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

All one inquiry


Displaying posts 841 - 870 of 882 in total
Mon, 29 Jul 2019 #841
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2691 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Tom Paine wrote:

What is the value of the known when facing suffering?

None.

I'm asking the question that's all....I don't know the answer. Thought is there, isn't it, when there's suffering? It's part and parcel of the suffering. Since thought is actually there, I'm questioning what it's doing....and what it is....what it's made of...the accumulated opinions and beliefs and conclusions....knowledge passed on from family and church and socalled experts....gurus, psychologists.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 29 Jul 2019 #842
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 722 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
I don't know the answer. Thought is there, isn't it, when there's suffering? It's part and parcel of the suffering.

Is thought part and parcel of suffering or is it entirely the material out of which suffering is made? Does suffering lie outside of thought? The “I” who is questioning is the source of the suffering, IS part and parcel of the suffering, isn't it?

Are you really saying that you don’t have the answer to the question “What is the value of the known when facing suffering?”? I don’t think that it is an impossible question. To me, it is a possible question, a question that thought can answer, like the question: “What is the value of a spoon to excavate the foundation of a high-rise?” Or “What is the value of anger in resolving a conflict?” Can’t thought correctly say, “None”? Thought CANNOT “answer” the problem of suffering. It is UNABLE to answer it. It has tried and tried for years personally, for millennia collectively. Or are you saying that perhaps thought HAS value in resolving suffering but we just haven’t discovered it yet? Does thought need more time to figure it out?

So is it a mistake for thought to say, “I cannot resolve suffering. It is beyond my capabilities”? As I see it, it can be seen and said but I could be wrong.

This post was last updated by Huguette . Mon, 29 Jul 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 29 Jul 2019 #843
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2691 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Are you really saying that you don’t have the answer to the question “What is the value of the known when facing suffering?”?

If thought is present with suffering, as you yourself agreed, then obviously we don't see that it has no value. Asking Ks impossible question is thinking. Questioning is thinking....and doubting...inquiring. So there is observation of the whole of it....the feelings, emotions, thoughts...and the resistance to it all...the condemnation and the effort to control. What's happening NOW is always new....no conclusions about thought or anything else can touch it. As I see it.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Mon, 29 Jul 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 29 Jul 2019 #844
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 722 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
If thought is present with suffering, as you yourself agreed, then obviously we don't see that it has no value. Asking Ks impossible question is thinking.

Asking the impossible question is thinking. Answering the impossible question is not. Asking the possible question is thinking. Answering the possible question is also thinking.<

Thought is not present WITH suffering. They are not 2, they are 1 and the same material process. Thought IS suffering, suffering IS thought, isn’t it? You and I see and understand that thought is suffering, don't we? Why does it follow that “we” (thought) can’t see that thought has no value in terms of ending suffering? Can’t thought legitimately correctly appropriately rightly say, “I can teach you how to swim, I can sweep the floor, I can’t flap my arms and fly, I can’t end suffering/thought”, and so on?

So to say that thought is incapable of ending suffering doesn’t mean that the intellect is incapable of discerning and understanding anything at all. We often say here that thought does have a proper place, that thought is necessary.

“Thought is suffering, suffering is thought” doesn’t mean that all thought is suffering, does it? It means only that suffering is thought - which is not what we were educated to. We were educated to thinking that I and thought and suffering were all separate things.

Is there psychological suffering where there is no thought? If thought can see that suffering and thought are one and the same, can’t thought SEE that it has no value or role in ending thought, will, effort, desire?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 29 Jul 2019 #845
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1359 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
“Thought is suffering, suffering is thought” doesn’t mean that all thought is suffering, does it? It means only that suffering is thought

