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

Thoughts relations


Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 35 in total
Thu, 23 Aug 2018 #1
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 1220 posts in this forum Offline

In the topic " How many people etc.." Jack asked me to open a new topic on this.

I'll start with the original related replies and enclose a reply from Peter on the same issue.

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 23 Aug 2018 #2
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 1220 posts in this forum Offline

Jack Pine wrote:

Wim Opdam wrote:

I wouldn't say not related because truth has a one direction relation to thought , because a truth human's thoughts are very different to ours, to me That's why we interpretated K.'s words but not living them.

To be honest with you Wim I don't really understand your above response to my stating that thought has no relationship to truth. You may have accidently left out a word or two. And then too, there are so many different conversations going on on this thread right now it's probably not the best time to get deeply into something. If you're interested we can start another thread.

Thought is not related to truth because thought is of time. I don't know what truth is, as K used it or any other "truth", but it is not of time. K discussed this at some length many times. One example can be found at: First Public Talk at Saanen, 1975, "On Nature and the Environment". He explains why he categorically states that reality, thought, has no relationship with truth.

I think it is important to be clear on this lack of relationship between the two.

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 23 Aug 2018 #3
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 1220 posts in this forum Offline

Peter Kesting wrote in #170:
K and Bohm talked about "Truth and Actuality" Worth reading.

It may be like the connection between time and space. These were always seen as separate, independent, until Einstein discovered that they are one, not separate. He was able to show just how they are connected.

As seen here:

There is a one-dimensional field, a line. From that field, confined to that field, one cannot discover anything of the two-dimensional. Things like curves and angles, or the idea of a picture are not there. Those things, are completely foreign, unthinkable. It works like this each step one takes up dimensions. Going from the two to the three dimensional there can now exist knots. These cannot be thought about, could not be imagined if one were confined to the two-dimensional. Going from the three to the four-dimensional, what is new is time. Again an unthinkable if one were confined to only the three dimensional.

There are relationships that exist between things in each field. In the one dimensional...Arithmetic. In the two dimensional....Geometry. In three dimensions.... Topology. In the fourth dimensional field, time/space. The relationship... the mathematics, as it were, of that space is all of Science...determinism. What there is that is the unthinkable if one were confined to the four-dimensional is sentience. Science has no clue when it comes to dealing with the hard problem of consciousness. As this one sees it, one can project that one could not discover sentience if one were confined to only time/space.In the four dimensional One would know nothing about an actual five-dimensional "space". Well, we experience the now. We see that we see. We are not so confined.

""Truth" (K) cannot be touched, cannot be accessed from there (here), from the material, by thought, by matter. It only goes one way. That other can touch, can move things, in the four-dimensional...in matter. One can see that it does that in the brain. I don't see that action anywhere else. It can be seen here though that there is that contact in that we can talk about this...these maters...about sentience. This Seeing "sees" that there is this seeing....that there is sentience. Could a completely mechanical thing talk about something it cannot even imagine?

Interestingly, one can consider a possible next higher dimension. It would have in it what would be as far beyond sentience as time is beyond the merely three-dimensional...as far beyond sentience as sentience is beyond time/space. We could know absolutely nothing about that..

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 23 Aug 2018 #4
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 1220 posts in this forum Offline

I've without success, tried to find the exact phrase between Bohm and Krishnamurti and the more I read the clearer it became that I had to do it with my own words.

So first of all what is a relation ?
Is a puppet on a string related with the puppeteer ?
It doesn't, it cann't move on its own and as such has no influence on the puppeteer, but there is a one direction relation from the puppeteer to the puppet.

So if we accept that our Brain cells are transformed without any influence from our selves, there is a one direction relation from the unknown to thought or as Peter wrote:
""Truth" (K) cannot be touched, cannot be accessed from there (here), from the material, by thought, by matter. It only goes one way. That other can touch, can move things, in the four-dimensional...in matter

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 Thu, 23 Aug 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 23 Aug 2018 #5
Thumb_1507053_1_ Jayaraj Kapila Kulasinghe Sri Lanka 1208 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
Truth" (K) cannot be touched, cannot be accessed from there (here), from the material, by thought, by matter

Interesting. I don't know what this truth(sacred or whatever) is but we can look at insight.

Is insight the outcome of thought? Anything that is the outcome of thought will be limited as we all know.So is insight then something that occurs in energy?

Then can a material process-thought- get to energy-material being patterned energy?

