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

Thought has created the world


Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 57 in total
Mon, 03 Apr 2017 #1
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3808 posts in this forum Offline

There was what was felt to be an insight last night. An insight is one thing, trying to put it into words is another. One knows that one is ultimately doomed to failure. An insight is a whole, complete perception, words are from thought which is always fragmented. But just for the interest of the thing, one will try.

It was seen that there is only thought. I don't mean there is no such thing as clouds floating in the sky, and so one. But the world we live in, the world we have created, inner and outer, is entirely composed of thought.

Thought is like fog which fills all the human brains on the planet. And yet “fog” is not the right word, since it can take form, solidify. It can take the form of me and you, the form of a nation, of a desire, a fear, an economic theory, a religion. It can and does take the form of a weapon, a tool, a scientific instrument, the latest technology, a book. If you are in a room at the moment and look around, just about everything is some form assumed, shaped, by thought.

But it still thought. Only thought. And perhaps the strangest form that thought has taken is ME. That is, there is no me separate from thought, there is only thought. Although it might seem that I act, it is thought acting. And the concept of 'me' acting on thought in any way is utterly false.

It is almost as if thought is a form of consciousness which animates the forms it has created.

The strength of an insight lies in the intensity and clarity of the seeing. It does not lie in how accurately thought can catch the insight in the web of thought.

This post was last updated by Clive Elwell Mon, 03 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 03 Apr 2017 #2
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 584 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Thought is like fog which fills all the human brains on the planet.
And yet “fog” is not the right word, since it can take form, solidify.

Are you saying Clive that without 'thought' the sun or the universe disappear or are you trying to wording that without thought the fog is not disturbing the seeing of the sun and the universe as being the dust as we are ??

Truth will unfold itself for those who enquire their own actions and only to them and for them and to or for no one else.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 03 Apr 2017 #3
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 397 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
It was seen that there is only thought ... And perhaps the strangest form that thought has taken is ME.

Yes, this is a fact ... and the me is trying always to be other than thought constantly creating imagined states for it to abide not realizing that they are still in the field of thought ...

Now, what's next?

P.S.: hope not be tedious with that question which took me much more than few minutes to write it ;-) .... Regards and a big hug from Spain Rip, Clive X-) :-)

"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
Mon, 03 Apr 2017 #4
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3808 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
P.S.: hope not be tedious with that question which took me much more than few minutes to write it ;-) .... Regards and a big hug from Spain Rip, Clive X-) :-)

The best big hug from Spain was you not getting offended and storming off the forum :-)

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Tue, 04 Apr 2017 #5
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3808 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
Are you saying Clive that without 'thought' the sun or the universe disappear

Hi Wim

No, I was definitely not saying that. And in fact I am not qualified to say what might happen “without thought”, if that is possible.

I see now that the phrase “there is only thought” is very misleading, and in fact I have now changed the title of the thread to “Thought has created the World” But even that could be misleading, without an understanding of how the phrase “The World” is used. I am using it (in its original sense I think) to indicate the human world, the world of human affairs, human activities. I am not using the phrase to indicate the planet, the Earth, the Universe, the natural world.

Best perhaps to keep using the phrase “The human world”

Wim Opdam wrote:
or are you trying to wording that without thought the fog is not disturbing the seeing of the sun and the universe as being the dust as we are ??

Not really, in so far as I can understand you.

Let me try again. Is thought not like some living organism? I was just going to write that of course it is not “real”, it is an imaginary organism, but that might be questioned, given that thought is related to a real movement of the brain cells. So let us put aside the issue of whether it is real or not. It certain has real, actual effects.

So thought is an organism, a creature it might be called. A parasite of the human brain.

The point is that thought is ONE organism, it is not that I have one organism in my brain, and you have a different one in yours.

Of course there I a great deal that can be said about thought, and K has spoken extensively about it. But it seems silly to look at it intellectually, because IT IS WHAT WE ARE. So it is absolutely essential that we look at it directly, that we are aware of its operation.

