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

It's very simple


Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 100 in total
Sat, 25 Mar 2017 #1
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4255 posts in this forum Offline

Q: Well I am waiting for you to explain the transformation, the insight, to the awareness of consciousness.

K: Yes, you are waiting for me to explain how transformation takes place. It's very simple. Transformation takes place when there is no control, when there is no measurement, when there is no sense of 'me' operating on things, psychologically.

-Saanen 1978 3rd Question & Answer session.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 25 Mar 2017 #2
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4255 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
And then the world started to look for that simplicity through control, measurement, with the 'me' operating on things, psychologically ... and it thought that it had found it.

Yes, this is the trap that the psyche is in. I am not sure what the "And then" refers to - I suspect thought fell into the trap right from the start, its start. Thought created the 'me', in its desire for stability, certainty, security, whatever reasons. But the me has been the cause of endless conflict destruction, illusion. And it is on the point of destroying mankind itself, and so much more. Some mistake!

Trouble is, very few people see that the self is the root cause of all the problems. The problem is seen as the wrong religion, the wrong political/economic theory, the rich and powerful........ always something other than 'me'. So very little human energy goes into solving this basic problem of the self.

I find it difficult to understand why this is so, why the self has not been widely seen as the culprit. Or perhaps it has, but people put it into the "too hard" basket. Or perhaps the problem has proved intractible because the self insists on trying to solve it.

Whatever the reasons, it is clear that this is the probem that all serious-minded people have to face. And thought, as the self, cannot solve the problem - that only leaves choiceless observation of the ways of the mind, does it not?

This post was last updated by Clive Elwell Sat, 25 Mar 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 26 Mar 2017 #3
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2214 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
I find it difficult to understand why this is so, why the self has not been widely seen as the culprit. Or perhaps it has, but people put it into the "too hard" basket.

Because we don't see that it's my very consciousness right now...what my mind is doing now....the thinking mind in the realm of 'me' and 'my' life...my problem...my goals...my desires...my fulfillment....the controlling, self-enclosed center of 'my' life. Whatever my mind us doing now is what needs to be looked at...observed...not judged or analyzed.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 26 Mar 2017 #4
Thumb_stringio Rip B United States 26 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Tom Paine wrote:

Clive Elwell wrote:

I find it difficult to understand why this is so, why the self has not been widely seen as the culprit. Or perhaps it has, but people put it into the "too hard" basket.

Because we don't see that it's my very consciousness right now...what my mind is doing now....the thinking mind in the realm of 'me' and 'my' life...my problem...my goals...my desires...my fulfillment....the controlling, self-enclosed center of 'my' life. Whatever my mind us doing now is what needs to be looked at...observed...not judged or analyzed.

Thought is too busy trying to organize, improve, entertain, and fulfill itself for such trifles as 'awakening'. Thought even thinks it can somehow survive any such transformation, i.e. - 'stillness', so it can have it's cake and eat it too - hoping to attain these mystical powers that even K spoke of and be the master of destiny (the universe too of course).

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 27 Mar 2017 #5
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4255 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Because we don't see that it's my very consciousness right now...what my mind is doing now....the thinking mind in the realm of 'me' and 'my' life...my problem...my goals...my desires...my fulfillment....the controlling, self-enclosed center of 'my' life. Whatever my mind us doing now is what needs to be looked at...observed...not judged or analyzed.

Not quite sure if I understand you, Tom. By the way, welcome – you have not been around much, of late.

Whenever I notice something in society, in others, it is a certainty that that same movement, that same trait, must be there is me. How else could it be, given that “I am the world”? So when I say in general thought, the self, has not been seen as the principle driver of man's problems, that same blindness must be in me. Is this what you are asking, Tom? Does the self in “me” not see that its actions are causing the very problems that it is trying to solve?

