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

Negative thinking


Displaying posts 61 - 88 of 88 in total
Thu, 08 Aug 2019 #61
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5160 posts in this forum Offline

Manfred Kritzler wrote #41:
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.

I would go along with this, Manfred. I think you have captured the essence of the meaning of "negative thinking" well.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 12 Aug 2019 #62
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 831 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:

Manfred Kritzler wrote #41:

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.

I would go along with this, Manfred. I think you have captured the essence of the meaning of "negative thinking" well.

During hours of rest and waiting, this subject has kept me busy and still keeps me busy. The choice of words may be an English expression but it also strongly resembles a conclusion and that is precisely something that is missing in 'negative thinking'.
as well as a cause and / or effect. there are indeed similarities with 'choiseless awareness', but are there no differences also ?
Krishnaji speaks of the highest form of intelligence, something he does not do with 'choiseless awareness'.

as I look at it now, it looks like two facets of the same diamond, the same event.

Let me try to put it differently: Take the entire 'Teaching', it has not come about without cause, without purpose, with 'choiseless awareness' and with 'seeing is doing', where the thinking is employed instead of leading ?

P.s. in the last sentence 'it has' must surely be Has it because of the ?

Truth will unfold itself to those who enquire their own actions.

This post was last updated by Wim Opdam Mon, 12 Aug 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 12 Aug 2019 #63
Thumb_avatar Manfred Kritzler Germany 35 posts in this forum Offline

Wim:
Let me try to put it differently: Take the entire 'Teaching', it has not come about without cause, without purpose, with 'choiseless awareness' and with 'seeing is doing', where the thinking is employed instead of leading ?
————-
Manfred: My understanding is that it is not appropriate to suppress thinking or anything else coming into awareness. No matter what it is to stay with it is choiceless awareness, including the awareness that I am not aware.

According to my experience thought in its necessary form will stay in the conscious mind. This is thought which has a counterpart in the outside. I call it practical thought. Psychological thought is only insight of us. By proprioception of thought it will disappear, because there is nothing outside of us to bring it back in our consciousness.

So I think your statement “where the thinking is employed instead of leading” expresses in a very good way the correct place of thought.

Einstein expressed it this way:
“The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift.”

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 12 Aug 2019 #64
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1359 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
I look at it now, it looks like two facets of the same diamond, the same event.

Negative thinking is a 'discarding' of the positive thought, conclusion, etc? It is discarded as it is observed?..Passive awareness is the 'state' that makes the discarding posible? It is a state of non-identification with the body, with thought? "Sheer motionless observation".

It occurred to me that the 'approach' to this state of being is the 'passion' to understand? To see myself "as if for the first time". That is what is missing, isn't it, I 'think' I know myself, what I am, who I am, so the 'observation' becomes one part looking at another. It's not grasped that all of 'me' is conditioned, there is no part that is not. So is it only in this state of a passive awareness that negative thinking can occur? Is it only when there is this "sheer motionless observation" that the totality of the self can be seen?

But can this 'state' take place when there is any conflict, any suffering?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 12 Aug 2019 #65
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2691 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
I 'think' I know myself, what I am, who I am, so the 'observation' becomes one part looking at another. It's not grasped that all of 'me' is conditioned, there is no part that is not.

It’s not seen that all thought is conditioned....all knowledge limited. The ' me' that is trying to squirm out of the trap is a fragment of the trap itself

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Mon, 12 Aug 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 13 Aug 2019 #66
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1359 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
It’s not seen that all thought is conditioned....all knowledge limited. The ' me' that is trying to squirm out of the trap is a fragment of the trap itself.

And I think K.'s use of the word "arduous" fits here...to look at oneself, as if for the very first time, (which it always is !) is arduous. There's a back and forth: attention and inattention. His suggestion to be attentive when you are inattentive...does anyone have anything to say about that seeming paradox?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 13 Aug 2019 #67
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5160 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
It occurred to me that the 'approach' to this state of being is the 'passion' to understand? To see myself "as if for the first time". That is what is missing, isn't it, I 'think' I know myself, what I am, who I am, so the 'observation' becomes one part looking at another.
The thinking that I know myself is only image, is it not? it is a "frozen picture" of myself. But images of myself must ever remain inadequate, partial, because what I am is ever changing.

And it is not only that such partial knowing is inadequate, it is actually illusory, and so destructive.

Dan McDermott wrote:
It's not grasped that all of 'me' is conditioned, there is no part that is not.

