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

How to look


Displaying posts 61 - 90 of 106 in total
Thu, 26 Dec 2019 #61
Thumb_spock Douglas MacRae-Smith France 263 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Do you see love as a challenge?

I am challenged by my idea of what love is - Just this Morning it stood between me and my Wife.

Look, see, let go

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 27 Dec 2019 #62
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3327 posts in this forum Offline

So it’s an intellectual challenge then, right? Is there any meaning in that? If you know you’re being challenged you’re thinking...reacting, no?

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Fri, 27 Dec 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 27 Dec 2019 #63
Thumb_spock Douglas MacRae-Smith France 263 posts in this forum Offline

Intellectual challenge, emotional challenge? I dont know, probably just a bad choice of words.

Look, see, let go

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 27 Dec 2019 #64
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3327 posts in this forum Offline

What the heck is an emotional challenge?

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 28 Dec 2019 #65
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5799 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
That word challenge has been bothering me. It seems to imply an ideal or goal....rather than simply observing what we are actually doing....our lack of sensitivity or our biased listening...our reactions to whatever is being said.

Tom, your wife is there looking at you, expectantly. She has just asked you a question. She is waiting for an answer. She has just given you a challenge to which you must respond :-).

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 28 Dec 2019 #66
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3327 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
She is waiting for an answer.

If I feel challenged that is a result of thought no? Either I listen and respond intelligently or I don’t.
I hope she has no expectations!

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 29 Dec 2019 #67
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5799 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
If I feel challenged that is a result of thought no? Either I listen and respond intelligently or I don’t.

I think we may be using the word "challenge" in different ways. I don't see it necessary as a result of thought - but life is demanding that you respond. Otherwise you are insensitive, asleep.

I think K points out challenge means "something thrown at you". So you have to duck, or catch it, or something -respond in someway.

A rapidly disintegrating, collapsing world is the challenge we all face. but most somehow do not or will not face it.

This post was last updated by Clive Elwell Sun, 29 Dec 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 07 Jan 2020 #68
Thumb_spock Douglas MacRae-Smith France 263 posts in this forum Offline

How to look : Meditation is essentiel.

We could become philosophers. Dedicate our life to studying the nature of reality based on our senses, logic and certain présuppositions (like our interpretation of what some authority [K?]has given us). We probably could come to some conclusions (and further questions, based on these) this way - but a philosopher is just as much a prisoner of their mind as anyone else.

We could become neurobiologists or psychologists and pinpoint the self this way with descriptions of its chemical, synaptic or emotional origins etc. But the scientist still has as much difficulty dealing with their emotions as anyone else.

Meditation : Moments when the struggle is no more, when experience is accepted and allowed to flow and dissapear, leaving no trace - the scars of experience being me.

Look, see, let go

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Tue, 07 Jan 2020 #69
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5799 posts in this forum Offline

Douglas MacRae-Smith wrote:
How to look : Meditation is essentiel.

Ok, but what do you mean by meditation? Is it the sitting on a cushion variety, deliberately brought about, practiced, or something that just comes upon one unexpectedly any time in the day?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 07 Jan 2020 #70
Thumb_spock Douglas MacRae-Smith France 263 posts in this forum Offline

Attention is not Something that requires effort, is not Something that I conjure up - it is just there. My job is to allow a space for it.

My question is : Where does our anti-cushion prejudice come from? Have no fear. You Don't even need a cushion, just sit on a chair. Have faith, Don't be afraid, just let it come. Our fear has been built up by our conditioning - it is no different than the prejudices of the yogi chanting mantras in his cave like his master taught him.

Attention is Nothing special, it is its effects on the self which are significant - giving oneself permission to open up to attention is okay. Is necessary.

The problem comes when I have an idea of what attention is, and an idea of what I can gain from it - if this is the case then we are back to me, and effort, and desire, and becoming.

In another thread we asked : is it possible for there to be thoughts and attention at the same time? Why not have a look?

Look, see, let go

This post was last updated by Douglas MacRae-Smith Wed, 08 Jan 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 08 Jan 2020 #71
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1772 posts in this forum Offline

Douglas MacRae-Smith wrote:
if this is the case then we are back to me, and effort, and desire, and becoming.

