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

The slowing down of thought


Displaying posts 31 - 55 of 55 in total
Thu, 26 Jul 2018 #31
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4651 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
I think now of the "psychological" or the "psychological realm" as distinguished from the 'practical' or 'technical realm', which is the 'proper' space for thought/time and which is out of place when it moves into the psychological . . .

While I am not disagreeing with you, can we question this a bit? You do start by saying “I think now…….”. So is this … this image that you have drawn of a pure space (hope you don’t mind me calling it an image) something that thought has created? Putting it another way. Do you have actual evidence that it exists? i am not asking you to PROVE that it exists, which would be clearly impossible.

I am remembering now that K often said “Consciousness is its content”. Is this clear space a claim to be consciousness without a content?

Reading again what you have written, Dan. Again I am reminded of something that I read in K recently, that mind is actually intelligence. But the problem is that it has been spotted, spoilt, by memory. Memory, time is very basis of what you are saying the clear pond is contaminated with, is it not? - static thoughts, beliefs, cravings, fear, greed, hatred, sorrow …… Would you use the word “intelligence” in connection with this clear space, Dan? If so, then I feel the space is not of the mind (as we know it) at all. As you suggest, it can only be the result of the intense negation of the things of the mind.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 27 Jul 2018 #32
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1002 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
then I feel the space is not of the mind (as we know it) at all. As you suggest, it can only be the result of the intense negation of the things of the mind.

There is another exercise that I am finding to be interesting Clive and you may also; it is, not naming whatever is going on in one's self....Whether one is feeling good ,elated, depressed, frightened, angry, bored, confused,etc.,... just don't name it. Feel the sensation without assigning it a name from one's past "frame of reference" of such feelings. (which just strengthens the 'me') See what happens when what is going on in you, is left nameless. I picked this up from John's recent post of one the early "abstracts"...it's very interesting and like the writing down of thoughts, very 'doable'.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Fri, 27 Jul 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 27 Jul 2018 #33
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4651 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
There is another exercise that I am finding to be interesting Clive and you may also;

Thanks Dan,I will look at this.

Dan McDermott wrote:
I picked this up from John's recent post of one the early "abstracts"..

What are these "early abstracts"?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 28 Jul 2018 #34
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4651 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
There is another exercise that I am finding to be interesting Clive and you may also; it is, not naming whatever is going on in one's self....Whether one is feeling good ,elated, depressed, frightened, angry, bored, confused,etc.,... just don't name it. Feel the sensation without assigning it a name from one's past "frame of reference" of such feelings. (which just strengthens the 'me') See what happens when what is going on in you, is left nameless. I picked this up from John's recent post of one the early "abstracts"...it's very interesting and like the writing down of thoughts, very 'doable'.

After some reflection, I ask: is it really do-able? I ask this because this naming is part of thought, is it not? And as such, does it not rise unbidden to the mind? Naming happens, so how is it possible to "just don't name it"? it is not a matter of choice, is it?

The thinker, the controller, can come along after the naming process has arisen, and perhaps try to supress it, but I am sure this is not what you mean, Dan.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 29 Jul 2018 #35
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1002 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
I ask this because this naming is part of thought, is it not? And as such, does it not rise unbidden to the mind? Naming happens, so how is it possible to "just don't name it"? it is not a matter of choice, is it?

The thinker, the controller, can come along after the naming process has arisen, and perhaps try to supress it, but I am sure this is not what you mean, Dan.

Yes it is quite automatic but just as we found with 'thought/thinking', there can be this awareness of it as it unfolds. And the same here, the 'naming' comes automatically but with the awareness brought to the 'site' it can be seen that this is what takes place. First attempts at this will fail but as K. has said you can work at it and with time diffuse 'feeling' by simply 'not naming' the sensations. The 'naming' actually only just places whatever is being felt in one's past "framework of references", strengthening the 'I', but the caveat is, is that this must also be done with the 'pleasurable' sensations,...just no naming . it will come too late at first of course but with time there will be a presence there before the naming takes place. I mention it to you because I think that you found the 'writing down of thoughts' as interesting and as important as I did.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sun, 29 Jul 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 29 Jul 2018 #36
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4651 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Yes it is quite automatic but just as we found with 'thought/thinking', there can be this awareness of it as it unfolds.