Let's be clear that "suffering is thought" as well as "thought is fear"... It took thousands of brains thinking together to get the astronauts to the moon and back. An amazing unprecedented feat when you think about what went into that effort. That is the thinking that we refer to here as technical thought. Now seeing the 'mess' mankind is making here in so many ways, to the planet, our neighbors, each other, ourselves, etc, it's not strange that thought would say:"let's think about all this. Let's get to the bottom of it and solve it." Is that the 'wrong turning'; thought entering the psychological realm? Did thought itself create the 'problem' (self-image, center, individuality, etc) and then seeing that it has all been something of a disaster, now 'tries' to figure it out...and fix it? The question is can thought see that it is the problem and that its very movement continues the suffering but also the 'pleasure'. Two sides of the same coin? Is seeing itself, its movement,as the problem the only way it can cease or is it, that it can't cease and it is now just another operation of the brain like beating the heart, breathing or just another of its 'secretions'?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Mon, 29 Jul 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 29 Jul 2019 #846
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2691 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Thought is not present WITH suffering. They are not 2, they are 1 and the same material process. Thought IS suffering, suffering IS thought, isn’t it?

When there’s great fear there’s an extreme disturbance...disorder...in the body as well....physical discomfort or pain. And of course thought is related to the whole experience of fear. There can be no fear without it. The lower animals don’t experience fear as far as I know. But man suffers from terrible anxiety disorders, worry, sleepless nights, depression etc. If I understand correctly you’re saying that thought, suffering (fear, anger, greed, etc), and ‘me’ are all one ...not separate as we usually assume and feel that they are. The separate me that tries to act on the suffering is an expression of the suffering as are all ‘my’ thoughts about it. This is going to demand some serious investigation since it’s totally contrary to everything we’ve been taught about disorder in me and disorder in the world. At the center there is always this ‘I’ who wants to act upon the disorder...the problem. And we can see, I think, that this ‘I’ is thinking itself....nothing more. I need to explore this further before continuing. It’s probably the crucial part of Ks ‘teaching’.

You and I see and understand that thought is suffering, don't we?

I don’t know why but I have trouble with your statement. Thought creates suffering, yes, but thought IS sufferings?

Why does it follow that “we” (thought) can’t see that thought has no value in terms of ending suffering? Can’t thought legitimately correctly appropriately rightly say, “I can teach you how to swim, I can sweep the floor, I can’t flap my arms and fly, I can’t end suffering/thought”, and so on?

So to say that thought is incapable of ending suffering doesn’t mean that the intellect is incapable of discerning and understanding anything at all. We often say here that thought does have a proper place, that thought is necessary.

“Thought is suffering, suffering is thought” doesn’t mean that all thought is suffering, does it? It means only that suffering is thought - which is not what we were educated to. We were educated to thinking that I and thought and suffering were all separate things.

Indeed.

Is there psychological suffering where there is no thought? If thought can see that suffering and thought are one and the same, can’t thought SEE that it has no value or role in ending thought, will, effort, desire?

Will try to address this later. Thanks for sharing your exploration of all this.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Mon, 29 Jul 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 29 Jul 2019 #847
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2691 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette: Why does it follow that “we” (thought) can’t see that thought has no value in terms of ending suffering? Can’t thought legitimately correctly appropriately rightly say, “I can teach you how to swim, I can sweep the floor, I can’t flap my arms and fly, I can’t end suffering/thought”, and so on?

I think we're leaving out the main reason that thought persists when there's suffering. It's the fact that thought is so effective when it provides escapes from the fact of suffering...escape from tge pain and anxiety and worry..escape from the problem. We haven't discussed the subject of pleasure yet in this thread and how man is perpetually living for future pleasure and fulfillment.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 29 Jul 2019 #848
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1359 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
I think we're leaving out the main reason that thought persists when there's suffering.

But 'thought' is the suffering. It isn't separate from it. It's not that the thoughts are causing 'you', the thinker, to suffer, the thought is the suffering. With no thoughts,there is no suffering, fear, anxiety, etc. Can psychological thought with time end? If not, the suffering and the misery and the 'pleasure will continue. So why does thought continue?...to 'solve' what it has created?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Tue, 30 Jul 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 30 Jul 2019 #849
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5160 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
If thought can see that suffering and thought are one and the same, can’t thought SEE that it has no value or role in ending thought, will, effort, desire?

