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

Thought is the enemy


Displaying posts 31 - 43 of 43 in total
Thu, 27 Feb 2020 #31
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3477 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
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?

Perhaps Huguette is trying to say that the 'me'/I uses any new insight/perception to achieve more...or to escape what's still bothering one beneath the surface...or to gain security psychologically so that no more problems arise. In other words, the insight becomes knowledge...part of 'me'...to be used by 'me'. I have to read over her post...not totally sure she's saying that, but I know that insight can easily become more knowledge to support the 'me'.

Huguette: 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?

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Thu, 27 Feb 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 27 Feb 2020 #32
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 892 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
...why do we move away from pure perception into the mechanical patterns of thought...

Dan, Tom, Clive,

What does it take for anything to be “truly” seen, understood or discerned? “Truly” meaning that it is not merely thought thinking that it is seeing. Doesn’t it require attention, alertness, deep interest, sensitivity, caring - none of which can be forced or faked?

Isn’t there attention in the moment where thought discerns both its nature and its limitations. That is, its nature being that emotions are also rooted in thought, etc., and its limitations being that it is incapable of truly understanding and solving sorrow and the darkness of ignorance? Doesn’t this discernment effortlessly and choiceessy engender attention, alertness, deep interest, sensitivity? Isn’t this realization immovable and irresistible? Isn't it the dawning of clarity?

Attention IS perception, which is the first step. Attention is perception in that there can be no perception without attention. There is no division between attention and perception. They are inseparable. Perception cannot be achieved, conveyed or relayed by thought. What is directly seen is understood, isn’t it? What is not seen cannot be understood.

So, in understanding the limitations and nature/extent of thought, the mind is freed from its tyranny. The illusion of the observer separate from observation, of the thinker separate from his thought, is dissipated. The undivided mind is free to take the first step, and every step is the first and last step. Now the mind does not go from understanding one thought to understanding another thought, from understanding one kind of thought to understanding another kind of thought. It is simply attentive without division, without distinction, attentive to every movement and style of thought. That attention is without continuity or accumulation, without psychological time.

So isn’t it enough to SEE that thought arises where it doesn’t “belong”, thereby shattering or clouding perception? Not to "see" that it happens “again”, not to "see" that it is the enemy, and so on --- just to see its movements? Isn’t the seeing inattention --- attention, ?

“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.”

This post was last updated by Huguette . Thu, 27 Feb 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 28 Feb 2020 #33
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3477 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
not to "see" that it is the enemy, and so on --- just to see its movements?

And seeing that thought by its very nature is conformity....conformity to all the past associations of language/words/culture and their meanings(psychological), over thousands of years. No it's not demonizing thought, but just seeing what it actually is. And conformity to the pleasurable associations as well....all the pleasures that thinking can elicit. We try to conform to that too and it brings conflict....conflict with 'what is'.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Fri, 28 Feb 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 28 Feb 2020 #34
Thumb_avatar Manfred Kritzler Germany 111 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette:
Isn’t there attention in the moment where thought discerns both its nature and its limitations. That is, its nature being that emotions are also rooted in thought, etc., and its limitations being that it is incapable of truly understanding and solving sorrow and the darkness of ignorance? Doesn’t this discernment effortlessly and choiceessy engender attention, alertness, deep interest, sensitivity? Isn’t this realization immovable and irresistible? Isn't it the dawning of clarity.
————

Manfred:

Dear Huguette,

I hope you don’t mind when I am jumping in. I really like very much what you wrote here.

Simplified in other words in my limited English:
When we see the limitation of thought do we not open us up for the unknown, do we? This includes seeing our emotions, which are also mainly based on thought?

That is for me the only step we can
make. This kind of seeing is not in time or space. It is oneness in action and it includes the seeing that we are not attentive.

When we try to do anything to change from inattention to attention we have created dualism again. Inattention is part of attention like the falling down of a small child is an inseparable part of walking.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 28 Feb 2020 #35
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 182 posts in this forum Offline

We all think. And K did, too. So to completely eliminate thinking is ridiculous. To be in a coma is not particularly helpful.

