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

Me and my thoughts?


Displaying all 25 posts
Page 1 of 1
Sat, 10 Aug 2019 #1
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5160 posts in this forum Offline

I am feeling that the issue that we are discussing on the "all one inquiry" thread is so vital, so essential, that it needs its own thread, its own space. I was trying to think of a title that has some originiality, rather than phrases from K like "observer and observed", "thinker and thought", but do not think that I have succeeded.

Here is the last quote from K that I posted on the old thread:

What happens when we think? Without realizing it, the mind divides itself, and then one section of the mind investigates the other, giving an answer out of its own accumulated experience, or according to the accepted experiences of others. This effort makes up what we call thinking, and the resulting answer is but the projection of a conditioned mind.

I see that all our action, or rather our attempt at action, in the psychological, religious realm, only continues the separation, the division of the mind. Such action is the action of the me on thought - or that is how it appears. "I" am trying to do something about "that". But this is action of separation, obviously, separating (each moment) the me from the mine.

Whatever we do, however we approach any problem, it is as the me separate from the problem. This is what, I think, is called "positive action". Does it actually resolve anything? Above I used the word "obviously". But if it is obvious, why does this movement continue, endlessly?

We often talk about "sorrow". What is this sorrow? Is it not the separation - and hence conflict - between "me" and "my thoughts"?

Is there another approach, not based in separation? But I am suspicious of that question. Better to ask, perhaps, if there can be an end to the approach of separation. Is there significance in that phrase I have high-lighted in the K quote above: "without realising it"? Why does the mind not realise what it is doing? Is this lack of realisation inevitable?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 10 Aug 2019 #2
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 722 posts in this forum Offline

The process of fragmentation IS clearly seen, isn’t it (and clarity is not the same as certainty)? That the root of suffering is thought fragmenting into observer and observed, and so on. And the effort of the observer-fragment to overcome or resolve the observed-fragment causes physical pains, stresses and discomfort. This IS observed, it seems to me.

So when you or I say things like:

Clive Elwell wrote at 849 of "All one enquiry":
...it does often seem that thought is incapable of learning, of seeing certain psychological facts and letting the seeing act.

... isn’t this the brain/thought (you and me, the observer) once again fragmenting, concluding, separating itself from the observed? Isn’t this thought splitting or fragmenting once again, thinking something like, “If I REALLY saw it, the whole thing would end, there would be no more psychological thoughts and I would be free, at peace.” And in asking “Then what IS the key which will end the repeating of the same mistake?” (which the intellect is incapable of answering), isn’t it still hoping, desiring, trying to solve the conflict?

As I see it, when thought says, “I am incapable of letting the seeing act”, or asks, “what will stop thought from repeating the same mistakes”, THIS IS the very thought process of fragmentation in operation, which prevents the seeing from acting. The “problem” has been displaced, but thought is still seeking an answer. The “problem” is no longer an external challenge or internal flaw. The problem is now the process of fragmentation itself. But, in observing the process, thought is still looking at fragmentation as separate from itself; it is still fragmenting, separating itself from the problem. Thought is still thinking that there is something it (I) could or should be doing to “let the seeing act”. Or thought (the thinker) is thinking that “perhaps thought (the observed) is incapable”.

So thought intellectually realizes that the thinker IS thought but it does not realize that it is still observing the observed as though it were separate from the observer. It is not attentive to the fact that the observer is still making an effort to solve or resolve the observed.

http://jiddu-krishnamurti.net/en/the-ending-of-...:

In examining the question of consciousness and its content it is very important to find out whether one, oneself, is observing it, or if in observing, consciousness becomes aware of itself. There is a difference. Either, one observes the movement of one's consciousness - one's desires, hurts, ambitions, greeds and all the rest of the content of our consciousness - as if from the outside; or consciousness becomes aware of itself. This is only possible when thought realizes that it is only observing what it has created, which is the content of its consciousness; then thought realizes that it is only observing itself, not `me' which thought has put together observing consciousness. There is only observation; then consciousness begins to reveal its content, not only the superficial consciousness but the deeper layers of consciousness, the whole content of consciousness. If one sees the importance of sheer absolute motionless observation, then the thing flowers; consciousness opens up its doors.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 10 Aug 2019 #3
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2691 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
But, in observing the process, thought is still looking at fragmentation as separate from itself;

Good point! That's all thought can to....fragment/divide. Back to this later time permitting.

thought but it does not realize that it is still observing the observed as though it were separate from the observer. It is not attentive to the fact that the observer is still making an effort to solve or resolve the observed.

