Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
A Quiet Space | moderated by Clive Elwell

What can thought do?


Displaying posts 91 - 120 of 167 in total
Sat, 14 May 2016 #91
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 565 posts in this forum Offline

Richard: "and what can't be known, can't be a support..."

What is known?

Does this end it?

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Sat, 14 May 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 14 May 2016 #92
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3919 posts in this forum Offline

Juan Eyegaray wrote:
May i ask why you create the duality between the universe and everything is in it?
Is there an universe divided from the things in it?

When Peter wrote “The universe seems to know where everything is”, Juan said “may I ask why you create the duality between the universe and its attributes? Is there a universe different from the things in it?”

I find this very interesting. I guess Peter really meant (correct me if I am wrong, Peter) “All the part of the universe seem to know where all the other parts are” (and yet just what is a “part”? That is an interesting question on its own)

It seems that the mind has this strong tendency to assume that there is something apart from the attributes of that something. This is the essence of the self, in fact. The attributes of the self exist – fear, ambition, pleasure seeking, desire, etc – but does the self exist separate from these attributes? I would say not, but the attributes only exist because there is an assumption that something does exist apart from the attributes! This is pretty weird.

So does the self project this basic error on to all of its perceptions?

God would be another example. God is assumed to have certain attributes, characteristics, powers, but it is assumed there is a being who HAS these powers – implying he is separate from his powers. So people pray to him, worship him.

Writing these words, I feel I am on the verge of some logical contradiction. Perhaps others can help me see it.

Is it possible there are ONLY the attributes, which in the end means actions, without any entity - any actor, the self, God, the Universe?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 14 May 2016 #93
Thumb_stringio Juan Eyegaray Spain 256 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Clive Elwell wrote:
there is an assumption that something does exist apart from the attributes!

Would you let me to put this in different words? ...

I would say that there's a general assumption that that 'something' possesses its attributes, i.e.: it's the owner: 'I' am this or that, more or less the same as when we say 'my' hands, 'my' eyes, or even 'I' have headache ... or 'I' suffer

Strange enough that we are not aware of that division!

"There will be no peace in the world unless it is able to listen silently to its own noise." [me]

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 14 May 2016 #94
Thumb_stringio richard villlar France 624 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Peter Kesting wrote:
What is known?

What appears...

Peter Kesting wrote:
Does this end it?

Maybe?

:-)

vivre, est le verbe de la vie...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 14 May 2016 #95
Thumb_stringio Juan Eyegaray Spain 256 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Clive Elwell wrote:
So people pray to him, worship him.

Buddhists say that it is the thought which projects characteristics on objects, characteristics that they don't posses at all, mainly because (they say) they don't have an inherent existence in themselves but they arise in dependence of causes and conditions, and something which doesn't exist in itself can not have characteristics of their own.

This to say that first thought creates the object (God), then it projects some self-characteristics in that object (All-Mighty) not being aware that those characteristics are just its own creation and not of the object itself, to finally desire (worship, pray to it), reject (becoming an atheist or trying to change the original characteristics projecting a new ones), or just being indifferent to the created object.

And all that with no awareness at all that everything arises from thought, being absolutely convinced that thought has nothing to do with all that and hence the feeling that one is divided from its own creation.

In short, is nature beautiful?, ugly?, none of these? - Do you see the division?

BTW, i see no contradiction in your reasoning!
(which i've found quite interesting i must say)

"There will be no peace in the world unless it is able to listen silently to its own noise." [me]

This post was last updated by Juan Eyegaray (account deleted) Sat, 14 May 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 14 May 2016 #96
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3919 posts in this forum Offline

It seems so articial to talk of things or objects. Where does one draw the line between them?

Only if there is one thing, indivisible, does it make sense.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 14 May 2016 #97
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3919 posts in this forum Offline

Would you say things only exist in relationship?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 14 May 2016 #98
Thumb_stringio Juan Eyegaray Spain 256 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Clive Elwell wrote:
Only if there is one thing, indivisible, does it make sense.

Could it be that indivisible thing the uninterrupted chain of causes and conditions without any conflict?... Is thought divided from it because wanting to know that movement and in doing that it names, divides, dissects forgetting after that all that naming, dividing, dissecting was artificial and not that which it was intending to know?

"There will be no peace in the world unless it is able to listen silently to its own noise." [me]

This post was last updated by Juan Eyegaray (account deleted) Sat, 14 May 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 14 May 2016 #99
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 565 posts in this forum Offline

Juan re your #90

It seems to this person that there is something remarkable that can be conveyed to another that would have value to that other, and perhaps to the world.