Is it possible that we never leave this? That the 'conditioning' is total. That this is what we believe is 'Reality'? Is it that the only way 'out' of the prison is to realize that it is all-encompassing and any effort in any way is only more activity inside this cage. That is how it seems to me. We can't judge or assess our own situation. Only insight into it can shed light on what we are. And what we are not.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Wed, 08 Jan 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 08 Jan 2020 #72
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3327 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
We can't judge or assess our own situation.

Exactly...the assesser is the assessed....which is simply one fragment of ‘me’ reacting to another fragment which I think is separate from me...separate from the observer. I don’t know if I explained this correctly...in a rush at the moment, but it’s important to observe this inner division, isn’t it?

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 08 Jan 2020 #73
Thumb_spock Douglas MacRae-Smith France 263 posts in this forum Offline

So we keep judging and assessing - if just the tiniest part of our assessment is believed (even the "correct" assessments) I come out stronger and the illusion continues.

Look, see, let go

This post was last updated by Douglas MacRae-Smith Wed, 08 Jan 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 08 Jan 2020 #74
Thumb_spock Douglas MacRae-Smith France 263 posts in this forum Offline

Is division possible when there is attention?
When there is "choiceless awareness" where is judgement and analysis?

Analysing and judging K's words is not the goal. Thinking about my thoughts has no end.

Self has conséquences; attention is the key.

Look, see, let go

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 08 Jan 2020 #75
Thumb_spock Douglas MacRae-Smith France 263 posts in this forum Offline

Attention, and make Believe born of fear, are 2 different things.

If I think that There is a method that can release me from myself in order to obtain some imagined bliss; this is not the same as being curious, stopping for a moment and observing what it is to pay attention. To see the grasping, to see the automatic analysing that occurs, which is the letting go. (The seeing is the letting go, the attention is the ending of thought - no effort involved)

Look, see, let go

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 08 Jan 2020 #76
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3327 posts in this forum Offline

Douglas MacRae-Smith wrote:
So we keep judging and assessing - if just the tiniest part of our assessment is believed (even the "correct" assessments) I come out stronger and the illusion continues.

No we don’t. Once we see the absurdity of this inner division the false pretense of separate the analyzer and assesser ends, no?

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 08 Jan 2020 #77
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 845 posts in this forum Offline

Douglas MacRae-Smith wrote:
Is division possible when there is attention?

.....Self has conséquences; attention is the key.

From a recent QOTD:

http://jiddu-krishnamurti.net/en/1945-1948-obse...

“To understand the world, you must understand yourself ….. To understand anything, there must be observation”.

This does make sense, doesn’t it?

When you say, "Is division possible when there is attention?" or “Self has conséquences; attention is the key” ---

--- do you mean that attention excludes self; that there is either self OR attention; that there cannot be both? If so, how have these statements come about? Isn't it something that you have observed and so, understood? Clearly, if the whole process is not observed, it cannot BE understood. If the statements are not understood, they cannot be fundamentally meaningful. Isn’t it so?

Attention is NOT exclusive, is it? It excludes nothing - neither the good or the bad, the pleasant or painful, the beautiful or the ugly. And self/thought IS exclusive. That is, where there is self, there is exclusion and therefore inattention.

Attention has no centre, no preferences, no attachments, no aversions, no beliefs, etc. And self/thought DOES have preferences, attachments, beliefs, aversions, and so on, an illusory centre "from which it looks”, judges, assesses, includes and excludes. Attachments, beliefs, etc. are 2 sides of the same coin. By virtue of including some fragments, they are also excluding others, and vice-versa. This can be observed.

So attention does not exclude “self” or anything else. All that IS is included in attention. But self excludes --- by denying fear, by chasing pleasure, by preferring some things and disliking others, by judging and concluding, by measuring and comparing, by choosing and deciding, self creates barriers and excludes attention. No?

