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

Is thought the enemy?


Displaying posts 31 - 60 of 80 in total
Thu, 25 May 2017 #31
Thumb_001 Sean Hen Spain 854 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
That's an interesting question. If spontaneity and creativity are free of conditioning, are they thought at all? Or do they, rather, spring from intuition or insight?

Hello idiot? and all. I don't know the answer to this question. Thought seems to be the vehicle of conditioning. Spontaneity and creativity do seem to have a different quality in that they are new, not only coming from the known. Was the sense of "newness" which was apparent when Krishnamurti spoke down to spontaneity?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 25 May 2017 #32
Thumb_patricia_may_2014_reduced_ Patricia Hemingway Australia 1924 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
So even in practical thought, if there is no awareness and the compassion inherent in awareness, there can arise conflict and misery.

Herein lies the complete misunderstanding of what insight as pure action brings about.

When the brain sees that all it can do is measure as technical thought then psychological thought ends. That is awareness.

If technical thought is not in its right place, then there is no insight and therefore no awareness. It is that simple.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 25 May 2017 #33
Thumb_patricia_may_2014_reduced_ Patricia Hemingway Australia 1924 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
You know there can be tremendous resistance and fear to letting go of thought.

The resistance is not 'letting go of thought', but ending the self - can this action come about without fully understanding the movement of technical thought?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 25 May 2017 #34
Thumb_patricia_may_2014_reduced_ Patricia Hemingway Australia 1924 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
I look around and the brain distinguishes between the floor and the wall and the desk, etc. We don't often notice this early separative thought because it is so automatic.

When pure perception acts, even if recognition of objects occurs via this perception, there is no separation, as the recognition of the perception is mediated by the perception and not by the observer measuring him/herself as a reaction to what is observed.

When technical thought acts it is mediated by what is measured, therefore no conflict and no separation, as there is no observer independent from what is being observed, BUT when psychological thought (as self) acts on an object of perception it is the self which is measured and not the object perceived, therefore this action of the observer and the observed is one of conflict and separation as it is only measuring the measurer (psychological) and not the measured (technically).

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 25 May 2017 #35
Thumb_patricia_may_2014_reduced_ Patricia Hemingway Australia 1924 posts in this forum Offline

Rich Nolet wrote:
Re K said: There are two facets to memory, the psychological and the factual. They are always interrelated, therefore not
clear cut.

This is questioned - it is clear cut as once the brain sees the whole actuality of the real movement of technical thinking, there is no need ever to turn any technical measurement into a psychological one.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 25 May 2017 #36
Thumb_patricia_may_2014_reduced_ Patricia Hemingway Australia 1924 posts in this forum Offline

Sean Hen wrote:
What about spontaneous, creative thought? Is that different? If I respond to a comment here spontaneously or creatively then am I responding from conditioning?

Yes - psychological conditioning acts until the brain has totally understood the difference between technical and psychological thinking.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 25 May 2017 #37
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3169 posts in this forum Offline

Patricia Hemingway wrote:
If I respond to a comment here spontaneously or creatively then am I responding from conditioning?

P: Yes - psychological conditioning acts until the brain has totally understood the difference between technical and psychological thinking.

T: Right....what we call a spontaneous action is usually a conditioned reaction. Not sure how Sean is using the word 'creatively'.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 25 May 2017 #38
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 649 posts in this forum Offline

To emphasize technical thinking and to de-emphasize the naturally silent, still mind is to turn K teaching on its head. The latter is vital and central. The former is almost a concession. K encouraged one to live in the latter as much as possible.

If you ask a neuroscientist, they are not going to make much distinction if any between technical and psychological thinking.

K discussed time with David Bohm, a prominent physicist. At some point they realized that the "eternal" or the "outside of time" can't be a denial of science so they came up with "clock time" and "psychological time." Now, of course, there are not two different kinds of time. There is time, the physical passage of events that they called "clock time." And there is how the brain deals with that, which they called "psychological time." The latter is really a shorthand for the one step removed mental understanding of the former.

Similarly, the same approach was applied to thought, bifurcating into "technical thought" and "psychological thought." But there aren't really two kinds of thought. There's just thought. And it is always divisive, fragmentary, and partial. However some practicality is necessary for basic needs, survival, building bridges, and so on. But K's concern was overwhelmingly with psychological thought, how we believe it can solve psychological problems, and how, "Thought has not solved our problems and I don't think it ever will." (from The First And Last Freedom, Can Thinking Solve Our Problems? A chapter well worth reading as it bears on the issues of this thread.)

