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

The flowering of thought


Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 50 in total
Thu, 15 Jun 2017 #1
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3370 posts in this forum Offline

I don't claim to understand this issue either, Tom, which may be the best place to approach it - anew.

If a thought is born, expresses itself completely, without any interruption, without any form of censorship, control ..... will it not come to an end? And is that not a form of 'completion"?

There is no claim that it is not a fragment, no claim that this thought expresses everything - that is clearly impossible. But still it has finished, it has had its day - so it is complete, no?

This post was last updated by Clive Elwell Thu, 15 Jun 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 15 Jun 2017 #2
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 501 posts in this forum Offline

Hi Clive,

I see you already opened a new thread on this issue, ;-)
but is it the right question or is the question wrongly formulated ?

because the question: 'Can thoughts be allowed to flower?' seems to have an entity to allow it to flower and the flowering of thoughts is a movement without choice.

When I recall what happened on the Dutch retread something like this was going on but it came withouth me doing anything.
it's a state of mind where the mind seems te be capable of multitasking - yes I know it's badly formulated but this is the nearest I now can come up with.

This state of mind - which I give the name 'awareness' - seems to be as well stay in silence as well hearing, feeling, noticing what's going on at the same time you realize you can't invite it and can stop it immidiatly.

So the short answer is: yes it can, but without ' be allowed to '!!

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
Thu, 15 Jun 2017 #3
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3370 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
because the question: 'Can thoughts be allowed to flower?' seems to have an entity to allow it to flower and the flowering of thoughts is a movement without choice.

Yes Wim, the same question has been with me.

I will change the topic heading.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 15 Jun 2017 #4
Thumb_rodin_de_denker Olive B Netherlands 168 posts in this forum Offline

May be before we go into this, we first have to establish what thought is.

Where is thought made of?

Experience alone must be the test of reality.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Thu, 15 Jun 2017 #5
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 501 posts in this forum Offline

Olive B wrote:
Where is thought made of?

Sorry, I thought you already knew that ;-)
but indeed that is based on nothing or ....
you are playing a game of not knowing where we are talking about.

So let us start with a description:

The Network of Thought Chapter 8 | 1st Public Talk Amsterdam 19th September 1981

Thought is born of experience and knowledge, and there is nothing sacred whatsoever about thought. Thinking is materialistic, it is a process of matter.

We must find out - if it is possible or not - whether there is a different dimension, a different approach, to life altogether. And that is why it is important to understand the nature of our thinking. Our thinking is based on remembrance of things past - which is thinking about what happened a week ago, thinking about it modified in the present, and projected into the future. This is actually the movement of our life. So knowledge has become all-important for us but knowledge is never complete. Therefore knowledge always lives within the shadow of ignorance. That is a fact. It is not the speaker's invention or conclusion, but it is so.

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
Thu, 15 Jun 2017 #6
Thumb_a1056283319_2 Tom Paine United States 1687 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
If a thought is born, expresses itself completely, without any interruption, without any form of censorship, control ..... will it not come to an end? And is that not a form of 'completion"?

That's a big "if" in there Clive! Normally one thought leads to another in a kind of 'chain reaction'. What might occur which would alter that chain of events...thought?

There is no claim that it is not a fragment, no claim that this thought expresses everything - that is clearly impossible. But still it has finished, it has had its day - so it is complete, no?

It's finished perhaps, but I question the meaning of 'complete' here...unless you simply mean another word for finished....over....for now.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Thu, 15 Jun 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 15 Jun 2017 #7
Thumb_rodin_de_denker Olive B Netherlands 168 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
Sorry, I thought you already knew that ;-)

You can wink all you like, I had rather you grew up Wim!

If we want some answers we have to go to the root of things.

Why did you cut out your answer Wim???
Luckely i had it copied:

WIM:Thought is born of experience and knowledge, and there is nothing sacred whatsoever about thought. Thinking is materialistic, it is a process of matter.

OLIVE:The biggest element of experience is awareness/consciousness.
Experience is knowing-being: We know there is something there.

Not sure what “knowledge” is doing in your sentence, Wim.

So thought is “born” out of knowing-being thus awareness/consciousness.

Wim Opdam wrote:
So let us start with a description:

We better start with our own experience instead of copy-paste K, and figure out what he is meaning?

