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

reflections at the end of the year.


Displaying posts 151 - 177 of 177 in total
Tue, 28 Jan 2020 #151
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 832 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote at #100:
It can be threatening for thought to question its belief of what is 'right' and what is 'wrong'. You and I may not want to do that. But right and wrong is always changing depending on the era, society, the civilization one is living in, isn't it?...But really, is there such a thing as universal right and wrong or is it always subjective?

Dan,

Are you saying that, outside of thought, there’s no such thing as evil or goodness? I don't mean as opposites of each other, but as facts. Are you saying that outside of thought, beyond words, there is neither good or evil as facts, that it’s only subjective opinion?

We see that thought condemns war and thought also wages war, profits by it, praises it, justifies it. Does that mean that, beyond the word, war is neither wrong nor right?

We see that thought believes in and praises compassion, virtue, morality, and so on. Does that mean that, beyond thought, there’s no such thing as virtue, morality, compassion?

As I see it, it’s a far cry from realizing that the morality of thought is immoral, to therefore concluding that therefore there’s no such thing as moral and immoral action, no such thing as right and wrong action. There is no condemnation or praise in the stillness of thought. But there is unfragmented perception - of good, evil, compassion, hate, war, the sky and trees, and so on.

Evil is perceived. Just because thought condemns evil doesn’t mean that there’s no evil. To perceive evil, is not to condemn it. That perception is action. Just because thought names this "thing" evil or that “thing” a tree, doesn’t mean there’s no “thing” beyond the word, does it?

Compassion is not an idea or a value. Compassion - the thing, not the word - is not pretense. Compassion is not subjective. Beyond the word, there is such a thing as compassion. No? To perceive or feel compassion is not to praise it.

This post was last updated by Huguette . Tue, 28 Jan 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 28 Jan 2020 #152
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5683 posts in this forum Offline

Manfred Kritzler wrote:
I think my difficulty is to understand how does action comedirectly out of awareness without any thought process.

If I may ask, why is this a difficulty, Manfred? Does this indicate that you have an expectation that things are otherwise? Do you have an assumption, perhaps hidden, that awareness itself cannot act?

If so, where has this assumption come from? Do you have any direct evidence in your life that awareness cannot act directly?

We have direct evidence to the contrary – that is, we see that awareness DOES act - when faced with an unexpected physical challenge, a physical danger, do we not? I myself have had numerous examples of this, and I have heard other people relate similar experiences. The common characteristic of all these experiences is that thought is not active. Thought instantly drops out of the picture when the body is faced with danger, is aware of danger. It is very interesting.

Clearly things are not so simple when it comes to what we might call “psychological danger” (we could go into what that means exactly). Then we see thought trying to protect itself, through its own creations, its own image-building. As you have suggested, thought obscures awareness, so perhaps in psychological danger, or psychological challenge, awareness generally is often not given a chance to act. But I see no reason to assume that awareness CANNOT act directly. If fact, when one quietly watches, I think one can observe many occasions when it does.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 28 Jan 2020 #153
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5683 posts in this forum Offline

Manfred Kritzler wrote:
But to recognize a house on fire concerning humanity needs for me an idea what it means when a house is not on fire

To feel the horror of a human being killing or deliberately hurting another human being - does that really need comparison with some imagined state of not-hurting?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 28 Jan 2020 #154
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3259 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Evil is perceived. Just because thought condemns evil doesn’t mean that there’s no evil. To perceive evil, is not to condemn it. That perception is action. Just because thought names this "thing" evil or that “thing” a tree, doesn’t mean there’s no “thing” beyond the word, does it?

