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

What exactly IS the state of awareness?


Displaying posts 61 - 90 of 119 in total
Wed, 28 Mar 2018 #61
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4189 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
It’s not that the mind is playing with the idea of attention, as I see it.

But the mind can and does turn attention into an idea, and so play with it. The mind can turn anything into an idea, can it not? Of course that idea is not the actual thing.

This phenomena is perhaps one of the major problems of the mind; it often cannot distinguish between ideas and actuality.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 28 Mar 2018 #62
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4189 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
And action based upon the known. So in what manner does the 'psychological' known cause such misery? There may be much to explore here.

Yes indeed. Fundamentally, is it not that the psychological known, all of it, is illusion, and to base one’s life, one’s actions, the very structure of society, upon an illusion MUST cause vast confusion, conflict and misery?

“The first thing that comes to mind when you spoke of the 'psychological' known is the self image. I am 'good' or 'bad'....a success or a failure...a sinner or a saint...superior or inferior to 'you'. I 'know' what 'I' am and I 'know'...have an image of...what 'you' ”

Indeed, the self image. And that is an image of oneself and an image of the other, so straight away there is separation, division, and conflict between the two.

Images of oneself have to be maintained, defended. Which again implies conflict – and violence.

Sorry, running out of time, have to finish for now.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 29 Mar 2018 #63
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2164 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
This phenomena is perhaps one of the major problems of the mind; it often cannot distinguish between ideas and actuality.

Yes, it's possibly the central issue/problem psychologically. And probably the main reason we don't change. We have an idea of what we are and what we should become. And a million and one ideas of what we should or should not do. How can we possibly see ourselves as we are or understand ourselves?

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 29 Mar 2018 #64
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4189 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
How can we possibly see ourselves as we are or understand ourselves?

Perhaps the first step, and perhaps the last step also, is: by ceasing to judge ourselves. Ceasing to measure, to compare, to approve or disapprove, all that stuff. I am seeing more and more how all such comparison prevents looking, and if there is no looking, observation, how can there be understanding?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 30 Mar 2018 #65
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 520 posts in this forum Offline

re 74:

Clive Elwell wrote:
You seem to be implying that "the mind understanding its own function" does NOT bring the end of suffering, (which I would say equates with transformation).

You said something not too long ago about "people" being all too ready to take a pill to immediately end suffering, and to consider suffering as unnecessary and unacceptable. Something to that effect. I forget how you expressed it but I did see it the same way. You don't mean that suffering is a measure of one's progress or lack of progress on the "path to transformation", do you? Well of course K often talked about the bliss of transformation, not the suffering of the transformed mind.

Nonetheless, the mind which understands "something" is now not concerned with ending suffering, as I see it. It understands that it can't do anything about it.

And do you mean Clive that any understanding must be permanent, final, complete, conclusive? Do you mean that understanding can only be the total understanding of the whole? Is there an end to learning then? Is understanding or learning part of what K called a "horizontal" or linear process, which has a beginning and an end?

What does it mean to “understand” the mind’s limitations, the nature of self, consciousness and time, to see the thought processes involved in action, effort, relationship, and so on? Where there is such understanding, does the mind still ask - about the nature of awareness, about transformation, etc. - as we are doing here? Where there is understanding in the moment, am I in that moment thinking about or seeking transformation or peace? Isn't it seen that such questioning must end? Not through repression or in the hope of finding something else, but because it is seen to be a useless activity, exhausting the mind, perpetuating fear. No? I say this hesitantly.

Do I see that any effort I make within the field of thinking, conscious as well as unconscious, must entail a separation, a duality, and therefore conflict? If I see the truth of that, then what happens? Then have I, has the conscious or unconscious mind, to do anything? http://jkrishnamurti.org/krishnamurti-teachings/print.php?tid=508&chid=4827

Can’t a truth be seen or understood without the mind being necessarily transformed? Isn't K saying that? Not that he is the authority but that's my understanding, it seems clear.

