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

QOTD ....the thinker is the thought


Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 31 in total
Tue, 24 Sep 2019 #1
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2813 posts in this forum Online

Any comments?
Public Talk 28th December, 1947 | Madras, India

....

The other point in this question is whether problems can be solved all at once, in one stroke cut off at the root. But first we must discover who is the creator of problems. If the creator is understood the problems will cease. The creator of the problem is the thinker, is he not? Problems do not exist apart from the thinker, that is obvious, is it not? The thinker is the creator of the problems whether many or one. Now, is the thinker separate from his thoughts? If he is separate, then the problem will continue because he creates the problem, separates himself from it and deals with the problem. But if the thinker is the thought, inseparably, then being the creator, he can begin to solve himself without being concerned with the problem, or with the thought. Now, you think that the thinker is separate from his thought, that is exactly what all your religious books, your philosophies are based on. Is that not so? It does not matter what the Bhagavad Gita says or what any book says. Is the thinker separate from his thought? If he is separate, problems will continue, if he is not, then he can be freed of the source of all problems.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 24 Sep 2019 #2
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5344 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Now, you think that the thinker is separate from his thought, that is exactly what all your religious books, your philosophies are based on.

Not just religions and philosophies! The whole world is based on this assumption. Everyone you meet thinks and relates on this basis. The assumption is absolutely ubiquitous. The condition is almost complete, total. Yet K questions it, and was oneself begins to observe and question, one sees "the hole" appearing.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 24 Sep 2019 #3
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5344 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Now, you think that the thinker is separate from his thought, that is exactly what all your religious books, your philosophies are based on.

Not just religions and philosophies! The whole world is based on this assumption. Everyone you meet thinks and relates on this basis. The assumption is absolutely ubiquitous. The condition is almost complete, total. Yet K questions it, and was oneself begins to observe and question, one sees "the hole" appearing.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 24 Sep 2019 #4
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 747 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
But if the thinker is the thought, inseparably, then being the creator, he can begin to solve himself without being concerned with the problem, or with the thought.

As I see it, the key to freedom is attention. Attention is essential for self-understanding. But "using" this key is not an invitation to endless navel-gazing, to endless self-concern. In freedom is the ending of the limitations imposed by self: i.e. of self compelling “me” to do this and that, of self compelling me to fight, to flee, to lie, to posture, to cheat, to harm, to retaliate, to overpower, to pretend, to submit, and so on. These limitations can be thrown off - not through willpower but through seeing them, understanding them. But self-understanding is not an end in itself. If it is an end in itself, it is merely a new bondage, a new limitation. Or rather, it perpetuates the old bondage and gives it a new look.

To find the key does not mean to be in a perpetual cycle of locking and unlocking the door. The key to freedom is not a new obligation or compulsion. Freedom is to discover and experience the whole of life, to delve, look around --- without the bondage and authority of self, without compulsion, obsession, without self-concern. There can be no love, no joy, no beauty as long as the limitations or compulsions of the self have authority. This fact can be understood even by one who does not love. Even as I live in fear, I can see that fear of any kind excludes love. And living in fear, living without love makes life meaningless, hollow.

And so long as I am endlessly CONCERNED with overcoming or ending my fear, the object of fear becomes the problem which I want to solve. So rather than be concerned with solving the object of fear, can I understand fear itself, the process and source of fear? It’s hard to express. When I say “rather than being concerned with solving the object of fear”, I’m not saying that “I should not be concerned with the object of fear”. If I’m concerned, any attempt to interfere with that concern must inevitably create confusion and more fear. To interfere with my concern, to try to repress or suppress my concern, and so on, that is also the process of division, isn’t it? To observe all that is to understand it.

But all that is not “the end of it”. That is, as K has said, a rather petty affair. Understanding is the beginning of meditation. And meditation is living in freedom, as I see it.

