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

The brain is infinite


Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 107 in total
Thu, 20 Sep 2018 #1
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4648 posts in this forum Offline

Both K and David Bohm have said: “The brain is infinite”.

I don’t know if they arrived at this statement separately or together. And I don’t know if they came from different sorts of perceptions, different “directions”. it may be that they meant different things by the statement. But in any case the statement interests me a lot – not that I am claiming to understand it however.

Another way they put it was “The brain has infinite capacity”.
We know that K’s ‘teachings’ are very much concerned with the realisation that thought, the mind, is limited. Obviously limited means ‘not infinite’ And this limitation is there to be seen, at any moment. But I am not saying that this is in contradiction to the possibility that the brain itself is infinite.

But what does it mean, “the brain is infinite”? Does anyone have anything to contribute on this?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 21 Sep 2018 #2
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 999 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
But what does it mean, “the brain is infinite”? Does anyone have anything to contribute on this?

The brain does a lot of different things, functions...one of those functions is 'thinking', (as John R. called it , "the thinking brain")There's also the parts that take care of all the other things going on in the body: movement, digestion, evacuation, feeling, regeneration, memory, etc....but I think what K. is saying is that the human brain can participate in the 'infinite' but only when it frees itself from the binds of 'time'. Thought is time. It is limited. Thought/time has a place but it has spilled over into the space where there should be no limits. Where there should be only 'emptiness' (aka "no-thingness). It is in that emptiness that the infinite lies. Time/thought has usurped that place and filled it with misery.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Fri, 21 Sep 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 21 Sep 2018 #3
Thumb_open-uri20180717-8420-135f99u-0 Mina Martini Finland 248 posts in this forum Offline

Dan and Clive,

Dan from above....>but I think what K. is saying is that the human brain can participate in the 'infinite' but only when it frees itself from the binds of 'time'.

m: Yes. When empty from its own-created limitation (thinker-thought) the brain is being tuned to receive that which is beyond it, that which is not its own creation, and yet the brain is also IT. (it=the infinite)

('beyond' does not mean separation)

It is only then that the brain is in 'correct use', the whole of it, and not just the image/memory-part which is deluded, when in the state of thinker separate from thought, to think it is the whole of the brain.

This post was last updated by Mina Martini Fri, 21 Sep 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 21 Sep 2018 #4
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 999 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
('beyond' does not mean separation)

Hello Mina and Clive

The 'separation' is the "delusion" isn't it? The realization of that is essential or 'thought' can never stop trying to bring about an illusory 're-union'. It is like a hand swirling the water to make it clearer but which only 'muddies' it endlessly..."Infinite" is the 'biggest word we have in english along with its counterparts in all other human language to describe the indescribable. The analogy of the brain as a 'receiver' out of tune with the infinite seems right. Any and all efforts to bring it into 'tune' are useless because any action on the part of the 'tuner' can only create more 'noise'. As has been said, only when thought/time is silent, (the state of not-knowing?) can the brain function in harmony with the infinite.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 21 Sep 2018 #5
Thumb_an_immovable_mountain Vikram P India 42 posts in this forum Offline

Clive,
As usual; the take of this post is in a 180 degree different direction and incorrect in its entirety. Be careful sir of distorting K's words and propagating wrong information either with or without motive. I had brought it to your attention on my own blog one time when you had mentioned that silly comment about "leaving a mark" and tried to pass it as K's words. Take this comment as a friendly reminder from a concerned fellow traveler as we all are; or should be.

This post was last updated by Vikram P Fri, 21 Sep 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 22 Sep 2018 #6
Thumb_open-uri20180717-8420-135f99u-0 Mina Martini Finland 248 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
The 'separation' is the "delusion" isn't it? The realization of that is essential or 'thought' can never stop trying to bring about an illusory 're-union'. It is like a hand swirling the water to make it clearer but which only 'muddies' it endlessly..."Infinite" is the 'biggest word we have in english along with its counterparts in all other human language to describe the indescribable. The analogy of the brain as a 'receiver' out of tune with the infinite seems right. Any and all efforts to bring it into 'tune' are useless because any action on the part of the 'tuner' can only create more 'noise'. As has been said, only when thought/time is silent, (the state of not-knowing?) can the brain function in harmony with the infinite.

Mina: Dear Dan, absolutely so, not as theory but as actuality in which what you point out, is lived to be true! Beautiful! Thank you.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 22 Sep 2018 #7
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2333 posts in this forum Offline

Dan: Any and all efforts to bring it into 'tune' are useless because any action on the part of the 'tuner' can only create more 'noise'. As has been said, only when thought/time is silent, (the state of not-knowing?) can the brain function in harmony with the infinite.