And is this the same question as: Does thought as the 'thinker', ie the thought that is happening NOW, not see that it IS thought, not separate from thought? This does seem to be the inherent blindness of the self. To put it another way, is the observer not always separating itself from what it thinks it observes? Seems that as long as this is not seen, the whole business, with its conflict and confusion, must continue.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 27 Mar 2017 #6
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4255 posts in this forum Offline

Rip B wrote:
Thought is too busy trying to organize, improve, entertain, and fulfill itself for such trifles as 'awakening'. Thought even thinks it can somehow survive any such transformation, i.e. - 'stillness', so it can have it's cake and eat it too - hoping to attain these mystical powers that even K spoke of and be the master of destiny (the universe too of course).

I think this is right, Rip. Thought is very busy, from morning till night, with all these things. Mostly it is occupied with the incredible thing it has created, the future, where it is eventually going to be fulfilled, be at peace, be secure, etc.

But why doesn't it see through the illusions that it has created? It is so clever in other areas, in the technical field. Is it because thought has created this thing called the self, the me? And there is the illusion that the self is a living thig, an entity, and like all living things, it will cling to its own existance at all costs?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 27 Mar 2017 #7
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2214 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
But why doesn't it see through the illusions that it has created? It is so clever in other areas, in the technical field. Is it because thought has created this thing called the self, the me?

It can't see through it because it is constantly creating it, yes.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Mon, 27 Mar 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 27 Mar 2017 #8
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2214 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Does thought as the 'thinker', ie the thought that is happening NOW, not see that it IS thought, not separate from thought?

Yes....you make some good points in post #6...thanks. will read over your post again later when I'm not pressed for time.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 27 Mar 2017 #9
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4255 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
It can't see through it because it is constantly creating it, yes.

Yes, this is a better way of putting it that I did.

So the me is the thought that is happening in the present moment. Seems to me this is a tremendously important realisation. Because any thought of a 'me' that this thought has, can only be precisely that - a thought, an image. So what the real me (can I call it that) is thinking about, or more particularly what it is trying to influence, trying to control, is not the real me at all. It is only an image, and can an image be changed? (one image can be replaced by another image, but that is not real change, that is not transformation).

So the whole movement of controler/controlled is false. When it is seen as false, can it continue?

I am now relating this insight (it feels like an insight) to the original words by K in #1

Transformation takes place when there is no control, when there is no measurement, when there is no sense of 'me' operating on things, psychologically.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 28 Mar 2017 #10
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2214 posts in this forum Offline

Good post, Clive! #10 Going to re read it later. Got to make dinner.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 28 Mar 2017 #11
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4255 posts in this forum Offline

I am sure when I looked earlier there was a post from Dan here, although I only glanced at the time. Did you delete it, Dan? Wondering why?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 29 Mar 2017 #12
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4255 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
Yes, that's the whole point Clive! ... This is what the world is doing all the time after having listened to Jesus, Buddha, K, or whoever else no matter how many times they can tell us "the word is not the thing" ...

So, the world is delving with images all the time, and our whole history is made of those images!

Yes, And the content of 'my consciousness' is also a series of images. I say “a series” because there is not necessarily identification with those images. And I put the phrase 'my consciousness” in inverted commas because it is not really mine. It is the consciousness of the world, manifesting in this brain.

To talk about “my images” infers that there is a me that has those images – but any such thought, assumption, is yet only another image, is it not?

Now, what prevents most of us, human beings, to see the thing without any image? ...

This is a question that has been approached several times of late on the forum, in different threads, in different guises. Yes, is there a seeing that is not image based, that is somehow “beyond” thought, that is free of thought?

Is it because we don't realize that we are already listening to those mentioned above through images, just to create new images after that?

Are you saying that we don't see because we are all the time deluded that the image making IS seeing?

