoupling of it from memory”, means that thought is no longer being looked at from separation, i.e. from within the field of thought, and that therefore, there is no longer two but one?

"DO (BE)-BE(DO)-DO (BE)-...Doing(Seeing)-Seeing(Doing)-Doing(Seeing)--back and forth.”

In terms of the “DO (BE)-BE(DO)...." it seems, if I am understanding you correctly that there would be an ongoing movement in and out of Awareness - is this what you are suggesting?

Apologies for all the questions but I want to make sure that I am not misunderstanding or misinterpreting what you are writing as this is not an easy area of inquiry.

Paul

In the spirit of dialogue

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Sat, 13 Feb 2016 #111
Thumb_leaping_fire_frog_by_sirenofchaos natarajan shivan India 80 posts in this forum Offline

P Sylvan wrote:
“decoupling of it from memory”, means that thought is no longer being looked at from separation, i.e. from within the field of thought, and that therefore, there is no longer two but one?

decoupling of it from it's starting point which is the reserve as past/memory. As I see, there is no more looking at it continually but we are aware of its beginning, and by letting it happen thus , we are one with it, in unity.

P Sylvan wrote:
if I am understanding you correctly that there would be an ongoing movement in and out of Awareness - is this what you are suggesting?

It is a progressive movement of awareness, what we are aware of has been understood in the totality of situation and from that proceeds response as action. In doing, awareness (seeing) is implicit in it without any effort.

We can't extract ourselves out of such situations for an objective understanding, for, we are one with the movement.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 14 Feb 2016 #112
Thumb_avatar P Sylvan United Kingdom 309 posts in this forum Offline

natarajan shivan wrote:
“Thinking being aware of itself, as I see, implies decoupling of it from memory as its starting point, but nevertheless contains it as inseparable from itself.”

P Sylvan wrote:
I’m not clear as to what you mean here. Are you saying that “decoupling of it from memory”, means that thought is no longer being looked at from separation, i.e. from within the field of thought, and that therefore, there is no longer two but one?

natarajan shivan wrote:
decoupling of it from it's starting point which is the reserve as past/memory. As I see, there is no more looking at it continually but we are aware of its beginning, and by letting it happen thus , we are one with it, in unity.

OK, let me try again, Natarajan, and if I am still off the mark in terms of what you are saying, perhaps you could let me know at which points I am misunderstanding your meaning.

I think that you are suggesting that in order for thought to be aware of itself, that there first needs to be a ‘decoupling’, or an ending of the difference between thought and ‘its’ ‘starting point’, which includes its mechanism of continuance as the sensed observer (as memory). Is this what you mean or are you saying something other than this?

It also seems that you are further suggesting that after this ‘decoupling’ or ending has taken place, that there is then (in relation to thought), “no more looking at it continually” from within the field of thought. Further, that in the absence of the observer/observed division, there is an awareness of thought arising from “its beginning” and “by letting it happen”, or in other words, without there being any centre interfering or attempting to change that which arises, there is unity in which awareness and thought cannot be divided because the former factor of division is now absent.

It seems to me, that upon the observer being the observed, that there is then no longer any factor of division in thought, and thought can therefore no longer be separated from Awareness itself. I am reminded of several statements made by K that seem pertinent here:

“The essence of thought is that state when thought is not.” (Notebook (61) 20th)

And:

“In the total emptiness of the mind, intellect, thought, feeling, all consciousness have their existence.” Krishnamurti's Notebook (84) 13th

So could we consider the following: When the observer is the observed and therefore the factor of division has ended, that Perception is the seeing in which the seen is no longer separated from the seeing, and in that state of unity, thought can be said to be aware of itself as it comes into being?

Is this what k was pointing to when he said: “So you are not aware as thought arises, but thought itself is aware as it comes into being.” ?

Paul

In the spirit of dialogue

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 15 Feb 2016 #113
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

P Sylvan wrote:
thought can be said to be aware of itself as it comes into being?

No Paul, it is not thought which is aware, but awareness is aware when thought starts ... and of course awareness is also inseparable from thought as awareness is the 'essence' of thought (K: “The essence of thought is that state when thought is not.” (Notebook (61) 20th) ... in fact awareness is the 'essence' of everything ... all forms, psychological AND physical forms (objects, people etc) ... 'essence' means 'being' ... without 'essence' there is no 'being' ...

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 15 Feb 2016 #114
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

Jean Gatti wrote:
awareness is the 'essence' of thought

This is also why Descartes said his famous statement:

"I think therefore I am"

he knew that thinking implies awareness and therefore 'beingness' ...

Excerpt from "Principles of Philosophy" (by René Descartes)

Quote

Part 1: The principles of human knowledge

9. What is meant by ‘thought’.

"I take the word ‘thought’ to cover everything that we are
aware of as happening within us
, and it counts as ‘thought’
because we are aware of it."

Unquote

Why resist 'what is' ?

This post was last updated by Jean Gatti Mon, 15 Feb 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 15 Feb 2016 #115
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 1274 posts in this forum Offline

Jean Gatti wrote:
he knew that thinking implies awareness and therefore 'beingness' ...

Jean,

One can't know what he knew,
if one is saying this out of knowledge without awareness it is not seeing.

the same with the Quote: "Part 1: The principles of human knowledge".

the way you describe it seems to have the energy of "persuading" instead of 'inquiring'.

Not that it could not be correct.

Truth will unfold itself for those who enquire their own actions and only to them and for them and to or for no one else.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 15 Feb 2016 #116
Thumb_leaping_fire_frog_by_sirenofchaos natarajan shivan India 80 posts in this forum Offline

P Sylvan wrote:
in order for thought to be aware of itself

What we are discussing, as I see, can't be approached from both sides, therefore we have to be careful with the usage of 'in order for'.

