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

What is experience?


Displaying posts 31 - 60 of 115 in total
Mon, 05 Feb 2018 #31
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2109 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Tom Paine wrote:

I hope to come back to this later.

Please do so, Tom.

I just wrote a fairly long reply and then I lost it. The browser tab just closed itself...poof! and it was gone. This tablet of mine can be very frustrating! I will have to start all over again later or tomorrow. I hate touch screens, but due to back problems/pain I'm often forced to use my tablet for browsing and typing.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 05 Feb 2018 #32
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2109 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
Sorry for whatever i have said that could made you feel bad somewhat ... i will not 'disturb' you anymore

The only thing that disturbed me Juan, was the feeling that I was wasting my time, and my free time us in short supply as it is. And please don't let this reply disturb YOU. There are no hard feelings on this end.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 05 Feb 2018 #33
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4023 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
I just wrote a fairly long reply and then I lost it. The browser tab just closed itself...poof! and it was gone.

I know the feeling. But why not compose in a word processor first, which automatically saves text?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 05 Feb 2018 #34
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 539 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
The only thing that disturbed me Juan, was the feeling that I was wasting my time,

Well, it's a personal feeling so it seems to me that I can't do nothing ... perhaps if we were giving a walk together by the nature the feeling would have been different ... Who knows!

BTW, no need to be worried, the ME is well, and gives regards to YOU hoping it will be well too ;-) :-) ... Also not hard feelings here.

p.s.: i also don't like much writing on mobile devices.

"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, 05 Feb 2018 #35
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 465 posts in this forum Offline

#27:

Huguette . wrote:

“Thought” refers both to the outcome and to the process, doesn’t it? Or can we say that the outcome is part of the whole process?

Clive Elwell wrote:

What exactly do you mean by "process" here, Huguette? Purely psychological (ie put together by thought) or does it include all the material process, the cerebral process, the activity of the brain cells.

Actually, I am not sure by what you mean by "outcome", also.

A process is a series of actions or steps that accomplish a specific end, isn’t it more or less? The process of making cheese, sewing a dress, walking or talking, solving a mathematical problem, performing any job or task involves more than a simple single act or motion. The end result of the process may be seen as a single action, but it’s more complicated than - or involves more than - the perceived outcome. Without thinking too much about it, it seems to me that, in contrast, something like “falling” is not a process, or any one of the steps or actions IN a process is not itself a process (but it can be).

As I see it, “thought” refers to the process of thinking which involves physical cerebral movements, electrical impulses, hormonal activity. I don’t precisely know how it works. It also involves (starts with?) memory, and reasoning, comparing, extrapolating, language, and so on - each of which is also a process. It seems to me.

“Thought” is also the end result of the process, the outcome which has been formed by the whole process, for example any of the many many thoughts we all express here. So I meant, isn't the end result of a process also part of the process? For example, cheese is the outcome and part of the process of cheese-making.

To bring it back to what we had been talking about. You had said that “identification is a process IN thought. Does the distinction have any significance?” So I do see the distinction as significant in the context of self feeding itself on identification. Identification IS thought, thought is self, self is thought, thought is identification, thought is experience, experience is thought - and round and round. Therefore, I don’t see self as feeding on identification - it is all thought, the material process as well as the end result of the process which is the individual thoughts.

Is my meaning clearer .... or muddier? Just to be clear about one thing - clear or muddy - I realize it’s not necessarily right.

This post was last updated by Huguette . Mon, 05 Feb 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 05 Feb 2018 #36
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 465 posts in this forum Offline

#26:

Tom Paine wrote:
I want to question my smoking or drinking habit because it brings pain. I do have a motive or goal...the goal to understand this self destructive behavior.

Tom, I'll go on if you don't mind.

Doesn’t habit include ALL my responses to life’s challenges, including but not limited to smoking, drinking, eating, gambling, etc.? Someone annoys me and I habitually respond with anger, repression, condescension, analysis and intellectualization, insult, mockery, and so on. Aren’t all the habits and habitual responses prompted by fear? Fear of emptiness, ineptitude, inadequacy, powerlessness, failure, and so on. Aren’t they a means to somehow soothe and comfort me, to make me feel better, show me in a better light? Is this so?

I’m wondering what questioning “without direction” actually means. If I question my habit because it brings me pain, doesn’t that give the enquiry a direction right from the start? But how can I NOT have such a direction? After all, it’s natural to want to end one’s suffering, and I’m not saying it isn’t. Who wants to suffer?