What is writing this mail? - thought.

What is waging war in Syria? Thought versus thought.

What has created this computer? Thought.

What is destroying the environment? Thought.

What had given rise to all the beliefs, the religions, the political theories? Thought.

This gigantic creature called thought. One might liken it to a virus in the brain. Like a virus, it uses the body for its own ends. Yes, it has created it own objectives, quite independent of the natural needs of life. It has its own momentum.

The odd thing is that although it is one thing, it always acts in a fragmented way. It acts against itself, under the guise, the illusion, of individuality.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 04 Apr 2017 #6
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3808 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
Yes, this is a fact ... and the me is trying always to be other than thought constantly creating imagined states for it to abide not realizing that they are still in the field of thought .

Exactly Juan. Creating things that are imagined to be quite separate, independent, from thought.

Juan E wrote:
Now, what's next?

What do you mean, "what's next?"?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 04 Apr 2017 #7
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 584 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
I see now that the phrase “there is only thought” is very misleading, and in fact I have now changed the title of the thread to “Thought has created the World” But even that could be misleading, without an understanding of how the phrase “The World” is used.

Yes, even the new wording can be misleading, can one truthfully say:
“Thought has created the World as we know it ” ??
That covered also the fact that one don't know it all !!

There is also the difference of perceiving and observing,
something I'm busy with on the general discussion,
to me it seems as the tide with incoming and outgoing energy.

To come in view -perceiving - has a different vibration than observing.
one can't observe if it's not in view, can one ??

Clive Elwell wrote:
So it is absolutely essential that we look at it directly, that we are aware of its operation.

Yes it is, the other day I replied: If one is hearing the words " We are the world "
and take it too serious one gets: "I am the world"
with all the narcissistic egocentric results from it !!

and also:

Group Discussion 16th April, 1948 | Chennai, India

The mind is the most extraordinary instrument we have;
for instance,
it deals with supersonic waves, curvature-space, etc.,
but, we do not know how to use this wonderful instrument.

.

Clive Elwell wrote:
The odd thing is that although it is one thing, it always acts in a fragmented way. It acts against itself, under the guise, the illusion, of individuality.

I'am not certain about 'always' because when I travel to australia, or doing my grossary it's working good, so we have to distinguish this outer activity of thought from the inner. For me it obvious that it out of its nature orbit it has crept in from the outer to the inner and in stead of serving is going to play te boss.

Truth will unfold itself for those who enquire their own actions and only to them and for them and to or for no one else.

This post was last updated by Wim Opdam Tue, 04 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 04 Apr 2017 #8
Thumb_img_20150716_212047-1-1 richard viillar France 222 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
It was seen that there is only thought. I don't mean there is no such thing as clouds floating in the sky, and so one. But the world we live in, the world we have created, inner and outer, is entirely composed of thought.

bonjour Clive,

oui je vois bien de quoi tu parles.. mais il semble que la pensée vient se greffer sur un autre phénomène antérieur.

c'est la traduction que le cerveau fait des informations qui lui proviennent des sens. ce processus est antérieur à la pensée et déjà il offre une élaboration de ce qui pourrait être la réalité. mais cette traduction n'est pas la réalité, c'est une élaboration fonctionnelle économe.

une fois que cette traduction est faite, elle est mémorisée, et redistribuée par la pensée. et ce qui nous apparaît de plus visible c'est la pensée, mais il y a plus profond comme illusion...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 04 Apr 2017 #9
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 397 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
To come in view -perceiving - has a different vibration than observing.
one can't observe if it's not in view, can one ??

Could you please put this in other words?
Not sure if i understand fully what you mean
"Come in(to) view" = "seen only by physical eyes"? [:-?]

Wim Opdam wrote:
If one is hearing the words " We are the world " and take it too serious one gets: "I am the world" with all the narcissistic egocentric results from it !!

What do you exactly mean by "take it too serious"?