First, it's important to consider what we think about. Aren't we often concerned with superficial matters? With he said, she said? With irritations and moods that come and go like the weather? A lot of thought is just remarkably stupid and wasteful, yes?

However, to think deeply is beautiful. If you are a theoretical physicist, your job is to think deeply about the nature of the universe. The scientific advancements we enjoy and the technology that surrounds us are all a result of deep and important thinking. K thought deeply about philosophical and psychological matters and encouraged us to do so, too. Thinking carefully and critically is vital.

But consider how, when lost in thought, we neglect reality. Whether my mind is busy with the superficial, the profound, or something in between, I may not notice my friend who needs help. I miss the signs revealed in my friend's face because I am bound up in my own thought world. I am disconnected, therefore the opportunity for caring action is missed.

Present moment attention is not different from love. When the concerns of the self are dropped, the thinking mind is naturally still, and attention to what is is happening, then the needs of the moment are seen and loving action is. Then the unessential is dropped.

You can live quite a bit of your life in present moment awareness. When you do, "you" cease to be in a way, and instead there is an energy, a vitality, of awareness and caring. To live in this way is to transform the world, because love ripples out just as violence does. If this is really seen, then simple clear awareness right now is. The seeing itself is the bringing about of love.

This post was last updated by idiot ? Fri, 28 Feb 2020.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Mon, 02 Mar 2020 #36
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5949 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
We all think. And K did, too. So to completely eliminate thinking is ridiculous. To be in a coma is not particularly helpful.

Yes

idiot ? wrote:
First, it's important to consider what we think about. Aren't we often concerned with superficial matters? With he said, she said? With irritations and moods that come and go like the weather? A lot of thought is just remarkably stupid and wasteful, yes?

Yes. As was discussed time back, much of thought is utterly trivial, inane (and manifested in so many radio and TV 'chat' programs, which is broadcast into our ears from so many sources).

Remembering the plot of movies one watched many years ago .... mentally repeating conversations one had days ago .... chewing over past pleasures .... worrying about what might happen in the future .... planning to meet so many eventualities which actually will never happen. And so on.

Sometimes I think that it did not used to be like this, when I was younger. But probably it was, probably I am simply more aware of what goes on in the mind now. More sensitive to the nuances of thought and feeling.

And there is another factor these days. Thought is not only seen to arise, it is seen to end.

idiot ? wrote:
However, to think deeply is beautiful. If you are a theoretical physicist, your job is to think deeply about the nature of the universe. The scientific advancements we enjoy and the technology that surrounds us are all a result of deep and important thinking. K thought deeply about philosophical and psychological matters and encouraged us to do so, too. Thinking carefully and critically is vital.

This is interesting. Sometimes one gets the impression from K that only pure awareness is of significance, and that thought is only something that gets in the way of that. I do notice that the quality of thought is very different when I am alone, and when I am discussing with others. The latter gives a certain order, coherence. The former mostly feels so random, disjointed, contradictory.

idiot ? wrote:
But consider how, when lost in thought, we neglect reality. Whether my mind is busy with the superficial, the profound, or something in between, I may not notice my friend who needs help. I miss the signs revealed in my friend's face because I am bound up in my own thought world. I am disconnected, therefore the opportunity for caring action is missed.

Indeed this is so.

idiot ? wrote:
Present moment attention is not different from love.

Looking at this.

idiot ? wrote:
You can live quite a bit of your life in present moment awareness. When you do, "you" cease to be in a way, and instead there is an energy, a vitality, of awareness and caring. To live in this way is to transform the world, because love ripples out just as violence does. If this is really seen, then simple clear awareness right now is. The seeing itself is the bringing about of love.