That is very true, and I see it as one of the major blocks for self-understanding. It is a perception, a step that most people are unwilling or unable to take. I think this wrong step takes place all the time, when thought B assumes the role of analyser/controler/thinker etc of thought A. The separation we are talking of in the other thread.

The self is the problem, but it is always masquerading as the solution.

Dan McDermott wrote:
So is it only in this state of a passive awareness that negative thinking can occur? Is it only when there is this "sheer motionless observation" that the totality of the self can be seen?

But can this 'state' take place when there is any conflict, any suffering?

I am not sure that I have ever "experienced" this state of motionless observation. And yet at this very moment I find myself watching two little children playing/being, and because I am interested, I just watch.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 13 Aug 2019 #68
Thumb_avatar Manfred Kritzler Germany 35 posts in this forum Offline

Dan: His suggestion to be attentive when you are inattentive...does anyone have anything to say about that seeming paradox?
—————-
Manfred: Yes it seems to be and in a causal logical sense it is a paradox. Choiceless awareness as I understand it is a paradox. It has no opposite. In German I call it “absichtslose Achtsamkeit”. Translated into English it would mean maybe something like “undesigned awareness”?

When I try to be attentive all the time this kind of attitude creates during the attentiveness the opposite in form of inattentiveness. On a very high level we live in a division. It is either attentiveness or its opposite. That is the reason I am looking at mindfulness as a wonderful exercise but not as a kind of oneness. It is still something created by the separate “I”.

Attentiveness without the intention to change what I am attentive of is for me oneness. This kind of attentiveness includes that I am attentive that I am not attentive.

I think to practice it is so difficult because it is a direct attacking of the ego. The ego cannot survive in choiceless or intentionless attentiveness/awareness. That these words are not incorporated in the English language is for me a hint to its unusualness.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 13 Aug 2019 #69
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1359 posts in this forum Offline

Manfred Kritzler wrote:
Attentiveness without the intention to change what I am attentive of is for me oneness.

There is much in what you say. For 'outward', I all of a sudden see a flock of white birds across the river, they have 'caught my attention' as we say in english. I am surprised by the amount of them floating in the air like leaves. And I recognize them as the same gulls that seem to constantly patrol this part of the river always on the lookout for fish. And now one by one they are settling down upon a neighbor's pier across the river, much to his chagrin I'm sure, for the mess they will make...but in all this, the attention is without effort, there is no desire to change what I'm seeing. It is 'captured'...Can the 'inner' be captured in that same way? And who is the 'capturer'?

Is it 'desire' that wants to 'succeed' in solving K.'s koan: "be attentive when you are inattentive"? The 'self' seeking more 'security'. But the self can't 'do' this, can it? Can thought ever understand its limitation?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Tue, 13 Aug 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 13 Aug 2019 #70
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5160 posts in this forum Offline

Manfred Kritzler wrote @#41:
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.

Manfred, (or anyone) this is going back a while, but I want to question you about this “movement of thought at the beginning” Can you enlarge on this? Are you referring to the birth of a thought in the mind, in consciousness?

When there is a certain awareness of the process of thought, in a certain quietness (I will not call it stillness) the question has often arisen for me: “can there be awareness of a thought at the moment of its very birth?”. Generally awareness comes in when the thought already has existence. And logically one might ask: “how can there possibly be awareness of a thought before it actually exists?”. But it is not very clear what “exists” mean in this context. It seems there are different levels, different dimensions of thought.

Perhaps what I am writing is just a jumble. It is so hard to put into words, when one is very much part of the process one is trying to describe. The mind feels to occupied at the moment to deeply go into this, but I will post what I have written.

Manfred Kritzler wrote:
After a while thinking is dissolving. The observer and the observed is merging,

Yes, and this dissolving adds to the difficulty of describing the process. Perhaps there is no point in trying to describe. And perhaps the pressure that might come from feeling one SHOULD describe is an inhibitory factor to the observation.

Manfred Kritzler wrote:
After a while thinking is dissolving. The observer and the observed is merging

which means I an dissolving.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 14 Aug 2019 #71
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 831 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Can thought ever understand its limitation?

Can this question be answered ? It is a closed question.
IF ONE says 'yes' the answer was already in thought!
If one says 'no' the answer was already in thought
If one says ' I have to negate thought altogether ' is also from reading K.