Yes it is quite automatic but just as we found with 'thought/thinking', there can be this awareness of it as it unfolds.

Clive: Yes.

And the same here, the 'naming' comes automatically but with the awareness brought to the 'site' it can be seen that this is what takes place. First attempts at this will fail

Clive: Yes. When I started to write down all thoughts I could see that I would fail to make a complete record, but it didn’t matter. One starts from where one is, as Huguette said recently. One was not trying to achieve something.

but as K. has said you can work at it and with time diffuse 'feeling' by simply 'not naming' the sensations.

Clive: What do you mean when you use the word “diffuse”, Dan?

The 'naming' actually only just places whatever is being felt in one's past "framework of references", strengthening the 'I', but the caveat is, is that this must also be done with the 'pleasurable' sensations,...just no naming . it will come too late at first of course but with time there will be a presence there before the naming takes place.

Clive: That is a very interesting statement. For some time I have felt this is exactly what is needed with thought, to “be there” as it actually arises, not to come in after a thought has already started up.

I mention it to you because I think that you found the 'writing down of thoughts' as interesting and as important as I did.

Clive: Yes. Do you see much difference between writing thoughts down, and sitting quietly just to observe the mind, Dan?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 30 Jul 2018 #37
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1002 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Clive: Yes. Do you see much difference between writing thoughts down, and sitting quietly just to observe the mind, Dan?

No I don't...this is K.'s gift to us: that the observation of thought as well as feeling is possible for us... It's a bringing of 'light' to what has gone on in 'darkness' isn't it, with thought and feelings and memory?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Mon, 30 Jul 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 31 Jul 2018 #38
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4651 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
It's a bringing of 'light' to what has gone on in 'darkness' isn't it, with thought and feelings and memory?

As soon as awareness is lost, the mind starts to break up, as K said, probably because of this darkness. This can be seen, at any time.

You wrote on another thread, Dan:

"Regarding that experiment of writing down one's thoughts, I would recommend it to anyone interested in K's teachings and the process of 'thinking'. John R. shared recently a story he knew about the subject, maybe you read it: K. during WWII practiced writing out his thoughts in this way and later Rajojopal who knew about them searched for them but never found them because K. had hidden them all under a boulder in the garden!"

I know that K advocated not only the writing down of thought, but the reading them through at a later time. I have not attempted this as yet - for one thing I think the written thoughts are too incomplete to make much sense of. But also I ask: what is the significance of this reading through? Does this also contribute to the slowing down of thought, or does it have another significance? What are your thoughts on this, Dan?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 01 Aug 2018 #39
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1002 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
This can be seen, at any time.

True Clive, but it's somewhat rare? What the writing down of thoughts experiment does as I see it, is to slow down thoughts artificially so they can be seen as they appear. There is now a 'different' awareness of them, a different relationship in the brain? But when the thinking process operates at its 'normal' speed (and that is probably somewhat different for each of us) it is (for the most part unless there is a challenge say ) it is not accompanied by a choiceless awareness. So it remains 'invisible', unaware, (it is the 'thinker'(me) thinking) and also it is synchronized with the habitual movements of the body: hand , eye, facial movements, etc....so yes, the experiment can bring a new understanding of 'thought' and how it operates 'on its own' but this also can be seen, as you suggest, by sitting quietly and observing. K's use of the word "constant" is somewhat intimidating" though:

K." Thus through constant awareness the deep process of craving, the cause of self and so of conflict and pain, is observed and understood. Without self-knowledge and right thinking there is no meditation and without meditative awareness there is no self-knowledge."

