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

All one inquiry


Displaying posts 541 - 570 of 666 in total
Sun, 05 May 2019 #541
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1204 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Are you saying, Dan, that this tamping down, this "fitting into a smaller size", created the self?

No I don't see the connection there, do you? If the brain did do this 'closing down' because it could not contain the tremendous energy then that could have led to this sense that there is this 'inner' (the self) as separate from the 'outer' (the non-me)? The brain was able with 'naming' and memory and psychological time to make the 'outer' world quite ordinary, have no freshness or newness...so that could have been a result of the 'tamping down' and the 'taking over' by psychological memory?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 05 May 2019 #542
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1204 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Is there "a sense of being an individual" apart from what thought asserts?

Isn't there? I feel a sense of me, an individual 'me'. Inside this body. Isn't that sensation made up of our physical sensations as well as the pattern of our thinking? The sense that there is a 'somebody' behind the seeing, feeling, touching etc., That 'I'm doing it, receiving those impressions? Completely apart from anyone else?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sun, 05 May 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 05 May 2019 #543
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2519 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Putting it that suggests that thought and psychological realm are separate things.

I could have put it better perhaps....’when thought creates the psychological realm.’

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 05 May 2019 #544
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1204 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
But I wonder if it is not contradicted by something K once said: "Energy has no order".

I don't know about this but it seems logical to assume ,doesn't it, that all material (living?) 'things' have 'energy'... something; I'm calling it energy, that 'orders' them, that keeps them from 'falling apart' , that holds them together, the structure, the atoms, the molecules etc: the 'manifest world'...? And the un-manifest world (nothing, not-a-thing) is energy that is not ordered or organized? Only energy. But as I hear K., that is the dimension of Love, Compassion, Intelligence, Wisdom.(?)

Later:

I posed a question on the other forum about why did the brain come up with the creation of a 'me'...I think that I know the answer now: it created the self so there would be 'someone' to worry, fret and suffer about everything...in short to "mind what happens"! :)

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sun, 05 May 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 05 May 2019 #545
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4971 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
.so that could have been a result of the 'tamping down' and the 'taking over' by psychological memory?

Here is the relevant passage, from early on in “The Ending of Time”. It also contains the statement “Energy has no order” that I mentioned.

Although K sounds very definite about it, as far as I remember, they do not return to this topic.

K: I understand that. But I am trying to find out the origin of all this misery, confusion, conflict, struggle - what is the beginning of it? That's why I asked at the beginning: has mankind taken a wrong turn? Is the origin, `I am not I'.?

DB: I think that is getting closer.

K: Yes, that's it. And the "I' - why has mankind created this"I', which must, inevitably, cause conflict?
"I' andyou', and I' better than"you', and so on, and so on.

DB: I think it was a mistake made a long time ago, or, as you call it, a wrong turn, that having introduced separation between various things outwardly, we then kept on doing it - not out of ill will but simply through not knowing better.

K: Quite.

DB: Not seeing what we were doing.

K: Is that the origin of all this conflict?

DB: I am not sure that it is the origin. What do you feel?

K: I am inclined to observe that the origin is the ego, the "me', the"I'.

DB: Yes.

K: If there is no ego, there is no problem, there is no conflict, there is no time - time in the sense of becoming or not becoming; being or not being.

DB: But it might be that we would still slip into whatever it was that made us make the ego in the first place.

K: Wait a minute. Is it that energy - being so vast, limitless - has been condensed or narrowed down in the mind, and the brain itself has become narrowed because it couldn't contain all this enormous energy? You are following what I am saying?

DB: Yes.

K: And therefore the brain has gradually narrowed down to "me', to the"I'.

DB: I don't quite follow that. I understand that that is what happened, but I don't quite see all the steps. You say energy was enormous and the brain couldn't handle it, or decided that it couldn't handle it?

K: It couldn't handle it.

DB: But if it can't handle it, it seems as if there is no way out.

K: No, just a minute. Go slowly. I just want to enquire, push into it a little bit. Why has the brain, with all thought, created this sense of "me',"I'? Why?