I was attempting to make the same point a while back and I’m glad you took it up here, Huguette. I mentioned previously my first awareness of the Holocaust as a young child and the effect it had on me. It was so profound and horrifying that it made a lifelong impression on me. But the important point is that it was beyond judgments and condemnation....totally beyond words. The overwhelming sense of evil...the insanity...gross inhumanity was totally overwhelming to me as a young child. There was no time for words or judgments...the effect of seeing the evil of man was instantaneous. I watched a newsreel of the Holocaust on TV, having never heard of it before, and my whole being was shaken with the overwhelming evil. I felt like I was stuck in a horrible nightmare but at the same time realizing it was actually true...real. That this was done by humans....that this was our life. Again my contact with child abuse. Is it just the conditioned mind that says this is evil? One sees it and one’s whole being recoils with the horror. This is why k talked so passionately about the ‘wrong turn’, isn’t it? If there was no ‘wrong’ (not relative, but absolute), then why talk about it so passionately over his lifetime of talks?

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 28 Jan 2020 #155
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3259 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
To feel the horror of a human being killing or deliberately hurting another human being - does that really need comparison with some imagined state of not-hurting?

Right...it’s a direct perception of evil that goes right to the center of our being ...not a relative evil. It’s the ‘sin’ talked about in the Bible, isn’t it? Though I have little knowledge of the Old or New Testaments, I must admit. See my post above...

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Tue, 28 Jan 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 28 Jan 2020 #156
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1718 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
. Beyond the word, there is such a thing as compassion.

Maybe we can make this clearer, for me anyway. The 'vestal virgin' is chosen to be sacrificed and and she is told it is a great honor...her parents are proud that their child has been chosen to be killed. One tribe slaughters rapes and pillages and because they are also cannibals feast on their victims, there is good cheer all around. Soldiers march off to war to do God's bidding and they kill thousands in his name. The inquisitor breaks men on the rack for their own salvation. Witches are burned because they are a danger to the community. Blacks are lynched and hung and people take pictures, it is a celebration. Children are sex-trafficked, men enjoy using them, the nazis starve and gas and burn millions taking the gold out of their teeth and then go home and picnic and play with their children, soldiers kill strangers and get medals,,..etc., etc. It's obviously relative: what's good for the nazi is bad for the jew, what's bad for the black is good for the white, ...But what seems to me to be missing here in all this 'activity' is "Compassion", yes? There is belief, tradition, greed, patriotism, but no true Compassion... K. at one point used the word "evil" to describe the 'self', not every self of course, but the self's potential? The 'self' is the absence of Compassion? 'Evil' is the absence of Compassion? 'Evil' is the absence of 'Good' not its opposite? As 'dark' is the absence of 'light', not its opposite? "Where the self is, the Other is not".

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Tue, 28 Jan 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 28 Jan 2020 #157
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3259 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
It's obviously relative: what's good for the nazi is bad for the jew..

It’s relative for the thinking brain that’s divided (nazi vs Jew) but if directly perceived evil is a fact that is seen. Evil is evil...the wrong turn...or absence of compassion as you say

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Tue, 28 Jan 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 28 Jan 2020 #158
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1718 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Evil is evil...

?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 28 Jan 2020 #159
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 832 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote at 156:
It's obviously relative: what's good for the nazi is bad for the jew, what's bad for the black is good for the white

Are you saying that evil is relative and compassion is absolute? Are you saying that evil is the absence of compassion but that compassion is NOT the absence of evil? That compassion is real and evil is only an idea?

Can evil be understood only in terms of compassion? It’s true that there is no compassion IN evil, but does that mean that evil IS the absence of compassion? Similarly, there is no evil IN compassion, but is compassion the mere absence of evil? As I see it, both evil and compassion exist in the same space and so each one can be perceived as the tree is perceived, without thought, naming or explaining.

The intellect can “give” evil meaning, explain it, rationalize it, and so on. But the truth of evil can only be understood through perception. Perception is not an explanation based on thought. But perception CAN be shared through words if there is a shared interest. There can be communication, mutual understanding. I could be wrong.

