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

To see thought as merely thought


Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 127 in total
Sun, 02 Feb 2020 #1
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5683 posts in this forum Offline

Not only is the description not the described, all descriptions, psychologically, are false. They can rightly be called 'lies', as Mina described in a recent post. Descriptions are abstractions. Thought is an abstraction, and so is not true. This very much applies to what I am writing here, sentence by sentence.

Thought is merely thought. Although the vast majority of people assume that thought is true, (or at least their own thought is true, the other fellow's thought is false, unless it agrees with his), is some sort of absolute, it is not. Thought is merely thought, some 'reality' created by the mind.

All this may be taken as a description, or a theory, an abstraction, and people may nod, they may agree or disagree, and pass on to something else. This indications that it has not been SEEN that thought is merely thought. It has not been experienced as a fact. If it IS seen, then that seeing has a tremendous effect on the mind. It takes away any vestige of certainty. All that one thought one knew is revealed as merely thought. Any sense of firm ground under one's feet is swept away.

Thought comes and goes. It has no solidity. No one thought persists, no thought has permanency. But it pretends to. So how come thought has achieved some dominance? How come it has become the very basis of civilisation, of society, as it is always collapsing? Surely because thought pretends to be a permanent entity? Thought has created the SELF, which is supposed to have continuity, permanence.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 03 Feb 2020 #2
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 878 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Thought is an abstraction, and so is not true.

May i point you to the distinction between true and truth.

Thought can be true without being truth.

I can twist myself in all sorts of ways to describe this in terms other than K., but that does not alter the fact.

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 03 Feb 2020 #3
Thumb_spock Douglas MacRae-Smith France 212 posts in this forum Offline

True : Correct, real, sincere, accurate.

Truth: That which is true.

Wim Opdam wrote:
May i point you to the distinction between true and truth.

Yes - Please point it out some more. I'm having difficulty grasping what you mean.

I'm Under the impression that it is very difficult to say (or think ) anything about "reality" that is not somehow incorrect. Thought is usually a relative, subject/object oriented construction.

Is this true ?: "Its impossible to state absolute truths"

As for "the Absolute Truth" - this is like God: Unknown.

Look, see, let go

This post was last updated by Douglas MacRae-Smith Mon, 03 Feb 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 03 Feb 2020 #4
Thumb_spock Douglas MacRae-Smith France 212 posts in this forum Offline

Another Question:
Do we have thoughts that cannot be expressed verbally?

Are there thoughts that are too complex/subtle to be translated into language? (Its the same question)

Look, see, let go

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 03 Feb 2020 #5
Thumb_open-uri20200202-16653-rg2qz5-0 Mina Martini Finland 418 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Clive>All this may be taken as a description, or a theory, an abstraction, and people may nod, they may agree or disagree, and pass on to something else. This indications that it has not been SEEN that thought is merely thought. It has not been experienced as a fact. If it IS seen, then that seeing has a tremendous effect on the mind. It takes away any vestige of certainty. All that one thought one knew is revealed as merely thought. Any sense of firm ground under one's feet is swept away.

Mina: Not only is the 'firm' (not quite firm at all but rather moving sand!) ground under one's feet swept away but also the one who thought he was standing on that ground, since indeed, it is all the same moving sand!!

Together with this miraculous blessed collapse of the false there is no one left to feel certainty or uncertainty (which are ideas created by divided thought) 'any more' (not meaning time).

Only then does one discover peace out of this world and yet not in any distance from anything...it is the absolute certainty that knows nothing..

This post was last updated by Mina Martini Mon, 03 Feb 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 03 Feb 2020 #6
Thumb_open-uri20200202-16653-rg2qz5-0 Mina Martini Finland 418 posts in this forum Offline

Douglas MacRae-Smith wrote:
Is this true ?: "Its impossible to state absolute truths"

Mina: Dear Douglas, interesting posts from you...

To the above:

Yes, it is impossible to state absolute truths in the sense that truth is not a word..and yet, it is possible to talk IN TRUTH in which case the words act as direct pointers to truth as possible, yet never touching its essence.

When language comes from the mental division, it is always pointing back to itself, as the observer and observed, past perpetuating itself.

When the mental division is no longer acting in the words through complete awareness of the falseness of it, the subject/object division appears only at the level of grammar, and has no deeper meaning or reality. Language itself still remains relative of course and has to obey the grammar, its own beautiful order!

This post was last updated by Mina Martini Mon, 03 Feb 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 03 Feb 2020 #7
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 878 posts in this forum Offline

Douglas MacRae-Smith wrote:
Is this true ?: "Its impossible to state absolute truths"

I am sure this is false because there are no truthts, there is only one truth and one characteristic of it is that it has no opposite.

Take for example that someone is enlightened, whatever that someone is saying is true or false in the sence that it is not what is but only a description from that state of being.

