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

It's very simple


Displaying posts 31 - 60 of 126 in total
Fri, 31 Mar 2017 #31
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 413 posts in this forum Offline

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

Would you say that those who have ended with smoking have ended with any thought wanting to smoke again? ... What made K to question himself from time to time trying to find out if there was something hidden behind his talking to people? ... Does "ended" mean a total dissappearing of that which is ended or simply a diferent view of it? ... Does the tree dissappear when division ends or it is simply viewed differently as before?

"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 Fri, 31 Mar 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 01 Apr 2017 #32
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3847 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 #33
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3847 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 #34
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 #35
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 #36
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3847 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 #37
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 #38
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3847 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
Tue, 04 Apr 2017 #39
Thumb_stringio Rip B United States 26 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

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.

Felt it was related to it.

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?

Just another term for noise subsiding. In this case, since there was mention of shattered, the word pieces seemed to fit.

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?

Yes, it was answered but the attempt to 'get away' from 'K-talk' doesn't fly well here, which is to be 'expected'. One member here is even chastising a preconceived image of 'me' through private messages for casting ANY shadow of doubt on K's 'pristine' image. Also suggesting that 'those' with a similar message are simply copying K for personal gain (which in some cases might be true). Everything must be doubted though, everything challenged, continuously.

To answer your question...in a word - no. Thought only arises unbidden within the closed loop of the thought-based entity, the 'me', the 'self', what 'I' identify with. The silent awareness (used the word 'essence' above) in which one appears is not held in thrall by such a limited tool as thought, or anything else.

This post was last updated by Rip B (account deleted) Tue, 04 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 05 Apr 2017 #40
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3847 posts in this forum Offline

Rip B wrote:
Everything must be doubted though, everything challenged, continuously.

Yes, I see this as a function of the forum. And it is only what K encouraged his listeners to do.

Rip B wrote:
To answer your question...in a word - no.

If one says no, thought does not rise unbidden to the mind, then that seems to suggest the existence of the bidder, does it not? It suggests that there is some entity other than thought who in some way is in control of thought, or at least can influence it.

What do you say?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 05 Apr 2017 #41
Thumb_stringio Rip B United States 26 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Clive Elwell wrote:
If one says no, thought does not rise unbidden to the mind, then that seems to suggest the existence of the bidder, does it not? It suggests that there is some entity other than thought who in some way is in control of thought, or at least can influence it.

What do you say?

Interesting question and not sure it has a clear answer. Take breathing and heart rate, which are generally automatic. When walking uphill they both increase to compensate for greater system load. Thought is generally not involved but it can be, such as deciding to take a different route.

With the walking itself things are more complex. First the destination is projected, then the route calculated, but when actually walking thought is no always involved. Yet there are constant calculations being made to adjust for surface conditions, incline, etc. that continue subconsciously. Is thought making the adjustments or is walking something more like muscle memory?

While out hiking I get thirsty and often stop just off the trail, take off my pack, unzip it, get out a water bottle, unscrew the cap, and take a drink. Have done it so many times it's automatic and I may be silently listening to birds along a nearby creek and not thinking about getting a drink at all, although I feel the cool, refreshing water pour into my mouth and slide down my throat. Does thought really need to be involved in any of that?

Guess it all depends on how thought is defined and where the line for thought/not thought lies, if it can even be determined.

Will withdraw the earlier "no" answer for now. Thought could just be an automatic tool that pops up as needed. The only problem occurs when it doesn't kick off and attention is diverted into these continuous loops that can be so counter-productive and damaging.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 06 Apr 2017 #42
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3847 posts in this forum Offline

Thanks for continuing the exporation, Rip.

Rip B wrote:
Thought is generally not involved but it can be, such as deciding to take a different route.

Right.

Rip B wrote:
Is thought making the adjustments or is walking something more like muscle memory?

I would say the latter. When one first learns to drive a car, one has to think about it, how to steer, how to change gear, when to accelerate/break - that is why it is so difficult. But eventually these things become "automatic", and one regards oneself as a driver. What does that mean? Certainly without the intervention of conscious thought. I have always regarded it as some sort of body memory - which does not necessarily imply it is not in the brain, but perhaps not in the cortex.

Rip B wrote:
Does thought really need to be involved in any of that?

Now you are using the word "automatic" :-). I would say, surely not.

It comes that another possible meaning to "automatic" is 'not directed by the me'.

Rip B wrote:
Guess it all depends on how thought is defined and where the line for thought/not thought lies, if it can even be determined.

