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

How does one go to the very source of thought?


Displaying posts 31 - 60 of 237 in total
Sun, 14 Jul 2019 #31
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5755 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
I heard "valid". (that should settle it, right?)

You were joking when you said this weren't you Dan? You must have been because I laughed pretty hard when I read it. As I see it it's two people who are sure it's "wrong" and two people who are sure it's "valid". And on top of that the CC clearly and unambiguously says it is "wrong".

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 14 Jul 2019 #32
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5755 posts in this forum Offline

Ken D wrote:
Before he says the word, if you say to yourself "valid, valid, valid", you'll hear "valid".

Before he says the word, if you say to yourself "wrong, wrong, wrong" you'll hear "wrong".

Yes, but as I have already pointed out the closed caption also says that the word in question is "wrong". What are the odds that this word was misinterpreted on the CC? And what are the odds that someone mistakenly heard the word "invalid"?

And you don't know if one or more of us were listening objectively. Actually trying to hear what was actually said. I think Sean did and there is no use my saying what I did.

This post was last updated by Jack Pine Sun, 14 Jul 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 14 Jul 2019 #33
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1453 posts in this forum Offline

Jack Pine wrote:
You were joking when you said this weren't you Dan? You must have been because I laughed pretty hard when I read it.

Always nice to know one's humor is appreciated.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 15 Jul 2019 #34
Thumb_fuzzy6 Ken D United States 47 posts in this forum Offline

Actually, I think he said "ketchup". Maybe that's because I'm eating French fries right now.

"Sow the seed of freedom, which is to awaken intelligence; for with that intelligence you can tackle all the problems of life." Krishnamurti

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Mon, 15 Jul 2019 #35
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1453 posts in this forum Offline

Ken D wrote:
Actually, I think he said "ketchup". Maybe that's because I'm eating French fries right now.

Enjoy your 'American' fries Ken...what was actually said was " It's a catsup question". I'm sure because I just listened to it 75 times.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Mon, 15 Jul 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 15 Jul 2019 #36
Thumb_patricia_may_2014_reduced_ Patricia Hemingway Australia 1929 posts in this forum Offline

K says very clearly and strongly: "It's a wrong question".

And it is! Can you not see that for yourselves? It is a wrong question.

All the rest of this thread is bubblegum!

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Mon, 15 Jul 2019 #37
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1453 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
As K. said when it's known that something is not-known, not in memory or experience, thought will not search to find it... it will be still.

And that is the case in answering a question, because I know that there is no use in searching for the answer...I know it's not there. But if i'm asked why is there organic life on earth, say, what function does it serve if any? Then even though I don't know and can't know, I can speculate...I can come up with theories, creation stories, etc. Anything to avoid that state of "I don't know". Anything to keep the 'myth' of being an 'individual' self alive. With my opinions of this or that...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 15 Jul 2019 #38
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 689 posts in this forum Offline

The audio is a bit clearer in this video at 1:16:40. It is very easy to prime yourself! So I strongly recommend listening without knowing, which after all is the whole point of K's answer to the question.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8KWj68x322g

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 15 Jul 2019 #39
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5755 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
So I strongly recommend listening without knowing, which after all is the whole point of K's answer to the question.

Yep, not only does he clearly say "wrong" but the CC, of course, confirms that he is saying "wrong". Valid doesn't sound anything like wrong.

Thanks for clearing this up for us.