In stead of enlightened one can fill in every other word, like jalousy, hatred, greedy and so on , and so on.!

Make this the difference somewhat clearer?.

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

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Tue, 04 Feb 2020 #8
Thumb_open-uri20200202-16653-rg2qz5-0 Mina Martini Finland 418 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Thought comes and goes. It has no solidity. No one thought persists, no thought has permanency.

Mina: To whom do the thoughts come? -Not to anyone, right, because that 'someone' is the illusion of an owner, observer, that keeps stamping every arising thought as 'mine'...in its desire to possess...

This phenomenon of the observer and observed is indeed the state of being possessed. It can only survive, however, if the truth of the possessor being the possessed is not fully exposed in oneself.

If it is seen that thought comes and goes but to no one, that 'no one' IS the silent awareness, the peace out of this world, that which does not change (in being beyond change and changeless), your true nature..

This post was last updated by Mina Martini Tue, 04 Feb 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 04 Feb 2020 #9
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5683 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
Mina: To whom do the thoughts come? -Not to anyone, right, because that 'someone' is the illusion of an owner, observer, that keeps stamping every arising thought as 'mine'...in its desire to possess...

Hmm, I was asking a similar question at a dialogue on Sunday. Thought appears as if it is trying to communicate something. To whom or what is it trying to communicate, to inform? it certainly appears that it is "not to anyone"

A similar illusion behind thought is that there is someone who is doing the thinking. That also does not stand up to much scrutiny.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 04 Feb 2020 #10
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5683 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
Thought can be true without being truth

Do you mean, Wim, that thought can be consistent within itself, in its own field?

I can understand "true" as meaning an accurate representation, a perfect mirror, but at the moment the meaning of "truth" escapes me.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 04 Feb 2020 #11
Thumb_avatar Manfred Kritzler Germany 86 posts in this forum Offline

Clive: I can understand "true" as meaning an accurate representation, a perfect mirror, but at the moment the meaning of "truth" escapes me.
————
Manfred: I think the final „truth“ cannot be expressed in words, because it has no opposite. For me it is very interesting what Niels Bohr meant to this issue:

“The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth.” Niels Bohr

That means for me that any profound truth which is put into words has an opposite which is interconnected with it. This led to Niels Bohr‘s complementary principle, that the world can not be described in one statement.

My interpretation: To describe the world as a whole we are forced to make a statement and a second one which means the opposite of it. Or at least are conscious of an existing opposite.

This is for me no contradiction to Krishnamurti’s : Truth is a pathless land.

This post was last updated by Manfred Kritzler Tue, 04 Feb 2020.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 2 readers
Back to Top
Wed, 05 Feb 2020 #12
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5683 posts in this forum Offline

Manfred Kritzler wrote:
This led to Niels Bohr‘s complementary principle, that the world can not be described in one statement.

I have never heard of this before, interesting. But it seems to me this is more a statement about the mind, about the fragmentary nature of thought, rather than a statement about the nature of the world.

Yes, thought can NEVER be a complete description of anything. That is true in all fields, scientific, psychological, so-called spiritual. And it is essential to understand it, to live it. So much damage is done by people who believe they know the truth, who think what they think is some sort of absolute.

Thought need to be accompanied by the awareness that it is merely thought, and so limited. "Limited" is too mild a word, perhaps.

This post was last updated by Clive Elwell Wed, 05 Feb 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 05 Feb 2020 #13
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 878 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Do you mean, Wim, that thought can be consistent within itself, in its own field?

Did you not answered this yoursef by:

Clive Elwell wrote:
Yes, thought can NEVER be a complete description of anything.

Feeling the teaching as thought being consistent and is only Truth when lived.

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 05 Feb 2020 #14
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 878 posts in this forum Offline

Manfred Kritzler wrote:
That means for me that any profound truth which is put into words has an opposite which is interconnected with it. This led to Niels Bohr‘s complementary principle, that the world can not be described in one statement.

Would this not been more correct by saying:

An opposite in words ?

The Truth stays the same but the expression in words * seems like
an opppsite but really, actually isn't.

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

This post was last updated by Wim Opdam Wed, 05 Feb 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 05 Feb 2020 #15
Thumb_open-uri20200202-16653-rg2qz5-0 Mina Martini Finland 418 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
The Truth stays the same but the expression in words * seems like
an opppsite but really, actually isn't.

Mina: Wow yes Wim, absolutely! The thing is to see beyond the appearances of opposites when there are none!

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 05 Feb 2020 #16
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5683 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:

Clive Elwell wrote:

Do you mean, Wim, that thought can be consistent within itself, in its own field?

Wim Did you not answered this yoursef by:

Clive Elwell wrote:

Yes, thought can NEVER be a complete description of anything.

Wim Feeling the teaching as thought being consistent and is only Truth when lived.