Experience alone must be the test of reality.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 15 Jun 2017 #8
Thumb_a1056283319_2 Tom Paine United States 1687 posts in this forum Offline

Olive B wrote:
Not sure what “knowledge” is doing in your sentence, Wim.

That was Wim quoting K. So it was K saying that thought is born of experience and knowledge. Or did I get all this quoting mixed up somehow?

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 15 Jun 2017 #9
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 501 posts in this forum Offline

Olive B wrote:
You can wink all you like, I had rather you grew up Wim!

If we want some answers we have to go to the root of things.

Why did you cut out your answer Wim???
Luckely i had it copied:

Is there something hurt here ??

On what is that based ??
Under another name in another tread based on thought ??

There was nothing cut nor changed but you seem to be angry based on what Olive
or must I presume Jean ??
I don't know.... but considering its history, this comment is very plausible.
Otherwise, I have no idea what you are talking about.

Wim Opdam wrote:

Olive B wrote:

Where is thought made of?

Sorry, I thought you already knew that ;-)

but indeed that is based on nothing or ....
you are playing a game of not knowing where we are talking about.

for proper 'understanding'....already this part of the reply is expressed thought and no different from the qoute from krishnamurti but it need some intelligence to understand that.

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
Thu, 15 Jun 2017 #10
Thumb_rodin_de_denker Olive B Netherlands 168 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
Olive
or must I presume Jean ??

To whom are you talking Wim? Who is Jean?

Experience alone must be the test of reality.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 16 Jun 2017 #11
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3370 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
What might occur which would alter that chain of events...thought?

This is certainly a big question.

The chain consists of a series if reactions of thought to previous thoughts, does it not? So if there is no reaction, I think we can say the chain is broken. There may still be thought, obviously we need some thought, but I suggest that thought would not then be "an endless chain"

As we have said so many times, thought B, the present thought, is always in the guise of the thinker, the centre, the controller, the analyser. It is always pretending not to be thought. It pretends to me, a me that is separate from thought, superior to thought. This is false.

If this falseness is seen, does this not start to break the chain? Since the chain is based on falseness.

Tom Paine wrote:
It's finished perhaps, but I question the meaning of 'complete' here...unless you simply mean another word for finished....over....for now.

Completed does mean finished, does it not? As for the "for now" - that is just speculation, isn't it? That is not really an issue. A single thought cannot speak "for ever".

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 16 Jun 2017 #12
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3370 posts in this forum Offline

Olive B wrote:
OLIVE:The biggest element of experience is awareness/consciousness.
Experience is knowing-being: We know there is something there.

Olive, in the English language, "experience" and "experiencing" are very different things. One might almost say they are opposites. I think Huguette went into this, did she not?

To experience is to have an experience. An experience is something that is recorded and registered in the brain. It becomes memory. It is very much part of "knowledge", although an experience might have non-verbal parts. but it is always in the past.

Experiencing, on the other hand, is always in the present. It is hard to describe what it IS, but it is not memory, it is a direct contact with the present, a direct living. I think without separation of the me being involved. Yes, we can use the word "be-ing"

Perhaps one can equate awareness with experiencing, but one cannot equate awareness with experience.

It's just a question of language. Perhaps every English speaker would not agree, but this how K generally used the words.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 16 Jun 2017 #13
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3370 posts in this forum Offline

Dan wrote:
I would say yes. I brought this up on John R.'s forum, that it's easy to say "follow every thought" but my experience and reaction always was "are you kidding?" John recounted, that in private someone asked K. if he followed every thought and he said: "no, there are too many of them."(!)

This seems to infer that K was a hypocrite, does it not?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 16 Jun 2017 #14
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 623 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
This seems to infer that K was a hypocrite, does it not?

I don't think so...there are a lot of them, just follow as many as you can.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 16 Jun 2017 #15
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 501 posts in this forum Offline

Olive B wrote:

Wim Opdam wrote:
Olive, or must I presume Jean ??

To whom are you talking Wim? Who is Jean?

Is that really an interessant question ?

I don't know and I don't care and it would create a chain of thoughts which leads to nowhere.

But what someone said and by what motives he is driven is another question.

So is my reply driven by intelligence or thought ? That's for me to investigate.

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 Fri, 16 Jun 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 16 Jun 2017 #16
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3370 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
there are a lot of them, just follow as many as you can.

He used to recommend writing them down, did he not? That seems an even more impossible task!

