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

Inattention


Displaying posts 31 - 60 of 93 in total
Mon, 30 Dec 2019 #31
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3093 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
The thinking mind cannot touch it. At all. Period.

Exactly.

idiot ? wrote:
You have only to look around right now. Look out the window. Look around the room. Open the senses wide.

Thought interferes ...this is usually the case, as we all know. Is there another possibility? That's unknown.

idiot ? wrote:
No, the brain says. I have much better things to think about. Can I please have my misery and suffering that I delight in dwelling on back?

Delight? Who delights in suffering? No one loves to suffer. Suffering is suffering...it's pain, not delight. Fear is a product of thought according to K., yet such thoughts seem quite real. It's not a matter of some 'person' who delights in fear. The thoughts that produce fear seem to be reality...truth. They also create the 'me' who is afraid. Without self knowledge this opening the senses is only an idea....or it may happen in brief moments...perhaps out 'in nature' one delights in looking and observing free of the 'me'. But fear and suffering doesn't end by trying to avoid it.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Mon, 30 Dec 2019 #32
Thumb_spock Douglas MacRae-Smith France 144 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
This! This! Totally ordinary. Totally extraordinary. Here now. Too detailed for the brain to begin to hold it. You have only to look around right now. Look out the window. Look around the room. Open the senses wide.

But can that be it?

I have sometimes looked out the window without reacting.
I have sometimes meditated formally with moments of silence.
I was obviously not suffering during those moments - but has this affected my understanding of the world? Has this changed the suffering that occurs when things aren't going so well for me?

Look, see, let go

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 30 Dec 2019 #33
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 79 posts in this forum Offline

K said that his only interest was in setting man unconditionally free. Does that mean he wants you to be aware of your fear and suffering and for them to continue and continue forever? Does that mean that any transformation of fear and suffering is just desire and movement away from what is? Or does it mean that liberation from fear and suffering is actually possible?

It amazes me when K interested people are adamant, forcefully insistent, that they will stay with fear and suffering, that fear and suffering are what is, and any suggestion otherwise is movement away from what is, is desire for something other than what is, is an ideal.

Yes, K says to observe fear and suffering if they are happening. Yes, he says there can be escapism, desire to move away from what is happening. But he also says there can be transformation. To deny transformation, where the observer is the observed, and where there is movement outside of time, where what is true and what is false are clearly seen, to deny these is a complete corruption of what he said.

Obviously, these are beyond self. No self can claim them. K didn't claim them even if people attribute them to him. They are either true or not. And if they are true, they're available to everyone.

This post was last updated by idiot ? Mon, 30 Dec 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 30 Dec 2019 #34
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3093 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
It amazes me when K interested people are adamant, forcefully insistent, that they will stay with fear and suffering, that fear and suffering are what is, and any suggestion otherwise is movement away from what is, is desire for something other than what is, is an ideal.

When fear is present, yes, any idea of transformation or anything beyond what is is an ideal.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 30 Dec 2019 #35
Thumb_spock Douglas MacRae-Smith France 144 posts in this forum Offline

Is post #33 a response to post #32? I dont get it

Look, see, let go

This post was last updated by Douglas MacRae-Smith Mon, 30 Dec 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 30 Dec 2019 #36
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3093 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
It amazes me when K interested people are adamant, forcefully insistent, that they will stay with fear and suffering, that fear and suffering are what is, and any suggestion otherwise is movement away from what is, is desire for something other than what is, is an ideal.

What exactly is your 'suggestion'?? Are you suggesting that when fear is present that it is not 'what is'? It's not clear what youre getting at idiot?

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 30 Dec 2019 #37
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5546 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
The thinking, separate self is deeply, deeply convinced that it can touch, it can encompass everything. It cannot. But it is relentless, devious, like roots and tentacles that spread and regrow when cut. Most of us aren't interested in complete surrender, to awareness, to love, to the actual. Therefore we live in our minds, with some level of fear and separation. Isn't it so?

