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

"Thought and Perception"


Displaying posts 31 - 60 of 109 in total
Sat, 08 Apr 2017 #31
Thumb_de4 Dan McDermott United States 1213 posts in this forum Offline

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

Well K. says to that, "No". For there to be a 'total perception', there can be no 'center', no 'me'.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 09 Apr 2017 #32
Thumb_de4 Dan McDermott United States 1213 posts in this forum Offline

Rip B wrote:
To someone for whom much of this material is new then that is one thing, but to rehash it indefinitely can't have much (if any) value.

You never 'know';-)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 09 Apr 2017 #33
Thumb_me_3_reduced_copy Patricia Hemingway Australia 1858 posts in this forum Offline

Rip B wrote:
K indicated only one person (Vimila Thakar) was ever 'transformed', at least as far as he was concerned.

Where did you find that spurious piece of information? Genuine references please.

This post was last updated by Patricia Hemingway Sun, 09 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Sun, 09 Apr 2017 #34
Thumb_baboon-9186 dave h United Kingdom 1154 posts in this forum Offline

So why does thought seek security? Why does it wish to be permanent?

I'm not sure there is a "why" psychologically speaking.

I mean technically speaking we will maybe get answers to "why" by studying the brain/neurones, and maybe come to understand the physical mechanisms by which thought becomes trapped in this state. I think scientists are already considering how the brain creates this illusion of a self that lasts in time.

But psychologically speaking are we not just introducing time by asking "why"? I'm not trying to be deliberately mystical or philosophical here, but can thought really answer this question? Why is thought seeking security? That is its nature and structure, it can't do anything else - it is its own cause.

This post was last updated by dave h Sun, 09 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 09 Apr 2017 #35
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 4898 posts in this forum Offline

dave h wrote:
So why does thought seek security? Why does it wish to be permanent?

dave h wrote:
I mean technically speaking we will maybe get answers to "why" by studying the brain/neurones, and maybe come to understand the physical mechanisms by which thought becomes trapped in this state.

If they do come up with something are you going to accept their answer as conclusive? Why not watch our own thought and see why and how it seeks security? If you are curious how K answered your question it's part of the chapter that is being discussed here. I think I quoted K on that in one of my posts.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 09 Apr 2017 #36
Thumb_baboon-9186 dave h United Kingdom 1154 posts in this forum Offline

Jack Pine wrote:
If they do come up with something are you going to accept their answer as conclusive? Why not watch our own thought and see why and how it seeks security?

I agree, why not watch our own thought. But thought and the process of seeking security are the same thing no? Or are we saying "seeking security" is only one part of thought?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 09 Apr 2017 #37
Thumb_001 Sean Hen Spain 575 posts in this forum Offline

dave h wrote:
I agree, why not watch our own thought.

Hi dave, Jack and all. I too agree with this. Watching our own thought seems to be the best way we can learn about it. I know that when this has been mentioned on other threads it has proved a little controversial. I'm not sure why this is. Is it because there's a question hanging over who or what is doing the watching?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 09 Apr 2017 #38
Thumb_img_20150716_212047-1-1 richard viillar France 37 posts in this forum Offline

Hello Dave,

dave h wrote:
thought and the process of seeking security are the same thing no?

Well, as i see it, it seems that the process of seeking security is prior than thought...

The use of 'selfied' thought to seek security, atrophy the instinctive process which is prior thought... it seems

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 09 Apr 2017 #39
Thumb_img_20150716_212047-1-1 richard viillar France 37 posts in this forum Offline

Trying To be more precise, it seems that thought is the extension of something prior. . But later, thought is not seen as an extension but as a real primary thing which really happen

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 09 Apr 2017 #40
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 4898 posts in this forum Offline

Sean Hen wrote:
Is it because there's a question hanging over who or what is doing the watching?

This idea seems to invariable lead to controversy and conflict on this forum as a whole. We have to use thought to discuss things and who or what is doing the thinking seems, at least on one level, to be irrelevant and a distraction. There are times when "who" or "what" is a valid consideration. "Who" or "what" is watching didn't seem to stop K and Bohm from discussing things.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 09 Apr 2017 #41
Thumb_de4 Dan McDermott United States 1213 posts in this forum Offline

In reading this Chapter 4 talk between K. and DB, something that came across very strongly was the statement that once there was a "total perception" of how thought 'works'i.e. is greedy, or fearful, or jealous etc.in the total'seeing' of this thought 'drops' it...it no longer goes down those (neural?) paths. The brain cells have 'changed' in the sense that they are no longer 'activated' in the way they were before the 'falseness' of those 'selfish' reactions had been perceived.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sun, 09 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 09 Apr 2017 #42
Thumb_nolet Rich Nolet Canada 223 posts in this forum Offline

Of course Dan intellectual understanding is only that , and as Dave or Rip said ( don't remember who :), it does not bring any change. Though should we continue about chap.4 ? I think this part is relate to what has been said.