BUT This does remind me OF David Bohm explaning a scientific approach whereby the absence of a positive and/or negative measuring result also has a specific meaning. The absence of energy lost, of movement, the presence of stillness, openess

In that case the mind is open,
completely available for new information, sensitive and not partly, the possibility for intelligence to act.

Truth will unfold itself to those who enquire their own actions.

This post was last updated by Wim Opdam Wed, 14 Aug 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 14 Aug 2019 #72
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1359 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
In that case the mind is open,
completely available for new information, sensitive and not partly, the possibility for intelligence to act.

Hi Wim

It is quite possibly an unperceived 'fact' that we are in some sort of 'conflagration' of energy here but that we are unable to see and or react to it because of the information provided by our senses. Like the eye not being able to perceive the movement of a shadow on the wall or the growth of a plant, or the opening of a blossom, we have an illusion that things are relatively 'stable' and have a relatively long 'life span'...but with 'stop-action' photography we can see that movement never stops, growth and change are continuous. But our senses unaided can't perceive that movement but it is a 'fact' nevertheless. And viewed from 'another' time scale, we could very well be in the midst of a burning, heaving, cauldron of energy. Things coming into existence and disintegrating at a 'furious' speed...and all to what purpose we don't (and can't?) know...This I see as certainly possible. And we here being a part of it, sensing that our 80 or so years here is 'ample time' to live but could be only a fraction of a fraction of a second viewed from another, different, scale of time. (We have some examples here of different time scales: the hummingbird, is said to be living 50 times faster than us...certain cells in the body go through birth, youth, middle age, old age and finally death in the span of 24 hours)... There are some books that have explored this, one is Maurice Nicholl's (?) 'Living Time'

I find it an interesting possibility and just wanted to pass it on.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Wed, 14 Aug 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 14 Aug 2019 #73
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5160 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
And we here being a part of it, sensing that our 80 or so years here is 'ample time' to live but could be only a fraction of a fraction of a second viewed from another, different, scale of time.

By one of those "strange coincidences", I was reading an article yesterday concerned with this, putting mankind's existence in a geological perspective.

Here is it:

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/08/arrogance-anthropocene/595795/

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 15 Aug 2019 #74
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 831 posts in this forum Offline

however we look at 'time', from which dimension, on what scale, it remains a delimitation in the whole, at best as a part, but rather the way we deal with it as a fragment.

Every change, superficial or fundamental,
only occurs in the "Present", the "NOW" and that, like the whole,
cannot be characterized by a beginning or end.

Truth will unfold itself to those who enquire their own actions.

This post was last updated by Wim Opdam Thu, 15 Aug 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 17 Aug 2019 #75
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 831 posts in this forum Offline

as far as I have been able to ascertain, the term "negative thinking" was only used in India in the year 1948, before and afterwards "right thinking" is used.

does anyone have an explanation for that?

Truth will unfold itself to those who enquire their own actions.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 17 Aug 2019 #76
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1359 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
does anyone have an explanation for that?

A guess. 'Negative' in the sense that it was the 'antidote to 'positive'. A discarding, negating process rather than accumulative. A process that observes the activity of thought in order to understand it...But the word 'negative' in english is also used to describe something that is 'bad or 'wrong' i.e., "He has a negative attitude"... whereas the word 'right'(thinking) has no 'negative' or 'bad' connotations?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sat, 17 Aug 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 17 Aug 2019 #77
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5160 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
as far as I have been able to ascertain, the term "negative thinking" was only used in India in the year 1948, before and afterwards "right thinking" is used.

What makes you think that K used the terms "negative thinking" and "right thinking" equivalently, Wim?

This post was last updated by Clive Elwell Sat, 17 Aug 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 18 Aug 2019 #78
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 831 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
What makes you think that K used the terms "negative thinking" and "right thinking" equivalently, Wim?

it was not my intention to see these two concepts as equivalent, although it may be worth investigating, but it intrigued me that he used it only for a very short time, was that because of an insight that it led to confusion rather than clarification?

Truth will unfold itself to those who enquire their own actions.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 18 Aug 2019 #79
Thumb_avatar Manfred Kritzler Germany 35 posts in this forum Offline

Clive:Manfred, (or anyone) this is going back a while, but I want to question you about this “movement of thought at the beginning” Can you enlarge on this? Are you referring to the birth of a thought in the mind, in consciousness?

Manfred: Sorry, that was not expressed very clearly . I intended to say that at the beginning of choiceless awareness is still thought, not the beginning of thought.