T: I think many of us see this intellectually, yet thought is not silent. And we realize your other point about stirring muddy water. Is there nothing atall that I can do when my mind is full of problems..,conflicts...desires? Dev has provided us with a pertinent QOTD here, so I'll copy and paste here:

Ojai, California | 2nd Public Talk 1946

Questioner: You have said that illumination could never come through self-expansion but does it not come through the expansion of consciousness?

Krishnamurti: Illumination, understanding of the Real, can never come through the expansion of the self, through the I making an effort to grow, to become, to achieve and there is no effort apart from the will of the I. How can there be understanding if the self is ever filtering experience, identifying, accumulating memory? Consciousness is the product of the mind and the mind is the result of conditioning, of craving, and so it is the seat of the self. Only when the activity of the self, of memory, ceases is there a wholly different consciousness, about which any speculation is a hindrance. The effort to expand is still the activity of the self whose consciousness is to grow, to become. Such consciousness however expanded is time-binding and so the Timeless is not.

If one desires to understand a vital problem should not one put aside one's tendencies, prejudices, fears and hopes, one's conditioning, and be aware simply and directly? In thinking over our problems together we are exposing ourselves to ourselves. This self-exposure is of great importance for it will reveal to us the process of our own thoughts-feelings. We have to dig deeply into ourselves to find truth. We are conditioned and is it possible for thought to go beyond its own limitation? It is possible only through being aware of our conditioning. We have developed a certain kind of intelligence in the process of self-expansion; through greed, through acquisitiveness, through conflict and pain we have developed a self-protective, self-expansive intelligence. Can this intelligence comprehend the Real which alone can resolve all our problems?

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 22 Sep 2018 #8
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 999 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Is there nothing atall that I can do when my mind is full of problems..,conflicts...desires?

What does resistance achieve? I woke up this AM in a state of worry over something that 'could' happen in the future. In the past the worries would 'snowball', bring a lot of fear and apprehension but what happened this morning was a 'questioning': "you don't and can't know the future...why are you painting this picture? Can you physically do something about it not happening and if so do it and if not what is the fretting over something that may never happen? You don't even know if you'll be alive 5 minutes from now" etc. etc...So to me all this means that 'thought' is seeing that its action here is 'out of place'. The 'thinker' is suffering over the possible bad thing happening in some future but thought/something sees this wastage of energy for what it is, completely useless (mechanical?). If it's a technical problem that can be fixed, do what you can. If not why go through this routine? Reminds me of K. saying recently in one of John R's posts to the effect of that we can't 'be as nothing' because we'd rather hang on to our psychological problems...They may be painful but 'at least' they maintain 'my' identity?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sat, 22 Sep 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 22 Sep 2018 #9
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2333 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
If it's a technical problem that can be fixed, do what you can. If not why go through this routine?

What you wrote Dan, seems very logical, but will this kind of logical conclusion put an end to our underlying sense of unease or insecurity...our anxiety...our worry or our attachments or cravings? Isn't the conditioning of the self very deep and all pervading? It has persisted for thousands of years and no logical and rational thought has seemed to put an end to it. Or am I mistaken?

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 23 Sep 2018 #10
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4648 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
It is in that emptiness that the infinite lies. Time/thought has usurped that place and filled it with misery.

Which means that to experience the infinite, one has to experience the emptiness. But of course the term “experience” is entirely wrong, these 'things' (which are not things" must be beyond experience. All we can experience is what we know already, and that is very definitely “finite”.

But can we say the doorway to the infinite lies through emptiness?

Mina Martini wrote:
Dan from above....>but I think what K. is saying is that the human brain can participate in the 'infinite' but only when it frees itself from the binds of 'time'.

But the trouble is the mind has strengthed itself in the limited by attempting to use the limited to reach the unlimited. Not just "has", it continues to do this.

Dan McDermott wrote:
As has been said, only when thought/time is silent, (the state of not-knowing?) can the brain function in harmony with the infinite.

I see my mind trying to grasp the sense of the infinite, but clearly that is not possible. The word itself, of course, carries concepts, images, associations. I see the conditioning of my education in mathematics limiting this attempt to grasp - seeing infinity as some sort of ladder where it is always possible to climb another rung :-)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 23 Sep 2018 #11
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 999 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
seems very logical, but will this kind of logical conclusion put an end to our underlying sense of unease or insecurity...our anxiety...our worry or our attachments or cravings?