"...it is when the thinker ceases thinking, that meditation begins. Meditation is self-knowledge and without self-knowledge there is no meditation

(The above extract is further down in the same passage which you quoted, Tom)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 24 Sep 2019 #5
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1490 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
And so long as I am endlessly CONCERNED with overcoming or ending my fear, the object of fear becomes the problem which I want to solve. So rather than be concerned with solving the object of fear, can I understand fear itself, the process and source of fear? It’s hard to express.

If the 'thinker' (me) sees, understands that 'I', 'me' am 'thought', then when there is something like 'fear' and then psychologically there arises a desire to overcome it or something like pleasure where there arises a desire to prolong it... if it is understood that those desires are all reactions by the illusory 'thinker', me, then the overcoming, surpressing, avoiding, inviting, liking, disliking, etc., those conflicts, or efforts or disturbances are "solved" (dissolved?) not by any action by the duality of 'me' as thinker acting as separate from thought, but by the realization of 'me' as the 'thinker', 'experiencer', 'investigator,...myself, seeing that there is no separation, no 'me' apart from what is being thought,investigated, experienced, etc. Then it can be seen by thought that it is the false duality that creates and prolongs the psychological 'problem'. Then the 'thinker' rather than solve the problem, can "solve" itself.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 25 Sep 2019 #6
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 855 posts in this forum Offline

yesterday, while the doctor was busy with the puncture, she said: "if you feel that you are going to faint, please indicate that!" with that remark that feeling indeed began to build up and from the moment I became aware it immediately resolved without any thought or image.

for me a first clear perception of thought seen for what it was and not the reaction of the physical body.

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 25 Sep 2019 #7
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2813 posts in this forum Online

Dan McDermott wrote:
Then it can be seen by thought that it is the false duality that creates and prolongs the psychological 'problem'.

Can you say more Dan, as to how the false division between thinker and thought “creates” fear, for example...or anger?

Then the 'thinker' rather than solve the problem, can "solve" itself.

Interesting! That’s what K was pointing to in the excerpt in the OP. Not sure I totally get this. Thanks to all who shared their views on this topic. I started this thread because the excerpt touched directly on what Dan was discussing in the previous thread on the forum and I felt the topic deserved a thread of its own. Been looking into this a lot lately....this division of thinker from thought....and as Clive has said, it seems to me to be a...if not THE...crucial issue. If there is only what is....the problem or conflict....and no problem solver(the thinker...the belief, opinion, ideal)...then it can perhaps be observed...understood...resolved.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 25 Sep 2019 #8
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1490 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
how the false division between thinker and thought “creates” fear, for example...or anger?

Is it like this? The animal brain or the 'old' brain survives by meeting a challenge in the environment by dealing with it directly, as it arises. It may flee or it may fight or it may see that no action is necessary...but now with the addition of this 'new' brain, the 'neocortex' thought with the 'thinker' can 'imagine' a scene where something 'might' occur and the 'old' brain reacts to that picture or image and the brain releases adrenalin or endorphins, etc. Or it can postpone any action...The type of reaction, positive, negative, neutral depends on the self which judges everything through its filter of morals, values, likes, dislikes. I was just reading this in QOTD:

K. "you are concerned with the turmoil, how to go through it, how to dominate it, how to overcome it, and therefore how to evade it. You want to arrive at that perfect evasion which you call ideals, at that perfect refuge which you call the purpose of life, which is but an escape from the present turmoil."

As I read that, it is the 'self' that has this 'ideal' and imposes it on whatever disturbance occurs. But without this imposition (escape) of the 'ideal' (non-violence instead of violence, non-anger instead of anger, etc.) which in itself is a form of violence (the violation of 'what is'?) or without the 'presence' of the false 'thinker'...without that duality or friction attempting to 'deal' with it, wouldn't whatever arose just subside on its own?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 25 Sep 2019 #9
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5344 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
If there is only what is....the problem or conflict....and no problem solver(the thinker...the belief, opinion, ideal)...then it can perhaps be observed...understood...resolved.

