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

Thought is the enemy


Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 43 in total
Tue, 25 Feb 2020 #1
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5945 posts in this forum Online

I referred in my previous thread to “thought being merely thought”. By using the word “merely” I was not intending to dismiss the seriousness of thought as a problem; as the basic human problem in fact. “Merely” was meant to indicate that thought is not true. Thought does not describe some objective reality “out there", with the suggestion that somehow we can reach, or realise that objective reality. Thought is always imaginary. It is “participatory” as David Bohm put it. Of course thought has done wonderful (and destructive) things by making models of the material world, by the use of rational thought, reasoning. But it seems to have had no success at all in solving the basic human psychological problems of suffering, conflict, fear, violence.

I can see that some people might argue this point, and if anyone wants to challenge the statement, feel free. But bringing the problem closer to home, by looking within myself I see that thought is the creator of contradiction, conflict. It can create ideas, images, of other states of consciousness, but images are not the real thing, and I do not see how a bridge can be built from an image to a real thing.

“Thought is the enemy”, it has been said, and one sees and feels the truth of this. Yet if thought, as the thinker, starts to treat itself as the enemy, the only outcome is more division and conflict.

What is the importance of this perception of nature of thought? It is experienced here as very great, and I will perhaps continue here tomorrow. Meanwhile, any comments?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 25 Feb 2020 #2
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 913 posts in this forum Offline

Clive,

It's a nice sounded one-liner but is it true?

Thought is part of the creation, part of the whole, we cann't live without it, so to say it is the enemy is against living.

Yes, indeed something goes wrong in the use of this tool, and that's only what it is, a tool. And this tool is handled wrongly, giving too much importance, too much .....etc. etc.

It's not only the foundation of a building but also the ground on which it's build what makes it strong or bad.j

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, 25 Feb 2020 #3
Thumb_spock Douglas MacRae-Smith France 292 posts in this forum Offline

Might I suggest that it is our relation to thought that is the problem.

He who thinks that thought is Truth or our greatest gift - has a certain relation to thought.
He who thinks that thought is False or our greatest enemy - has a certain relation to thought.

Both need to see the thinker and his relation to thought.

Look, see, let go

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 25 Feb 2020 #4
Thumb_spock Douglas MacRae-Smith France 292 posts in this forum Offline

Freedom is Freedom from the compulsive need to Believe that reality is as we Believe it to be.

You are not your enemy. Make tea not War.

Look, see, let go

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 25 Feb 2020 #5
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1855 posts in this forum Offline

The thinking here that is the ‘problem ‘ is psychological thought to make it clear,right? It being in the wrong place. Bringing ‘time ‘ to ‘become’ where there actually is only ‘Now’. Do others see it this way?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 25 Feb 2020 #6
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3474 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
The thinking here that is the ‘problem ‘ is psychological thought to make it clear,right? It being in the wrong place. Bringing ‘time ‘ to ‘become’ where there actually is only ‘Now’. Do others see it this way?

yes....and thought's ideals, beliefs, prohibitions, ideologies, etc.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 25 Feb 2020 #7
Thumb_spock Douglas MacRae-Smith France 292 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
The thinking here that is the ‘problem ‘ is psychological thought to make it clear,right? It being in the wrong place. Bringing ‘time ‘ to ‘become’ where there actually is only ‘Now’.

Sorry, not clear for me. Are you pointing at the illusion of a psychological entity (me) that exists over time?

Look, see, let go

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 25 Feb 2020 #8
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 913 posts in this forum Offline

Douglas MacRae-Smith wrote:
Both need to see the thinker and his relation to thought.

well, 'thought' is a relatively new tool in human development. We are apparently obsessed with it like a child with a new toy or rather like all of us with a new tool. look at the excessive use of our cell phone we are addicted to it, say we can't miss it, but in many ways it destroys normal human contact, the screen is more important than our fellow human beings.

something fruitful has gone wrong by not stopping in time, giving it a priority that it doesn't have.

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 25 Feb 2020 #9
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1855 posts in this forum Offline

To Douglas’ #7

Yes this creation of a me/mine entity that IS the past. It has no validity. It is false. It is a “bundle “ of experiences, beliefs etc. for ‘security’, for ‘immortality’? It is the bringer of the past into and obscuring the ‘actual’ present. Freedom from the known is ending of it in the moment. Do you all see it that way? There is no question that technical thought is a relative miracle in relation to the other beings here. But its identification with the senses and sensations as an ‘individual’ has been extremely destructive. Has it not?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Wed, 26 Feb 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Feb 2020 #10
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5945 posts in this forum Online

Wim Opdam wrote:
It's not only the foundation of a building but also the ground on which it's build what makes it strong or bad.j

I feel this analogy of "building" fails when applied to the thought and its structure, Wim. One cannot "build" on thought, as thought is appearing and disappearing all the time. It would be like building on 'foundations' of sand, at the tide's edge.