Yes it is so. Thought is under the illusion that it is true, can we put it that way? ALL thoughts, including this one. And we are thought, That is the crucial factor. Not "I have thought", not "I think". I think my post on the new thread "The coming and going of thoughts" is very relevant here.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 30 Dec 2019 #38
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5546 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
It amazes me when K interested people are adamant, forcefully insistent, that they will stay with fear and suffering, that fear and suffering are what is, and any suggestion otherwise is movement away from what is, is desire for something other than what is, is an ideal.

Today, in response to a challenge, I seemed to feel the meaning of “being aware of what is” as if for the first time. Such an innocuous sounding phrase! It sounds the easiest, most natural thing in the world. But in actual fact, everything, all one’s impulses, are screaming against it. Wanting to escape the intensity of it. Desperately not wanting the turmoil of seeing oneself actually as one is. Wanting, instead of what is, comforting images of what one would prefer to be.

I am asking now, if it is not thought that always prevents the direct experiencing of what is?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 30 Dec 2019 #39
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3093 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Desperately not wanting the turmoil of seeing oneself actually as one is.

Why turmoil in the seeing?

Wanting, instead of what is, comforting images of what one would prefer to be.

Because the 'negative' images are so painful...provoking fear and suffering. We create 'positive' images to escape the fear.

I am asking now, if it is not thought that always prevents the direct experiencing of what is?

Of course it is. Thought is based upon the past isn't it? What is is now.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Mon, 30 Dec 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 31 Dec 2019 #40
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 862 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
K said that his only interest was in setting man unconditionally free. Does that mean he wants you to be aware of your fear and suffering and for them to continue and continue forever? Does that mean that any transformation of fear and suffering is just desire and movement away from what is? Or does it mean that liberation from fear and suffering is actually possible?

isn't something else also going on here?

is the statement that we are not free based on direct observation or on thought? If it is not an accurate statement we imprisond ourselves by accepting it, isn't it ?
if it is correct that the answer is in the question, then we must also have the guts to question it.

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

This post was last updated by Wim Opdam Tue, 31 Dec 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 03 Jan 2020 #41
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 79 posts in this forum Offline

To get back to the original intention of this thread, the relationship of inattention and attention:

Krishnamurti, The Whole Movement of Life Is Learning, Chapter 44, To Attend Implies Vast Energy :

Inattention cannot be refined into attention. To be aware of inattention is the ending of it; it is not that it becomes attentive. The ending has no continuity. The past modifying itself is the future, a continuity of what has been. We find security in continuity, not in endings. So attention has no quality of continuity. Anything that continues is mechanical. Becoming is mechanical and implies time. Attention has no quality of time. All this is a tremendously complicated issue. One must gently, deeply go into it.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 03 Jan 2020 #42
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 79 posts in this forum Offline

Krishnamurti, Public Discussion 4, Saanen, 3 August 1974:

When I say nasty things about you, or criticise you, or say, 'You are a nice man, be friends with me' and so on. Those are all - we know that. And in that state of inattention actions go on. Right? Don't we act? Of course. When I say something nasty, I am acting. So most of us know what it is to be inattentive. That inattention has no relation to attention. I can't move, the mind can't move from that inattention to attention, that movement will still be inattention. Right? Are you getting tired?

So I see that. So I see this: awareness, sensitivity, awareness, attention. In that state of attention - that state of attention is complete, the summation of energy, unless your body, your mind and everything is in complete harmony, you can't maintain that attention for a whole hour, impossible, or an hour and a half. There is that attention for a while, in that attention there is also inattention - right? - you say, 'Well, I am resting, I will be quiet'. That inattention is totally different from the ordinary inattention. Got it? That's all. Good morning.

To put it bluntly, K seems here to be drawing a distinction between our ordinary inattention and his. The ordinary inattention is corrupting and results in nastiness or some other kind of violence. By contrast, the other kind of inattention, his (by implication), is just a rest and is encompassed by attention. That is, attention springs back into action instantly at the slightest need.

This post was last updated by idiot ? Fri, 03 Jan 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 03 Jan 2020 #43
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3093 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
The ordinary inattention is corrupting and results in nastiness or some other kind of violence.