I see very clearly; I perceive. Perception is light. I want to carry it over as memory, as thought, and apply it to daily living and therefore I introduce duality, conflict, contradiction.
So I say how am I to go beyond it? All systems offer a process, a fixed point and the ending of all trouble.
Perceiving is light to this mind. It is not concerned with perception any more because if it is concerned, it becomes memory. Can the mind, seeing something very clearly, end that perception? Then, here the very first step is the last step. The mind is fresh to look. To such a mind, is there an end to all troubles? It does not ask such a question. When it happens, it will see. See what takes place. When I ask the question "Will this end all trouble?" I am already thinking of the future and therefore I am caught in time.
But I am not concerned. I perceive. It is over. I see something very clearly - the clarity of perception. Perception is light. It is over. Therefore the mind is never caught in time. Because I have taken the first step, I have also taken the last step each time. http://jiddu-krishnamurti.net/en/tradition-and-revolution/1970-12-19-jiddu-krishnamurti-tradition-and-revolution-the-first-step-is-the-last-step

Again, I might be mistaken in my understanding - i.e. I might not understand at all! :0)

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Fri, 30 Mar 2018 #66
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4189 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Again, I might be mistaken in my understanding - i.e. I might not understand at all! :0)

Then again, you might not be mistaken, ie you might understand completely :-)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 30 Mar 2018 #67
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4189 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:

(Clive wrote): You seem to be implying that "the mind understanding its own function" does NOT bring the end of suffering, (which I would say equates with transformation).

You said something not too long ago about "people" being all too ready to take a pill to immediately end suffering, and to consider suffering as unnecessary and unacceptable. Something to that effect. I forget how you expressed it but I did see it the same way. You don't mean that suffering is a measure of one's progress or lack of progress on the "path to transformation", do you? Well of course K often talked about the bliss of transformation, not the suffering of the transformed mind.

Clive: I do not recognise, admit, any such thing as “progress”, or any sort of path, Huguette. With the mind dying to itself, how could there be any such things? And who would it be who was making progress? Some illusory image of myself? In fact any sort of “seeking” seems to be a misleading and conflict-forming process.

The simple answer to your question is “no”.

Well of course K often talked about the bliss of transformation, not the suffering of the transformed mind.
Nonetheless, the mind which understands "something" is now not concerned with ending suffering, as I see it. It understands that it can't do anything about it.

Clive: You mean understanding in the present, don’t you. So there is no “doing something about it”, because such a thing would be in some imaginary future.

And do you mean Clive that any understanding must be permanent, final, complete, conclusive?

Clive: I am not seeing it that way, no. And how would one know if it was permanent or not? That seems to suggest that understanding can be accumulated, but then it would become mere knowledge, conditioning, would it not?

Do you mean that understanding can only be the total understanding of the whole?

Clive: I don’t mean that, as I don’t understand what this “whole” is. I see only fragments of consciousness. I AM a fragment, and a fragment trying to act brings only confusion.

Is there an end to learning then?

Clive: To answer this question would be speculative for me. But it is hard to imagine any “end to learning”. It would seem strange. Did not K say that the whole movement of life is learning?

Is understanding or learning part of what K called a "horizontal" or linear process, which has a beginning and an end?

Clive: Hmmm, I have never quite understood “horizontal process”, and “vertical process” in the mind, as K used the terms, and I would be happy to go into that.

What does it mean to “understand” the mind’s limitations, the nature of self, consciousness and time, to see the thought processes involved in action, effort, relationship, and so on?

Clive: It seems to mean a dying, an ending of the mind with its limitations. I do not mean a “permanent” end.

Where there is such understanding,

Clive: May I question the phrase “there is such understanding”, or is that tedious? Does the word “is” suggest “extended in time”? Or is understanding an instantaneous thing?

Perhaps you have answered this question as you proceed below, by using the term “in the moment”

does the mind still ask - about the nature of awareness, about transformation, etc. - as we are doing here? Where there is understanding in the moment, am I in that moment thinking about or seeking transformation or peace?

Clive: Seeking, psychologically or “spiritually” seems to be the human curse, and self defeating. If one is seeking, how can there be a state of peace?

Isn't it seen that such questioning must end?

Clive: So yes, seeking “must” end. Only then can there be the possibility of a state free of conflict. This is logical, rational.