I have been educated to believe that I can overcome habit through desire and willpower. Now I see that habit can’t be overcome as long as there’s fear. It can be replaced by a new habit or a new habitual response but the fear remains. (I might be wrong about all of this.) Doesn’t this understanding change my attitude or relationship to habit? Doesn’t understanding the root and process of habit and self mean that I no longer question habit in the same way? I see that fighting a habit only engenders endless conflict, which is also painful. Rather than fight the habit, can't I just observe it, observe the pain, learn about it? If the desire to be free of it arises, I can observe that too. I also see the power of conditioning and propaganda working within me. So all I can do is observe all these movements, being aware of any attempt to exploit any understanding which flowers. Where there are such attempts to exploit, observation and understanding end, don’t they? Observation and understanding are not conditioned. There’s freedom in understanding one’s condition, the workings of one’s mind, isn’t there? There's a bit of light in the darkness.

Can seeing that fear is the root of habit (if it is so) not be used as the basis for further conclusion and direction? Because any such further conclusion and direction is also the outcome of fear, is also a habitual response, isn’t it? So I no longer search for a solution to pain, not because it is a new tactic, a new ruse, a new method, but because I understand the significance of searching, desiring, seeking. I dunno.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 05 Feb 2018 #37
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2109 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Aren’t all the habits and habitual responses prompted by fear? Fear of emptiness, ineptitude, inadequacy, powerlessness, failure, and so on. Aren’t they a means to somehow soothe and comfort me, to make me feel better, show me in a better light? Is this so?

Habits, as I see it, are an escape from some inner conflict. So to understand the habit we must understand the underlying conflict. So we've moved away from questioning why we smoke or over eat to looking at our feelings of conflict and friction. If we're exploited at work or in a relationship, the normal response/action would be to leave. To find another job or leave the relationship. The conflict comes about when we feel we cannot leave. So one part of me is saying, "Go!" and another part is saying, "Stay, and try to make the best of it." This causes pain. I over eat or drink a couple of beers because it's a pleasureable escape from the pain. But the pain returns.....and the process is repeated until I find that i have a drinking problem. But it's always a conflict in relationship.....with my employer....with my work load or schedule..with my spouse or significant other....my child....or inner conflict within myself...two fragments of 'me' in conflict....,the 'I should' vs the 'I shouldn't'. Inner conflict comes about when I have ideals. I should be a good provider....I should be a hard worker. I shouldn't be lazy. I shouldn't be tired or angry. When I cant live up to my ideals I feel inner conflict. 'I'm not good enough'. I was raised to be a good Christian, but I lust after my neighbors wife, for example. Or I get easily angered when I 'should' be loving and kind. So fear, yes, and conflict, are the basis of my habits. Anything else?

Can seeing that fear is the root of habit (if it is so) not be used as the basis for further conclusion and direction? Because any such further conclusion and direction is also the outcome of fear, is also a habitual response, isn’t it? So I no longer search for a solution to pain, not because it is a new tactic, a new ruse, a new method, but because I understand the significance of searching, desiring, seeking. I dunno.

Yes...good point...never realized that before. Another attempt to escape or achieve. So we alway return to unknowing....just observing the movement of life NOW. Anything else is habit. The whole movement of one habitual response or thought pattern after another. There's obviously no freedom there.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Mon, 05 Feb 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 05 Feb 2018 #38
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 539 posts in this forum Offline

May i step in?

Huguette . wrote:
A process is a series of actions or steps that accomplish a specific end, isn’t it more or less?

I would define a process as "a series of actions or steps with a goal in mind that can or can not be accomplished" ... Would you agree?

Huguette . wrote:
“Thought” refers to the process of thinking“ ... Thought” is also the end result of the process

I understand what you mean with (psychological) thought being a process as well as an end result, but i wouldn't say that psychological thought is an end result, for even a conclusion doesn't end the thought process ... So as i see it, psychological thought is an on-going process with a goal in mind that is never accomplished, therefore in constant movement, that apparently ends at the moment of physical death ... What do you think?

Huguette . wrote:
isn't the end result of a process also part of the process?

