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

The fundamental illusion of thought


Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 57 in total
Mon, 27 Feb 2017 #1
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3743 posts in this forum Offline

The fundamental illusion of thought.

Can thought act? It can act in the material world, of course, through the hands and through the tools, the extensions of the hands, that thought has created. Mankind's very survival has always depended on such action; the action of thought was his evolutionary trick, and it has undoubtedly given him a dominance over other animals. Where that dominance is leading him is another matter. But thought does act in the material world, it can usually find some way of doing what it wants to do, individually or collectively.

But can thought act in a non-material way? By which I mean in a psychological, emotional, spiritual way? Perhaps these are three separate questions. For the moment I am really asking: can thought act ON ITSELF?

Which seems to me to be the same as asking the question: can I change myself? The is rather fundamental, isn't it? We have certainly been educated to think that we can. That we can improve ourselves mentally, that we can achieve spiritually, whatever that means. But can thought do that? Can thought bring about change in itself. Given that many people devote years of their life, or perhaps their whole life, to this pursuit (witness the shelves upon shelves of “self-help” books in book shops) it seems reasonable to ask if this process is actual possible. And if it is possible, what is the mechanism of it, how is it supposed to work?

I myself very much question if thought can change itself at any depth. Other ways to make this statement are: I question if I can change myself, I question if I can change the thought process, if the thought process can change me. Thought is not the way of change, except, as I said originally, in the material world.

This is a tremendous realisation. It means there is no becoming psychologically. Although the mind is very much conditioned into this becoming movement, it is actually illusory , and it is a complete waste of our energy and time. When this is seen – well, a whole new sort of inquiry presents itself, if inquiry is the right word. The inquiry of passive watching. The inquiry of seeing the absolute limitation of the thought process. The inquiry of seeing the meaninglessness of psychological time.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 28 Feb 2017 #2
Thumb_rodin_de_denker Olive B Netherlands 238 posts in this forum Offline

Hi Clive,

The fundamental illusion of thought.

What do you mean by fundamental?

You say: the mind is actually illusory.

Now, isn’t thought (the)mind. Thus thought an illusion?

Thought is the substance of awareness/consciousness self that takes the shape of mind(thinking/perceiving).

The more words we use, the more confusion about the meaning of the words.
But if you want me to explain in a different way (Juan E has some issues with my words), please let me know, and I will try.

De mazzel, Olive.

Experience alone must be the test of reality.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 03 Mar 2017 #3
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3743 posts in this forum Offline

Olive B wrote:
What do you mean by fundamental?

I think I meant by fundamental the most basic, the most important. The greatest issue to be understood, resolved. I might in the past have used the word 'fundamental' to carry a different meaning.

Olive B wrote:
You say: the mind is actually illusory.

I see that what I said was:

“ Although the mind is very much
conditioned into this becoming
movement, it is actually illusory ,
and it is a complete waste of our
energy and time”

I think what I meant by this was the idea that the self can become other than it is, psychologically, fundamentally, is illusory. This does not seem the same as saying “the mind is actually illusory”

The process of thought is not an illusion, is it? We have touched upon this before, I think. There are actual bio-chemical processes going on in the brain, which, it is generally accepted, give rise to the sensation of thought.

But the content of thought may be illusory. When it says: "I went for a walk in the woods yesterday" (“I” referring to the body) that is not an illusion, it reflects a fact. But if it says “I am a loving person”, or “I will practise daily and gradually become free of free”, that is an illusion, is it not?

So I would not say the actual process of thought is an illusion, and I would not say all the content of thought is illusory. Would you? I would say that the psychological self is an illusion.

Olive B wrote:
Thought is the substance of awareness/consciousness self that takes the shape of mind(thinking/perceiving).

I am not understanding these words, Olive. By all means try to explain.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 04 Mar 2017 #4
Thumb_rodin_de_denker Olive B Netherlands 238 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Olive B wrote:

Thought is the substance of awareness/consciousness self that takes the shape of mind(thinking/perceiving).

