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

What can thought do?


Displaying posts 151 - 167 of 167 in total
Mon, 16 May 2016 #151
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 569 posts in this forum Offline

Clive,

Science can only deal with things in the four dimensional, that is in the field of of matter...time/space. Sentience is certainly beyond that and the origin, the ground,(K's word), is clearly beyond that. That is seen.

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Mon, 16 May 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 16 May 2016 #152
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 569 posts in this forum Offline

Love you Juan.

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Mon, 16 May 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 16 May 2016 #153
Thumb_stringio Juan Eyegaray Spain 256 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Clive Elwell wrote:
I don't think any number of theories can help with this question.

I put this question to myself in reading your answer to Peter (#147): are not those so called 'theories' inquirings also? ... Is there any difference between those so called 'theories'' inquires and any inquiring we may do here? ...

There's the popular saying that 'money doesn't bring happiness, but helps'
Perhaps we could apply also this saying to the so called 'theories'?

[This is directly related to the second part of my post in #149]

"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
Mon, 16 May 2016 #154
Thumb_stringio Juan Eyegaray Spain 256 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Peter Kesting wrote:
Love you Juan.

You're not serious! ;-)

"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
Mon, 16 May 2016 #155
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2164 posts in this forum Offline

Sudhir Sharma wrote:
Tom Paine wrote:

If you see that something is destroying you(burning down your house...your whole world)...but you see it's part of you....you have great interest to see exactly how it works, no?

Sudhir: If that something is a part, then what is the rest of you/one/I, Tom?

T: At the moment of fear, that's what I am....that's all I am....fear. The next moment I may be happy or something else, but at the moment of fear or anger, that's 'me' in toto as I'm seeing it.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Mon, 16 May 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 17 May 2016 #156
Thumb_img001 Sudhir Sharma India 591 posts in this forum Offline

Juan Eyegaray wrote:
Perhaps you could tell us how can there be a change when there's no motive (to change)?

We are discussing "observing without thought. All activities in the psychological field are motivated/directional and this is a hindrance in "observing without thought". The self is ready to counteract this with the projected state of "Observing without motive". What the self desires, it achieves, but its achievement does not change conflicts and pain it is encountering in relationships. There is no movement/activity possible in the psychological field without motive, but "enlightened self" that is "observing without thought" will not accept this.

FLOW WITH LIFE!

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 17 May 2016 #157
Thumb_img001 Sudhir Sharma India 591 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
At the moment of fear, that's what I am....that's all I am....fear.

Thought generated fear (psychological fear) is generated and maintained by thought movement as 'me'. All information/analysis/understanding/solutions regarding this fear are thought based. Looking at this fear without me (its creator) is not possible. As soon as the fear is recognized, the me comes into existence...And if it is not recognized, then is there fear?

FLOW WITH LIFE!

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 17 May 2016 #158
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4192 posts in this forum Offline

Juan Eyegaray wrote:
Anyway, this question leads me to ask a question i've always put to myself since a very early age: why human being divide science, spirituality, philosophy, non believing, from the whole, that is, from himself? ... Why human being considers he is either scientist, spiritual, philosopher, or non believer? ...

I think at least part of the answer is that thought finds some sort of security by identifying with a fragment. Yes, I know that is crazy, contradictory - but it is understandable. Do you not get a certain security by being a postman? (not saying that you identify). Belonging to a particular profession, specialising in a particular subject, belonging to a group who hold a particular religious belief ...... all these things SEEM to offer some security.

So far in this world there is no security offered for those who want to see themselves as belonging to no fragmented group.

How is it that he still has not seen
that all of them arise from..., have
the root in the same mind?

The contents of that very mind are nothing but fragments, are they not?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 17 May 2016 #159
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4192 posts in this forum Offline

Juan Eyegaray wrote:
I put this question to myself in reading your answer to Peter (#147): are not those so called 'theories' inquirings also? ... Is there any difference between those so called 'theories'' inquires and any inquiring we may do here? ...

I have been pondering this. It brings up not a few questions.