Would not the interference of patterned energy make the outcome also of some pattern?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 24 Aug 2018 #6
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 1220 posts in this forum Offline

Jayaraj Kapila Kulasinghe wrote:

Wim Opdam wrote:

Truth" (K) cannot be touched, cannot be accessed from there (here), from the material, by thought, by matter

For the sake of truthfulness those were the words from Peter.

Jayaraj Kapila Kulasinghe wrote:
Is insight the outcome of thought?

That would make insight the result of a time consuming activity and surely insight acts immediately, instantly.

The moment one share this insight to one other it is incomplete because one have to use words, which is in the realm of thought.

Thought being an instrument, one must handle it very carefully, one can not blame it for your imprudence or as I recently read, to call it the enemy.

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 Fri, 24 Aug 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 24 Aug 2018 #7
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 1220 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
So first of all what is a relation ?
Is a puppet on a string related with the puppeteer ?
It doesn't, it cann't move on its own and as such has no influence on the puppeteer, but there is a one direction relation from the puppeteer to the puppet.

Another one direction relation came to mind: 'unconditoned love,
if that love should be answered it is not love at all.

In 'Truth and actuality' It's described:

B: That's what I suggest. But for the moment there is the energy of truth which comprehend the reality and -
K: - the other way cannot.
B: No, it cannot; but there appears to be some connection in the sense that whentruth comprehend reality, reality goes straight. So there appears to be a connection at least one way.
K: That's right a one-way connection - Truth loves this, this doesn't love truth.

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 25 Aug 2018 #8
Thumb_1507053_1_ Jayaraj Kapila Kulasinghe Sri Lanka 1208 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
The moment one share this insight to one other it is incomplete

Yes. The description is not the described.

However if the other listens fully & sees the fact represented by the description, then there is complete communication, right?

Wim Opdam wrote:
one can not blame it for your imprudence or as I recently read, to call it the enemy.

Is there 'you' or 'me apart from thought?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 25 Aug 2018 #9
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 1220 posts in this forum Offline

Jayaraj Kapila Kulasinghe wrote:
However if the other listens fully & sees the fact represented by the description, then there is complete communication, right?

Yes, only then the insight is shared

Jayaraj Kapila Kulasinghe wrote:

Wim Opdam wrote:
Thought being an instrument, one must handle it very carefully,
one can not blame it for your imprudence or as I recently read, to call it the enemy.

Is there 'you' or 'me apart from thought?

For the sake of completeness I've added the bolded part in the reference.

it's very easy to state that they are not, but that would be based on knowledge of the Teaching.

So as was stated 'Thought is an instrument' this instrument is implanted in the humankind and as such there is physical a you and me.
And in the content of the brain we think there are such things as you and me and as such they are interwoven and not apart but a part of thought.

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 25 Aug 2018 #10
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 1220 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
So as was stated 'Thought is an instrument' this instrument is implanted in the humankind and as such there is physical a you and me.
And in the content of the brain we think there are such things as you and me and as such they are interwoven and not apart but a part of thought.

It is clear that a kind of schizophrenia takes place when one don't distinguish those different sets of beings with the same names.
They are in a different layer of existence.

So in full contact with your self unity takes place and even thought is out of sight.

One thought in communication with another thought creates its own powerful but always limited energy .

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 26 Aug 2018 #11
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 1220 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
It is clear that a kind of schizophrenia takes place when one don't distinguish those different sets of beings with the same names.
They are in a different layer of existence.

By holding the image for fact one lose contact with the actual fact.

Yesterday's Quote is pointing to the root.

***Ojai, California | 5th Public Talk 23rd June, 1940

What is the basis of our thought? What is the origin of the mind? Those of you who have experimented with greed will have become aware of its process and the various expressions of craving; also you will have become aware of the origin of possessive love. Now in the same way, perhaps we can discover for ourselves from what source the process of our daily thought begins. Mere control of the many expressions of thought will not reveal its true source.

What is the basis, the root, of our thought process? It is important to discover this, is it not? If the root of a tree is diseased or decayed what value is there in trimming its branches? Likewise, should we not first discern the origin of our thinking before concerning ourselves with its varied expressions and alterations? In understanding truly the source, through deep awareness, our human thought will become free of illusion and fear. Each one has to discover this source for himself, and with vital awareness transform radically the process of thinking.

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 26 Aug 2018 #12
Thumb_1507053_1_ Jayaraj Kapila Kulasinghe Sri Lanka 1208 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
K-What is the basis, the root, of our thought process? It is important to discover this, is it not? If the root of a tree is diseased or decayed what value is there in trimming its branches? Likewise, should we not first discern the origin of our thinking before concerning ourselves with its varied expressions and alterations?