This post was last updated by Jack Pine Mon, 15 Jul 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 16 Jul 2019 #40
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 1450 posts in this forum Offline

If you have attended Krishnamurti's talk . He had days that he called it discussions. In those days every questioner would write his question on a piece of paper and then as k says he would pick about five or six questions that would represent the rest of questions. Once he said that there are over one hundred questions and it takes days to answer them all. So he picks a few that represent most of them . So Krishnamurti picking a question out of those hundred questions and call it "wrong" question is not him. He was not like me or you or Patricia or jack or ken to call a selected question as a "wrong" question. I hope that I have made it clear with my broken English. So the question was a valid question or k wouldn't pick it. We are all very confused about thought let's accept it.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 16 Jul 2019 #41
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5755 posts in this forum Offline

One Self/idiot? wrote:
. So Krishnamurti picking a question out of those hundred questions and call it "wrong" question is not him

Sure it was. That is exactly what K so often did. K very frequently went with the negative. He explained what things were not because there is no way to explain what they are. Any perfunctory reading of K will show that. For example, what happens when thinking ends?

Another example, how do you explain what the unknown is? You can only show what it is not.

Thought is the known. The source? Very simple. Memory which is knowledge and experience. Thought is limited. The past. Why dwell on it's source? What is beyond thought was what K seemed to spend so much time on.

id-635

This post was last updated by Jack Pine Tue, 16 Jul 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 16 Jul 2019 #42
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 689 posts in this forum Offline

One Self wrote:
So the question was a valid question or k wouldn't pick it.

I'm not sure that K went through the written, submitted questions and chose which ones to answer. I think someone else must have done that.

It always seems that K is coming to a question fresh. So whether he said that this question was "valid" or "wrong," he seemed to be responding to it as if encountering it for the first time. Perhaps, he came to the initial reading of the question just as he said: without knowing.

This post was last updated by idiot ? Tue, 16 Jul 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 16 Jul 2019 #43
Thumb_001 Sean Hen Spain 886 posts in this forum Offline

Ken D wrote:
Actually, I think he said "ketchup".

Well, the questioner was asking about the sauce of thought. :)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 16 Jul 2019 #44
Thumb_001 Sean Hen Spain 886 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
It always seems that K is coming to a question fresh. So whether he said that this question was "valid" or "wrong," he seemed to be responding to it as if encountering it for the first time. Perhaps, he came to the initial reading of the question just as he said: without knowing.

Yes, this seems to be true. His exploration of what thought actually is was very interesting and I think we can leave aside what the word was before "question". The not knowing seems to be the key thing here.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 16 Jul 2019 #45
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 1450 posts in this forum Offline

listened to the video again and he does say "its a wrong question "but It was a slip of the tongue because he answered it. He always said if you ask a wrong question you get a wrong answer (because the answer to the question is in the question naturally). I say the source of thought is registration. If the Brain hasn't register the pain or the pleasure then it can't remember it?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 16 Jul 2019 #46
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 1450 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
I'm not sure that K went through the written, submitted questions..

. .To read 100 questions takes less than half an hour. He was not lazy at all.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 16 Jul 2019 #47
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 1450 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
It always seems that K is coming to a question fresh.

Is it not the key to meet any challenge in life fresh and new?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 16 Jul 2019 #48
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 689 posts in this forum Offline

One Self wrote:
listened to the video again and he does say "its a wrong question "

One Self and Jack Pine are in agreement. Let's enjoy this moment!

However, both are wrong. I just played it for someone neutral and did not give my friend ANY psychological priming. I just asked my friend what was being said. My friend answered, "It's a valid question."

Try the experiment. Ask someone who knows nothing about Krishnamurti to listen to the long video at 1:16:40 with the best audio system you have. Don't tell them what you think it says. Let them listen to the video. Let them tell you what is being said.

Do not turn on closed captions, of course. For most people, the eyes override the ears.

We all know that K sometimes called a question "a wrong question." So we have been psychologically primed, which means that unconsciously we have been conditioned to connect "wrong" and "question" when listening to K. Someone who knows nothing about K will not have that unconscious conditioning and will give you the correct answer.

This is an easy experiment. Try it!

This post was last updated by idiot ? Tue, 16 Jul 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 16 Jul 2019 #49
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 1450 posts in this forum Offline

The source of thought is pain or pleasure . And pleasure eventually becomes pain.. So pain is the source of thought I say. Fear is psychological pain . From that source we think..

