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

What to do, when one sees that there is nothing to do?


Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 67 in total
Mon, 12 Jun 2017 #1
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3742 posts in this forum Offline

I was going to post this on the bottom of the "what can we do" thread, but Tom and Olive are having a discussion there. And also Tom introduced a new question, "What is right thinking?". So I will start a new thread, it may be the wrong decision.

We have had a long, moderately focused discussion on this issue, this thread – the issue being “What is there to do, what can be done?” I will attempt a summary, at least as I am seeing things at the moment.

It seems clear that psychologically there is nothing to be done. This is not a message of despair, pessimism, in fact it is the constant attempt to do something about our psychological state, our problems, our conflict, our unhappiness that IS actually our problems, our conflict, our unhappiness. So the seeing that there is nothing to do brings a sort of freedom.

What it means to “try to do something” needs to be looked at very very carefully. What is the mechanism of it? The mechanism seems to me to be that thought B 'attacks' thought A – for 'attacks' we can substitute condemns, criticises, analyses, rejects, accepts, disapproves, condones, tries to control,shape, modify, etc.

And then thought C does the same thing to thought B, and on the process goes, seemingly without end.

But the process is not experienced merely as a series of thoughts, it is experienced as thinker reacting to thought. The thinker being 'me'. I am sure you are all familiar with this mechanism.

I think it is clear that this process gets absolutely nowhere. There is no end to it. It does not solve problems, it continues them. The outcome of it – no, better say “what it represents” is a state of ongoing conflict in the mind. There is no peace in the mind, no harmony, because of this process.

Given that it is so counter productive, why does it continue? The only explanation I can offer at the moment is that we are conditioned to do it – it is an exceedingly strong conditioning, reinforced from birth almost. It seems to have been there a long long time. It has also been suggested that it is a matter of “covering up the void”.

Another way of explaining it is: thought A is always only a fragment. As such it is incomplete, and so unsatisfactory. Thought B is an attempt to make things more complete, more satisfactory. Thought B, as the me, pretends to be complete, to be whole, to clear up the mess – but thought B is still only a thought, and as such it is also a fragment, incomplete. And the search for completeness goes on, and on.

I pause, and the question forms in the mind, “what can we do about this situation?”. I am laughing at this.

A more reasonable question seems to be: “is the futility of this process truly seen?” Or are there hidden parts of the mind that still think they can do something? The movement, which is basically a movement of reaction, is very much part of human consciousness.

It seems to me that in facing the fact that one can't do anything, while still recognising that there does exist the strong conditioning to try to act psychologically, there is a tension. A tension which is not the same as conflict. It's not a battle, because the futility of battle has been seen. I feel there is something important in this tension, something significant. Perhaps we could look at this?

Another point of interest to me is the question “what exactly is this thought B (thought B really being the self, the me, of course). Where does it come from? Clearly it has its origins in the past. Some conclusion has been drawn, some experience has been had, and these are recorded in the mind. They become ideas, and ideals have the tendency to become ideals, “should be's”, or “should not be's”. They look at other fragments of thought from this vantage point. Is this not what gives rise to the whole business of “ what should be done” ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 12 Jun 2017 #2
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2000 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
A more reasonable question seems to be: “is the futility of this process truly seen?” Or are there hidden parts of the mind that still think they can do something? The movement, which is basically a movement of reaction, is very much part of human consciousness.

For sure this division in consciousness will persist until it's thoroughly understood. The 'me' fragment will try to act upon the 'not me' fragment. But do we see that anything we attempt to do about conflict is creating further conflict...a battle? That the inner division and fragmentation is what brings about conflict in the first place? ANY thought(thought A, in your example) in the 'psychological' realm is always functioning in opposition to another thought...thought B or C, etc, isn't it? It seems so obvious that one part of me battling against another part is insane because both parts are in fact 'me', and more importantly, because conflict in me cannot solve conflict in me. That violence is not a solution for violence.

Clive Elwell wrote:
Thought B, as the me, pretends to be complete, to be whole, to clear up the mess – but thought B is still only a thought, and as such it is also a fragment, incomplete.

And by definition, it's in opposition to ...divided from...the other fragment/s that it observes. "Division is conflict." (K)

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Mon, 12 Jun 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 12 Jun 2017 #3
Thumb_rodin_de_denker Olive B Netherlands 238 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
It seems so obvious that one part of me battling against another part is insane because both parts are in fact 'me',

Because it is impossible for thought B to attack thought A.

Thought A doesn’t exist when thought B is present.

And when thought C is present, thought A and B are not.

Experience alone must be the test of reality.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 12 Jun 2017 #4
Thumb_rodin_de_denker Olive B Netherlands 238 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
It has also been suggested that it is a matter of “covering up the void”.

Re #1

Thinking is covering the uncomfortable and too painful feelings we cannot face.

