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

To see thought as merely thought


Displaying posts 31 - 60 of 127 in total
Sat, 08 Feb 2020 #31
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1718 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?

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

The "master controller" or organizer of thought is 'association' is it not? And the thinking brain also has its own ("beautiful", as Mina put it) rules of syntax: subject, verb, object...There is 'association' from sentence to sentence (thought to thought) and beneath that associative flow is a deeper abiding association which is the subject matter being thought about...This is important obviously in technical matters where 'distraction', 'changing the subject', 'going off on a tangent' etc. interferes with whatever goal is being pursued. But...

When thought 'identifies' itself with the bodily senses and its sensations, and there is the arising of a 'self',a 'me', thought operates in a much less accurate way than in the technical realm where 'identification' doesn't 'need' to take place and has no place. In the technical challenge, likes and dislikes, beliefs, fears, etc aren't of value to the task at hand, only rational thought,...and that is impeded by the presence of a 'self' with its extraneous 'baggage'...

Regarding the use of the pronouns 'I' & 'me', they can be 'identified' thought (thinker/self) regarding itself as a separate entity, or they can refer to a non-personal 'I'/'me' that is the 'awareness' of how one is functioning but without the observer/observed division.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sat, 08 Feb 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 08 Feb 2020 #32
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5683 posts in this forum Offline

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

Wim, I don't understand why you bring in the concept of "blame". Blaming is just another activity of thought. By starting this thread, I was trying to consider the whole phenomena of thought, and its limitations. We can be caught up in the occupations of thought for our whole life, and most people are in fact. And while I admit, as Tom points out, thought has bought great technological advances, that same activity of thought has also created terrible weapons, and in many areas the outcomes are as yet unknown, and might prove to be very destructive indeed, as technology is manipulated for selfish ends.

And apart from technology, thought has produced great chaos, and brought us to the edge of the end of civilisation, perhaps. Do you not agree? Without bringing in blame, thought is the culprit is it not?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 08 Feb 2020 #33
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5683 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:

Regarding the use of the pronouns 'I' & 'me', they can be 'identified' thought (thinker/self) regarding itself as a separate entity, or they can refer to a non-personal 'I'/'me' that is the 'awareness' of how one is functioning but without the observer/observed division.

It would be good to have separate words of phrases that draw this distinction clearly. "The speaker"? "The writer"? "This person"? "one"? But using such phrases sounds so stilted, pretentious even.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 08 Feb 2020 #34
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5683 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
The "master controller" or organizer of thought is 'association' is it not?

Here is an interesting quote from "The Only Revolution" chapter 4:

There is nothing permanent either on earth or in ourselves. Thought can give continuity to something it thinks about; it can give permanency to a word, to an idea, to a tradition. Thought thinks itself permanent, but is it permanent? Thought is the response of memory, and is that memory permanent? It can build an image and give to that image a continuity, a permanency, calling it Atman or whatever you like, and it can remember the face of the husband or the wife and hold on to it. All this is the activity of thought which creates fear, and out of this fear there is the drive for permanency - the fear of not having a meal tomorrow, or shelter - the fear of death. This fear is the result of thought, and Brahman is the product of thought, too.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 09 Feb 2020 #35
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3260 posts in this forum Online

Clive: And while I admit, as Tom points out, thought has bought great technological advances, that same activity of thought has also created terrible weapons, and in many areas the outcomes are as yet unknown, and might prove to be very destructive indeed, as technology is manipulated for selfish ends.

Indeed, when technology is in the hands of a madman like Hitler we see the result. But without very complex technological thinking (think of Marconi and his first radio) we’d still be Stone Age hunter gatherers. Maybe not such a bad thing?

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 09 Feb 2020 #36
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3260 posts in this forum Online

Clive quoting K: “There is nothing permanent either on earth or in ourselves. Thought can give continuity to something it thinks about; it can give permanency to a word, to an idea, to a tradition. Thought thinks itself permanent, but is it permanent? Thought is the response of memory, and is that memory permanent? It can build an image and give to that image a continuity, a permanency, calling it Atman or whatever you like, and it can remember the face of the husband or the wife and hold on to it. All this is the activity of thought which creates fear”

Tom: Yet this sense of permanence...of continuity...is what makes the whole technological world possible! The mathematical formula of today must be used tomorrow...and the next day...the computer must have continuity in order to function...the factory...the electric light...the telephone. Perhaps that’s how it evolved in man....and then turned into psychological continuity...security.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 09 Feb 2020 #37
Thumb_avatar Manfred Kritzler Germany 86 posts in this forum Offline

Clive: 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?

————
I thought many times about the question if there is one step or no step necessary. At the moment I think both answers are right. Talking out of separation there is definitely an action necessary to observe from beyond the area of thought. Talking about the assumed area beyond thought there might be no step.

