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

The flowering of thought


Displaying posts 31 - 50 of 50 in total
Sat, 17 Jun 2017 #31
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3370 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 control by constantly asserting its authority. This asserting is very persistent!

No one said that thought is rational! Yes, apparently it has been engaged in the business of trying to control itself for thousands of years, and I see no evidence it has ever succeeded. And what would it mean if it could?

Is not this control what conventional meditation is about?

But strange that thought has never really seen its own contradictions.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 17 Jun 2017 #32
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3370 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Right but don't let that stop you from trying.;)

I think this is important. Perhaps better to jump into something, with no expectation of a specific outcome, and see what learning it brings, that to everlastingly muse about it.

K used to talk about "asking an impossible question", did he not?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 17 Jun 2017 #33
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3370 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Which means that the efforts of one who has been conditioned is something he can only know second-hand.

yes, I have often suspected that this was a weakness of K. He never appreciated just how deeply the average person was lost in the illusions of the mind. He could not know how incredibly difficult it was/ is to extricate oneself.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 17 Jun 2017 #34
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 501 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:

Dan McDermott wrote:

Which means that the efforts of one who has been conditioned is something he can only know second-hand.

yes, I have often suspected that this was a weakness of K.
He never appreciated just how deeply the average person was lost in the illusions of the mind. He could not know how incredibly difficult it was/ is to extricate oneself.

I really doubt that.

Second hand ??
Are you saying he was from birth on different from the rest of mankind and stayed that way ?

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
Sat, 17 Jun 2017 #35
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 623 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
Are you saying he was from birth on different from the rest of mankind and stayed that way ?

I can't know anything about that. But as a child he says he (K) somehow escaped being 'conditioned'.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 17 Jun 2017 #36
Thumb_a1056283319_2 Tom Paine United States 1687 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
But if you wait until your motive is 'pure', you'll wait forever.

True enough, Dan. Trying to purify or be 'pure' is only more pollution. May come back to your point later. I see there's some more posts on this thread I haven't had time to read yet.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 17 Jun 2017 #37
Thumb_a1056283319_2 Tom Paine United States 1687 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Wim Opdam wrote:

Are you saying he was from birth on different from the rest of mankind and stayed that way ?
I can't know anything about that. But as a child he says he (K) somehow escaped being 'conditioned'.

Yes. I read the same. That might mean he never felt the extremes of emotional conflict the rest of us know all too well. He wasn't raised by an alcoholic, emotionally abusive parent... or brainwashed by strict, 'moralistic', fundamentalist Jews or Christians. The conditioning in school never stuck even though he was beaten for being so 'slow'. The Theosophical society conditioning never caused him deep conflict I don't think, either. Yet he was able to talk so clearly about our emotional conflicts and understand their causes. Amazing that he could do that.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Sat, 17 Jun 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 17 Jun 2017 #38
Thumb_a1056283319_2 Tom Paine United States 1687 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
yes, I have often suspected that this was a weakness of K. He never appreciated just how deeply the average person was lost in the illusions of the mind. He could not know how incredibly difficult it was/ is to extricate oneself.

Probably true, since he never was trapped/lost in conditioning in the first place.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 17 Jun 2017 #39
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 319 posts in this forum Offline

I remember an interview once with Krishnaji, when I told him I want him I wanted to discuss my problem. The problem was that I wanted to give up smoking. And he said to me, "Miss Pratt, you've been talking to me about your problem, but really there are four things: there's one, the fact is that you smoke. Then there comes the myth that you smoke and like it. The second is the myth that you wish you didn't smoke, and then comes the ideal, you wish you could be the ideal, somebody who had never smoked; and fourthly there is the inner emptiness that makes one either smoke, or go in for sex or anything else. So that you had a struggle between the fact, and the emptiness and in the middle was the myth", and then he said, "By Jove, I had a myth once." He said, "I had the myth that I was to be the world teacher when I really was an ordinary young man. At that time -and I wanted to do everything that a young wants to do: fall in love, get on a motorbike, race around- I was just a young man. I had a struggle between the myth and the fact."

(Evelyn Blau: "KRISHNAMURTI, 100 YEARS" P.148 - from an interview with Doris Pratt, organizer of Krishnamurti talks, London)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 18 Jun 2017 #40
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3370 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
Are you saying he was from birth on different from the rest of mankind and stayed that way ?

This is a question that he inquires into a lot. I have read some of that inquiry, with David Bohm, in "Truth, Actuality and the Limits of Thought", and also in "The Ending of Time". I don't think he ever came to a definitive conclusion. At time he stated that he was unable to find out what he really was, his place in this world.

Bohm said, on reading the biography by Lutyens, that there did not seem to be a point of transformation.

This post was last updated by Clive Elwell Sun, 18 Jun 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 18 Jun 2017 #41
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3370 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
And yet something it seems needs to be 'done'. What?

I would put that differently:

There has to be change. How can this come about?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 18 Jun 2017 #42
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3370 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
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!

Thanks for sharing this, Dan.

Always interesting indeed, if the word “always” means anything in such meditation.

Whatever the intentions might have been at the start, I find they instantly drop way. All thought are continually dropping away, in fact, in this state – and throughout the day come to that, although perhaps not so intensely.

“and then along comes a thought and 'wipes' the whole thing out, ”

Do you mean, Dan, that the CONTENT of this thought is such that it wipes everything 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.

It makes a certain amount of sense to me. Maybe complete sense. Can I put it this way: the myth of the thinker/thought separation is continually revealed, and that revelation does the wiping away?