What is the reason for developing scientific theories? Basically, so we can explain how matter 'works', and from this understanding, make predictions, and perhaps exploit the understanding through technology. Whatever the reason, all we gain is knowledge, is it not? More textbooks. More scientific knowledge. Science seeks to extend the boundaries of knowledge – but it is still knowledge, the knowledge is still limited, and always will be. That is the nature of knowledge.

On this forum, and in the matter of self inquiry, what are we seeking? Perhaps each would have his own answer to this, but for myself, I don't think inquiry can be reduced to seeking something. One naturally inquires into the seeking process.

Knowledge is not a sufficient outcome in the self inquiry process. Are we not inquiring into the very nature of knowledge itself? Knowledge is not understanding, is it?

Another factor is that matter seems to be reasonably static, constant, in the way it behaves. So knowledge about it is useful. But the self, and its relationships, are ever changing, and so cannot be described by static knowledge.

What do you say?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 17 May 2016 #160
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4192 posts in this forum Offline

Sudhir Sharma wrote:
"enlightened self"

What, to you, is an enlightened self?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 17 May 2016 #161
Thumb_stringio Juan Eyegaray Spain 256 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Sudhir Sharma wrote:
What the self desires, it achieves, but its achievement does not change conflicts and pain it is encountering in relationships.

Right, but observation without motive has no intention, no desire, it simply comes, nothing to do with the self ... So, no conflict, no pain in relationship ... This are not mere words, also not repeating words from another.

"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
Tue, 17 May 2016 #162
Thumb_stringio Juan Eyegaray Spain 256 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Clive Elwell wrote:
What, to you, is an enlightened self?

I think Sudhir is referring to a self that thinks it is enlighten when it is not.
Of a self that thinks it is observing without motive when it has motive.
Of a human being, in short, condemned forever to be just that, a self.

He'll correct me if it's not that.

"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) Tue, 17 May 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 17 May 2016 #163
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2164 posts in this forum Offline

Sudhir Sharma wrote:
Thought generated fear (psychological fear) is generated and maintained by thought movement as 'me'.

Right, so me and fear are not separate phenomenon. Will have to come back to this issue at another time....fighting off a bad head cold, so must sign off soon.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 17 May 2016 #164
Thumb_stringio Juan Eyegaray Spain 256 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Clive Elwell wrote:
Do you not get a certain security by being a postman?

Good question, Clive! :-)

I'm deeply pondering it and i would say that i never identified myself with it, i mean i can't find a psychological security in me because me being a 'postman' :-?

I understand what you mean by 'security', but if there's something i never understood is how can one feel secure belonging to a certain group when in fact this so called security is threatened all the time by other groups ...

Personally i've always questioned everything since a very early age when i undergo the painful experience of being forced to use my right hand by tying my left arm to the small chair in which i sat in preschool (3/4 years old) ...

Believe me or not, i never identified myself with a group ... Of course i've been related to religious groups of different kinds in a way or another, not in search for psychological security but to understand myself through the teaching, always trying to find a way to the root of it on my own because the members of those groups preferred to remain in the surface with that security you're talking about ...

Mike said about me in another thread, 'perhaps is that you've never been alone' ... But, how can one possibly know about the aloneness of other without oneself being truly alone and not only by going to the forest? ... Has someone felt ever the aloneness of K with regard to his fellow beings with whom he tried to share his findings? ... I don't think so.

Someone stopped the conversation i had with her one time just to ask me: wait, you listen others, but there's someone listening to you? ... And after that i kept silent observing that question in the heart unable to find any words to answer her question ...

Don't misunderstand me, i'm not saying that i am perfect, on the contrary i'm quite imperfect as most of us, it's only that not so many people want to go really to the root of all of it because feeling threatened when someone ask too much ... not to threaten them, but to try to go together, if possible, to the root of it ...

We've been joking in another thread about me being an 'impetuous one', and you're right somehow about that ... but perhaps not in the sense you may think about my 'impetuosity' that brought about myself deleting all my past posts a couple of weeks ago ... It's only that in 'those occasions' i feel so sad innerly that i have a deep feeling of 'disappearing', of being alone and deeply question myself (nobody is perfect) ...