And how can there BE observation of any“thing” without “the thing” that IS OBSERVED? To observe the moon, the sunset, traffic, sorrow, fear, is not to create those things. All those things can be observed because they ARE. So to observe anything - including psychological division - does not CAUSE division. To observe division does not create or fuel division. But pretense or the attempt to disregard any ”thing” or any perception - IS the process of division, as I see it. To pretend or disregard is an exclusionary effort of the self.

Attention is not the action OF self, and self is not the action OF attention. This can be observed, just as beauty, compassion and sorrow can be observed. It is not self saying so, is it? --- just as it is not thought which observes the sunset. But where thought is preoccupied with self, then it does not truly see the sunset; it relegates the sunset to the status of “insignificant” and so, excludes it. Is it so?

To disregard a thing that is perceived is to exclude the wholeness of the thing, to conclude that it is insignificant. And to attribute the significance of one’s own conclusions to a thing is also to exclude the wholeness of the thing. Regardless of one’s conclusions about the thing, “the thing” itself (self, fear, desire, heat, cold, pain, beauty, joy, the neighbour, the child, and so on) ACTS and has an effect - whether it is acknowledged or not, whether it is faced or not, whether it is ignored or not.

So whatever “the thing” is, everything has its own action, consequence or effect on mind, body and heart. And everything and its consequences can be observed and understood. No? Isn’t everything and every consequence also a link in the chain of cause and effect?

https://jkrishnamurti.org/content/ojai-8th-publ...

Ojai, California | 8th Public Talk 1945:

Cause and effect are inseparable; in the cause is the effect. To be aware of the cause-effect of a problem needs certain swift pliability of mind-heart for the cause-effect is constantly being modified, undergoing continual change. What once was cause-effect may have become modified now and to be aware of this modification or change is surely necessary for true understanding. To follow the ever changing cause-effect is strenuous for the mind clings and takes shelter in what was the cause-effect; it holds to conclusions and so conditions itself to the past. There must be an awareness of this cause-effect conditioning; it is not static but the mind is when it holds fast to a cause-effect that is immediately past. Karma is this bondage to cause-effect. As thought itself is the result of my causes-effects it must extricate itself from its own bondages. The problem of cause-effect is not to be superficially observed and passed by. It is the continuous chain of conditioning memory that must be observed and understood; to be aware of this chain being created and to follow it though all the layers of consciousness is arduous; yet it must be deeply searched out and understood.

This post was last updated by Huguette . Wed, 08 Jan 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 08 Jan 2020 #78
Thumb_spock Douglas MacRae-Smith France 263 posts in this forum Offline

Dear Huguette,

I've read your post a few times and I'll try and do it justice by reacting to a couple of things that did resonate.

Huguette . wrote:
Isn't it something that you have observed and so, understood? Clearly, if the whole process is not observed, it cannot BE understood. If the statements are not understood, they cannot be fundamentally meaningful.

This relates a bit to what we have been disagreeing about previously : Thought. Thought is what I use to come to conclusions, to translate experience into meaning. But more important than meaning, is Freedom from thought's domination

Huguette . wrote:
Attention is NOT exclusive, is it? It excludes nothing - neither the good or the bad, the pleasant or painful, the beautiful or the ugly. And self/thought IS exclusive. That is, where there is self, there is exclusion and therefore inattention.

Attention has no centre, no preferences, no attachments, no aversions, no beliefs, etc. And self/thought DOES have preferences, attachments, beliefs, aversions, and so on,

Attention does not exclude good and evil; there is not a cause causing an effect (its a cause/effect). Because Self is good and evil; when attention is, good and evil is not.

Huguette . wrote:
how can there BE observation of any“thing” without “the thing” that IS OBSERVED?

This is a great question.
Sometimes everything observed is the observer; sometimes there is no "thing" to be observed. Which is closer to the Truth? I Don't know. But everytime I try to observe myself I dissapear - or I run around in circles trying to catch my tail.
Maybe we also need to know what attention is?

Thats it, I've shot my bolt - I'll just add that pure thought will only lead to more thought. We must also experiment with attention.

Look, see, let go

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 09 Jan 2020 #79
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 845 posts in this forum Offline

Douglas MacRae-Smith wrote at 78:
Thought is what I use to come to conclusions, to translate experience into meaning.