If an "ending" is what 'I' am seeking, I'm still in the same old 'game', aren't I? The thing that K. calls "becoming". Wanting 'what is' to be something else? That sounds like the sane thing to want, to want things to be better. And it is in the physical world: better shelter, better food, cleaner air, clean water. better health, etc. but what's in question here, is does the same thing apply in one's psychological world? Does that same 'sane' motive work in that realm or is it a cause of friction and conflict?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sun, 23 Sep 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 23 Sep 2018 #12
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4648 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Is there nothing atall that I can do when my mind is full of problems..,conflicts...desires?

Well, K does have a suggestion about this. That one follows each thought through to completion, without trying to interfer with it. This has been discussed recently on the thread "The slowing down of thought" - but I for one am happy to take the issue up again.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 23 Sep 2018 #13
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 999 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Well, K does have a suggestion about this. That one follows each thought through to completion, without trying to interfere with it

Which means, doesn't it that when this is taking place that 'we' are no longer the 'thought' but...the awareness that is watching it? In any case something different is taking place, a different psychological dynamic?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sun, 23 Sep 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 23 Sep 2018 #14
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2333 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:

seems very logical, but will this kind of logical conclusion put an end to our underlying sense of unease or insecurity...our anxiety...our worry or our attachments or cravings?

Dan McDermott wrote:
If an "ending" is what 'I' am seeking, I'm still in the same old 'game', aren't I? The thing that K. calls "becoming". Wanting 'what is' to be something else?

But what relatively thoughtful man doesn't want to find out if he can live without the violence and misery he sees in the news every day and in himself? Doesn't such a man question why the world is full of suffering? And doesn't he seek to understand his and his fellow man's predicament?

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Sun, 23 Sep 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 23 Sep 2018 #15
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2333 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Tom Paine wrote:

Is there nothing atall that I can do when my mind is full of problems..,conflicts...desires?

Well, K does have a suggestion about this. That one follows each thought through to completion, without trying to interfer with it.

Yes, I recall that thread, but I had some difficulty understanding this kind of thought following. Will come back to this later, time permitting. I have another busy day ahead,so I need to get breakfast started.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 23 Sep 2018 #16
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 999 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
But what relatively thoughtful man doesn't want to find out if he can live without the violence and misery he sees in the news every day and in himself? Doesn't such a man question why the world is full of suffering? And doesn't he seek to understand his and his fellow man's predicament?

Hi Tom

I would say yes to all of that. And obviously everything has been 'tried', but here we are...what would a true "understanding" be in this context?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 23 Sep 2018 #17
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4648 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
If an "ending" is what 'I' am seeking, I'm still in the same old 'game', aren't I? The thing that K. calls "becoming". Wanting 'what is' to be something else? ... (cut) ... but what's in question here, is does the same thing apply in one's psychological world? Does that same 'sane' motive work in that realm or is it a cause of friction and conflict?

As soon as we face a problem, we try to solve it by inventing an imaginary opposite. I was listening to a K dialogue where he went most deeply into this business. We are jealous, for example, we find that painful, so we ‘invent’ an idea of non-jealousy, and pursue that, or think we should pursue it. I think we do this so automatically that we are usually not aware of what we are doing. We certainly don’t question this approach, an approach which has been deeply conditioned into us. One might say it is the mainstay of society.

K asked in the dialogue if we could not do that, not invent an imaginary opposite, but stay with what is. Stay with the jealousy. It comes to me now that is very much related to this “thinking each thought/feeling through. We cannot think anything through if we try to escape from it, and isn’t creating the imaginary opposite a blatant and rather infantile escape?

The dialogue was in 1973, a small group at Brockwood Park which included Bohm and Mary Zimbalist. It is on Youtube. There are four discussions altogether, in the first three at least (haven’t finished listening) K investigates image formation in incredible depth. He points out by forming images the brain is trying create security for itself.***

Here is the URL for the first discussion:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rju186_mE20&amp...

?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 24 Sep 2018 #18
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4648 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:>What does resistance achieve? I woke up this AM in a state of worry over something that 'could' happen in the future. In the past the worries would 'snowball', bring a lot of fear and apprehension but what happened this morning was a 'questioning': "you don't and can't know the future...why are you painting this picture? Can you physically do something about it not happening and if so do it and if not what is the fretting over something that may never happen? You don't even know if you'll be alive 5 minutes from now" etc. etc...So to me all this means that 'thought' is seeing that its action here is 'out of place'. The 'thinker' is suffering over the possible bad thing happening in some future but thought/something sees this wastage of energy for what it is, completely useless (mechanical?). If it's a technical problem that can be fixed, do what you can. If not why go through this routine?