DAVID BOHM: That’s the whole structure. That is what we often call the essence,
the basic structure.

KRISHNAMURTI: Yes, if you call that ‘essence’, I agree

DAVID BOHM: And that structure is universal. Would you agree that it’s not just
this thought or that thought, this problem or that problem?

KRISHNAMURTI: It is universal, yes. Now, is such a perception possible? You
say that it is possible—nothing else. Because you tell me, I see that, I feel that, I
see the truth of what you’re saying. What you are saying is the truth; it’s not
mine or yours, it is the truth.

DAVID BOHM: If you say it is the truth, it’s that which is.

KRISHNAMURTI: That which is actual.

DAVID BOHM: Yes, but it’s both. I’m trying to get it a little more clear. When we
say there is truth and there is actuality, the way we ordinarily use the word ‘the
actual’ is really the right way for using the word ‘individual’. It would seem to
me the actuality is individual, it’s undivided.

KRISHNAMURTI: Yes, individual, undivided.

DAVID BOHM: Actuality is undivided, but there is one moment of actuality or
there may be another moment of actuality and so on. But when we see the
essence, or when we see the totality, or the universal, then that includes all that.

KRISHNAMURTI: That’s right.

DAVID BOHM: So that the truth goes beyond the individual, actual fact because it
sees the total. It sees what is universal and necessary, the totality of the nature of
thought. So that every individual example of thought is in there.

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

DAVID BOHM: Then thought acknowledges it is mechanical.

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

This post was last updated by Rich Nolet Sun, 09 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 09 Apr 2017 #43
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 4898 posts in this forum Offline

Richard I think K has talked about it many times but we can also see for ourselves that thought is a very necessary tool, an indispensable tool, on the practical level for survival. Thinking was key to finding shelter, making weapons, hunting for food and not becoming food ourselves.

Then if occurred to early humans that one could use thought to increase psychological security. Because by then thought had created this center, the self, that wanted, needed to feel not only permanent but safe from of the various psychological insecurities that beset all of us. And this is where we screwed up. Took the wrong turn by elevating the existence and importance of the center, the self, that has lead to so much human suffering.

We sought, and are still seeking, psychological security by inventing "god" with the accompanying organized dogma, rituals, ceremonies and traditions that have divided man and been the root of so many wars. The same thing has and is happening with the advent of nationalism. All this search for psychological security has lead to untold suffering, destruction, death and division of mankind.

I may not have explained this very well but I am hoping that the reader can fill in the blanks and understand what I am trying to point out. What I am trying to say is not new to those who have read K for awhile.

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 09 Apr 2017 #44
Thumb_nolet Rich Nolet Canada 223 posts in this forum Offline

Yes, exactly what came to my mind when I reed Richard comment ( post # 39-40).

This post was last updated by Rich Nolet Sun, 09 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 09 Apr 2017 #45
Thumb_img_20150716_212047-1-1 richard viillar France 37 posts in this forum Offline

Jack Pine wrote:
we can also see for ourselves that thought is a very necessary tool, an indispensable tool

of course Jack, i always agree with that..

the problem is not the tool, but the non awareness of its use... and of what it evokes

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 09 Apr 2017 #46
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3060 posts in this forum Offline

richard viillar wrote:
Jack Pine wrote:

we can also see for ourselves that thought is a very necessary tool, an indispensable tool
of course Jack, i always agree with that..

the problem is not the tool, but the non awareness of its use... and of what it evokes

I think most of us see that thought evokes fear and pleasure. Are you saying that there's something more fundamental that it evokes, richard? The 'me'? Is there a feeling of a me center first...more fundamental than the images that evoke fear and pleasure/security? Just looking into how this 'me' is related to the thought evoked emotions of fear and pleasure/wanting.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 09 Apr 2017 #47
Thumb_img_20150716_212047-1-1 richard viillar France 37 posts in this forum Offline

well i try to say that the problem is the non awareness of the use of thought and the non awareness of what it evokes, that mean the non awareness of the fact that, what thought evokes (by extention) is something functional but not real.
and the non awareness of the fact that, what thought evokes (by extention) is something prior than the emergence of thought.