I do see that so many problems disappear in the present moment. Lately I have begun to question the common, recommended approach to problems, that of "talking it over", which usually implies analysis, finding causes and effects, explanations and the like. it is endlessly chewing over the past. Instead of that I ask if the problems cannot just be 'dropped', let go of? Then one can start to live in the present, no, instead of the past? But most people do not see this as an option. They even see it as "irresponsible"

Sorry if it appears that I am 'tearing your post apart'. I can sense the whole flow of it, Id, and feel that it is right.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 02 Mar 2020 #37
Thumb_spock Douglas MacRae-Smith France 292 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Lately I have begun to question the common, recommended approach to problems, that of "talking it over", which usually implies analysis, finding causes and effects, explanations and the like. it is endlessly chewing over the past. Instead of that I ask if the problems cannot just be 'dropped', let go of?

The "magic" of intelligence I have noticed, is that when one is "gripped" by a terribly preoccupying problem; rather than trying to find solutions, one just accepts that one has a problem - ideas will appear in one's mind - and if these are not grasped as "the solution" - an understanding of the situation will eventually arise.
Constantly reviewing the thoughts about the problem over and over in our mind however might actually hinder insight.

Look, see, let go

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 03 Mar 2020 #38
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 892 posts in this forum Offline

Manfred Kritzler wrote at 34:
Inattention is part of attention like the falling down of a small child is an inseparable part of walking.

Dear Manfred,

Do you still think so? I see it rather in these terms, that inattention is part of attention like France is part of Europe, like Earth is part of the solar system, and so on. But the falling down of a small child is a part of the natural physical, developmental maturing process of walking. No?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 04 Mar 2020 #39
Thumb_avatar Manfred Kritzler Germany 111 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette: Do you still think so? I see it rather in these terms, that inattention is part of attention like France is part of Europe, like Earth is part of the solar system, and so on. But the falling down of a small child is a part of the natural physical, developmental maturing process of walking. No?
——
Dear Huguette,

thank you very much for questioning.

Your statement sounds a little bit like inattention is embedded in something bigger, which is attention.

My imagination is walking and falling down is one inseparable process, like inattention and attention is. There is no priority.

Maybe we are at the limit of express something in words and both views can be used as pointers.

I think I have to go deeper in this question.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 09 Mar 2020 #40
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 892 posts in this forum Offline

Manfred Kritzler wrote at #39:
Your statement sounds a little bit like inattention is embedded in something bigger, which is attention.

My imagination is walking and falling down is one inseparable process, like inattention and attention is. There is no priority.

Manfred,

There are many maturing (and aging) processes in nature: the acorn becomes an oak tree, the embryo becomes a fetus, the toddler and the foal learn to walk, the chick grows feathers, the fledgling learns to fly, the caterpillar becomes a butterfly, and so on. The child may fall and cry in the process of learning to walk, but he gets up again and again. That drive to walk is part of a natural process. The drive to walk is not engendered by thought, is it?

But the drive or desire to be attentive is strictly engendered by thought, as I see it. Inattention is not to attention what falling is to walking. Inattention is not part of a natural maturing process which culminates in attention. Inattention does not - either naturally or through effort - become attention. Inattention is not ended, outgrown or matured out of by the maturing of attention.

In any case, the mind CANNOT be constantly attentive. K once likened the effort to be constantly attentive to the effort never to blink. It can’t be done. And, as I see it, there is no need, reason OR capability to permanently get rid of inattention. What is important is to be aware of it and so understand it - which is the action of attention and intelligence, isn’t it? Awareness of inattention is not an idea.

So there is attention and there is also inattention. Attention can be aware of inattention, i.e. of the underlying fears, desires, efforts, motives, etc., engendered by thought. In this way, inattention is part of attention. But inattention itself - the movement of fear etc. - cannot be aware of attention. Inattention is the movement of the self-centre (i.e. thought), whose fear, anger, desire, etc., block intelligence and understanding. So attention is beyond inattention’s “reach” or capabilities. No?

Once a healthy toddler learns to walk, he or she does not and cannot unlearn walking. Barring accident or illness, he does not revert to being unable to walk.

If inattention is a part of a natural learning process culminating in attention, why isn’t the process “working”?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 09 Mar 2020 #41
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5949 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Inattention is not ended, outgrown or matured out of by the maturing of attention.