DB: We needed a certain sense of identity to function.

K: Yes, to function.

DB: To know where we belong.

K: Yes. And is that the movement which has brought the "me'? The movement of the outer? I had to identify, with the family, the house, the trade or profession. All this gradually became the"me'?

DB: I think that this energy that you are talking about also entered into it.

K: Yes, but I want to lead up to that slowly.

B: You see, what you say is right, that in some way this sense of the `me' gradually strengthened, but by itself that wouldn't explain the tremendous strength that the ego has. It would only be a habit then. The ego becoming completely dominant required that it should become the focus of the greatest energy; of all the energy.

K: Is that it? That the brain cannot hold this vast energy? DB: Let's say that the brain is trying to control this - to bring it to order.

K: Energy has no order.

DB: But if the brain feels it can't control something that is going on inside, it will try to establish order.

K: Could we say that the brain, your brain, his brain, her brain, has not just been born; it is very, very old?

DB: In what sense?

K: In the sense that it has evolved.

DB: Evolved, yes, from the animal. And the animal has evolved. So let's say that in a sense this whole evolution is somehow contained in the brain.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 05 May 2019 #546
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4971 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:

Clive:Putting it that suggests that thought and psychological realm are separate things.

Ton: I could have put it better perhaps....’when thought creates the psychological realm.’

I am sorry if it seems I am merely picking at words when I raise this issue. I am often accused of doing so. But this seems an important matter, not to say a crucial one.

Our whole psychological structure, and hence society, is based on the assumption that "I" am different, separate, from my ("my") thoughts. From long observation, I now question this. Not just theoretically, it does not seem to be an actuality. All I see is the thoughts, and the movement of thought to try to "put a self together".

And although I do not wish to create a crusade, I feel it is important to live this perception, and not continue to live the false perception of a separate and permanent "me". "To live it" implies giving voice to it, when the issue arises. Well, the issue arises in all my human interactions ("how are you") and I don't always question, at the check-out counter, at the receptionist's ...... But more and more I DO question it with others - and interestingly, this gives rise to quite a lot of reaction from them.

This reaction happens, interestingly, even in "K circles". What I say seems to be interpreted as claiming something special quality for myself, even though I am talk of what amounts to the opposite. It is very odd, I find, especially as K has always said that freedom from the self is the true function of man. And what I am often talking about, inquiring into, may be the key to this freedom.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 05 May 2019 #547
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4971 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Isn't there? I feel a sense of me, an individual 'me'. Inside this body. Isn't that sensation made up of our physical sensations as well as the pattern of our thinking? The sense that there is a 'somebody' behind the seeing, feeling, touching etc., That 'I'm doing it, receiving those impressions? Completely apart from anyone else?

This is a very interesting question, Dan, and rather different from the questions we usually raise about the movement of thought. It is very challenging. Let me see if I have grasped what you are saying. That quite independently of thought, there is a sense of a separate self in the movement of our senses, our sensations?

This is not immediately obvious to me. I would like to do some observing of the phenomena. I am not saying that that observing will happen, because whether it does or not seems out of my control. But we will see what arises, if anything.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 06 May 2019 #548
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1204 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
This is not immediately obvious to me.

Don't you feel real Clive? What I'm trying to get at here is that this sensation of 'being me' has been present since I was a child. Like my own skin. Only in rare instances have 'I' felt any different. To not
feel 'real' would be the 'unknown'. (not to mention, extremely strange!)

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Mon, 06 May 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 06 May 2019 #549
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1204 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Let me see if I have grasped what you are saying. That quite independently of thought, there is a sense of a separate self in the movement of our senses, our sensations?

No. I am thought, there is no "independence" from it, I am it. I am the 'thinker'. I understand intellectually that the 'thinker' is the thought and that sounds true...but I am still the 'thinker'; I do the thinking. There is the 'theory' that if it was seen totally that I as thinker am thought, that a 'transformation' would take place...maybe, but I'm the thinker, I'm the one doing the thinking. You don't feel that?