Tom Paine wrote:
how this 'me' is related to the thought

do you mean how thought is related to what is prior than thought?

This post was last updated by richard viillar Sun, 09 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 09 Apr 2017 #48
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3060 posts in this forum Offline

richard viillar wrote:
and the non awareness of the fact that, what thought evokes (by extention) is something prior than the emergence of thought.

How can what thought evokes be prior to thought? This doesn't seem right....just using simple logic.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 09 Apr 2017 #49
Thumb_img_20150716_212047-1-1 richard viillar France 37 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
How can what thought evokes be prior to thought?

thought manifest, something which is memorised, memory is prior thought... The memory at the beginning, is not the expression of thought ...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 10 Apr 2017 #50
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3060 posts in this forum Offline

Thanks richard. That clarifies your point somewhat for me. I want to go further into this time permitting. Dinner time now.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 10 Apr 2017 #51
Thumb_de4 Dan McDermott United States 1213 posts in this forum Offline

Something that has stayed with me and I think it was posted by Rip B.(though I couldn't find it) was that when there is a perception or insight, thought is very quick to appropriate it, "organize it" as in the devil's offer, when a 'truth' was found...and what I wanted to say was, yes that is what thought does. That is the 'nature' of thought and precisely what has to be 'totally perceived'.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Mon, 10 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 10 Apr 2017 #52
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 1038 posts in this forum Offline

Hi all

Glad to note That the atmosphere in this topic is pleasant.

After enjoying the first almost summer days in spring it was time to pick up the thread again ;-).

Missing the first two sentences which has started the dialogue with already so much information given:

K: Why has mankind given Such tremendous Importance to thought ?
B: You have pointed out That thought gives security in many senses,
not only in the sense of psychological security, but usefull material security.

Is not defined herein, the function thought of as being the provision of security ??
And also the focus is pointed too much on thought !!
Thinking to the other topic ‘choice less perception’ given picture of ' the two faces and the girandole ', one can not see them both together !! the whole picture is and … and while the part is or the one part ….. or the other part…

So focus is a partaking part and can be wrongly driven to some of the parts in stead of choicelessly random ….

After this they continued:

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.

it's a mere reflection. this is -in my view- the foundation of our daily mistake we make by looking in the mirror and saying “ that’s me ” and at the same time knowing that’s not me , but only a refelextion of the outsite of my body !!

Dan McDermott wrote:
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.

Rich Nolet wrote:
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 is something what’s bothering me still: How can a machine create a center or attach itself to things ??
A machine reproduce something from the real world as is Bohm saying it’s mere reflextion

but put two or more mirrors facing each other and place an object between and you get a huge amount refelextons but there is no new thing to see !!

For me it’s time to stop, although there is much more to discover in this chapter, but physical boundary tells me it’s unhealthy to go on at this specific moment.

See you later

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.

This post was last updated by Wim Opdam Mon, 10 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 10 Apr 2017 #53
Thumb_001 Sean Hen Spain 575 posts in this forum Offline

"When you realize the truth that it is only the quiet mind that sees, then the mind becomes extraordinarily quiet." - QOTD April 10th 2017

I think today's QOTD has been very well chosen and is right on topic for this thread. David Bohm and K go into great depth on the root and functions of thought which is certainly fascinating. How does this tie in with the quote above though?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 10 Apr 2017 #54
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3060 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
This is something what’s bothering me still: How can a machine create a center or attach itself to things ??

Thought/memory creates a feeling in the body. Isn't it pleasure....the memory of a pleasurable...or painful...experience that leads to the center? I come into being when I say "I want more of that!"....that woman...that delicious food or drink....the beauty of the sports car or a beautiful home. I think about it and make an effort to get more, not realizing that pain is right around the corner. Of course the opposite occurs when we recall a painful experience.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Mon, 10 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 10 Apr 2017 #55
Thumb_nolet Rich Nolet Canada 223 posts in this forum Offline

I wonder if one should continue with this chapter ? Almost there .

KRISHNAMURTI: To go back, if there is total perception of the nature of thought
and all its activities, therefore there is the total perception of the content of
consciousness. The content makes the consciousness, and all the rest of it, that
used to be the centre. Total perception can only exist when the centre is not; then
consciousness must be totally different.

DAVID BOHM: Yes. What would you say about its nature, then?

KRISHNAMURTI: What would be its nature? You see, sir, the centre, as you
pointed out, is the factor of unification.

DAVID BOHM: It’s the way people have always tried to unite.

