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

I am the problem


Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 69 in total
Sun, 13 Oct 2019 #1
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5344 posts in this forum Offline

I am the problem

All my observations on myself lead to the realisation that I am the problem.

Such a statement, like all statements, may be turned into an idea, a theory, Which means assimilated by thought, and become part of the ongoing conflict between thoughts. Nevertheless it seems true that “I” am the problem, the root of all problems. This truth can only be verified by direct observation.. One might write at length on this 'proposition', it might be the subject of many books, all of which may actually be an escape from the fact that I am the problem.

By “I”, I mean the thought that arises in reaction to thought. The thought that arises as the maker of effort, the movement to overcome the problems created by thought. The attempt at analysis, at “seeing the big picture”, at understanding. The 'meta thought'. The attempt to control the mind, to direct it. All these are under the guise of the “I”, are they not? It is the self trying to act, trying to solve the problem. Trying to convince thought of something, trying to be secure within an idea. It is all the same movement.

I have doubts if I am succeeding in conveying what I want to convey, even though it is really very simple. Of course it is really K's “thinker and thought”, but approaching it from a slightly different direction, perhaps. A different perception. A different feel of it – a direct feel of it.

Thought arises as some sort of attempt to solve a problem (a problem conceived by thought). That thought contains the sense of being “me”. And the implication is that somehow this “me”, this “I”, is different from thought, and so able to act on thought. This is the illusion that K kept pointing out. And if there is to be understanding of the mind, of myself, this illusion must be seen completely, must be understood.

Is there anything else that needs to be understood?

What do I mean by understood?


The chain of thought reacting to thought seems endless. This chain is the very continuation of thought itself. All explanations, all descriptions, are part of this chain, are they not? And ultimately they get nowhere, do they? For real change to occur, thought must end, psychologically, no? And it is no use asking “how can it end?”, any answer is a continuation of the chain. The chain itself must end.

Which means what? Does it not mean that “I” must cease to respond? That is, non-action instead of action? By non-action I mean the absence of any any action, any response. I must cease to be – I as a creation of thought.

So at any moment this challenge is there. Not to continue, not to react.

Any response on this? Have I got it wrong?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 14 Oct 2019 #2
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1490 posts in this forum Online

Clive Elwell wrote:
For real change to occur, thought must end, psychologically, no? And it is no use asking “how can it end?”, any answer is a continuation of the chain. The chain itself must end.

Yes Clive this is why perhaps experimentation is so important, I say and as K. emphasized over and over. It can lead to insight like this!...But the 'I' is a master at sneaking away and staying out of the light of awareness ...As has been pointed out, it is only thought itself that can bring its appearance to an end. But when it is seen, as I'm feeling that you are trying to communicate here, and he for so many years, that the 'thinker' is the 'thought', there does take place a change or "mutation" of the brain cells as Mina put it so well. How could there not be, once this is seen? And as she said, it's irreversible. It's not to say that psychological thought 'ends' but it can never be the same...The 'I' like the 'snake in the corner' may persist but it can never have the 'power' it had... after the game, the "trick", is seen through. Yes?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Mon, 14 Oct 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 14 Oct 2019 #3
Thumb_avatar Manfred Kritzler Germany 55 posts in this forum Offline

Clive:
For real change to occur, thought must end, psychologically, no? And it is no use asking “how can it end?”, any answer is a continuation of the chain. The chain itself must end.
———
Manfred: This is one of my difficultest remaining questions. I am not sure that I here am following Krishnamurti’s view or if I have understood him correctly.

For me practical and psychological thought are not two different things. They arise together as conditioning.

To separate them is an action done by thought. No?

So my experience is that by choiceless awareness not only psychological thought is diminishing but thought as a whole. The interesting thing is that practical thought has an equivalent outside of our mind. For instance the image of a car will come up immediately when we see a car. Our attitude to the color or the impression of the car is only inside of us.
When we practice choiceless awareness this psychological part of thought is not coming back because there is nothing psychological outside of us to grasp or capture with our senses.
The idea is that the whole process is conditioned, but with choiceles awareness we will act more and more only with the practical part.

