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

Thought's Dilemma?


Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 56 in total
Mon, 02 Mar 2020 #1
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1855 posts in this forum Offline

It wants to be 'nothing' (not-a-thing) even though it IS a 'thing'. It wants to be 'emptiness' although it is full of memories, likes, dislikes, experiences, etc. It wants to be 'silence' though its very movement is 'noise'...

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Mon, 02 Mar 2020 #2
Thumb_stringio Rich Nolet Canada 31 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

If I may Dan, why does thought want to be nothing, emptiness or silence ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 02 Mar 2020 #3
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1855 posts in this forum Offline

Rich Nolet wrote:
If I may Dan, why does thought want to be nothing, emptiness or silence ?

Because it has heard/read about these things? Thought thrives on "why" questions, doesn't it? It can go on and on speculating, opinionating, etc. but ultimately it has to "stop". It wants 'freedom from the known' but its action, its 'search', its movement in the psyche, is the known, the past...Perhaps you read what Huguette wrote in the thread: Thought is the Enemy #32? Here is an excerpt from it along with one she included by K.:(bold is mine)

Huguette: "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?"

K.:“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 Dan McDermott Mon, 02 Mar 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 02 Mar 2020 #4
Thumb_stringio Rich Nolet Canada 31 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Good post Dan, including Hugette quote, and K. quote. Nothing to add for now.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 02 Mar 2020 #5
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5938 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
[THOUGHT] wants to be 'nothing' (not-a-thing) even though it IS a 'thing'. It wants to be 'emptiness' although it is full of memories, likes, dislikes, experiences, etc. It wants to be 'silence' though its very movement is 'noise'...

"It wants" seems to me to be a great simplification, Dan. I mean an over simplification. Thought is fragmented, and "it" wants a great many different things, often contradictory things, no? In fact the very word "it" seems a misnomer when applied to thought. More accurate to say "they" or "them".

Given that, to me it does not seem to the overwhelming characteristic of daily thought that it wants to be nothing, wants to be empty, wants to be silent. In fact i would say that its greatest pull is to be occupied, busy, no?

However, i would say that this desire for occupation is also a dilemma for the mind. Because thought is actually dying all the time, and to prevent that dying, or to immediately fill up the space that will be left by its dying, does require effort, it is intrinsically a struggle. A struggle the mind will not easily give up, no?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 03 Mar 2020 #6
Thumb_stringio Rich Nolet Canada 31 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

In fact, dilemna mean: a situation in which a difficult choice has to be made between two or more alternatives, especially equally undesirable ones.

Maybe dilemna is just a bad choice of word. Or maybe it is?

This post was last updated by Rich Nolet (account deleted) Tue, 03 Mar 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 03 Mar 2020 #7
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1855 posts in this forum Offline

Rich Nolet wrote:
In fact, dilemna means: a situation in which a difficult choice has to be made between two or more alternatives, especially equally undesirable ones.

Thanks Rich...the 'dilemma' that thought is in vis a vis the psyche is that no matter what it "chooses" to do, it creates conflict. The 'choice' that it has seemingly been unable to make, is to very simply 'cease'... and that is what I feel Huguette's post embraced: that only awareness of its activity is all that is possible?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Tue, 03 Mar 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 03 Mar 2020 #8
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3474 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Rich Nolet wrote:

In fact, dilemna means: a situation in which a difficult choice has to be made between two or more alternatives, especially equally undesirable ones.

Thanks Rich...the 'dilemma' that thought is in vis a vis the psyche is that no matter what it "chooses" to do, it creates conflict.

Why is that a 'dilemma? Is it like a 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' situation?? But, do we actually see this situation as it is? Or do we continue to choose...to battle with ourselves? Asking myself too...

The 'choice' that it has seemingly been unable to make, is to very simply 'cease'... and that is what I feel Huguette's post embraced: that only awareness of its activity is all that is possible?

Seems to make good sense to stop continually fighting among fragments of yourself.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 03 Mar 2020 #9
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1855 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Seems to make good sense to stop continually fighting among fragments of yourself.

Yes that is exactly what I thought Huguette was expressing. That the awareness of 'what is' is "enough".

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Tue, 03 Mar 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 03 Mar 2020 #10
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5938 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Thanks Rich...the 'dilemma' that thought is in vis a vis the psyche is that no matter what it "chooses" to do, it creates conflict

Yes. What thought does is a manifestation of fragmentation, even if it is trying to be whole. Only when thought ceases to make any choice (i am not entirely happy with the word "choice"), only when it does not react at all, can there be no conflict, no? Complete inaction on the part of thought.