Yes, I went through something similar myself today. I started to react to some “economic extortion”, as I saw it, from a company. Such terms as “cheating”, “unfair”, came up, and emotions of resentment, complaining, started to arise. Suddenly it was seen that this was not so much a matter of the company, but a matter of my own patterns. And then there was no effort to overcome the feelings, to resist them, they were simply seen as futile, only hurting myself.

Yes, it is possible for thought to see the fact, isn’t it? And this seems important. As I see it, from what you describe, it is FACT which is operating on the brain, NOT THE IMAGE.

Here is a transcribed excerpt from the dialogue that I refer to above:

“I have seen what envy has done in the world. The danger, the mischief, the confusion, the misery, the agony, all that I have seen. Seen visually, intellectually, with my being I have seen that. And, that factor of envy still remains in me - because I’m part of this blasted universe. And I say to myself, how does this envy arise? I’ve traced it.

Because I’ve seen – the mind has seen – what envy has done in the world, the very intelligence of that perception is the operating factor which says “that’s not all right” [correct wording?]. Sees the futility of it.”

It is shocking to see how little action in this world is based on fact, on this actual perception. And how much is based on image, on ideology, belief. This is a hugely distorting factor. Of course the scientific/technical world has to be based on fact.

This post was last updated by Clive Elwell Mon, 24 Sep 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 24 Sep 2018 #19
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 999 posts in this forum Offline

Clive and All

Following on with this conversation about observing thought, following one's thoughts,etc....is this related to what K. is pointing to when he speaks of "dying", "negating", "wiping out"..."dying to the past"? Does the awareness of each thought have the effect of negating it, taking away its potency, its 'supremacy'? It seems to me that it does. When at one time he was speaking with a person who was physically dying, he said to her, I believe, something like I'm dying every day...is the awareness of the activities, thoughts, feelings, of the self, is that awareness the "dying" that he speaks of? And if not what other kind of psychological 'dying' could there be?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Mon, 24 Sep 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 24 Sep 2018 #20
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4648 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Following on with this conversation about observing thought, following one's thoughts,etc....is this related to what K. is pointing to when he speaks of "dying", "negating", "wiping out"..."dying to the past"? Does the awareness of each thought have the effect of negating it, taking away its potency, its 'supremacy'? It seems to me that it does. When at one time he was speaking with a person who was physically dying, he said to her, I believe, something like I'm dying every day...is the awareness of the activities, thoughts, feelings, of the self, is that awareness the "dying" that he speaks of? And if not what other kind of psychological 'dying' could there be?

Although it is an extremely difficult thing to talk about, and trying to do so only takes one further from the actuality of it, I will say that this psychological dying IS a fact. It is actually going on.

I am talking about each individual thought having an end. I do like the terms “negating” or “wiping out”, since they seem to hint at the idea that someone is actually doing it. The dying to thought (no one doing the dying) is definitely not an action of will, or of choice.

When one considers it, it is very obvious, is it not? Thought C follows thought B, which followed thought A, etc. If thought B is to have existence, then thought A must first have ended. And if a thought has ended, it no longer exists. Then does the content of that thought, its sense, its meaning, still have any existence? I am sorry if this sounds complicated, it is not, it is very, very simple, as it happens.

The slate of thinking is continually being wiped clean, to be written on by another thought.

But belief, ideology, religion, tries to “freeze thought”. One might say it pretends thought (the content of thought) is somehow “true”. That it has an independent existence outside of the transitory movement of a few brain cells. Perhaps the invention of the written word is a culprit in this freezing of thought.

Thought is transitory. At the best it reflects the moment. I might use thought to describe the waving shadows of the gum tree outside on the grass, but soon the clouds will come, the shadows will disappear, and those thoughts have become “out of date”.



And all the words that have been written above similarly come to an end, They die. I might try to hold on to them, with the claim “they are describing the truth”, but the truth is, that the thoughts end. They die.
I would say this dying is a completely natural process. Everything dies.
Now what makes this really interesting, the reason it has such an impact on one’s life, is that I AM THOUGHT. So as each thought dies, I die.
This is not a theory, this actually happens. It is a “living process”, always there to be observed, experienced, lived.


Now it is clear that this is not how most people experience themselves. They do not see that they are dying all the time. No, their whole thrust is to achieve continuity, which is associated with security. Mostly they believe themselves to be permanent entities. But that is just a belief, utterly in contradiction with the facts. This denial of the facts, the struggle to maintain continuity, permanence, is the cause of much sorrow – perhaps all sorrow.

Of course there must be a certain physical continuity to fulfil the needs of the body. And this physical continuity may be the origin of the illusion of psychological continuity.

And since you mention it, Dan, I would say that this dying is very much related to the following of each thought/feeling to completion.