I would be happy to explain it but Clive can we first look at this:

Clive Elwell wrote:
"I went for a walk in the woods yesterday" (“I” referring to the body) that is not an illusion, it reflects a fact.

You say that “I” refers to the body, and that is not an illusion.

So you belief that you are the body.

Clive Elwell wrote:
“I am a loving person”, or “I will practise daily and gradually become free of free”, that is an illusion, is it not?

Then you say “Loving” and “practice to become free” is an illusion.
Thoughts you do with mind, and so you say “I am not the mind” it is an illusion.

In other words you are saying “I am the body”, and
thought is an illusion, it is not me, “I am not mind”.

The belief that “I am the body” is responsible for the division of your experience
into two separate parts.
That is why you say that quietness is in the body and noise is at a distance outside the body.

Check for your self, what is your experience.

Experience alone must be the test of reality.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 04 Mar 2017 #5
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 388 posts in this forum Offline

Olive B wrote:
You say that “I” refers to the body, and that is not an illusion.

So you belief that you are the body.

Then you say “Loving” and “practice to become free” is an illusion.
Thoughts you do with mind, and so you say “I am not the mind” it is an illusion.

In other words you are saying “I am the body”, and
thought is an illusion, it is not me, “I am not mind”.

This could be a good reasoning if Clive agrees with you that mind equals to thought and only thought ... But even reading carefully your reasoning this is not so clear ...

Let's say that thoughts are done with mind as you say, this does not necessarily imply that i am the mind ... In the same way, thought negating itself using the mind doesn't necessarily imply that i am not the mind ...

But even that, if thought is done with mind, it would necessarily follow from that that thought and mind are two different things, which makes your whole reasoning fall into pieces because in saying to Clive "you are saying that 'i am not the mind', that thought is an illusion" you're assuming that thought and mind are the same thing which is a negation of your previous reasoning "thoughts are done WITH mind" ...

So, if i may ask, what is mind and what is thought to you: are they one, or two?

"When i talk to audiences, they know what i'm talking about ... another thing is that they do something about it" - K. Brockwood Park (Making ideas of the Teaching)

This post was last updated by Juan E Sat, 04 Mar 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 04 Mar 2017 #6
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3743 posts in this forum Offline

Olive B wrote:
So you belief that you are the body.

I don't think this is necessarily implied. I was just saying that this body went for a walk in the woods. The word "I" often refers to the body, and this does not necessarily mean there is identification - it may merely refer to a fact.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 05 Mar 2017 #7
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3743 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
So, if i may ask, what is mind and what is thought to you: are they one, or two?

I know that you put this question to Olive, but I find myself looking at it, afresh. Like many words, people use the words "mind" in different ways. I use it to refer to the human mind, which, it seems to me, is thought, feeling, sensation, imagination, rememberance..... And I would add, it is not a personal mind but the human mind, formed from the common human consciousness. More and more I find this an inescapable fact

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 06 Mar 2017 #8
Thumb_rodin_de_denker Olive B Netherlands 238 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
Let's say that thoughts are done with mind as you say,

Hi Juan,

I don’t know what you mean by “thoughts are done with mind”.

To me thoughts, feelings, images, sensations, perception, are the objective element of the mind.

Experience alone must be the test of reality.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 06 Mar 2017 #9
Thumb_rodin_de_denker Olive B Netherlands 238 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
the common human consciousness.

Hi Clive,

You are dividing consciousness into “common” and “human”,are there more then one consciousnesses to you, or may be more levels of consciousness?

Experience alone must be the test of reality.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 06 Mar 2017 #10
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3743 posts in this forum Offline

Olive B wrote:
You are dividing consciousness into “common” and “human”,

No I am not. In fact I am doing the opposite of dividing, I am saying there is no personal, separative, consciousness in each of us, there is only one consciousness, common to all human beings, manifesting in each of these 7+ billion apparently separate brains.