It feels very clear that thought, as it is now, can never be consistent. Sooner of later (and often very soon indeed) thought produces contradiction.. Thought IS contradiction.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 05 Feb 2020 #17
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5683 posts in this forum Offline

"Seeing thought as merely thought" is closely related to K's statement:

The description is never the described.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 06 Feb 2020 #18
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 878 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:

Wim wrote:
Feeling the teaching as thought being consistent and is only Truth when lived.

It feels very clear that thought, as it is now, can never be consistent. Sooner of later (and often very soon indeed) thought produces contradiction.. Thought IS contradiction.

as I understand you correctly, you are talking about the totality of thought and I am talking about a subset within thought. even believing in a certain god is consistent as a subset but as such is wrong.

Hence Krishnaji's statement: "there is no truth in it"!

Thoughts that reinforce themselves or have opposites remain within the thought pattern.

awareness is needed to make the distinction

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 06 Feb 2020 #19
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5683 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
as I understand you correctly, you are talking about the totality of thought and I am talking about a subset within thought. even believing in a certain god is consistent as a subset but as such is wrong.

I would describe it as the consistency of insanity.

As K has said, the man who believes that he is Napolean, who has that illusion totally, completely, that man has no conflict. he is perfectly "consistent", without contradiction. In a way he has found an answer to the problems of life! And perhaps many people live completely within the bubble of an illusion. Perhaps almost everyone does that!

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 06 Feb 2020 #20
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5683 posts in this forum Offline

In the thread: “Stupidity” Tom Paine wrote (quoting K):

All thought, emotion and action springing from the limited consciousness, the "I", gives rise to stupidity. So long as mind is merely a self-defensive, acquisitive entity, any action springing from that must lead to confusion and suffering.”

Yes. This is what I have been trying to express, to share, in the “To see thought as merely thought” thread. This limited consciousness, ie thought and its thinker/thought illusion, can only continue its own stupidity, its own limitation. So ANY action it takes to go beyond itself is futile. Or worse than futile, it only continues and strengthens itself.

This is not just a theory, to be described and and then we pass on, discuss something else. Seeing it as a fact MUST have an effect, surely? We cannot carry on using thought as a tool when the limitations of thought are seen as an absolute fact? And yet the mind seems to do exactly that. Why?

The obvious answer to the question “Why?” is that the mind does not see that all that it attempts in the psychological/spiritual field is futile. But then again I ask the question “Why?”. Why does it not see this? It has had tens of thousands of years in which to see it. But the mind continues as if it is supreme. As if it has the answers.

Perhaps I am mistaken. We could look at that. Perhaps thought is not limited, and IS capable of solving mankind's basic problems, suffering, conflict, fear, cruelty, the violence that is being discussed on the thread “Violence .. in me .. in the World”. Perhaps thought can save us from this chaos. But if that is the case, why has it not done so? It is not through want of trying!

I don't want to turn this into an intellectual discussion. Perhaps it is precisely intellectual discussion that prevents us from seeing the futility of thought.

Does this mean anything to people? I could describe the effect that seeing the futility of thought, the real nature of thought, has on me, but I am more interested to hear from others. Does anyone question when I talk of the futility of thought to bring about transformation of the mind? If not, how does the perception affect them?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 07 Feb 2020 #21
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1718 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
“Why?” is that the mind does not see that all that it attempts in the psychological/spiritual field is futile. But then again I ask the question “Why?”. Why does it not see this? It has had tens of thousands of years in which to see it. But the mind continues as if it is supreme. As if it has the answers.

Maybe it is that it is so obvious that it is the latest evolutionary 'thing' that separates us from the animals here? It is an extraordinary 'thing'. Look around, who or what can do what we do? Most of us are 'enjoying' the fruits of it.But we here are seeing the violence and suffering. Evolutionarily it is quite new. Video games...H-bombs...a mentality gone awry ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 07 Feb 2020 #22
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 878 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
I don't want to turn this into an intellectual discussion. Perhaps it is precisely intellectual discussion that prevents us from seeing the futility of thought.

Why than being consistant to blaim thought entirely while it's only going wrong when its run on its own in the psychological realm, why not consequently bring that under attention?

Not doing that you implicite call for thought to see it right.
Call a cat a cat and not a dog ;-)

P.s.: Thought is part of the whole we only have to use it correctly!

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

This post was last updated by Wim Opdam Fri, 07 Feb 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 07 Feb 2020 #23
Thumb_avatar Manfred Kritzler Germany 86 posts in this forum Offline

Manfred:

That means for me that any profound truth which is put into words has an opposite which is interconnected with it. This led to Niels Bohr‘s complementary principle, that the world can not be described in one statement.
—————

Wim:
Would this not been more correct by saying:

An opposite in words ?