I don't know. This is an important question. I am not drawing conclusions, but it does often seem that thought is incapable of learning, of seeing certain psychological facts and letting the seeing act. Obviously mankind has gone on repeating the same mistakes for thousands of years. Technologically he has learnt enormously, but in self-understanding, practically nothing. Closer to home, why does the mind keep making the same old effort to become other than it is?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 30 Jul 2019 #850
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 722 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote at 845:
...or is it, that it [thought] can't cease and it is now just another operation of the brain like beating the heart, breathing or just another of its 'secretions'?

As you say, the brain regulates the beating of the heart, breathing and all the other bodily functions and organs, including itself. But as I see it, thought is not like the other movements and functions which are regulated by the brain. The other functions and organs MUST NOT be still: the heart can't stop beating, breathing can't stop, blood can't stop circulating, saliva can't dry up, without causing death or serious harm to the body. But the stillness of thought does not damage or kill the body. Thought may not like the feeling of emptiness or nothingness, but it realizes that the stillness of thought doesn’t cause the body's death, doesn’t it?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 30 Jul 2019 #851
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 722 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote at 846:
I have trouble with your statement. Thought creates suffering, yes, but thought IS sufferings?

The hurt is not separate and distinct from thought. If not for the “me”, if not for the fragmentation of thought - conscious or unconscious - there is no hurt, no pain, no suffering. Suffering is totally rooted in thought but it is felt physically. The psychological root of it is not always seen, but the physical suffering is felt. So you might be right, that thought causes the physical suffering but it is not the suffering itself.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 30 Jul 2019 #852
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 722 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote at 847:
I think we're leaving out the main reason that thought persists when there's suffering.

Tom, can we just put it as a question and not seek to answer it: "Why does thought persist?" That’s an important question, isn't it? An impossible question, like K’s other question, “can the mind empty itself of the known?”

It can be asked by thought, but not answered, as I see it. Over the years, we here have come up with many explanations for it, haven’t we? But none of the explanations have moved us. Understanding thought’s limitations and the nature of self, isnt it seen that any answer thought comes up with can only be partial and false?

But if the question is asked “with tremendous earnestness, with seriousness, with passion” as K suggests (The Impossible Question Part 2, Public Dialogues Saanen 1970), perhaps we can find out. He says we will - “you'll find out” he says. Or perhaps not. I think that is the only worthy approach. To ask earnestly, passionately, and not to seek the answer.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 30 Jul 2019 #853
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 722 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote at 849:
...why does the mind keep making the same old effort to become other than it is?

Another important impossible question! Which is essentially the same as Tom's imposible question.

This post was last updated by Huguette . Tue, 30 Jul 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 30 Jul 2019 #854
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2691 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
It can be asked by thought, but not answered, as I see it. Over the years, we here have come up with many explanations for it, haven’t we? But none of the explanations have moved us. Understanding thought’s limitations and the nature of self, isnt it seen that any answer thought comes up with can only be partial and false?

It's asked by thought, yes.

But if the question is asked “with tremendous earnestness, with seriousness, with passion” as K suggests (The Impossible Question Part 2, Public Dialogues Saanen 1970), perhaps we can find out.

It's still thought making an effort as I see it....the intellect is asking. And the intellect is the 'me', isn't it? Well, I should probably leave this issue here, since it's one aspect of the 'teaching' that I've always found questionable...these kind of impossible questions. And I appear to be a minority of one with this feeling. And I have gone into the subject quite a bit in the past. It's the 'me' asking as I see it...serious and earnest or not. This is as best as I can express my feelings about it. Perhaps I will explore it further at some other time.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 30 Jul 2019 #855
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2691 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Closer to home, why does the mind keep making the same old effort to
become other than it is?