Right. Observing all this is real meditation I feel.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Sat, 10 Aug 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 10 Aug 2019 #4
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1359 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
K. "This (consciousness being aware of itself) is only possible when thought realizes that it is only observing what it has created, which is the content of its consciousness; then thought realizes that it is only observing itself, not `me' which thought has put together observing consciousness. There is only observation; then consciousness begins to reveal its content, not only the superficial consciousness but the deeper layers of consciousness, the whole content of consciousness. If one sees the importance of sheer absolute motionless observation, then the thing flowers; consciousness opens up its doors."

"Sheer absolute motionless observation"...Because our 'conditioning' is total, every movement of thought is part of this conditioning? Anything that 'moves' is part of the conditioning? Everything is a 'result', the "world is a result"...except this motionless observation which is another name for Compassion?

One of the hallmarks of the 'me' fragment is that when it observes a hurtful memory, say, it wishes that it had done things differently, that things had gone differently. It feels that there was a choice and that it took the wrong one...Each moment there are a finite amount of possibilities, directions that we can take, but the one that is taken is the result or effect of what has gone before and that in turn becomes the cause for the succeeding action...and to look back and torment and blame oneself for the road not taken is to not understand that what took place had to take place...and it is irrevocable, the feeling that 'I' was in control and acted wrongly is to not understand that this 'I' never actually existed but was only a projection of thought, a bundle of memories...This is what we are calling the 'controlling I' that actually has no existence, an illusion of the 'contents of consciousness'?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 10 Aug 2019 #5
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 657 posts in this forum Offline

"which is another name for Compassion?" and/or intelligence, love....

Is it right to even name this?

what took place had to take place...and it is irrevocable, the feeling that 'I' was in control and acted wrongly is to not understand that this 'I' never actually existed but was only a projection of thought, a bundle of memories...This is what we are calling the 'controlling I' that actually has no existence, an illusion of the 'contents of consciousness'?

This is the absence of identification.

Actually I never do anything, never have.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 10 Aug 2019 #6
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 657 posts in this forum Offline

I have recently been looking at the self-image that is here, in this one. This self exists only in that it is embedded within human society: What one is in the tribe, group neighborhood society, church, nation....
the having of significance, or having no significance, having status or no status. This is the psychological self. It is happy when it is complemented,
when it does something well, when it gets applause for an accomplishment. It suffers when it
is insulted, when it derided. When it does something 'wrong', or poorly, it suffers. I suspect that none of this which includes psychological suffering
would occur without its being within some social group. Alone in the world there would have been no psychological self.

It is also embedded in time. All of the present, the experiencing of things now, becomes immediately the past, memory only. But the psychological self has a
history. That history is matter, material structure in the material brain.

There is also the self of the present, nowness only. The present has no past, no history

There is this body and this brain, matter only. There is a history of that, of this thing.

The present, presentness itself, is now only. As seen here the person in the present is not person at all, it is free of identification. We are that.

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Sun, 11 Aug 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 10 Aug 2019 #7
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 657 posts in this forum Offline

So why is there this psychological suffering that seems to pervade?

Has this way of experiencing been wired into the human being through millions of years of human evolution because in some way it aids in the survival of the group? The smile and the frown and subordinance to the leader. language ability, crying, anger, celebraty, the feeling of fear, etc. It seemsthat in all of this and more we evolved to be this kind of animal.

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Sat, 10 Aug 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 10 Aug 2019 #8
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 657 posts in this forum Offline

All of that is scientific thought and discovery. the field of matter

There is that which is beyond matter.

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Sat, 10 Aug 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 10 Aug 2019 #9
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5160 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
So thought intellectually realizes that the thinker IS thought but it does not realize that it is still observing the observed as though it were separate from the observer. It is not attentive to the fact that the observer is still making an effort to solve or resolve the observed.

Yes, this seems to be the issue. The central issue of consciousness. Then WHY does thought not realise what it is doing, why it is observing in this separative manner?