You asked me in a recent e-mail exchange "Have you come up against any conflicts in your relationship yet, if one may ask?" ... And this could be a good opportunity to speak about it because it is quite related somehow to your question above ...
She use to tell me "I don't know if what i give you is enough for you", and no matter how many times i tell her "It is more than enough to me, because everything you give me is without me asking for it", she tells the same once and once again ... So, eventually she has begun to feel the tremendous weight of such effort wanting to please me, and she has begun to disappear in the name of her own freedom
Now how she will be able to see that everything is no more than an image she has of me, of her, and of what she thinks i think of her? ..

I think I understand your question, I think that I can relate to it. And this response comes – that perhaps the only way to break the image another might be holding is to end any image that we ourselves might be holding. Does this break any impasse?

So the real point is: can i see who am i without the help of any image at all?

Yes, this is a fundamental issue. Is there is a seeing beyond image, a seeing that is not subject to the fragmentation of thought, and so whole, complete?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 29 Mar 2017 #13
Thumb_stringio Rip B United States 26 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Clive Elwell wrote:
So the me is the thought that is happening in the present moment. Seems to me this is a tremendously important realisation. Because any thought of a 'me' that this thought has, can only be precisely that - a thought, an image. So what the real me (can I call it that) is thinking about, or more particularly what it is trying to influence, trying to control, is not the real me at all. It is only an image, and can an image be changed? (one image can be replaced by another image, but that is not real change, that is not transformation).

So the whole movement of controler/controlled is false. When it is seen as false, can it continue?

I am now relating this insight (it feels like an insight) to the original words by K in #1

Transformation takes place when there is no control, when there is no measurement, when there is no sense of 'me' operating on things, psychologically.

Clearly put. It is always the image trying to edit it's own projections. Seeing the futility of this is it's end. Then it tries to edit one of it's own projections again, which is seen, and so on...

Understanding K's words are not particularly important, being simply the observation of what he was seeing/relaying at the time. In 'stillness' this is all clear and although it could also be relayed in ways such as K did, it doesn't really seem to help, primarily since the actuality is beyond the reach of thought. Another way to say it - words do not seem to elicit 'transformation'.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 30 Mar 2017 #14
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4255 posts in this forum Offline

Rip B wrote:
It is always the image trying to edit it's own projections. Seeing the futility of this is it's end. Then it tries to edit one of it's own projections again, which is seen, and so on...

So, Rip, you say that “Seeing the futility of this is its end. Then it tries to edit one of it's own projections again, which is seen, and so on...”. So the word “end” has a peculiar meaning here. It ends, but does not end. It ends, but starts up again. But I see that taking this perspective, as if I am somehow above it all, seems to indicate that something has not ended.

Can we say that this ending is not in time?

Yes, “Trying to edit its own projections” is a striking and accurate phrase. A projection trying to edit its own projection! But strange how much destruction such a fantasy has wreaked.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 30 Mar 2017 #15
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4255 posts in this forum Offline

Rip B wrote:
Seeing the futility of this is it's end. Then it tries to edit one of it's own projections again, which is seen, and so on...

I was going to write something like:

"This process is tedious (I think K once used that word). But the idea of tedium is just another projection of thought"

but now I am questioning this. Tedium, like any feeling, has a certain reality, does it not? Are feelings, although they accompany thought, merely projections of thought?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 30 Mar 2017 #16
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4255 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
can the seeing be understood, or the seeing is something that has no need to be understood?

What is meant by “understood” here, Juan? This is a long standing question with me Do you mean can thought cast a net of words around the seeing?

Juan E wrote:
. Is not the me in it's trying to understand that seeing who creates all the images, all the division?

I think the word “seeing” has to reserved for an action that is free of thoughts, uninfluenced by words.

Yet as you say, thought may try to somehow grasp that seeing, communicate that seeing. So that implies there is some sort of communication between the seeing and thought. Or the seeing manifests in thought.

Juan E wrote:
I think that K never wanted us to understand what he was talking but just see it ... Do you see the difference? ... Do you see how images are created in our eagerness to understand?