May i ask something here: is there any actual end result of a process? ... Let's take a Rose for example, is the rose the end result of a process or it is only the thinker that thinks of it as the end result of a process? ... As i see it there's never an 'end result' but a continuous process, even thought is never an ending result ... But for some reason, thought is always thinking of things (and of itself) as being an ending result, which to me is a mistake in, or if you want a defect of the 'machinery', which is the cause for a lot of wrong perceptions and therefore of a lot of conflicts.

Huguette . wrote:
Identification IS thought, thought is self, self is thought, thought is identification, thought is experience, experience is thought - and round and round.

This is it ... something which is 'round and round' cannot have an end result, other than an illusory or imagined 'end result' that is usually taken as real by thought (with all the conflicts and contradictions that this implies for thought itself).

Huguette . wrote:
Just to be clear about one thing - clear or muddy - I realize it’s not necessarily right.

This has been understood already in reading the question ;-)

"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, 05 Feb 2018 #39
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2109 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Tom Paine wrote:

I just wrote a fairly long reply and then I lost it. The browser tab just closed itself...poof! and it was gone.

I know the feeling. But why not compose in a word processor first, which automatically saves text?

I discovered a simpler solution. As I'm typing my message I simply hit 'select all' in the message box and then 'copy'. If the browser tab closes I can simply return to the post in a new tab and hit 'paste' in the reply box. That way my message is saved in the 'clipboard' for pasting into a new message box.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 05 Feb 2018 #40
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 539 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:

Aren’t all the habits and habitual responses prompted by fear?

Habits, as I see it, are an escape from some inner conflict.

Would not be better to use the word 'addiction', here?

"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, 05 Feb 2018 #41
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 539 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
I discovered a simpler solution. As I'm typing my message I simply hit 'select all' in the message box and then 'copy'. If the browser tab closes I can simply return to the post in a new tab and hit 'paste' in the reply box. That way my message is saved in the 'clipboard' for pasting into a new message box.

If you accept an advice from a 'nobody' ;-), this may fail if you inadvertently make or need to do another text 'copy' (of another post or web page) to 'paste' it in your present post ...

Personally i use the same method as you but with slight difference, i 'copy'/'paste' from time to time the on-going post into the simple text editor included in any operating system (TextEdit in Mac, Notepad in Windows, Notes in Android, etc.) so i can make any 'copy'/'paste' when needed, save the unfinished post to continue later, or easily recover the text if the browser crashes or it closes the tab by itself ... This process may seem too cumbersome on any mobile device, but it's really worth it.

"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 Mon, 05 Feb 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 05 Feb 2018 #42
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 465 posts in this forum Offline

#38:

Huguette . wrote:
A process is a series of actions or steps that accomplish a specific end, isn’t it more or less?

Juan E wrote:
I would define a process as "a series of actions or steps with a goal in mind that can or can not be accomplished" ... Would you agree?

I don’t agree, Juan. Sorry. You’re clearly talking about a man-made process. There are also natural processes, so what you say doesn’t always apply. A process itself has no “goal”. It’s just a process. Whether a process is natural or man-made, it is not nullified by an interruption, a failure or a breakdown. For example, I might not be able to finish making the cheese, or something might go wrong in the process, but the process itself can still be followed again.

Huguette . wrote:
“Thought” refers to the process of thinking“ ... Thought” is also the end result of the process

Juan E wrote:
I understand what you mean with (psychological) thought being a process as well as an end result, but i wouldn't say that psychological thought is an end result, for even a conclusion doesn't end the thought process ... So as i see it, psychological thought is an on-going process with a goal in mind that is never accomplished, therefore in constant movement, that apparently ends at the moment of physical death ... What do you think?

Thought - whether it is psychological or not - is a process involving electrical currents, movements of neurons and chemicals, across synapses, and so on. As I’ve often said, I don’t know exactly how it works, I’m not a scientist, but I do believe there’s material movement - a process - involved in thought. I see process not as a goal but as a formal description, a kind of flowchart, of the sequence of steps or actions that occurs. Someone (or “Nature” or God?!) might perhaps have a goal and create a process to accomplish it. But the process itself - natural or man-made - cannot have a goal, can it?

Processes abound all around and within us. The mind - thought - can have the specific goal (thought, idea, concept) to develop a certain process but that movement of thought, that idea, is governed by a material process, as I see it. The thought process does not die with the physical death of the individual brain, nor with the accomplishment of the specific goal. This doesn't mean that a process is like a runaway train that never stops. If I follow the process for making a cake, that doesn't mean that I'm stuck endlessly making cakes without stop until I die. The process has a beginning, a middle and an end.