"A lot of them" - they are potentially infinite in number, no?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 16 Jun 2017 #17
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3370 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
So isn't it this 'hands off' (open) attitude that is new, a new relationship to thought? Let them come, say what they want, and then watch them go? (We have no control over them anyway!)

I recognise what you say, Dan. When thought has no particular task to perform, and when there is a certain amount of space, this is how thoughts are. I am not sure what it is that has this attitude to thought - the state is characterised by the on-going realisation that there is ONLY thought, is it not?

There is certainly no control over them. "I", whatever that is, cannot say what the next thought will be. And when a thought has come and gone, pointless as it may be, it has not done any harm, has it?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 16 Jun 2017 #18
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 623 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
the state is characterised by the on-going realisation that there is ONLY thought, is it not?

I would say it this way, where there was only thought, now there is also a question: why?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Fri, 16 Jun 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 16 Jun 2017 #19
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 623 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
There is certainly no control over them. "I", whatever that is, cannot say what the next thought will be. And when a thought has come and gone, pointless as it may be, it has not done any harm, has it?

No, control is out of the question. There is no 'controller'. The french psychiatrist Hubert Benoit, author of 'The Supreme Doctrine' went into the process of thinking deeply in his book 'Lacher Prise!' (Let Go!) describing thoughts, that they come unbidden as if "through a trap-door". He got himself into some serious mental trouble trying to 'control' thought; I was told by someone who knew him..

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Fri, 16 Jun 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 16 Jun 2017 #20
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 623 posts in this forum Offline

This on 'thought' from John R's latest Mary Z posting:

I remember another discussion. This was the final discussion. It was again on the subject of thought and the difficulty of letting go of thought. I found that impossible. Krishnaji said something quite extraordinary which made the whole thing clear to me. He used the metaphor of the drum that is silent—the silence was necessary. “Thought is the un-tuning of the drum,” he said. And he also said, “What happens when you put thought aside? Turn your back on it?” I again replied that I couldn’t do it and said, “How does one turn away even when the futility of that is seen?” He said, “You mean you’re in thought and you can’t get out? Why do you insist on that?”
All I could do was just be stuck. And then he did something quite remarkable. All of sudden he said to me, “Mrs. Zimbalist, is beauty thought?” And that broke it for me. I saw that. That isn’t thought. It was like a blinding light all of a sudden.
I remember also that at the end of that discussion, he said, “If you could see the beauty of the empty drum tuned and out of that, action comes.” I said, “Yes, I see.”
And then when he said goodbye, he said, “Hold onto that drum!”

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 16 Jun 2017 #21
Thumb_a1056283319_2 Tom Paine United States 1687 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Clive Elwell wrote:

There is certainly no control over them. "I", whatever that is, cannot say what the next thought will be. And when a thought has come and gone, pointless as it may be, it has not done any harm, has it?
No, control is out of the question. There is no 'controller'.

But thought always wants to...tries to... be in control, doesn't it? It tries to maintain this control by constantly asserting its authority. This asserting is very persistent!

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Fri, 16 Jun 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 16 Jun 2017 #22
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 623 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
But thought always wants to...tries to... be in control, doesn't it? It tries to maintain this by constantly asserting its authority.

It plays both roles doesn't it, the controller and the controlled? It 'feeds' itself endlessly it seems. I think seeing that totally how it works is the 'awakening' of intelligence. Otherwise as you say it will remain in 'authority'.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 16 Jun 2017 #23
Thumb_ws_hp-wave_2560x1600 Mina Martini Finland 572 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Dan:I think seeing that totally how it works is the 'awakening' of intelligence.

(it=thought)

Mina: Yes, that is the flowering of thought which is in no separation from the awakening of intelligence.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 16 Jun 2017 #24
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 623 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
Mina: Yes, that is the flowering of thought which is in no separation from the awakening of intelligence

As in the 'seeing' is the 'awakening'? It is the intelligence that 'sees'.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Fri, 16 Jun 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 16 Jun 2017 #25
Thumb_a1056283319_2 Tom Paine United States 1687 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
As in the 'seeing' is the 'awakening'?

And 'I' can't bring about that seeing....that intelligence...because I am thought.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 16 Jun 2017 #26
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 623 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
And 'I' can't bring about that seeing....that intelligence...because I am thought.