And in what way is what’s bad for the jew, “good” for the nazi, or what’s bad for the black, “good” for the white? If I am the victim of evil or a compassionate witness to it, do I actually experience/feel/see evil as good because my culture says it is good? How is evil relative? Only the intellect in its isolated tower rationalizes and "sees" evil actions as good. Only the intellect, isolated in its protective tower, says that it is relative. No?

It’s not necessary to condemn the evildoers, nor to rationalize or explain their actions. What the 1% is doing is also evil, isn’t it? They are plundering, killing, torturing, aren’t they? And the rationalizations and justifications for their actions do not alter the evil of what they are doing. The 1% and their lackeys also “see” this evil as “good”.

Then there are those who desire or are driven to respond to evil in kind, and I understand that. But I also understand that the response in kind perpetuates evil so that evil flourishes and continues in perpetuity.

And the action of black holes is not evil, as I see it.

This post was last updated by Huguette . Tue, 28 Jan 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 28 Jan 2020 #160
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1718 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Are you saying that evil is the absence of compassion but that compassion is NOT the absence of evil? That compassion is real and evil is only an idea?

Well yes but I can't 'prove' it. Remembering that the words Compassion, Love, Intelligence, Wisdom...all are pointers at something indescribable. My compassion is ,could you say, a 'reflection' of the true Compassion, my compassion is limited, it has borders, it extends to only some and not all, etc. True Compassion has no limits, no division...in the same way true Awareness has no limits, no judgements, it shines on all alike. So yes, evil is the absence of these 'blessings'. Evil can only act in the 'dark' as I see it...this conversation started in relation to the K. statement that the 'what is' is sacred...and I commented because I had an insight that seemed to say that this is so, not partially so, but so. And Tom implied that he couldn't see what was so 'sacred' about people murdering people. So the 'sacred' K. was seeing was obviously not the 'sacred' that we usually understand that word to mean. Which I think not only included all the 'mischief' that goes on on our little planet but extends out as well to those 'voracious' black holes and beyond.(?)

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Tue, 28 Jan 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 28 Jan 2020 #161
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 93 posts in this forum Offline

Somewhere K talks about society's morality, which is obviously false and fluctuates, and real morality which is the action of love. When the heart/mind is quiet and open, when awareness is, love is. That alone is true morality, yes?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 28 Jan 2020 #162
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 832 posts in this forum Offline

re 160:

Dan,

My question was not whether compassion is unlimited and evil is limited. As I see it, it is so: compassion has NO limits or borders within which it appears; and evil HAS limits in that it appears only where thought is, where choice and desire, and so on, are. Compassion appears spontaneously, unexpectedly; it is not preceded by, or rooted in, thought or consciousness. Evil appears only where thought-as-self is, within the confines of a self-centred approach to life. Not all thought is evil, but all evil is rooted in thought.

Black holes, tigers, scorpions, earthquakes, floods are not evil. They are not rooted in thought and they do not purposely set out to inflict pain or to gather obedience, power, admiration, riches. They can be calamities for man and other animals, depending on the circumstances, and man and other animals do what they can for security and survival.

To me, it is meaningless to say that evil is merely the absence of compassion. Does compassion arise where there is no suffering? As I see it, compassion is not a reaction of the past, of thought. It is the spontaneous response OF life TO suffering that is witnessed in the moment.

So, yes, I see that awareness, compassion, love, and so on, have no limits; and that evil is limited by thought. But that doesn’t make evil not “real”. Fear and ambition are thought and they are real.

It is a question of perceiving and understanding the nature of every “thing”. Ultimately, everything we talk about on the forum has to do with self-understanding, with perception. For understanding, nothing can be taken for granted or accepted on authority.