There is something else even more enlightening that cannot be talked about.

Both have great significance seen here. K seems to have come upon both, again, as seen here. But it seems that he was almost completely unsuccesfull in communicating these things seen.

Rightly or wrongly there is the notion in this one writing that there is at least one alternate approach to the conveying of the first of these.

So if you are able, can you actually consider the possibility that events in the world of matter are completely deterministic. And in particular that this applies to the behaviour of human beings.

We can't be certain that this is not the case at this point.

If you are certain that this could not be, we need go no further, except that I would ask you if I may, how is it that you know this.

Or if you are not interested let me know that.

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Sat, 14 May 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 14 May 2016 #100
Thumb_stringio Juan Eyegaray Spain 256 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Hi Peter,

I read your post two or three times, but i think i need more time to read it carefully and fully understand what you're trying to convey (as you probably know i'm not an english speaker) ... On the other hand it's late at night here (01:09 a.m.) so, i'll take this post to bed and will answer you tomorrow if you don't mind.

I will just say two things by now, first of all thanks for your reply, and secondly yes, i'm interested in go into it step by step.

"There will be no peace in the world unless it is able to listen silently to its own noise." [me]

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 15 May 2016 #101
Thumb_stringio Juan Eyegaray Spain 256 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Good morning Peter,

Peter Kesting wrote:
K seems to have come upon both, again, as seen here. But it seems that he was almost completely unsuccessful in communicating these things seen.

Personally i don't think K was unsuccessful, but our failing in grasping the real meaning behind the words was(is) ...

In fact, in listening K i have many times the feeling that somehow he 'uses' others to find out the right words (i.e.: words understandable for them) to convey what he wants to convey (i.e.: not using his own words but letting others to bring their own words/concepts into the conversation and then using them to communicate with his listeners) ...

I think a very interesting study to do would be the evolution of language in K, and how his dialogs with others influenced him somehow in his use of language to convey his inner feelings to us.

Peter Kesting wrote:
So if you are able, can you actually consider the possibility that events in the world of matter, and in particular that this applies to the behavior of human beings, are completely deterministic.

Well, i had to look in the dictionary for 'determinism', as i always doubt about the meaning of these philosophical concepts ... so, i've seen that in talking myself about an 'uninterrupted chain of cause and effect' in fact i was talking somehow about that view without knowing that i was doing so.

Now, after a short philosophy self-class, i would say OK to what you say ...

But said this i think it would be important to clearly specify what 'deterministic' means for you, as i've seen that there are many different views about 'determinism' itself.

Peter Kesting wrote:
We can't be certain that this is not the case at this point.

Yes, so let's see if there's something else or not.

Peter Kesting wrote:
Rightly or wrongly there is the notion in this one writing that there is at least one alternate approach to the conveying of the first of these.

There's a real interest here in listening to that 'alternate approach', no matter if it's right or wrong.

"There will be no peace in the world unless it is able to listen silently to its own noise." [me]

This post was last updated by Juan Eyegaray (account deleted) Sun, 15 May 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 15 May 2016 #102
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3919 posts in this forum Offline

I suggested above that things only exist in relationship. It is a very intriguing idea/possibility. Did not K say something similar?

Also. I think the concept is entirely consistent with Quantum theory - maybe even the very root of it.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 15 May 2016 #103
Thumb_stringio Juan Eyegaray Spain 256 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Clive Elwell wrote:
I suggested above that things only exist in relationship.

Oh! I saw it yesterday night and thought to ask you something about it today, but i've answered to Peter and forgot yours ... So i would like to ask you if you could put an example on that for me to fully understand what these words try to convey.

"There will be no peace in the world unless it is able to listen silently to its own noise." [me]

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 15 May 2016 #104
Thumb_farside0411 m christani United States 650 posts in this forum Offline

I think this is an interesting corollary to the point "things exist only in relationship" :

" If we can understand fully, completely, relationship with the one, then perhaps there is a possibility of understanding relationship with the many, that is, with society. If I do not understand my relationship with the one, I certainly shall not understand my relationship with the whole, with society, with the many. "

It seems like he's saying we don't need to go after every little point in every relationship we can imagine, but take one, perhaps a close one, and go into it. Or, it could be anyone, a beggar, a clerk, someone one's attracted to...

And further:

"So, you see that relationship, if we allow it, can be a process of self-revelation, but since we do not allow it, relationship becomes merely a gratifying activity."

These quotes from 'On Relationship', from the Repository.

mike

This post was last updated by m christani Sun, 15 May 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 15 May 2016 #105
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3919 posts in this forum Offline

Juan Eyegaray wrote:
So i would like to ask you if you could put an example on that for me to fully understand what these words try to convey.