I would say, quite simply, that thought is words, thought is knowledge. But yes, there is a form of knowledge, as you have described, that is without words. Animals have it, no? They 'know' where to feed, where to drink.

So I would say thought is words, remembered.

Rip B wrote:
The only problem occurs when it doesn't kick off and attention is diverted into these continuous loops that can be so counter-productive and damaging.

Not sure what you are saying here.

Rip B wrote:
Will withdraw the earlier "no" answer for now.

I had asked "Does thought rise unbidden to the mind?". I should add, of course thought is a reaction to something - to the senses, or just as a reaction to itself, to the previous thought. And there may be all sorts of things in the unconscious mind that thought reacts to. But I am questioning something that I think most people accept - that there is (they are in fact) some sort of mental entity that is separate from thought; that can analyse it, correct it, subjugate it, somehow control it (or attempt to and fail through lack of sufficient effort)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 06 Apr 2017 #43
Thumb_stringio Rip B United States 26 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Clive Elwell wrote:

It comes that another possible meaning to "automatic" is 'not directed by the me'.

Yes, and a lot of automatic response is stored as conditioning. Conditioning has been somewhat vilified but it can be quite useful, for something as simple as walking, or for the more complex responses needed while driving the car that was mentioned above.

I would say, quite simply, that thought is words, thought is knowledge. But yes, there is a form of knowledge, as you have described, that is without words. Animals have it, no? They 'know' where to feed, where to drink.

So I would say thought is words, remembered.

Yes, although thought isn't necessarily just words of course,, it's also the part of the mind that does the planning to ensure food, clothing and shelter, it uses calculus & physics to solve complex problems, etc.

The only problem occurs when it doesn't kick off and attention is diverted into these continuous loops that can be so counter-productive and damaging.

Not sure what you are saying here.

Thought is used as needed. When not needed the mind is silent, alert. It's only when the complex imagery of thought is mistaken for real that issues arise - when direct perception is ignored for the enticing promises made through the imagery (and pageantry) of thought and idea. This becomes an infinite loop that keeps the mind occupied.

The silent, alert entity that remains (in the absence of thought) is still you in a mind/body sense, but is not held by the conditioning or the thought that it occasionally uses. Nothing really changes other than the 'you' that thought created and fine-tuned over apparent time, is seen as nothing more than just another image in thoughts repertoire of images.

Looking for 'changes in the brain', a 'revolution', etc is counterproductive, but to say there is a certain sense of freedom (and energy) in seeing that one is absolutely NOT the image of oneself, is an understatement.

This post was last updated by Rip B (account deleted) Thu, 06 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 06 Apr 2017 #44
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 766 posts in this forum Offline

Rip B wrote:
Looking for 'changes in the brain', a 'revolution', etc is counterproductive, but to say there is a certain sense of freedom (and energy) in seeing that one is NOT the image of oneself, is an understatement.

Its true isn't it, this expectation, longing, craving for a 'change' in oneself persists when it isn't realized that the image of a 'future' when that change will take place is a 'creation' of thought.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 06 Apr 2017 #45
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3847 posts in this forum Offline

Rip B wrote:
Thought is used as needed. When not needed the mind is silent, alert. It's only when the complex imagery of thought is mistaken for real that issues arise - when direct perception is ignored for the enticing promises made through the imagery (and pageantry) of thought and idea. This becomes an infinite loop that keeps the mind occupied.

I see. Yes, of course. There is a danger of demonising thought, when one sees how destructive it can be, and is.

Rip B wrote:
The silent, alert entity that remains (in the absence of thought) is still you in a mind/body sense, but is not held by the conditioning or the thought that it occasionally uses. Nothing really changes other than the 'you' that thought created and fine-tuned over apparent time, is seen as nothing more than just another image in thoughts repertoire of images.

Yes, the me is an image, or series of images. But Rip, do you stand by the use of the word "entity" in the first sentence above? Is there an entity that is alert, or is there just alertness? Please see the post I am going to make under the thread heading "There is no self".

Rip B wrote:
Looking for 'changes in the brain', a 'revolution', etc is counterproductive, but to say there is a certain sense of freedom (and energy) in seeing that one is absolutely NOT the image of oneself, is an understatement.

Yes. To see the false as false.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 07 Apr 2017 #46
Thumb_stringio Rip B United States 26 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Clive Elwell wrote:
Yes, the me is an image, or series of images. But Rip, do you stand by the use of the word "entity" in the first sentence above?

