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

I am the problem


Displaying posts 61 - 69 of 69 in total
Tue, 22 Oct 2019 #61
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5344 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
[the self is] constructed out of thought.

Yes, that’s how it seems to me. The “I” which is the problem is thought, A construction of thought. It is thought that is the problem. Or is it better to say it is the way thought behaves that is the problem?

we are totally identified with thought-emotion

I brought up this issue in #54. It seems to me extremely important, the matter of identification. Do we have to be “totally identified”? Sometimes it seems that one isn’t. Sometimes it seems that thoughts and feelings come and go, drift through the mind without identification taking place. So those thoughts/feelings are harmless.

But the very phrase “we are identified” does not seem correct. It is suggests that there is a “we”, an “I” APART from identification – something to which identification happens. But is this the case? Or does the process, the action of identification, PRODUCE the sense of self?

And if this is the case, what is that process of identification? What is it that identifies?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 22 Oct 2019 #62
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 855 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
So Clive’s “I am the problem” becomes thought is the problem. Not practical thought obviously.

BUT Tom, there is still thought which is relevant, which is right so one have to specify it by 'psychologic thought' and by the word self IT'S at once clear IT'S a constructed entity.

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 22 Oct 2019 #63
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2812 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
But the very phrase “we are identified” does not seem correct.

It is suggests that there is a “we”, an “I” APART from identification – something to which identification happens.

this 'we' is thought.

But is this the case? Or does the process, the action of identification, PRODUCE the sense of self?

And if this is the case, what is that process of identification? What is it that identifies?

One thought says another thought is wrong and a different thought (of god or truth or some ideal) is right. It's thought that is identifying another thought....condemning or justifying or judging it right vs wrong. So it's thought which is identifying. Does this make sense?

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Tue, 22 Oct 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 22 Oct 2019 #64
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2812 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
and by the word self IT'S at once clear IT'S a constructed entity.

But we have still to investigate what is self then. Self is a particular type of thought, would you agree? A type of thinking that is often called 'psychological thought'.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 22 Oct 2019 #65
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5344 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
It's thought that is identifying another thought.

Did you mean "it's thought identifying WITH another thought", Tom?

This suddenly comes to mind: The self is there when thought identifies with itself.

I don't know if this is right. Why don't I know if it is right? It feels that I don't know because there is no self TO know, to do the knowing.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 23 Oct 2019 #66
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2812 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
This suddenly comes to mind: The self is there when thought identifies with itself.

This might very well be correct, Clive...thanks. Will look further into this later....have to make dinner.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 23 Oct 2019 #67
Thumb_avatar Manfred Kritzler Germany 55 posts in this forum Offline

Clive:
But the very phrase “we are identified ” does not seem correct. It is suggests that there is a “we”, an “I” APART from identification – something to which identification happens. But is this the case? Or does the process, the action of identification, PRODUCE the sense of self?

And if this is the case, what is that process of identification? What is it that identifies?
———
Manfred:
I think this question can not be answered. Any try to find an answer is again activating a new thought process, which is a kind of identification with the self.

When we observe our thought process without looking for an explanation or change it is different. We look at our own construction without interfering. And as thought is something which is created and dissolved in time, the timeless state of “intentionless observation” or choiceless awareness will diminish or vanish thought totally, although it can come back in the next second, minute or hour. So it makes no difference if thought is active or not as long as we are aware of it without using thought again.

Writing this statements can only be a hint or pointer, because the state of choiceless awareness cannot be described.

To simplify the issue: There is an ongoing process of choiceless awareness and “non choiceless awareness”. Seeing that we are not choiceless aware without trying to change or explain this state opens us for the emanating of choiceless awareness.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 24 Oct 2019 #68
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5344 posts in this forum Offline

Manfred Kritzler wrote:

When we observe our thought process without looking for an explanation or change it is different. We look at our own construction without interfering. And as thought is something which is created and dissolved in time, the timeless state of “intentionless observation” or choiceless awareness will diminish or vanish thought totally, although it can come back in the next second, minute or hour. So it makes no difference if thought is active or not as long as we are aware of it without using thought again.

I understand this, Manfred. It seems correct to me. But still, I do not see why:

I think this question can not be answered.

I can see that:

Any try to find an answer is again activating a new thought process, which is a kind of identification with the self.

But cannot answers come without trying to find an answer? Do not "answers" come from the process of choiceless awareness which you describe? Hmm, perhaps "understanding" is a more acurate word than "answers".

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 24 Oct 2019 #69
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5344 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
Whether you go the route of contraction, not identifying with anything, or expansion, not being apart from everything, you wind up in the same place. But it's all very mental, very clever - and self strengthening - unless there is actual, natural quieting of thought to clear open now.

Id

There is an odd deficiency in the English language, when it comes to expressing the negative. So when you write: “not identifying with anything” it can mean two things. It can mean a positive action of not identifying – which is really resistance to the fact of identification – or it can mean the absence of identification. Do you see what I mean? The second case is truly negation. Something (identification) has ended, ceased to exist. But nothing MADE it disappear, did it? Unless one says 'perception made it disappear'

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 61 - 69 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.)