Part of it is punishment and reward.
We are afraid of punishment if we
don't resist what we are....and
there's the reward for conforming to
society's demands. I tried to address
this question before but Huguette
brushed aside my reply by turning it into an impossible question ( no resentment on my part...just stating the fact). I think it's
the movement of pleasure....seeking
pleasure and fulfillment....that
provides such an easy escape from
facing ourselves...understanding
ourselves. There's the whole issue of
desire which is often the center of
our lives. The effort you describe is
conflict, Clive, and rather than
understand what's going on we escape
to sports or a few beers at the pub or
gorging ourselves at dinner time at
the fast food joint. Our time at work
is full of effort and conflict and at
the end of our shift it's 'Miller
time' as the old tv commercial used to
call it. Why do we see so many obese individuals nowadays here in the U.S.? Conflict at work or at home and escaping to the only fulfillment we have....an overflowing plate of food at the diner or fast food restaurant. Or worse, the 'all you can eat' buffets, which are so popular here.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Tue, 30 Jul 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 30 Jul 2019 #856
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1359 posts in this forum Offline

You describe how people escape their problems and seek their pleasures. What interests me is how I escape and how I pursue pleasure. To do that as I see it, there has to be experimentation. When you are sad, down, angry, whatever the state that is less than our normal, reasonable state of well being, I want to get back to that. That desire to 'get back' is a signal that there is a disturbance of some kind. Then the possibility of experimentation opens up. I can 'stay' and seek the source of whatever has 'roiled the waters'. I want to know what has happened...from 'inside' myself, not to get rid of it. One may think that this is just a new or more subtle way to escape and it may be, but that can be discovered only at that moment. The 'wanting to get something out of it" desire can appear and it can be seen. This is what experimenting means to me. Getting at the truth. It's easy to see others 'escaping' their troubles but I am them. How do I escape mine? Am I,myself a 'mechanism' of escape?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Tue, 30 Jul 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 30 Jul 2019 #857
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2691 posts in this forum Offline

When you are sad, down, angry, whatever the state that is less than our normal, reasonable state of well being, I want to get back to that. That desire to 'get back' is a signal that there is a disturbance of some kind. Then the possibility of experimentation opens up. I can 'stay' and seek the source of whatever has 'roiled the waters'. I want to know what has happened...from 'inside' myself, not to get rid of it.

Yes, exactly. When there’s deep suffering I want to find out....look at it....observe it very closely. And observe all my attempts to get rid of it....the conclusions and judgments...the knowledge....the me. I don’t start asking myself impossible questions about the mind. the truth....what is....is right there in whatever is happening now.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 30 Jul 2019 #858
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1359 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
I don’t start asking myself impossible questions about the mind. the truth

Aren't you curious about the possibility, given the thousands of years that we've been supposedly going in the "wrong direction" psychologically... that we could cease to continue doing that?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 30 Jul 2019 #859
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2691 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Tom Paine wrote:

I don’t start asking myself impossible questions about the mind. the truth
Aren't you curious about the possibility, given the thousands of years that we've been supposedly going in the "wrong direction" psychologically... that we could cease to continue doing that?

Well, sure, in a moment of suffering we wish for something else, but that is the wrong turn....turning away from the fact....from what is....isn’t it?

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 30 Jul 2019 #860
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1359 posts in this forum Offline

Regarding 'thought', I found John R's post of the continued discussions with Bohm and Shainberg today really interesting.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 30 Jul 2019 #861
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5160 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
But the stillness of thought does not damage or kill the body. Thought may not like the feeling of emptiness or nothingness, but it realizes that the stillness of thought doesn’t cause the body's death, doesn’t it?

What you say is very fascinating, Huguette. But in a way thought has created "another body", an imitation of the body, a virtual body - I refer to the self, the ego, of course. And so, to thought, the ending of thought, even for a moment, which is the ending of the self that thought is forever putting together, IS the like the ending of the body. In fact sometimes people are more willing to let go of the body's existence than the self's existence, something that self has identified with.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 31 Jul 2019 #862
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1359 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
But in a way thought has created "another body", an imitation of the body, a virtual body - I refer to the self, the ego, of course.

The "self, the ego, of course...and ME! I mentioned to Tom John R's post today and recommend it to you...Bohm's comments about thought being like a corporation...and feeding back into itself...a totality of "chaos".

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 31 Jul 2019 #863
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 722 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
It's still thought making an effort as I see it....the intellect is asking.

It occurs to me that to ask the impossible question without trying to find the answer IS thinking.