The 'entity' is not exactly disembodied Clive, it still pays taxes and has a drivers license. ;-)

We're talking about no longer taking the image of 'me', that thought has created, as real. It doesn't mean that only a disembodied intelligence remains. You and I are still here, we still have to eat, sleep, clean house, pay bills, etc. Outwardly little has changed.

Is there an entity that is alert, or is there just alertness?

Is this thought trying to define, trying to pin down the unpinnable? At times the sense of a mind/body fades and it seems there is just alertness, not just in the sense of direct relationship with 'all', but as 'oneness'.

Overall though, the mind/body appears as the physical center for this alertness (oneness), and nearby mind/bodies appear likewise (including the wife operating from her self image - in reaction to the image she has of me).

So I'm not sure it matters trying to pin down this distinction as there's no continuous state.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 10 Apr 2017 #47
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3847 posts in this forum Offline

Rip B wrote:
So I'm not sure it matters trying to pin down this distinction as there's no continuous state.

I feel that it is important to see the difference. If there is an entity that is aware – using that word instead of alert - then that is an idea for the self to pursue. It can “try to be” aware. But if there is only a state of awareness, without a cause then thought can make no movement towards it and doesn't try.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 11 Apr 2017 #48
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 414 posts in this forum Offline

#6:

Clive Elwell wrote:
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.

Self/thought cannot “see” anything, can it? “I am the world” refers to the conditioned division between thinker and thought. To have an intellectual understanding of it is not to understand it. To have an intellectual understanding of it is just to have yet another idea, another concept, within consciousness, isn’t it?

It is the mind - not thought itself - which can understand the nature of self, the false division between the observer and the observed, the thinker and the thought.

This is not a new duality to replace the old - a new duality of mind-and-thought to replace the duality thought-and-thinker. A psychological duality is a duality which exists only intellectually. But the mind is not in fact the same as thought, is it? I don’t mean the universal mind, the ground, limitless space, and so on, although I’m also not saying that there’s no relationship between mind/brain and universal mind. I mean the mind/brain that is inside the skull - THAT mind is not just thought, is it?

Consider the following excerpts from the First Public Talk in Saanen, July 1973:

What is most important, at least I
feel, when we are confronting all
these terrible, horrible problems, the
real issue in all this is to bring
about a total transformation of the
mind. [...] we need a totally
different kind of mind [...] we need a
mind and a heart that is not put
together by thought. Thought is not
going to solve our problems, because
these problems have come into being
through the activities of thought.

And to observe [...] one's mind must
be free from the conclusion or
knowledge that you have had
previously.

[...] Can my mind, and your mind,
look… [...] You know it is one of the
most difficult things not to be
prejudiced, not to have some
conclusion, not to have an image [..]
So you cannot look to a teacher, to a
guru, to a priest, to a book, to any
authority because all this has
produced this world outside of us. So
can the mind reject all that, totally
deny all that? [...] Now what place
has it in the human transformation
which the mind sees also is absolutely
necessary? So that is the question.
[...] will thought change the human
mind? [...] Thought has created this
world [...] And we are looking to
thought to change us. [...] And we say
it all must change, serious people say
that, but they employ thought to bring
about a change. [...] I have made a
statement: what place has time, which
is knowledge and thought, in the
transformation of the human mind,
human being? Because there must be
transformation. Now how do you listen
to it? Do you listen merely to the
meaning of words? Or do you listen and
in the very act of listening draw a
conclusion, and therefore listening
with a conclusion and not actually
listening to the statement? Have you
understood? You see the difference?
When you listen to a statement, to
this statement, and draw a conclusion,
an abstraction, then thought is in
action. [...] knowledge as a means of
transforming the human being has no
place whatsoever. Do you see the truth
of it? And you can only see the truth
of it if you don't draw a conclusion
from it. You will say, 'Then what am I
to do?' That is a conclusion. 'Then
how shall I act, I have lived all my
life on conclusions, beliefs, ideas,
thought and you come along and say
''Look that has no place in
relationship, in human change'''. Then
you ask: 'Then what will take its
place?' That question is put by
thought. Therefore you are still
functioning in the field of thought,
therefore you don't see the truth of
it.

My understanding of this is that it is the mind/brain which can observe, not thought itself; that such “pure”, objective, non-personal, observation is what the mind does when it is free from conclusion and knowledge. When K says (above) that it is one of the most difficult things not to have some conclusion, he is not denying that all conclusions are stored within consciousness, is he? Isn’t he simply saying that the mind IS CAPABLE of looking without looking through those conclusions, without basing itself on those conclusions? Then isn’t the mind more than just thought?