As far as I can understand, you are giving “silence” a special meaning which is not what I mean by silence. Silence to me is the stillness of thought. Silence is awareness, observation, listening, looking, affection, and so on. I (not the “I”, but the functional I) observe that where thought is still, understanding comes. This is the action of direct perception. But I don’t understand being in the “embrace” of silence. There is no direct perception or understanding of that.

https://jkrishnamurti.org/content/there-god
The very simplicity of that statement, "'what is’ is the most sacred", leads to great misunderstanding, because we don't see the truth of it. If you see that what is is sacred, you do not murder, you do not make war, you do not hope, you do not exploit. Having done these things you cannot claim immunity from a truth which you have violated. The white man who says to the black rioter, "What is is sacred, do not interfere, do not burn", has not seen, for if he had, the Negro would be sacred to him, and there would be no need to burn. So if each one of us sees this truth there must be change. This seeing of the truth is change.

This post was last updated by Huguette . Tue, 28 Jan 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 28 Jan 2020 #163
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1718 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
K. So if each one of us sees this truth (that 'what is' is the most sacred) there must be change. This seeing of the truth is change.

I would say that seeing this, is change. It is the ending of "hope", the ending of time: in seeing the falsity of psychological past, present, future. The ending of 'becoming'...of fear...the ending of everything that is a result of one's not seeing simply that 'what is' is the most sacred.

In fact I'd add, that it may be that the original meaning of the word 'heresy' was the not seeing the 'what is' as sacred.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Tue, 28 Jan 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 28 Jan 2020 #164
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3259 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Tom Paine wrote:

Evil is evil...
?

In the sense that a tree is a tree and an apple is an apple. We can see it for what it is. An apple is not a tiger.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 28 Jan 2020 #165
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 93 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell quoted:

Krishnamurti: If there is no illusion, what is left?

Questioner: Only what is.

Krishnamurti: The "what is" is the most holy.

Questioner: If the "what is" is the most holy then war is most holy, and hatred, disorder, pain, avarice and plunder. Then we must not speak of any change at all. If "what is" is sacred, then every murderer and plunderer and exploiter can say, "Don't touch me, what I'm doing is sacred".

Krishnamurti: The very simplicity of that statement, " `what is' is the most sacred", leads to great misunderstanding, because we don't see the truth of it. If you see that what is is sacred, you do not murder, you do not make war, you do not hope, you do not exploit.

What an extraordinary quote. Thank you, Clive Elwell, for posting this.

I love the way the questioner challenges K: "What is" includes a tremendous amount of evil going on in the world, doesn't it? That is holy?

K's answer is amazing. What is transforms! It is not that the evil going on in the world stops. It does not. It is not even that you step out and are no longer a part of the world, this world that includes so much evil.

Seeing murder, "you do not murder." Which, by the way, is going to keep meat off your plate. Seeing war, "you do not make war." Which, by the way, means not getting into pointless arguments on kinfonet. Seeing hope, you do not hope. Seeing exploitation, you do not exploit.

There ceases to be a you. And the sacred is, the energy, the vibrant.

This is so important. The truth is not exclusion. The violence, the cruelty, the horrors of the world are not subtracted. The whole is. Yet there is moment to moment transformation, in awareness, in love.

Very amazing quote.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Wed, 29 Jan 2020 #166
Thumb_open-uri20200202-16653-rg2qz5-0 Mina Martini Finland 418 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
Seeing murder, "you do not murder." Which, by the way, is going to keep meat off your plate. Seeing war, "you do not make war." Which, by the way, means not getting into pointless arguments on kinfonet. Seeing hope, you do not hope. Seeing exploitation, you do not exploit.

There ceases to be a you. And the sacred is, the energy, the vibrant.

Mina: Yes, this is so.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 29 Jan 2020 #167
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5683 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
What an extraordinary quote.

Yes. And thank you, Id, for drawing attention to it with your response.