Yes...this is our normal state...it’s attachment and craving as well as violence. It’s also concentration, right? I concentrate all my effort on making a lot of money or becoming a great athlete...or whatever our attachment or goal. Most of us are focused on some sort of goal. And K has said many times that concentration isn’t attention. So perhaps we would do well to look deeper into the first excerpt you shared above.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 04 Jan 2020 #44
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5546 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
To get back to the original intention of this thread, the relationship of inattention and attention:

I'm glad that you are keeping this issue open, Id. I was going to ask you if you found the enquiry so far meaningful. I have been asking myself just what is this thing we call attention? How do I recognise it? How do I know it is there? Can I know it is there?

idiot ? wrote, quoting K:
That inattention is totally different from the ordinary inattention. Got it?

Is K saying there is a sort of deliberate inattention?

idiot ? wrote, quoting K:
So attention has no quality of continuity

Looking at the implications of this.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 04 Jan 2020 #45
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 79 posts in this forum Offline

I find it disturbing that K implies that his inattention is different than ours, that his is a mere rest and ours is corrupting. I find it disturbing when he says, "Got it?" Because that seems condescending. And I find his discussions, when they are with a sizable number of people, seem to meander, to become a guessing game on the part of the questioners and a disapproving and steering game on his part. Again he is up and they are down. In short, for all his questioning of the guru, he can play one, in subtle and not so subtle ways. And that disturbs me. Your thoughts?

This post was last updated by idiot ? Sat, 04 Jan 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 04 Jan 2020 #46
Thumb_spock Douglas MacRae-Smith France 144 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
That inattention is totally different from the ordinary inattention. Got it?

Is K saying there is a sort of deliberate inattention?

There is the "habitual" inattention that I slip into because I am tired or lazy which is habitual action from the self. The habitual self serving action of inattentiveness.
And there is the daydreaming or inattentiveness of an unconcerned mind; a mind free from grasping, free from fear.
One strengthens the self, the other is rest.

Look, see, let go

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 04 Jan 2020 #47
Thumb_spock Douglas MacRae-Smith France 144 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
Again he is up and they are down. In short, for all his questioning of the guru, he can play one, in subtle and not so subtle ways. And that disturbs me. Your thoughts?

A part of K also wanted us to examine what he was - I'm not sure it would be helpful for us.

The important bit about the guru concept is that authority and belief lead away from Freedom, Clarity and truth

Theres also the problem of egos rubbing each other up the wrong way - who fault is that ? Mine of the other guy's?

Look, see, let go

This post was last updated by Douglas MacRae-Smith Sat, 04 Jan 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 05 Jan 2020 #48
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5546 posts in this forum Offline

Douglas MacRae-Smith wrote:
Theres also the problem of egos rubbing each other up the wrong way - who fault is that ? Mine of the other guy's?

It's the fault of the ego itself, isn't it, which is neither yours nor mine.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 05 Jan 2020 #49
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5546 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
Your thoughts?

I was talking to someone new to me recently, about the mind. At first I was very careful to be questioning, non-assertive. The other person's responses were wondering, all over the place. Somehow - and it certainly wasn't a conscious decision - I started to be a bit more assertive in what I saying, a bit more definite. I found then the other person was much more responsive, he appeared to be taking things in a lot more :-)

So maybe K knew or sensed which approach worked the best with his various audiences. One can see, for example, that he approached Indian audiences somewhat differently from in the west. He seemed to me to be more critical.

I resonate somewhat with what you are saying, Id. My biggest irritation is with K's use "the word "obviously" :-). And sometimes he seems quite rude when talking with David Bohm.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 05 Jan 2020 #50
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5546 posts in this forum Offline

Douglas MacRae-Smith wrote:
There is the "habitual" inattention that I slip into because I am tired or lazy which is habitual action from the self. The habitual self serving action of inattentiveness.
And there is the daydreaming or inattentiveness of an unconcerned mind; a mind free from grasping, free from fear.

