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

Thought Becoming Aware of Itself...


Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 63 in total
Wed, 10 Feb 2016 #1
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1375 posts in this forum Offline

K: "... You are thinking now, aren't you? Now as you are thinking find out if that thinking can be aware of itself. Not you aware of thinking - do you understand the problem? I wonder if you see this. This is really great fun if you go into it. Not only fun, it is very, very serious, because we can go very, very deeply into all this."

Brockwood Park 30 August 1979

I'm finding that this is a very interesting thing to work with, and I thought it could be a separate topic where people attempting this non-dualistic 'meditation'(?) might want to share what they find.

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 10 Feb 2016 #2
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Now as you are thinking find out if that thinking can be aware of itself. Not you aware of thinking . . .

He is asking whether thinking can be aware of thinking.

Of course it cannot because "awareness" and "thinking" are two different things: Awareness is sensing; thinking is the consideration of memory.

There is no "you" who is aware of thinking. With awareness, there is just the thinking itself. The old truth once more: "The observer is the observed."

max

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 10 Feb 2016 #3
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1375 posts in this forum Offline

max greene wrote:
Of course it cannot because "awareness" and "thinking" are two different things: Awareness is sensing; thinking is the consideration of memory.

I'm not so sure that what you say here is anything other than 'thought' coming to a conclusion, having 'definitions', being 'certain' etc....The 'experiment', though, is very interesting and I would say at this point, very 'difficult'...and for me, a completely different 'approach' to the problem.

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 10 Feb 2016 #4
Thumb_stringio richard nolet Canada 39 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

The problem is when we separate awareness from thinking. If we have awareness and thinking, don't we have a duality ? Without such a duality, and without the duality of the thinker, the observer which occur as separate from thought, the only thing left is the content. It seems the same as when we say: conciousness is his own content and we see that the observer separating itself from it , create a duality between himself and the content.

Thinking being aware of itself ? There is awareness of a tree; there is awareness of a thought. Am I aware of the reaction, of the very creation of duality when it arise ? As conciousness is his own content, thought is also its own content.

Is awareness and thought two different things ? I contest that. I always did. But Jean and Max have strongs ideas about awareness, being something, formless; awareness and thought being exclusif: when there is thought awareness is not, and so on; they will probably react strongly :)

Awereness IS something we are aware of, IS the content we are aware of. Then awareness , in this case, IS thinking. And so thinking is aware of itself.

This post was last updated by richard nolet (account deleted) Wed, 10 Feb 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 10 Feb 2016 #5
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

richard nolet wrote:
Is awareness and thought two different things ? I contest that.

You are right that with the awareness of thinking there is only the thinking. And yet, to think is not to be aware, is it? Here they are two different things.

Awareness is movement. There is the movement of awareness, but the moment of hesitation in this movement to identify and label is not awareness, as I see it. It is this moment of hesitation, the identifying and labeling, that is not awareness. This is the moment of thinking and thought.

How would you characterize, or define, thinking? I see it as a process by the brain in which memory is compared. evaluated, judged in order to arrive at a choice as to reaction. I can't see this process as being awareness.

max

This post was last updated by max greene Wed, 10 Feb 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 10 Feb 2016 #6
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

max greene wrote:
Awareness is movement.

Max, I don't see why awareness is movement ? 'movement' always implies 'objects' moving ... is awareness an 'object' ... it is like saying 'space is movement' ... space is not moving, rather objects within space move ... but I might misunderstand what you mean here ...

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 10 Feb 2016 #7
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5514 posts in this forum Offline

Jean Gatti wrote:
'movement' always implies 'objects' moving .

No, it doesn't have to imply "objects" at all. It's a wrong way to look at it. Thought is a movement. Time is a movement. Space is movement because thought has invented that space between the thinker and the thought. Between you and another.

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 10 Feb 2016 #8
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5514 posts in this forum Offline

Jean Gatti wrote:
'movement' always implies 'objects' moving ... is awareness an 'object' ... it is like saying 'space is movement' ... space is not moving, rather objects within space move ..

Jean when you make up and apply conditions to something, as you have done here, you put a limit on what you are seeing based on the limitation of your conditioning. This is a reaction on your part Jean. Ask yourself; is this a reaction or a response before you respond.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 10 Feb 2016 #9
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

Jean Gatti wrote:
. . . I don't see why awareness is movement ? 'movement' always implies 'objects' moving ... is awareness an 'object' ..

There is the so-called movement of sequence, the sequence of events. The present unfolds and it appears to us that the physical universe moves along through evolution.