"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, 04 Apr 2017 #10
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 397 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
What do you mean, "what's next?"?

When one looks around one can see how we all live particular lives, "It's me who have cancer; it's me who have been fired from work being 50yo; it's me who have lost a relative, my wife, my husband; in brief, it's me whatever..." ... And from that particular living we try to understand the whole living, never realizing that any understanding is brought about from the center, meaning that it is that center who thinks that has found the truth of its suffering after listening to K, Buddha, Jesus or whoever, while in fact it is still evolving in the field of that which gives support to that center as "me", i.e.: thought

So the question is: how can one go from the particular to the whole without passing by the intermediate state of any thought with all its images of what is or should be, by just seeing that the particular is in the whole and not that the whole is in the particular?

That's what i meant by "What's next?"

"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 Tue, 04 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 04 Apr 2017 #11
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 584 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
Could you please put this in other words?
Not sure if i understand fully what you mean
"Come in(to) view" = "seen only by physical eyes"? [:-?]

No to me it's also the - yes how to call it ? - not physical seeing !!

Juan E wrote:
What do you exactly mean by "take it too serious"?

If one heard the words "You are the world" and "take it too serious" one takes the load of the whole world on ones shoulders ( going down by depression ) or make ik personaly your pocession and gona do something abouth it !! It's obvious one did not understand the meaning of the words.

Truth will unfold itself for those who enquire their own actions and only to them and for them and to or for no one else.

This post was last updated by Wim Opdam Tue, 04 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 04 Apr 2017 #12
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 397 posts in this forum Offline

richard viillar wrote:
c'est la traduction que le cerveau fait des informations qui lui proviennent des sens. ce processus est antérieur à la pensée et déjà il offre une élaboration de ce qui pourrait être la réalité. mais cette traduction n'est pas la réalité, c'est une élaboration fonctionnelle économe ... une fois que cette traduction est faite, elle est mémorisée, et redistribuée par la pensée.

Salut Richard! :-)

Alors, si je vous entend bien, vous considérez que le cerveau c'est un chose et la pensée une autre? ... Si ça c'est le cas, je suis curieux, où habite alors la pensée selon vous?

"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, 04 Apr 2017 #13
Thumb_img_20150716_212047-1-1 richard viillar France 222 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
vous considérez que le cerveau c'est un chose et la pensée une autre? ... Si ça c'est le cas, je suis curieux, où habite alors la pensée selon vous?

Hola Juan que tal?

Ce que je dis ici est que dans le cerveau il n'y a pas que la pensée qui opère, il y a beaucoup de mécanismes et celui que j'évoque en fait partie. La pensée quant à elle, se greffe dessus et ne fait que orner un support antérieur à elle.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 04 Apr 2017 #14
Thumb_img_20150716_212047-1-1 richard viillar France 222 posts in this forum Offline

Juan lo que digo es que en El cerebro, no hay unicamente el pensamiento que obra, hay muchos mecanismos. El pensamiento adorna una elaboration anterior a ella...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 05 Apr 2017 #15
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3808 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
Yes, even the new wording can be misleading, can one truthfully say:
“Thought has created the World as we know it ” ??
That covered also the fact that one don't know it all !!

I'm not sure, Wim. After all, thought is based on what is known. How can thought be the unknown?

And remember,, we are talking about thought as a whole. We are not talking about my thought, or your thought. Just thought. Can we put it this way: part of what thought knows may be manifested in you and part manifested in me – and part in all the other brains.

What do you say?

Wim Opdam wrote:
I'am not certain about 'always' because when I travel to australia, or doing my [grocaries] it's working good,

It may work adequately at specific tasks, but it is still working fragmentarily, isn't it. That is how how thought can build terrible weapons of destruction, and create such vast inequality, isn't it?

Wim Opdam wrote:
For me it obvious that it out of its nature orbit it has crept in from the outer to the inner

Yes, I'd go along with that.

Wim Opdam wrote:
in stead of serving is going to play the boss.