This a try to put into words what I experienced, but is not the experience itself. It is an abstraction used to explain what is always bigger. I hope it is in any way understandable and it is for sure completely open to be questioned.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 14 Oct 2019 #4
Thumb_avatar Manfred Kritzler Germany 55 posts in this forum Offline

The next question coming up, is activating choiceless awareness a “how”?

For me it is and it is not. As long as choiceless awareness is practiced by intention it might be a “how” or maybe the first step is a“how“. For me sometimes I switch in this way to it. But sometimes it comes and goes by itself. Then there is no split at all. To be aware that I am unaware is included in this kind of awareness.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 14 Oct 2019 #5
Thumb_avatar Manfred Kritzler Germany 55 posts in this forum Offline

Dan: As has been pointed out, it is only thought itself that can bring its appearance to an end.
——————-
Manfred: I always had difficulties to understand this statement. Maybe you ore someone else could explain to me what it means to you or them?

For me it sounds like thought ends thought by using thought?

According to my experience thought dissolves when it is observed in a way that the observer and the observed are one. Bohm called it proprioception of thought.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 14 Oct 2019 #6
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1490 posts in this forum Online

Manfred Kritzler wrote:
To separate them is an action done by thought. No?

When (and if) 'thought', (the process of thinking) sees that it has created an entity (you,me) apart and separate from itself, it can stop doing it. And as Clive has put it, it must do that if the "chain" of searching (and suffering) is to ever end. It will not...and has not ended... because thought has not recognized that it has done this "trick" as K. has called it. And he spoke about this for 60 years! We (the 'thinker') have not realized that we are not what we feel and 'think' ourselves to be. Without such a realization, we go on as before, trying to solve psychological problems but those problems evaporate when the thinker sees the fact that his/her existence is a lie. I think K. put it this way, that when it is seen that the thinker is the thought, the thinker can cease trying to solve the 'problems' and can "solve" itself.

Solving 'practical' problems like enough food, water and shelter, vanquishing or outsmarting one's enemies (predators), making life safer, more comfortable, more efficient, etc. is what has gotten us as far as we have come in terms of our longevity as a species, hasn't it? Obviously this wasn't enough and at some point in our history, and we could speculate about why this happened, the thought/image of ourself as separate, unique, individual, arose. Along with greed and ambition,etc. K. said this some 80 years ago (from the QOTD, bold is mine):

"You have taken for granted that the "I" is something enduring, a something in itself, and that it is created by some supreme entity. If you examine profoundly you will discern that the "I" is nothing but self- accumulated ignorance,tendencies, wants, and that it does not conceal anything in itself."

And this:

"If you comprehend the arising, the coming into being of consciousness through sensation, through want, and see that from consciousness there is born the unit called the "I", which in itself does not conceal any reality, then you will awaken to the nature of this vicious circle."

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Mon, 14 Oct 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 14 Oct 2019 #7
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 54 posts in this forum Offline

We do like to blame others. When often we need to look at ourselves. But we also can be very hard on ourselves, blaming ourselves. That's not so great either.

So we need to watch. We need to observe without blame. We need to watch ourselves in relationship. Self knowledge. We need to so affectionately, just as we do well to treat others with respect, so I can observe myself without condemning.

But that doesn't mean acceptance and complacency.

When the truth is clearly seen there is transformation.

Also, when we rush to say that there is no self, often there still is one acting in not so nice ways. The self can be diabolical, learning about K stuff, and then justifying, all the while pretending it doesn't exist. It is really important, isn't it?, to be on guard against a supposed "no self" that is really fooling itself.

I have to watch all this. Quietly watching.

Because awareness, even as it is attention on the self, is already dissolving of the self. The first step is the last.

This post was last updated by idiot ? Mon, 14 Oct 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 14 Oct 2019 #8
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5344 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Yes Clive this is why perhaps experimentation is so important

But isn't experimentation yet another way psychological thought invents to continue itself? Isn't it, in the end, merely a continuation of the chain?

.But the 'I' is a master at sneaking away and staying out of the light of awareness

Is it? Isn't it always clear when thought manifests itself? Can thought hide from itself? Is there any ambiguity about whether thought is there or not?