Huguette . wrote:
isn't the end result of a process also part of the process?

Juan E wrote:
May i ask something here: is there any actual end result of a process? ... Let's take a Rose for example, is the rose the end result of a process or it is only the thinker that thinks of it as the end result of a process? ... As i see it there's never an 'end result' but a continuous process, even thought is never an ending result ... But for some reason, thought is always thinking of things (and of itself) as being an ending result, which to me is a mistake in, or if you want a defect of the 'machinery', which is the cause for a lot of wrong perceptions and therefore of a lot of conflicts.

Why do you say that “thought is always thinking of things (and of itself) as being an ending result”? Does it? I don’t see it that way. But whatever it is that thought does to create conflict, does it have to be that way? Can thought see its own process and see the flaw in the content that it puts together? That is, can thought see the beauty in the thought process and the error in the thought?

Are you denying that there are naturally-occurring processes which can be observed in organic life and in inorganic matter, as well as man-made processes devised by thought? Process in itself is not a problem. To me, there’s beauty and elegance in processes as well. And life is more than processes. The sacred, the mysterious, the infinite, the eternal, is not a process. But thought is a process and thought is misunderstood BY thought and is the source of much suffering because of this misunderstanding, isn't it? From its misunderstanding, thought creates a barrier between the "self-centre" and eternal life, doesn’t it? Does it have to be that way? So IS thought an obstacle to living fully, without conflict? If so, isn’t it important to understand the whole process?

Huguette . wrote:
Identification IS thought, thought is self, self is thought, thought is identification, thought is experience, experience is thought - and round and round.

Juan E wrote:
This is it ... something which is 'round and round' cannot have an end result, other than an illusory or imagined 'end result' that is usually taken as real by thought (with all the conflicts and contradictions that this implies for thought itself).

Again, are you saying that there is no such thing as a naturally-occurring thought process? Isn’t petroleum formed as a result of a naturally-occurring process? Isn’t every form of life part of a natural process? And are you denying that there is a naturally-occurring thought process which produces - puts together - thoughts? “Round and round” refers to the thoughts put together by the process, not to the process itself. It is the content of the round-and-round thoughts which cause the process to repeat unnecessarily, isn't it?

Nothing is certain.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 05 Feb 2018 #43
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 539 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
The process has a beginning, a middle and an end.

You know already the answer, so the inquire is ended. As i have said elsewhere, inquire has nothing to do with convince another of anything.

"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 Mon, 05 Feb 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 05 Feb 2018 #44
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 539 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
“Round and round” refers to the thoughts put together by the process, not to the process itself.

May i ask why do you divide thoughts from the process itself?
Is there any actual entity as 'process' divided from thoughts?

"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, 05 Feb 2018 #45
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 539 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:



  • Are you denying that there are naturally-occurring processes which can be observed in organic life and in inorganic matter, as well as man-made processes devised by thought?


  • Again, are you saying that there is no such thing as a naturally-occurring thought process?



If you don't mind, i would like to know from where you drawn your thoughts about what i'm saying.

Huguette . wrote:
Why do you say that “thought is always thinking of things (and of itself) as being an ending result”?

Because thought sees the rose as an ending result ... It can not see that what it calls 'rose' is a continuous process, the same as itself ... Thought always freezes whatever it observes thinking that by freezing any process dividing it in smaller processes, it will understand the whole process, but it is lying itself ... Because when the process is frozen, it (the thought), falls into attachment, rejection, or indifference with regard to the thing it has frozen (which in fact does not exist as it thinks it [the frozen thing] exists) ... and from attachment, rejection and indifference (to things that doesn't exist as thought thinks they exists) arises all the conflicts in this world.

Huguette . wrote:
But whatever it is that thought does to create conflict, does it have to be that way?

Yes, it is so when thought freezes things in its try to understand the world around it without being aware of the consequences this freezing implies (as i said in the previous paragraph).

Huguette . wrote:
The sacred, the mysterious, the infinite, the eternal, is not a process.

Is that a believing? ... May you show to me why this is so?

Huguette . wrote:
So IS thought an obstacle to living fully, without conflict? If so, isn’t it important to understand the whole process?