Experience alone must be the test of reality.

This post was last updated by Olive B Mon, 12 Jun 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 12 Jun 2017 #5
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2000 posts in this forum Offline

Olive B wrote:
Because it is impossible for thought B to attack thought A.

Thought A doesn’t exist when thought B is present.

I should have said, 'react to'....that's probably more accurate....a chain reaction.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 12 Jun 2017 #6
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2000 posts in this forum Offline

Olive B wrote:
Thinking is covering the uncomfortable and too painful feelings we cannot face.

Thinking has created them as well.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 12 Jun 2017 #7
Thumb_rodin_de_denker Olive B Netherlands 238 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
'react to

Re#5

It is not the word it is the fact that when thought B is present, thought A isn’t present.

So thought B cannot attack/react thought A.

Experience alone must be the test of reality.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 12 Jun 2017 #8
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2000 posts in this forum Offline

Now you deny that reactions are real? What do u think they are caused by if not thought?

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 12 Jun 2017 #9
Thumb_rodin_de_denker Olive B Netherlands 238 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Thinking has created them as well

Re#6

I mean the feeling of lack, and the feeling there is something missing, before thought.

Experience alone must be the test of reality.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 12 Jun 2017 #10
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2000 posts in this forum Offline

Olive: I mean the feeling of lack, and the feeling there is something missing, before thought

T: Those are a product of thought...or perhaps physical hunger or thirst....some disequilibrium in the body. Not sure about this point

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 12 Jun 2017 #11
Thumb_rodin_de_denker Olive B Netherlands 238 posts in this forum Offline

Olive B wrote:
I mean the feeling of lack, and the feeling there is something missing, before thought.

Thinking is a distraction in order to attract our attention away from the discomfort of the feeling and give it something to busy itself with.

Experience alone must be the test of reality.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 12 Jun 2017 #12
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2000 posts in this forum Offline

I question #11 and 9, Olive. Thinking is also 'you' and 'me', and good vs bad, right vs wrong, belief, ideal, pleasure and fear, and so on. Do you relate all that and more to what you maintain above in #11?

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Mon, 12 Jun 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 13 Jun 2017 #13
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3742 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
That the inner division and fragmentation is what brings about conflict in the first place?

Which means that every psychological movement, reaction, that I make only creates conflict - no matter what the intention of tht movement was. Yes, can we see this whenever it arises?

Tom Paine wrote:
It seems so obvious that one part of me battling against another part is insane because both parts are in fact 'me'

Yes Tom, with you in everything you say. And by extension we have created a global society that is an exact reflection of the inner insanity.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 13 Jun 2017 #14
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3742 posts in this forum Offline

Olive B wrote:
Thinking is covering the uncomfortable and too painful feelings we cannot face.

Strange, even wierd that you write this here, Olive. It is exactly what I lived through yesterday. Writing to someone I felt an increasing openness, vulnerability. A mixture of feeling started to grow, to multiply inside me. Including fear that I would be somehow "overwhelmed" by the feelings. And yes, one eventually found refuge in words, in describing, analysing the phenomena. And so never lived the feelings to completion.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 13 Jun 2017 #15
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3742 posts in this forum Offline

Olive B wrote:
Because it is impossible for thought B to attack thought A.
Thought A doesn’t exist when thought B is present.
And when thought C is present, thought A and B are not.

This is interesting. It is true, as far as I have ever observed, that only one thought can manifest at any given moment. So thought A and thought B do no co-exist.

Now you say, Olive, that this means it is not possible for one thought to attack another. We are using the word "attack" loosely. Hmmm...I do not see this. it seems that thought B arises in the mind as a reaction to thought A. Why cannot this be described as B attacking A?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 13 Jun 2017 #16
Thumb_rodin_de_denker Olive B Netherlands 238 posts in this forum Offline

Olive B wrote:

Olive B wrote:

I mean the feeling of lack, and the feeling there is something missing, before thought.

Thinking is a distraction in order to attract our attention away from the discomfort of the feeling and give it something to busy itself with.

Re#12

The feeling of lack and the feeling there is something missing is before thought superimposes on awareness/consciousness.

Experience alone must be the test of reality.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 13 Jun 2017 #17
Thumb_rodin_de_denker Olive B Netherlands 238 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
it seems that thought B arises in the mind as a reaction to thought A.

Re#15

It doesn’t matter what word you use, attack or love.

When thought B arises, thought A is not present.

And when thought C is present, thought A and B are not.

Experience alone must be the test of reality.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 13 Jun 2017 #18
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2000 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Which means that every psychological movement, reaction, that I make only creates conflict - no matter what the intention of that movement was. Yes, can we see this whenever it arises?