There may be this 'desire' to be 'free', free from thought etc. but it's all just thought, isn't it? Isn't the desire to be 'free' (whatever that is) just wanting something better, more satisfying, less conflict, confusion, than what you have? But Freedom ,perhaps, lies in, as K related it as his "secret": not minding what happens.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Tue, 07 May 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 06 May 2019 #550
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1204 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
K: Is that it? That the brain cannot hold this vast energy? DB: Let's say that the brain is trying to control this - to bring it to order.

K: Energy has no order.

DB: But if the brain feels it can't control something that is going on inside, it will try to establish order.

I think K missed Bohm's point here; Bohm wasn't saying that "energy has order", he was saying that the brain was 'trying' to bring order into the energy that was overwhelming it...K would probably agree with that since he said many times that the brain can not function properly without a sense of total security...(even if it is a false sense?)

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Mon, 06 May 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 06 May 2019 #551
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2519 posts in this forum Offline

K.: Energy has no order.
DB: But if the brain feels it can't control something that is going on inside, it will try to establish order.

I think K missed Bohm's point here; Bohm wasn't saying that "energy has order", he was saying that the brain was 'trying' to bring order into the energy that was overwhelming it...

I somehow recall K saying that the universe was total order. Maybe I’m mistaken. Well, the tree is energy, isn’t it..,,and the tree is order. The worm or butterfly is order. The river and the sky....order and energy. I don’t understand Ks above statement. I understand how thought tries to bring order....we cultivate the soil and plant the seeds...gather wood for the fire and cook our food....bringing order. Without it, we’d starve. Then there’s the false sense of order which breeds disorder....the greed of the Trumps of this world finding a false sense of order in their bank accounts and gold bathroom fixtures.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 07 May 2019 #552
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4971 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Don't you feel real Clive?

Perhaps that depends on what is meant by the word "you". It can mean so many things.

I ("I") was walking under a stand of huge trees yesterday. There was a certain sense of presence. If that sense is "realness", then it seemed that "me" and realness were mutually exclusive. Reality is there when I am not.

Dan McDermott wrote:
What I'm trying to get at here is that this sensation of 'being me' has been present since I was a child

So you are saying, are you not, that the sense of "being me" is conditioned into us? But still, conditioning must have definite content, no? Either thought or feeling/emotion.

I need to reflect on this further, on a quiet walk.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 07 May 2019 #553
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4971 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
; I do the thinking

I can't go along with this Dan. To me at least, it still suggests an entity separate from thought.

Does not the thinking create the sense of me?

If anything "does" the thinking, it is the brain, the nerve cells, is it not?

That I AM the thinking I can accept.

Dan McDermott wrote:
You don't feel that?

When I am not absorbed in anything, when there is leisure, there is a fairly constant revelation that what was posing as the thinker is really only thought.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 07 May 2019 #554
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4971 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
K.: Energy has no order. & I don’t understand Ks above statement

It is an intriguing statement. I wonder what a pysicist would make of it these days?

Does K mean that energy has no order because once order is brought to it, it is no longer energy, it is matter?

Tom Paine wrote:
I somehow recall K saying that the universe was total order. Maybe I’m mistaken.

No, he did say this.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 07 May 2019 #555
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1204 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
I can't go along with this Dan. To me at least, it still suggests an entity separate from thought.

Does not the thinking create the sense of me?

Isn't an oversimplification to say that all 'I' am is thought? Don't the sensations of the body join with the million recorded memories of experiences, pleasant and unpleasant, all the recorded knowledge, from childhood till now, create as K. put it, the "bundle of memories" that is 'me'? What is 'outside' of that bundle, that is free and not part of that 'bundle'? Is that the "higher self"? But that is just a projection of the bundle, isn't it? A 'wish' that there is something or someone that is 'lasting'?

For myself , I'm seeing that taking any position psychologically may be a 'trap'...
'not-knowing' can be uncomfortable, unsatisfying (destabilizing?) because we crave comfort and satisfaction. But is that craving misplaced psychologically?. We are relentless it seems in wanting to find a place to "lay our head" (if only for a moment) ...desiring to be 'secure' in our knowledge... to 'get' somewhere in all this. Psychologically there may be no security and no place to get to, (not even a 'psyche' when there is no content, as you suggest?) ..Is it as simple as that; that there is just 'what is'?...I don't know.