My default state seems to be inattention. Or perhaps it is best described as 'focusing', or concentration - my attention is narrowed down on what I am trying to achieve. In this state one can be absolutely blind and and deaf to what is happening around me. And then of course there is just day-dreaming, as you say. Perhaps that is the mind's favourite state. One slips into it so easily. And in that there is no conflict. But also one can say it is not really living.

Certainly a long way from K's "When your whole being is active, aware", in today's QOTD.

No question comes to me about this.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 05 Jan 2020 #51
Thumb_spock Douglas MacRae-Smith France 144 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
But also one can say it is not really living.

Our minds are Always weighing things up, evaluating their Worth. What about sleep?

Look, see, let go

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 05 Jan 2020 #52
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5546 posts in this forum Offline

This I know about attention: that it mitigates thought.

Thought without attention is ..... well we see what it is, and its consequences, it is thought unaware of itself that has created the world as it is now, with all the insanity. Thought without awareness of its own nature is mistaken for truth, as an absolute.

But when there is awareness of the thought process, then ..... then it does not have to manifest in the world, it does not have to dictate to us, does not have to be the basis of relationship.

Take for example anger. If there is no awareness of anger as it arises, then it manifests in our actions, it explodes with all its destructiveness. But if there is awareness of anger as it arises, then it is born and dies withing the confines of the brain, without having to manifest externally (I am not talking about control).

Any comments on this?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 05 Jan 2020 #53
Thumb_spock Douglas MacRae-Smith France 144 posts in this forum Offline

Sounds like a sort of re-learning, re-conditioning based on not automatically reacting from the ego - which hopefully weakens its power.

Its also akin to formal meditation when one is aware of thoughts, sensations, desires etc and does not react, just accepts and observes as they fade away.

Look, see, let go

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 07 Jan 2020 #54
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5546 posts in this forum Offline

Where there is attention, there is no problem. Where there is inattention, every difficulty arises.

There is a danger that presenting a quote from Krishnamurti might bring to an end enquiry between people, and in oneself. Such is not my intention when I give this extract from chapter 15 of "The Ending of Time" dialogue. Perhaps it can suggest certain lines of enquiry for us:

K: Now without making attention itself into a problem, what do we mean by it? Can we understand it, not verbally, not intellectually, but deeply, in our blood? Obviously attention is not concentration. It is not an endeavour, an experience, a struggle to be attentive. You must show me the nature of attention, which is that when there is attention, there is no centre from which `I' attend.

DB: Yes, but that is the difficult thing.

K: Don't let's make a problem of it.

DB: I mean that people have been trying this for a long time. I think that there is first of all some difficulty in understanding what is meant by attention, because of the content of thought itself When a person is looking at it, he may think he is attending.

K: No, in that state of attention there is no thought.

DB: But how do you stop thought then? You see, while thinking is going on, there is an impression of attention - which is not attention. But one thinks, one supposes that one is paying attention.

K: When one supposes one is paying attention, that is not it.

DB: So how do we communicate the true meaning of attention?

K: Or would you say rather that to find out what is attention, we should discuss what is inattention?

DB: Yes.

K: And through negation come to the positive. When I am inattentive, what takes place? In my inattentiveness, I feel lonely, depressed, anxious, and so on.

DB: The mind begins to break up and go into confusion.

K: Fragmentation takes place. And in my lack of attention, I identify myself with many other things.

DB: Yes, and it may be pleasant - but it can be painful too.

K: I find, later on, that what was pleasing becomes pain. So all that is a movement in which there is no attention. Right? Are we getting anywhere?

There is much more that is relevant, but I will pause there. What particularly draws my attention is K's statement:

No, in that state of attention there is no thought.

If this is so, does that not suggest that it is impossible to be attentive to thought itself?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 07 Jan 2020 #55
Thumb_spock Douglas MacRae-Smith France 144 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
When I am inattentive, what takes place? In my inattentiveness, I feel lonely, depressed, anxious, and so on.

Self centred action is inattentiveness - habitual, inattentive action reinforces the self.

Clive Elwell wrote:
it is impossible to be attentive to thought itself?