Travelling at the moment and cannot say much.

When I relate to you an 'entity who is relating to Juan'' comes into existence.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 15 May 2016 #106
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3919 posts in this forum Offline

Juan Eyegaray wrote:
So i would like to ask you if you could put an example on that for me to fully understand what these words try to convey

To look at the proposition 'Things only exist in relationship” from a scientific viewpoint, using what I know of Quantum Theory.

If a particle – a thing, an object – is not in relationship with anything, then according to QT it cannot be said to exist.Now by 'relationship' QT would use terms like 'not being measured', 'not being looked at, observed,' 'not interacting with something else'. If it is not in such a relationship, then it has no definite existence.

All one can talk of is probabilities of existence, which are finite an any point in the Universe. But as soon as it is interacts (including with the scientist investigating it), as soon as it is observed, it comes into definite existence, at some place, with some properties (we could use the word attributes, relating this to another discussion)

This phenomena is described as the object's wave function 'collapsing'. Also the word 'decoherence' comes to mind, but I will check that out when I am able.

The great difficulty scientists are finding in building Quantum computers is to keep the relevant particles in this state of unrelated-ness

I stand to be correlated in what I have written above. But my god, it is fascinating, especially to see K's words vindicated by science.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 15 May 2016 #107
Thumb_img001 Sudhir Sharma India 591 posts in this forum Offline

max greene wrote:
The psychological can be made physically manifest only through physical reaction to thought -- the psychological.

That is right, but can one do anything, if at all, to be free of the influence of psychological on physical (action), Max?

FLOW WITH LIFE!

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 15 May 2016 #108
Thumb_img001 Sudhir Sharma India 591 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
The last thing you mentioned:

Find/understand the limits of its action field.

Is most interesting, and perhaps controversial. It implies, does it not, that thought can bring about order in itself, by seeing its limits.

S : No, psychological thought and order are incompatible, Clive. In the name of bringing order, it will only continue its dual and conflict prone existence. The seeing/understanding of its limits by thought is full of too much impatience to create order in this field.

FLOW WITH LIFE!

This post was last updated by Sudhir Sharma Sun, 15 May 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 15 May 2016 #109
Thumb_img001 Sudhir Sharma India 591 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
If there's an observation free of comparison, criticism, judgment, ego, then it's an observation free of 'me', isn't it? Maybe it's best not to speculate, but to deal with facts....'what is'....the bias of the observer...the comparison, judgment, concluding, experience, knowledge, etc. .

Can you explain your understanding of "deal with facts...what is...the bias..." some more please, Tom?

FLOW WITH LIFE!

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 15 May 2016 #110
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2054 posts in this forum Offline

Sudhir Sharma wrote:
No, psychological thought and order are incompatible, Clive. In the name of bringing order, it will only continue its dual and conflict prone existence

But there must be a 'way' to understand ourselves...or we are doomed to this life of disorder. Consciousness with its disorder con only lead to further disorder...so man is doomed to a life of suffering, then. Or is there some 'way' for us to proceed? Observing oneself....as K often speaks of? Observing the ways of our thinking and actions?

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 15 May 2016 #111
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2054 posts in this forum Offline

Sudhir Sharma wrote:
Can you explain your understanding of "deal with facts...what is...the bias..." some more please, Tom?

There's a difficulty here. Thought puts its spin on the facts....so the fact is seen, not as it is, but as we're conditioned to see it. I told a story a while back about a childhood friend who hid his homosexuality from his family and his friends and school mates for many years. He even hid it from himself! How do we deal with facts that were buried in the unconscious due to condemnation and threats of punishment?

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 15 May 2016 #112
Thumb_img001 Sudhir Sharma India 591 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
But there must be a 'way' to understand ourselves...

No, there is, unfortunately, no "way", Tom.

Tom Paine wrote:
Consciousness with its disorder con only lead to further disorder...so man is doomed to a life of suffering, then.

Yes.

Tom Paine wrote:
Or is there some 'way' for us to proceed?

None...except the old (failed!) one of searching and hoping to find a "way" one day.

Tom Paine wrote:
Observing oneself....as K often speaks of?Observing the ways of our thinking and actions?

The human mind is incapable of observing without a motive. The failure is doubly ensured if K saying (as goal/motive) is brought in the picture.

FLOW WITH LIFE!

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 15 May 2016 #113
Thumb_img001 Sudhir Sharma India 591 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
How do we deal with facts that were buried in the unconscious due to condemnation and threats of punishment?