Right but don't let that stop you from trying.;) 'Intelligence' it seems has been 'asleep' for a long time. Everything has been tried to awaken it, different kinds of meditation, prayers, chanting, fasting, self-flagellation, asceticism, drugs, retiring from the world etc. And as I think you are pointing out, they fail because it is the ego's desire (greed) for a different psychological place that is usually behind the 'search'. It is the one 'craving' that goes unidentified, the 'self' is behind all the action... And yet something it seems needs to be 'done'. What?

One way K. answered it in 1947:

" (..) Self-knowledge is not the knowledge of some supreme self, which is still within the field of the mind, but the knowledge of yourself in your daily action, what you do every day, what you feel, what you think every moment. This requires extraordinary alertness, does it not? There must be constant alertness to pursue every thought, every feeling and to know all their contents. From self-knowledge comes right thinking, therefore, right action which is really extremely simple when you are aware, but extremely difficult when you talk theoretically about it. Most of us are so callous about everything, about life itself, that we would rather discuss what is self-knowledge than be aware."

I've always taken his statements about lack of sensitivity, lack of alertness, callousness as in the above as a kind of indictment. But I recall that he himself was never 'conditioned'. He even brought it up wondering how the boy (K.) had escaped being 'conditioned'. I think I have to keep that in mind when reading the above (though I am in agreement) because if he was never conditioned, he never had to 'overcome' that situation in himself. Which means that the efforts of one who has been conditioned is something he can only know second-hand. That situation the conditioned one is in that makes him feel that "watch every thought, feeling" would be something of a 'miracle'.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Fri, 16 Jun 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 16 Jun 2017 #27
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3370 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
I don't think so...there are a lot of them, just follow as many as you can.

It is not just a matter of there being too many thoughts, is it? With all the thoughts pressing for existence in the consciousness mind, some appear as clear, distinct, while others are faint, indistinct, somehow unable to put a clear meaning into consciousness. I assume that such hazy, unmanifested thoughts, not quite recognisable, exist in what is generally called the subconscious mind?

Any comments Dan, or anyone?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 16 Jun 2017 #28
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 623 posts in this forum Offline

Hi Clive,

This just came up for me a short while ago, sitting quietly with the intention to watch thought. AS the thoughts started to move around usually about 'sitting', "what will come up"? etc I'm able to just watch whatever it is, whatever it's about...lose it and then its back. questions arise like "whose watching who here?" "Is thought watching itself?"etc. it goes on like that and then along comes a thought and 'wipes' the whole thing out, it feels like whoever was there a moment ago watching has now disappeared 'inside' (become?) this new thought(s) and has been 'swept away'. Now there's only the 'thinking', no 'watcher'. (I'm not bothering about pronouns etc just trying to convey the feeling of the 'change') and then 'I''m back and pick it up at the next thought...if that makes any sense.

What I take to be 'important' in this exercise, meditation, is the absence of any suppression or judgement regarding the thoughts that appear. No goal, no success or failure... like a mirror (I thought of this analogy today) a mirror that simply reflects what comes in front of it nothing more. Always interesting!

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Fri, 16 Jun 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 16 Jun 2017 #29
Thumb_a1056283319_2 Tom Paine United States 1687 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
. And as I think you are pointing out, they fail because it is the ego's desire (greed) for a different psychological place that is usually behind the 'search'

It’s an action of the 'me'..of limited thought...based upon the past. In essence, it's no different than striving to become rich or famous. Do we see that? Am I mistaken? Do we think our striving is more noble than the wannabe rock star? Is it really so? Instead of wanting to be another Elvis (that dates me, eh?) we want to be like K? As one Buddhist teacher once said, 'It's like trying to wash blood off your hands with blood.' Ttying to rid oneself of ego is like that, isn't it?

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Fri, 16 Jun 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 17 Jun 2017 #30
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 623 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
It’s an action of the 'me'..of limited thought...based upon the past. In essence, it's no different than striving to become rich or famous. Do we see that? Am I mistaken? Do we think our striving is more noble than the wannabe rock star? Is it really so? Instead of wanting to be another Elvis (that dates me, eh?) we want to be like K? As one Buddhist teacher once said, 'It's like trying to wash blood off your hands with blood.' Ttying to rid oneself of ego is like that, isn't it?

Hi Tom,

I think that that is the case, we want the 'reward' that's how we are conditioned... so knowing that, go for it and there'll be plenty of time to 'negate' it, see it, along the way. But if you wait until your motive is 'pure', you'll wait forever.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sat, 17 Jun 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 50 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.)