The Truth stays the same but the expression in words * seems like
an opppsite but really, actually isn’t.
—————-
Manfred:

This is exactly my understanding of Niels Bohr‘s statement. It is an opposite of words pointing to the fact that Truth has no opposite.

Why is it so difficult to understand that Truth is beyond our ability to express it? Oneness exists inside and outside of our senses. We are surrounded by it. Oneness includes our graspable consciousness and our thoughts. To be aware of it means to observe the observer (the „point“ where the observed is created) not the already observed. Observing the observer has the effect that both are dissolved. This is for me the same as choiceless awareness which also can only be experienced. The words are an approximation. This statements are developed from my personal experience. They are subjective and open for any different description.

This post was last updated by Manfred Kritzler Fri, 07 Feb 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 07 Feb 2020 #24
Thumb_avatar Manfred Kritzler Germany 86 posts in this forum Offline

Wim: Why than being consistant to blaim thought entirely while it's only going wrong when its run on its own in the psychological realm, why not consequently bring that under attention?
————
Manfred: Yes. This is maybe the only step we can make. Being aware of our own thoughts. No matter if they are technical or psychological. This includes being aware of not being aware.

Any step further is again driven by thought.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 07 Feb 2020 #25
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5683 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
P.s.: Thought is part of the whole we only have to use it correctly!

Perhaps you will feel that I am picking on words, Wim, but to me this whole business of "me" using "thought" is precisely what is wrong with thought. Surely it is an illusory concept? The "me" is not separate from thought, it is created by thought, and so consists OF thought, would you not agree?

In this light, what does it mean for "me" to use "thought"? it is thought trying to use thought, is it not?

And what does "use" mean in this context? The only interpretation I can put on such a concept is control. Thought attempts to control thought, according to the conclusions it has drawn, the "what-should-be's it has created. This implies conflict, and is exactly what is happening in human consciousness at the moment. Isn't this a major cause of chaos?

So I am skeptical of the whole idea of "me using thought". Thought arises spontaneously in the mind, and I know of nothing that can alter this fact.

Awareness of the process is a different matter.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 07 Feb 2020 #26
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5683 posts in this forum Offline

Manfred Kritzler wrote:
Yes. This is maybe the only step we can make. Being aware of our own thoughts. No matter if they are technical or psychological. This includes being aware of not being aware.

But is awareness "a step we can take"? is it something that we can deliberately set about to do? Or is awareness ...... how to put it? ..... a natural process? ..... something visited upon us?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 07 Feb 2020 #27
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3260 posts in this forum Offline

So I am skeptical of the whole idea of "me using thought". Thought arises spontaneously in the mind, and I know of nothing that can alter this fact.

Funny you bring this up today, Clive. I took my wife to a wonderful new physician yesterday. She’s been suffering terribly. I was thinking just last night how wonderful it is that thought can devise medical treatments that relieve human suffering. Look at the vaccines that eliminated such horrible childhood diseases. And of course, we wouldn’t be able to discuss together at all on K net if not for the remarkable inventions of thought

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Fri, 07 Feb 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 07 Feb 2020 #28
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5683 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
And of course, we wouldn’t be able to discuss together at all on K net if not for the remarkable inventions of thought

You are quite right, Tom, our "using thought" has had remarkable outcomes. Good and bad of course. I guess I was talking about psychological thought, but your comments have started a line of thought/enquiry in me.

When 'using thought' in this way, technologically, to manipulate matter, is it necessary for thought to work under a "master controller"? A part of thought that is needed to organise thought?

If this is the case, could this be the origin of the psychological self?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 08 Feb 2020 #29
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3260 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
When 'using thought' in this way, technologically, to manipulate matter, is it necessary for thought to work under a "master controller"? A part of thought that is needed to organise thought?

Hmmm... not sure. I see little children going blind in parts of Africa. I decide (thought) to dedicate my time towards helping to find a solution (the organizer of thought?). Science (thought plus intelligence ?) has shown me that it’s a vitamin deficiency in their diet that has caused this. I work to help provide vitamin A supplements to the little children. Look at the work of scientists like Louis Pasteur

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Sat, 08 Feb 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 08 Feb 2020 #30
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 878 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Perhaps you will feel that I am picking on words, Wim, but to me this whole business of "me" using "thought" is precisely what is wrong with thought.

Aren't you? WHERE do you find 'me' in this reply?

Wim Opdam wrote:
Why than being consistant to blaim thought entirely while it's only going wrong when its run on its own in the psychological realm, why not consequently bring that under attention?

Not doing that you implicite call for thought to see it right.
Call a cat a cat and not a dog ;-)

P.s.: Thought is part of the whole we only have to use it correctly!

Oh, i see, you translate we in me while i ment only we as species! And not as the psychologial level.

What about the P.s. we can't blaim a part of the whole.!

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 127 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.)