I echo Mina. I will post your words again:

idiot ? wrote:
Seeing murder, "you do not murder." Which, by the way, is going to keep meat off your plate. Seeing war, "you do not make war." Which, by the way, means not getting into pointless arguments on kinfonet. Seeing hope, you do not hope. Seeing exploitation, you do not exploit.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 29 Jan 2020 #168
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1718 posts in this forum Offline

I have an observation that might be of interest in this "sacred" business. I think that it is tied to my being able to be in the midst of nature with the comings and goings of the birds and animals with little interruptions by humans. My impression of them as they go about their activities is that they live 100% in the present instant. It is understandable that that is so because of the predator/prey relationship. Anyone of them can be snatched at any moment. But in contrast to them I have no such need. In observing them I am observing the 'actual', what is taking place in the 'now', where they have their 'being'...as well as 'my' body which is also in this 'now' but with a difference, and that is thought/thinking. While they the animals are in the instant, always ready to flee or fight, it is different with me. My senses are reflecting the environment around me but it is thought/thinking that overtakes, or 'subsumes, their functioning to its own. While the senses are presenting the 'actual' to the best of their ability, thought slides backward to a 'past' and forwards to a future, none of which is 'actual'. Thought/thinking even has its own 'present' or 'now' which it overlays the actual one which is of the senses:sight,hearing, smell, touch, etc. It is, if the actual moment is a 'page' or a 'sentence','thought' is a whole 'book'... that it can go backwards and forwards in...replacing, overshadowing the 'actual' present with its own 'reality'.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 29 Jan 2020 #169
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5683 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Thought/thinking even has its own 'present' or 'now' which it overlays the actual one which is of the senses:sight,hearing, smell, touch, etc. It is, if the actual moment is a 'page' or a 'sentence','thought' is a whole 'book'... that it can go backwards and forwards in...replacing, overshadowing the 'actual' present with its own 'reality',

I think something is eluding me here. Can you explain in a different way? I understand that thought is continually creating its own reality but not sure what you mean by:

Dan McDermott wrote:
thought/thinking even has its own 'present' or 'now' which it overlays the actual one which is of the senses:sight,hearing, smell, touch, etc

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 30 Jan 2020 #170
Thumb_open-uri20200202-16653-rg2qz5-0 Mina Martini Finland 418 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
thought/thinking even has its own 'present' or 'now' which it overlays the actual one which is of the senses:sight,hearing, smell, touch, etc

Mina: Yes, thought is its ideas of past/present/future. What it cannot realise because it can only move through the illusion of becoming which is the psychological time, is that all the past/present/future are all contained in this moment. More accurately, they drop away completely when one is 'in the moment' where any 'becoming' becomes an impossibility ..

This post was last updated by Mina Martini Thu, 30 Jan 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 30 Jan 2020 #171
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 832 posts in this forum Offline

Manfred Kritzler wrote at 148:
Life includes choiceless awareness. Choiceless awareness includes the proprioception of thought, but is not thought. It is complete stillness which is aware. Thought without proprioception is what you called isolated thought?

I don’t understand why you are talking about proprioception in the context of observing the workings of one’s mind. What is “the proprioception of thought”? (“Proprioception, also referred to as kinaesthesia, is the sense of self-movement and body position.” (Wikipedia))

What I mean by “isolated thought” is self. Self is the product of thought which separates itself from itself, imagining a separate self, a duality. Self is separate from the rest and so, isolated.

Manfred Kritzler wrote:
But to recognize a house on fire concerning humanity needs for me an idea what it means when a house is not on fire. I think it needs duality and therefore thought.

If you see a child falling off his bicycle, isn’t there immediate action? Is that action rooted in thought? Is it because thought is “telling me” that the child might need help, that I understand that the child might need help? Who or what is the “me-separate-from-thought” that needs thought in order to understand? Is there not a spontaneous action which is not propelled by thought? Do “I” need the duality of imagining the child on his bike before I can act to help the child who has fallen?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 30 Jan 2020 #172
Thumb_avatar Manfred Kritzler Germany 86 posts in this forum Offline

Manfred:
I think my difficulty is to understand how does action comedirectly out of awareness without any thought process.