In the 'thinker/thought' duality, it is the 'thinker' that is the protective 'firewall' between the brain and the world, isn't it? That is the potentially 'explosive' arrangement. The 'thinker' (aka 'me') is the 'wall' built around 'nothing', to protect itself from psychological pain and it is the "craver" of pleasure and rewards. It is through the 'thinker' that relationships are carried on. Based on the past likes and dislikes, attractions and repulsions...at bottom, all based on 'fear'?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Wed, 01 Aug 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 01 Aug 2018 #40
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4651 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
K's use of the word "constant" is somewhat intimidating" though:

Well, here is a quote from talk 3 in London 1962:

Questioner: I find it impossible to be aware all the time.

Krishnamurti: Don't be aware all the time. Just be aware in little bits. Please, there is no being aware all the time - that is a dreadful idea. It is a nightmare, this terrible desire for continuity. Just be aware for one minute, for one second, and in that one second of awareness you can see the whole universe. That is not a poetic phrase. We see things in a flash, in a single moment; but having seen something, we want to capture, to hold it, give it continuity. That is not being aware at all. When you say, "I must be aware all the time", you have made a problem of it, and then you should really find out why you want to be aware all the time - see the greed it implies, the desire to acquire. And to say, "Well, I am aware all the time" means nothing.

Is love, like marriage, for ever and ever? Are marriages for ever and ever? You know better than I do. Is love for ever and ever, or is it something totally stripped of time?

What do you say, Dan, do you see a contradiction in the two quotes?

This post was last updated by Clive Elwell Wed, 01 Aug 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 01 Aug 2018 #41
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4651 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
at bottom, all based on 'fear'?

I have reponded to this on the "action has no significance thread"

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 13 Aug 2018 #42
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4651 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
the 'naming' comes automatically but with the awareness brought to the 'site' it can be seen that this is what takes place.

Dan, you raised the question recently of what it means not to recognise things. I was sitting by a lake this afternoon, under a completely grey cloud cover, the water reflecting the greyness, and sometimes flocks of grey pigeons taking flight over the water, then roosting in the huge phoenix palms fringing part of the lake. There was a stillness, and I could see that I felt the scene most deeply when the mind ceased to recognise, which is, ceased to give names to things.

To write this I need words - clouds, lake, water, pigeons and so on – and that is the proper place of words, isn’t it? To communicate. But words are userpers when it comes to just looking at the world. They reduce the world to what we already know, and knowledge is such a tiny thing.

And I began to wonder if looking without recognition – which means that the seeing is always fresh – is this state that we have inquired into on the other thread, the action that has significance in itself. But I am not claiming that it is or it is not, I am still questioning.

And also, why do words arise so compulsively, interposing themselves between me and the real world? You wrote above:

Dan McDermott wrote:
it is the 'thinker' that is the protective 'firewall' between the brain and the world, isn't it?

I certainly recognise this movement, psychologically ..... butwWhy does the brain need such a "firewall"? Is it protecting itself against hurt? But it names EVERYTHING, things that pose no threat to it.

This post was last updated by Clive Elwell Mon, 13 Aug 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 13 Aug 2018 #43
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1002 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Why does the brain need such a "firewall"? Is it protecting itself against hurt? But it names EVERYTHING, things that pose no threat to it.

I don't know the answer to this of course but is it that the 'seeing' of this 'mechanical' action of thought is the arising of a new unused perceptive function in the brain? Seeing 'thought' constantly active? If thought becomes 'aware' of itself, isn't that a hitherto undiscovered brain function? I think that that is part of the K message; that 'choice-less awareness' is freedom from the known. He describes in the Needleman interview that John has just posted how there can be seeing without thought and then the arising of thought wishing to retain it in memory and repeat it. Rather than just 'moving on' to the next moment and the next, the 'thinker' arises to manipulate (store?) in one way or another what is experienced in each moment. So it obscures in a way 'direct perception' which I suppose could be considered a 'potential' threat (or pleasure)...it may all just be an habitual 'spillover' from much more dangerous times. But by its activity, it keeps in place, the 'old' meeting the 'new'.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Mon, 13 Aug 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 13 Aug 2018 #44
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4651 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
So it obscures in a way 'direct perception' which I suppose could be considered a 'potential' threat (or pleasure)...it may all just be an habitual 'spillover' from much more dangerous times. But by its activity, it keeps in place, the 'old' meeting the 'new'.