That is the whole point. What is the origin of thought? K says each person has to discover it. Can we have some clarification? In which manner is this possible? Without this all our actions are obviously meaningless, right?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 26 Aug 2018 #13
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 428 posts in this forum Offline

Krishnamurti Public Talk 3 Saanen July 13 1978:
The beginning of thought is the brain registering: danger or not danger. The pleasure and the fear. Right?

This post was last updated by idiot ? Sun, 26 Aug 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 27 Aug 2018 #14
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5289 posts in this forum Offline

Dan, would you be so considerate to provide the rest of us a citation for above quote?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 27 Aug 2018 #15
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1301 posts in this forum Offline

Sure from Clive's forum , The Slowing Down of Thought:

Clive: To approach, to start, this topic of the slowing down of thought, I would like to quote from K in 1944. But the whole quote is rather long, and I will break it up into several parts, on successive days.

You can read it in his forum 'A Quiet Space'.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Mon, 27 Aug 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 27 Aug 2018 #16
Thumb_1507053_1_ Jayaraj Kapila Kulasinghe Sri Lanka 1208 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
K-The beginning of thought is the brain registering: danger or not danger. The pleasure and the fear. Right?

Yes. The organism moves away from incompatibility & recognizes compatibility as conducive.

This is inbuilt in the organism. This is needed for survival.

Now what is the source of psychological thought? K said there each person must discover that.In which manner do we set about It?

If we cover this little bit, we can connect this to Dan's discussion here.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 27 Aug 2018 #17
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 1220 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott quoting K. wrote:
For wisdom is not bought by the coin of greed or impatience.

Wim Opdam wrote:
It is clear that a kind of schizophrenia takes place when one don't distinguish those different sets of beings with the same names.
They are in a different layer of existence.

Schizophrenia is sometimes described as a troublesome situation where one loses contact with reality.

So if the source of thought is thought itself, one is in contact with the past and not with the present actuality, in saying this the present actuality is - at that moment - the lost of contact with reality.

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 27 Aug 2018 #18
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1301 posts in this forum Offline

Jayaraj Kapila Kulasinghe wrote:
Now what is the source of psychological thought? K said there each person must discover that.In which manner do we set about It?

I was pondering this this morning to see where it would lead. I began with, what is 'thought'? and saw it as this incredible tool for our survival. We had brought something more developed into the world. It was a great 'problem solver'. That led to the question that if it has such potential for solving problems, why is the world of Man in such a mess? K. has referred to it. If we with our diverse, abundant knowledge about everything,why couldn't we bring all that together and address the situation of hunger, poverty, habitation etc. Working together with a decent life for every man ,woman and child as the goal, we could transform the horror that now exists overnight. So? What stands in the way? What came up for me was, 'greed'. This was the 'disease' at the root of the 'tree'? Was it the mis-application of this tool of 'thought'? Had it had moved somehow from the practical world of 'survival' into the psychological 'realm'? And there, had it 'spawned' somehow a 'personal' image that had now separated itself from everything else. Then did this image take on a life of its own? Now the incredible complexity of thought was behind the emergent 'me' and 'mine'. What could have been, without this 'wrong turning', (?) is the working together to solve not only Mankind's needs but that of the other creatures that could benefit from our expertise. But now it was about 'my' needs and those around me that were included in this self-centered structure. You can see where this is leading, I have no expertise in any of this but I wanted to set this down to see if others thought differently about this. Does it begin to address the question, what is the 'source' of psychological thought? I don't know.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 27 Aug 2018 #19
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5289 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Sure from Clive's forum , The Slowing Down of Thought:

To approach, to start, this topic of the slowing down of thought, I would like to quote from K in 1944. But the whole quote is rather long, and I will break it up into several parts, on successive days.

Without proper citations others can't look up the quotes you are presenting. Saying it is from someone else is not a proper citation and you know it. Also it pretty much renders the quote invalid. In higher education your whole paper is rejected without proper quotes. I know not everyone, especially Americans, have an adequate education but try to rise above that and show the rest of us some consideration and respect by properly citing your quotes. Thanks.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 28 Aug 2018 #20
Thumb_1507053_1_ Jayaraj Kapila Kulasinghe Sri Lanka 1208 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
What came up for me was, 'greed'. This was the 'disease' at the root of the 'tree'? Was it the mis-application of this tool of 'thought'? Had it had moved somehow from the practical world of 'survival' into the psychological 'realm'? And there, had it 'spawned' somehow a 'personal' image that had now separated itself from everything else. Then did this image take on a life of its own?

Yes Dan, I find your post 18 addresses the question.

Now greed may be due to the image. Is It?