Yes. It's always a movement of a fragment or fragments in opposition to other fragments, because any thought itself is a fragment....never whole....can never perceive the whole problem and only perpetuates it by opposing (battling with) another fragment(idea, thought, emotion). How can conflict (between fragments in consciousness) solve the problem of conflict?

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 13 Jun 2017 #19
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2000 posts in this forum Offline

Olive B wrote:
When thought B arises, thought A is not present.

But in a sense it is, Olive. If I'm craving another beer (thought A....'I want another beer), thought B recalls that thought and battles against it, saying to myself, 'I should control my desire....my drinking.' 'I should NOT have another beer!" These kind of battles are happening all the time when there's inner conflict. And something similar is what's creating conflict in the world, no?

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Tue, 13 Jun 2017 #20
Thumb_stringio Heather Strong United States 15 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

aren't these simply choices?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 13 Jun 2017 #21
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2000 posts in this forum Offline

Heather Strong wrote:
aren't these simply choices?

A vs B, you mean? Can choice solve the problem of violence...of inner turmoil...of anger....conflict between man and his fellow man? If I choose fragment A, doesn't fragment B react? If not consciously, then unconsciously? I say 'I should be non-violent.' 'I will choose to be peaceful.' Is the problem of violence now solved?

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Tue, 13 Jun 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 13 Jun 2017 #22
Thumb_rodin_de_denker Olive B Netherlands 238 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
thought A....'I want another beer), thought B recalls that thought and battles against it, saying to myself, 'I should control my desire....my drinking.' 'I should NOT have another beer!"

Re#19

Thought A arises.

Thought A: 'I want another beer.

Thought A: disappear.

Thought B arises.

Thought B: 'I should control my desire....my drinking.' 'I should NOT have another beer!"

Thought B: disappear.

Thought B is just an other thought, it is not battling thought A, it is just the next thought superimposing on awareness/consciousness.

Experience alone must be the test of reality.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 13 Jun 2017 #23
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 398 posts in this forum Offline

Olive,

If A and B are not in conflict, what is the source of conflict? Why don't I just drink the beer without feeling conflicted? Or why don't I NOT drink the beer without feeling conflicted?

Whether it is conflict between "you" and "me" or thought "A" and "B" (and "C"....), isn't conflict between thought fragments? If not, what is the source of conflict?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 13 Jun 2017 #24
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2000 posts in this forum Offline

Olive B wrote:
Thought B is just an other thought, it is not battling thought A, it is just the next thought superimposing on awareness/consciousness.

Do you see some deep meaning here in your proposition Olive, which you continue to hold fast to? I'm missing the significance of it. You seem to be avoiding the fact of inner conflict created by the fragmentation in consciousness....outer conflict as well, of course....republicans(idea/s) battling democrats (other ideas) continually in the news.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Tue, 13 Jun 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 13 Jun 2017 #25
Thumb_rodin_de_denker Olive B Netherlands 238 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
what is the source of conflict?

Re#23

Thought superimposing on awareness/consciousness is the source of conflict.

Experience alone must be the test of reality.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 13 Jun 2017 #26
Thumb_rodin_de_denker Olive B Netherlands 238 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
deep meaning

Re#24

This is (I think) easy enough to check it for your self.

Tom Paine wrote:
inner conflict

Well, if you think that thought B which is battling thought A is the source of the inner conflict, it isn’t.

That is what you want to know, the source of conflict.

Experience alone must be the test of reality.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 13 Jun 2017 #27
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 398 posts in this forum Offline

25:

Olive B wrote:
Thought superimposing on awareness/consciousness is the source of conflict.

Superimposing. What does that mean? "Thought" as in "I want a beer" or "I mustn't drink beer"? I drink or don't drink, then it's over. Where or what is the conflict in either of these on its own? Thought says, "It's time to cook dinner", then it's done and over. No?

Or do you mean something else? Do you mean that there's conflict between thought and awareness?

This post was last updated by Huguette . Tue, 13 Jun 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 13 Jun 2017 #28
Thumb_de4 Dan McDermott United States 740 posts in this forum Online

Olive B wrote:
the source of conflict.

You have to consider 'desire', psychological 'craving' creates conflict.What I want and what I don't want.

Reminds me of K. saying "You want to know my secret? I don't mind what happens."

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 13 Jun 2017 #29
Thumb_stringio Heather Strong United States 15 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Tom Paine wrote:
" Is the problem of violence now solved?"

It could be if everyone made the same choice.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 13 Jun 2017 #30
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 398 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
" Is the problem of violence now solved?"

Heather Strong wrote:
It could be if everyone made the same choice.

Just because I make the choice to be non-violent does not mean that violence is ended in me. Anger, hate, violence still arise in me. And the inner state or condition flows outwardly and meets resistance or reaction there... inwardly,outwardly, back and forth. Isn't one movement?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 67 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.)