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

Negative thinking


Displaying posts 31 - 60 of 127 in total
Sat, 03 Aug 2019 #31
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1569 posts in this forum Offline

I agree with all that Tom. None of this can be 'known' (or defined) but it makes sense that if there is this possible psychological "utter nakedness" that he speaks of, a total emptiness or no-thing-ness, that that would be "immortality"...but not the continuation of the 'I' or the 'me' certainly.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sat, 03 Aug 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 03 Aug 2019 #32
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2885 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
but it makes sense

I’m not sure. But religious people and philosophers have been trying to make sense of these kind of deep issues for thousands of years, but man hasn’t been changed by any of it. So something else is obviously needed when the house is burning. And boy, it was just brought home to me today when I saw the news report of another mass shooting as well as reading more of Trumps insane mind vomit. We have created an insane world....truly insane.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 03 Aug 2019 #33
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5404 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote #19:
But where’s the thinking involved in insight? There’s none, as far as I can tell. Is it the thinking that leads up to insight that you are calling negative thinking? No, that doesn’t seem right. This negative thinking still seems hard to pin down.

I question if there is any thinking in the process of negative thinking. I suggest it is a process of discarding thinking. But that does not imply a "discarder", or some conscious effort. Can it be thought discarding itself?

This post was last updated by Clive Elwell Mon, 05 Aug 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 03 Aug 2019 #34
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5404 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
I had this same question after reading this and posted something in the general discussion forum. It is a bit confusing his use of "discernment" which defines as a kind of judging.

The word discernment does not suggest judging to me. Rather it suggests a sort of seeing or perceiving, especially seeing fine differences between things.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 03 Aug 2019 #35
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5404 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
.but that it was only the image or thought of being alone that was the fear not the 'fact' itself of being alone.

Fear is always of the future, is it not? It is always of some image of what MIGHT happen, fear is never there when one is actually meeting what is.

But this has to be seen, each time fear arises, it is of no use as an idea, as a theory.

Dan McDermott wrote:
There is a joy Clive when for the moment all resistance ends, isn't there? When what is taking place psychologically is seen for what it is; the mind having become 'tangled' in this or that thought or image

I am finding that the ongoing work, throughout the day, is to see, as you say, the mind becoming 'tangled' in thought. And that seeing exposes the fact that thought is only thought, it is not real, true. And in that seeing is freedom, although only momentarily, as another entanglement starts up.

Asking myself now if that is momentary freedom or momentary entanglement?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 03 Aug 2019 #36
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5404 posts in this forum Offline

Manfred Kritzler wrote:
Do you agree?

I don't want to agree, or disagree, Manfred, I want to inquire. Agreement or disagreement brings an end to that inquiry, doesn't it.

Just to question one part of what you wrote

Manfred Kritzler wrote:
The parts are a construction of the human mind. Without humans they do not exist. They are a variation of oneness, but can not have an independent existence.

So can they have a DEPENDENT existence? And what does that mean?

I want to come back to your post when I have more leisure.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 04 Aug 2019 #37
Thumb_avatar Manfred Kritzler Germany 55 posts in this forum Offline

Clive you are right. Agreeing or disagreeing make no sense.Sorry. I only wanted to express that all the statements I made are open to questioning.

What we see as parts can have only a dependent existence. They are dependent on us as human beings. They die with our passing away. And they are dependent on the universe as a whole, like we
are.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 05 Aug 2019 #38
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5404 posts in this forum Offline

Manfred Kritzler wrote:
What we see as parts can have only a dependent existence

This is very interesting. I had an experience today which bought it home to me. I was helping a friend dismantle a glass house, so he could move it to his property. After a few hours work, there on the ground was a number of pieces of aluminum and glass. Parts. Parts of what? My mind could say part of a glass house, but that was just a concept now. I could just as well say "parts of the Universe".

But is there a Universe without its "parts"?

The pieces on the ground could be taken apart even further of course. Down to the level of molecules, atoms, sub-atomic particle/waves.

Now you say, Manfred, the parts are a construction of the human mind.