Clive: When there is a certain awareness of the process of thought, in a certain quietness (I will not call it stillness) the question has often arisen for me: “can there be awareness of a thought at the moment of its very birth?”. Generally awareness comes in when the thought already has existence. And logically one might ask: “how can there possibly be awareness of a thought before it actually exists?”. But it is not very clear what “exists” mean in this context. It seems there are different levels, different dimensions of thought.

Manfred: I pondered about this very interesting question for some time. I tried to find out if I am able to see the very birth of thought. I did it in the way to lay down with no intention and after a while choiceless awareness emanated. Thought diminished and after some time there was no conscious thought any more. Some time later thought came back and it looked like that I saw its very beginning.
But I really doubt if this result is influenced by the intention to find out something in a graspable way. So it could be that thought is arising only because I was looking for it. Instead of living with the unknown I tried to know? I am in no way sure if this is understandable or a comprehensible answer to your question.

In the moment I have the tendency to say that your question is not answerable, but I am fully open to any idea or other opinions.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 18 Aug 2019 #80
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5160 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
it was not my intention to see these two concepts as equivalent, although it may be worth investigating, but it intrigued me that he used it only for a very short time, was that because of an insight that it led to confusion rather than clarification?s

Thank you for this clarification, Wim.

Hmm, Myself I find the term "negative thinking" very meaningful. The term "right thinking" I have difficulties with, as it seems to imply some standard against which thought is measured. It brings up almost moralistic overtones. However, these are just conditioned associations in my mind, I am sure this was not K's intention in using the phrase.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 18 Aug 2019 #81
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5160 posts in this forum Offline

Manfred Kritzler wrote:
But I really doubt if this result is influenced by the intention to find out something in a graspable way.

Thanks for giving my question such attention, Manfred. Firstly, just for clarity, do you feel that "doubt" or "question" is the most accurate word to express your feeling/thought here?

Manfred Kritzler wrote:
I am in no way sure if this is understandable or a comprehensible answer to your question

So are you saying, asking yourself, if what you observed was a projection of thought only, rather than "real"? Whatever real means. Thought conveniently supplying an answer?

I will see if I can in some way focus on this issue, and perhaps look at it in a new way - but I do not pretend that "I" can direct "the mind" in a meaningful way, as "I" AM the "the mind". It just has to come, as you imply, Manfred.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 19 Aug 2019 #82
Thumb_avatar Manfred Kritzler Germany 35 posts in this forum Offline

Manfred:
Attentiveness without the intention to change what I am attentive of is for me oneness.

Dave: There is much in what you say. For 'outward', I all of a sudden see a flock of white birds across the river, they have 'caught my attention' as we say in english. I am surprised by the amount of them floating in the air like leaves. And I recognize them as the same gulls that seem to constantly patrol this part of the river always on the lookout for fish. And now one by one they are settling down upon a neighbor's pier across the river, much to his chagrin I'm sure, for the mess they will make...but in all this, the attention is without effort, there is no desire to change what I'm seeing. It is 'captured'...Can the 'inner' be captured in that same way? And who is the 'capturer'?

Is it 'desire' that wants to 'succeed' in solving K.'s koan: "be attentive when you are inattentive"? The 'self' seeking more 'security'. But the self can't 'do' this, can it? Can thought ever understand its limitation.
————-

Manfred: Starting with your last question, I never really understood the statement that thought understands its limitation? For me there is thought and the area beyond. When I stay in the realm of thought how could I understand its own limitation? I think we are forced to an assumption or a hypothesis. This means we have to have a model to understand something in a comprehensible way. My model is that there is oneness, which is something we can never grasp and included in this oneness is thought. That means for me that anything we can think of is surrounded by something which is not graspable and therefore is not knowable. This results in a worldview in which there is the known, but the known can never be wholeness or oneness. So if the question would be, can thought proof its own limitations in a causal logical way, I would say no.

Can the inner be captured and who is the capturer?

My answer to this question would be no, it is not possible. The inner creates the outer in a way that the outer wholeness is split into parts which make the world understandable. When we try to capture the inner we dissolve it and therefore there is an outer only in its non graspable wholeness again. Capturing means here to catch our consciousness, not what we are conscious of.