But when it is seen, as I'm feeling that you are trying to communicate here, and he for so many years, that the 'thinker' is the 'thought', there does take place a change or "mutation" of the brain cells.

Yes. When this is seen – perhaps I should say “glimpsed” - there is a fundamental shift in perception. Things can never be the same again, because the movement of “me” doing something about “thought”; “me” having some sort of relationship to “thought” is revealed to be a fallacy, a false movement. This really sweeps the rug from under one's feet. I am not saying that duality has entirely disappeared, it appears, but it has no traction. Somehow the mind is disintegrating, if one can put it that way. There is no firm place to stand, psychologically.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 14 Oct 2019 #9
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5344 posts in this forum Offline

Manfred Kritzler wrote:
For me practical and psychological thought are not two different things. They arise together as conditioning. To separate them is an action done by thought. No?

Perhaps, Manfred, the answer to this issue lies in K's “empty drum” mind. Do you remember? K compared his mind to a drum, with the skin stretched tight. When the drum is tapped – that is, when there is a challenge to the mind – the drum gives out the right note – that is, the correct response to the challenge – precisely because the drum, the mind, is empty. So there is no “action done by thought”, as you mention.

When we practice choiceless awareness this psychological part of thought is not coming back

I have an issue with this word “practice”, Manfred. Maybe I am just playing with words, or maybe there is a fundamental issue to be understood. For me, to practice implies a continuation in time. And it implies an entity which does the practising (that entity also being a continuation in time). Either way, this suggests that thought is continuing itself. There is some sort of determination at work, some sort of effort being made.

Of course I have 'nothing against' choiceless awareness! But does it not have to arise spontaneously? Does it not arise when the past drops away – and “practice” does suggest something in the past is being continued, does it not?

What do you say?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 14 Oct 2019 #10
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5344 posts in this forum Offline

Manfred Kritzler wrote:
The next question coming up, is activating choiceless awareness a “how”?

For me it is and it is not. As long as choiceless awareness is practiced by intention it might be a “how” or maybe the first step is a“how“.

As I touch upon above, Manfred, - but no, let me turn it into a question. Does not choiceless awareness arise from the negation of all that is NOT awareness - which means thought, does it not?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 14 Oct 2019 #11
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5344 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
When (and if) 'thought', (the process of thinking) sees that it has created an entity (you,me) apart and separate from itself, it can stop doing it. And as Clive has put it, it must do that if the "chain" of searching (and suffering) is to ever end. It will not...and has not ended... because thought has not recognized that it has done this "trick" as K. has called it. And he spoke about this for 60 years! We (the 'thinker') have not realized that we are not what we feel and 'think' ourselves to be. Without such a realization, we go on as before, trying to solve psychological problems but those problems evaporate when the thinker sees the fact that his/her existence is a lie. I think K. put it this way, that when it is seen that the thinker is the thought, the thinker can cease trying to solve the 'problems' and can "solve" itself.

I think that I will close the forum down now, Dan, because nothing else needs to be said, after this.

And seeing this in its entirety, perhaps psychological thought itself will close down?

(maybe not :-) )

When (and if) 'thought', (the process of thinking) sees that it has created an entity (you,me) apart and separate from itself, it can stop doing it.

And you are implying that when this realisation happens, the chain of psychological thought must end, are you not? I must admit I did not quite see it this way when I started this thread.

I want to stay with this a while.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 14 Oct 2019 #12
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5344 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote, quoting K:
and that it does not conceal anything in itself."

and, again quoting K:

Dan McDermott wrote:
from consciousness there is born the unit called the "I", which in itself does not conceal any reality, then you will awaken to the nature of this vicious circle."

Can anyone expand on the phrases in bold?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 15 Oct 2019 #13
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1490 posts in this forum Online

Clive Elwell wrote:
Dan: When (and if) 'thought', (the process of thinking) sees that it has created an entity (you,me) apart and separate from itself, it can stop doing it.

Clive: And you are implying that when this realisation happens, the chain of psychological thought must end, are you not?

Dan: No not "must". I said it can. There is now a possibility that simply didn't exist before it has been seen that the 'thinker is the thought'. But once seen (or "glimpsed") what follows depends on the clarity and force of that 'seeing', doesn't it? That would be different for each person. It's unlikely that we/they are all going to become 'Krishnamurtis', is it not? (I think that one was more than enough).