Manfred Kritzler wrote:
What we see as parts can have only a dependent existence. They are dependent on us as human beings. They die with our passing away. And they are dependent on the universe as a whole, like we are.

I feel I am missing something important here. Are those parts we call molecules, atoms, etc, dependent on us as human beings?

Can you say more, or put this in a different way?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 05 Aug 2019 #39
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5404 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
I question if there is any thinking in the process of negative thinking. I suggest it is a process of discarding thinking. But that does not imply a "discarder", or some conscious effort. Can it be thought discarding itself?

I came across a quote where K also uses the word "discard" with reference to negative thinking:

To find out what is true religion requires, not a mere one-day effort or one-day search and forgetfulness the next day, but constant questioning, a disturbing inquiry, so that you begin to discard everything. After all, this process of discarding is the highest form of thinking. The pursuit of positive thinking is not thinking at all, it is merely copying. But when there is inquiry without a motive, without the desire for a result, which is the negative approach - in that inquiry the mind goes beyond all traditional religions; and then, perhaps, one may find out for oneself what God is, what truth is.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 05 Aug 2019 #40
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2885 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Manfred Kritzler wrote:

What we see as parts can have only a dependent existence. They are dependent on us as human beings. They die with our passing away. And they are dependent on the universe as a whole, like we are.

Clive: I feel I am missing something important here. Are those parts we call molecules, atoms, etc, dependent on us as human beings?

Without thinking...the human mind...they wouldn't exist...they'd have no separate existence. Very interesting topic! Not sure I'm totally understanding Manfred's point though.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 06 Aug 2019 #41
Thumb_avatar Manfred Kritzler Germany 55 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
I question if there is any thinking in the process of negative thinking. I suggest it is a process of discarding thinking. But that does not imply a "discarder", or some conscious effort. Can it be thought discarding itself?
———
For me to name negative thinking as thinking is a little odd. Thinking is for me an active process. Negative thinking is for me the same or similar like choiceless awareness or „the seeing is the doing“. This is a passive attitude. It’s not a kind of doing, but rather stillness which includes the movement of thought at the beginning. After a while thinking is dissolving. The observer and the observed is merging. David Bohm called it proprioception of thought. Like proprioception of my body it is observing in a way that the observer is the observed.

I used the term negative thinking only not to bring more confusion in the dialogue.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 06 Aug 2019 #42
Thumb_avatar Manfred Kritzler Germany 55 posts in this forum Offline

Manfred:

What we see as parts can have only a dependent existence. They are dependent on us as human beings. They die with our passing away. And they are dependent on the universe as a whole, like we are.

Clive: I feel I am missing something important here. Are those parts we call molecules, atoms, etc, dependent on us as human beings?

Tom: Without thinking...the human mind...they wouldn't exist...they'd have no separate existence. Very interesting topic! Not sure I'm totally understanding Manfred's point though.

Manfred:

I think the question is what is the basis of life, „the world of the 10.000 things“ or oneness.
Usually we think that for instance the tree ( as one of the 10.000 things) is here with and without our consciousness.

A similar question has been discussed between Einstein und Nils Bohr: Is the moon still here when we close our eyes? Einstein said yes, Bohr answered then proof it. But how could something be proofed when we can not use our senses?
The ball in the sky might be here but not as moon. The illuminated ball in the sky is only a moon when he is separated and defined by human consciousness. All the attributes ascribed are only in our human consciousness. To say it in a not so hard way: The meaning of things is man made. David Bohm: A change of meaning is a change of being.

This means for me, when we accept that the basis of our life is oneness or nothingness or not knowing whatever part of it is seen will be only in existence with human consciousness.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 06 Aug 2019 #43
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 775 posts in this forum Offline

Aside from the habitual thoughts which occupy our days, the thinking we are talking about here is the thinking that is set in motion when we are faced with a problem, isn’t it?