Yes, K often said that the only thing necessary was to listen. And listening does not involve the interpretation of thought.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 30 Mar 2017 #17
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4255 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
In which way human being will be able to see directly what is happening without any crotches (words and images created through those words)

Emm ...... Crutches, Check it out :-)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 30 Mar 2017 #18
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4255 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
You see, human being is trapped in images no matter if (s)he is listening to Hitler or K, to Stalin or Buddha ... So, what will do then to leave a better world to our sons (i have none) before we die? ..

Yes, we trapped in thought - if one can say that, when it seems that the one who is trapped is actually a creation of thought.

So yes, I would say to be free of thought, or rather to have thought acting in its right place, is the number one challenge we face. A "better world" cannot come about without a fundamental change in human consciousness; I don't see how this can be denied.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 30 Mar 2017 #19
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4255 posts in this forum Offline

Clive: And this response comes – that perhaps the only way to break the image another might be holding is to end any image that we ourselves might be holding.

Juan: This could be really worth to go into it, but before we can do it i would like to ask you to elaborate this a little further to understand you fully, because i'm not sure i get fully what you mean ...

I don't know if I can elaborate, Juan because what I said is not a theory, not an idea, but something that I observe in relationship.

An image is a sort of conclusion As such, holding an image of another is a block to inquiry. If we hold a counter image, the result is inevitably conflict. If one drops all image, even if that image is a few seconds old, somehow this unblocks the energy. Then one can start again, take a fresh look.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 30 Mar 2017 #20
Thumb_stringio Rip B United States 26 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Clive Elwell wrote:
So, Rip, you say that “Seeing the futility of this is its end. Then it tries to edit one of it's own projections again, which is seen, and so on...”. So the word “end” has a peculiar meaning here. It ends, but does not end. It ends, but starts up again. But I see that taking this perspective, as if I am somehow above it all, seems to indicate that something has not ended.

Can we say that this ending is not in time?

There is no question in silence, when the futility is seen it ends effortlessly. The seeing is the action and nothing more need be done.

And life goes on, thought engages one to accomplish the 'arduous' tasks of making a living, raising kids, maintaining a home, etc. One can easily get caught up in demands that can be extremely stressful, i.e. - accident, job loss, illness.

Daily life is what's arduous and what draws one into the apparent mess of living, not the pampered life K enjoyed. K had no responsibility other than wandering from one luxurious compound to another, wearing free clothes, eating free food, enjoying free health care, and so on.

All he had to do was dispense 'wisdom', to 'Rock Star' adulation, so it was 'effortless' to go for hours or days without being disturbed by something like abusive parents, a mother coming down with Alzheimer's, an incessantly complaining wife, a friend struggling with drug addiction caused by irresponsible drug companies and a greedy health care system.

The view thought has of all this may be illusory but the actuality continues to bombard in a near continuous stream.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 30 Mar 2017 #21
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4255 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
An image is a sort of conclusion As such, holding an image of another is a block to inquiry. If we hold a counter image, the result is inevitably conflict. If one drops all image, even if that image is a few seconds old, somehow this unblocks the energy. Then one can start again, take a fresh look.

I can't 'prove' any of this, Juan. But then what we can prove in this life? Just some observations from relationship, do not know to what extent they apply generally.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 31 Mar 2017 #22
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4255 posts in this forum Offline

Rip B wrote:
when the futility is seen it ends effortlessly.

But my question is, (ok, not from silence) if the futility keeps reappearing, can it be said to be 'ended'?

But I see that ending does not ask this question.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 31 Mar 2017 #23
Thumb_stringio Rip B United States 26 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Clive Elwell wrote:
But my question is, (ok, not from silence) if the futility keeps reappearing, can it be said to be 'ended'?

But I see that ending does not ask this question.

Thought will keep trying to come in and direct, organize, take charge, especially in seemingly stressful situations, but to clarify, there is a fundamental change. Even when a period of inattention occurs it can't be as consuming since it's as though 'the door is open'.