Isn't negative thinking the movement of energy which is NOT willfully pushed and pulled by thought in a desired direction? So that positive thinking means the movement of thought which DOES have an intentional direction given by effort, desire, will. Any direction intentionally taken by thought can only be towards what is “already” known. Clearly, thought cannot deliberately move in the direction of the unknown.

The new cannot be discovered by the positive thinking of effort or will, can it. The new cannot be discovered through the persistence of thought reviewing and repeating what is known. Persistent “thinking” cannot engender understanding. Doesn’t understanding flower where there is negative thinking?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 31 Jul 2019 #864
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 722 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
But in a way thought has created "another body", an imitation of the body, a virtual body - I refer to the self, the ego, of course. And so, to thought, the ending of thought, even for a moment, which is the ending of the self that thought is forever putting together, IS the like the ending of the body. In fact sometimes people are more willing to let go of the body's existence than the self's existence, something that self has identified with.

I agree with what you say about the self, Clive. But in this instance, I was not questioning psychological death. I was not questioning the death of the psyche-self-thought which is driven to isolation, to anger, to kill a “loved one” out of jealousy, to kill millions out of pique, to punish a toddler by putting him in a scalding bath, to kill itself out of despair, and so on.

I was speaking only to Dan’s question at 845:

or is it, that [thought] can't cease and it is now just another operation of the brain like beating the heart, breathing or just another of its 'secretions'?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 31 Jul 2019 #865
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1359 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:#850
Thought may not like the feeling of emptiness or nothingness, but it realizes that the stillness of thought doesn’t cause the body's death, doesn’t it?

Thought cannot know "stillness", it is the opposite of stillness and silence, isn't it? It is the 'thought' or image of itself not existing that is the fear. The "fact" of it being still, silent. creates no fear... only the thought of what would happen if that took place. (See John R.'s latest post of the K, Bohm, Shainberg talks where this is brought out at the end.)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 31 Jul 2019 #866
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2691 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette: Any direction intentionally taken by thought can only be towards what is “already” known. Clearly, thought cannot deliberately move in the direction of the unknown.

Yes, clear.

The new cannot be discovered by the positive thinking of effort or will, can it. The new cannot be discovered through the persistence of thought reviewing and repeating what is known. Persistent “thinking” cannot engender understanding. Doesn’t understanding flower where there is negative thinking?

The the mind is the known. I am the known...conclusions, ideas and ideals, beliefs and assumptions. Clearly I (the known) can make no movement towards the unknown. Perhaps seeing/understanding this is what you refer to as ‘negative thinking’. I’m still not totally clear on that term. Of course when there is suffering...a painful disturbance or problem, we aren’t interested in freedom from conclusions....we expect the solution to come from the known....our storehouse of knowledge...or from some expert or guru or psychologist or priest. We’ve been conditioned over centuries to think that ‘I’ must solve the problem...deal with it...or seek help from an expert. The idea that knowledge is an impediment to understanding is totally foreign to us. However seeing just that is also what you would call negative thinking. Or am I mistaken?

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 31 Jul 2019 #867
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2691 posts in this forum Offline

I want to share today’s QOTD here since I think it may touch on what we’ve been discussing. Well, even if it doesn’t directly, it’s worth sharing before it gets lost. From 1948, Mumbai, India:

“Therefore, in our relationship, in the relationship between you and me, I am beginning to understand myself; and the understanding of myself is the beginning of wisdom, is it not? Therefore, the search for the real is the beginning of love in relationship. To love something, you must know it, you must understand it, mustn't you? To love you, I must know you, I must enquire, I must find out, I must be receptive to all your moods, your changes, and not merely enclose myself in my ambitions, pursuits and desires; and in knowing you, I am beginning to discover myself. Without you, I cannot be; and if I do not understand that relationship between you and me, how can there be love? And surely, without love there is no search, is there? You cannot say that one must love truth; because, to love truth, you must know truth. Do you know truth? Do you know what reality is? The moment you know something, it is already over, is it not? It is already in the field of time, therefore it ceases to be truth.