But awareness is free of the sequential chain of events in our universe. The present is forever new, and awareness is always and only of this new present moment. Awareness "moves" with the present.

In truth, the movement of the present is the only movement there is to existence!

max

This post was last updated by max greene Wed, 10 Feb 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 10 Feb 2016 #10
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5514 posts in this forum Offline

Meditation is the movement of love. Where is the object here?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 10 Feb 2016 #11
Thumb_3252 Voco . Luxembourg 878 posts in this forum Offline

Jack Pine wrote:
Meditation is the movement of love. Where is the object here?

Rather a movement of concepts you are trying to impose here on others. Why you are continuously repeating everything after K?

Oh, and you speak of love, after everything you have said to others here. What a hypocrite you are! Apparently, you don't even see what you are talking about.

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 11 Feb 2016 #12
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1375 posts in this forum Offline

richard nolet wrote:
The problem is when we separate awareness from thinking. If we have awareness and thinking, don't we have a duality ?

I don't know about all that, but here K is asking, can thought become aware of itself? Not you observing 'your' thought, but realizing that there is no separate 'you' from the thought/thinking. Can the thought that arises (whatever it is ) be aware of itself? Find a quiet spot, try it, it's very interesting.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Thu, 11 Feb 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 11 Feb 2016 #13
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5514 posts in this forum Offline

Voco, your responses are becoming more and more like a little child throwing a tantrum out on the school yard playground.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 11 Feb 2016 #14
Thumb_stringio richard nolet Canada 39 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Dan McDermott wrote:
Not you observing 'your' thought, but realizing that there is no separate 'you' from the thought/thinking.

Yes. The perspective then is quite different.

This post was last updated by richard nolet (account deleted) Thu, 11 Feb 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 11 Feb 2016 #15
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1375 posts in this forum Offline

richard nolet wrote:
Yes. The perspective then is quite different. Thought then flowered and tell his story, if we may say.

I think that that is the "perspective" that K was pointing at: thought allowed to "flower" and to discover for itself that it IS a 'material process' and that the thinker 'you' is not different or separate from itself.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 11 Feb 2016 #16
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

Jack Pine wrote:
Voco, your responses are becoming more and more like a little child throwing a tantrum out on the school yard playground.

Still in the movie business Jack ?

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 11 Feb 2016 #17
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

max greene wrote:
Awareness "moves" with the present.

But 'moving' implies time, no ? Isn't presence (and awareness) 'timeless' ?

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 11 Feb 2016 #18
Thumb_img001 Sudhir Sharma India 1989 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
K: "... You are thinking now, aren't you? Now as you are thinking find out if that thinking can be aware of itself.

This implies that in order to find this out, the thought movement is not being reacted to...but when does it happen?

The reaction to previous thought comes from accumulated knowledge/experiences centered around me/you. This reaction is very fast and any effort made to 'not react' is also a reaction.

So, can there be freedom from 'me' reacting to thinking? ...Or is this a wrong question?

FLOW WITH LIFE!

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 11 Feb 2016 #19
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

Jean Gatti wrote:
But 'moving' implies time, no ? Isn't presence (and awareness) 'timeless' ?

How else can it be said? The present unfolds, flowers always new. This is the "movement" of the present. Is there another word? Awareness is one with this movement.

max

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 11 Feb 2016 #20
Thumb_img001 Sudhir Sharma India 1989 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
...thought allowed to "flower" and to discover for itself that it IS a 'material process' and that the thinker 'you' is not different or separate from itself.

Words/images have emotional accompaniments and influence our thinking, feeling and actions. Thought is made up of them. For thoughts to flower, the words need to lose their power to influence us...this is not easy as we have to live and survive in the society that gives 'value' to words and expects us to follow its rules.

FLOW WITH LIFE!

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 11 Feb 2016 #21
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1375 posts in this forum Offline

K: "... You are thinking now, aren't you? Now as you are thinking find out if that thinking can be aware of itself.

Sudhir: This implies that in order to find this out, the thought movement is not being reacted to...but when does it happen?

Well this is the point of the exercise, not what is "implied",but to actually try it and see. It's very 'difficult' but interesting:

K: "... You are thinking now, aren't you? Now as you are thinking find out if that thinking can be aware of itself. Not you aware of thinking - do you understand the problem? I wonder if you see this".

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Thu, 11 Feb 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 11 Feb 2016 #22
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1375 posts in this forum Offline

Sudhir Sharma wrote:
Words/images have emotional accompaniments and influence our thinking, feeling and actions. Thought is made up of them. For thoughts to flower, the words need to lose their power to influence us...this is not easy as we have to live and survive in the society that gives 'value' to words and expects us to follow its rules.