As K pointed out, seeing inattention is attention. What do most do with that simple insight? Start thinking about it. It's as though one keeps stepping back through the door to try and grasp what's going on. And that is seen, and so on.

Ultimately there is no permanent state, silent or not, awake or not, or as is the case here - delusional or not. ;-)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 01 Apr 2017 #24
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4255 posts in this forum Offline

Rip B wrote:
so it was 'effortless' to go for hours or days without being disturbed by something like abusive parents, a mother coming down with Alzheimer's, an incessantly complaining wife, a friend struggling with drug addiction caused by irresponsible drug companies and a greedy health care system.

I do not know, Rip, if you were referring to problems that you yourself face, or if you were generalising. In any case we all have our sorrows – or at least we think they are ours. I wrote in response about how we meet these problems, not in a particular way, but how do we meet problems, challenges, sorrows. Perhaps it did not seem a particularly urgent issue when I asked.

Interestingly, the same day I was presented with an issue which I can see could shake all foundations of my life. So suddenly this matter of meeting the major challenges of life became very urgent indeed, although it is still in the realm of the 'might happen', one is not faced with the actuality of it.

I think it soon becomes clear that any action we take to 'meet' the problem arises from a confused, fragmented self-centred, mind, and it is inadequate. So we have to look at that confused mind, it is the mind that has has to be understood, the mind is not independent of the problem. I don't know if you would agree that it is always the mind itself that creates the problem? Actually, looking at things afresh, I don't know if I would agree completely. But I will carry on.

We have to look at our suffering, we have to fully experience it. But something gets in the way of our looking, I find. That is, one cannot see anything if there is condemnation. And we do condemn ourselves it is a fact. This condemnation seems a more basic problem that one's wife nagging one, etc.

I quote K:

When you condemn, you put a stop to your feelings and thoughts, but if you do not condemn, justify or resist, then the content of your thought will reveal itself.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 01 Apr 2017 #25
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4255 posts in this forum Offline

Rip B wrote:
Ultimately there is no permanent state, silent or not, awake or not, or as is the case here - delusional or not. ;-)

There is certainly no permanent state. We see change all around us, growth and decay. No matter how sophisticated the instruments that scientists develop and peer at the Universe with, all they see is change.

And there is no permanent state in the mind, or at least one has not certainly not come across such a thing. Unfortunately the mind has developed a concept of security, which is somehow associates with permanency, and everlastingly works away trying to reach it, trying to grasp it; if not physically then psychologically, 'spiritually'. This movement is very deeply ingrained in us.

I am asing myself if the absence of permanency, which is a fact, can actually be an integral part of living. Because it is a profound truth.

This post was last updated by Clive Elwell Sat, 01 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 01 Apr 2017 #26
Thumb_stringio Rip B United States 26 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Clive Elwell wrote:
I do not know, Rip, if you were referring to problems that you yourself face, or if you were generalising. In any case we all have our sorrows – or at least we think they are ours. I wrote in response about how we meet these problems, not in a particular way, but how do we meet problems, challenges, sorrows. Perhaps it did not seem a particularly urgent issue when I asked.

We have to look at our suffering, we have to fully experience it. But something gets in the way of our looking, I find. That is, one cannot see anything if there is condemnation. And we do condemn ourselves it is a fact. This condemnation seems a more basic problem that one's wife nagging one, etc.

Yes, these few examples were/are lived, and were instrumental in shaping the image once identified with. That doesn't mean some of these magically go away but together need not add up to a great weight. It's not 'mine' or 'my weight' anyway, although at times it seems something here tries to take it on.

What is trying to weigh now is a nasty head cold that really started taking off yesterday and has progressed to periods of fairly painful misery today - burning sinus cavities, profusely running nose (now red and sore), various aches, etc. Interesting things come in waves, going from periods of seeking escape (when resisted) to curious interest at the intensity of it.