P Sylvan wrote:
‘starting point’, which includes its mechanism of continuance as the sensed observer (as memory). Is this what you mean or are you saying something other than this?

The starting point is not memory, it arises and flows in perception .

P Sylvan wrote:
Further, that in the absence of the observer/observed division, there is an awareness of thought arising from “its beginning” and “by letting it happen”, or in other words, without there being any centre interfering or attempting to change that which arises, there is unity in which awareness and thought cannot be divided because the former factor of division is now absent.

Yes.

P Sylvan wrote:
thought can therefore no longer be separated from Awareness itself.

Yes

P Sylvan wrote:
So could we consider the following: When the observer is the observed and therefore the factor of division has ended, that Perception is the seeing in which the seen is no longer separated from the seeing, and in that state of unity, thought can be said to be aware of itself as it comes into being?

We can't say anything about such thought, but the fact of it can be evidenced by the absence of conflict despite our lack of awareness about it.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 16 Feb 2016 #117
Thumb_avatar P Sylvan United Kingdom 309 posts in this forum Offline

natarajan shivan wrote:
P Sylvan wrote:

in order for thought to be aware of itself

natarajan shivan wrote:
What we are discussing, as I see, can't be approached from both sides, therefore we have to be careful with the usage of 'in order for'.

Yes. Good point.

natarajan shivan wrote:
P Sylvan wrote:

‘starting point’, which includes its mechanism of continuance as the sensed observer (as memory). Is this what you mean or are you saying something other than this?

natarajan shivan wrote:
The starting point is not memory, it arises and flows in perception .

Ah, I think I understand what you are saying now, Natarajan. I was thinking that you were still referring to division.

This thinking that we are discussing, that “arises and flows within perception”, cannot then be divided from perception, because the act of perception knows no such division. I would like to suggest that this thinking runs at a ‘higher frequency’ so-to-speak than the thinking with which we are normally more familiar and in which there is the sensed division between the thinker and its thought. It also seems to me that this thinking that “flows in perception” doesn’t ever accumulate content and is therefore always in harmony with the every movement of the new - such thinking therefore, never creating conflict.

The following extract from a conversation between K and David Bohm seems relevant here:

“K: That’s it. Therefore, thought itself is a distorting factor if the truth is not operating.

DB: Yes. I mean, I think that’s quite right. You see, that if truth is not operating then thought moves in all sorts of fortuitous ways. It’s like the wind and the waves, you know.

K: Of course.

DB: The waves come in and they go this way and that way and criss-cross, and whatever happens will just shape thought, make it go all around and distort.

K: Quite. Would you say thought in itself is divisive – understood – is in itself distorting, it is creating distortions?

DB: Well, as a matter of fact it is, or are you trying to say it necessarily does so? You see, there are two possibilities: one is to say thought without the truth necessarily distorts, or the other is to say no matter what happens thought is distorting. I don’t think we want to say that thought...

K: No, no, no.

DB: The other one – right?

K: The other one.

DB: So we say thought without truth is a divisive process.

K: That’s right, sir. Thought without the capacity, without that quality of seeing, is a distorting factor.

DB: Yes.

K: Yes.”

Second Dialogue with David Bohm and Dr Parchure Brockwood Park 24th May 1975

I also find that the following extract speaks to this sense of unity from which an expression of itself takes form.

“Questioner: Can there be thinking without memory?

Krishnamurti: In other words, is there thought without the word? You know, it is very interesting, if you go into it. Is the speaker using thought? Thought, as the word, is necessary for communication, is it not?The speaker has to use words, English words, to communicate with you who understand English. And the words come out of memory, obviously. But what is the source, what is behind the word? Let me put it differently.?

There is a drum; it gives out a tone. When the skin is tightly stretched at the right tension, you strike it, and it gives out the right tone, which you may recognize. The drum, which is empty, in right tension, is as your own mind can be. When there is right attention and you ask the right question, then it gives the right answer. The answer may be in terms of the word, the recognizable, but that which comes out of that emptiness is, surely, creation. The thing that is created out of knowledge is mechanical, but the thing which comes out of emptiness, out of the unknown, that is the state of creation.”

The Collected Works, Vol. XII",181,Choiceless Awareness

natarajan shivan wrote:
P Sylvan wrote:

So could we consider the following: When the observer is the observed and therefore the factor of division has ended, that Perception is the seeing in which the seen is no longer separated from the seeing, and in that state of unity, thought can be said to be aware of itself as it comes into being?

natarajan shivan wrote:
We can't say anything about such thought, but the fact of it can be evidenced by the absence of conflict despite our lack of awareness about it.

So our question remains: “can thought be aware of itself?”

Paul

In the spirit of dialogue

This post was last updated by P Sylvan Tue, 16 Feb 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 16 Feb 2016 #118
Thumb_leaping_fire_frog_by_sirenofchaos natarajan shivan India 80 posts in this forum Offline

P Sylvan wrote:
So our question remains: “can thought be aware of itself?”

What is the state in which a question remains unanswered?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 16 Feb 2016 #119
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

P Sylvan wrote:
So our question remains: “can thought be aware of itself?”

Yes, and another question remains as well: How is it possible for thought to be aware?

max

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 16 Feb 2016 #120
Thumb_avatar Ravi Seth India 1573 posts in this forum Offline

natarajan shivan wrote:
What is the state in which a question remains unanswered?

Emptiness.

or

a fool who does not understand anything

Both look to be same, but one is beyond another is behind.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 91 - 120 of 135 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.)