It is evident thought spilled over in to the psychological arena & made the image & this gives a sense of separate existence. Now what makes the image?

Is the sense of separation afterwards or is it that it is causing thought to make images? Or is it simultaneous?

So how shall we find out. Not some system. That is too immature.

In what manner do we set about to find out all this?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 28 Aug 2018 #21
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1301 posts in this forum Offline

Jayaraj Kapila Kulasinghe wrote:
Now greed may be due to the image. Is It?

Yes we have to consider what we are calling 'greed' as being unique to us. None of the other creatures exhibit it to the degree that we do. It is the desire for 'security', gone wild. It started with the physical and has moved into the psychological. Man can not have enough power, enough riches, enough knowledge, enough pleasure, enough stimulation, etc. And it has put him in competition with others to acquire these things. The society rewards the winners. But there can be only be so many 'winners' and the rest become 'losers'. So the 'image' is that of the 'successful one', that is what we are conditioned to aspire to, whatever the field...to be 'successful' to 'stand out'....anonymity is not 'prized'.

How did the 'self-image' come about?

We can only speculate. When we were part of the group,the tribe,there was no need for an image of 'self', we were part of the tribe; we were the tribe, the tribe was us...but as we moved out on our own and with our families, perhaps that is when the image of a 'self' as distinct, apart arose?

JKK: In what manner do we set about to find out all this?

Why don't you start? What do you say?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Tue, 28 Aug 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 28 Aug 2018 #22
Thumb_1507053_1_ Jayaraj Kapila Kulasinghe Sri Lanka 1208 posts in this forum Offline

Well Dan yes, primarily security appears to be the cause why thought spilled over & made the image.

Is there another factor, another cause that made the image? Is pursuing separate lives a factor too?

So we are looking for security & we seek it individually.

However is individual existence a fact, a truth?

I think to find out we have to watch our images. We feel in a certain way about one person & differently about another. So we have images about people. We have these mean we made these.And when we meet a person anew we start making an image about that person too.

So can we watch our images? Can we also come to watch image making? Secret may be lying there.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 29 Aug 2018 #23
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1301 posts in this forum Offline

Jayaraj Kapila Kulasinghe wrote:
However is individual existence a fact, a truth?

Only the physical body, these are separate and unique as one tree is from another in the 'manifest' world. The brain we share is the human brain and that, apart from the different contents,experiences of each, is basically the same brain and caught in the same conditioned 'trap'. Can it free itself from the trap, from the 'burden' of the past? That is the only thing of importance as it is seen from here. Can it among other things free itself from this deadly illusion of 'individuality'? Can it realize that there is no real 'security' there? This means of course that all its 'attachments' must be seen as a fear of the unknown. And that its search for security is a non-understanding of what we are in essence? There is no psychological security in 'things', immaterial or material. Can we see what we have attached ourselves to?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 29 Aug 2018 #24
Thumb_1507053_1_ Jayaraj Kapila Kulasinghe Sri Lanka 1208 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Can it free itself from the trap, from the 'burden' of the past?

How is the past carried forward? Through thought obviously isn't It?It is thought that makes images which together causes the central image 'me', right?

So we have to find out about thought. About how thought is formed.

Then past's link to the present is thought. We meet a person. Then we make an image. In doing this we carry the past to the present. We do this all the time, is that not right?

Now can we see, watch this thought building moment?

Is that not what is needed? Is this where we can see the source of psychological thought? -rather the cause.

I feel we have to tackle the image building process to understand what causes this sense of 'me'.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 29 Aug 2018 #25
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1301 posts in this forum Offline

Jayaraj Kapila Kulasinghe wrote:
Then past's link to the present is thought. We meet a person. Then we make an image. In doing this we carry the past to the present. We do this all the time, is that not right?

Now can we see, watch this thought building moment?

I would put it, can thought become aware of itself creating images? In the practical realm 'image-building' makes sense, there the images can be manipulated, changed, enhanced etc. But in the psychological realm, nothing is 'static' but thought attempts to make an image of 'you', the other, as a self-protective action. Thought needs to know if you are an 'enemy' or a 'friend'. If thought doesn't make that judgement, 'I' may be hurt or worse. But of course, 'you' are not static so the image created may or may not have any relevance when next I see you. But that is how you will be seen, through the image whether it's positive or negative, seen through the past. So it is thought itself that has to give up this 'mechanism', isn't it, seeing for itself how it brings the old into the new? So yes only the awareness in the moment as this process goes on could there be an ending to it. It is 'protection' for the central image of 'me' which is itself illusory, would you say?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 30 Aug 2018 #26
Thumb_1507053_1_ Jayaraj Kapila Kulasinghe Sri Lanka 1208 posts in this forum Offline

Yes, it is protection for the central image of 'me' in my reckoning also.