There is also technical thinking, which is also based on memory, experience, knowledge. We see that thought, memory, experience, knowledge have their proper place in solving technical problems. Nonetheless, even technical thought requires the intervention of intelligence. Every technical problem is unique and only intelligence can use thought wisely, sanely, appropriately! As I see it, the engineer cannot just rush in and apply expertise without giving full attention to the specific engineering problem. The medical doctor cannot apply knowledge indiscriminately, without giving mind, body and heart to the problem. Otherwise we have Dr. Mengele and other atrocities.

So we don’t know what to do about our problems and challenges. Isn’t this not-knowing the genesis of what we call thinking? We don’t know what to do, what is the proper, adequate action in response to our problems - fear, anger, violence, hate, anxiety, depression, injustice, exploitation, poverty, environmental degradation, human trafficking, slavery, disintegration of relationship, Big Brother, corruption, and so on and so on. And so thinking is needed.

Habitually, from not-knowing what to do, we look at once to memory-knowledge to find a solution. We have been conditioned to view knowledge and experience as the source of intelligent action. So effort, will and desire are the thinking that is traditionally triggered to avoid, to overcome, to control, to suppress, to modify a problem in order to find inner peace. To find peace, freedom from fear and conflict is our problem, isn’t it? But we now understand that fear, hate, brutality, and so on - are based on memory, knowledge, experience, and that memory, knowledge and experience CANNOT solve the problems which they have created.

Right thinking, sane, appropriate thinking is needed to understand what is right action in the face of our problems, isn’t it? The problems will not solve themselves through hope or faith, by ignoring them, or through the kind of positive thinking mentioned by Clive (i.e. by "thinking positive thoughts" about them). Fear, hate, anxiety, jealousy, conflict cannot solve themselves. Right thinking is needed.

We have come to truly understand that experience, memory and method are not only useless, but they actually aggravate the problems of relationship. We see that the thinking which is engendered by memory-knowledge-experience cannot take the appropriate action that is needed to solve the problems or challenges of life. Thinking is needed but the thinking that is needed cannot be based on memory. Memory-based thinking - which is self - is the ROOT of the problems. What then is right, sane, appropriate thinking? What IS this thinking that is needed?

To me, it is the action that takes place where there is attention, which is related to intelligence, in which intelligence and understanding can flower. Attention is the action of the whole human being - staying with, facing everything that is in the moment, not looking away or disregarding anything, not choosing what to look at and what to ignore. The understanding that is engendered by attention is not the action of knowledge/memory. But where there is understanding, thought can then be used by understanding and intelligence for communication, for collective and individual action, for political and social cooperation. No?

So the source of understanding and action is not thought-memory but intelligence. Intelligence can use thought-memory-knowledge. Negative thinking is NOT thought-driven thinking. Positive thinking is the incomplete action taken BY the illusory self, the self which asserts, as Clive put it, - “I will achieve this, I must do that, I mustn’t do the other thing, I - I - I-I….”

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 06 Aug 2019 #44
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 775 posts in this forum Offline

It is the relationship or interconnectedness between the parts of a thing that MAKES it whole (the whole in turn being a part), as I see it. Wholeness is unity between the parts, not the repudiation or elimination of the parts. There are parts and there is unity between them - that is wholeness, as I see it. There is diversity in wholeness. It is not monolithic.

This is not intended as an all-encompassing statement “covering” everything and every circumstance. I am talking primarily about society, the world of human relationship, in the family, workplace, politics, religion, education, the street, and so on. If there is NO relationship or interconnectedness between the parts of society - you, me, them - society cannot be a unified whole, can it? If there is no relationship between heart, body and mind of the human being, the human being is fragmented and there is conflict within and in society. If there is no relationship between you and me as we move about, there is no unity in society. If there is no interconnectedness or relationship between the parts, it is merely a meaningless jumble of things.

So the condition of the part affects the whole and vice-versa, doesn’t it? A cancerous cell, an extra chromosome in a cell, a longevity gene (?), a loving heart, a hateful heart, affect the whole of which they are a part. The people of a town spontaneously showing kindness to a refugee in their midst, the people of a nation spontaneously standing up to hate by protecting its targets, schoolmates spontaneously showing support and affection to a bullied child - affect the whole. Is this so?