Yes, how...

FLOW WITH LIFE!

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 15 May 2016 #114
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2054 posts in this forum Offline

Sudhir Sharma wrote:
The human mind is incapable of observing without a motive.

Thought always has a motive, yes. But that can be observed. Observing the ways of thought...the tricks thought plays. Just watch how it works as it's doing its thing.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 15 May 2016 #115
Thumb_img001 Sudhir Sharma India 591 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Observing the ways of thought...

Can this be done without effort/will/motive...without concentrating on thought movement within?...Without the hope that eventually such observing will come?

This may be asking too much of the motive oriented mind, Tom!

FLOW WITH LIFE!

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 15 May 2016 #116
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2054 posts in this forum Offline

Sudhir Sharma wrote:
This may be asking too much of the motive oriented mind, Tom!

No, when the interest and passion(I hesitate to use that word) is there one will look. The interest and passion will carry one beyond oneself....or at least clear the way for the light of understanding to shine through.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 15 May 2016 #117
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 565 posts in this forum Offline

Good morning Juan and Clive and...

6:09 in the morning here in California.

First over the night it has occured here that there may be a mistake in what follows. After 54 years I may be seeing this. But I will go thru it any way and expose the mistake I may be seeing , after. It may still be of value, or there may be more to see.

The conflict at that time in this one and the failure to resolve it opened up the question : what is the self. There had come to be a view here that the condition of this ones life was that there was the self and there was the world outside of the self and what one was trying to do was to change things in the world outside of the self. It came into the mind in that the recurring failure to bring about the change necessary might lie in an error in seeing just exactly where the boundry was between these two things the inner and the outer. So exactly what is the self, where exactly does the boundry lie.

Also If ones background is scientific. In the aparently common conflict one goes thru in life. One might ask oneself if everything is actually all only matter, just physics, and is it possibly completely determined.

The idea of a thought experiment came into the mind...

Suppose there were to be assembled an exact duplicate of ones self. The origional and the duplicate in exactly duplicated local environments.... What I mean by exact duplicate is that even at the most ultimate resolution the molecules, atoms, protons, electrons, photons quarks everything at every level in the one and in its environment moving in parallel and in sync with the other.

The question that arises is: would there be anyone in that duplicate? In the brain of each all the neurons are exactly duplicated nerve impulses are moveing in sync. The movement of every subatomic particle is identical in each.

There are two possibilities either someone is there or no one is there. We'll considering each case in turn. First let's allow that there might be no one there in the copy, but only matter in motion.
I am seeing this as if there is just dark there backness only in it. And here in the origional there is this "light" not the light of physics.

So having these two one in which there is this "light" and the other absent this "light". We can consider removing this "light" in oneself and putting it in a safe place where nothing is happening for a few minutes and then replacing it. While it is absent the material activity in both brains continues in parallel nerve signals continued to travel in nerves and things "seen" and "thought" are being recorded so that there would be no indication at all that there had been any absence. All memories would still be there in the brain cells including memory of thoughts and experiences that occured in darkness and on reinsertion the movement goes on without any gap.

One can do this whole procedure again only this time instead of reincerting this "light" back into the origional we put it now into the duplicate. It now has access to a whole life, to a memory store that did not even exist until just recently.

One can repeat this whole series of events with a the reader, both with out any indication any absence or of any switch.

So lets try one more thing if this "light" in each of us were to be exchanged between us there would be no awareness that such a change
had happened.

This that is this "light" has no attributes these two can not be distinguished one from the other. It is one. This "light" is what we are. Everything else is the world outside of this. Observation from here can be free of attachment.

We are the other one.

One can from here understand the other. The Material world is flawless in its movement. Undivided.

This "light" is beyond matter. That is seen. And in discussing all of this it is seen that it touches and moves matter.

So the world is in this aspect not determined.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 15 May 2016 #118
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 565 posts in this forum Offline

The mistake later.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 15 May 2016 #119
Thumb_img001 Sudhir Sharma India 591 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
No, when the interest and passion(I hesitate to use that word) is there one will look. The interest and passion will carry one beyond oneself...

Tom, as "non violence' is a projection (goal created by thought), similarly aren't interest and passion projections?

Without motive, from where will one get/bring them?

FLOW WITH LIFE!

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 15 May 2016 #120
Thumb_img001 Sudhir Sharma India 591 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
or at least clear the way for the light of understanding to shine through.

This could be happening if "clear the way for the light of understanding to shine through." was not an influencing factor.

FLOW WITH LIFE!

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 91 - 120 of 167 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.)