When K says (in the same talk) “our chief concern for a serious man is the total transformation of the human mind”, he’s not saying do away with the mind, end the mind. He talks about ending thought, ending time, not ending the mind

So isn’t it the mind - not thought - which sees thought/emotion arising and sees that there is only the thought/emotion, no thinker? Isn’t it the mind - not thought - which sees the division of thought, the fragmenting of thought, into thought and thinker? That observation, that perception is not thought, is it? And when the mind understands/observes that there is no thinker, isn't that the ending of self's efforts?

From the same talk:

“What is the state of the mind that sees the truth of a statement? The falseness of it, or the truth of it? What is your mind that says, 'Yes, that is true'? Can you answer it? Is it an intellectual conviction and therefore not truth? Is it an opinion sustained by reason and therefore not true? Is it logical sequence, which you accept and therefore not true? Or is it an opinion, dialectically, which is seeing the truth through opinions and therefore not truth?”

15 minutes later:

Perception is not idea. Just as the mind perceives what the other 5 senses convey, so does it perceive what thought conveys. Is this so?

This post was last updated by Huguette . Tue, 11 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 11 Apr 2017 #49
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 413 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
When K says (above) that it is one of the most difficult things not to have some conclusion, he is not denying that all conclusions are stored within consciousness, is he?

Yes, he's saying that any conclusion is a product of thought and as such it is stored as knowledge; we may think that we have seen something when in fact all what we've made is draw a conclussion from an intellectual understanding ...

In other words, do those with that "pure" observation you're talking about draw any conclussion, or they simply move with anything at any time? ... What do you think?

"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
Tue, 11 Apr 2017 #50
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 413 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Perception is not idea. Just as the mind perceives what the other 5 senses convey, so does it perceive what thought conveys. Is this so?

Absolutely! ... How K could have talked about thought, knowledge and so on as the cause of our turmoil if not? ... In fact K asked many times (or tried to inquire) to (with) his converasional partners if there could be a part of the mind which were uncontaminated able to observe thought.

"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
Tue, 11 Apr 2017 #51
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 414 posts in this forum Offline

#49:

Juan E wrote:
In other words, do those with that "pure" observation you're talking about draw any conclussion, or they simply move with anything at any time? ... What do you think?

Where observation is not engendered by accumulated knowledge/time, where observation is not named and added to the accumulation as "understanding", no conclusion is made, is it? K puts it succinctly:

.....if my understanding is merely
accumulative, then that accumulation
becomes a conditioning which prevents
further understanding. So can the mind
observe itself without accumulation?
The Collected Works, Vol. X,53,Choiceless Awareness

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 12 Apr 2017 #52
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 413 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
.....if my understanding is merely
accumulative, then that accumulation
becomes a conditioning which prevents
further understanding. So can the mind
observe itself without accumulation?
The Collected Works, Vol. X,53,Choiceless Awareness

Yes, that conditioning is what i'm trying to look at in the thread i started on Saturday
Thanks for posting this clear excerpt, Huguette.

"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
Wed, 12 Apr 2017 #53
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3847 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Self/thought cannot “see” anything, can it? “I am the world” refers to the conditioned division between thinker and thought.

Over the years, I have seen this statement in many different lights.

Huguette . wrote:
To have an intellectual understanding of it is not to understand it. To have an intellectual understanding of it is just to have yet another idea, another concept, within consciousness, isn’t it?

Are you saying that intellectual uderstanding actuall precludes true understanding? That as soon IU appears, the other ust necessarily fly out of the window? Are you saying that IU is the only problem in understanding?

Huguette . wrote:
It is the mind - not thought itself - which can understand the nature of self, the false division between the observer and the observed, the thinker and the thought.

Sorry, but I have to ask what is “the mind” . Not just looking for a definition, but understanding. You say, Huguette, that it is not thought, and probably you would also add it is not feeling (?). So what is it? This seems a fundamental question that I don't think I have ever asked. What relationship does the mind have to the brain (meaning the physical organ). And is it an individual mind, or is the mind common to all mankind?

Huguette . wrote, quoting K, :
What is most important, at least I
feel, when we are confronting all
these terrible, horrible problems, the
real issue in all this is to bring
about a total transformation of the
mind. [...] we need a totally
different kind of mind [...] we need a
mind and a heart that is not put
together by thought.