This post was last updated by idiot ? Thu, 25 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 25 May 2017 #39
Thumb_beautiful-nature-wallpaper pavani rao India 541 posts in this forum Offline

Idiot? : " When you have drunk long and deep of the still waters, only then will thought be able to be in the service of silence, to ride silence to understanding.( #16 )

How important it is , isn't it ? to first understand the significance of ' silence ' .... and how nicely, elaborately k stated ample times how it's done and to be done and needs to be done . That very observation of nature, each and every aspect of it : the open skies , fluttering of birds wings, wonderful shades of sun sets , delicate color of new born leaves in spring time ... Indeed if one has eyes for it , one notices what splendor of nature one is surrounded with ... and when one applies that same quality of observation to ones own thoughts, people around .... something starts happening. There comes active withdrawal from ones hurly burly erratic , unnecessary excessive activities .

But then that is the beginning of it all . One needs to go to job, perform ones professional activities , take care of ones family and no way k allows one to retire from active life and go to the forests or the mountain sides to explore or do penance inorder to find out the answers. Unlike those enquiring , awakened ancients were advised to do after fulfilling their worldly responsibilities and that too in ones old age, and many used to follow the same way ... In the sense the rishis , the sages used to retire to the forests in search of the ultimate questions of GOD , or enlightenment or self realization ... But in the exhaustive work of K one finds that the emphasis is on finding out the answers is in the active field of every day to day living and the search needs to begin with oneself .

May be that is the beginning of ' setting of inquiry '

Is all ' thought ' fragmentary and divisive ? If so how can one act and interact in every day to day activities ? What is ' right thinking ? ' what does he mean by ' reservoir of goodness ' what exactly he means by ' living ' and ' dying to the known ' ? And there can be many more questions ... In his sixty years of exemplary work K teaching deals with all those very deep issues.

But the interesting aspect is how far one can go ? Is one only wants to ' accumulate ' and convert every thing into ' knowledge ' ? But then that is simply futile and useless endeavor . And there can be many who are wise and mature, had seen into all this and come to terms with ones limitations and hence are at peace with themselves .

This post was last updated by pavani rao Thu, 25 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 25 May 2017 #40
Thumb_001 Sean Hen Spain 854 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
T: Right....what we call a spontaneous action is usually a conditioned reaction. Not sure how Sean is using the word 'creatively'.

Hi Tom. I'm afraid you have confused me here. Surely a conditioned reaction is completely opposite to an action which is free and spontaneous. Krishnamurti sums it up here:

"Questioner: Is spontaneous action right action?

Krishnamurti; Do you know how difficult it is to be really spontaneous? When we are so conditioned by society, when we live on memory, on the past, how can we possibly be spontaneous? Surely, to do something spontaneously is to act without motive, without calculation, without any self-interested feeling. It is not self-centred action. You just do it out of the fullness of your being. But to be really spontaneous requires stripping yourself completely of the past. It is only the innocent mind that can be spontaneous."

Saanen, Switzerland | 9th Public Talk 25th July 1963

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 25 May 2017 #41
Thumb_001 Sean Hen Spain 854 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
To emphasize technical thinking and to de-emphasize the naturally silent, still mind is to turn K teaching on its head. The latter is vital and central. The former is almost a concession. K encouraged one to live in the latter as much as possible.

Yes, this is exactly as I see it.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 25 May 2017 #42
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3169 posts in this forum Offline

Sean Hen wrote:
I'm afraid you have confused me here. Surely a conditioned reaction is completely opposite to an action which is free and spontaneous

I understand,but...

Sean Hen wrote:
"But to be really spontaneous requires stripping yourself completely of the past." K.

So have we really stripped ourselves of the past? Most likely we have not, so when we think we're acting spontaneously it's the unconscious conditioning which controls our acting. The point I was trying to make, and I see that I was not clear about it, was that when we assume we're acting spontaneously, we're usually acting from the background of conditioning....but it's something we're not aware of because the conditioning is mostly unconscious. Someone insults the Catholic church, and I being a Catholic act spontaneously and hit him or tell him to go bleep himself. That's really a conditioned reaction though it seems to be spontaneous.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 26 May 2017 #43
Thumb_patricia_may_2014_reduced_ Patricia Hemingway Australia 1924 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
To emphasize technical thinking and to de-emphasize the naturally silent, still mind is to turn K teaching on its head. The latter is vital and central. The former is almost a concession. K encouraged one to live in the latter as much as possible.