Yes, i do think also it is as you say ... but without thought dividing the whole process in smaller parts to try to understand the whole, which is what it is doing all the time ... Now the question is, which tool we'll use, having seen that thought can't see the whole process without dividing it in smaller parts (which means that it never sees the whole), to see/understand the whole process of life itself?

And to finish this post, i would like to know in which way you 'join' this:

Huguette . wrote:
I’m not a scientist, but I do believe there’s material movement - a process - involved in thought.

... with this:

Huguette . wrote:
The thought process does not die with the physical death of the individual brain

Are you trying to say that thought is something else beside being a material process, perhaps?

Time to cleaning/ordering the flat a bit.
I'll come back later to listen to any comment to all this.

"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 Mon, 05 Feb 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 05 Feb 2018 #46
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4023 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Is my meaning clearer .... or muddier?

Yes, your explanation is very clear, and thanks for taking the time. But I am still reflecting on the business of thought requiring food - food being a form of energy. Of course thought/thinking DOES require energy, an energy input, like all the processes of the body. There is no question of that. But apart from this physical source of energy, is there anything else feeding thought, in the sense of "keeping it going"?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 05 Feb 2018 #47
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4023 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
So as i see it, psychological thought is an on-going process with a goal in mind that is never accomplished, therefore in constant movement, that apparently ends at the moment of physical death ... What do you think?

If one accepts the existence of the The Stream of human consciousness then the movement of thought DOESN'T end at the moment of death, does it? It carries on in the stream - which is where it has always been anyway.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 05 Feb 2018 #48
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 465 posts in this forum Offline

#46:

Clive Elwell wrote:
But apart from this physical source of energy, is there anything else feeding thought, in the sense of "keeping it going"?

Fear, desire, attachment to ideas and images, ignorance? Other than that .... nothing?!

Isn't it misleading though to talk about energy as a factor feeding thought? Doesn't it imply that to end thought, then end energy - without killing the organism? Which is impossible. The ending of energy in the human or any other organism is the death of that organism, isn't it?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 05 Feb 2018 #49
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 465 posts in this forum Offline

Juan,

I feel there is no friendly looking together in talking things over with you. You feel I'm trying to convince you, and I feel the same. Sorry, I don't mean to hurt your feelings but I feel I owe it to you to let you know that I won't be responding to your latest posts above.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 05 Feb 2018 #50
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 539 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
But apart from this physical source of energy, is there anything else feeding thought, in the sense of "keeping it going"?

The sense it has of being truly existent without depending on anything.

Good night all! ... 'til tomorrow!

"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, 05 Feb 2018 #51
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 539 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
I won't be responding to your latest posts above.

Doesn't matter, there's no need for you to do it ... the rose will never be the rose no matter what we say or don't say.

Good night brother!

"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, 05 Feb 2018 #52
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4023 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Isn't it misleading though to talk about energy as a factor feeding thought? Doesn't it imply that to end thought, then end energy -

Actually I was not thinking in terms of "ending energy". In fact I see that anything that I do, or plan to do, only leads to more confusion.

I was merely investigating, 'trying', if that is the word, to understand the whole process whereby thought continues. Without trying to interfer in the process. Understanding does not 'mislead', does it? This understanding, if it happens, is the significant factor, is it not? It the understanding that acts, not me, not thought - although thought may play a part.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 06 Feb 2018 #53
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 465 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Actually I was not thinking in terms of "ending energy".

No, I didn’t think that you were thinking in terms of ending energy. That’s why I felt it was misleading to suggest a connection between “food for thought” and energy. Not important though.

Clive Elwell wrote:
I was merely investigating, 'trying', if that is the word, to understand the whole process whereby thought continues. Without trying to interfer in the process. Understanding does not 'mislead', does it? This understanding, if it happens, is the significant factor, is it not? It the understanding that acts, not me, not thought - although thought may play a part.

I too see it that way - that understanding acts and that thought can, as you say, play a part in such action. And vigilant observation reveals any attempt by thought to turn understanding into conclusion and “act” on its conclusion. Is this so?

This post was last updated by Huguette . Tue, 06 Feb 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 06 Feb 2018 #54
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2109 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Clive Elwell wrote:

But apart from this physical source of energy, is there anything else feeding thought, in the sense of "keeping it going"?

Fear, desire, attachment to ideas and images, ignorance? Other than that .... nothing?!