If it is the case that what I am is this "bundle of memories", ever being added to, I can listen to the idea that I am in essence "nothing" and it may or may not be true... but wouldn't it be a mistake to make that "nothing" into a 'something' or a 'somebody'? (an observer?) Wouldn't that be projecting a 'higher' or 'freer' self?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Wed, 08 May 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 08 May 2019 #556
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4971 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Isn't an oversimplification to say that all 'I' am is thought? Don't the sensations of the body join with the million recorded memories of experiences, pleasant and unpleasant, all the recorded knowledge, from childhood till now, create as K. put it, the "bundle of memories" that is 'me'?

Actually a few weeks ago I had what appeared to be an insight about this. I even wrote something down about it, but I don’t think I posted it, or kept it. A sense, as you say, of the nature of the self, how it is formed from, how it contains, elements of all our memories, all our experiences. Probably, in fact, going back beyond our individual lives, probably containing the experiences of the entire human race since time immemorial. And with that we look, we judge, we react.

And that is all there is to the self. It is being added to all the time, and perhaps bits taken away, but in essence it remains the same – and basically it is the same for all people. Hmm, questioning that now, since some appear more aggressive, more violent, more power-seeking than others.

What is 'outside' of that bundle, that is free and not part of that 'bundle'? Is that the "higher self"? But that is just a projection of the bundle, isn't it? A 'wish' that there is something or someone that is 'lasting'?

From that bundle there are many projections. But a projection is not actual, no matter how “tempting” it might appear, how plausible it might seem. It is essential that these projections – conclusions, assumptions, beliefs, ideas, - be negated. Negated just means “seen for what they are”, doesn’t it? There is nothing to do about them, since any "do-er" would be another projections.

And yes, these projections might well be described as a “trap”. It seems that the human race has mostly been entrapped throughout its history, and each person trapped throughout his life.

For myself , I'm seeing that taking any position psychologically may be a 'trap'…

I think I have a feel for your statement, Dan. I am the trap, in fact.

“Taking a position” implies that the mind and its projections (the projections still being the mind) has a static structure, doesn’t it? An existence independently of me. Interestingly, just yesterday I heard K say that the root meaning of the word ‘structure’ is movement.

'not-knowing' can be uncomfortable, unsatisfying (destabilizing?) because we crave comfort and satisfaction.

Indeed. Very uncomfortable with nowhere to stand, not having any permanent knowledge with which to face life. Yes, at times it feels exceedingly unstable. But this is the mind, the body carries on, it finds its needs met somehow. And somehow one is ‘forced’, or lead, into the present moment. The present moment is free of projections, is it not?

But is that craving misplaced psychologically?. We are relentless it seems in wanting to find a place to "lay our head" (if only for a moment) ...desiring to be 'secure' in our knowledge... to 'get' somewhere in all this.

Yes Dan, I understand – understand in that all this is experienced here. But in truth there is no knowing what the next moment may bring. This is not just an idea, a philosophy of life, it is a FACT. As soon as one finishes typing a sentence, what was living becomes the past, drops away. There is a glimpse, a hint of unoccupied space, of nothingness. Which seems to frighten the mind. But probably it is the projections that the mind makes from the intimation of emptiness that brings about the fear, not the emptiness itself.

Psychologically there may be no security and no place to get to

We are so conditioned into “getting somewhere”, achieving, both materially and, more importantly perhaps, psychologically. Our lives are built around it. This is TIME, isn’t it, time as becoming. But does time actually exist, or is it merely another projection of thought? This seems a crucial question.

(not even a 'psyche' when there is no content, as you suggest?) ..Is it as simple as that; that there is just 'what is'?...I don't know.

We cannot “know”, can we? To know is to turn what is into an idea of what is, and then it isn’t what is any longer.