Beware - the obsession with silence is noise! :)

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 2 readers
Back to Top
Fri, 26 May 2017 #44
Thumb_patricia_may_2014_reduced_ Patricia Hemingway Australia 1924 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
To emphasize technical thinking and to de-emphasize the naturally silent, still mind is to turn K teaching on its head. The latter is vital and central. The former is almost a concession. K encouraged one to live in the latter as much as possible.

This is a complete misunderstanding of what K pointed out.

The understanding that the only action of thought in its place, as technical thinking, is silence.

Can one live with a silent mind without technical thought in its place? Of course not.

Living 'in the latter as much as possible' is living from one pleasurable experience of imagined silence to another, and such is becoming, and not the true silence of a still mind at all.

It is possible to manufacture silence, but that is not the true silence K referred to, it is just numbing the mind.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Fri, 26 May 2017 #45
Thumb_patricia_may_2014_reduced_ Patricia Hemingway Australia 1924 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
If you ask a neuroscientist, they are not going to make much distinction if any between technical and psychological thinking.

Why on earth would anyone ask a neuroscientist anything about the manner in which thinking functions, as clearly they simply cannot have a clue.

There is no understanding of this by looking at someone else's brain!

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Fri, 26 May 2017 #46
Thumb_patricia_may_2014_reduced_ Patricia Hemingway Australia 1924 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
K discussed time with David Bohm, a prominent physicist. At some point they realized that the "eternal" or the "outside of time" can't be a denial of science so they came up with "clock time" and "psychological time." Now, of course, there are not two different kinds of time. There is time, the physical passage of events that they called "clock time." And there is how the brain deals with that, which they called "psychological time." The latter is really a shorthand for the one step removed mental understanding of the former.

It is simple - the universe is timeless/immeasurable, and physical time is a limited measurement. But the brain, which is intrinsically part of timelessness, wants to push the body/universe through time psychologically, which creates fragmentation, conflict, disorder and separation within the body, mind and universe.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Fri, 26 May 2017 #47
Thumb_patricia_may_2014_reduced_ Patricia Hemingway Australia 1924 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
Similarly, the same approach was applied to thought, bifurcating into "technical thought" and "psychological thought." But there aren't really two kinds of thought. There's just thought. And it is always divisive, fragmentary, and partial.

As was pointed out previously, the basic action of thought as technical thinking is not divisive at all. Yes it is limited, and that limitation is always mitigated by what it is measuring within pure perception, hence technical thinking in this raw state is never fragmentary or divisive as there is full awareness and stillness regarding its limitation.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Fri, 26 May 2017 #48
Thumb_patricia_may_2014_reduced_ Patricia Hemingway Australia 1924 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
But K's concern was overwhelmingly with psychological thought, how we believe it can solve psychological problems, and how, "Thought has not solved our problems and I don't think it ever will."

Psychological thought, as psychological time, is technical thinking out of place - that is; with a centre as the self operating.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Fri, 26 May 2017 #49
Thumb_001 Sean Hen Spain 854 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
The point I was trying to make, and I see that I was not clear about it, was that when we assume we're acting spontaneously, we're usually acting from the background of conditioning....but it's something we're not aware of because the conditioning is mostly unconscious.

Hi Tom and all. Thanks for clearing that up Tom. I think your comment implies two possible scenarios:


  1. We think we are acting spontaneously but in fact we're fooling ourselves and we're acting from conditioning. If this is the case, it suggests that our level of awareness and self-observation is poor and that we cannot distinguish between spontaneous and conditioned responses. If this is true, then we are certainly confused and lost. Can we recognise spontaneity in others? In Krishnamurti?


  2. We actually never act spontaneously but always act based on our conditioning.


Tom, it seems you would agree that scenario 1 is common but how do you feel about scenario 2?

As I have personally never considered these questions before and don't know the answers, I would say that some genuine exploration is going on here. Is that fair to say?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 26 May 2017 #50
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3169 posts in this forum Offline

Sean Hen wrote:
2. We actually never act spontaneously but always act based on our conditioning.

Tom, it seems you would agree that scenario 1 is common but how do you feel about scenario 2?

