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

"Thought and Perception"


Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 109 in total
Sat, 08 Apr 2017 #1
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 4825 posts in this forum Offline

This title above is a chapter in the book "The Limits of Thought Disscussions"

These discussions between K and David Bohm, hereafter in this thread referred to as DB, took place in the summer of 1975 in Switzerland and Brockwood Park, England. I don't understand it beyond a rudimentary intellectual understanding of the words and their meanings. There is so much being said in so few words by these two men. I am not even sure how to present it so that those of you who are interested can seriously discuss it together.

This post was last updated by Jack Pine Sat, 08 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 08 Apr 2017 #2
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 4825 posts in this forum Offline

Thought is a mechanical process that believes itself to be alive. It has invented a center to give itself a permanency that it does not have in reality. Thought searches for security, seeks security because it sees it's own perishability. Thought is constantly moving.

K: Yes thought in itself is not secure.

DB: Thought cannot be secure, it's a mere reflection.

K: Yes therefore thought cannot be secure in itself so it seeks security outside.

DB: But why does it seek security?

K: Because thought is constantly changing, constantly moving.

DB: But that does not explain why is not satisfied to just be that.

K: Because it sees it's own perishable nature.

DB: Why should it want to be imperishable?

K: Because that which is imperishable is it's security.

DB goes on to ask: Why shouldn't thought just be content with it's perishability? Thought is mechanical. Why isn't it like Nature realizing that it is impermanent? That it is here today and will change tomorrow?

They go on to discuss that thought is a machine and machines break down. Also, and most of us have read this before that consciousness is thought. But if thought is a machine why should it seek security? Thought doesn't realize that it is a machine. It thinks it is alive.

What has been written here so far is just barely beyond the first page of the chapter. A chapter that is 15 pages long. So can we just take our time and discuss this first?

I have a question or maybe a thing to look into: If "I", the center, is the invention of thought and thought is dead then what are we? What is that image we have held so dearly since we can remember. That image that gets hurt, that feels joy, pain, love, hate, jealousy, greed-all of it?

If thought is mechanical how can it be hurt? Machines can't be hurt. K answers we get hurt because thought has created the image.

This post was last updated by Jack Pine Sun, 09 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 08 Apr 2017 #3
Thumb_img_20150716_212047-1-1 richard viillar France 34 posts in this forum Offline

Jack Pine wrote:
They go on to discuss that thought is a machine and machines break down. Also, and most of us have read this before that consciousness is thought. But if thought is a machine why should it seek security? Thought doesn't realize that it is a machine. It thinks it is alive.

What has been written here so far is just barely beyond the first page of the chapter. A chapter that is 15 pages long. So can we just take our time and discuss this first?

I have a question or maybe a thing to look into: If "I", the center, is the invention of thought and thought is dead then what are we? What is that image we have held so dearly since we can remember. That image that gets hurt, that feels joy, pain, love, hate, jealousy, greed-all of it?

If thought is mechanical how can it be hurt? Machines can't be hurt. K answers we get hurt because thought has created the image.

Hello and thank you Jack for this topic.

Yes, later, they will refute together that thought can not be aware of itself. something else than thought (awareness) come into thought and make awareness of tought.

Jack Pine wrote:
Thought doesn't realize that it is a machine

yes..

Jack Pine wrote:
It thinks it is alive

what use thought, take what appear (from thought) as something alive and think that it is alive..

Jack Pine wrote:
If "I", the center, is the invention of thought

an invention of what use thought (the whole brain with all its processes else than thought..)

Jack Pine wrote:
then what are we?

maybe that is a false question?..

Jack Pine wrote:
What is that image we have held so dearly since we can remember.

memory... which it is taken as reality...

Jack Pine wrote:
That image that gets hurt, that feels joy, pain, love, hate, jealousy, greed-all of it?

maybe that what it is named pain or joy are something like a feeling of security and insecurity...?

Jack Pine wrote:
If thought is mechanical how can it be hurt?

the image cannot be really hurted, it' an image.

what which reflects security is the inalterability of that image, and when this image could be in danger psy or phys, then there is a tension in brain body, a sensation... which can be translate with words: pain, hurt... and all that is memorised again

it seems...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 08 Apr 2017 #4
Thumb_nolet Rich Nolet Canada 174 posts in this forum Offline

Jack Pine wrote:
I have a question or maybe a thing to look into: If "I", the center, is the invention of thought and thought is dead then what are we? What is that image we have held so dearly since we can remember. That image that gets hurt, that feels joy, pain, love, hate, jealousy, greed-all of it?