Not through repression or in the hope of finding something else, but because it is seen to be a useless activity, exhausting the mind, perpetuating fear. No? I say this hesitantly.

Clive: I seem to go along with you.

Do I see that any effort I make within
the field of thinking, conscious as
well as unconscious, must entail a
separation, a duality, and therefore
conflict? If I see the truth of that,
then what happens? Then have I, has
the conscious or unconscious mind, to
do anything?
http://jkrishnamurti.org/krishnamurti-teachings...

Can’t a truth be seen or understood without the mind being necessarily transformed?

Clive: Perhaps the word “transformation” is not conducive of understanding. Perhaps it is a hindrance.

Isn't K saying that? Not that he is the authority but that's my understanding, it seems clear.

I see very clearly; I perceive.
Perception is light. I want to carry
it over as memory, as thought, and
apply it to daily living and therefore
I introduce duality, conflict,
contradiction. So I say how am I to
go beyond it? All systems offer a
process, a fixed point and the ending
of all trouble. Perceiving is light
to this mind. It is not concerned with
perception any more because if it is
concerned, it becomes memory. Can the
mind, seeing something very clearly,
end that perception? Then, here the
very first step is the last step. The
mind is fresh to look. To such a mind,
is there an end to all troubles? It
does not ask such a question. When it
happens, it will see. See what takes
place. When I ask the question "Will
this end all trouble?" I am already
thinking of the future and therefore I
am caught in time. But I am not
concerned. I perceive. It is over. I
see something very clearly - the
clarity of perception. Perception is
light. It is over. Therefore the mind
is never caught in time. Because I
have taken the first step, I have also
taken the last step each time.
http://jiddu-krishnamurti.net/en/tradition-and-...

Clive: Does this mean one never takes a step at all?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 01 Apr 2018 #68
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2164 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Huguette: And do you mean Clive that any understanding must be permanent, final, complete, conclusive?

Clive: I am not seeing it that way, no. And how would one know if it was permanent or not? That seems to suggest that understanding can be accumulated, but then it would become mere knowledge, conditioning, would it not?

Right...if have insight and I say "I have understood" and make that into knowledge (or worse, a self image as 'one who understands') it becomes an impediment to looking anew...to observing...learning.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Sun, 01 Apr 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 02 Apr 2018 #69
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4189 posts in this forum Offline

To return the original question of this thread, what exactly is the process of awareness, here is a very direct answer from K, back in 1955.

I find it exceedingly interesting. It seems to me K generally said things are simply true, and the mind often responds to those things by asking, “Yes, but what can I actually DO about it”. Here is something that one can actually DO.

So, this whole process of awareness, observation, is the process of meditation. It is, if I can put it differently, the willingness to invite thought. For most of us, thoughts come in without invitation, - one thought after another: there is no end to thinking; the mind is a slave to every kind of vagrant thought. If you realize that, then you will see that there can be an invitation to thought, - an inviting of thought and then a pursuing of every thought that arises. For most of us, thought comes uninvited; it comes any old way. To understand that process, and then to invite thought and pursue that thought through to the end, is the whole process which I have described as awareness; and in that there is no naming. Then you will see that the mind becomes extraordinarily quiet, - not through fatigue, not through discipline, not through any form of self-torture and control. Through awareness of its own activities the mind becomes astonishingly quiet, still, creative, - without the action of any discipline, or any enforcement.

Talk 5 Amsterdam 1955

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 03 Apr 2018 #70
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 520 posts in this forum Offline

#67:

Huguette: Nonetheless, the mind which understands "something" is now not concerned with ending suffering, as I see it. It understands that it can't do anything about it.

Clive: You mean understanding in the present, don’t you. So there is no “doing something about it”, because such a thing would be in some imaginary future.

Yes, understanding IS in the present. Past understanding is not understanding but merely memory-knowledge, isn't it?

Clive, as I see it, ALL time that we TALK AND THINK ABOUT is imaginary, an abstraction. Time is simultaneously real, factual, actual, and imaginary, as I see it. Clocks and calendars measure the passage of time and allow us to plan and construct. But there IS a passage of time that is unplanned, unplannable, immeasurable - one fleeting moment in the universe, and then another and another, eternally [see "Added:" note below].