I don't think there is a word in the English language that expresses what you are trying to express here, Tom. The first one that came to me was "dissolved", or "evaporates". But even those terms suggest there is something that has to dissolve, and was there anything in the first place?

Perhaps a better word is "insight"?

But Dan puts it well when he says:

Dan McDermott wrote:
without that duality or friction attempting to 'deal' with it, wouldn't whatever arose just subside on its own?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 26 Sep 2019 #10
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1490 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
how the false division between thinker and thought “creates” fear, for example...or anger?

One example that I think is pretty common and happens like this to me: I'm out for a walk and 'out of the blue', I remember an unpleasant event between myself and a friend. And though it occurred years ago, the memory/thought takes hold and I find myself going over the past incident and becoming 'angry' again. Without the realization of the thinker/thought duality, this anger goes on and on until it finally subsides. But if at the moment this 'unpleasant' recollection arises in thought, there is also the awareness that the 'thinker', 'me' is going to try to deal with it, assuage it, calm it, 'do' something with it, etc. and that this so-called 'thinker's' (my) action will actually exacerbate the situation, thought (with Intelligence?), can see the trap and not go 'down that road' again...leaving the 'two' out of the usual one-two punch.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Thu, 26 Sep 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 30 Sep 2019 #11
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5344 posts in this forum Offline

I was discussing with someone the question, is there a self, an ego, independent of thought? I say “discussing”, at times I must admit it was more like an argument, and at times I became frustrated with the argumentation (that frustration in itself telling something about myself). After a while, seeing the futility of argument, I started to question. What would be the nature of this entity, this self, that is supposed to exist quite independently of thought?

I was told it was existence itself. Or, as we discussed, awareness of existence itself. I can accept that there is an awareness of existence itself – or perhaps that existence IS awareness, but I could not equate that awareness with a self, an ego. The discussion was further complicated by the other claiming they saw this in periods that occurred of having no thought whatsoever. As I do not think I have ever experienced such a thing (if indeed no-thought can be experienced at all), I could not really continue the discussion. Although I asked what is the nature of this self-entity when there is no thought, how does it manifest, what is its action? Because if something has no properties, no action, can it be said to really exist?

Perhaps the discussion will resume, I don't know. I know I have looked for decades for the existence of an entity (a permanent entity?) that is not not created by thought, projected by thought, that has more substance that words, but never have I caught a glimpse of such a thing. On the contrary, one keeps discovering that “the thinker” IS composed of thought, and as each thought dies, so dies the appearance of the independent thinker. I know almost the whole world thinks otherwise. Indeed society and psychology is based firmly on the assumption that there is an idependent and permanent (or semi permanent) self, but still I definitely question this.

It is clear there is no me who thinks, there is only the act of thinking, which creates the impression of a thinker, or is based on the assumption of a thinker. There is no entity who is angry, who has anger, there is only the act of anger itself, and no separate entity who is angry. There is no independent “desirer”, there is only the action, the movement of desire, and …... how to put it ….. ? Now I have started to question. I am not sure that it is right to say “desire creates the desire-er”, or “fear create the dear-er, the entity who fears. This needs looking at.

If there is no permanent entity, as seems to be the case, then the question arises – and it does keep arising for me – what is continuity? Is there such a thing as continuity? At times it seems to me, as thought keeps continually dying, there definitely is no such thing.

Is it the function of the brain to produce the appearance of continuity?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 30 Sep 2019 #12
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1490 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
what is continuity? Is there such a thing as continuity?

An example of the illusion of continuity is a motion picture projector...when the film with its isolated frames of still photos is run through the projector at a certain speed, the illusion of a continuous movement is created. Is it similar in our brains? Each moment (thought?) is new and separate but memory links each one to the next? Thereby creating the illusion of 'time' (past, present, future) in the psyche? And also creating the entity that supposedly stands apart and is 'real': the 'thinker', the 'experiencer', the 'observer'?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Mon, 30 Sep 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 30 Sep 2019 #13
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 747 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Now I have started to question. I am not sure that it is right to say “desire creates the desire-er...”