Perhaps you might say this is a wrong question, arising from ignorance. That I am just carrying on the mistake. Or perhaps the answer is obvious - the self, the thinker, insists on existing, insists on continuing, and this "act of separation" (if I can call it that) is how it continues itself (or the illusion of itself). So the whole weight of the human self, a momentum formed over untold years, swings into action against this observer-is-the-observed mode of perception?

~ ~

I can understand if all the above, even if it is an accurate description, is seen as some sort of avoidance. An escape into intellectualism from facing the actual problem. That facing means simply watching, does it not? And indeed one DOES watch, quite a lot.

Huguette . wrote:
... isn’t this the brain/thought (you and me, the observer) once again fragmenting, concluding, separating itself from the observed? Isn’t this thought splitting or fragmenting once again, thinking something like, “If I REALLY saw it, the whole thing would end, there would be no more psychological thoughts and I would be free, at peace.

Yes, it is this splitting that needs to be observed. In the observation comes a sense of falseness of the process, would you say? A SENSE, not any movement to change things, which is further splitting of course. Yes, "splitting" is an appropriate word. It is the splitting that is important, not the actual content of thought, which is always merely a fragment, and not true. But the splitting is true, would you say?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 10 Aug 2019 #10
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5160 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:

http://jiddu-krishnamurti.net/en/the-ending-of-...:

Huguette, can you pinpoint this quote in the dialogue, I cannot immediately find it.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 10 Aug 2019 #11
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5160 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
One of the hallmarks of the 'me' fragment is that when it observes a hurtful memory, say, it wishes that it had done things differently, that things had gone differently. It feels that there was a choice and that it took the wrong one...Each moment there are a finite amount of possibilities, directions that we can take, but the one that is taken is the result or effect of what has gone before and that in turn becomes the cause for the succeeding action

Interesting Dan, to to see the consequences of the observer-observed split in the past, rather than seeing it in the present. Or to step back and see the greater picture of the splitting.

Indeed, this splitting must have been in human consciousness since time immemorial. And I venture to say has been the driving force behind man's history, the violence, the chaos, bringing us to the crisis, the precipice we are at now.

And yet having written that, I see I do not really understand the cause-effect relationship. Other than to say "We have lived in continual illusion"

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 11 Aug 2019 #12
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5160 posts in this forum Offline

Peter Kesting wrote:
This is the absence of identification.

Identification with what, Peter? With thought?

Peter Kesting wrote:
Actually I never do anything, never have.

This is a very strange perception, Peter, but I think a true one.

This post was last updated by Clive Elwell Sun, 11 Aug 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 11 Aug 2019 #13
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 722 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
http://jiddu-krishnamurti.net/en/the-ending-of-...:

Clive Elwell wrote:
Huguette, can you pinpoint this quote in the dialogue, I cannot immediately find it.

So sorry, Clive. That's because I somehow gave the wrong link! :o)

This one should work - 7th paragraph. Let me know if it doesn't:

http://jiddu-krishnamurti.net/en/wholeness-of-l...

This post was last updated by Huguette . Sun, 11 Aug 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 11 Aug 2019 #14
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1359 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
And yet having written that, I see I do not really understand the cause-effect relationship. Other than to say "We have lived in continual illusion"

Well take thinking for example...you write what you did above, I read it and this is my reaction. If there is no 'thinker' there is just this 'string' of thoughts. There 'could' have been a different string, at least we imagine that to be the case but as you say, it's an illusion. The die was cast and this is the effect. And what I write here comes from my background of knowledge, experience, etc. the '"continual illusion" is that there is a 'controller' in all this, isn't it? Someone or something outside of this cause/effect chain, something that is not a "result"...K. said that there is: Compassion...certainly not a 'thing', not yours or mine...but not a 'result' (or 'effect'?) of anything?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sun, 11 Aug 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 11 Aug 2019 #15
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5160 posts in this forum Offline

Most people would consider all this, the idea that there is no thinker independently of thought, a load of sheer nonsense, wouldn’t they? Or the idea that TRYING to solve our problems is the actual cause of problems would horrify them. It goes so against the common grain

I often stroll around the University grounds near my home. There are lakes, many trees, well laid-out gardens. Human affairs to observe and reflect on. The notice boards are a source of revelation. Overwhelmingly they offer entertainment of course. And sometimes “solutions”, through various beliefs and methods, to mankind’s problems, personal and global.