Like infinite space, time exists but cannot be understood or captured by the brain except in imagination or as an abstraction. My watch can measure the time it takes to go from point A to point B, I can see the passage of time evidenced all around me - seasons, aging, birth and death, growth and decay, healing. I cannot see time directly but there IS time. Endlessly, the brief immediate living moment ends, another brief moment passes and I remember it in imagination.

Whether I talk about a dress that I plan to sew, a shelf that I plan to build, a baby that is expected, a dentist appointment, yesterday’s weather, or whether I talk about becoming smarter in relationship, ending my anger or depression, becoming well-adjusted, able to cope, getting even with all the bad stuff that life throws at me, dealing with my spouse, neighbours, co-workers or children, and so on - it is ALL “imaginary” time, isn't it?

But I still CAN follow and execute a plan to build a bookshelf. I CAN make an appointment with the dentist and go at the appointed time, the baby will be born. These things are planned to happen in the imaginary future, and I understand that the best laid plans and expectations are no guarantee of their fruition. I understand that the best laid plans and expectations can fall through at any moment because of war, flood, earthquake, death, accident, sickness, unforeseen circumstances, a change of heart and mind, and so on.

Nonetheless, I CAN do something about making a bookshelf, an appointment, having a baby, a meal, starting a business, learning skills, and so on - even though the future outcome is imaginary.

So it’s not because time is imaginary that I can’t end suffering. It is the nature of the desire that makes it unrealizable. I don’t need to be a good person or a bad person, a wise person or an ignorant person to make a meal or keep an appointment. I just need the necessary skills and knowledge. But I can’t plan to become a wise person if I am ignorant. It is not dependent on a skill or knowledge that can be acquired. Being ignorant, I cannot become wise through will, effort, i.e. through the passage of time, can I?

Added:
When I say (above) "one fleeting moment in the universe, and then another and another, eternally", I realize that THIS is the linear (horizontal, vertical, in a one-dimensional plane) thinking that the brain is limited to (which you mentioned elsewhere in #67). Of course, universal time does not actually unfold in such linear, one-dimensional fashion.

This post was last updated by Huguette . Tue, 03 Apr 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 03 Apr 2018 #71
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4189 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Yes, understanding IS in the present. Past understanding is not understanding but merely memory-knowledge, isn't it?

Clive: There is a clear distinction between between knowledge and understanding, yes, although recently, in an intelude of silence, I felt no distinction between understanding and knowing. Would you say the understanding is entirely non-verbal, or do words play a part in it?

Clive, as I see it, ALL time that we TALK AND THINK ABOUT is imaginary, an abstraction. Time is simultaneously real, factual, actual, and imaginary, as I see it. Clocks and calendars measure the passage of time and allow us to plan and construct. But there IS a passage of time that is unplanned, unplannable, immeasurable - one fleeting moment in the universe, and then another and another, eternally [see "Added:" note below].

Like infinite space, time exists but cannot be understood or captured by the brain except in imagination or as an abstraction. My watch can measure the time it takes to go from point A to point B, I can see the passage of time evidenced all around me - seasons, aging, birth and death, growth and decay, healing. I cannot see time directly but there IS time. Endlessly, the brief immediate living moment ends, another brief moment passes and I remember it in imagination.

Clive: Yes, even the “evidences” of actual time that you mention still rely on the memory, recognition, and comparison in the brain.

Whether I talk about a dress that I plan to sew, a shelf that I plan to build, a baby that is expected, a dentist appointment, yesterday’s weather, or whether I talk about becoming smarter in relationship, ending my anger or depression, becoming well-adjusted, able to cope, getting even with all the bad stuff that life throws at me, dealing with my spouse, neighbours, co-workers or children, and so on - it is ALL “imaginary” time, isn't it?

Clive: Surely. None of this is actual, it is all in the imagination. We make take steps that we think might MAKE imagined things/plans actual, but there is no guarantee of success whatsoever. In fact I would say when it comes to psychological becoming, there is a guarantee of failure.