If it is the case that what I am is this "bundle of memories", ever being added to, I can listen to the idea that I am in essence "nothing" and it may or may not be true... but wouldn't it be a mistake to make that "nothing" into a 'something' or a 'somebody'? (an observer?) Wouldn't that be projecting a 'higher' or 'freer' self?

All this points to the absolute necessity of quietness for the mind, does it not? A quietness a silence, when the mind is no longer projecting anything – or at least able to see its projections AS projections. But looking at the world (outer and inner) one is lead to the conclusion that its chief occupation is AVOIDING silence, no?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 09 May 2019 #557
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1204 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
But looking at the world (outer and inner) one is lead to the conclusion that its chief occupation is AVOIDING silence, no?

That seems to be so.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 09 May 2019 #558
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2519 posts in this forum Offline

I was struck by today’s QOTD which touches on the issue of the mind always questioning....inquiring...which is an activity most of us are familiar with. K is saying here that introspection is a dead end, isn’t he? And therefore our inquiring is also. Or am I misreading him? Here’s the quote:

Question: What is the difference between introspection and awareness?

Krishnamurti: Introspection begins when there is the desire to change the self. I introspect myself in order to transform, modify, change myself into something. That is why we look into ourselves. I am unhappy and I look into myself to find the cause of unhappiness. To introspect is to look into oneself, to change oneself, to modify oneself according to environmental and religious demands. What happens in that process? In that process there is condemnation. I do not like this and I must become that. I am greedy and I must change to be non-greedy. I am angry and I must become peaceful. By that strife you begin to modify. But the effort becomes tyrannic, does it not? This introspection leads nowhere. Have you tried to become introspective? Is there not a continuity in introspection and therefore a bondage? Every experience is translated according to the pattern of the self, which is always examining, translating, interpreting, putting away things which it does not like and accepting things which it wants. So, introspection is a constant struggle to change what is, whereas awareness is the recognition of what is and therefore the understanding of what is. You cannot recognize or understand something when you condemn it. You can understand only when you are observant, when you are not dissecting or pulling apart to see what is. It is only when you are quiet that what is begins to unfold.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 09 May 2019 #559
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1204 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
K. You can understand only when you are observant, when you are not dissecting or pulling apart to see what is. It is only when you are quiet that what is begins to unfold.

So 'understanding', in the way it is being used here, is not a 'digging into' or an 'examining' to see what it is about and then 'coming' to an 'understanding'... here it is a silent 'awareness' of the 'unfolding' of the self's activities...?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 10 May 2019 #560
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2519 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
So 'understanding', in the way it is being used here, is not a 'digging into'

Right....this sentence from K is the key, I think....the desire to change what is is conflict...the internal or external battle humans are always engaged in.

Krishnamurti: Introspection begins when there is the desire to change the self. I introspect myself in order to transform, modify, change myself into something. That is why we look into ourselves

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 10 May 2019 #561
Thumb_open-uri20151228-18124-1kyi3s7-0 Jose Roberto Moreira Brazil 57 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
The line between looking for “a way out” and personally escaping becomes a little blurred.

Yes, Clive, this is a very good point. I can see in myself that I want personally scape from this mess. I do not like it but it is the fact. It seems to me that as long as I do not recognize myself as one of the causes of the chaos I will try to scape.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 10 May 2019 #562
Thumb_open-uri20151228-18124-1kyi3s7-0 Jose Roberto Moreira Brazil 57 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
I was struck by today’s QOTD which touches on the issue of the mind always questioning....inquiring...which is an activity most of us are familiar with. K is saying here that introspection is a dead end, isn’t he? And therefore our inquiring is also. Or am I misreading him? Here’s the quote:

Question: What is the difference between introspection and awareness?

Tom, I ask myself this question everyday: is what I do all the time just introspection? Probably yes. So what can we do about that? Absolutely nothing!