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...

And yet these things, suppression, judgement, goals concepts of success and failure are actually embedded in thought itself, are they not? In fact the very concept of the “me” itself is embedded in thought. But as the “me” concept is shaken, as it withers, continuity, certainty and permanence wither with it.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 18 Jun 2017 #43
Thumb_a1056283319_2 Tom Paine United States 1687 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Dan: 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...

Clive: And yet these things, suppression, judgement, goals concepts of success and failure are actually embedded in thought itself, are they not? In fact the very concept of the “me” itself is embedded in thought

Tom: Yes! Good observation. I am all that, and I attempt to watch without it. But I am it....'the thinker is the thought' Any movement of thought here is like the dog chasing its own tail.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 18 Jun 2017 #44
Thumb_rodin_de_denker Olive B Netherlands 168 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
In fact the very concept of the “me” itself is embedded in thought.

Re#42

Not at the base of though it self, Clive.

The illusory separate self comes as a after-thought and claimes to be the desider/doer.

Experience alone must be the test of reality.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 18 Jun 2017 #45
Thumb_a1056283319_2 Tom Paine United States 1687 posts in this forum Offline

Olive B wrote:
The illusory separate self comes as a after-thought and claimes to be the desider/doer.

What about the thought, 'I am bad..or inferior ...or a sinner'....or 'you are this or that'? Those thoughts are the self, no? Whether I claim them or not.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 19 Jun 2017 #46
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3370 posts in this forum Offline

Olive B wrote Re#42:

Clive: In fact the very concept of the “me” itself is embedded in thought.

Olive: Not at the base of though it self, Clive.

Olive, I hope you do not mind my adjusting your English a bit, I take it that you are saying:

"Not at the base of thought itself"

Are you asking what comes first, thought or the thinker? I'm looking at this. It seems to me that it is true the thinker is not the base of practical thought, information-based thought. The basis of such thought is memory, which is ultimately based on experience, isn't it? But the thinker is the base of psychological thought.

I am not saying memory and experience are not involved. but the thinker, the self, the me, "holds thought together" It provides the dimension of time. Without the self, thought is merely a series of mental reactions which have no continuity. When one quietly looks at them, (see the exchange between Dan and myself above) they are in a state of disintegration, they are continually evaporating. They have no permanency in themselves.

But when there is identification of thought and the self, this confers permanency on thought. So in this sense the thinker is at the base of thought.

I shoud make it clear that this identification process is based on illusion. And as such it can be seen through.

Olive B wrote:
The illusory separate self comes as a after-thought and claimes to be the desider/doer.

Yes, this is the process that has been discussed recently, of thought B reacting to thought A

This post was last updated by Clive Elwell Mon, 19 Jun 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 19 Jun 2017 #47
Thumb_rodin_de_denker Olive B Netherlands 168 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Without the self, thought is merely a series of mental reactions which have no continuity.

Re#46

I agree with you and Dan that thought starts and stops, there is no continuity.

Clive Elwell wrote:
But when there is identification of thought and the self, this confers permanency on thought. So in this sense the thinker is at the base of thought.

I don’t see the identification of thought and the self, as prove that thought has a continuity.

When a thought comes to an end, the mind immediately rises up again and creates a ‘filler’ thought.

With this ‘filler’ thought the apparent separate self is created.

The separate self claims to be the creator of the thought and of the previous thought.

In this way it seems that thought is a continuous flow, but it is not.

Experience alone must be the test of reality.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 19 Jun 2017 #48
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 501 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
This is a question that he inquires into a lot. I have read some of that inquiry, with David Bohm, in "Truth, Actuality and the Limits of Thought", and also in "The Ending of Time". I don't think he ever came to a definitive conclusion. At time he stated that he was unable to find out what he really was, his place in this world.

Bohm said, on reading the biography by Lutyens, that there did not seem to be a point of transformation.

If this question after a lot of inquiries not became a clear conclusion why conclude his speaking of thought must be second hand ??.

It seems to me that #40 bares more the load of second hand.

But as always I could be wrong.

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
Tue, 20 Jun 2017 #49
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3370 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
It seems to me that #40 bares more the load of second hand.

It seems to me, Wim, that ALL thought is second hand. that is its nature. There is no such thing as original thought, and I do not claim that there is anything original in my post #40.

But actually I was not the one who said K's words were based on second hand experience.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 20 Jun 2017 #50
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3370 posts in this forum Offline

Olive B and Clive wrote:

Clive: But when there is identification of thought and the self, this confers permanency on thought. So in this sense the thinker is at the base of thought.

Olive: I don’t see the identification of thought and the self, as prove that thought has a continuity.

I did not say this, Olive, I did not say that identification PROVES thought has a continuity. I said the self , with its identifications, CONFERS permanency on thought. But it would have been better to say it APPEARS to confer permanency.

I think the origins of the self, way back and ever in the present, lie in thought's true perception that it is impermanent. It cannot hold on to itself. It is forever slipping away, and in this there is pain. So thought invented something it could consider permanent, which was the self. It conferred (or tried to confer) the property of permanence on this self. Perhaps "continuity is a better word than "permanency". The self was the same yesterday, today, and will be the same tomorrow. At least this was thought's wish, thought's intention, and thought proceeded on that basis. Thought, identifying with the self, could consider itself permanent, continuous.

It was illusion, but it was an illusion with some use in the practical world. But psychologically it proved a disaster.

What do you say?

This post was last updated by Clive Elwell Tue, 20 Jun 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 31 - 50 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.)