But I still CAN follow and execute a plan to build a bookshelf. I CAN make an appointment with the dentist and go at the appointed time, the baby will be born. These things are planned to happen in the imaginary future, and I understand that the best laid plans and expectations are no guarantee of their fruition. I understand that the best laid plans and expectations can fall through at any moment because of war, flood, earthquake, death, accident, sickness, unforeseen circumstances, a change of heart and mind, and so on.

Clive: Yes. And best to approach the future in this light. “Barring the unforeseen: used to be a common phrase with me. Still is.

Nonetheless, I CAN do something about making a bookshelf, an appointment, having a baby, a meal, starting a business, learning skills, and so on - even though the future outcome is imaginary.
So it’s not because time is imaginary that I can’t end suffering.

Clive: This is a bit of a jump, is it not?

It is the nature of the desire that makes it unrealizable.

Clive: What comes to me is that I can’t end suffering because I AM suffering. Any movement the I takes is a movement FROM suffering and OF suffering. So it can only continue suffering.

I don’t need to be a good person or a bad person, a wise person or an ignorant person to make a meal or keep an appointment. I just need the necessary skills and knowledge. But I can’t plan to become a wise person if I am ignorant. It is not dependent on a skill or knowledge that can be acquired. Being ignorant, I cannot become wise through will, effort, i.e. through the passage of time, can I?

Clive: Well, people would define “wise” and “ignorant” in different ways. If I substitute the word “intelligent” for wise, people will still put a time-bound meaning on that word. But using our shared K lexicon, yes, this seems true. But the movement of trying to become the opposite, the ideal, psychologically is deeply embedded in the brain – presumably a carry over from the real movements that you have described, in the “real world”. That does not mean we cannot question it, of course, as we are doing.

Added:
When I say (above) "one fleeting moment in the universe, and then another and another, eternally", I realize that THIS is the linear (horizontal, vertical, in a one-dimensional plane) thinking that the brain is limited to (which you mentioned elsewhere in #67). Of course, universal time does not actually unfold in such linear, one-dimensional fashion.

Clive: No, this is my perception also. Fundamentally I do not see continuity in the mind, only the attempt to achieve it. And I suspect that continuity in the physical Universe may be ……. well, not really there.

“THIS is the linear (horizontal, vertical, in a one-dimensional plane) thinking ”

Can you explain what you mean by “vertical thinking”, Huguette, I still don’t understand.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 04 Apr 2018 #72
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4189 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote, quoting K, #69 :
So, this whole process of awareness, observation, is the process of meditation. It is, if I can put it differently, the willingness to invite thought.

With reference to my post # 69, “invitation” goes further than any particular thought. It embraces all feelings, all emotions. It embraces sorrow, fear, pain, pleasure, … all that the mind experiences.

“Invite” is not an act of will, volition. It is a state of mind – a state that sees the necessity of being open all the intimations of the mind. But “being open” is very much an inadequate phrase. As we know, K talks of allowing everything to FLOWER, fully. And as with all flowers, after the flowering there is a withering (my word), a dying, a coming to an end.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 05 Apr 2018 #73
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 520 posts in this forum Offline

#71:

Huguette wrote:
“THIS is the linear (horizontal, vertical, in a one-dimensional plane) thinking ”

Clive Elwell wrote:
Can you explain what you mean by “vertical thinking”, Huguette, I still don’t understand.

I can’t be sure what K meant by it. He sometimes seemed to differentiate between horizontal and vertical. Mostly though, he seemed rather to mean by vertical or horizontal, thinking that moves in a particular direction, which is what it means to me.

For example, as I see it, the contents of a book, story, biography, history, manual, guide, lecture, curriculum, report - the images, ideas, recollections, predictions, explanations, and so on - all this is thought moving in linear fashion, in a particular direction: up, down, left, right, step 1, step 2, moving away from something, moving towards something. The story, situation or explanation cannot be conveyed without linear movement.

In contrast, meditation or awareness does not move towards or away from anything, does it? Awareness has no desire, intention or destination.