But who IS the I who “uses” thought? Isn’t it thought itself? Isn’t “thought” the ability of the brain to conclude and analyze (as you say), to remember, recognize, reason, compare, distinguish patterns, systematize, see similarities and differences, organize, substitute, plan, and much more. So when you or I say that “Thought is what I USE to come to conclusions, to translate experience into meaning”, do you mean that thought and the thinker are in fact different and separate one from the other? We come back to this question over and over.

Thought is not just words, phrases, experiences, images, theories, ideas, and so on. It is also the ability to reason, to organize, to analyze, and so on - all of which are needed in our lives. Thought provides the understanding needed in certain fields of life. For example, understanding how to use a map, how to modify a recipe, how to substitute one thing for another, how to fix things, how to do my job, organize a cooperative effort, and so on, requires thought, memory, measure, analysis, experience, etc.

But understanding the mind, self, relationship, anger, fear, conflict, shame, arrogance, contradiction, and so on, is a different order of understanding, isn't it?


  • “what is the me exactly”,

  • “what causes identification - the sensation or the thought”,

  • “what is perception, what is attention,

  • "what causes the separation into thinker and thought”,

  • “why does thought not end”,

  • “what is the mind”,

  • “what is right action,” and so on and so on.

These actions and questions can't be solved by the intellect. Only awareness can shine light on this darkness.

Like a dog chasing its tail, we keep looking to the past to explain what we don't understand, even though we "know" there is no end to this process. Do we not understand that there is no explanation or theory that can satisfactorily answer these questions of ours; that answers to these questions cannot be known by the intellect?

Are we prepared to completely put aside all theories, explanations, conclusions, beliefs and so on; to simply say, I don’t know, I have no idea what to do, how to live, how to be other than what I am? And simply observe the whole of it?

I’m NOT saying that disregarding the authority of thought is the answer to all our problems. “To understand anything, there must be observation” - observe EVERYTHING - initial reactions and reactions to those reactions --- including the reactions that say, “why am I still suffering, why does the past still respond in relationship, why are my problems the same as ever”, and so on. Just to observe brings wordless understanding. It may not end suffering but it gives meaning. No?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 10 Jan 2020 #80
Thumb_spock Douglas MacRae-Smith France 263 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
do you mean that thought and the thinker are in fact different and separate one from the other? We come back to this question over and over.

Sorry, didn't mean to imply that. Dissection and separation is a tool of thought for the purpose of utility, control and profit.
We come back to this question because it feels so real : like "flat earth". It feels like we're standing on a flat, static planet with a small moon and sun flying through the sky - but there is no real debate. Try as we might, we cannot pinpoint the separate self.

Huguette . wrote:
Thought provides the understanding needed in certain fields of life.

Thank God for QOTD :
Questioner: What is wrong with purposeful thinking if it is logical?
Krishnamurti: If the thinker is unaware of himself, though he may be purposeful, his logic will inevitably lead him to misery; if he is in authority, in a position of power, he brings misery and destruction upon others. That is what is happening in the world, is it not? Without self-knowledge, thought is not based on reality, it is ever in contradiction and its activities are mischievous and harmful.

So yes, the self maybe a useful tool, but it is highly Dangerous, confused, and destructive to the whole, in its current position as "that which must be obeyed"

Look, see, let go

This post was last updated by Douglas MacRae-Smith Fri, 10 Jan 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 10 Jan 2020 #81
Thumb_spock Douglas MacRae-Smith France 263 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Just to observe brings wordless understanding. It may not end suffering but it gives meaning. No?

The self is suffering - Suffering is the Self. Logically we can say : is the function of the self (if we prefer to separate into cause and effect). We suffer in order to avoid bad things and pursue good things.

PS. I Don't understand how you are using the word "meaning" here. What is the meaning of Reality? What is the meaning of Infinity? What is the meaning of Wholeness/nothingness? I Don't get it.

Maybe you mean: "I feel that the only worthwhile goal is to understand the nature of reality" ?

Look, see, let go

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 10 Jan 2020 #82
Thumb_spock Douglas MacRae-Smith France 263 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
But who IS the I who “uses” thought?