Krishnamurti:
The first step is the last step. The first step is to perceive, perceive what you are thinking, perceive your ambition, perceive your anxiety, your loneliness, your despair, this extraordinary sense of sorrow, perceive it, without any condemnation, justification, without wishing it to be different. Just to perceive it, as it is. When you perceive it as it is, then there is a totally different kind of action taking place, and that action is the final action.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 09 Feb 2020 #38
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1718 posts in this forum Offline

Manfred Kritzler wrote:
Clive: 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?

Isn't it in 'essence' what we are?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 09 Feb 2020 #39
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5683 posts in this forum Offline

Manfred Kritzler wrote:
I thought many times about the question if there is one step or no step necessary. At the moment I think both answers are right. Talking out of separation there is definitely an action necessary to observe from beyond the area of thought. Talking about the assumed area beyond thought there might be no step.

Manfred, can you enlarge on this, I'm not quite understanding? As you infer, it is an important question. There are a great many people in the world at the moment who are 'practising' awareness, learning 'how to do it' from another.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 09 Feb 2020 #40
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5683 posts in this forum Offline

Manfred Kritzler wrote, quoting K:
Krishnamurti:
The first step is the last step. The first step is to perceive, perceive what you are thinking, perceive your ambition, perceive your anxiety, your loneliness, your despair, this extraordinary sense of sorrow, perceive it, without any condemnation, justification, without wishing it to be different. Just to perceive it, as it is. When you perceive it as it is, then there is a totally different kind of action taking place, and that action is the final action.

I was intending to make a post on the "How is 'what is' sacred thread, but it seems to fit in here.

While I am not claiming to feel the "sacredness" of what is, I do begin to see that seeing what is is a profound thing.

But we do not normally see what is, do we? We think about what is, we form images of what is, we evaluate what is, react to what is, and on. All these movements are the action of thought, they are not just 'seeing'.

It seems that in order to see what is, the 'see-er' or observer must be absent.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 10 Feb 2020 #41
Thumb_open-uri20200202-16653-rg2qz5-0 Mina Martini Finland 418 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Clive: 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?

Dan>Isn't it in 'essence' what we are?

Mina: Yes, it is what we are...-From the point of view of thought 'awareness visits us', but awareness does not visit anything or anyone, it is what we are. Again, only awareness itself realises this. Awareness does not come and go (visits)..it is thought that comes and goes..awareness does neither. And awareness is your essence, everything else are appearances IN it...Without ANY identification with thought, any choice between thoughts, any step of thought in other words, awareness is being revealed as the only Reality. In awareness thought falls into its right place, naturally, beautifully, effortlessly, and it is 'wholeness within' (awareness) that reigns....

This post was last updated by Mina Martini Mon, 10 Feb 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 10 Feb 2020 #42
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 878 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
In awareness thought falls into its right place, naturally, beautifully, effortlessly, and it is 'wholeness within' (awareness) that reigns....

a clear description without any blame due to what is also an indispensable part of our existence.

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 10 Feb 2020 #43
Thumb_open-uri20200202-16653-rg2qz5-0 Mina Martini Finland 418 posts in this forum Offline

Dan:

Regarding the use of the pronouns 'I' & 'me', they can be 'identified' thought (thinker/self) regarding itself as a separate entity, or they can refer to a non-personal 'I'/'me' that is the 'awareness' of how one is functioning but without the observer/observed division.

Mina: Exactly so Dan...

Clive:>It would be good to have separate words of phrases that draw this distinction clearly. "The speaker"? "The writer"? "This person"? "one"? But using such phrases sounds so stilted, pretentious even.

Mina: Clive, to replace one word with another, although I see your point, would not be a fundamental change. -When there is the fundamental change acting in us, which means that the ego is no longer in charge of your life, then I can just as well use personal pronouns without giving any psychological meaning to them..

But since most are so identified with words, and especially if they have studied K's teaching...:-), it can easily happen that if one is caught to use a personal pronoun, :-), it can be misinterpreted as meaning an ego or division...

But here again, that which truly matters is to see beyond all words..only that...

Yet it is wise to be careful with one's expression, since interpretations are in any case taking place as easily as thought arises as an interpreter, but just pointing out that the essence is in self-understanding and not in replacing words with other words..

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 10 Feb 2020 #44
Thumb_open-uri20200202-16653-rg2qz5-0 Mina Martini Finland 418 posts in this forum Offline

Clive,

It is a wrong direction, because it is a path in duality already, to need to create a clear distinction between an impersonal 'I' as all and the 'I' that stands for an ego.

What is truly needed is to see and go to the root of that which appears as the separate ego itself and through it to discover the light of the real 'I' or 'Self'.