Where effort is made in order to solve a problem, this effort is also a linear movement of thought, as I see it. K often said that the solution to a problem lies in the problem itself. In my understanding, this means that the solution does not come from a linear movement of thought. This is my understanding of the following.

Questioner: What is your solution to the problem of starvation?

Krishnamurti: The answer to any human problem lies in the problem itself. The answer is never outside the problem. If we can understand the problem itself with all its significance, then the answer comes. But, if you have a ready-made answer or a formula for the problem, then you will never understand the problem. For the answer, the conclusion, the formula intervenes between the problem and its understanding, which distorts the understanding of the problem.

Will any solution offered by any system, either of the left or of the right, put an end to starvation? When I am asked whether I have a solution to this question, in this question is implied whether I have a system which will put an end to starvation. Now, can any system bring about the ending of starvation? Why have systems become important? They have become important because we think they will solve the problem. Through a pattern of action we hope to solve this question. By outward compulsion it is hoped that man can be fed. Systems become important because each one thinks that through legislation, through compulsion, through some outward action, we can feed man.

Second Talk in Bombay, January 25, 1948

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 05 Apr 2018 #74
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 810 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
As we know, K talks of allowing everything to FLOWER, fully. And as with all flowers, after the flowering there is a withering (my word), a dying, a coming to an end.

The way I see this Clive and it relates to your question of the "horizontal and vertical". The 'horizontal plane' is that the seed germinates, it grows, there is a blossoming into a flower then it begins to fade and to "wither" (the process of linear time). But I see it that psychologically there is only "flowering", only emergence, only (to use Max Green's term) "unfolding"...this is the "vertical". It is not a 'plane' with a beginning and an end, a higher and a lower, it has no 'end'. It is 'timeless'. When we "invite" our thoughts, we see them 'emerge' replaced by another and then another etc. There is no "withering", they just 'flower' and disappear...

The 'I' process arises with the desire that 'something' be different than 'what is', doesn't it? When emotion creates a resistance, there is a 'duality' and conflict? When the 'thinker' as the controller wants to grasp the 'ungraspable', to 'know' the 'timeless', to 'hold' onto what can't be 'held'...Intelligence as I see it, is the 'ending' (or "withering"?) of that impossible goal: The 'self' to be free.

I recall K. saying something like (from the point of view of Creation?), there are "no endings only beginnings".

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Thu, 05 Apr 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 06 Apr 2018 #75
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4189 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Mostly though, he seemed rather to mean by vertical or horizontal, thinking that moves in a particular direction, which is what it means to me.

Thanks for the explanation, Huguette. So you are saying there is no significant difference between "horizontal" and "vertical" when these terms are applied to thought.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 06 Apr 2018 #76
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4189 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
When we "invite" our thoughts, we see them 'emerge' replaced by another and then another etc. There is no "withering", they just 'flower' and disappear...

I am asking myself if there is two possible "fates" for a thought. Either it is interrupted, overridden by another thought - this is basically the resistance implied by your:

"The 'I' process arises with the desire that 'something' be different than 'what is', doesn't it? "

In this process there is no flowering.

Or the thought actually comes to an end, flowers. And then another thought/feeling arises which is INDEPENDENT of the previous thought?

Dan McDermott wrote:
I recall K. saying something like (from the point of view of Creation?), there are "no endings only beginnings".

I cannot find this quote. It would be curious, because K has spoken a lot about endings, dyings. Have you anything else to say about it, Dan?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 06 Apr 2018 #77
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 810 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Or the thought actually comes to an end, flowers. And then another thought/feeling arises which is INDEPENDENT of the previous thought?

Thoughts are connected to one another by an underlying 'association', the subject. Logical thinking keeps the underlying association in view. Distracted or illogical thought does not; the underlying association changes, wanders.

Dan McDermott wrote:

I recall K. saying something like (from the point of view of Creation?), there are "no endings only beginnings".

Clive: I cannot find this quote. It would be curious, because K has spoken a lot about endings, dyings. Have you anything else to say about it, Dan?