The following caught my eye recently, a notice asking for volunteers for research into how people “manage their emotions”. So right from the start it is assumed there is that to be managed, and that which does the managing. That people are separate from their emotions, and it is on this assumption that we have all been brought up, conditioned. Because our parents and teachers were in their turn raised like that.

It is a universal assumption, of course. Is it ever questioned? In particular by the psychologists, psychiatrists, therapists? I don’t know, but from what I come across, hardly at all. The professionals seems bent on trying to bring about “a better self”. Surely this is a futile quest? Even a destructive quest, being based on a fundamental illusion?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 11 Aug 2019 #16
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5160 posts in this forum Offline

I think it is clear, the origins of the thinker-thought split. Thought is transient (gosh, how transient it is) and it was not satisfied with this transience. In fact it might be that it is impossible for thought to do the many essential things that it does if it is purely transient.

For whatever reason, thought tried to supply the deficiency of transience with something non-transient, or at least less transient. Something permanent, or at least semi-permanent. Something that could apparently reach through the quanta of each moment, and create TIME.

But thought, I presume, could not foresee that terrible psychological consequences of this action.

Many questions arise as I type this. I don’t know if anyone else can add to it, or challenge it.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 11 Aug 2019 #17
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5160 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
If there is no 'thinker' there is just this 'string' of thoughts.

Yes, this is the actuality, isn't it, this string of thoughts? When one is quiet - especially after awakening, it is quite clear that thought follows thought, follows thought ...... In this there is no separate thinker, although these thoughts contain references to a "me", they contain images something called "oneself". And other selves. But it is only image, it is all thought. Thought including the feelings that accompany it.

Dan McDermott wrote:
And what I write here comes from my background of knowledge, experience, etc. the '"continual illusion" is that there is a 'controller' in all this, isn't it?

But there is another factor in what you write, is there not Dan? Although it might be the past, knowledge, experience, some of this experience has its roots in what you have observed of the workings of the human mind, and of human behaviour?

And I would not say that it is a CONTINUAL illusion. If it was a continual illusion we would not be talking about it here, would we? There is some sort of break in the illusion, some sort of mitigation, if that is the right word. Perhaps we could take this up?

Dan McDermott wrote:
..K. said that there is: Compassion...certainly not a 'thing', not yours or mine...but not a 'result' (or 'effect'?) of anything?

You bring in compassion, something that is outside this string of thought. What is the effect of this compassion? But wait, you (K) suggest that compassion has no effect. This is hard, or perhaps impossible, for a mind firmly based in cause and effect to appreciate.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 12 Aug 2019 #18
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1359 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
some of this experience has its roots in what you have observed of the workings of the human mind, and of human behavior?

Yes.

Clive Elwell wrote:
If it was a continual illusion we would not be talking about it here, would we? There is some sort of break in the illusion, some sort of mitigation, if that is the right word. Perhaps we could take this up?

"Continual" in that, that whatever is seen then becomes part of the 'illusion'? (if we record it and carry it with us.)

Clive Elwell wrote:
You bring in compassion, something that is outside this string of thought. What is the effect of this compassion? But wait, you (K) suggest that compassion has no effect. This is hard, or perhaps impossible, for a mind firmly based in cause and effect to appreciate.

Don't have a citation for this but this is the way I heard it: you come to me, you are suffering some way or another and you want me to help you out of that suffering...basically you want a 'result': the end to your psychological suffering...But Compassion has no cause and no effect. It is not a 'result' of anything. Compassion is Compassion. (as Love is Love and Intelligence is Intelligence) And my giving you 'relief' from your suffering is not compassionate because it will not end your suffering...only you can do that by seeing through all of it, the causes of it, etc....

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Mon, 12 Aug 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 13 Aug 2019 #19
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5160 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
"Continual" in that, that whatever is seen then becomes part of the 'illusion'? (if we record it and carry it with us.)

I am trying to grasp why this is so?