Getting back to my favorite "bad writer with a great idea" - I think this is a good place to plug Iain McGilchrist again.

Read his Book (it wont be easy) : The Master & his emissary

Or start with a video? YouTube interview

Look, see, let go

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 10 Jan 2020 #83
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 845 posts in this forum Offline

Douglas MacRae-Smith wrote at 80:
QOTD:
Questioner: What is wrong with purposeful thinking if it is logical?
Krishnamurti: If the thinker is unaware of himself....

Douglas: So yes, the self maybe a useful tool...

All self (or the thinker) is thought but not all thought is self, as I see it. So, it is not because K says so that the things quoted below are true. But they CAN be seen. No?


http://jiddu-krishnamurti.net/en/freedom-from-t...

Thought, like memory, is, of course, necessary for daily living. It is the only instrument we have for communication, working at our jobs and so forth. Thought is the response to memory, memory which has been accumulated through experience, knowledge, tradition, time. And from this background of memory we react and this reaction is thinking. So thought is essential at certain levels...


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

JK: … the me is the whole movement which thought has brought about .... The whole structure of the me is put together by thought.
...
DB: … intelligence can use thought … thought can be the action of intelligence...

JK: Yes.


https://jkrishnamurti.org/content/series-i-chap...

The Self with a capital "S" is still a projection of thought. Whatever thought is occupied with, that it is; and what it is, is nothing else but thought. So it is important to understand the thought process.

This post was last updated by Huguette . Fri, 10 Jan 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 10 Jan 2020 #84
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 845 posts in this forum Offline

Douglas MacRae-Smith wrote at 81:
I Don't understand how you are using the word "meaning" here. What is the meaning of Reality? What is the meaning of Infinity? What is the meaning of Wholeness/nothingness? I Don't get it.

Maybe you mean: "I feel that the only worthwhile goal is to understand the nature of reality" ?

When I talk about meaning, I’m not talking about - I don’t “mean” - the “meaning of life”.

If you speak to me in Chinese, I will not understand the meaning of your words. Even at the verbal level, meaning IS important, isn’t it?

If I don't have the patience to observe the rebellious child, I will not understand the meaning of his rebelliousness.

If I don’t observe the movements of my own mind, I will not understand the meaning of my own fear, conceit, anger, pretense, and so on.

What do your words mean? What do the child’s actions mean? What does my anger mean? Not verbally, but actually.

Meaning is revealed by understanding, and understanding is the action of intelligence, as I see it.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 10 Jan 2020 #85
Thumb_spock Douglas MacRae-Smith France 263 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Meaning is revealed by understanding, and understanding is the action of intelligence, as I see it.

Okay - I'm just worried that "meaning", may be taken to be personal and static - a bit like conclusions.

Look, see, let go

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 11 Jan 2020 #86
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5799 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote *77 :
So attention does not exclude “self” or anything else. All that IS is included in attention. But self excludes --- by denying fear, by chasing pleasure, by preferring some things and disliking others, by judging and concluding, by measuring and comparing, by choosing and deciding, self creates barriers and excludes attention. No?

Huguette,

I made an association between your words which I cite above, and these words of K which I happened to come across, words which I find are causing me to look at the activity of thought with a new perspective.

It is essential, surely, to know oneself - not the self which is supposed to be beyond consciousness, which is described in various books and so on, but the self that is within the limitations and the frontiers of consciousness. In the understanding of that everyday consciousness, in the unrolling of that extraordinary map, in venturing on the ocean of the unfolding self and seeing its whole significance, comes right action, which is true vocation. But if one does not know the ways of one's own mind, the ways of one's own thought, if one does not perceive the first reaction to every challenge, the first movement of thought to form a demand, if one leaves that first movement of the mind unexplored, unquestioned, without discovering the cause of the responses, then we shall be utterly lost in the verbal and theoretical activities of the mind.