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Tue, 15 Oct 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 15 Oct 2019 #14
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1490 posts in this forum Online

Dan McDermott wrote:
K.... there is born the unit called the "I", which in itself does not conceal any reality...

This became clear to me this morning Clive, I believe. That the 'I' is a kind of 'center' around which the thoughts, feelings, memories, etc. turn. Like satellites around a planet...and we feel that we are that center and that were you to strip away all those satellites or 'accumulations', that we would still exist apart from any of that. But what he was pointing out here with the word "conceal" as I see it, is that that notion or belief that we exist apart from all the 'gatherings' is false. The 'center' (the 'I') is 'empty'. Perhaps someone else can say this better...

And the "vicious circle" is this 'transient' non-entity being born again and again in response to the challenges of the environment?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Tue, 15 Oct 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 15 Oct 2019 #15
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 54 posts in this forum Offline

"I am the problem."

What happens when we look at that statement, when we open to that statement?

Is there defensiveness? "No, I am not the problem, you are!"

Is there hedging? "I'm not really the problem because I'm necessary for practical reasons. For getting myself to work on time, for buying myself food..."

Is there seeing that "I am the problem" is true? "Okay, I really am the problem. I'm the one putting up barriers between myself and everyone, everything. I am the barrier. I'm clinging to my idiosyncrasies as if they were some gift to the world. I am covering over what is with my thoughts."

Can I let go of the I? It doesn't seem possible. It's very sticky, poking itself into everything.

But it can be quietly watched. It can be felt. It captures everything, all experience. It boosts itself, reliving the past, planning the future. It looks to win in relationship. Or it criticizes itself. Or it escapes from itself. On and on and on and on. It talks to itself. Endless self dialogue. It makes pictures, images. It sings songs to itself. It's like a never ending stream, running so fast. It wants more and more, whether money, or experience, or knowledge, or so called wisdom. More and more. It knows it's going to die but it won't really look at that. A glimpse of silence is seen and the self even claims that! A moment when there is just the tree or the sunset. Grab! The self claims it. Absorbs it into the stack of memories.

I don't want to face that I am the problem. I want to be the observer, the quiet watcher, separate from the self. But I am not separate. I am the I. I am the maker of mischief. I, the separate self, have a real effect of harm on those around me.

On the surface of the lake, there's a shimmer, a reflection of sunlight, in the slight ripple across its smooth surface. Nearby trees are reflected upside down, their leaves bright with color in the autumn crispness. Birds fly across the vast expanse of sky.

This post was last updated by idiot ? Tue, 15 Oct 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 15 Oct 2019 #16
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5344 posts in this forum Offline

I reflected upon this statement “I am the problem” for an hour or so upon waking today. Perhaps I could use the word meditation. I am concerned to actually see the me BEING the problem, not merely make theories about it.

One must ask, what is meant by “problem”? Perhaps the simplest description would be “the cause of conflict”. Or another would be, the mechanism whereby thought, the self, continues to continue itself. Occupies the brain, and so perhaps getting in the way of some new, some different movement.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 15 Oct 2019 #17
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5344 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
Can I let go of the I?

On the face of it, this is a very strange question, isn't it? As if there were two I's. The “I” that tries to let go is precisely the continuation of the I, isn't it? So yes, I am the problem.

Trouble is, the problem that I am. is often in the guise of the solver of the problem.

Perhaps the fact that thought formulates the problem "can I let go of the I", reflects the very problem which the I is?

But it can be quietly watched. It can be felt. It captures everything, all experience. It boosts itself, reliving the past, planning the future. It looks to win in relationship. Or it criticizes itself. Or it escapes from itself. On and on and on and on. It talks to itself. Endless self dialogue. It makes pictures, images. It sings songs to itself. It's like a never ending stream, running so fast. It wants more and more, whether money, or experience, or knowledge, or so called wisdom. More and more. It knows it's going to die but it won't really look at that. A glimpse of silence is seen and the self even claims that! A moment when there is just the tree or the sunset. Grab! The self claims it. Absorbs it into the stack of memories.