I followed you up to this point, Huguette, but i'm puzzled by this "inattention is not ended ... by attention". I would have thought this is exactly so. Can you say more?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 10 Mar 2020 #42
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 892 posts in this forum Offline

Clive,

A natural process such as maturing (or aging) cannot be undone or reversed. The oak cannot become or revert to an acorn. The fetus cannot revert to an embryo. The child cannot unlearn to walk.

The child’s brain is not yet fully mature, but the mind does not “outgrow” or discard inattention completely through the process of maturing. Inattention is a thought process which can still arise. Memory or thought is not excised or destroyed by maturity - or insight. (Through aging, it can be.) Inattention can still arise in the fully matured brain but, where there is insight, it is seen/understood and does not overshadow or block attention.

What is clearly, fully, deeply seen cannot be unseen. But the brain can be tired and, in that fatigue, act out of habit - pleasure, reverie, comfort, conflict, anger, and so on. And this movement IS observed by attention, isn’t it? So attention shines its light on this inattention. It is inattention, but not the all-encompassing inattention which blots out attention and intelligence like a cloud blocks the sun.

I take as an example of insight some of K’s words:

“One cannot know everything that is happening in the world; what the politicians are doing, what the Secret Service is doing, what the army or the scientists are doing; one does not know what one's neighbour is doing, nor what one's wife or husband is doing inwardly. One cannot know everything. But one can know, or become aware, of one's own life inwardly. Now, is that inner movement different from the outer movement? Is that which is outside - the pollution, the corruption, the chicanery, the deception, the hypocrisy, the violence - is that very different from oneself inwardly? Or is it a constant movement, like the tide going in and out? Can one be aware of this movement - see and observe it?” http://jiddu-krishnamurti.net/en/questions-and-...

The logic and truth of what K says here can be seen rather easily, instantly, can’t it? Every part of it. One might simply have never discerned it before because of the inattention or ignorance of conditioning. But once thesee facts are expressed to us, the truth or fact of it is revealed --- for example that “one cannot know everything that is happening in the world”.

Yet in moments of fatigue, one may start gossiping about what is happening in the world, about the neighbour or the politician. But even in the midst of that gossiping, there is attention and there is the understanding that it is merely conditioning operating. So in this sense, inattention is part of attention; it is in attention’s field of observation and there is no effort to oppose it.

So when I say that inattention is not ended, I mean that thought is not ended “totally and permanently”. Yes, attention ends inattention, ignorance, self, conflict, and so on. That is also seen. But thought cannot be totally ended and inattention is thought isn’t it? Whereas where “not-knowing-how-to-walk” is ended, it is totally permanently ended and cannot return to the child (except through injury or illness). When acorn-hood is ended, it is totally permanently ended and cannot return to the oak tree.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 10 Mar 2020 #43
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5949 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Clive,

A natural process such as maturing (or aging) cannot be undone or reversed. The oak cannot become or revert to an acorn. The fetus cannot revert to an embryo. The child cannot unlearn to walk.

Thank you for the explanation, Huguette. I understand what you have written. I realise now that you were describing processes in time, gradual processes, evolution. Whereas I looked at your words "inattention is not ended by attention" in the moment only, and it was that that lead to my confusion.

Whenever attention appears, it instantly wipes away inattention, does it not? the two are incompatible, just as light wipes away darkness. Or rather darkness is not possible in the presence of life. Yet yes, light can fade, and darkness then re-appears.

Huguette . wrote:
What is clearly, fully, deeply seen cannot be unseen. But the brain can be tired and, in that fatigue, act out of habit - pleasure, reverie, comfort, conflict, anger, and so on. And this movement IS observed by attention, isn’t it? So attention shines its light on this inattention. It is inattention, but not the all-encompassing inattention which blots out attention and intelligence like a cloud blocks the sun.

Yes. For some time now, I find that it is impossible not to be aware of my true motives for any action. That awareness is simply THERE, it always surfaces, although one can perhaps push it aside, hide it. Actually I am not sure that one can.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 31 - 43 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.)