Is thought possible when there is awareness? - Is it possible to think and be attentive at the same time?

Look, see, let go

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 08 Jan 2020 #56
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3093 posts in this forum Offline

Clive: There is much more that is relevant, but I will pause there. What particularly draws my attention is K's statement:

No, in that state of attention there is no thought.

Can you share a little of what follows in the discussion between K and Bohm, Clive?

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 08 Jan 2020 #57
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 79 posts in this forum Offline

K: In that state of attention there is no thought.

Clive Elwell: If this is so, does that not suggest that it is impossible to be attentive to thought itself?


Just to use a little logic here: Attention is no thought/no self. Awareness of thought, which is awareness of inattention, is attention. Therefore, awareness of thought is the ending of thought. Momentarily I see my thought and at least briefly, in that moment there is a pause in thought.

Elsewhere K says that self knowledge is the beginning of meditation. What is self knowledge? It is awareness of every thought. Seeing a thought, which may be attachment to something. At least momentarily, the seeing is the dropping.

K says the first step is the last step. The first step, self knowledge, awareness of thought, is the last step, meditation, the ending of thought.

We, however, usually don't see any of this. Why? Because we indulge in thought. That is, we think something, notice the thinking, it ends ever so briefly, and then we take up thinking again readily. We drown endlessly in thought.

But if you begin to look, to inquire, you can notice a little space, a little pause. And that is everything.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 08 Jan 2020 #58
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5546 posts in this forum Offline

Douglas MacRae-Smith wrote:
Is thought possible when there is awareness? - Is it possible to think and be attentive at the same time?

This is what I am asking myself. I am not bringing in K as authority, but remembering that he used to ask:

"Can thought be aware of itself?"

Of course this is a question, not a statement. It may be a wrong assumption to think he was making the statement that it can.

I think he was emphasising thought being aware of itself directly, rather than in the illusion of the thinker being aware of "his" thoughts. It seems to me - I say this tentatively, that it can, and when it does, thought dies.

PS Douglas, when you quote from me (or anyone) please make it clear when I am actually quoting K. As in your post #55

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 08 Jan 2020 #59
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5546 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Can you share a little of what follows in the discussion between K and Bohm, Clive?

Yes, I was certainly intending to do that, Tom.

K: I feel that attention is the real solution to all this - a mind which is really attentive, which has understood the nature of inattention and moves away from it!

DB: But first, what is the nature of inattention?

K: Indolence, negligence, self-concern, self-contradiction - all that is the nature of inattention.

DB: Yes. You see, a person who has self-concern may feel that he is attending but he is simply concerned with himself.

K: Yes. If there is self contradiction in me, and I pay attention to it in order not to be self-contradictory, that is not attention.

DB: But can we make this clear, because ordinarily one might think that this is attention.

K: No, it is not. It is merely a process of thought, which says, `I am this, I must not be that'.

DB: So you are saying that this attempt to become, is not attention.

K: Yes, that's right. Because the psychological becoming breeds inattention.

DB: Yes.

K: Isn't it very difficult, Sir, to be free of becoming? That is the root of it. To end becoming.

DB: Yes. There is no attention, and that is why these problems are there.

K: Yes, and when you point that out, the paying attention also becomes a problem.

DB: The difficulty is that the mind plays tricks, and in trying to deal with this, it does the very same thing again.

K: Of course. Can the mind, which is so full of knowledge, self-importance, self-contradiction, and all the rest of it, come to a point where it finds itself psychologically unable to move?

The whole discussion, like practically all of K's talks and discussions is available at:

http://jiddu-krishnamurti.net/en/the-ending-of-time/1980-09-27-jiddu-krishnamurti-the-ending-of-time-can-personal-problems-be-solved-and-fragmentation-end

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 09 Jan 2020 #60
Thumb_spock Douglas MacRae-Smith France 144 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
PS Douglas, when you quote from me (or anyone) please make it clear when I am actually quoting K. As in your post #55

Noted.

Look, see, let go

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 31 - 60 of 93 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.)