Is this how you see things, Dan? How you experience living, as being hand in hand with dying? Sorry, not just talking to Dan, I would very much welcome every one’s responses.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 25 Sep 2018 #21
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 999 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
I am talking about each individual thought having an end. I do like the terms “negating” or “wiping out”, since they seem to hint at the idea that someone is actually doing it. The dying to thought (no one doing the dying) is definitely not an action of will, or of choice.

No not will, just awareness. Thought being aware of itself?

Clive Elwell wrote:
Now what makes this really interesting, the reason it has such an impact on one’s life, is that I AM THOUGHT. So as each thought dies, I die.

And it is quite painless. But it doesn't stop...'I' go on.

Clive Elwell wrote:
Of course there must be a certain physical continuity to fulfil the needs of the body. And this physical continuity may be the origin of the illusion of psychological continuity.

Yes thought is in the wrong place. John R.'s post today really gets into what it is that keeps us from 'flowering'. Not really "listening" (listening through the past, the 'self'?)

Clive Elwell wrote:
Now it is clear that this is not how most people experience themselves. They do not see that they are dying all the time.

This I think goes without saying Clive.

Clive Elwell wrote:
Is this how you see things, Dan? How you experience living, as being hand in hand with dying?

From time to time. But that is also what was so interesting about the post I mentioned above: getting to the threshold but never really going through...why? Not being able to 'perceive' in a new way?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Tue, 25 Sep 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 25 Sep 2018 #22
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4648 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
And it is quite painless. But it doesn't stop...'I' go on.

I am not sure Dan. There is something basically frustrating in the transience of thought - at least to the thinker. The thinker wants thought to continue – because this is the only way the thinker CAN continue, as the thinker IS its thoughts (although better to say this is the only way the ILLUSION of the thinker can continue). But as each thought ends, the thinker is faced with the its own ending (which is probably the perception of nothingness that has been touched upon in other threads). And, I would say, the reason thought created the thinker in the first place, and continues to do so, is try to create continuity, permanence. Because after all, that is the basic demand of the brain cells, isn’t it? To be secure. To continue in their existence. Isn’t this drive common to ALL cells, even bacteria?

So I am not sure if I would say there is no pain in this process of thought realising its own impermanence. At least discomfort. But is this realisation the same as the dying we are talking of? And if there is psychological pain/discomfort, that is also seen not to be permanent - the mind dies to that.

There is nothing to hold on to. But how we try.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 25 Sep 2018 #23
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4648 posts in this forum Offline

PS
Interesting aside to this. In the talk I have been mentioning, K suggests that brain can find security in the realisation of truth.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Sep 2018 #24
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 999 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
There is something basically frustrating in the transience of thought - at least to the thinker. The thinker wants thought to continue – because this is the only way the thinker CAN continue, as the thinker IS its thoughts (although better to say this is the only way the ILLUSION of the thinker can continue). But as each thought ends, the thinker is faced with the its own ending

That doesn't seem right Clive. Are you "frustrated" that each thought ends? It's an almost seamless process, isn't it? 'We' want to "continue". That seems like a fact. But the 'we' is really just an accumulation of memory, of the past and really all it does is keep one from contact with the present. So our 'problem' is as I see it, that there needs to be an awareness that we are in fact the 'past' and as such are limited. Without such an awareness we will continue to act from the 'center' (the past) because we don't see our conditioning for the totality that it is.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Wed, 26 Sep 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Sep 2018 #25
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4648 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Are you "frustrated" that each thought ends? It's an almost seamless process, isn't it?

What do you mean here by "seamless", Dan?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Sep 2018 #26
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 999 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
What do you mean here by "seamless",

Unless there is this "watching", the thoughts just flow don't they?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Sep 2018 #27
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4648 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Unless there is this "watching", the thoughts just flow don't they?

Do you mean flow without a space between them?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Sep 2018 #28
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 999 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Do you mean flow without a space between them?

Well unless it's a 'jumble' there has to be a spacing between each word of the thought and a space or gap between each thought. What is the significance Clive that you find in this gap or space?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Sep 2018 #29
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 597 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
I see it, that there needs to be an awareness that we are in fact the 'past' and as such are limited. Without such an awareness we will continue to act from the 'center' (the past) because we don't see our conditioning for the totality that it is.

What is this awareness? Is it thought, or is it something that is beyond thought?

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Wed, 26 Sep 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Sep 2018 #30
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 597 posts in this forum Offline

Isn't it always only in the present?

Is it mine or yours, or is it some thing that is universal?

Same "thing" here as there?

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Wed, 26 Sep 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 107 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.)