There is something not quite logical about this, Dan, If one is facing a physical threat, then is it not essential to see things exactly as they are, so as to meet the threat in the best way possible? And is this not exactly what happens, even in these modern times? And this comes about because when the threat materialises, thought, with all its imaginations, all its un-real stuff, instantly drops out of the picture, does it not?

Don’t we need the new to fully meet the new (challenge), not the old, which is always out of date? Thought being the old, of course.

Dan McDermott wrote:
but is it that the 'seeing' of this 'mechanical' action of thought is the arising of a new unused perceptive function in the brain? Seeing 'thought' constantly active? If thought becomes 'aware' of itself, isn't that a hitherto undiscovered brain function?

I think so, Dan. Very shortly after wakening yesterday, watching thought start up, this thought came very strongly:

“all that is in the mind is this great confused, swirling mess of thoughts".

One went on to simply watch the mess – what else is there to do? - and from the watching, from the absence of reaction to it, came quite a profound sense of peace”. But what is important is that word “all”. Not that the thinker is outside of the confused mess. And I think this is what most people baulk at. They was to keep that thinker, that controller, that so-called understand-er.

And yes, I feel this was a perception, this ‘perceptive function’ as you describe.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 14 Aug 2018 #45
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1002 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Don’t we need the new to fully meet the new (challenge), not the old, which is always out of date? Thought being the old, of course.

That is the message isn't it, that in order for the "old" to no longer meet the "new" it must be 'seen' that that is what is happening? Not to 'change' it but for it to be seen 'choicelessly'.

Clive Elwell wrote:
“all that is in the mind is this great confused, swirling mess of thoughts".

But accompanied now with the 'light' of awareness...that, as I'm seeing it, is the 'awakening' of intelligence. Intelligence awakening to the false duality of thinker/thought in the moment.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Tue, 14 Aug 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 14 Aug 2018 #46
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4651 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Intelligence awakening to the false duality of thinker/thought in the moment.

Apart from the slowing down of thought, this writing down of thoughts as they come, for a period, eliminates any idea of the thinker. The thoughts that are written down ARE only thoughts; they do not come in two flavours, thought flavour and thinker flavour. Thoughts are all that there is in the mind (along with accompanying feelings, of course). Thought following thought following thought. If there ARE different flavours, these lie in the intensity, and the clarity of the thought.

Seeing thought as only thought brings a certain perspective.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 14 Aug 2018 #47
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4651 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
But accompanied now with the 'light' of awareness...that, as I'm seeing it, is the 'awakening' of intelligence.

But naming and descriptions are not the light of awareness. I am going to start a new thread on this, entitled “To understand the fact which we call emptiness, there must be no naming of that fact". It may get nowhere.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 25 Aug 2018 #48
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 760 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
this topic of the slowing down of thought,

Hi all participants. Dit not have the impulse to react on this topic, although very interesting, until i came upon this chapter from "the world within".

THE FLOW OF SELF-AWARENESS INTO POOLS OF MEDITATION

S. L. explained that he used to belong to certain institutions in which there were confessions, or sharing as it was also called. He had left them not because of this but for their pettiness and other reasons. He had found confession to be helpful at certain times, but was there not another means of deriving benefit than by confessing to a priest, to a group, or by going to a psychoanalyst? He felt there must be, and for that reason he had come to talk things over.

One must be ever watchful not to waste mental-emotional expansive elasticity on wasteful ends. We turn to others for help in our confusion and sorrow. If there is no understanding, this must inevitably become a dependence, with all its pains. This understanding comes not through others but by developing self-awareness—that awareness in which every thought-feeling is reflected as in a mirror. This reflection is distorted when there is condemnation or acceptance, when there is judgement of the thing perceived. Such judgement prevents the flow of deeper and wider comprehension.