The question who is the capturer can maybe not be answered in a reasonable way. At least I have no answer in the moment.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 19 Aug 2019 #83
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1359 posts in this forum Offline

Manfred Kritzler wrote:
I never really understood the statement that thought understands its limitation? For me there is thought and the area beyond. When I stay in the realm of thought how could I understand its own limitation?

Only by 'insight' into the 'me structure' that thought and memory have created and are constantly maintaining and 'updating'. And then it seems, it is only thought itself that could see the colossal 'mistake' it has made. And then it also seems, that it is only self-centered thought itself, realizing the total 'prison' that it has created, that could bring it to an end by its effortless and willing silence. It has created every imaginable image of what 'might' lie outside the confines of its 'wall' but none of it has reality. It can't be real because the 'me' that is doing the imagining and hoping and theorizing and philosophizing and praying (and fearing?) what is beyond, is itself not real. It is made up of the past. That is the limitation that it must clearly realize: that through fear of the 'unknown', we have created a prison of ignorance and blocked access to the truth.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott 1 day ago.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 20 Aug 2019 #84
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5160 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
I will see if I can in some way focus on this issue, and perhaps look at it in a new way - but I do not pretend that "I" can direct "the mind" in a meaningful way, as "I" AM the "the mind".

Emerging from an intense period of quiet, deep, observation of thought. Although the initial intention was to investigate the question “Can one be aware of the birth of a thought” - I am now asking if there is there anything that one can bring from the state of deep observation? Are there any descriptions, any conclusions that have been drawn? A characteristic of such a state is that all conclusions are constantly ending. In fact it is a process of seeing that all thought/feeling is ending, dying all the time. It is the burning up of knowledge

In this state, I do not see that any idea, any suggestion, can be verified or disproved at all. I certainly do not have an answer to the original question.

If such an experiment – experiment is not the word – if such a thing is seen as a venture of the self, something that is in control of the self, that notion quickly evaporates in the course of meditation. Yes, let the term meditation be used, although it does not, as far as I know, correspond to meditation in the classic sense – nothing is being achieved, In fact such meditation is the withering away of all effort, of all concepts of achieving. It is pure negation. I think it encompasses “negative thinking”.

In such meditation the notion that the mind can be controlled by the self in any way is quickly dissolved.

And it is not that there is the state of meditation and everyday living, two different states. The meditative state seeps into everyday being, one might even say “undermines” it. Negation becomes a normal state, although it may be more intense or less intense, depending on one’s degree of occupation.

Is this what K meant by death becoming a part of life?

“Thought shattering itself against its own nothingness is the explosion of meditation”

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
2 days ago #85
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 831 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
In fact such meditation is the withering away of all effort, of all concepts of achieving. It is pure negation. I think it encompasses “negative thinking”.

This seems to be the case, as far as it's been observed and it also encompasses 'creative thinking', something new is taking place in mind and action.

Truth will unfold itself to those who enquire their own actions.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
1 day ago #86
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 722 posts in this forum Offline

Manfred Kritzler wrote:
For me there is thought and the area beyond. When I stay in the realm of thought how could I understand its own limitation?

Manfred, Dan drew my attention to these words of yours. I'd like to add to what he said.

What is the connection or relationship between the “me” who says “For me there is thought and the area beyond”, and the words themselves which are expressed “by” the thinker? Thinker and thought are both made of or put together by, the same “stuff” - i.e. memory - aren't they? So thought/thinker which says “For me there is thought and the area beyond” is itself/himself IN the realm of thought. Logically, thought/thinker cannot be BEYOND thought, can it? So you/I/thought CANNOT step out of “the realm of thought”. Beyond the realm of thought, there is no thought, no speaker, no thinker, no you/me/them.

Thought/thinker can and does observe and understand this, as I see it. Isn’t it in fact BECAUSE thinker/thought DOES observe and understand its limitation that the thought “there is thought and the area beyond” arises? Otherwise, on what basis does thought say this?

This understanding of thought’s limitations - of the process of self, consciousness, time, of inner contradiction, of conflict, and so on - is in fact immovable. Once seen, it cannot be unseen. Understanding flows out of choiceless awareness, observation. It is not an idea. The understanding of thought’s limitations is not an idea. The understanding of thought’s force, power or irresistibility is not an idea. The energy or force of thousands of years of conditioning, fragmentation, tradition, habit, and so on, remains irresistible - not able to be resisted. No amount of effort or willpower can stop it, and this too can be observed and understood.