Clive:
If I may ask, why is this a difficulty, Manfred? Does this indicate that you have an expectation that things are otherwise? Do you have an assumption, perhaps hidden, that awareness itself cannot act?

—————-
Manfred:
Thank you very much Clive for this questioning. It looks like I really had a hidden assumption. Not that awareness cannot act, but awareness cannot recognize.

I think I treated “the house is on fire” in the same way like how to construct a car or a radio.

For me there is a difference between something which is completely outside of us and something we are involved as human beings. To construct a car we need thought. To ask, do we as humans need this car thought is not sufficient.

The question, is the house on fire?, in connection with a real house might need thought in the sense zo recognize how is the fire handled in the best way.

If the question concerns humanity a direct recognition is not only possible, but necessary.

As you said in a big danger we act immediately without a thought process as intermediary. The question is: Do we really see a big
danger for us in the way we usually behave?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 30 Jan 2020 #173
Thumb_avatar Manfred Kritzler Germany 86 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette:
I don’t understand why you are talking about proprioception in the context of observing the workings of one’s mind. What is “the proprioception of thought”? (“Proprioception, also referred to as kinaesthesia, is the sense of self-movement and body position.” (Wikipedia))

What I mean by “isolated thought” is self. Self is the product of thought which separates itself from itself, imagining a separate self, a duality. Self is separate from the rest and so, isolated.
———-

I used the term proprioception of thought because it was a central expression for David Bohm. But more important is, that it is seen that self is a construction of our mind. As you say self means separation from itself.

Do you agree that in the moment self is observed in choiceless awareness it is dissolved?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 30 Jan 2020 #174
Thumb_avatar Manfred Kritzler Germany 86 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette:
If you see a child falling off his bicycle, isn’t there immediate action? Is that action rooted in thought? Is it because thought is “telling me” that the child might need help, that I understand that the child might need help? Who or what is the “me-separate-from-thought” that needs thought in order to understand? Is there not a spontaneous action which is not propelled by thought? Do “I” need the duality of imagining the child on his bike before I can act to help the child who has fallen.

—————
Manfred: You are completely right. Thank you very much for this contribution. It supports my realization that a hidden assumption was active I did not see.

Recognition and action does really not need thought when humans are concerned.

This post was last updated by Manfred Kritzler Thu, 30 Jan 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 30 Jan 2020 #175
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5683 posts in this forum Offline

Manfred Kritzler wrote #172:
As you said in a big danger we act immediately without a thought process as intermediary. The question is: Do we really see a big
danger for us in the way we usually behave?

Indeed, that is a crucial question, Manfred

It becomes clearer and clearer to me that the "usual behaviour" of people can have a tremendously negative, destructive effect. And this may go beyond the obvious direct effects on others and society, it may be contributing to the general deterioration in human consciousness.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 30 Jan 2020 #176
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 93 posts in this forum Offline

Manfred Kritzler wrote:
If you see a child falling off his bicycle, isn’t there immediate action? Is that action rooted in thought?

Really this depends on how nit picky you want to be. Clearly, when a child falls there is no deliberative thought: "Hmm. Should I help the child? Well, maybe. Maybe not. I might get sued..."

No. Without any internal dialogue, action immediately happens and helping is. But there is brain activity controlling the muscles and that could be understood as a kind of thought. So there is no internal mental discussion, no back and forth. But if you want to be picky, there is some kind of brain involvement in moving the muscles and coming to the rescue.

My understanding is that K does not call the latter "thought," but rather "action without idea." And action without idea is a very important K teaching. It means that awareness is not merely passive, but rather that it can and does act, and that action is love.

This post was last updated by idiot ? Thu, 30 Jan 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 31 Jan 2020 #177
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5683 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
It means that awareness is not merely passive, but rather that it can and does act, and that action is love.

Why do you use that word "love", Id?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 151 - 177 of 177 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.)