Yes, it is all of that and more. I is a problem that has occupied a few people, apparently, for many thousands of years.

I don't want to face that I am the problem.

But there is a movement to want to face that, isn't there? Otherwise I would not have bought up the issue. But in saying that, I seem to have divided consciousness into two opposing parts – the part that wants to face, and the part that does not. Hence conflict between the two parts.

But even more profound, perhaps – the very movement to want to face the problem of the self is still the self. Is it not? And so conflict, duality.

I want to be the observer, the quiet watcher, separate from the self. But I am not separate. I am the I. I am the maker of mischief.

It may sound silly, but can this maker of mischief be seen before it makes mischief, ie before it comes into existence? So that it doesn't come into existence?

K has said:

"Surely freedom from the self ... is the true function of man"

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 16 Oct 2019 #18
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 855 posts in this forum Offline

should we not first determine what exactly we mean by the "I"?

is the physical body, the functioning of the brain or the active content, psychological side of our being?

Do we not easily build on the knowledge of 'the teaching'?

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 16 Oct 2019 #19
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 54 posts in this forum Offline

"I am the problem."

Is the problem real, or only apparent?

As long as thought is operational, as long as thought touches everything, it is all too real.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 16 Oct 2019 #20
Thumb_avatar Manfred Kritzler Germany 55 posts in this forum Offline

Clive: I have an issue with this word “practice”, Manfred. Maybe I am just playing with words, or maybe there is a fundamental issue to be understood. For me, to practice implies a continuation in time. And it implies an entity which does the practising (that entity also being a continuation in time). Either way, this suggests that thought is continuing itself. There is some sort of determination at work, some sort of effort being made.

——————
Manfred: Yes I agree with that. It is so easy to use wrong words. Choiceless awareness cannot be practiced. Any try to do something in choiceless awareness is destroying it.

My question still is, does it make sense, to make one step into choiceless awareness at least at the beginning.

In other words: Is there choiceless awareness only when it is emanating without intention or also when there is at the start of it one intentional step or switch. Out of my experience both happens to me.

I also doubt if someone never had the experience of choiceless awareness that there is an emanating of it. What do you think?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 16 Oct 2019 #21
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1490 posts in this forum Online

Manfred Kritzler wrote:
My question still is, does it make sense, to make one step into choiceless awareness at least at the beginning.

In other words: Is there choiceless awareness only when it is emanating without intention or also when there is at the start of it one intentional step or switch. Out of my experience both happens to me.

What you are touching on here Manfred is experimentation or investigation or inquiry...call it what you want but yes there has to be an 'intention' of course, at the beginning... in the same way that if you want to explore the ocean, you may not know what you'll find... but you do have to get into a boat, don't you?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Wed, 16 Oct 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 16 Oct 2019 #22
Thumb_avatar Manfred Kritzler Germany 55 posts in this forum Offline

Dan:
yes there has to be an 'intention' of course, at the beginning... in the same way that if you want to explore the ocean, you may not know what you'll find... but you do have to get into a boat, don't you?
—————-
Manfred: I am not sure. For me an intention was necessary when I started with proprioception of thought or choiceless awareness. Meanwhile there is sometimes an automatism working that with no intention or intervention choiceless awareness starts in a way that the awareness that I am not aware is choiceless awareness. At least it seems to work like that.So choiceless awareness is coming and going without any impulse from myself.

This post was last updated by Manfred Kritzler Wed, 16 Oct 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 16 Oct 2019 #23
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5344 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
should we not first determine what exactly we mean by the "I"?

When I started this thread, I meant by the "I", the everlasting reaction of thought to a challenge - 'challenge' including the previous thought.

It is the thought that is happening now, at any moment - although that thought is hidden, under the guise of a separate being, the guise of 'a thinker'.

Furthermore, it carries the sensation, the feeling of 'me', of my existence, my being.

Is that clear, Wim?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 16 Oct 2019 #24
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5344 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
Is the problem real, or only apparent?

As long as thought is operational, as long as thought touches everything, it is all too real.

It is real in the sense K used the word "reality" in his later years - "that which is produced by thought".