That which is one needs not to be distinguised from anything because there are no parts in it.

By itself, intelligence (another word for Self) has the ability to discern between what is true and what is not, BY seeing and being only what is true. Any apparent false cannot but dissolve in its light.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 10 Feb 2020 #45
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3260 posts in this forum Online

Mina Martini wrote:
By itself, intelligence (another word for Self) has the ability to discern between what is true and what is not, BY seeing and being only what is true. Any apparent false cannot but dissolve in its light.

I read your recent posts today Mina, and it’s not clear what you’re saying about being Awareness even when we’re identified with a belief or emotion. Are you saying that underneath our crazy beliefs and ideals what we are is Intelligence, too? That we’re not simply Awareness but are also the Supreme Intelligence/God? That the murderer or insane dictator is in essence the Supreme Intelligence?

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 10 Feb 2020 #46
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1718 posts in this forum Offline

Manfred Kritzler wrote:
Krishnamurti:
The first step is the last step. The first step is to perceive, perceive what you are thinking, perceive your ambition, perceive your anxiety, your loneliness, your despair, this extraordinary sense of sorrow, perceive it, without any condemnation, justification, without wishing it to be different. Just to perceive it, as it is. When you perceive it as it is, then there is a totally different kind of action
taking place, and that action is the final action.

This is a good description of 'awareness'. What makes this clear, nonjudgmental perception so rare I think, is that thought has so dominated the psyche that it resists this 'global' perception through trickery.... It resists by always creating another and another observer/perceiver, subtler than the last one who 'attempts' to perceive oneself 'choicelessly' until there is only the desire to 'escape' to some imagined 'Freedom'...Douglas used the word that is what I'd say, is necessary here:"surrender". It is in that surrender, that 'letting go' that is the first and the last step.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 10 Feb 2020 #47
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3260 posts in this forum Online

Dan McDermott wrote:
It is in that surrender, that 'letting go' that is the first and the last step.

I agree Dan, but there’s no surrender until the trap we’re stuck in is totally understood . So it’s a catch 22 perhaps? We can’t see that any move of thought only tightens our bonds....perpetuates our suffering and until this is understood (self knowledge) there is no surrender to the unknown

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Mon, 10 Feb 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 10 Feb 2020 #48
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1718 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
but there’s no surrender until the trap we’re stuck in is totally understood .

It can only be "understood" in the moment of suffering. I don't know what you mean by "totally" understood. The 'trap' I'd say, lies in 'thinking' that 'time' (to be totally understood e.g.) is necessary before the 'step' can be taken, no? There is no 'preparation' here, no gathering of self-knowledge, no accumulation leading somewhere, is there?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Mon, 10 Feb 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 10 Feb 2020 #49
Thumb_open-uri20200202-16653-rg2qz5-0 Mina Martini Finland 418 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
The 'trap' I'd say, lies in 'thinking' that 'time' (to be totally understood e.g.) is necessary before the 'step' can be taken, no? There is no 'preparation' here, no gathering of self-knowledge, no accumulation leading somewhere, is there?

M: Wonderful, exactly so! There is no time, no condition, no 'first' and 'then' in the nature of the surrender that is talked of.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 10 Feb 2020 #50
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3260 posts in this forum Online

Mina Martini wrote:
Dan McDermott wrote:

The 'trap' I'd say, lies in 'thinking' that 'time' (to be totally understood e.g.) is necessary before the 'step' can be taken, no? There is no 'preparation' here, no gathering of self-knowledge, no accumulation leading somewhere, is there?
M: Wonderful, exactly so! There is no time, no condition, no 'first' and 'then' in the nature of the surrender that is talked of.

K once said it’s like living with a poisonous snake in the room. You’re aware of its every move...aware and alert. This is what watching thought....observing...and understanding means.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 10 Feb 2020 #51
Thumb_open-uri20200202-16653-rg2qz5-0 Mina Martini Finland 418 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
The first step is the last step. The first step is to perceive, perceive what you are thinking, perceive your ambition, perceive your anxiety, your loneliness, your despair, this extraordinary sense of sorrow, perceive it, without any condemnation, justification, without wishing it to be different. Just to perceive it, as it is. When you perceive it as it is, then there is a totally different kind of action
taking place, and that action is the final action.

This is a good description of 'awareness'. What makes this clear, nonjudgmental perception so rare I think, is that thought has so dominated the psyche that it resists this 'global' perception through trickery.... It resists by always creating another and another observer/perceiver, subtler than the last one who 'attempts' to perceive oneself 'choicelessly' until there is only the desire to 'escape' to some imagined 'Freedom'...Douglas used the word that is what I'd say, is necessary here:"surrender". It is in that surrender, that 'letting go' that is the first and the last step.

m: Beautiful, thank you, much appreciated..