One understands that the word is not the thing. A tree, a table, compassion, etc., which are perceived, are there independent of the word, memory, time, knowledge. But where is the desirer (or the one who is angry, calculating, afraid, happy, and so on) in moments of no desire (anger, etc.)? What is he doing, what is his state? Does he manifest?

Without thought and memory, without the words of desire (anger, greed, fear, pleasure, and so on), there is no desirer, is there. Isn't he wholly dependent on time/thought? Memory evokes the thoughts and emotions of desire, et al., and once those thoughts and emotions are evoked, there suddenly is the desirer.

Clive Elwell wrote:
...what is continuity?

There is universal continuity --- I mean continuity of the universe, continuity in the movement of the planets and of atoms, continuity in biological growth and decay, and so on. Beyond mere knowledge of universal continuity, there is the understanding that spring will follow winter, that death will follow life, that the seedling will grow into a tree, that day will follow night, and so on --- and that the only actuality is the present fleeting moment. As I see it, the universe exists simultaneously in time and outside of time, independent of our memory. The passage of universal time reveals itself in many ways which we can observe. The rings of the tree testify to its age and continuity in time. But the tree exists only in the present moment. It is a mystery.

And, to me, there is a crucial difference between universal continuity and personal continuity: it is that the universe in all its manifestations is actually there, not illusory. The universe can be expressed through words but "the thing" is independent of the word. Without thought, the universe still exists.

But, without thought, the self-centre does not actually exist, it is not actually THERE. The brain/body has a certain lifespan, a continuity for that lifespan, but even for that lifespan there is no actual continuous self outside of memory, outside of stored hurts and pleasures. The existence of the self, of the psyche, is put together by memory alone. As I see it.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 30 Sep 2019 #14
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5344 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Each moment (thought?) is new and separate but memory links each one to the next?

In your perception, Dan, exactly how does memory link each moment to the next?

Dan McDermott wrote:
Each moment (thought?) is new and separate but memory links each one to the next? Thereby creating the illusion of 'time' (past, present, future) in the psyche? And also creating the entity that supposedly stands apart and is 'real': the 'thinker', the 'experiencer', the 'observer'?

Again, I am asking how. How does memory create the (illusion of) the independent thinker? Is it simply that it gives it a name - "I". And by applying that same name to many different experiences/movements, it can pretend that it is the same I in each case?

I am not putting this at all well, let's try again. I say that I was born, I went to school, I got married, I had children - and looking ahead, I have an appointment tomorrow, and I will die. Is this actually the same I? I can see that it makes a certain amount of sense if "I" is interpreted as the same body (perhaps more accurately the same set of genes, since all the cells of the body change regularly). But psychologically? "I like Dan", I don't like chocolate, I believe in God, I want to become peaceful, enlightened and so on. Is this same I that does all these things? Or are the things only linked by the word "I", and in fact they are quite different "I"'s, each I being created by each movement of the mind?

I don't know if this makes any sense.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 30 Sep 2019 #15
Thumb_avatar Manfred Kritzler Germany 55 posts in this forum Offline

Clive: I know I have looked for decades for the existence of an entity (a permanent entity?) that is not not created by thought, projected by thought, that has more substance that words, but never have I caught a glimpse of such a thing.
—————-
Manfred: How could I find out if there is something not created by thought?

For me there is an area beyond thought, which includes thought. Thought is part of non thought. But non thought is never part of thought.

Whenever we express something by using words it is always smaller than that what is living. That what is living can not be expressed totally. It includes us as the person who expresses it. But we can not express ourselves in totality. We can say this is an apple, because we make a subject/object separation. But does the object apple exists separately without us as subjects. I say no. The apple needs a separate conscious being to be identified. Without this conscious being there is no apple as a separate thing, but only a inseparable whole which acts in totality.