Happy to go into this with you.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 07 Mar 2017 #11
Thumb_rodin_de_denker Olive B Netherlands 238 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
there is only one consciousness, common to all human beings, manifesting in each of these 7+ billion apparently separate brains.

Clive, do I understand you correctly: All human beings share the same consciousness which is located in each of our apparently separate brains.
So consciousness is no where else then in de apparently separate human brains.

Isn't it the other way around?:

The brain and the mind appear to awareness/consciousness.

Awareness/Consciousness does not appear to or in the brain and the mind.

Experience alone must be the test of reality.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 08 Mar 2017 #12
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3743 posts in this forum Offline

Olive B wrote:
So consciousness is no where else then in de apparently separate human brains.

I think we have to be careful here, Olive. I am talking about HUMAN consciousness. Not consciousness in general, or what might be called universal or cosmic consciousness. Perhaps human consciousness is the only sort I CAN talk about, in fact.

I have written about this human consciousness previously. It is not just a theory to me, I very much have a feel for it in daily life. To me this human consciousness is where we live, move, and have our being. It is where thought/feeling springs from. It is the vast depository of human experience, knowledge, created and added to over millions of years. It is what enables us to think. Without it there would be no consciousness, as we know it.

Although it is essential for daily living, I think it could be said that we are trapped in that consciousness, (not that I am trapped, the consciousness IS the trap creating the me).

““So consciousness is no where else then in de apparently separate human brains.””

I think this is probably right, this is where HUMAN consciousness exists. Presumably universal consciousness also exists there, but seems very much over-shadowed by the other.

“Isn't it the other way around?: The brain and the mind appear to awareness/consciousness. Awareness/Consciousness does not appear to or in the brain and the mind."

Now you have lost me, Olive. Can you enlarge on this? And can you be clear about WHICH consciousness you are speaking? If you accept the distinction that I have made.

This post was last updated by Clive Elwell Wed, 08 Mar 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 09 Mar 2017 #13
Thumb_rodin_de_denker Olive B Netherlands 238 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
I am talking about HUMAN consciousness. Not consciousness in general, or what might be called universal or cosmic consciousness. Perhaps human consciousness is the only sort I CAN talk about, in fact.

Is you experience that there are more then one consciousness?

Experience alone must be the test of reality.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 09 Mar 2017 #14
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 388 posts in this forum Offline

Olive B to Juan E:

Juan E wrote:

Let's say that thoughts are done with mind as you say,

Hi Juan, I don’t know what you mean by “thoughts are done with mind”.

Well...

Olive B to Clive E:
Thoughts you do with mind,

"When i talk to audiences, they know what i'm talking about ... another thing is that they do something about it" - K. Brockwood Park (Making ideas of the Teaching)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 09 Mar 2017 #15
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3743 posts in this forum Offline

Olive B wrote:
Is you experience that there are more then one consciousness?

I think everything associated with "me" is part of the common human consciousness only.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 10 Mar 2017 #16
Thumb_rodin_de_denker Olive B Netherlands 238 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
I think everything associated with "me" is part of the common human consciousness only.

Ok, but do you find in your experience any limitations of the human consciousness.

Do you experience any boundries which can explain other consciousnesses?

Experience alone must be the test of reality.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 10 Mar 2017 #17
Thumb_rodin_de_denker Olive B Netherlands 238 posts in this forum Offline

Sorry Juan, I understood “done”as in “finished with”.
And I still say: 'I am not (the) mind'.

Experience alone must be the test of reality.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 10 Mar 2017 #18
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3743 posts in this forum Offline

Olive B wrote:
Ok, but do you find in your experience any limitations of the human consciousness.

The common human consciouisness is very definitely limited, since it consists only of the experiences, the thoughts, the knowledge, that humankind have accumulated since they started their evolutionary journey. There is nothing in it but that. We add to it all the time, but it must remain limited, surely?

Olive B wrote:
Do you experience any boundries which can explain other consciousnesses?