As things presently are viewed, “relationship” is seen to be a matter of thought/memory and emotion (emotion being the offshoot of thought). That is, "what I think and feel" is projected outwardly, and this projected image is considered to BE relationship. But in fact, the “I” doesn’t CHOOSE to project - what “I” think/feel CAN’T BE deliberately chosen, stopped or destroyed. The movement of thought is involuntary, like the perfume of a flower, the steam of boiling water, the innocence of a child, the explosion of a volcano.

It can be faced with attention, resistance, blockade or indifference. If it is met with attention, there is actual relationship. If it is met with resistance, blockade or indifference, there is in fact no relationship or connection. Is this right?

Doesn’t the quality of the relationship between the parts of society determine the quality of the family and the whole world? If I deliberately isolate myself from others by labeling them inferior, wrong, unworthy, and so on, or by labeling myself superior, right, worthy, do “I” HAVE a relationship with “them”?

And if I think I have a “relationship” with others merely based on a common outlook or approach to life, IS that relationship?

Isn’t relationship an actual, immediate connection, affection? Relationship is not remembered experience. It is the openness of hearts and minds meeting in the present moment. It is the absence of psychological barriers which block the connection. K sometimes called it a tide going in and out:

The outward movement is the inward movement, the two are not separate. The outgoing tide and the incoming tide.

https://jkrishnamurti.org/content/benediction-m....

I’m saying this hesitantly, not with certainty.

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 07 Aug 2019 #45
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1569 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Isn’t relationship an actual, immediate connection, affection? Relationship is not remembered experience. It is the openness of hearts and minds meeting in the present moment. It is the absence of psychological barriers which block the connection.

Real 'relationship' is 'truth' isn't it? It has no images that come between you and 'it'. Relationship like truth is always in the immediate present. A timeless, moving present. Thought is constantly futiley, trying to grasp it, formulate it but it is like 'oil and water'. Relationship, like truth,can only be in the timeless moment of 'not-knowing' and that is why thought (which is 'knowing') is so 'out of place' and destructive there...but any resistance to the presence of thought implies a 'resistor' (who 'knows?) Any resistance at all implies a choice, doesn't it?...a chooser who 'wants' this instead of that. Any 'direction' at all implies a 'guide' (who knows where he's going?) In the 'sacred' moment of 'not-knowing' nothing can be held onto, no image, no past, no future.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 07 Aug 2019 #46
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2885 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette: We have come to truly understand that experience, memory and method are not only useless, but they actually aggravate the problems of relationship.

How did we get this far? Who is ‘we’? There are many visitors to kinfonet. Do we all see this as fact as you apparently do, Huguette?

We see that the thinking which is engendered by memory-knowledge-experience cannot take the appropriate action that is needed to solve the problems or challenges of life. Thinking is needed but the thinking that is needed cannot be based on memory. Memory-based thinking - which is self - is the ROOT of the problems.

This needs to be explored in depth I think before we can take it as fact. Thinking is the ROOT, why? Why does thinking lead to ALL of mankind’s problems? Is it the root of all of them? If I am afraid of my boss, as an example, I usually assume that it’s HE that is the cause of my fear. If I’m angry I blame the person I’m angry at....or situation(my poverty, for example).... for the anger. Will look into the rest of your message below later, time permitting.

What then is right, sane, appropriate thinking? What IS this thinking that is needed?

To me, it is the action that takes place where there is attention, which is related to intelligence, in which intelligence and understanding can flower. Attention is the action of the whole human being - staying with, facing everything that is in the moment, not looking away or disregarding anything, not choosing what to look at and what to ignore. The understanding that is engendered by attention is not the action of knowledge/memory. But where there is understanding, thought can then be used by understanding and intelligence for communication, for collective and individual action, for political and social cooperation. No?