So, our problem is, how can a dry heart, an empty heart, know truth? It cannot. Truth, sir, is not something distant. It is very near, but we do not know how to look for it. To look for it, we must understand relationship, not only with man but with nature, with ideas; I must understand my relationship with the earth, and my relationship with ideation, as well as my relationship with you; and in order to understand, surely there must be openness. If I want to understand you, I must be open to you, I must be receptive, I must not withhold anything - there cannot be an isolating process. ”

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 01 Aug 2019 #868
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5160 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Dan: or is it, that [thought] can't cease and it is now just another operation of the brain like beating the heart, breathing or just another of its 'secretions'?

In all honesty I cannot say whether this is true or not. If it IS true, then there is no "hope", is there, no possibility of fundamental change? Because all the evidence points to the fact that thought/self cannot improve itself (in spite of all the effort that people are putting into this 'possibility'). As long as it exists, thought as it is now is going to bring about increasing problems, until we destroy ourselves.

I said that I cannot say whether it is true or not whether thought can cease. But this is not entirely true. One sees that thought is continually "ceasing", that thought arises in the mind and then ends, dies. And before another arises, there is a break, a pause, perhaps an increasing space between thought.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 06 Aug 2019 #869
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5160 posts in this forum Offline

Again, I have been travelling and talking with new people. And I am greatly puzzled.

Everyone seems to have the assumption that “they” are an entity different from their thought, different from their feeling. And so they describe me to me how they “deal with” their emotions. How they direct thought. How they choose one mental state over another. How they direct themselves, how they control themselves. How they overcome confusion. And some of these people have given a great deal of time to “spiritual matters”.

This is not my perception. But I start to feel I am alone in the world in seeing that I AM thought, I AM feeling. When there is anger, I AM anger, it is not that “I” am “Angry”.

If I had to intellectually prove my perception, I would say if one could really direct/control thought/feeling, why is there still so much suffering? If one could really control suffering, who would choose to carry on suffering? But they do carry on. If one could choose not to be unhappy, why are most (all?) people still unhappy? I have never received a satisfactory answer to this sort of question.

I know I have raised this issue before, but it really is basic. Is this fundamental misconception the reason for all the evils of the world?

The consequences of believing that I am a separate entity from thought/feeling are obvious. I will try to correct myself, try to change, try to control, suppress, and all the rest of it. In a word, conflict. And this personal conflict seems to become the world’s conflict.

I do see the movement of the thinker/thought illusion in myself (after all, there is no “myself”, there is only the common human consciousness). I see it arising, but I also see it dying, somehow it cannot gain traction. There is no choice but to watch it, form and un-form, form and un-form.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 06 Aug 2019 #870
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1359 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
if one could really direct/control thought/feeling, why is there still so much suffering? If one could really control suffering, who would choose to carry on suffering? But they do carry on. If one could choose not to be unhappy, why are most (all?) people still unhappy? I have never received a satisfactory answer to this sort of question.

I appreciate your sharing this Clive. My interactions with people at this point in my life are not many. My relationships consist in main with my wife and with nature. So I do appreciate your impressions. It seems to me that there has to be some sort of 'initiation' for someone to become interested in these 'ideas'. Why some and not others, I have no idea, It certainly seems to have nothing to do with 'intelligence', knowledge, etc. People carry on with their level of conflict, suffering and grief because they don't 'know' or haven't 'heard' that there is another possibility to 'putting up with it' without falling into some religion, philosophy or cult...When it becomes evident that the main problem we have is the 'existence' implicit or explicit of a 'self-image' then the only 'problem' is 'how' that can end. (Understanding that there is no 'how'). And not only the self-image but all image making must come to an end. And this image-making depends on the separation between a 'thinker' and the 'thoughts' (the observer separated from the observed) And that is the 'work' as I see it, to see the illusion that thought creates by projecting or implying a separate 'me'... Seeing through the falseness of that separation again and again is as has been said a sort of "death". And I don't see any of this having an effect on anyone else except possibly myself...but that doesn't matter because for me, it is the 'right' thing to do.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Tue, 06 Aug 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 841 - 870 of 882 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.)