Having said that, clearly in science and technologly, and perhaps in certain social areas, thought, as knowledge, can be accumulated and built upon. It has to be so, in fact, we could not survive as a species without it. So there remains the question: "where is thought appropriate, where does it 'work', and where not? One might find theoretical, intellectual answers to that question, but really it a question that has to be faced much of the time. And faced afresh, rather than following any preset rules.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Feb 2020 #11
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5945 posts in this forum Online

Douglas MacRae-Smith wrote:
Might I suggest that it is our relation to thought that is the problem.

But Douglas, if one talks about one's "relationship to thought", is one not from the beginning assuming, or suggesting, that one is different from thought? Are you suggesting that? Surely I can only have a relationship with something if I am different from it, no? If I am not different, there is no question, no possibility, of relationship - I am it.

I suggest that I am thought. I think by this I am meaning the same as K's "The thinker is the thought", but no need really to bring K's words into this.

The statement "I am thought" needs some discussion perhaps, some investigation, which I would be happy to go into.

So looking at your words again:

Douglas MacRae-Smith wrote:
Might I suggest that it is our relation to thought that is the problem.

I suggest that as soon as "I" (thought's illusion of I) respond in term of having a relationship with thought, I am taking that famous "wrong turning". I am creating an illusion, and acting from that illusion.

Seeing that, I no longer take that step.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Feb 2020 #12
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5945 posts in this forum Online

Douglas MacRae-Smith wrote #4:
Freedom is Freedom from the compulsive need to Believe that reality is as we Believe it to be.

Yes. As thought is observed (do not want to say "as I observe thought") it becomes apparent that thought is creating realities. I deliberately use that word in the plural. These may be called "relative realities". Or they may be called illusions. What they are not, is truth, as these realities are conditioned and fragmented. To what extent our life consists of thought-created realities is an intriguing question. Perhaps that question can only be answered when the relative realities have ended.

Can they end? Can they drop away? That is a question "to be held", to repeat that phrase that was used recently.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Feb 2020 #13
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5945 posts in this forum Online

Dan McDermott wrote:
The thinking here that is the ‘problem ‘ is psychological thought to make it clear,right? It being in the wrong place.

One can simply say that psychological thought is THE problem, yes. When you say, Dan, that it is in the wrong place, are you saying that there is a right place for psychological thought?

Bringing ‘time ‘ to ‘become’ where there actually is only ‘Now’. Do others see it this way?

Yes, as well as saying "thought is the enemy", one can equally say that time is the enemy. There is much that could be said in this area. Time seems the base of all suffering.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Feb 2020 #14
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1855 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Time seems the base of all suffering.

This seems to be the fact of the matter. No time, no suffering. We have to discover the miracle that we are living in. Thought with time has made it all ordinary. It is not.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Feb 2020 #15
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3474 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
We have to discover the miracle that we are living in. Thought with time

Memory, right?

has made it all ordinary. It is not.

Not only ordinary but a living nightmare for many

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Feb 2020 #16
Thumb_avatar Manfred Kritzler Germany 111 posts in this forum Offline

Clive: Thought is the enemy”, it has been said, and one sees and feels the truth of this. Yet if thought, as the thinker, starts to treat itself as the enemy, the only outcome is more division and conflict.
————-
Yes. The problem starts when we think that being against thought will solve the problem. Freedom from the known means for me not suppressing the known.

Knowing anything about the known is still knowing. Unfortunately I also jumped in this trap very often including my statements here in this forum.

For me the way out is to observe thought, no matter what it says or how strong it is,if it’s technical or psychological. Going against it makes it stronger. Pressure creates more pressure.

Thought contains always its opposite. That means being against something creates conflict and time.

This post was last updated by Manfred Kritzler Wed, 26 Feb 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Feb 2020 #17
Thumb_spock Douglas MacRae-Smith France 292 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
I suggest that I am thought.

So taking both thoughts : "Thought is the enemy" & "I am thought".
If we Believe these thoughts to be true, we will build upon them.
Have we been freed or do we have more baggage?