It is also apparent, isn't it? it certainly appears, has its appearance in the world.

Is the essence of what you are asking "Is it actual"? Does it have any existence outside of thought?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 16 Oct 2019 #25
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5344 posts in this forum Offline

Manfred Kritzler wrote:
I also doubt if someone never had the experience of choiceless awareness that there is an emanating of it. What do you think?

I follow your initial questions, I think, and find them valid, but I am not sure what you mean by the statement above. Please rephrase it, Manfred.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 16 Oct 2019 #26
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5344 posts in this forum Offline

Manfred Kritzler wrote:
So choiceless awareness is coming and going without any impulse from myself.

I would go along with that, Manfred.

Is it that the starting point lies in negation? And negation in small things leads to negation in bigger things? Am I conveying anything with that word "negation"? I mean seeing something that is false, that one had assumed to be true, or accepted as true. And letting that perception into one's life.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 17 Oct 2019 #27
Thumb_avatar Manfred Kritzler Germany 55 posts in this forum Offline

Manfred: So choiceless awareness is coming and going without any impulse from myself.
————-

Clive:
I would go along with that, Manfred.

Is it that the starting point lies in negation? And negation in small things leads to negation in bigger things? Am I conveying anything with that word "negation"? I mean seeing something that is false, that one had assumed to be true, or accepted as true. And letting that perception into one's life.

—————

Manfred:
I always had and have problems with the word negation.
But when it is interpreted as something false it is a thought reaction? No?
Choiceless awareness is for me not an interpretation of what is recognized. It is one with the recognized. Seeing that I am not choiceless aware is the starting point.

In a certain way being choiceless aware and being not choiceless aware are inseparably connected. Only interpretation makes the difference. Maybe it is similar to a child learning to walk. It makes no difference between falling down
and standing up. Both is one process. There is no standing up without falling down. And there is no choiceless awareness without the opposite.

In short, seeing that I am not choiceless aware is choiceless awareness. Causal logical this is complete contradictory.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 17 Oct 2019 #28
Thumb_avatar Manfred Kritzler Germany 55 posts in this forum Offline

In addition: I doubt if we are able to recognize a status of choiceless awareness. The recognition ends the choicelessness. I am in no way sure, but according to my experience choicelessness is without any thought about thought. In the moment I am aware of this choicelessness, awareness and what I am aware of is not one any more. The observer is separated from the observed again.

It is so difficult to put in words what I mean. I am really open to any other ideas or meanings.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 17 Oct 2019 #29
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 54 posts in this forum Offline

I am the problem. Is the problem real or only apparent?

In other words, is the "I am," separative self real or illusory? K certainly brings up this question. If we are serious about investigating "I am the problem" then we must look into whether the I, the self, is real. If it is, how so? If it is not, how so?

And as Wm Opdam pointed out above, this means going into the question of what the I, the self, is.

This post was last updated by idiot ? Thu, 17 Oct 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 17 Oct 2019 #30
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1490 posts in this forum Online

Manfred Kritzler wrote:
according to my experience choicelessness is without any thought about thought. In the moment I am aware of this choicelessness, awareness and what I am aware of is not one any more. The observer is separated from the observed again.

It is so difficult to put in words what I mean. I am really open to any other ideas or meanings.

Can thought understand what is 'beyond' itself? Can thought 'understand' silence? Perhaps 'choiceless awareness' is what 'we' are? How can 'thought' which is the past grasp what awareness is? Like a hand grasping water. What K. has pointed out to those able to listen, is that the 'thinker is the thought'. How do we approach that in order to find out if it's true or false? Thought can't be the 'instrument' to investigate that, can it?

This excerpt from the QOTD is a good reminder it seems to me, (but what does "set thought free" mean?)

" It is as though we were attempting to see the clear, pure light through colored glasses, which we are unaware of wearing. To see the pure light we must first be aware of our colored glasses; this very awareness, if the urge to see the pure light is strong, helps to remove the colored glasses. This removal is not the action of one resistance against another but is an effortless action of understanding. We must be aware of the actual, and the understanding of what is will set thought free; this very understanding will bring about open receptivity, transcending the particular intelligence."
.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Thu, 17 Oct 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 69 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.)