Yes I don't know the source but remember being struck that to K. himself, it was a revelation. Creation is all about 'beginning'...in you, in me, in all of nature. Creation doesn't know about 'ending' or 'withering', Creation is always the 'new', the 'growing tip of the branch', the immediate present.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Fri, 06 Apr 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 06 Apr 2018 #78
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 810 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
there is no significant difference between "horizontal" and "vertical"

K. spoke about this in one of John R's postings recently in a talk saying that there is no relationship between the vertical and the horizontal...

As I see it ,the 'vertical' movement refers to the 'state of observation', or 'choice-less awareness' which includes thought, sensation as well as the observation of the 'I' process (thinker/thought) as it arises. (the 'what is') 'Ordinary' awareness is the 'horizontal' movement where the analyser is felt as separate from his analysis, the thinker is felt as separate from his thought ie, the normal duality of our everyday consciousness. The 'horizontal' has psychological time: a past, present and future...the 'vertical' is 'timeless'. The 'vertical' is the state of meditation without the meditator?

Of course this all may be totally wrong! Here is where I found the quote: 'Brain Cells and The Holistic Issue of Psychological Mutation', Experimenter's Corner, Apr. 02, # 52.:(with John's edit in parentheses)

F:" You seem to be creating a relationship between the former state of development and the present state of being. Is there a
relationship between the two? When you say that one leads to another, you are arranging it in time."

Krishnamurti: "Why do you relate the 'horizontal' movement to the vertical movement? There is no ( causal) relationship between the two. Therefore keep the two separate."

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Fri, 06 Apr 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 06 Apr 2018 #79
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2164 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
The 'horizontal' has psychological time: a past, present and future...the 'vertical' is 'timeless'.

Right, the horizontal has a goal in time. I want to reach some state in the future...to become 'better' in some way....to change from what I am now to something else...become more intelligent, wise, peaceful, non-violent, happy, free, etc.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 06 Apr 2018 #80
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 520 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote (quoting):
Krishnamurti: "Why do you relate the 'horizontal' movement to the vertical movement? There is no ( causal) relationship between the two. Therefore keep the two separate."

Dan,

This particular quote was in fact "edited" in such a way as to end up being inaccurate. What K actually said was: ""F" says why do you relate this movement, the horizontal movement to the vertical movement? There is no relationship between the two. Therefore keep the two separate." link text

Don't those 2 words ("F says") subtantively change the meaning of the quote?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 06 Apr 2018 #81
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 520 posts in this forum Offline

More from K that clarifies (at least for me) :

You know, when we said that the first step is the last step, were we not thinking of time as a horizontal or a vertical movement? Were we not thinking of movement along a plane? We were saying yesterday, when we were walking, if we could put aside height, the vertical and the horizontal altogether, and observe this fact that wherever we are, at whatever level of conditioning, of being, the perceiving of truth, of the fact, is at that moment the last step. (Tradition and Revolution Dialogue 5 New Delhi 19th December 1970 'The first step is the last step')

====

That is, anything put together, horizontal or vertical, is time. Cause and effect are in time. Cause becoming effect and the effect being the cause, are all within the field of time. Whether I move my hand up this way or that, whether the movement is linear or vertical - all these are in within the field of time. (Tradition and Revolution Dialogue 12 Madras 3rd January 'The paradox of causation')

=====

P: What do you mean by “the other”?
Krishnamurti: That is not it.
P: That is not what?
Krishnamurti: This is within the field of time; thought which is time. That is within the field of silence. (Tradition and Revolution Dialogue 4 New Delhi 16th December 1970 ‘The awakening of energy')

This post was last updated by Huguette . Fri, 06 Apr 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 06 Apr 2018 #82
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 810 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Don't those 2 words ("F says") subtantively change the meaning of the quote?

Yes it would seem to but I can't connect with your link. Could you copy and post that part of the conversation?
Thanks.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 06 Apr 2018 #83
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 520 posts in this forum Offline

http://www.jkrishnamurti.org/krishnamurti-teach...

F: You seem to be creating a relationship between the former state of development and the present state of being. Is there a relationship between the two? You say one leads to another, one before another and you are arranging it in time.