Can thought see this with complete clarity? There is no other possible option other than this awareness, it seems to me.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 03 Mar 2020 #11
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1855 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Complete inaction on the part of thought.

Yes this cuts through it all. The non-movement of the 'stream' of human thought that creates the 'self', the thinker apart, the 'divided mind'. With simple awareness, the 'narrowness' of my psychological world can be glimpsed. Its limitedness. Its 'smallness'?

Clive Elwell wrote:
Can thought see this with complete clarity? There is no other possible option other than this awareness, it seems to me.

It seems that that may be only possible through a direct perception of its activity, without any judgement, condemnation, etc. Doesn't it?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 03 Mar 2020 #12
Thumb_stringio Rich Nolet Canada 31 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

I know you guys talk about all that since a while. Though I haven't been here since a long time. I am a bit lost. What is the direction, the goal of the discussion. Is it about understanding thought. Or is it about the ending of thought? Or about silence, or emptiness ? Sorry.

Why saying that thought is in a dilemna ? That thought have to choose between differente alternatives ? Is there any revelation in observing the process of thought. And if thought is understood, where does choice intervene ? Sorry for so many question. Fell free not to answer. Maybe I'll catch you up further.

This post was last updated by Rich Nolet (account deleted) Wed, 04 Mar 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 04 Mar 2020 #13
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1855 posts in this forum Offline

Rich Nolet wrote:
Is there any revelation in observing the process of thought.

What sort of revelation are you interested in Rich? Can you say where you are with all of 'this'?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Wed, 04 Mar 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 04 Mar 2020 #14
Thumb_stringio Rich Nolet Canada 31 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

If you speak about the discussion here, as I say, I hardly follow. Huguette express pretty well his state of mind in yours quote post #3.

If we observe thought, there is of course revelation about its nature. Its not that I am interest by some sort of revelation but that sort of things happen. Let's say we observe without direction or goal. And of course without the interferences of the observer, which is the past, which is thought. Then we can see that thought is time, thought is past experiences. That thought divide and so on. That thought create things in the materiel world. That thought pursue all sort of thing. some in which it is his place and aslo some where he create conflict, as you say. Of course there is much more to say. Its a long story isn't it?

It just seems to me that often it become a little too intelectual. As if thought was searching an answer. But as K. said in your quote in post #3 : the first step is to perceive. That is the important thing. So we can talk from facts, observation. Thought can't find.

This post was last updated by Rich Nolet (account deleted) Wed, 04 Mar 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 04 Mar 2020 #15
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 913 posts in this forum Offline

Rich Nolet wrote:
Its a long story isn't it?

It just seems to me that often it become a little too intelectual. As if thought was searching an answer. But as K. said in your quote in post #3 : the first step is to perceive. That is the important thing. So we can talk from facts, observation. Thought can't find.

For humanity it appeared to be a never ending story!

Thought being a part of our existence is only a tool and shouldn't run on its own, only under supervision it's in its right place otherwise its the source of and being in itself fragments!

It seems to me that when there is a dilemma, thought cannot be helpfull.

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 04 Mar 2020 #16
Thumb_stringio Rich Nolet Canada 31 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Or maybe thought can be helpfull if we have the dilemna to choose between a big juicy hamburger and a pizza :). If we choose neither one, then there is no dilemna. In Dan post #1, he says ( if I may Dan ) , thought want silence but it's very mouvement is noise. It's a nice contradiction. But if there is no choice, then there is no more dilemna .

This post was last updated by Rich Nolet (account deleted) Wed, 04 Mar 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 04 Mar 2020 #17
Thumb_spock Douglas MacRae-Smith France 292 posts in this forum Offline

In the world of K nuts, surely choice is said to be a lack of clarity ?

Dilemmas are due to confusion (incomplete point of view) Mine's a Thick crust Margherita !

Look, see, let go

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 04 Mar 2020 #18
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5938 posts in this forum Offline

Rich Nolet wrote:
I know you guys talk about all that since a while. Though I haven't been here since a long time. I am a bit lost. What is the direction, the goal of the discussion. Is it about understanding thought. Or is it about the ending of thought? Or about silence, or emptiness ? Sorry.

I presume by “all this” you mean thought. For my part, I don't know that there is a goal for the discussion, since all goals would be supplied by thought itself. Thought is a tricky customer.