I'd say that we rarely act spontaneously...free of self-centered motive...that most of our so called 'spontaneous' actions are really reactions, and come from the conditioned background. I could be mistaken. I agree...it's a topic worth exploring further.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 26 May 2017 #51
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 649 posts in this forum Offline

Patricia Hemingway wrote:
This is a complete misunderstanding.

Unfortunately, Patricia Hemingway, we haven't been able to reach very much commonality to be able to continue.

After I introduced the idea of practical thought into this thread, we have been able to agree that some technical thought is necessary, like recall of the English language so that we can communicate, like knowing the location of one's home and job, and other practical matters. It's lucky we agree on this because the alternative would be insanity, wouldn't it?

We also agree that practical thought must be put in its place.

However, we have not been able to agree on how or why this is so. For me, and for K if you accept what he says various places, all thought, including technical thought, is fragmentary, partial, divided. Therefore it cannot see the whole. It cannot really thoroughly go into what we have been discussing and other matters of importance. It can only partially go into such questions.

Krishnamurti, Fourth Public Dialogue in Ojai, April 1977:
So, thought can never perceive the whole, because thought is directional, thought moves with a motive, thought functions with remembrances, so it will be invariably, under all circumstances, whether technological, scientific, human, religious, or superstitious, illusory - it is fragmentary. Do we see this fact? ... Thought being limited under all circumstances, whether it is technological, aspirational, imagining there is god or imagining there is Jesus, this, that and the other - it is essentially limited.

While thought is needed for basic function, it is well to be placed there. If it is used to look into deeper matters, it's fragmentary nature will limit investigation.

We haven't been able to agree on the importance of silence. Real silence, real meditation is the only foundation for deeper investigation into these matters. But we have not reached agreement about this.

I leave you, in this thread, and wish you well with your continued investigation of these issues.

This post was last updated by idiot ? Fri, 26 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 26 May 2017 #52
Thumb_001 Sean Hen Spain 854 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
I'd say that we rarely act spontaneously

Do we ever act spontaneously? Are we aware when we act from our conditioning? When you answer these questions Tom, where is your response coming from?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 26 May 2017 #53
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3169 posts in this forum Offline

Sean Hen wrote:
Are we aware when we act from our conditioning? When you answer these questions Tom, where is your response coming from?

I think most of us here are aware of the conditioning to some degree and when we’re acting out of it. Of course our responses here may be from our store house of knowledge. That knowledge has conditioned our response. I may be doing it now. And when you read this you also may be reacting from acquired knowledge and experience. To start exploring totally fresh...with a clean slate... is something we rarely do I would think....since most human interaction is based upon the me and mine....my opinion, belief, likes and dislikes, etc.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 27 May 2017 #54
Thumb_nolet Rich Nolet Canada 329 posts in this forum Offline

Patricia Hemingway wrote:
To emphasize technical thinking and to de-emphasize the naturally silent, still mind is to turn K teaching on its head.

Patricia Hemingway wrote:
This is a complete misunderstanding of what K pointed out. The understanding that the only action of thought in its place, as technical thinking, is silence.

It seems there is different understanding ( or interpretation) about what K. point out. Who is right ? And who is wrong. One is in inquiry, the other seems to have discover true silence.

For my part, which is my only reference point, what I see is this. I have a bank account, a girlfriend. I have a house, I have a car. I can see, in my emotional reaction, in my thoughts running to find a solution to any threat to that which give me security and permanency, to that I am attach to, that there is entanglement of thoughts, which, for simplifying purpose, we can separate as facts and psychological reaction, emotional reaction, which we name fear, agressivity and all the rest: though, still, is all thoughts. As idiot? said, thought is thought. Whitout seeing all the implication and the entanglement of thought, as I live it, maybe not you, but me now, whitout meditation, observation ( as propose by K. ), I will never find out. It is not because anyone say so that it is so. So I have to reject everything, be honest, and observe. And I can see clearly the entanglement of thought in myself: the factual, and the psychological. The facts, and the fear, and the attachments. It is from moment to moment. It is not clear cut here.

And so only then I can investigate into fear, attachment, the search for security, my agressivity, what is thought and all the rest.

The book of life is written within each of us. It is a treasure. K. says somewhere: watch the envy, this jewel. Maybe we just want to get rid of it without seeing it, observing it, understand it.