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 10 May 2019 #563
Thumb_open-uri20151228-18124-1kyi3s7-0 Jose Roberto Moreira Brazil 57 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
I suspect it’s a thin veneer of pleasure that keeps one from noticing the underlying suffering. As long as I’m chattering away about my favorite sports team, I’m unaware that I may be in fact quite unhappy. Playing cards, my golf addiction, a comedy on tv, all those kind of distractions and superficial pleasures serve to keep me unaware of my actual condition

Yes, running away from suffering became a deep-rooted habit. Running away from suffering IS suffering, I can see this well in myself. It is absolutely crazy what we do all the time: we are constantly creating what we are running away from! But we do not see that clearly, of course, otherwise we would stop this vicious circle.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 10 May 2019 #564
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2519 posts in this forum Offline

Tom, I ask myself this question everyday: is what I do all the time just introspection? Probably yes. So what can we do about that?

It’s just self absorption isn’t it? And can self absorption lead to understanding? That’s the question that comes to mind after reading the quote. What can ‘I’ do about it that’s not just more self centered action? And why do anything to try to change what I am?

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 10 May 2019 #565
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4971 posts in this forum Offline

Jose Roberto Moreira wrote:
Yes, Clive, this is a very good point. I can see in myself that I want personally scape from this mess. I do not like it but it is the fact. It seems to me that as long as I do not recognize myself as one of the causes of the chaos I will try to scape.

This also is a very good point, Jose. Because when one sees that oneself - the self - is the cause of the chaos, of all our problems, then one is seeing that it is IMPOSSIBLE TO ESCAPE. All escapes take myself along in the escape!

I mean one cannot move away from oneself, can I? The thing that tries to move away is myself.

Seeing this, does the movement of escape continue?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 10 May 2019 #566
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4971 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
K is saying here that introspection is a dead end, isn’t he? And therefore our inquiring is also. Or am I misreading him? Here’s the quote:

Tom, you are equating our inquiry on the forum with introspection - but is that so?

If the intention is to understand the mind - and I use deliberately use the word intention rather than aim/objective - is that introspection? I see introspection as being about myself, rather than about the mind. Myself remains a fixed point in introspection, what to do about myself?, which decisions to take?, which path to take?. In introspection the nature of the self itself is not being questioned, is it?

And on the forum I observe at least some of this sort of questioning is going on. It is not an "Agony Aunt column" :-). Or a psychiatrist's coach.

And yes, it I would say that introspection is a dead end - a dead end that has been going on for thousands of years. As long as there is a self, there will be the continuation of problems. As K pointed out, there is no "better self".

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 10 May 2019 #567
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4971 posts in this forum Offline

Jose Roberto Moreira wrote:
Tom, I ask myself this question everyday: is what I do all the time just introspection? Probably yes. So what can we do about that? Absolutely nothing!

The "doing something about it" is part of introspection, isn't it?

If one actually sees that introspection IS a dead end, as Tom put it, if one perceives it is futile, then does one carry on with it? So the question is not what to do about it, but does one see the futility of it? The seeing or the not-seeing is the issue, is it not?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 10 May 2019 #568
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4971 posts in this forum Offline

Jose Roberto Moreira wrote:
But we do not see that clearly, of course, otherwise we would stop this vicious circle.

Again, why do we not see clearly?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 10 May 2019 #569
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2519 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Tom, you are equating our inquiry on the forum with introspection - but is that so?

No, I wasn't. I was thinking of my own inquiring. I'm questioning what differentiates inquiry from introspection. If I say/feel that I want to inquire into fear or the violence I see all around me...into the conflict or confusion in myself, is that different from what K means by introspection? I want to look further into this. Is this inquiry different from introspection? I suspect it is, as your message has pointed out.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 11 May 2019 #570
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1204 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
If I say/feel that I want to inquire into fear or the violence I see all around me...into the conflict or confusion in myself, is that different from what K means by introspection?

No it's not different if the 'motive' for that 'looking into' is to bring it to an end. Inquiry has no motive. In that it is pure. But if there is a 'looking' or 'doing' in order to bring some change about, then it looses the quality of 'choiceless awareness' and becomes an activity of the 'self'. To me, this is really key here (and what is so baffling about all this) 'letting it be' Tom as you write under your posts. 'Letting' it all happen without the "minding".

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sat, 11 May 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 541 - 570 of 666 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.)