If thought is mechanical how can it be hurt? Machines can't be hurt. K answers we get hurt because thought has created the image

I have reed this yesterday and I must say first that this conversation ( Krishnamurti and David Bohm-The Limits of Thought , chapter 4, Thought and Perception, that is ) is really facinating. By their interactions (questions and answers ) they not only scratch the surface of what we are , but they come to describe the reality of the actual functionning of our mind at his deepest level, if one may say. Not only that, K. also show the door, which is that this perception , as a whole ( which include greed, fear and all the rest as a result, which is actual consciousness) bring a fundamental change in the mind. Of course, I must say that I have to read again the whole thing. But wihtout this basic understanding ( which this thing being basic is underline by K in the text) I'm affraid one will continue to wander and roam, if I may say.

...then what are we Jack you ask , if what we think we are right now is but an illusion create by thought in his search for permanency ? Can anyone answer that as long as our mind is hold by this process, which seems valid for all of us, except very few exception maybe ?

This perception they are talking about, which Bohm used the word essence, which K. finaly accept, is the key to an understanding, at the very deep level, of the actual consciousness of mankind,

Just some thoughts , but I must admit , as I said, that I have to read it again. The key is there, if I may say. It is about perception. The perception of a whole that change all perceptions, that change the brain, that change thought and all the rest. What we would be , what would be conscioussnes after that is unknown, I would say.

This post was last updated by Rich Nolet Sat, 08 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 08 Apr 2017 #5
Thumb_nolet Rich Nolet Canada 174 posts in this forum Offline

Here is the link for those interested.

https://krishnamurti-teachings.info/ebooks/en/p...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 08 Apr 2017 #6
Thumb_a1056283319_2 Tom Paine United States 2963 posts in this forum Offline

Jack Pine wrote:
But if thought is a machine why should it seek security? Thought doesn't realize that it is a machine. It thinks it is alive.

Because it identifies with a body that's alive... that can feel pain? Because it says, 'this body is me'? Just asking. Thought remembers the pain and seeks to protect the body from feeling more pain. I need a shelter from the cold and food for the body or the body will feel more pain. It's natural for thought to seek physical security. So where does this kind of thinking lead us to trouble? Do we seek security in relationships....in ideas? I'm not sure I understand how thought goes from helping to protect the body to insure its survival to seeking psychological security in beliefs...religious....political...right vs wrong, etc....seeking security in people....in relationship between man and wife for instance.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Sat, 08 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 08 Apr 2017 #7
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 1171 posts in this forum Offline

Whatever the reason, imperishability, security, the creation by thought of a 'thinker' apart from itself seems to be the basis of all conflict psychologically. Without the duality of a thinker apart, there would be just thought flowing, not reacting to itself, not judging, condemning, approving, rejecting, replacing etc. It would just flow and when it wasn't 'needed' it would be silent. It would be very precise, logical in its approach to a task...The creation (projection) of a 'self-image, a 'center' interferes with the practical process of thought as a tool for security and survival. A'machine' doesn't 'attach' itself to things. The self-image, the 'me' does. and when it loses what it is attached to, what has become part of it, it (I) suffers. But without attachment, what would life be? We take the pain because attachments bring pleasure. And that is where we are stuck it seems.

When there is only fear without any hope of escape, in its darkest moments, in the utter solitude of fear, there comes from within itself, as it were, the light which shall dispel it."

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 08 Apr 2017 #8
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 4825 posts in this forum Offline

richard viillar wrote:
Jack Pine wrote:
What is that image we have held so dearly since we can remember.

Richard Viillar wrote:

memory... which it is taken as reality...

Yes.Apparently we are just a collection of memories; experiences, knowledge. The world is described to us from the time we are born. Describe within a context of culture with it's religion, customs, traditions. Accepting this intellectually because K has pointed it out so many times is one thing. But really perceiving this as a fact is something not related to thought as we know it which K points out later in this chapter. Perception, as K uses the word, is something quite different that intellectually accepting something.

Jack Pine wrote:
If thought is mechanical how can it be hurt?

Richard Viillar wrote:

the image cannot be really hurted, it' an image.