This post was last updated by Rich Nolet Sat, 27 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 27 May 2017 #55
Thumb_patricia_may_2014_reduced_ Patricia Hemingway Australia 1924 posts in this forum Offline

Rich Nolet wrote:
It seems there is different understanding ( or interpretation) about what K. point out. Who is right ? And who is wrong. One is in inquiry, the other seems to have discover true silence.

Rich, it is very clearly enunciated in your post quoting Bohm and K.

Technical thought in its place, thus operating within intelligence, is NOT fragmentary any longer as psychological thought is no longer acting. Bohm points this out and K confirms it. And that state is silence!

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 27 May 2017 #56
Thumb_patricia_may_2014_reduced_ Patricia Hemingway Australia 1924 posts in this forum Offline

Rich Nolet wrote:
For my part, which is my only reference point, what I see is this. I have a bank account, a girlfriend. I have a house, I have a car. I can see, in my emotional reaction, in my thoughts running to find a solution to any threat to that which give me security and permanency, to that I am attach to, that there is entanglement of thoughts, which, for simplifying purpose, we can separate as facts and psychological reaction, emotional reaction, which we name fear, agressivity and all the rest: though, still, is all thoughts. As idiot? said, thought is thought. Whitout seeing all the implication and the entanglement of thought, as I live it, maybe not you, but me now, whitout meditation, observation ( as propose by K. ), I will never find out. It is not because anyone say so that it is so. So I have to reject everything, be honest, and observe. And I can see clearly the entanglement of thought in myself: the factual, and the psychological. The facts, and the fear, and the attachments. It is from moment to moment. It is not clear cut here.

Rich it is clear cut when one has seen the true limitations of thought and then freedom as intelligence is acting.

So technical facts (nothing personal): I have a bank account, I have a girl/boyfriend, I have (own) a house, etc are all technical facts, so far there is no psychological content, so no conflict.

However, if I owe money on my bank account and don't pay it and the bank comes after me, it is still a technical fact, BUT it becomes psychological as soon as the 'I' as me starts to feel attacked, put upon, threatened by the bank, as all of that is emotional reaction as psychological thought.

If my girl/boy friend leaves me it is still technical fact, BUT if my image of myself is hurt in the break up then it is psychological thought again!

This is all so simple, why does it all become psychologically confused so easily?

That is the question surely.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 27 May 2017 #57
Thumb_patricia_may_2014_reduced_ Patricia Hemingway Australia 1924 posts in this forum Offline

Rich Nolet wrote:
And so only then I can investigate into fear, attachment, the search for security, my agressivity, what is thought and all the rest.

Surely observing the correct place of thinking as technical thought in the beginning ends the dominance of psychological thought (the monkey), and gives great insight into psychological thought's movement.

Does watching the psychological tricks of the monkey endlessly, end the monkey?

Of course not! :)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 27 May 2017 #58
Thumb_patricia_may_2014_reduced_ Patricia Hemingway Australia 1924 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
After I introduced the idea of practical thought into this thread, we have been able to agree that some technical thought is necessary, like recall of the English language so that we can communicate, like knowing the location of one's home and job, and other practical matters. It's lucky we agree on this because the alternative would be insanity, wouldn't it?

In fact, for the record, you did not introduce technical (practical) thought and psychological thought into this thread, this writer first named them both in post 21.

This was after Rich introduced the concept of the division of thought in post 11, where Bohm and K discuss how technical thought is not fragmentary when it is acting under intelligence.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 27 May 2017 #59
Thumb_patricia_may_2014_reduced_ Patricia Hemingway Australia 1924 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
For me, and for K if you accept what he says various places, all thought, including technical thought, is fragmentary, partial, divided. Therefore it cannot see the whole. It cannot really thoroughly go into what we have been discussing and other matters of importance. It can only partially go into such questions.

Perhaps reread Rich's post of Bohm and K and it may all become clear that when technical thought acts with intelligence it is not fragmentary.

Technical thought does not have to see the whole (it can't as it is always limited), so long as it is mitigated by what it measures, intelligence is acting, as was previously posted by this writer.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 27 May 2017 #60
Thumb_patricia_may_2014_reduced_ Patricia Hemingway Australia 1924 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
While thought is needed for basic function, it is well to be placed there. If it is used to look into deeper matters, it's fragmentary nature will limit investigation.

Intelligence acts holistically when technical thought is in its place so no investigation by that intelligence will be limited. Remembering that intelligence is universal - it is not confined to the brain or 'self'!

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 31 - 60 of 80 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.)