So the source of understanding and action is not thought-memory but intelligence. Intelligence can use thought-memory-knowledge. Negative thinking is NOT thought-driven thinking. Positive thinking is the incomplete action taken BY the illusory self, the self which asserts, as Clive put it, - “I will achieve this, I must do that, I mustn’t do the other thing, I - I - I-I….”

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 07 Aug 2019 #47
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1569 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Thinking is the ROOT, why? Why does thinking lead to ALL of mankind’s problems? Is it the root of all of them? If I am afraid of my boss, as an example, I usually assume that it’s HE that is the cause of my fear. If I’m angry I blame the person I’m angry at....or situation(my poverty, for example).... for the anger.

I hope you don't mind me butting in here...but looking at your example, doesn't it work like this: your boss can fire you. That is a fact. Where is the fear? It's a fact that your boss can fire you. Isn't the 'fear' the image of yourself being fired? The image of not having enough money. The image of having to search for another job,etc...all images. The images aren't fact. They are creations of thought. Thought projecting negative images of what could be...Thought has a place, we all agree, as a 'real' problem solver i.e. finding a decent job, having enough money, a place to live...but it does not have an appropriate place in the psyche where it creates the conflicts that you describe by projecting a 'future' where things will get worse. (or better for that matter.) In the psyche, thought is the 'enemy' of the present, of 'what is'. It simply is the past...memory and experience...it cannot grasp the present. What place does it have there then, except to obscure... Isn't 'real living' the coming directly into contact with the 'Now', each moment? Thought/thinking has no place there as far as I have been able to see. It's 'mis-placed'.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Wed, 07 Aug 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 07 Aug 2019 #48
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2885 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
The image of not having enough money. The image of having to search for another job,etc...all images.

Yes of course. These images produce fear. I may see very clearly that they’re simply images, yet they very well may remain. I had a family member in just such a situation. Lose your job and there’s no money to pay the rent. Finding another job that pays enough is impossible. Well, it was in this persons situation, anyway....so they lived with fear and anger....like so many others do.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 07 Aug 2019 #49
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 775 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Who is ‘we’?

The “we” I was referring to is those of us who are here talking and listening to each other, who question whether there is an altogether other approach to life. Isn't this what "we" are doing? It is not an interest which is lackadaisical. It is not a superficial intellectual interest to pass the time, a hobby of sorts. It is not an interest that “we” choose, is it?

I mean those of us who - however flawed our understanding actually is - are here because we are interested in understanding the mind - self, action, consciousness, fear, conditioning, compulsion, relationship, time, sorrow, responsibility, and so on.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 07 Aug 2019 #50
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2885 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
The “we” I was referring to is those of us who are here talking and listening to each other, who question whether there is an altogether other approach to life.

Of course....but it was the rest of the part in bold I’m questioning:
“We have come to truly understand that experience, memory and method are not only useless, but they actually aggravate the problems of relationship.” Obviously some of us may feel that we don’t....totally understand your statement

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Wed, 07 Aug 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 07 Aug 2019 #51
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1569 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
. These images produce fear. I may see very clearly that they’re simply images, yet they very well may remain.

I see it Tom that 'I',as well as the image, and the thinking about the image, are all one thing: Thought. When it is seen clearly that there is no 'I' or 'thinker' separate from the images/thoughts, they lose all power. It is the illusion that I am separated from the image/thought that allows the reaction or "production" called 'fear' to take place in that space...when that duality of me 'having' a thought/image is seen through as false, then there can be no fear. (Which is really to say, that fear is 'my' resistance to what thought has produced, isn't it? Take away any resistance and the fear/thought goes with it?)

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Wed, 07 Aug 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 07 Aug 2019 #52
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 775 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote at 50:
“We have come to truly understand that experience, memory and method are not only useless, but they actually aggravate the problems of relationship.” Obviously some of us may feel that we don’t....totally understand your statement

Then what did YOU mean, Tom, when you wrote this:

Tom Paine wrote at 20:
yes, the self is unable to bring change, since change can’t come from the known.