What happens in the mind when the “unstoppable force” which is thought meets the “immovable object” which is understanding?
Through observation, there has been an immovable insight - that thought CANNOT bring about the ending of thought, time, division, consciousness, etc. Being conditioned or "brainwashed", thought still automatically fragments into “what should be and what should not be”, it still divides into thinker and thought, it still tries to find solutions to its existential problems even though it clearly cannot solve them.

K has said that the action of insight is complete, "it's over and done with". Insight is immovable. But thought is still unstoppable. It still says things like, "How come I have had insight and thought still goes on fragmenting?"

Thought understands its condition but it is still conditioned. And whatever efforts thought/consciousness still exerts through its will, pursuing its desires, avoiding its fears do not stop or push out that immovable insight.

The understanding of the processes governing these movements of division, effort, time, etc. - remains immovable, and thought remains unstoppable. Don’t they? So the only action to take in the face of this is still to choicelessly observe --- observe the inner divisions and battles, the outer chaos, the wars, the poverty, exploitation, injustice, brutality, beauty, acts of love and kindness, fear, the degradation of the physical environment, the greed, and on and on.

Observation, understanding and learning do not end with a flash of insight. Just because I understand the illusory division of observer and observed does not mean that vigilant alertness is not longer necessary. Thought/thinker does not relent. This too can be observed and understood, no?

It is clear that humanity will never "voluntarily" put an end to greed, brutality, deceit, corruption, fear, suffering, and so on. Willpower or putting in place and enforcing laws through political, social, educational or legal means of authority cannot put an end chaos and disintegration. Enforcement through personal effort, or collectively through politics, society, family, education and the law cannot bring about harmony or unity. It is continuing the old story of our conditioning or brainwashing.

This post was last updated by Huguette . 1 day ago.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
1 day ago #87
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1359 posts in this forum Offline

I had saved this from somewhere:

K. "Please listen. You have not felt the shock of the realization that the Thinker, the you, is in himself the poison; whatever he wishes and does will be poisonous. ?Why is it that you do not feel the shock of this realization? Either because you do not think that the thinker, the 'you', is the poison, or you are numbed. You have agreed all along that the thinker is the thought, that they are not separate, that they exist together. If on seeing that mountain, you do not respond to its beauty and you realize that you do not, then such a realization will give you a shock, will it not? Similarly, when you realize that the thinker himself is ignorance you are not startled by it: you pass on to other things.

You have made yourself shockproof by your reasons explanations decisions, conclusions. Your intellect has built walls of self protection against all discovery and spontaneity, against freedom and understanding. The intellect will never find the answer. But if you allow yourself to enquire into why you are not startled by the thought that the thinker is sorrow, then you will break down the self- enclosing walls. If you live with this dead numbness of the intellect and do not escape from it then you will find that the rock against which you have been beating your head will melt away.

You have become numb, and you do not allow yourself to realize it, to feel it. And only when you are shaken by its reality - the reality of numbness - is there the beginning of the cessation of the thinker and his thought. Then only is there the intimation of the eternal."

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
4 hours ago #88
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5160 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
K. "Please listen. You have not felt the shock of the realization that the Thinker, the you, is in himself the poison; whatever he wishes and does will be poisonous. ?Why is it that you do not feel the shock of this realization? Either because you do not think that the thinker, the 'you', is the poison, or you are numbed.

Or is it that we do not realise that the thinker, the you, is ME. I mean that me that is acting NOW, and the me that is going to act as the next thought. The mind has this trick of turning the actual into an idea - I am doing it now. And this is a form of escape.

I read this very morning:

The very thinking about what is is an escape from what is. Thinking about the problem is escape from the problem; for thinking IS the problem, and the only problem.

That thinking is ME, it is what I am doing/thinking/feeling now. I am the problem. the attempt to solve the problem IS the problem. The very attempt at bringing completeness is incompleteness. This is a tremendous realisation. It cuts off all avenues of escape.

Dan McDermott wrote:
K: You have made yourself shockproof by your reasons explanations decisions, conclusions.

This came into the mind soon after waking:

"One must be very wary of the mind rationalising"

Rationalising means trying to convince oneself that something is true (so actually it is not true). One can, and does, rationalise anything; rationalising I think being this process of reasons, explanations, decisions, conclusions, as K says, determinations, resolutions .... Yes, they are all attempt at "shockproofing", the mind escaping from seeing what actually is - because that seeing might be very threatening, might demand great change.

Can we cease to escape, completely?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 61 - 88 of 88 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.)