Meanwhile, other challenges seem to continue adding up, while through it all there is something (a stillness) that is untouched by any of it.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 01 Apr 2017 #27
Thumb_stringio Rip B United States 26 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Clive Elwell wrote:
And there is no permanent state in the mind, or at least one has not certainly not come across such a thing. Unfortunately the mind has developed a concept of security, which is somehow associates with permanency, and everlastingly works away trying to reach it, trying to grasp it; if not physically then psychologically, 'spiritually'. This movement is very deeply ingrained in us.

I am asing myself if the absence of permanency, which is a fact, can actually be an integral part of living. Because it is a profound truth.

Seems pretty clear that impermanence is all that persists. Without seeing the futility of seeking permanence/security is to invite continuous struggle.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 02 Apr 2017 #28
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4255 posts in this forum Offline

Rip B wrote:
Yes, these few examples were/are lived, and were instrumental in shaping the image once identified with. That doesn't mean some of these magically go away but together need not add up to a great weight. It's not 'mine' or 'my weight' anyway, although at times it seems something here tries to take it on.

Once again, I can only say, nicely put Rip.

It seems there is a natural movement to let things (I think by things I mean identifications) drop. But there is also deep conditioning that wants to hold on, at all cost, to anything that defines the 'me'.

I have a separate question for you, Rip, perhaps it doesn't belong in this thread but never mind. It is something I have put on the forum before, but the consequences of the answer seem so utterly shattering I will try it again:

Would you say that thought rises unbidden to the mind?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 02 Apr 2017 #29
Thumb_stringio Rip B United States 26 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Clive Elwell wrote:
I have a separate question for you, Rip, perhaps it doesn't belong in this thread but never mind. It is something I have put on the forum before, but the consequences of the answer seem so utterly shattering I will try it again:

Would you say that thought rises unbidden to the mind?

OK, thought here wants to know ;-) shattering to what?

Sitting here pondering this question (as in meditating on it) it seems clear that 'I' am already shattered. Not until the futility of thought being able to grasp 'the actual' strikes one, beyond the shadow of doubt, does all the hubbub settle down naturally, allowing the pieces that make up 'me' to settle out.

Leaving an undefinable essence. This essence sees and can use the pathways of thought but isn't restricted to them. Patterns and relationships beyond thought's limited grasp are clearly perceived, without need of formulas, rules or guidelines. It's all right here, now, sprawled out in plain view.

The irony is that thought can't hold any of it, can't look into the light, so grabs at stray shadows in an attempt to weave together conceptual imagery into what it believes is - an undeniable vision of truth.

This post was last updated by Rip B (account deleted) Mon, 03 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 04 Apr 2017 #30
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4255 posts in this forum Offline

Rip B wrote:
OK, thought here wants to know ;-) shattering to what?

Shattering to preconceived ideas, shattering to the world view presented by society, mostly implicitly. The shattering bit was not the essence of my question.

Sitting here pondering this question (as in meditating on it) it seems clear that 'I' am already shattered.

Indeed

Not until the futility of thought being able to grasp 'the actual' strikes one, beyond the shadow of doubt, does all the hubbub settle down naturally, allowing the pieces that make up 'me' to settle out.

Wondering what you mean by “settle out” here?

Leaving an undefinable essence. This essence sees and can use the pathways of thought but isn't restricted to them. Patterns and relationships beyond thought's limited grasp are simply perceived, without need of formulas, rules or guidelines. It's all simply right here, now, sprawled out in plain view.
The irony is that thought can't hold any of it, can't look into the light, so grabs at stray shadows in an attempt to weave together conceptual imagery into what it believes is - an undeniable vision of truth.

Thought certainly cannot hold understanding or insight – that is not its job (although it thinks it is). Its job is to handle knowledge – real, material based knowledge, not psychological knowledge.

But Rip, I don't see that you have answered my question. Or if you have, I've missed it. Ok, no obligation to do so, but I asked: Would you agree that thought arises unbidden to the mind?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 100 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.)