In self-awareness there is no need for confession, for self-awareness creates the mirror in which all things are reflected without distortion, for every thought-feeling is thrown, as it were, on the screen of awareness to be observed, studied, and understood. But this flow of understanding is denied when there is condemnation or acceptance, judgement or identification. The more the screen is watched and understood, not as a duty or as an enforced practice, but when pain and sorrow create that insatiable interest which brings its own discipline, the greater is the intensity of awareness and heightened understanding.

This understanding is not dependent on anyone, on any outside authority or on any inner resolution, but on the constant flow of self-awareness. Through dependence thought becomes a slave, and slavish thought can be organized and used, and thus institutionalism grows, and thinking begins and ends in collectivism, which prevents the creative discovery of reality.

To be aware of every thought and feeling and to follow it out is extremely difficult. Our mind is revolving too fast with too many thoughts and feelings; it is scattered and wasteful. To merely control the speed of the mind by putting on the brake of one thought called concentration becomes a wasteful pursuit, for thought is more concerned with putting on the brake, in not allowing the mind to scatter. In that way you cannot go far. This must be understood from the very beginning—that a thought to which a brake is applied ceases to flow, ceases to bring understanding. And since thought is occupied with controlling the wandering thoughts-feelings, the mind soon wearies, and concentration becomes a series of compulsions, in which there is no understanding whatsoever. This must be thoroughly grasped.

To be aware of every thought-feeling, it is necessary that the mind itself should realize that to think out and feel out every thought-feeling, it must work with less scattered speed. You can follow a thing if it moves slowly; a rapid machine must be made to go slow in order to study it. Similarly, thoughts-feelings can be studied and understood if the mind is capable of producing slowly; when it has learnt this capacity, it can increase to a high velocity, which makes it extremely calm. A fan of several blades revolving at high speed appears as one solid blade. Our difficulty is to make the mind revolve slowly so that each thought-feeling can be followed and understood. What is deeply and thoroughly understood will not repeat itself.

Write down every thought-feeling, not the specially chosen thoughts-feelings, at a determined and happy moment, for then the mind is thinking only what is desired. Write down every thought-feeling, the trivial, the stupid and the good, say, when you get up in the morning. You cannot write down everything as you are thinking too many things, but write down as many as you can, not a selection. You have to do other things, your attention is given elsewhere. After you have attempted several times to write down, you will notice that though you have to pay attention to other things, your subconscious is taking note of your inward thoughts-feelings, for when you begin to write again, these thoughts-feelings will come out. Look over what you have written, without condemnation or justification, acceptance, judgement or identification, which is an extremely difficult thing to do. You will find that instinctively you are condemning or justifying, and this will prevent the flow of understanding of the deeper significance of what you have written down. Don’t write down as though it were a duty, but if you would understand you must be aware of what you think-feel; it is interest and not a painful duty.

If you persist in writing down for some time and try to think out, feel out each thought-feeling, you will find that you can, without other thoughts-feelings coming in. So there is awakened self-awareness, from which there arises self-knowledge and right thinking. Of course, one need not write down if one is sensitive, responsive to, aware of, every thought-feeling. Soon you will find what thoughts-feelings to pursue and what not to, and those that are not soon wither away and do not come back.

Through this constant process of self-awareness, confession becomes unnecessary, for awareness acts as a tolerant and understanding corrective, and the dependence on another becomes foolish and unnecessary. You will also find that from this process there is a deeper and more sensitive candour; also you are discovering the inner springs of your thoughts-feelings. That very discovery brings clarity and understanding, and so the conflict between the many layers of consciousness diminishes. Also, there is from this process an extensional, not narrowing, concentration. From this self-awareness there comes self-knowledge and right thinking. The flow of self-awareness enters into deep, quiet pools of meditation.

Truth will unfold itself for those who enquire their own actions and only to them and for them and to or for no one else.

This post was last updated by Wim Opdam Sat, 25 Aug 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 26 Aug 2018 #49
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4651 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
To merely control the speed of the mind by putting on the brake of one thought called concentration becomes a wasteful pursuit, for thought is more concerned with putting on the brake, in not allowing the mind to scatter.