Yes that should be the case but the image does get hurt. We do get hurt when our wife leaves us, when someone we are attached to dies and so on. We, the center, become attached, comfortable, secure and when we loose someone, some thing that makes us feel secure, we loose part of ourselves and it frightens us. It fragments our illusion of being whole and safe.

Our attachments validate who we think we are. Remember loosing a girlfriend or someone we are heavily attached to? It creates a huge sucking vacuum which, instead of us seeing and understanding, we scramble to fill with someone else or with alcohol, drugs, some other attachment instead of understanding how attachment and pain are related.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 08 Apr 2017 #9
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 4825 posts in this forum Offline

Rich Nolet wrote:
...then what are we Jack you ask , if what we think we are right now is but an illusion create by thought in his search for permanency ? Can anyone answer that as long as our mind is hold by this process, which seems valid for all of us, except very few exception maybe ?

Apparently we, thought, can't answer it. Seeing it is a perception not related to thought as you have pointed out in your last paragraph.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 08 Apr 2017 #10
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 4825 posts in this forum Offline

Tom what you and Dan are saying appears to be very valid to me. Listen, I am just trying to get this dialogue started but I, frankly, am not really clear, I don't really understand past a superficial level, what the difference is between thought and perception so I would appreciate all of your understandings or insights into this topic.

All of the responses have been to the point. Has everyone read this chapter? If so then I don't have to try to explain what is in it and each of us can express our own understanding.

I just want to add this from the chapter. K and DB are saying that perception is apart from thought but perception changes thought, changes the brain chemistry, and thought becomes something other than what thought is now. Is that how the rest of you understand this?

This post was last updated by Jack Pine Sat, 08 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 08 Apr 2017 #11
Thumb_img_20150716_212047-1-1 richard viillar France 34 posts in this forum Offline

Jack Pine wrote:
but the image does get hurt.

it seems that it's what lives (whole brain) through the image which feel insecurity and translates then with thought 'centered', as being (through conflict/tension) hurting

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 08 Apr 2017 #12
Thumb_img_20150716_212047-1-1 richard viillar France 34 posts in this forum Offline

Jack Pine wrote:
K and DB are saying that perception is apart from thought but perception changes thought, changes the brain chemistry, and thought becomes something other than what thought is now. Is that how the rest of you understand this?

yes that is very clear Jack.

as i see it,

yes there is something wich is not thought which change the nature of brain cells including thought. K and DB named that perception.

Jack Pine wrote:
what the difference is between thought and perception so I would appreciate all of your understandings or insights into this topic.

i don't know if it is something which is specific to the brain or specific to whole life but it is this way that it can be seen the diference between thought and what is not thought, it is this way that it can be seen that there is several level of ME

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 08 Apr 2017 #13
Thumb_stringio Rip B United States 11 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Jack Pine wrote:
Listen, I am just trying to get this dialogue started but I, frankly, am not really clear, I don't really understand past a superficial level, what the difference is between thought and perception so I would appreciate all of your understandings or insights into this topic.

What seems to be the issue here, and in most other discussions, is that thought is trying to understand the mechanisms of thought. IOW - thought is trying to see itself.

Wondering if it's really that important for thought to understand how thought itself works? The best outcome is intellectual understanding, which is business as usual.

K had 'high hopes' for Bohm (who had an incredible capacity for intellectual understanding, including insights into quantum physics that still remain controversial) but later 'abandoned him' upon seeing Bohm wasn't 'silently seeing' these things with him, but adhered to an intellectual level.

It seems K was sharing insights not just for discussion, but in hopes of 'something else' in us finally seeing how limiting thought is. If, upon hearing or reading the dialogue, something 'other than thought' (silent intelligence) doesn't see it, free of thought, nothing will change.

Thought doesn't get it, never will. Let it hit the wall, live total failure. Maybe something truly new will be discovered in the ashes.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 08 Apr 2017 #14
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 4825 posts in this forum Offline

Rip B wrote:
What seems to be the issue here, and in most other discussions, is that thought is trying to understand the mechanisms of thought. IOW - thought is trying to see itself.

Wondering if it's really that important for thought to understand how thought itself works? The best outcome is intellectual understanding, which is business as usual.