But those are all a product of thought...movements in thought! Perhaps thought has its own momentum. As K said, 'You see a beautiful sunset which beings a feeling of joy. Then thought comes in and wants it repeated...continued.'(paraphrasing) So it's inattention that allows thought to continue? Lack of self-knowledge...lack of awareness?

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Tue, 06 Feb 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 06 Feb 2018 #55
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 465 posts in this forum Offline

Tom,

You’re right, those are all a product of thought, thought that is fragmented into self and non-self. What keeps thought fragmenting in this way? What keeps “self” going is the question, isn’t it? As we all have seen in talking it over deeply many times I think, functional thought is not problematic. Functional thought arises, serves its purpose, and subsides. There’s no momentum in functional thought, is there, and no fear attached to it.

Is what maintains self the subtle expectation, desire or ideal that if I understand the fragmentation of thought, there “should be” be an instant ending to suffering? Is it that we still “mind what happens”? Does this subtle expectation (if it is so) maintain the circus of self going? Can I stay with suffering, face suffering, without resisting it? Isn’t that in fact dying as K talked about it? Obviously, when I'm on by death bed, I can’t say to death, “no wait, I need more time to achieve, to fix, to put my house in order, to find peace, to accomplish” (something to that effect). Out of this "renunciation" of all expectation, desire or ideal, doesn’t compassion for humanity - which is suffering, which is “me” - doesn't compassion flower?

I’m just feeling my way here. It's not clear.

This post was last updated by Huguette . Tue, 06 Feb 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 06 Feb 2018 #56
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2109 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Is what maintains self the subtle expectation, desire or ideal that if I understand the fragmentation of thought, there “should be” be an instant ending to suffering? Is it that we still “mind what happens”? Does this subtle expectation (if it is so) maintain the circus of self going?

I don't know Huguette. I've never considered that aspect of 'me' before. We seek a permanent end to suffering, is that what you're saying? There's an expectation that I should be free of suffering. I suspect it's also related to thought's capacity to create time...,or the illusion of time. And related to that is the creation of the ideal. I will become 'better'...or happier...or non-violent...in some future time. Without time, there is only 'what is' now. But we are caught up in time....experience. Letting that go would be a kind of death....dying to the known.

Huguette . wrote:
Can I stay with suffering, face suffering, without resisting it? Isn’t that in fact dying as K talked about it?

As long as I know something about it, I will resist it as something separate from me. Perhaps the 'dying' you're talking of is the ending of all knowledge(psychological) and expectation....experience. I don't know. I need to look further into what you've written. Hopefully others will join the discussion.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Tue, 06 Feb 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 06 Feb 2018 #57
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4023 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
I too see it that way - that understanding acts and that thought can, as you say, play a part in such action. And vigilant observation reveals any attempt by thought to turn understanding into conclusion and “act” on its conclusion. Is this so?

Yes. Observation is the only way to cover all the ways and tricks of the mind. And this turning of observation into conclusion, (that is, to return to the original topic, the creation of experience and accumulation of knowledge) is the great handicap to understanding, which can only be moment to moment. This accumulation means we judge the present through the eyes of the past.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 06 Feb 2018 #58
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4023 posts in this forum Offline

I have just realised that by using the phrase "food for thought" I may have caused confusion. I remembered that the phrase has a specific meaning, that of 'something giving rise to reflection', something to think about. I did not mean that at all. I was asking is there a factor (perhaps external) that gives thinking the great momentum it has, that keeps carrying it forward.

Please note that I am not claiming that it IS external!

Is it the brain seeking security, hoping to find a pseudo security in some creation of thought? But if that is so, why has it not seen through this illusion after all these years?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 06 Feb 2018 #59
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4023 posts in this forum Offline

I have just realised that by using the phrase "food for thought" I may have caused confusion. I remembered that the phrase has a specific meaning, that of 'something giving rise to reflection', something to think about. I did not mean that at all. I was asking is there a factor (perhaps external) that gives thinking the great momentum it has, that keeps carrying it forward.

Please note that I am not claiming that it IS external!

Is it the brain seeking security, hoping to find a pseudo security in some creation of thought? But if that is so, why has it not seen through this illusion after all these years?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 06 Feb 2018 #60
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4023 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
. Letting that go would be a kind of death....dying to the known.

As a friend texted me this morning:

"Remember, my friend, it's a closing down sale in the mind. Everything must go"

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 31 - 60 of 115 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.)