Clive: So here K is saying that the mind, the present human mind, IS put together by thought.

Huguette . wrote:
So isn’t it the mind - not thought - which sees thought/emotion arising and sees that there is only the thought/emotion, no thinker? Isn’t it the mind - not thought - which sees the division of thought, the fragmenting of thought, into thought and thinker? That observation, that perception is not thought, is it? And when the mind understands/observes that there is no thinker, isn't that the ending of self's efforts?

Clive: I would agree that thought itself cannot see, (Although at times K has asked “can thought be aware of itself?” Thought is an effect, it is like the sentences written down in the pages of a book.

I wonder if K uses the word “mind” somewhat slackly, to mean different things at different times?

I won't equate the word with “consciousness” , as to me that means mankind's accumulated knowledge. I am not simply seeking a definition of “mind”. You Huguette, basically seem to be suggesting that mind is awareness. Would you agree?

Huguette . wrote:
Perception is not idea. Just as the mind perceives what the other 5 senses convey, so does it perceive what thought conveys. Is this so?

Clive: I don't know. I am really working on this one. Brain feels like it is bulging! :-). Is there any reason you are using the word “perception” rather than “awareness” here?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 12 Apr 2017 #54
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3847 posts in this forum Offline

It comes that whatever the mind is, it has been hijacked by knowledge, by thought.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 13 Apr 2017 #55
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 414 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:

To have an intellectual understanding of it is not to understand it. To have an intellectual understanding of it is just to have yet another idea, another concept, within consciousness, isn’t it?

Clive Elwell wrote:

Are you saying that intellectual uderstanding actuall precludes true understanding? That as soon IU appears, the other ust necessarily fly out of the window? Are you saying that IU is the only problem in understanding?

There’s no intelligence or wisdom in intellectual understanding, is there? For example, to understand that in order to catch the 2 o’clock bus I must leave the house no later than 1:50 or to understand that school will probably be closed because of the snow, involves the movement of thought, of the intellect. It is a mechanical "understanding" comparable to the understanding of a thermostat that "understands" that it must adjust the temperature, I think. Such understanding requires no introspection, no self-observation, no passion, no awareness, and so on. It doesn’t need to look into suffering, into the human condition, the nature of time, and so on. So IU is not a problem where appropriate.

But understanding “me”, self, myself, is not simply a matter for the intellect to figure out, is it? Intellectually I can understand that self is an idea/image consisting only of thought - memories, knowledge, opinions, beliefs, experiences - so that logically the intellect "understands" that self cannot see anything, just as no single memory can see or understand anything. If there is merely an intellectual, logical understanding of this, the intellectual understanding in turn becomes knowledge, conclusion, idea, doesn’t it? Doesn’t that preclude true the understanding that intelligence provides? Whatever intelligence is, it is clearly not an attribute of the intellect, is it? So the intellect - time, measure, calculation, conclusion, imagery, and so on - is useful where appropriate but it does not provide a truly satisfactory understanding of man’s fundamental questions and problems.

This post was last updated by Huguette . Thu, 13 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 13 Apr 2017 #56
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 414 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
It is the mind - not thought itself - which can understand the nature of self, the false division between the observer and the observed, the thinker and the thought.

Clive Elwell wrote:
Sorry, but I have to ask what is “the mind” . Not just looking for a definition, but understanding. You say, Huguette, that it is not thought, and probably you would also add it is not feeling (?). So what is it? This seems a fundamental question that I don't think I have ever asked. What relationship does the mind have to the brain (meaning the physical organ). And is it an individual mind, or is the mind common to all mankind?

Huguette . wrote, quoting K, :
What is most important, at least I
feel, when we are confronting all
these terrible, horrible problems, the
real issue in all this is to bring
about a total transformation of the
mind. [...] we need a totally
different kind of mind [...] we need a
mind and a heart that is not put
together by thought.

Clive Elwell wrote:
Clive: So here K is saying that the mind, the present human mind, IS put together by thought.

Huguette . wrote:
So isn’t it the mind - not thought - which sees thought/emotion arising and sees that there is only the thought/emotion, no thinker? Isn’t it the mind - not thought - which sees the division of thought, the fragmenting of thought, into thought and thinker? That observation, that perception is not thought, is it? And when the mind understands/observes that there is no thinker, isn't that the ending of self's efforts?

Clive Elwell wrote:
Clive: I would agree that thought itself cannot see, (Although at times K has asked “can thought be aware of itself?” Thought is an effect, it is like the sentences written down in the pages of a book.