KRISHNAMURTI: But it hasn’t succeeded, ever. When the centre is not—which is
perception of the totality of thought, and therefore the centre is not—
consciousness must be something quite different.

DAVID BOHM: But the word ‘consciousness’ ordinarily would involve the idea of
thought. Does it still continue?

KRISHNAMURTI: If there is no thought, there can’t be consciousness.

DAVID BOHM: What do you call consciousness?

KRISHNAMURTI: Then, I said it must be something totally different. The
consciousness which we have is with the centre, with all the content, with all the
thought, with all that movement, and when there is total perception of that, that is
not.

DAVID BOHM: The centre is not, and the whole order is different. Yes, and you
also mentioned the brain cells, that it might involve the brain cells working in a
different way.

KRISHNAMURTI: I think so.

DAVID BOHM: Or maybe different brain cells will work?

KRISHNAMURTI: I don’t know, I think it works differently.
Sir, what is compassion? Is the centre capable of compassion?

DAVID BOHM: Well, I’d say the centre is not capable of anything real.

KRISHNAMURTI: No. Can the centre attribute compassion to itself?

DAVID BOHM: It certainly can do that.

KRISHNAMURTI: It can. Yes, as God, as anything; but if there is no attribution at
all, then what is compassion? Is total perception compassion?

DAVID BOHM: Well, it has to be, to include the feeling for all.

KRISHNAMURTI: I should think one of the qualities of total perception is
compassion.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 10 Apr 2017 #56
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 4898 posts in this forum Offline

Rich Nolet wrote:
I wonder if one should continue with this chapter ? Almost there .

Yes let's do continue with this. The responses on this thread have been really interesting and intelligent.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 10 Apr 2017 #57
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 4898 posts in this forum Offline

Rich Nolet wrote:
KRISHNAMURTI: If there is no thought, there can’t be consciousness.

DAVID BOHM: What do you call consciousness?

KRISHNAMURTI: Then, I said it must be something totally different. The
consciousness which we have is with the centre, with all the content, with all the thought, with all that movement, and when there is total perception of that, that is not.

I think this above quote of K's is the only time I remember him getting into this much detail about what is when thought is not. Thought and perception don't happen together only when thought is not and the latter changes consciousness/thought.

A very interesting statement but thought can't even think about it because of it's own limitation. A conundrum and the reader's first reaction might be, "What the hell do I do with this?" Nothing. There is nothing to do but stay with it. To look at it without reacting to it. Did I miss something obvious?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 10 Apr 2017 #58
Thumb_nolet Rich Nolet Canada 223 posts in this forum Offline

Sean Hen wrote:
David Bohm and K go into great depth on the root and functions of thought which is certainly fascinating. How does this tie in with the quote above though?

This great depth about total perception, which is basic in the understanding of what transformation, mutation is. Bohn want to call it essence, and K. , seeing that Bohm was saying the same thing by essence, the essence of the actual fonctionning of consciousness, in his whole, accept it. They also said in this chapter: if one see this, this is the truth ( I can go back and found it if necessary). The tittle of this chapter is : Thought and Perception. And as Jack just said, thought can't even think about it, because of its own limitation. Is it possible that in following this conversation with great attention, with a quiet mind, that this insight, this totale perception is made possible ? If one observe and see how our own mind work, our thoughts, how the thinker , the experiencer, the observer which are the center which separate itselves from what it observe, of the experience..and so on. Then what they say become clair. What they say then make sense. Otherwise, one stay at the intellectual level. But if one sees the truth of what is said, then this total perception is ...should I risk the word transformation ?

This post was last updated by Rich Nolet Mon, 10 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 10 Apr 2017 #59
Thumb_nolet Rich Nolet Canada 223 posts in this forum Offline

Sean Hen wrote:
"When you realize the truth that it is only the quiet mind that sees, then the mind becomes extraordinarily quiet." - QOTD April 10th 2017

To understand anything necessitate a quiet mind. It is natural, we often do that. And understanding quiet the mind :-)

This post was last updated by Rich Nolet Mon, 10 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 10 Apr 2017 #60
Thumb_stringio randall merryman United States 3832 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Wim Opdam wrote:
Glad to note That the atmosphere in this topic is pleasant.

Yes yes quite, it is so much easier to secure comfort/security in a pleasant atmosphere. All that annoying challenging and pointing to the reality of what folks are actually engaged in can be a bit discomforting. We can't have any of that, then can we?

Sorry Jack, couldn't resist. I'll leave your thread now, carry on.

Stuff happens

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