Look, see, let go

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Feb 2020 #18
Thumb_spock Douglas MacRae-Smith France 292 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
But Douglas, if one talks about one's "relationship to thought", is one not from the beginning assuming, or suggesting, that one is different from thought? Are you suggesting that? Surely I can only have a relationship with something if I am different from it, no? If I am not different, there is no question, no possibility, of relationship - I am it.

With this realisation, what happens to the thought : "Thought is the enemy" ?

Look, see, let go

This post was last updated by Douglas MacRae-Smith Wed, 26 Feb 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Feb 2020 #19
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 913 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
I feel this analogy of "building" fails when applied to the thought and its structure, Wim. One cannot "build" on thought, as thought is appearing and disappearing all the time. It would be like building on 'foundations' of sand, at the tide's edge.

Clive,
You start with the statement: 'thought is the enemy' this is a closed solid statement coming from thought and indeed as such build on a foundation of sand.

When one want to investigate one start with a question and not with a statement and that's what thought is also doing start with the conclusion instead of putting al de cards on the table and use the solution tool (a clean empty brain) to investigate, what's going on.

It's not 'use you brain for a change', but change is using your brain!

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Feb 2020 #20
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 889 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote at #1:
What is the importance of this perception of nature of thought? It is experienced here as very great.....

The nature and proper place of thought IS SEEN, isn’t it? The significance of fear, contradiction, desire, and so on, IS SEEN, isn’t it? Then doesn’t the perception itself also reveal or include the importance of the perception? As you say, "it is experienced as very great".

In the very asking “what is the importance” of any perception, isn’t there a moving away from perception into effort, analysis, desire, and so on? That is, doesn’t the very asking “what is the importance”, immediately shatter perception itself? Isn’t the “follow-up” question ("what is the importance") the expression of a dissatisfaction with the outcome of the perception? The outcome being that "here I am, still in sorrow and confusion" ..... or something like that.

Isn't truth or meaning inherent in seeing? If I see someone weighed down by sorrow and despair, what is the importance of that perception? In the same way, isn’t it tremendously important to SEE anything --- to see that thought is not the operation of intelligence, that self is not what we were educated to believe, that we are for the most part unaware of the operation of our inner contradictions in daily life, that belief has nothing to do with truth, and so on, and so on --- all the things we look into here together? These things ARE SEEN. They are not ideas. And there is more to see. “There is no end to learning.”

So can’t one “merely stay” with observation and see what is revealed? Such observation is not a movement of seeking for “the answer”. It is a voyage into uncharted territory, in the sea of awareness which CANNOT BE charted.

There can be perception or insight, followed by confusion or contradiction. Can it be that in the moment following perception or insight, an unseen expectation, desire or fear arises and is brushed aside, without being faced? Does the hidden mind rebel against the new perception? Or does the mind stay with whatever comes to the surface of consciousness, however subtly? Does the mind observe, stay alert, without seeking, and simply SEE whatever comes before it?

One sees what the darkness of ignorance produces. Self-understanding is light in this darkness. So nothing else really matters than total self-understanding, does it?

This post was last updated by Huguette . Wed, 26 Feb 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Feb 2020 #21
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1855 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
It's not 'use you brain for a change', but change is using your brain!

The brain has conditioned itself to 'never' be caught 'empty'. To always have 'something' to meet each new moment of challenge. This is appropriate, even vital, when it is for survival or having the necessary knowledge when it is working at some task... but are you saying Wim, that for solving the dilemma of Man's predicament, violence, greed, suffering, etc. that what is called for is an 'emptiness'? No accumulated knowledge at all? That this emptiness would allow the action of intelligence to meet the challenge?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Feb 2020 #22
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1855 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
In the very asking “what is the importance” of any perception, isn’t there a moving away from perception into effort, analysis, desire, and so on? That is, doesn’t the very asking “what is the importance”, immediately shatter perception itself? Isn’t the “follow-up” question ("what is the importance") the expression of a dissatisfaction with the outcome of the perception? The outcome being that "here I am, still in sorrow and confusion" ..... or something like that.

It seems very 'important' to discern that that 'following up' is a reaction to what has been perceived? That there is a 'desire' for change to 'come about'? And then that desire has to come within perception and...on and on? "There is no end to learning." And this journey 'exposing' our long 'tradition' of accumulation/conclusion? Does our perception stop because, as K. suggests, the energy necessary to 'see' is "dissipated"? The 'danger' of what is being seen is not understood by us? We fall back into the brain's old 'grooves'...is that the dissipation?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Wed, 26 Feb 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Feb 2020 #23
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1855 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Does the hidden mind rebel against the new perception? Or does the mind stay with whatever comes to the surface of consciousness, however subtly? Does the mind observe, stay alert, without seeking, and simply SEE whatever comes before it?