Clive Elwell wrote:
I wonder if K uses the word “mind” somewhat slackly, to mean different things at different times?

Clive Elwell wrote:
I won't equate the word with “consciousness” , as to me that means mankind's accumulated knowledge. I am not simply seeking a definition of “mind”. You Huguette, basically seem to be suggesting that mind is awareness. Would you agree?

For me, at least in the present context, “mind” is the intellect or the brain. Personally, I think using “brain” as a synonym for “mind” is sometimes ambiguous or confusing since ultimately the brain controls all bodily functions and I don’t see breathing, smelling or coughing, for instance, as being part of the mind. Nonetheless, “brain”, “mind” and intellect can, as I see it and in the present context, mean the same…. but not quite.

But is the intellect the whole of the mind and can the mind be otherwise? Can the mind be “a totally different kind of mind”? In a moment where thought does not have a hold on the brain/mind… in such a moment (if there IS such a moment), is the mind conditioned? What is such a moment of freedom? Is awareness such a moment? In a moment where there is observation, awareness, attention, silence, the mind is free, isn’t it? In such a moment, it is not bound by its habitual compulsion to ruminate, rehash, pursue, avoid, resist, name or rename, and so on.

As things are now, the mind is totally conditioned - put together by thought - “hijacked” (as you say at #54) or “commandeered” by the intellect so that all action is put together by thought, conditioned by thought, and therefore conflictual.

Self/”me”/Huguette is an image, an idea, a confabulation, a myth, consisting of accumulated memories, time and knowledge. As such, self cannot in any way or degree understand or see anything. In THIS sense of image, idea, etc., “thought” is a product of the mind, brain or intellect.

In another sense of the word, “thought” is the brain’s faculty or ability to reason, remember and to manipulate its product (also “thought”). In this 2nd sense, “thought” is the intellect, the brain, the mind which CAN see in a limited way.

So all THIS, this reasoning, thinking, is the brain/mind/intellect’s struggle to understand its predicament, to make sense of the human condition, and the mind can see itself struggling in this way, can’t it? I see myself struggling ... but it is not just “me” seeing it, not just “my” mind seeing it, not the personal mind seeing it. It is the human mind seeing its own struggle, isn’t it? This struggle is not my personal struggle, it is the struggle of all humanity through time.

And is this perception, the mind’s perception of its struggle, merely an idea or is it an actual direct perception? And what is the mind to do now?

(I do think K used "mind" to mean different things at different times but not slackly. Like "thought", I think "mind" does have more than one meaning.)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 13 Apr 2017 #57
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 414 posts in this forum Offline

K: Is there an observation of silence by silence in silence? [...] The whole brain, the mind, the feelings, the body, everything is quiet. Can this quietness, stillness, look at itself, not as an observer who is still? Can the totality of this silence watch its own totality? The silence becomes aware of itself - in this there is no division between an observer and an observed. That is the main point. The silence does not use itself to discover something beyond itself. There is only that silence. Now see what happens. [Eight Conversations 3rd Conversation]

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 14 Apr 2017 #58
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3847 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
There’s no intelligence or wisdom in intellectual understanding, is there?

What you say makes perfect sense, Huguette. Intellectual understanding is always limited, and is always understanding of the past. Hmm, having said this thought begins to doubt it, but it is clear that the intellect is not going to solve man's problems. So it must be negated - and not just intellectually!

But I want to ask you (or anyone of course) this:

You have stated that “thought cannot see”. Yet thought starts to think about what has been seen, does it not? What is seen somehow enters thought. So there must be some communication between seeing and thought, or some sort of communality between them, no? What is the nature of this connection, would you say?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 14 Apr 2017 #59
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 766 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
You have stated that “thought cannot see”. Yet thought starts to think about what has been seen, does it not? What is seen somehow enters thought. So there must be some communication between seeing and thought, or some sort of communality between them, no? What is the nature of this connection, would you say?

Memory?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Fri, 14 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 14 Apr 2017 #60
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 414 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
You have stated that “thought cannot see”. Yet thought starts to think about what has been seen, does it not? What is seen somehow enters thought. So there must be some communication between seeing and thought, or some sort of communality between them, no? What is the nature of this connection, would you say?

I see it like Dan when he says that what is seen or understood is remembered. If it is then thought about, analyzed, ruminated on, etc., with the intention, desire, determination or will to go further, to gain more understanding, to solve ALL conflict, then there is again no understanding, is there?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 31 - 60 of 126 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.)