Good points and apparently thought will not, can not, sort anything out on the psychological level. K and DB point out that thought can never understand itself, never see that it is a mechanical process. Thought, of course, has it's importance, it's function, in the "technical" or practical world as others have pointed out.

This post was last updated by Jack Pine Sat, 08 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 08 Apr 2017 #15
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 4825 posts in this forum Offline

By the way, everyone is welcomed to post on this thread. No one is excluded. I am just asking that we stick to the topic as much as possible.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 08 Apr 2017 #16
Thumb_img_20150716_212047-1-1 richard viillar France 34 posts in this forum Offline

richard viillar wrote:
it is this way that it can be seen the diference between thought and what is not though

And also as i see it, it is the way that it can be seen that it is not thought which try to understand itself but the whole brain through thought which try to understand thought. And that is impossible

This post was last updated by richard viillar Sat, 08 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 08 Apr 2017 #17
Thumb_nolet Rich Nolet Canada 174 posts in this forum Offline

richard viillar wrote:
yes there is something wich is not thought which change the nature of brain cells including thought. K and DB named that perception.

Right. But what is this perception, if I may ask Richard ? Is it the perception that thought is mechanical ? That thought have create a center, the me, which give to thought the permanancy he need ? And that all this is a creation of thought itself ?

This post was last updated by Rich Nolet Sat, 08 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 08 Apr 2017 #18
Thumb_nolet Rich Nolet Canada 174 posts in this forum Offline

May I quote ?

O.K. thanks :)

KRISHNAMURTI: Thought has created this microphone. That is ‘permanent’,
permanent in quotes.

DAVID BOHM: Relatively permanent, yes.

KRISHNAMURTI: And also thought created the ‘me’ as a permanent entity.

DAVID BOHM: Yes, but why did it pick on a centre to be permanent?

KRISHNAMURTI: Perhaps it picked it up because of the sun, which is the centre
of the universe. And if there is a centre, as you said, it joins everything together.

DAVID BOHM: Yes, it gives unity.

KRISHNAMURTI: Unity, family and so on. But that centre becomes totally
unnecessary when there is complete perception.

DAVID BOHM: It is necessary, you say, when there is not complete perception.

KRISHNAMURTI: It is not necessary, but that’s what’s happening.

DAVID BOHM: Not able to realize it is mechanical, thought began to treat its own
products as living.

KRISHNAMURTI: That’s right.

The Limits of Thought chap.4

This post was last updated by Rich Nolet Sat, 08 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 08 Apr 2017 #19
Thumb_img_20150716_212047-1-1 richard viillar France 34 posts in this forum Offline

Rich Nolet wrote:
But what is this perception, if I may ask Richard ? Is it the perception that thought is mechanical ? That thought have create a center, the me, which give to thought the permanancy he need ? And that all this is a creation of thought itself ?

It seems that It is a state in Which there is awareness of the Whole movement of brain.. and more

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 08 Apr 2017 #20
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 4825 posts in this forum Offline

Rip B wrote:
It seems K was sharing insights not just for discussion, but in hopes of 'something else' in us finally seeing how limiting thought is. If, upon hearing or reading the dialogue, something 'other than thought' (silent intelligence) doesn't see it, free of thought, nothing will change.

Yes, seeing it now as a member of the audience while K is speaking and not thinking about it later in an attempt to understand what was said. All we have left is to see it as we read it or see/listen to it on a video.

I don't see why this should not be also be possible while in dialogue on a forum or in person. If it's not possible then what is the point of talking about it?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 08 Apr 2017 #21
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 4825 posts in this forum Offline

Great quote in #18 Rich. A good time to bring that into the conversation.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 08 Apr 2017 #22
Thumb_nolet Rich Nolet Canada 174 posts in this forum Offline

richard viillar wrote:
It seems that It is a state in Which there is awareness of the Whole movement of brain.. and more

I understand, but I mean the perception that they are talking about in this chapter 4. Sorry maybe you didn't read it. They talk about the perception that thought is mechanical, that thought have create a center as the me. Thought is clever and in front of the impermanency of thought, it have create a center which he think is permanent. Is there such a perception ?