To create an apple as something different from the rest of the universe I need something which is different from the apple. But this “something” can only come into existence by thought.

In other words to be aware of an apple we have first to split up wholeness in two parts. For instance in a separate human being and an apple. This reductionism is necessary to recognize something which is different from us. But the price we pay for that is that we as human beings are out of the “game”. When we try to be back in the “game” and express ourselves and the apple as a inseparable unit we cannot say anything anymore about the apple.

This means for me that a human being as a separate entity exists only in our thoughts. Without thought there is an inseparable unity.

Or like David Bohm said: Undivided wholeness in flowing movement.

This post was last updated by Manfred Kritzler Mon, 30 Sep 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 30 Sep 2019 #16
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1490 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
in fact they are quite different "I"'s, each I being created by each movement of the mind?

And they are in many cases isolated, compartmentalized from one another...one 'I' does something that another 'I' wouldn't dream of doing. Yet somehow they all are 'felt' as 'I', 'me'...the same 'me' present for whatever happens. I doubt we would ever have come upon this on our own. The conditioning is so complete. But after having been told that this IS our situation, it is up to us to do the investigation, experimentation, on our own to see if its true. No matter how much you read about it, it doesn't penetrate to the heart of it: that the thinker is the thought. The challenge as I see it, is to 'break through' while we, the body is still alive. Otherwise the stream of human consciousness just continues as before...but probably continues to deteriorate.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 30 Sep 2019 #17
Thumb_avatar Manfred Kritzler Germany 55 posts in this forum Offline

Clive:,Or are the things only linked by the word "I", and in fact they are quite different "I"'s, each I being created by each movement of the mind?
—————
Manfred: Yes. Things are only linked or put together by our separate “l”. Without this “l” they are one. To trust in this oneness behind our try in bringing together different things gives us freedom from the known. There is the known, but anything known is surrounded by the unknown. With this attitude I accept and question everything I know at any time, being ready for change in any moment of my life. At least theoretically.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 30 Sep 2019 #18
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5344 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:

One understands that the word is not the thing. A tree, a table, compassion, etc., which are perceived, are there independent of the word, memory, time, knowledge.

But does this apply to the “I”? I think you would agree the self is not there independent of these things, independent of thought?

But where is the desirer (or the one who is angry, calculating, afraid, happy, and so on) in moments of no desire (anger, etc.)? What is he doing, what is his state? Does he manifest?

Without thought and memory, without the words of desire (anger, greed, fear, pleasure, and so on), there is no desirer, is there. Isn't he wholly dependent on time/thought? Memory evokes the thoughts and emotions of desire, et al., and once those thoughts and emotions are evoked, there suddenly is the desirer.

Yes, I see this in a way, but in what way is there a desirer? How does he manifest? I mean in what way is there the appearance, if that is the right word, of the desirer? Is it that desire cannot exist with the ........ sense that there is one who is doing the desiring? That the presence of the desirer is innate, is contained in the very process of desire? Hmm, it seems to make no sense to talk of desire with the one who is desiring. Similarly, can there be anger, with anyone who is angry?

Does the desirer arose SIMULTANEOUSLY with the desire? I put this question to you, to others, but really I can only find the answer, if there is an answer, by looking within myself, as it happens.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 01 Oct 2019 #19
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1490 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Does the desirer arose SIMULTANEOUSLY with the desire? I put this question to you, to others, but really I can only find the answer, if there is an answer, by looking within myself, as it happens.

I think the 'self' is desire. That is how it came into being...,first in the physical, to have and get what it needed to survive, and then moved into the psychological to become 'more' according to the society and its values.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 01 Oct 2019 #20
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1490 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
In your perception, Dan, exactly how does memory link each moment to the next?