A striking analogy …… the ‘thinker’, in the guise of the controller, is in effect the continued attempt to “put on the brake”. So the mind generally operates is like driving a car by accelerating, braking, accelerating, braking, accelerating, braking. Controller, controlled, controller, controlled. This gets nowhere, except to wear out the engine.

Wim Opdam wrote, quoting K:
Look over what you have written, without condemnation or justification, acceptance, judgement or identification, which is an extremely difficult thing to do. You will find that instinctively you are condemning or justifying, and this will prevent the flow of understanding of the deeper significance of what you have written down.

Both Dan and myself agreed that we did not see the significance of reading what one had written afterwards. I still don’t. Is this part of the slowing down process? And as K indicates what one succeeds in putting down is by no means that complete picture of one’s thoughts, it is generally a scattered few of the more distinct ones. Perhaps a random collection.

Wim Opdam wrote, quoting K:
\if you persist in writing down for some time and try to think out, feel out each thought-feeling, you will find that you can, without other thoughts-feelings coming in.

It is not clear to be just what this “feeling out “ process entails, means. And what is it that does the feeling out?

In any case, thank you for finding and posting this excerpt, Wim. It is the most comprehensive account of K's "writing down of thoughts" that I have come upon.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 26 Aug 2018 #50
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 760 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Both Dan and myself agreed that we did not see the significance of reading what one had written afterwards. I still don’t. Is this part of the slowing down process?

But what's the value of your agreement?
I saw the change of view about what was written with what was read as a clearifying process of those specific thoughts and as such the proof that all is in motion.
The slowing down is seen as well in the quantity as well quality of the thought.

For example, the emphasis in the meaning of 'hearing, seeing and keeping silent' has come to lie on 'especially silence'.

Clive Elwell wrote:

In any case, thank you for finding and posting this excerpt, Wim. It is the most comprehensive account of K's "writing down of thoughts" that I have come upon.

No thanks, It was just luck.

writing down was something that I already did before I met K. and reading about it made it clear why I did it.

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
Sun, 26 Aug 2018 #51
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 639 posts in this forum Offline

Clive, in case you missed it, I take the liberty of drawing your attention to today’s QOTD which also broaches the question of the slowing down of thought. One sees that with the mind’s habitual inattention, thoughts arise and succeed each other pell-mell, so that there is no understanding of thought at all ….. the very attention to every thought as it arises slows down the thought process as each thought/emotion is fully looked at like a jewel.

I confess that I have not been following this conversation, so this point may already have been raised here.

QOTD:

...So, our problem is that our thoughts wander all over the place, and naturally we want to bring about order; but how is order to be brought about? Now, to understand a fast evolving machine, you must slow it down, must you not? If you want to understand a dynamo, it must be slowed down and studied; but if you stop it, it is a dead thing, and a dead thing can never be understood. Only a living thing can be understood. So, a mind that has killed thoughts by exclusion, by isolation, can have no understanding; but the mind can understand thought if the thought process is slowed down. If you have seen a slow motion picture, you will understand the marvellous movement of a horse's muscles as it jumps. There is beauty in that slow movement of the muscles; but as the horse jumps hurriedly, as the movement is quickly over, that beauty is lost. Similarly, when the mind moves slowly because it wants to understand each thought as it arises, then there is freedom from thinking, freedom from controlled, disciplined thought. Thinking is the response of memory, therefore thinking can never be creative.

Only in meeting the new as the new, the fresh as the fresh, is there creative being. The mind is the recorder, the gatherer of memories; and as long as memory is being revivified by challenge, the thought process must go on. But if each thought is observed, felt out, gone into fully, and completely understood, then you will find that memory begins to wither away. We are talking about psychological memory, not factual memory.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 26 Aug 2018 #52
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4651 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
But if each thought is observed, felt out, gone into fully, and completely understood, then you will find that memory begins to wither away. We are talking about psychological memory, not factual memory.

Thanks for posting this quote, Huguette.

There is something in this slowing down of thought which continues to puzzle - I touched upon it in my reply to Wim *49 -

"what is it that does the feeling out?"

This was in response to K's words:

"If you persist in writing down for some time and try to think out, feel out each thought-feeling, you will find that you can, without other thoughts-feelings coming in.