It is the text that I have emphasised that especially caught my attention. I began to realise somehow the first reaction to every challenge, the first movement of thought, WAS being ignored. Ignored is perhaps not quite the right word – delegated? Given less importance? It is almost as if a process of selection is taking place among thoughts, and the more unpalatable ones ae ignored or pushed aside, while importance is given to ….... can we say the more 'respectable' thoughts? The thoughts that have more acceptance, both with others and in oneself. And in this way a reality is forged which does not truly reflect the real activity of thought. This is the reality that the world lives by. Those "first thoughts" are often the most reactionary, condemnatory, judgmental, hateful, envious, and the like.

I wonder if anyone on the forum resonates with this?

Actually I have observed for a long time how quite alien, bizarre thoughts suddenly pop into the mind, seemingly unconnected with my daily activity [ don't tell the men in the white coats this :-) ]. As I tend to see it, there is an ever seething mass, whirlpool, of thoughts, deep down, which may perhaps be called “the unconscious mind”. From this some thoughts make it to the surface, and form the conscious mind.

Probably, at least part of this unconscious is many thousands of years old, and is common to all human being, dead and living, and hence the strangeness of some of its content.

But to return to my original comments, once one has accepted that there is a “ first movement of the mind unexplored, unquestioned”, and one ceases to condemn it, and instead explores it, it becomes very interesting. And it reinforces there being “no firm ground to stand on”, as we have recently shared.

I would welcome people's comments on this. I could be wrong!

This post was last updated by Clive Elwell Sat, 11 Jan 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 11 Jan 2020 #87
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3327 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
But to return to my original comments, once one has accepted that there is a “ first movement of the mind unexplored, unquestioned”, and one ceases to condemn it, and instead explores it, it becomes very interesting

I think I know what you’re getting at, Clive, however one always condemns those thoughts that society finds unacceptable. We can’t explore that which we condemn..,reject. Like the example I gave in the past of a childhood friend who only accepted the fact he was gay when he had already been in a heterosexual marriage and had a child. His homosexual thoughts never had a chance to surface in his earlier years because society and his religion told him homosexuality was evil. He told me he always knew deep down that he was different but he repressed his true ‘first thoughts’.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 11 Jan 2020 #88
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 845 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
...the first movement of thought, WAS being ignored...

Clive,

I'm in the middle of something right now but I foolishly took a "quick look" at the forum and your post caught my attention. So I don't have the time to look at it in depth but it did immediately strike a chord because it was a part of something which I have quoted several times lately, namely:

"To understand anything, there must be observation. An object in swift movement can be watched only when the movement is slowed down. The problem therefore is how to slow down the movement of the mind .... the method of approach is more important. Without understanding the problem, the mind rushed off with a prepared answer and, after following it through, realised that it was no answer to the problem. The mind must pursue each thought that arises in it, right through till it is complete.

I don't know if you see the relationship with your own post.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 11 Jan 2020 #89
Thumb_spock Douglas MacRae-Smith France 263 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
I began to realise somehow the first reaction to every challenge, the first movement of thought, WAS being ignored. Ignored is perhaps not quite the right word – delegated?

I'd say unnoticed. A guru once said to me: "try and catch a thought as it appears. try and see the Birth of thought"

So first I sit calmly and see if this is possible. I've never succeeded.

Our conditioning appears unbidden and unseen, and upon it we build more Walls.

Look, see, let go

This post was last updated by Douglas MacRae-Smith Sat, 11 Jan 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 11 Jan 2020 #90
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5799 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
I don't know if you see the relationship with your own post.

I do indeed see the connection, Huguette.

Huguette . wrote:
The mind must pursue each thought that arises in it, right through till it is complete.

This "pursuing of each thought" has been with me for many years - at least as an idea. But also I have experimented with it. It has a certain amount of meaning for me. But there is a problem, both with the concept and the 'practice'. That is, "Pursuing" suggests two separate things, doesn't it? The thing pursued and and the thing doing the pursuing - which might be called "the pursuer".

I doubt that this is what K is suggesting, when he says "The mind must pursue each thought..." But he does not say "thought must pursue itself" (this suggests itself to me through the question he asks "can thought be aware of itself?").

This is obviously a very important question/issue. Can we pursue it? (no pun intended)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 61 - 90 of 106 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.)