This post was last updated by Rich Nolet Sat, 08 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 08 Apr 2017 #23
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 1171 posts in this forum Offline

Regarding Chapter 4: Consider a belief in an organized religion, there can come a 'perception' that none of it is true, that its 'made up', a racket and thought 'drops' it. But a 'complete perception' of the process of 'belief' itself, is to see through why thought believes in anything at all. The same with 'attachment', thought attaches itself to that which it feels is beneficial, affirming, enjoyable, pleasureful etc. and rejects that which it sees as opposite. These can change as we go along, dropping some things, activities, types of people etc. and adding others. Always trying to keep being 'hurt' to a minimum and being affirmed to a maximum. We can reject that which we once were attracted to, and thought will have reasons for why it does what it does...but a 'complete perception' of this situation would reveal that thought's attempts to attach itself to any 'things' at all is ultimately doomed because the entity 'me' that it is trying to 'protect', trying to 'inflate', the 'me' (center) that is going through all this rejection, acceptance process, actually doesn't even 'exist'. A 'complete perception' of this would end thought's attachment activity.(And its resultant suffering.) So a 'complete perception' frees thought from its habitual 'groove' and thought no longer 'needs' to continue that activity.

When there is only fear without any hope of escape, in its darkest moments, in the utter solitude of fear, there comes from within itself, as it were, the light which shall dispel it."

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sat, 08 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 08 Apr 2017 #24
Thumb_nolet Rich Nolet Canada 174 posts in this forum Offline

Yes. Exactly Dan. The complete perception put an end to thought. This is the perception they are talking about. Not information, the how to do things and this kind of thought based on information.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 08 Apr 2017 #25
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 1171 posts in this forum Offline

Here it is in K.'s words

"If I perceive the nature of belief, it’s finished. When there is total perception of fear, that’s finished. And when there is total perception of greed, that’s finished. Is that perception of one thing after the other, or is there total perception of the whole?

And is this total perception possible?

DAVID BOHM: Are you saying that man may perceive the whole nature of thought; or is it beyond that?

KRISHNAMURTI: Beyond that, a little more. Perception sees the nature of thought, and because it perceives the nature of thought, it perceives all the fragments.

(the word "nature" here strikes me as significant, not just 'thought', but its 'nature'.)

When there is only fear without any hope of escape, in its darkest moments, in the utter solitude of fear, there comes from within itself, as it were, the light which shall dispel it."

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sat, 08 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 08 Apr 2017 #26
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 1171 posts in this forum Offline

And thought is fragmented because?

KRISHNAMURTI: Because it has separated itself from the thing it has created.

DAVID BOHM: That’s the point, so let’s make that very clear. It has attributed to itself a centre which is separate from itself, whereas in fact it has created the centre and it is the centre.

KRISHNAMURTI: It is the centre

DAVID BOHM: But it attributes to that centre the property of being alive and real,
and so on. And that is a fragmentation.

KRISHNAMURTI: That’s the basic thing.

When there is only fear without any hope of escape, in its darkest moments, in the utter solitude of fear, there comes from within itself, as it were, the light which shall dispel it."

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 08 Apr 2017 #27
Thumb_img_20150716_212047-1-1 richard viillar France 34 posts in this forum Offline

Rich Nolet wrote:
I understand, but I mean the perception that they are talking about in this chapter 4.

Yes i read it rich! I understand now your question... :-) but it seems That there is not various kind of total perception... it seems

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 08 Apr 2017 #28
Thumb_nolet Rich Nolet Canada 174 posts in this forum Offline

Of total perception it doesn't seem so. But there is another interesting thing about thought and perception in the same chapter:

KRISHNAMURTI: There, yes. I need it to build a house.

DAVID BOHM: And you depend on accumulated information, you cannot directly
perceive how to build a house.

KRISHNAMURTI: Quite.

DAVID BOHM: But for psychological matters..

.
KRISHNAMURTI: When there is total perception, thought doesn’t enter into the
psychological process.

DAVID BOHM: Yes, it has no place in the psychological perception, although it
may have a place in material perception.

KRISHNAMURTI: That’s right.

This post was last updated by Rich Nolet Sat, 08 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 08 Apr 2017 #29
Thumb_img_20150716_212047-1-1 richard viillar France 34 posts in this forum Offline

Is there a psychological field (which is the field of a ME) when there is total perception?

This post was last updated by richard viillar Sat, 08 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 08 Apr 2017 #30
Thumb_img_20150716_212047-1-1 richard viillar France 34 posts in this forum Offline

Rich Nolet wrote:
Here is the link for those interested.

Thank you Rich

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 109 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.)