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 10 Feb 2020 #52
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3260 posts in this forum Online

Dan McDermott wrote:
Tom Paine wrote:

but there’s no surrender until the trap we’re stuck in is totally understood .
It can only be "understood" in the moment of suffering

Yes of course....not thinking intellectually

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 10 Feb 2020 #53
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3260 posts in this forum Online

Mina, with due respect, I’ll say again, you’re so busy trying to teach that you never take a breath and just listen ...just be humble and be open to what others are trying to communicate . When my wife has a problem I don’t try to teach her how to solve it. I just stay open and listen ....really listen with no filter between us

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Mon, 10 Feb 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 10 Feb 2020 #54
Thumb_open-uri20200202-16653-rg2qz5-0 Mina Martini Finland 418 posts in this forum Offline

Tom is asking...
Are you saying that the murderer or insane dictator is in essence the Supreme Intelligence?

Mina:(let me know if you feel I have violated your words by presenting only that one sentence as the core of what you ask)

No, I am not saying that the murderer is in essence the supreme intelligence. To say so is to be in duality.

I am saying that the essence of any one of us is the same, undivided.

There is no murderer, no dictator, no division, no suffering, no violence or violation of anything in that essence. That is what I am saying.

Therefore intelligence is not the essence 'of a murderer' but it is total absence of anything else than the essence itself.

This post was last updated by Mina Martini Mon, 10 Feb 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 10 Feb 2020 #55
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3260 posts in this forum Online

Mina Martini wrote:
I am saying that the essence of any one of us is the same, undivided.

OK... so far so good . Let me read over the rest

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 10 Feb 2020 #56
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3260 posts in this forum Online

Mina Martini wrote:
There is no murderer, no dictator, no division, no suffering, no violence or violation of anything in that essence. That is what I am saying.

Therefore it is not the essence 'of a murderer' but total absence of anything else than the essence itself.

“All is God ...all but the self.” Bernadette Roberts

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 10 Feb 2020 #57
Thumb_open-uri20200202-16653-rg2qz5-0 Mina Martini Finland 418 posts in this forum Offline

Tom,

On your post no.53

I feel there is violence in any form of judgement of oneself or of another.

I understand that you are describing in a way sincerely your own experience of 'mina', (as sincere as thought can ever be) what she is felt to be like at that end, but I need to point out, for the sake of what is true and only, that no description, no experience, no image, no judgement in the mental realm can ever be without violence and distortion.

I want you to know that I consider these judgements something that should not be just overlooked and accepted. I do not mean 'judgements of mina' especially, but judgements of anyone and anything in the mental realm, including yourself of course.

This is not a personal issue that I am pointing out with concern. It has been with me on and off to write about it, since these judgements are being repeated from you.

The issue is far more serious for this person. It has to do with sensing the sacredness of life itself, and that does not allow for the violence of characterizing one another.

Let there be serious respect of one another here.

I do not mean adopting some fake manners of polite behaviour to cover any negative arising emotions, but let us be serious enough and watchful of ourselves when these emotions arise so as not to project them onto others.
Is this kind of observation of oneself not essential to/in self-inquiry?

I feel I wanted to say this to you, because I do not feel it is right just to keep accepting repeated disrespectful behaviour from another. And as I said, it is a matter of respecting life itself for me. Hope you can sense my point here.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Mon, 10 Feb 2020 #58
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3260 posts in this forum Online

Mina Martini wrote:
I feel I wanted to say this to you, because I do not feel it is right just to keep accepting repeated disrespectful behaviour from another. And as I said, it is a matter of respecting life itself for me.

Sorry...it’s not disrespect to disagree or question. Are you perfect and never question yourself? K was not so perfect. He always said to question and doubt. Disrespect? If I think you’re mistaken I’ll say it. Why in Gods name not? Another member here wrote that she couldn’t discuss with you because you’re speaking from authority. Don’t tell me you are above honest criticism (pointing out) or questioning or challenging. Forgive me but that would be totally nuts if true

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Mon, 10 Feb 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 10 Feb 2020 #59
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3260 posts in this forum Online

And OMG K faced FAR worse from UG Krishnamurti....far, far, worse, and never fell to pieces over it. He was harassed by UG for years ....called an old Victorian fraud and so on...for years.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Mon, 10 Feb 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 10 Feb 2020 #60
Thumb_spock Douglas MacRae-Smith France 212 posts in this forum Offline

I'm sure we're all doing our best. Its not up to us to declare that someone else's best is not good enough.

Its up to us to see our reactions, which is peace.

If there is conflict, we have not seen. If there is finger pointing, we have not seen. If there is pride, we have not seen.

Look, see, let go

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