The answer to that I'd say is in the QOTD. The difference between the usual "action" which derives from memory, the past, and the action in the present which has no identification, judgement, etc. Can you look at yourself in the same way that you look at a tree, a flower? I'd say that the latter is 'difficult' because we are identified with our thought, with body, with past, the 'self',... none of that identification or judgement is present when we look at the tree or flower...That kind of 'looking' with identification, judgement, comparison, i.e. memory, creates and sustains the image of a 'self' or center which is 'continuous' and stretches back in time and can be projected forward...but when there is this awareness in the moment which follows each thought, each body movement, each sound, each sensation simply and effortlessly (there can't be 'effort' because that implies a 'direction' and there is none, only to be aware of all of what is perceivable now, in the moment) when there is this awareness without identification, judgement, i.e. memory,... then there can be a 'discernment' between this action in the present and the (conditioned, mechanical?) action that derives from the past. The 'action in the present' does not sustain, and continue the 'self-image'. The 'action in the present' is not accumulative.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Wed, 02 Oct 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 01 Oct 2019 #21
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5344 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:

I think the 'self' is desire

I can see that the seeking of pleasure, the competitive drive, jealousy, etc, are all manifestations of desire.But the self is many things, is it not? it is, for example, fear, regret, suffering ..... Are you saying these are all aspects of desire?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 01 Oct 2019 #22
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5344 posts in this forum Offline

Manfred Kritzler wrote:
At least theoretically.

Are you saying that what you say is just a series of ideas, Manfred?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 01 Oct 2019 #23
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5344 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
There is universal continuity --- I mean continuity of the universe, continuity in the movement of the planets and of atoms, continuity in biological growth and decay, and so on

After reading your words, Huguette, it came that there is nothing stationary in the Universe. Nothing that is not moving, not in a state of change (the very word "state" suggests non-movement, however). That movement may not be visible to the naked eye, because of the time scale, of because of its smallness or vastness, but nevertheless everything is continually in movement. And movement is time.

And one wonders, in this context, what the "stillness" that K talks of actually is?

But the mind has created the idea of the static, with its images. It seeks out the non-changing, calling it "security", but it is a futile search.One wonders why the mind continues in this illusion.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 01 Oct 2019 #24
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1490 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
I can see that the seeking of pleasure, the competitive drive, jealousy, etc, are all manifestations of desire.But the self is many things, is it not? it is, for example, fear, regret, suffering ..... Are you saying these are all aspects of desire?

Isn't it through our attachments brought about by the 'desire' to not be alone, to not face our 'no-thingness', the desire to be 'secure', that the 'self' is formed and maintained? The desire to 'become' and when we are rebuffed, there is 'fear. And regret that what we 'desired' didn't work out or the 'suffering' when what we desired to have, hold, keep, etc. is taken away? Isn't 'desire' at the bottom of what the 'self', ego is? The 'desire' for permanence and continuity?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Wed, 02 Oct 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 02 Oct 2019 #25
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1490 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
One wonders why the mind continues in this illusion.

Is it that thought cannot accept that the illusion that it has created is false? That there is no 'I'? That it one day will escape its own imaginary image of death. That by constantly seeking, it may find freedom around the next corner? But all it ever finds is more of itself?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Wed, 02 Oct 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 02 Oct 2019 #26
Thumb_avatar Manfred Kritzler Germany 55 posts in this forum Offline

Manfred Kritzler wrote:
At least theoretically.
——-
Clive: Are you saying that what you say is just a series of ideas, Manfred
—————
Manfred: No. This was expressed unfortunately very unclear. I only wanted to express that I fell back in old patterns. This is not a big problem, because it is part of the new behavior. What is a problem is that I can get very angry about this falling back. Which means the experience leads to a form of behavior which is different from what I expressed. The expressed is then frozen in a theory.

But basically, whenever I write something it is based on my own subjective experience. Describing this kind of experiences sounds obviously like they only would happening as ideas in my mind. This was the reason for being very reluctant to write at all about them and I can see now why.