The words seem to imply that there is a separate entity at work, behind the writing down of thoughts; actually doing this "thinking out, feeling out". They suggest that there is a deliberate process at work. And perhaps there is.

And yet as one undertakes this journey into the understanding of thought, one comes upon the fact - I would call it a fact - that there is no entity separate from thought. There is no actor separate from what is acted upon. As Dan wrote in *13 in the thread “to understand what we call emptiness …..”:
“That's K.'s whole point isn't it, that there is no-one there to do anything about anything! ”

I do see this a definite fact (allowing for the fragmentation that is the ‘I’). So what is there that “feels out each thought-feeling”?

This is a very real question to me, not a theoretical one. With the realisation that the thinker is the thought, with the understanding the idea of the actor, psychologically, is false, there is the ending of the actor, the thinker, in that moment. And this is the ‘answer to everything’, is it not? Thought can do nothing more that realise its own falseness, and so end, it seems to me.
Writing this down, perhaps the question that I originally posted - "what is it that does the feeling out?" - dissolves.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 31 Aug 2018 #53
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 639 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Writing this down, perhaps the question that I originally posted - "what is it that does the feeling out?" - dissolves.

[...]

So what is there that “feels out each thought-feeling”?

This is a very real question to me, not a theoretical one. With the realisation that the thinker is the thought, with the understanding the idea of the actor, psychologically, is false, there is the ending of the actor, the thinker, in that moment. And this is the ‘answer to everything’, is it not? Thought can do nothing more that realise its own falseness, and so end, it seems to me.
Writing this down, perhaps the question that I originally posted - "what is it that does the feeling out?" - dissolves.

Isn’t it seen that nothing can be understood if the mind is not silent, as K said? This silent listening or observation is awareness, isn’t it? So isn’t that the state of mind which does the "feeling out", being without motive, hesitant, unsure, unaggressive, unknowing, interested in understanding, whether it is a political question or whether it is self or the slowing down of thought?

HAS the question dissolved?

This post was last updated by Huguette . Fri, 31 Aug 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 01 Sep 2018 #54
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4651 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
HAS the question dissolved?

It dissolves from moment to moment.

In the realisation that the thinker is the thought, that what was taken to be permanent is actually transient, that thought is creating the illusion of a thinker, thought dissolves - from moment to moment.

Can anything be seen beyond this moment to moment?

Huguette . wrote:
Isn’t it seen that nothing can be understood if the mind is not silent, as K said? This silent listening or observation is awareness, isn’t it?

Yes. I would say when thought is not, then there is awareness.

Huguette . wrote:
So isn’t that the state of mind which does the "feeling out", being without motive, hesitant, unsure, unaggressive, unknowing, interested in understanding, whether it is a political question or whether it is self or the slowing down of thought?

So you are saying that there is no entity that does the feeling out, it is not another part of the mind that does it, it is a STATE of mind.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 01 Sep 2018 #55
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 639 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
So you are saying that there is no entity that does the feeling out, it is not another part of the mind that does it, it is a STATE of mind.

Yes, I see it that way. There is no entity. There is a state of effortless tranquility - silence. This is somewhat akin to saying that tranquil waters are a state of the waters.

There is no disturbance, no movement of effort or desire. Disturbance is movement. The mind is tranquilly observing, without the movement of thought.


I’m not sure if the question ("what is it that does the feeling out?") dissolves. I can understand the illusion of self dissolving. But with the dissolution or understanding of self, don’t questions still arise naturally? For example, what is consciousness where self is dissolved? I’m not saying that these questions are asked verbally or that they need to be answered verbally. But awareness remains, the undivided mind remains, the brain remains, the human being remains - the wholeness of that living thing is alive, living in relationship. Don’t questions arise out of silent awareness?

Wisdom is not in any book or in the perfection of knowledge. It is in the movement of freedom in learning. There is no end to learning; and wisdom is the ending of sorrow.

Am I making a mistake?

https://krishnamurti-teachings.info/ebooks/en/p...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 31 - 55 of 55 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.)