Aren't we both essentially saying the same thing? Self, experience, memory and method are all the known, aren't they?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 07 Aug 2019 #53
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2885 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Then what did YOU mean, Tom, when you wrote this:

I assumed your ‘we’ was a global we referring to all those visiting the forum. When you don’t use the quote function it’s often difficult to tell who or which post you are replying to.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 07 Aug 2019 #54
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2885 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
I see it Tom that 'I',as well as the image, and the thinking about the image, are all one thing: Thought. When it is seen clearly that there is no 'I' or 'thinker' separate from the images/thoughts, they lose all power.

Even in times of a threat to our physical security or survival? I know many folks who live paycheck to paycheck with no savings. A job loss is a huge problem. I’m not saying it must necessarily lead to fear. I honestly don’t know.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 07 Aug 2019 #55
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2885 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
It is the illusion that I am separated from the image/thought that allows the reaction or "production" called 'fear' to take place in that space...when that duality of me 'having' a thought/image is seen through as false, then there can be no fear.

This is not totally clear. I need to look further into it....when fear is actually present in ‘me’. I mean, when the landlord comes to the door demanding the rent be paid and I’m broke, I can’t tell him “there is no me to own you rent”. “The me and the you are only thought.”

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Wed, 07 Aug 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 07 Aug 2019 #56
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1569 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
I need to look further into it....when fear is actually present in ‘me’.

Yes it's important but if you wait until you're afraid, I think it will be too late because you'll already be in 'escape' mode. You can see how the image making machinery works before there's a crisis. You can see it in a quiet time....how thought creates the thinker, etc.

Tom Paine wrote:
“there is no me to owe you rent”.

No I think you misunderstand. You do owe the rent, that is the fact of the situation. That you don't have the money is also a fact but
What is not a fact is the image of the landlord coming to the door, that imagined scene. That is an image created by thought of something that may happen in some 'future' time. That is what the 'thinker' is reacting to, that unpleasant image...It may happen or not. The landlord may have a heart attack coming up the stairs and you could live rent free from then on :)...We are talking about the creation of what we call 'fear', how it comes about (in all of us) through thought's image making machinery. It has to be totally understood or, it seems to me, it can never come to an end and will continue to make life miserable.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Wed, 07 Aug 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 07 Aug 2019 #57
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2885 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Tom Paine wrote:

I need to look further into it....when fear is actually present in ‘me’.

Dan: Yes it's important but if you wait until you're afraid, I think it will be too late because you'll already be in 'escape' mode. You can see how the image making machinery works before there's a crisis. You can see it in a quiet time....how thought creates the thinker, etc.

It’s easy to observe all that in. ‘quiet time’, and have a good understanding intellectually. Then when the sh*t hits the fan, we find that fear raises its head once again.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 07 Aug 2019 #58
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2885 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
You do owe the rent, that is the fact of the situation. That you don't have the money is also a fact but
What is not a fact is the image of the landlord coming to the door, that imagined scene. That is an image created by thought of something that may happen in some 'future' time.

Of course it’s an image. But this image can’t be ignored! Unless we don’t give a damn if we get evicted.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Wed, 07 Aug 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 07 Aug 2019 #59
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1569 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Of course it’s an image. But this image can’t be ignored!

You bring out an important point here. That as long as the unpleasant image is seen to be separate from yourself, that as long as there is a duality between 'you' and 'it', there must be some sort of reaction to it: in this case fear, dread, worry, anxiety, etc. But conversely if the image presented is a pleasant one then there is a kind of 'welcoming' of it...and as you say they can't be just "ignored"...so isn't the question, why any images at all? And why a 'self-image' at the center of them all?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 08 Aug 2019 #60
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5404 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote @32:
And boy, it was just brought home to me today when I saw the news report of another mass shooting as well as reading more of Trumps insane mind vomit. We have created an insane world....truly insane.

Yes Tom. Absolutely insane. Just feeling your statement should be acknowledged. Any dip into the daily news verifies this. And most contact with the minds of others. Which in not to deny the insanity within oneself, as one is the world.

What is our response to this fact?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 31 - 60 of 127 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.)