I can only give the same answer - if it is ME experiencing anything, it must be part of the common human consciousness. That is where the "me" comes from; that is what it is, is it not?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 11 Mar 2017 #19
Thumb_rodin_de_denker Olive B Netherlands 238 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
The common human consciouisness is very definitely limited, since it consists only of the experiences, the thoughts, the knowledge,

Why do you think that (for you human)consciousness shares the limits of your thoughts/perceptions?

Clive Elwell wrote:
it consists only of the experiences, the thoughts, the knowledge, that humankind have accumulated since they started their evolutionary journey. There is nothing in it but that. We add to it all the time,

Only one thing is missing: you created this container called mind and must therefore forget that this container is created by thought.

Experience alone must be the test of reality.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 12 Mar 2017 #20
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3743 posts in this forum Offline

Olive B wrote:
Why do you think that (for you human)consciousness shares the limits of your thoughts/perceptions?

Surely there is no difference between "my" thoughts/perceptions and the common human consciouisness? I must not have explained myself in some earlier posts. I am saying, suggesting, that any thoughts (and feelings) that arise in this particular brain are actually arising from the common human consciousness. As I once said, they are the thoughts/feelings of dead people (and of the still living).

Is this not how you see it, Olive?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 12 Mar 2017 #21
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3743 posts in this forum Offline

Olive B wrote:
Only one thing is missing: you created this container called mind and must therefore forget that this container is created by thought.

Seems to me it is the mind that creates the impression of the 'me', not that 'I' create the mind.

Surely the mind will continue after I personally die?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 12 Mar 2017 #22
Thumb_rodin_de_denker Olive B Netherlands 238 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Surely there is no difference between "my" thoughts/perceptions and the common human consciouisness?

Hi Clive,

I must ask you again, because this is so far from my experience.

Thought/feelings/perceptions are limited and are located in the human consciousness.

Is it because of their (thought/feelings/perceptions) limitations that human consciousness is limited?

Experience alone must be the test of reality.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 15 Mar 2017 #23
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3743 posts in this forum Offline

Olive B wrote:
I must ask you again, because this is so far from my experience. Thought/feelings/perceptions are limited and are located in the human consciousness.

My apologies for the delay in the replying, Olive,I have been occupied with other things.

Let us start again, as much as possible. The following is my model of human consciousness. But I could be wrong, but the model is logical, and supported by my observations of “my own” mind (but I am saying that it is not my own)

There exists this vast, common, human consciousness. That consciousness exists in all human brains. But there is really only one consciousness. It is a vast reservoir of thoughts and feelings, of memories, of knowledge. It has been created – and continues to be created – by all the experiences of all human beings. Those living, and those who have died. It may even have remnants of animal consciousness in it. Incidentally, this model throws new light on the idea of reincarnation, because the memories, the existence of all past human beings lies in me. In fact they are what I AM. Within this field, which is vast but still limited, of course, lies all that I can be. Whatever arises in 'my' mind, or 'your' mind, or any mind, arises in exactly the same way from this common human consciousness.

Remember I am describing HUMAN consciousness. It may be, if we can step out of this limited human consciousness, another consciousness may be revealed, much vaster, cosmic in origin.

Of course the model I have presented above is very much simplified, and there are many questions that arise about it. If anyone wants to take this up to question it, I would be happy.

Olive B wrote:
Is it because of their (thought/feelings/perceptions) limitations that human consciousness is limited?

Your specific question, Olive – I would put it the other way round. There is only so much experience/knowledge in the common human consciousness, so of course it is limited. And at each moment 'I' arise from that limitation.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 15 Mar 2017 #24
Thumb_rodin_de_denker Olive B Netherlands 238 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
the memories, the existence of all past human beings lies in me. In fact they are what I AM.

Hi Clive,

So you say: I AM the memories, the existence of all past human beings.

I surely hope so that you are not talking about the same “I AM” as where K, (Ramana Maharshi, Nisargadatta, ect) are talking about.

Have you ever read/heard they stepped out of a limited human consciousness into a cosmic/universal consciousness?