P: The phenomenon of "K" is that he was born of Brahmin parents...the whole history we know. I look at his background, I notice that up to a point K talked of time, of salvation as a final point and suddenly the whole thing was negated.

Krishnamurti: "F" says why do you relate this movement, the horizontal movement to the vertical movement? There is no relationship between the two. Therefore keep the two separate.

Here is the link broken down into 2 parts:

http://www.jkrishnamurti.org/
krishnamurti-teachings/print.php?tid=21&chid=562

If you still can't link to it, let me know.

This post was last updated by Huguette . Fri, 06 Apr 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 06 Apr 2018 #84
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 810 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
K.Were we not thinking of movement along a plane? We were saying yesterday, when we were walking, if we could put aside height, the vertical and the horizontal altogether, and observe this fact that wherever we are, at whatever level of conditioning, of being, the perceiving of truth, of the fact, is at that moment the last step.

I do remember being very struck by this and somewhere else that it was expressed, the idea of our seeing things in terms of 'planes' with length and width and height...and being 'conditioned' to think along these planes rather than as he said here, I think, to putting them aside and seeing ourselves as we are "wherever we are, at whatever level of conditioning, of being"...

And that was what I was relating to as "vertical" a vertical seeing (timeless) as separate and totally different from a seeing along a horizontal "plane" ( "I am this but I will be that etc.) Was he speaking of the "vertical plane" as i.e,"I'm not enlightened yet but I will be"? Do you think that is the way he is using "vertical" here? As if psychologically there is a distance to 'traverse'?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Fri, 06 Apr 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 06 Apr 2018 #85
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 520 posts in this forum Offline

Even "to put aside", "to see ourselves as we are", and so on - these are still thought moving "forward" or in circles within a plane, aren't they? It is movement "in the field of time". The direction might go off in a tangent, be modified or reversed, but it is still thought. Seeing, attention, awareness, observation are not moving forward or backward, are they? There is movement in observation, but it is not linear, it has no beginning or jumping off point, no end, direction, intention or goal, does it?

This post was last updated by Huguette . Fri, 06 Apr 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 06 Apr 2018 #86
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 810 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Seeing, attention, awareness, observation are not moving forward or backward, are they? There is movement in observation, but it is not linear, it has no beginning or jumping off point, no end, direction, intention or goal, does it?

I would say no to both questions. "Seeing, attention, awareness, observation" seem to be words attached to a quality that can't be 'known', that thought cannot touch. That is always in the immediate present. (That are the immediate present and that include all?)

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Fri, 06 Apr 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 06 Apr 2018 #87
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 520 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
So you are saying there is no significant difference between "horizontal" and "vertical" when these terms are applied to thought.

That is my understanding of it, yes - no significant difference.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 06 Apr 2018 #88
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 520 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
.....a quality that can't be 'known', that thought cannot touch. That is always in the immediate present

Sounds right to me :0)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 07 Apr 2018 #89
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4189 posts in this forum Offline

There are some very fascinating observations and questions above. But still I find there is no clarity in me regarding K's use of the terms "horizontal and vertical" thinking. Why would he always (always as far as I know) link the two terms together if there was no difference between the two? His repeated use of the phrase seems to differentiate between them.

Thought being linear is clear, and that linearity can be described as horizontal, ok. "Vertical" suggests to me - and this may be far-fetched - jumping off the surface, the area of usual movement, activity; jumping into, or through, a new dimension.

At least leaving something behind.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 07 Apr 2018 #90
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4189 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote #77:
Thoughts are connected to one another by an underlying 'association', the subject. Logical thinking keeps the underlying association in view. Distracted or illogical thought does not; the underlying association changes, wanders.

Yes, this association is the usual way thought operates, and in some areas it is absolutely necessary.

Dan McDermott wrote:
Creation doesn't know about 'ending' or 'withering', Creation is always the 'new', the 'growing tip of the branch', the immediate present.

That's a nice analogy, "the growing tip of the branch". And it is ALWAYS growing, always thrusting forth, into the unknown future, leaving the solid, immutable wood behind it. Yes, indeed.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 61 - 90 of 119 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.)