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

The slowing down of thought


Displaying posts 31 - 47 of 47 in total
Thu, 26 Jul 2018 #31
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4432 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 915 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 4432 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 4432 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 915 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 4432 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 915 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 4432 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 915 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 4432 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 4432 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 4432 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 915 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 4432 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 915 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 4432 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 4432 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
Displaying posts 31 - 47 of 47 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.)