But i don't know why i've exposed myself in such a way tonight in trying to answer your post ... Who knows, perhaps your words performed the 'thing', Clive ... or perhaps i'm a so self-centered person that i had the need to do it ... Anyway now you (any) have the opportunity if you want to jump over me and 'kill' my ignorance with your wisdom (which will be much appreciated).

Thanks at least for listening, i think it's time to go bed.
Wim Mertens 'A man with no fortune...' album has been the music while writing.

Good night Clive, and the rest - juan.

"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) Tue, 17 May 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 17 May 2016 #165
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4192 posts in this forum Offline

Juan Eyegaray wrote:
I understand what you mean by 'security', but if there's something i never understood is how can one feel secure belonging to a certain group when in fact this so called security is threatened all the time by other groups ...

Completely with you in that.

Juan Eyegaray wrote:
But, how can one possibly know about the aloneness of other without oneself being truly alone and not only by going to the forest?

A friend sometimes says to me, if I ask her if she wants to be alone "I can feel alone with you". I must admit that pleases me.

Juan Eyegaray wrote:
Don't misunderstand me, i'm not saying that i am perfect, on the contrary i'm quite imperfect as most of us,

"perfect" and "imperfect" are ugly terms, I find. We are what we are.

Juan Eyegaray wrote:
, it's only that not so many people want to go really to the root of all of it because feeling threatened when someone ask too much ...

That's true..... but there are a few. And it is very precious when two such come together.

Juan Eyegaray wrote:
or perhaps i'm a so self-centered person that i had the need to do it ...

I say again, we are what we are. It's essential that we can look at ourselves as we are, without any criticism (or justification). And can we look without naming, without recognition at all?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 17 May 2016 #166
Thumb_stringio Juan Eyegaray Spain 256 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

I still dispose of some time to answer your second post :-)

Clive Elwell wrote:
What is the reason for developing scientific theories?

The same reason that impels human being to develop psychological theories ('psychological' not meaning 'scientific psychology' only, but religious too): human being wants to understand itself either innerly as well as outwardly ...

But nobody seems to be aware that there's only one human being looking at all that, and not a scientific one in one side and a religious one in the other side ...

Clive Elwell wrote:
Whatever the reason, all we gain is knowledge, is it not? More textbooks. More scientific knowledge. Science seeks to extend the boundaries of knowledge – but it is still knowledge, the knowledge is still limited, and always will be. That is the nature of knowledge.

We have more and more books all the time, Clive, which are added to those we already have from the past ... Scientific books, Religious books, K books, Vimala Thakar books, Pope Francis books, and so on so forth ... And from all of them we get some knowledge, inner knowledge as well as outer knowledge ... We read them, some go beyond that reading and some not, some find some truth on them and some not, some a believing, a hope, and some something (they say) beyond the words written in them ...

Personally i never felt that books are the problem, but the way we read them ... I say it's possible to read any written words while being free of knowledge ... What do you think?

(it seems i listen Sudhir telling us 'that's impossible!' ;-)
(just joking Sudhir, don't take it personal).

Clive Elwell wrote:
I don't think inquiry can be reduced to seeking something. One naturally inquires into the seeking process.

I've found a real beauty in the way you express what you say here ... Which to me means that when one is trying to find a solution to the misery in this world, one should stop and look first in which way one is seeking that solution ... But then many would say (as someone told me long time ago), 'while you're looking in which way you're seeking for the solution people die from starvation' ... Which to me just means there's not a real understanding for most of us of the beauty hidden in the words you've written (which have been said many times along the human history).

Clive Elwell wrote:
Knowledge is not a sufficient outcome in the self inquiry process. Knowledge is not understanding, is it?

I think we'll agree in that knowledge is a fixed thing, while self inquiry process is something which is in constant move ... But we've made fixed the words of Jesus, of Buddha, of K perhaps also, the words of Scientist, and so on ... And so many of us don't move with them, don't go beyond through them, but remain with all those dead words thinking that they're still alive, and in doing so we die with them while thinking we're also alive ...

Are we not inquiring into the very nature of knowledge itself?