It plays both the boss and the servant.. It plays all roles, it is the entire cast of the play we think is life

Wim Opdam wrote:
in stead of serving is going to play the boss.

It plays both the boss and the servant.. It plays all roles, it is the entire cast of the play we think is life

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 05 Apr 2017 #16
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3808 posts in this forum Offline

richard viillar wrote:
c'est la traduction que le cerveau fait des informations qui lui proviennent des sens

Bonjour Richard

Yes, thought is the brain responding to the input of the senses, but it also responds too itself, n'est pas?

richard viillar wrote:
mais il y a plus profond comme illusion...

Can you say more on this, Richard, or are you basically repeating what you have said above/

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 05 Apr 2017 #17
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3808 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
When one looks around one can see how we all live particular lives, "It's me who have cancer; it's me who have been fired from work being 50yo; it's me who have lost a relative, my wife, my husband; in brief, it's me whatever..." ... And from that particular living we try to understand the whole living, never realizing that any understanding is brought about from the center, meaning that it is that center who thinks that has found the truth of its suffering after listening to K, Buddha, Jesus or whoever, while in fact it is still evolving in the field of that which gives support to that center as "me", i.e.: thought

Yes, well put.

Juan E wrote:
how can one go from the particular to the whole

I would say, only by dropping the particular. That is, only by dropping any notion that "I am a Spanard" can I see that I am fundamentally a human being.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 05 Apr 2017 #18
Thumb_img_20150716_212047-1-1 richard viillar France 222 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
richard viillar wrote:

c'est la traduction que le cerveau fait des informations qui lui proviennent des sens
Bonjour Richard

Yes, thought is the brain responding to the input of the senses, but it also responds too itself, n'est pas?

Hi clive

Here i'm saying, That there is a prior process than thought which translate informations taken by senses...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 05 Apr 2017 #19
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 584 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Can we put it this way: part of what thought knows may be manifested in you and part manifested in me – and part in all the other brains.

What do you say?

Seeing the other angle you take I would say:
"Taking all he parts together will not create the whole !"
Isn't that the mistake humanity is making by collecting knowledge and act upon that by thinking it's the whole ?

Even science claiming the truth by believing they are right and belief is wrong and the other way around belief is claiming the truth by saying science is not all there is.

Clive Elwell wrote:
It plays both the boss and the servant..
It plays all roles, it is the entire cast of the play we think is life

Indeed, and in playing those roles in the play they are nothing more than a facade and not the whole house ! It even has no ground only a stage and a curtain where behind to appear and to disappear again !

Truth will unfold itself for those who enquire their own actions and only to them and for them and to or for no one else.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 05 Apr 2017 #20
Thumb_img_20150716_212047-1-1 richard viillar France 222 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
richard viillar wrote:

mais il y a plus profond comme illusion...
Can you say more on this, Richard, or are you basically repeating what you have said above/

oui... ce qu'évoque la pensée constitue l'illusion la plus visible, elle prend beaucoup de place, ceci dit, elle ne fait que manifester quelque chose d'antérieur, un support élaboré antérieurement à sa propre émergence.

la pensée est l'expression de la mémoire, mais la mémoire au départ, n'est pas l'expression de la pensée...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 06 Apr 2017 #21
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3808 posts in this forum Offline

richard viillar wrote:
Here i'm saying, That there is a prior process than thought which translate informations taken by senses...

I see. And are you saying this is an unconscious process?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 06 Apr 2017 #22
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3808 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
"Taking all he parts together will not create the whole !"

I agree. But there seems a real meaning in regarding thought at some sort of whole entity. A being in itself.

Wim Opdam wrote:
Isn't that the mistake humanity is making by collecting knowledge and act upon that by thinking it's the whole ?