Experience alone must be the test of reality.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 17 Mar 2017 #25
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3743 posts in this forum Offline

Olive B wrote:
So you say: I AM the memories, the existence of all past human beings.

Yes, in so far as words can expess the truth, I would say that. Putting it another way, I am thought. When thought arises in consciousness that thought gives rise to the experience of me.

But better to put it this way: I am not separate from thought. Because thought – and as we have been discussing, that thought is the from the common human consciousness – carries the conditioning (the illusion I would say) that the “I” it thinks about is somehow separate from itself.

As an idea, as mere words, what I say can be dismissed, or even accepted as an 'interesting theory'. But to actually live it, to experience it as a fact, is mind-changing.

Olive B wrote:
So you say: I AM the memories, the existence of all past human beings.

Yes, in so far as words can expess the truth, I would say that. Putting it another way, I am thought. When thought arises in consciousness that thought gives rise to the experience of me.

But better to put it this way: I am not separate from thought. Because thought – and as we have been discussing, that thought is the from the common human consciousness – carries the conditioning (the illusion I would say) that the “I” it thinks about is somehow separate from itself.

As an idea, as mere words, what I say can be dismissed, or even accepted as an 'interesting theory'. But to actually live it, to experience it as a fact, is mind-changing.

Olive B wrote:
I surely hope so that you are not talking about the same “I AM” as where K, (Ramana Maharshi, Nisargadatta, ect) are talking about.

Why do you sincerely hope that? Are their words to be treated as some absolute authority, something that cannot be questioned? That also applies to Krishnamurti's words. As he himself has said, the term “spiritual authority” is a contradiction in terms.

Actually I do not know if what I say is in contradiction to the words of Ramana Maharshi, Nisargadatta, etc, or not. Neither do I care very much. Truth is not something that can be absorbed from another; it cannot be grafted on to oneself. Then it would be mere knowledge, not truth at all. Surely truth is a matter of direct observation, in the present. It is not something remembered. Either from my own memory, or someone else's memory (which ultimately is the same anyway).

Olive B wrote: >Have you ever read/heard they stepped out of a limited human consciousness into a cosmic/universal consciousness?

So what? What does it matter what might be claimed for others, either their own claims or the claims of others? Why would I believe such claims, accept such claims? This is the real issue, isn't it? To judge the claims of other of whether they have the truth or not, implies that I myself know the truth, in order to make the judgement accurately, truthfully. And if I have such discernment, why should I listen to the claims of others?

Seems to me, Olive, the important question is: Can I myself step out of the limited human consciousness? And without having any ideas of what might be outside of that, but just because it is false in itself.

Why do you sincerely hope that? Are their words to be treated as some absolute authority, something that cannot be questioned? That also applies to Krishnamurti's words. As he himself has said, the term “spiritual authority” is a contradiction in terms.

Actually I do not know if what I say is in contradiction to the words of Ramana Maharshi, Nisargadatta, etc, or not. Neither do I care very much. Truth is not something that can be absorbed from another; it cannot be grafted on to oneself. Then it would be mere knowledge, not truth at all. Surely truth is a matter of direct observation, in the present. It is not something remembered. Either from my own memory, or someone else's memory (which ultimately is the same anyway).

Olive B wrote:
Have you ever read/heard they stepped out of a limited human consciousness into a cosmic/universal consciousness?

So what? What does it matter what might be claimed for others, either their own claims or the claims of others? Why would I believe such claims, accept such claims? Or dismiss them, come to that. This is the real issue, isn't it? To judge the claims of others, of whether they have the truth or not, implies that I myself know the truth, in order to make the judgement accurately, truthfully. And if I have such discernment, why should I listen to the claims of others?

Seems to me, Olive, the important question is: Can I myself step out of the limited human consciousness? And without having any ideas of what might be outside of that, but just because it is false in itself.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 17 Mar 2017 #26
Thumb_rodin_de_denker Olive B Netherlands 238 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
“spiritual authority”

Only when you -belief- the words someone, anyone, (spiritual) teacher or not is saying, there is authority.

When it is your experience, there is no autority.