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 16 Jul 2019 #50
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 1450 posts in this forum Offline

K asked the question of "Does thought create pain or pain creates thought?". That is a great question I say. But one has to fine the answer to the question for oneself or what is the point of the question?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 16 Jul 2019 #51
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 539 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote at #14:
Not knowing is the opposite of knowing, obviously.

Up is the opposite of down; big is the opposite of small; fat is the opposite of skinny; short is the opposite of tall or long, and so on. “Opposites” means that there is a connection, a relationship, a continuum between 2 things. At one end of the continuum is one opposite (“up” for example), and at the other end of the continuum is the other opposite (“down” in this case). Opposites can only exist in pairs. Up has no meaning without down; big has no meaning without small, light has no meaning if there is no such thing as darkness, and so on.

Is there a similar relationship between knowing and not knowing? Is there a continuum which has “knowing” at one end, and “not-knowing” at the other end? There can be. If I don’t know the distance to Paris, I can get that knowledge. If I don’t know the law, I can study books to know the law. Then "not-knowing" becomes "knowing". Then there is a relationship between not-knowing and knowing. Knowing is the accumulation of memory.

But we are NOT talking here about the “not-knowing” which IS related to knowledge/memory. It is the STATE OF MIND of “not-knowing” that K is pointing to, and this state of mind has nothing to do with acquiring knowledge. The state of “not knowing” that K is pointing to is NOT the mere absence of accumulated knowledge; it cannot be "cured" by acquiring knowledge. It is not related to knowledge, it has nothing to do with knowledge. There is no “opposite” to the still state of mind of not knowing.

The question being examined here has 2 parts. The 2nd part of the question is “so that there is a possibility of silencing the thinking process itself”. Doesn't this 2nd part point to the questioner’s conclusion that “silencing the thinking process” is necessary? And so it is the motive for asking “How does one go to the very source of thought...”. THAT’s what makes the question “invalid” or “wrong”, as I see it.

This post was last updated by Huguette . Wed, 17 Jul 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 16 Jul 2019 #52
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 689 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
The question being examined here has 2 parts. The 2nd part of the question is “so that there is a possibility of silencing the thinking process itself”. Doesn't this 2nd part point to the questioner’s conclusion that “silencing the thinking process” is necessary? And so it is the motive for asking “How does one go to the very source of thought...”. THAT’s what makes the question “invalid” or “wrong”, as I see it.

K does not say the question is "invalid." K does not say the question is "wrong." K says the question is "valid." But it takes a good, unconditioned ear to get that.

K talks all the time about silencing the thinking process. He does NOT talk about it as an activity that can be willed. But he constantly talks about silence of the mind. Investigating the source of thought and whether it can quiet down is valid. And K's answer does just that.

Many here at kinfonet are so quick to assign motive to someone, to say they have an ideal, to say they are seeking. To inquire into what K is saying about silence of the mind is natural and valid. The whole point of him talking about things is for you to ask, "Is it so?" And to go into it. It is most valid to do so, and not necessarily indicative of a motive, an ideal, etc.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 16 Jul 2019 #53
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 539 posts in this forum Offline

http://jiddu-krishnamurti.net/en/1981/1981-01-0...

7th QUESTION: What is the source of thought? How does one go to the very source of thought so that there is a possibility of silencing the thinking process itself?

K: This is a wrong question. Sir, what is thinking? I am asking you. What is thinking? You do that all day long. Right? When you go to the office, when you go to the temple, when you talk, when you are destructive. What is thinking? Go on, sirs. Have you ever even thought about what is thinking? What is the movement of thought? Let's begin slowly. This is the last question. It's quarter to nine. Good lord! We have been an hour and a quarter here, I'm sorry.