Looked at just in terms of energy, direct perception needs 'a lot' of it. The moving away from perception is to fall back into one of the habitual thought patterns of the brain? This takes less energy as it is 'mechanical'? This is the dissipation of the energy of perception? What is interesting about the idea of not seeing the danger, I think, is that if the brain did realize the harm that it is doing to itself by these mechanical reactions to the seeing, that you point out so well, it would treat these 'following ups' as one would, an approaching "cobra" or a "precipice" that one is about to step off...There would be no 'going back to sleep'?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Wed, 26 Feb 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 27 Feb 2020 #24
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5945 posts in this forum Online

Dan McDermott wrote:
This seems to be the fact of the matter. No time, no suffering. We have to discover the miracle that we are living in. Thought with time has made it all ordinary. It is not.

Yes, feeling this strongly. Thought reduces everything to the known, which is really “the already known”. So yes, it feels “ordinary”, it has all been experienced before. But the now is never known, and so never commonplace, never ordinary.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 27 Feb 2020 #25
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5945 posts in this forum Online

Manfred Kritzler wrote:

Yes. The problem starts when we think that being against thought will solve the problem. Freedom from the known means for me not suppressing the known.

Yes, this is extraordinarily important. Trying to eliminate, trying to suppress, trying to resolve a problem – I am talking psychologically of course – never works, does it? Because the entity that is trying to act, to overcome, is still part of the problem; the essence of the problem really.

Thought always creates its opposite.

I have been looking at this of late. While I cannot absolutely see why this should be so, I observe that it is, often in very subtle ways. Perhaps one could also put it this way: Thought always eventually frustrates itself.

Have you, or anyone, anything more to say about this?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 27 Feb 2020 #26
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5945 posts in this forum Online

Douglas MacRae-Smith wrote:
So taking both thoughts : "Thought is the enemy" & "I am thought".
If we Believe these thoughts to be true, we will build upon them.

I understand what you are pointing out, Douglas. But when one sees the real nature of thought – I am talking about seeing in a moment to moment sense – it becomes impossible to build upon thought. It is seen that thought is ending, dying, all the time. That is its nature. The idea of a permanent self is merely thought trying to deny the fact of its transience.

Douglas MacRae-Smith wrote:
Have we been freed or do we have more baggage?

Is thought ever capable of bringing psychological freedom?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 27 Feb 2020 #27
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5945 posts in this forum Online

Douglas MacRae-Smith wrote:
With this realisation, what happens to the thought : "Thought is the enemy" ?

Like all thoughts, it dies. Unless it is identified with? If we identify with something, we have a vested interest in keeping it alive, or pretending that it can be kept alive.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 27 Feb 2020 #28
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5945 posts in this forum Online

Wim Opdam wrote #19:
You start with the statement: 'thought is the enemy' this is a closed solid statement coming from thought and indeed as such build on a foundation of sand.

Does it 'come from' thought, or does it come from observation?

Wim Opdam wrote:
When one want to investigate one start with a question and not with a statement and that's what thought is also doing start with the conclusion instead of putting al de cards on the table and use the solution tool (a clean empty brain) to investigate, what's going on.

Probably we can not investigate the question "Is thought the enemy?", it is too vague. But perhaps we can ask a more essential question: "Is thought true?" Is thought just telling you how things are? Is there a real, absolute world out there somewhere, which thought is trying to describe, give information about? Or is thought creating realities all the time, participating in everything?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 27 Feb 2020 #29
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5945 posts in this forum Online

Huguette . wrote:
In the very asking “what is the importance” of any perception, isn’t there a moving away from perception into effort, analysis, desire, and so on? ...........

What I come mainly away with from your mail, Huguette, and from Dan’s addendums, is the question why do we move away from pure perception into the mechanical patterns of thought. Is that right?

Is this the same as asking why does attention give way to inattention?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 27 Feb 2020 #30
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1855 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
is the question why do we move away from pure perception into the mechanical patterns of thought. Is that right?

Is this the same as asking why does attention give way to inattention?

The "why" occurs and leads off to speculation, explanation, description, etc...what I read in Huguette's post is that awareness is not 'limited' by "inattention"? It is the 'movement' with what is that is the "freedom from the known"?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 43 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.)