That is why I say “Check it for yourself”.

Clive Elwell wrote:
the important question is: Can I myself step out of the limited human consciousness?

I can answer your important question but you won’t like the answer.

No Clive you cannot, simply because there is no such thing as a human consciousness.

Check it for yourself.

Experience alone must be the test of reality.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 17 Mar 2017 #27
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3743 posts in this forum Offline

Olive B wrote:
When it is your experience, there is no autority

This is akin to what I was saying, Olive. But it does seem in contradiction to your words:

Have you ever read/heard they stepped out of a limited human consciousness into a cosmic/universal consciousness?

Should I accept as authority everything that I read/hear?

Olive B wrote:
I can answer your important question but you won’t like the answer

I wonder why you assume that you know what I will like or not like? Anyway, like/dislike have no part to play, surely, in the active discovery of what is true and what is false? Rather they are handicaps, as they represent a bias, a partiality.

I don't think there IS an answer to this question, in fact. To say it can be done, or cannot be done, would be mere speculation. Only the act of doing it would be an "answer"

Olive B wrote:
No Clive you cannot, simply because there is no such thing as a human consciousness.

In a way you are right, in that it is clear that "I" cannot do the stepping out, since it is the "I" that one would be stepping out from, if you see what I mean. But your statement that there is no such thing as human consciousness makes no sense to me. It is this consciousness that is the origin of all thought/feeling, this consciousness that has created all the mess of society, all the personal suffering.

So how do you justify your statement, Olive?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 18 Mar 2017 #28
Thumb_rodin_de_denker Olive B Netherlands 238 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Should I accept as authority everything that I read/hear?

No, in fact we should question authority, let’s start with the teaching of K:

“In India they have divided consciousness into lower, higher, higher, higher, it is divided, and this division is measurement. Where there is measurement there must be division and effort, wars, all the rest of it follows. Whether that consciousness has different levels, this consciousness is still within consciousness. It has been divided by thought. That division is measurement, therefore it is thought. Whatever thought has put together is part of consciousness. Right? Whether you divide that consciousness as the highest supreme, it is still the movement of thought.”

According to you:
Human consciousness is thought thus limited.
May be there is an other consciousness.

K says:"Whether you divide that consciousness as the highest supreme, it is still the movement of thought.”

My question:
That other consciousness that may be exist, must be limited because it is not the only consciousness?

I have noticed that K never talks about infinite consciousness. He only talks about the limited human consciousness (ego/me), which is mind.

More a shrink then a spiritual teacher?

Experience alone must be the test of reality.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 18 Mar 2017 #29
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 398 posts in this forum Offline

re 28:

Hi Olive,

What are you suggesting then? That we speculate about that “other consciousness”? Take your word or someone else’s word for it - i.e. take it on authority - that there IS such a consciousness?

We are here. We don’t know anything else. What we/I CAN see are the limitations of the conditioned mind, the mind as it is now. It is limited in many ways, including its inability to solve its existential or relationship problems. Isn’t this limitation clear? The conditioned mind is not creative, so it is unable to be creative in finding solutions to the chaos it has created. Whatever it does ultimately deepens the problems, expands the chaos. No? The idea of “infinite consciousness” is of no help to man, is it? There IS NO meaningful answer.

Seeing its limitations, the conditioned mind naturally stops looking for solutions, escapes and answers, doesn’t it? Which doesn’t mean that it sinks into despair or turns to drunkenness, etc. Which doesn't mean that there is no observation, observation which is not the action of the conditioned mind.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 18 Mar 2017 #30
Thumb_de4 Dan McDermott United States 740 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
observation which is not the action of the conditioned mind.

Yes, it is "observation" OF the conditioned mind. (thoughts, feelings, actions et al.) I recall when k. was asked who it was that was doing this observing, he said that "it's not a 'who', but the state of observation"... All inclusive and nonjudgmental, non-accumulative, and non-rewarding, directionless and goal-less, etc.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sat, 18 Mar 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 57 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.)