Now, what is thinking? Not what to think, not what you think about, not what thought should do, or not do, but we are asking what is thinking itself. You think if you are a businessman in one way, you think as a lawyer in another way, an engineer, a computer expert, you think in these ways; but we are asking, what is thinking itself. If one is asked your name, you reply instantly. There is no hesitation - hesitation being time interval. Please just follow this for a little. When you are familiar with something there is no activity of thought, there is instant response. You know the house you live in, the street you go by, that is familiarity, constant repetition as your name, there is instant response. That response has been immediate because there has been past repetition: my name is so-and-so, I have been called that name since I was a small boy, and I repeat it, repeat it, repeat it, when you ask what my name is, out it comes.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 2 readers
Back to Top
Wed, 17 Jul 2019 #54
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 689 posts in this forum Offline

Yes. The closed caption is incorrect. The transcript is incorrect. The audio that he actually spoke is correct. He does not say, "This is a wrong question." He says, "It's a valid question."

As I said previously, if you play the audio for someone who knows nothing about Krishnamurti and you do not show the closed caption and you do not tell the person what you think the audio says, you can find out what an unbiased person understands the audio to say.

This post was last updated by idiot ? Wed, 17 Jul 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 17 Jul 2019 #55
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5755 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
es. The closed caption is incorrect. The transcript is incorrect. The audio that he actually spoke is correct. He does not say, "This is a wrong question." He says, "It is a valid question."

You know there is something really pathetic about someone who can't admit they're wrong. Everybody else is wrong but not you. What a tremendously fragile ego you must have.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 17 Jul 2019 #56
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 689 posts in this forum Offline

Well, I was slightly wrong. He says, "It's a valid question." Previously, I wrote "It is a valid question." He used the contraction "It's." I have corrected my post.

What K said is a fact. And the fact is, he said, "It's a valid question."

Many people believe lots of erroneous things. How many people believe lies that Donald Trump tells? The important thing is not how many people believe one way or another. The important thing is what's true.

And the truth is, K said in the video, "It's a valid question."

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 17 Jul 2019 #57
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5755 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
And the truth is, K said in the video, "It's a valid question."

You don't know what the truth is. None of us do. But facts are something else. And the fact is that K said "wrong" not "valid". You can't let go of your closely held beliefs long enough to even consider the facts that have been presented. Why? Can you ask yourself why is it so important to you to hang onto this lie in face of clear evidence to the contrary? What will happen if you admit that you are mistaken? I am not asking for answers to these questions but shouldn't you be?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 17 Jul 2019 #58
Thumb_patricia_may_2014_reduced_ Patricia Hemingway Australia 1929 posts in this forum Offline

Unfortunately humanity has descended into the era of "Truth is anything I want it to be" - the post-truth age - the age of indignation and outrage. Governed by the total inability to perceive any fact.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 17 Jul 2019 #59
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 539 posts in this forum Offline

Idiot,

K may have said “valid” or he may have said “wrong”. Whatever he said, he was not the Delphic Oracle, as he himself has said.

It’s not because someone stands alone in speaking out against the rest of the world that he or she is “wrong”. But one MUST be aware of the cause of one’s speaking-out - not the explanation, but the cause. One MUST be aware because the crucial importance of awareness is understood, isn’t it?

The truth is not a position, it simply IS. The very taking of positions about anything obfuscates the truth, don’t you think? No truth can be understood or spoken without self-awareness, wouldn’t you say?

As I went to log in, I noticed the QOTD:

As long as there is a guiding principle in our lives to which we are trying to be true, there must be duality in action, and therefore a problem.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 17 Jul 2019 #60
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1453 posts in this forum Offline

When it comes to the 'psyche', there always seems to be a pointing at the necessity of a 'vacancy' there, or non-occupation, or a 'not-knowing' or 'silence' which is impeded by the activity and occupation of thought. Is self-knowledge then an awareness of what is taking up the 'space' of the psyche at any given moment? It makes logical sense doesn't it that one is not meeting and cannot meet the moment if one is occupied, hence seeing the Now through the filter of past experience (thought)?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 31 - 60 of 237 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.)