These conclusions may all be true and are all part of knowledge. But what is being asked here is to try to see if thoughts, the thought itself can be aware of itself, not an 'observer' or a thinker separate from his thoughts 'watching', 'aware' of 'his/her' thinking. If you try it, it might be interesting to share with others who are interested, what was found.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 11 Feb 2016 #23
Thumb_img001 Sudhir Sharma India 1989 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
These conclusions may all be true and are all part of knowledge. But what is being asked here is to try to see if thoughts, the thought itself can be aware of itself, not an 'observer' or a thinker separate from his thoughts 'watching', 'aware' of 'his/her' thinking. If you try it, it might be interesting to share with others who are interested, what was found.

That is what is being pointed out, Dan. If one finds anything to share, then thinker was in existence. If thought movement makes any sense, then thinker is operating.

To be aware of thought movement without the thinker can only be when words are just meaningless sound imprint arising from memory and dissolving instantly.

FLOW WITH LIFE!

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 11 Feb 2016 #24
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1375 posts in this forum Offline

Sudhir Sharma wrote:
To be aware of thought movement without the thinker can only be when words are just meaningless sound imprint arising from memory and dissolving instantly.

That's not my experience with this so far, Sudhir. Maybe others will comment on theirs.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Thu, 11 Feb 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 12 Feb 2016 #25
Thumb_001 Sean Hen Spain 789 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
K: "... You are thinking now, aren't you? Now as you are thinking find out if that thinking can be aware of itself. Not you aware of thinking - do you understand the problem? I wonder if you see this. This is really great fun if you go into it. Not only fun, it is very, very serious, because we can go very, very deeply into all this."

Thanks for starting this interesting thread Dan. Obviously I don't know if thinking can be aware of itself. By asking this, K surely implies that it can. He is challenging us to find out.

My own experience suggests that the only way to do this is to bring a great deal of attention to this matter and observe. I think we all have this level of attention from time to time and it is usually connected with passion or great interest. For example, I have a friend who has a passion for wildlife. When he observes a bird in the field he watches very attentively indeed. He sees not only subtleties of colour in the plumage, but colour of legs, beak, wing projection, supercilium etc. Perhaps we need to bring this kind of level of attention to aspects of our everyday life and observe things like thinking in such an acutely observant manner.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Fri, 12 Feb 2016 #26
Thumb_leaping_fire_frog_by_sirenofchaos natarajan shivan India 81 posts in this forum Offline

Sean Hen wrote:
He sees not only subtleties of colour in the plumage, but colour of legs, beak, wing projection, supercilium etc.

Sean, is giving attention to details same as exhausting memory? Any effort to get into details prevents exhausting memory or in other words sustains memory/image as I see.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 12 Feb 2016 #27
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

natarajan shivan wrote:
. . . sustains memory/image . . .

As I see it, memory and image are two different things. Memory is real, physical, encoded in the cells of the brain. Image is psychological, the result of thinking.

max

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 12 Feb 2016 #28
Thumb_leaping_fire_frog_by_sirenofchaos natarajan shivan India 81 posts in this forum Offline

max greene wrote:
Image is psychological, the result of thinking.

Image is what allows recognition as I see, it is not a 'giving life' process.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 12 Feb 2016 #29
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

Isn't the recognition, naming, classifying and all such treatment of whatever is perceived (sensed) the psychological reaction of thinking?

What happens when this reaction does not take place? I would say that the memory remains unidentified but nevertheless the memory is still encoded in the cells of the brain. Association and need trigger its use with awareness; naming and classifying are applicable only to the thinking process.

max

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 12 Feb 2016 #30
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1375 posts in this forum Offline

Hello Sean and Natarajan and Max,

I took this 'challenge' in a perhaps simple way. I focused my attention on my thinking ( That sentence structure is interesting: it has an 'I' doing something with 'attention' and the 'I' separate from 'its' thinking none of which seems true when actually engaged in this excercise.) Now K said to not observe the thoughts as if there was this separation or duality; that the thinker is the thought...so with that in mind to remember also that what was trying to be seen here is whether the thinking, the thoughts being seen could be "aware' of itself, for itself, by itself etc. This 'exercise' was very 'interesting' in that it was very difficult not to go (fall?) into the 'duality' of thought with a thinker, a 'me' but simply stay with the thought...but when that did happen, to just pick it up again and try to see what ever thought was there, for itself. It IS like a 'meditation' and seems as K had said that it " is very, very serious, because we can go very, very deeply into all this.".

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Fri, 12 Feb 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 63 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.)