Yes, I would say that thought continually works on the implicit assumption that the fragment it is, is the whole. That is the essence of the operation of the 'me'

This post was last updated by Clive Elwell Thu, 06 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 06 Apr 2017 #23
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3808 posts in this forum Offline

richard viillar wrote:
oui... ce qu'évoque la pensée constitue l'illusion la plus visible, elle prend beaucoup de place, ceci dit, elle ne fait que manifester quelque chose d'antérieur, un support élaboré antérieurement à sa propre émergence.
la pensée est l'expression de la mémoire, mais la mémoire au départ, n'est pas l'expression de la pensée...

Are you saying that memory is not stored as words? I know non-verbal memory exists, but are you saying that memory in itself is NEVER words?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 06 Apr 2017 #24
Thumb_img_20150716_212047-1-1 richard viillar France 222 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
And are you saying this is an unconscious process?

Yes...

Clive Elwell wrote:
Are you saying that memory is not stored as words?

That not conscious memory is not Words. The word is born with listening to the language. This memory is thé result of a mémorisation of something prior language.

Clive Elwell wrote:
are you saying that memory in itself is NEVER words?

Memory is a field, and the word is an information which çan be in this field as a lot of other informations... there are several lever of memory.

The process which im talking about is prior the thinking process. It constitute the first "level" of élaboration...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 06 Apr 2017 #25
Thumb_img_20150716_212047-1-1 richard viillar France 222 posts in this forum Offline

there is a prior process than thought which create the world..

This post was last updated by richard viillar Thu, 06 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 06 Apr 2017 #26
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 584 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
But there seems a real meaning in regarding thought at some sort of whole entity. A being in itself.

isn't that whit all entities ??

Take for example a clock, it's a whole in itself, a tool made up out of parts, giving you information about the time.
It would be ridiculous to say or the clock is saying it is or create time.

Time is of another order !!

there is btw a joke about a clock. A broken analoge clock gives you two times a day exactly the just the right time and a dialoge clock only one time that's why one should be better wearing an analoge clock !! And a working clock is just an approximation of it, you never be sure of it !!

Truth will unfold itself for those who enquire their own actions and only to them and for them and to or for no one else.

This post was last updated by Wim Opdam Thu, 06 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 06 Apr 2017 #27
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 397 posts in this forum Offline

richard viillar wrote:
This memory is thé result of a mémorisation of something prior language.

From which follows that images are not created by thought but are already there stored in memory, and what thought does is merely try to put those (stored) images into words to comunicate with other memory-minds ... is that what you're trying to say?

Now two interesting questions that have arised here if that is so:


  1. Who or what stores those images in memory as thought is not there according to you ("la pensée est l'expression de la mémoire, mais la mémoire au départ, n'est pas l'expression de la pensée.")?

  2. Is there a me without thought, even if images are stored in memory?

"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, 06 Apr 2017 #28
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 397 posts in this forum Offline

richard viillar wrote:
there is a prior process than thought which create the world..

I think i've never seen the importance of using a comma as in this statement! ... "there is a prior process than thought, which create the world" or "there is a prior process than thought which create the world"? ... i.e.: is thought which creates the world or this other process prior to 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
Thu, 06 Apr 2017 #29
Thumb_img_20150716_212047-1-1 richard viillar France 222 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
what stores those images in memory

Different networks and zones (cortex etc...).. it's like a screenshot which is redistribuate with thought

Juan E wrote:
Is there a me without thought, even if images are stored in memory?

it seems that there is two levels of a Me, an innate (other process) and an acquired (thought)

Juan E wrote:
is thought which creates the world or this other process prior to thought?

both.. first one is the support of the second...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 06 Apr 2017 #30
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 397 posts in this forum Offline

Sorry by my tedious questions but i am as i am (kind regards, Rip! ;-)

richard viillar wrote:
both.. first one is the support of the second

Why should something which is already created be re-created again -- at least both are incomplete and one completes the other and vice versa? ... But i don't think that you're saying that, so the question still is the same: why should the world be created two times?

EDIT: Is one of them true and false the other? ... Are they both false? ... Both true? ... Or neither false nor true?

"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 Thu, 06 Apr 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.)