I intentionally do not use the language of Krishnamurti. I think it is better to express myself in my own way, which is influenced by different people, like David Bohm, other quantum physicists, Goethe or indigene human beings.

Be a light to yourself means for me to try to bring into words what I have experienced beyond words. What I do not understand is that obviously there is only a small interest to challenge my statements. Maybe my English is not sufficient enough to express me in an understandable way.

I would be very happy to hear any opinion, as more different as more valuable. If there is no interest it maybe could be better when I leave the forum.

This post was last updated by Manfred Kritzler Wed, 02 Oct 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 02 Oct 2019 #27
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5344 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
After reading your words, Huguette, it came that there is nothing stationary in the Universe. Nothing that is not moving, not in a state of change

This is not an intellectual statement, not just an idea, to be expressed and moved on from. Because there is nothing static, I can never say that "I am .... this or that, something or other."

I am never an image of myself. As soon as an image is created, in awareness it is already finished.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 02 Oct 2019 #28
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5344 posts in this forum Offline

Manfred Kritzler wrote:
Manfred: Yes. Things are only linked or put together by our separate “l”.

I am not sure that I grasp this, Manfred. I would like to. While there seems no doubt that the I is created by thought,I have been asking myself how exactly how this is done. It is clear that the simple word, concept "I" plays a large part, but I am not sure this is the fundamental factor. As I asked above, where is the desire-er in the movement of desire? Are the two inexorably linked? Are they really one? Here one meets the common problem of the structure of language, which insists on separation in its expressions.

Without this “l” they are one.

Are you saying that all things are really one, but they are given the appearance of separation by the self, by the action of the self "looking"?

In this case, there are really no "things" at all, are they?

To trust in this oneness behind our try in bringing together different things gives us freedom from the known.

Sorry if there are too many questions, but can you say what this "trust" is? It is a word I have found difficult most of my life.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 02 Oct 2019 #29
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5344 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Isn't it through our attachments brought about by the 'desire' to not be alone, to not face our 'no-thingness', the desire to be 'secure', that the 'self' is formed and maintained? The desire to 'become' and when we are rebuffed, there is 'fear. And regret that what we 'desired' didn't work out or the 'suffering' when what we desired to have, hold, keep, etc. is taken away? Isn't 'desire' at the bottom of what the 'self', ego is? The 'desire' for permanence and continuity?

This seems right, Dan.

This may be a tangent, but I will mention that I realised recently that in his early days, Krishnamurti used the word "craving" for what in later years he called 'desire'. And the word "desire" seemed to be reserved for a much more fundamental force or energy. Something that is not limited to human consciousness, but is the very driving force of the Universe.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 02 Oct 2019 #30
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5344 posts in this forum Offline

Manfred Kritzler wrote:
But basically, whenever I write something it is based on my own subjective experience. Describing this kind of experiences sounds obviously like they only would happening as ideas in my mind.

It seems there is no way to discern if another is speaking from direct observation, or merely from ideas. And I am not sure about the distinction at all. Is not our own direct perception, experiencing, being turned into ideas immediately? That is, thought steps in and claims an insight as its own. To use a word that you have used above, it tries to freeze the insight, to put it into time.

This may happen, but it does not mean that the original pure insight/perception has not had its action, does it?

Manfred Kritzler wrote:
I intentionally do not use the language of Krishnamurti. I think it is better to express myself in my own way, which is influenced by different people, like David Bohm, other quantum physicists, Goethe or indigene human beings

it is hard not to, isn't it, as when we have an insight we find that K has "been there before us" and has found what might be the best possible words to describe it? But it seems he was constantly experimenting with words. Probably because words can become stale with overuse.

Manfred Kritzler wrote:
What I do not understand is that obviously there is only a small interest to challenge my statements.

It may be that your statements are perceived of as being true, and so not challenge-able. But speaking for myself, as you know for some time I have been very busy organising and planning a weekend retreat, and have not had that much time for the forum. It is over now.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 31 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.)