Dan McDermott wrote:
Don't have a citation for this but this is the way I heard it:

Does not matter about citation, or who said it. I was just trying to grasp that which is beyond cause and effect. Of course this grasping, understanding, may not be possible.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 16 Aug 2019 #20
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5160 posts in this forum Offline

I often find myself asking “why does thought split itself into observer/observed, thinker/thought, etc (whatever term is used, but the common factor is some sort of dissatisfaction, condemnation). Several answers come, at different times, but what is being considered now is that thought is fragmented (no question of this) and so each individual thought is incomplete, not whole. Thought as a process, or something, evidently is not satisfied with this incompleteness, and tries to bring about completeness. This “trying” takes the form of thought B trying to act on thought A, the previous thought, or to add to thought A.

But this seems a futile, endless activity, as thought B is as incomplete as thought A, even when B takes the form of the thinker, the me.

The me is thought’s attempt at completeness, isn’t it? Or thought’s pretense of completeness. But it is not, and never can be – because it must remain always what it is – incomplete thought.

The eternal question comes – what does thought not SEE the futility of its incomplete action, and give up on it? Actually this giving up IS there as a movement, but ...... the dualistic process may end, but it starts up again.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 16 Aug 2019 #21
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1359 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
The eternal question comes – what does thought not SEE the futility of its incomplete action, and give up on it? Actually this giving up IS there as a movement, but ...... the dualistic process may end, but it starts up again.

On reading your post, I remembered something John (with edits) had posted Aug. 15 , (bold is mine):

K.... "to see the false as 'false', thought must be aware of itself as an (inwardly redundant ) 'dead' (mechanical) process. Thought can never be free, and there must be freedom to discover, freedom from thought."

Thought must become aware of itself as a "dead process" and with awareness, I think that it can.

And from Aug,16 QOTD:

"Only right thinking can free our thought-feeling from ignorance and sorrow; right thinking is not the result of time but of becoming intensely aware in the present of all conditioning which prevents clarity and understanding."

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Fri, 16 Aug 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 16 Aug 2019 #22
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2691 posts in this forum Offline

K.... "to see the false as 'false', thought must be aware of itself as an (inwardly redundant ) 'dead' (mechanical) process. Thought can never be free, and there must be freedom to discover, freedom from thought."

Thanks for sharing that, Dan

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 16 Aug 2019 #23
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5160 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
K.... "to see the false as 'false', thought must be aware of itself as an (inwardly redundant ) 'dead' (mechanical) process. Thought can never be free, and there must be freedom to discover, freedom from thought."

Thought must become aware of itself as a "dead process" and with awareness, I think that it can.

When you say "I think that it can", I have confidence that this is something that you are living, Dan, not just an idea that is being floated. Here one also feels that thought is seeing its own limitations, and so continually coming to an end. Perhaps it can be put this way: the realities that thought keeps producing do not get very far.

This can make communication difficult. Thought starts up, and then dies to itself. It has no continuity. Does this resonate with you, Dan?

I am referring to psychological thought of course. Practical thought continues, necessarily so. Although I find I am "doing" less and less in the material world. Nothing seems more important that to understand the nature of thinking.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 17 Aug 2019 #24
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5160 posts in this forum Offline

When you have understood what thought does, completely, at every level, at the highest level, at the lowest level, when you see what thought does and you say, 'I have understood that very well', then what is it when you say there is a question more, then who is it that is asking that question? There is only one question, which is: this brain, the whole nervous system, the mind which covers all of that, it says, 'I have understood the nature of thought'. The next step is not a question - the next step is: can this mind look at life, with all its vastness, complexity, with its apparently unending sorrow, can the mind see this thing as an entire whole? That is the only question. And thought is not putting that question, mind is putting that question because it has observed the whole structure of thought, and knows the relative value of thought and therefore is able to say: can the mind look with an eye that is never spotted by the past?

(cut)

So the question arises: can the mind, the brain, the heart and whole being observe without the 'me'. The 'me' which is the result of thought, the 'me' is the past, there is no 'me' in the present. The present is not of time. So can the mind be free of the 'me' to look at the whole vastness of life? It can, completely and utterly. Only it can when you have really, fundamentally, with your heart, with all your being, have understood the nature of thinking. If you haven't given your mind, your attention, everything you have, to find out what is thought, the way of thinking, you will never be able to find out, you will never be able to observe without the 'me'. And therefore if you cannot observe without the 'me' the problems will go on.

Saanen 1970 Talk 4

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 17 Aug 2019 #25
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1359 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Nothing seems more important that to understand the nature of thinking.

Yes.

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying all 25 posts
Page 1 of 1
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.)