That is the whole point. It is 'me' that creates the image.So my values dictate what I make. So it is actually a part of me.But we think the image I make of you is different. That is our illusion- the difference.

I feel this must be actually seen while image making is in progress.

How is that possible? If we just look at our inner responses will we see this? I feel we cannot. It appears to be too subtle.

Is sharpening of the mind needed for this? Surely not some practice. That just dulls the mind as we know.

Do you think we have to be greatly free of habits first? Otherwise will the mind or awareness be swift enough to get at this point?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 30 Aug 2018 #27
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1301 posts in this forum Offline

Jayaraj Kapila Kulasinghe wrote:
Is sharpening of the mind needed for this? Surely not some practice. That just dulls the mind as we know.

Do you think we have to be greatly free of habits first? Otherwise will the mind or awareness be swift enough to get at this point?

The body is dulled through habits and it seems quite logical that a sensitive body as well as an orderly mind is necessary to receive the subtlety of intelligence. That brings up the idea of 'seriousness' doesn't it? How seriously is all this taken? Is it at the personal level of 'reward' i.e., 'my salvation'?...It seems to me that in order for one's habits to be 'let go' in spite of the tremendous momentum physically as well as psychological behind them, that our true 'situation' has to be at least glimpsed in a deeper way, as well as a 'new' way. Where we actually see and understand the fact that "the house is burning". Otherwise it all stays on a superficial level. So seeing this lack of real 'seriousness' in me is important. My habits, my attachments, my need for entertainment, stimulation etc. all "grist for the mill". And John R. pointed out something the other day that I thought was quite apt to all this:" you can't put new wine in old bottles...they will crack."

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 30 Aug 2018 #28
Thumb_1507053_1_ Jayaraj Kapila Kulasinghe Sri Lanka 1208 posts in this forum Offline

Yes, seriousness. That will make us throw out some things & make us have more energy.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 30 Aug 2018 #29
Thumb_1507053_1_ Jayaraj Kapila Kulasinghe Sri Lanka 1208 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
can thought become aware of itself creating images?

I want to go back to this Dan.

This would be the observer is the observed.Is that right? The observer is the observed when thought is not making any evaluation, any judgement or any movement with respect to what is seen.

Now that has some understanding. Thought has seen its attempt to bring in order is futile. Therefore it is silent.Silent in the sense it is not making any attempt to find a solution.

Now this is a state of observation. Then what? Where is the understanding that the observer is the observed taking place? That would be insight, is it not?

Now in a state of observation a thought occurs in response to sensory perception.Then it withers away & another occurs.In between is a gap. Can there be awareness of that too. There thought is absent. Then as a new thought arises can there be awareness?

Must we not go beyond this state of observation? Observing , seeing , after a thought arose is what we did. Then the past had already taken place.We are only not reacting further.

So is it energy in between thoughts before it pattered itself to be thought? So is then insight taking place in this energy before for some reason it patterns itself? Or as it is about to pattern itself? Is it this insight that stops patterning?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 31 Aug 2018 #30
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1301 posts in this forum Offline

Jayaraj Kapila Kulasinghe wrote:
The observer is the observed when thought is not making any evaluation, any judgement or any movement with respect to what is seen.

Isn't the 'observer' (me) always the 'observed' not just when there is no evaluation or judgement being made? But the actual 'insight' that the observer is the observed is as K. has said, the "first and the last step". What happens as I understand now, is that there is thought's desire to 'capture' this 'vertical' insight and continue it in 'horizontal' time'. Thought wishes to make it its own because it senses 'security' in 'knowing' it. But it is not something that thought can 'contain', that it can 'know'. It is 'living' and thought is dead, the past. But it has registered the insight in memory in order to add it to the wall of isolation it has built around itself. The image that occurred to me was of having been visited miraculously by a beautiful wild bird. It had come on its own, stayed a moment and flew off. To put it in a cage as thought wishes to do, is to destroy it. I'm sorry if I'm unable to meet your important questions.

Jayaraj Kapila Kulasinghe wrote:
So is it energy in between thoughts before it pattered itself to be thought? So is then insight taking place in this energy before for some reason it patterns itself? Or as it is about to pattern itself? Is it this insight that stops patterning?

Does thought see that it is itself a 'dissipation' of energy? As in 'naming'... labeling the sensation as being something recognized from the past. Not allowing it to just 'be'? Frightened to not have the sense of being in control?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 35 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.)