It seems that that's what we should be doing, but to do that one must be free of knowledge, and then many would say 'how can i inquire into something if i leave aside all my knowledge about what we're going to inquire?' ...

I recall now some conversation K had with a woman, the woman was talking about Plato and Aristotle and suddenly stopped her talking and said to K 'but we cannot talk about that because you never read a book from them', to which K answered 'What makes you think that we can't talk about it?'

Knowledge is not understanding, is it?

I would say that knowledge is our intellectual understanding made fixed.
What do you think?

Clive Elwell wrote:
Another factor is that matter seems to be reasonably static, constant, in the way it behaves. So knowledge about it is useful. But the self, and its relationships, are ever changing, and so cannot be described by static knowledge.

You said it, 'it SEEMS to be static', but it is not static ... A rose is in constant changing, only that our physical eyes are not able to see the process ...

Now, is it possible to directly see that ever changing process in matter in the same way as we can observe it in the self? ... K said 'I was that tree, the ant, the small rock,...' ... Does that mean that one can be able to move with ever changing matter in the same way that one moves with the ever changing self, without a center?

The word 'religion' comes from the Latin word 'religare' which means 're-unite'; can a true religious person then be wholly re-united in a way that the mental is not divided from the material? ... Can the ever changing mind move together with the ever changing matter of the body that sustains it?

Now, time to go sleep.
Good night! ... Juan.

"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) Wed, 18 May 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 18 May 2016 #167
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4192 posts in this forum Offline

Some responses to your post # 166 above Juan

('psychological' not meaning 'scientific psychology' only, but religious too): human being wants to understand itself either innerly as well as outwardly …

C: I doubt if most people 'want to understand themselves'. Commonly it is the reverse, they want to escape from the pain they associate with self knowledge. In fact we have built a culture based on escape, a culture of distraction.

Personally i never felt that books are the problem, but the way we read them ... I say it's possible to read any written words while being free of knowledge ... What do you think?

C: I would say it depends on the nature of the books. I have no patience with novels, they just emphasis the human situation in more and more intricate detail, only offering the same old tired suggestions for a way out of human problems – ideals, effort, struggle, belief, illusion ….

I can read scientific books and information occasionally, that interests me. And stuff that seems to point in the direction that the human race is heading – although the viewpoints are inevitably fragmented, each ignoring all the other viewpoints.

.. But then many would say (as someone told me long time ago), 'while you're looking in which way you're seeking for the solution people die from starvation' …

C: That seems to imply that if one wasn't seeking, people would stop dying from starvation. It suggests that there is a 'better solution'.

I think we'll agree in that knowledge is a fixed thing, while self inquiry process is something which is in constant move ... But we've made fixed the words of Jesus, of Buddha, of K perhaps also, the words of Scientist, and so on ... And so many of us don't move with them, don't go beyond through them, but remain with all those dead words thinking that they're still alive, and in doing so we die with them while thinking we're also alive …

C: Well put, Juan. It is part of the even larger problem, I would say, of thinking verbal solutions are real solutions. Part of confusing descriptions with the described.

Are we not inquiring into the very nature of knowledge itself?
It seems that that's what we should be doing, but to do that one must be free of knowledge, and then many would say 'how can i inquire into something if i leave aside all my knowledge about what we're going to inquire?' …

C: Probably you cannot, in the sense of 'you' directing an inquiry in the direction that you have decided on.

I would say that knowledge is our intellectual understanding made fixed. 
What do you think?

C: That seems right. It is always a memory of something, never in the living present.

You said it, 'it SEEMS to be static', but it is not static ... A rose is in constant changing, only that our physical eyes are not able to see the process …

C: I should have said: “matter seems reasonably unchanging in the way that it behaves.”

Now, is it possible to directly see that ever changing process in matter in the same way as we can observe it in the self? ... K said 'I was that tree, the ant, the small rock,...' ... Does that mean that one can be able to move with ever changing matter in the same way that one moves with the ever changing self, without a center?

C: I don't know that 'I' can do this. The 'I' always separates itself from anything, it can move WITH something.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 151 - 167 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.)