Isn't thought the greatest problem that we face? “We” meaning all human beings, whether they realise it or not? Isn't thought the very root of all human problems? Isn't thought behind all fear, behind the conflict of desire, behind most human suffering? Hasn't thought divided human beings by nationality, religion, politics, ideology, and so been the cause of terrible human conflict, and ultimately wars? Hasn't thought created this violent, corrupt, immoral society? Hasn't thought created our technology, which, apart from its benefits, threatens to destroy us in so many areas?

Just a small part of all this would seem to warrant some attention, some investigation into the whole issue of thought, does it not? And generally in the world this is not done. All the attempts to solve problems are at the level of the problems, using thought, ignoring the fact that it is thought that has created the problem in the first place. So surely it is worth while to enquire into the whole business of thought, no Rich?

And if I limit my attention to just my own life, the problems and confusion that arise in daily living, I see that the root of it all is thought. I see that thought is continually creating its own realities. I see that thought is completely fragmented, broken up, never whole. I see that I have been conditioned to live by thought. But I also see that there are great contradictions in thought, that thought is not truth. I see that thought is continually trying to mislead me. I see that that very 'me' is also a construction of thought.

Given all this, it seems reasonable, and inevitable, that one is drawn to the understanding of the thought process, no? What else would have meaning?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 04 Mar 2020 #19
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1855 posts in this forum Offline

Rich Nolet wrote:
But if there is no choice, then there is no more dilemma .

When I am disturbed by some event in my life and I start to suffer, worry, feel deflated, imagining different possible outcomes, there is a 'resistance' to that suffering and an attempt to alleviate it...that is thought's dilemma: it is responsible for the suffering and then wants be rid of it. It does not see that it's presence in the mind is the cause of the reaction to the event. It is the suffering! This is what we are experimenting with here aren't we? To get to the root of suffering in oneself and see its connection ( the 'flip side') with the pursuit of pleasure. Wanting to keep and enhance one and get rid of the other. Escaping from pain doesn't take one very far, does it? There needs to be this deep understanding of how this process works in the psyche. Choiceless awareness of the 'thinker/thought division seems to be the only way it can be 'looked into' as far as I have seen. (or I could say: "as has been seen here" but I prefer to use 'I', the other sounds too stilted even though it is more accurate.)

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Wed, 04 Mar 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 04 Mar 2020 #20
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3474 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:

Rich: I am a bit lost. What is the direction, the goal of the discussion. Is it about understanding thought. Or is it about the ending of thought? Or about silence, or emptiness ? Sorry.
I presume by “all this” you mean thought.

Clive: For my part, I don't know that there is a goal for the discussion, since all goals would be supplied by thought itself. Thought is a tricky customer.

Isn't thought the greatest problem that we face? “We” meaning all human beings, whether they realise it or not? Isn't thought the very root of all human problems? Isn't thought behind all fear, behind the conflict of desire, behind most human suffering?

That’s ultimately why we’re here I think, isn’t it....to find out if suffering can end? And unless we’re total psychopaths, we feel for the suffering of our fellow man....the genocides, Holocaust, brutal exploitation of the sweat shop workers, alcoholism, suicide, drugs, crime. It’s not just about my personal suffering. Is that the ‘goal’...to find a better way of living, free of suffering? We’re not here to find out about Silence, are we? Responding to Rich’s question.

Hasn't thought divided human beings by nationality, religion, politics, ideology, and so been the cause of terrible human conflict, and ultimately wars?

Yes, it’s happening all the time....us vs. them....me vs. you. Thought divides...that’s the central pillar of Ks teaching, isn’t it?

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Wed, 04 Mar 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 05 Mar 2020 #21
Thumb_stringio Rich Nolet Canada 31 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Very good post Clive ( #18 ). Very clear. Nothing to add for now. Thanks for the clarification.

This post was last updated by Rich Nolet (account deleted) Thu, 05 Mar 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 05 Mar 2020 #22
Thumb_stringio Rich Nolet Canada 31 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Very good point Dan ( post # 19 ) . Nothing to add for now.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 05 Mar 2020 #23
Thumb_stringio Rich Nolet Canada 31 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Tom Paine wrote:
That’s ultimately why we’re here I think, isn’t it....to find out if suffering can end?

Do you mean that you count on this forum to find out ? To end suffering?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 05 Mar 2020 #24
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3474 posts in this forum Offline

Rich Nolet wrote:
Tom Paine wrote:

That’s ultimately why we’re here I think, isn’t it....to find out if suffering can end?
Do you mean that you count on this forum to find out ? To end suffering?

No. I’m simply exploring....and perhaps we can explore together here. Don’t we all share the same passion to find out why we are in the mess we’re in? Aren’t we appalled by the violence we see on the news and around us...the vulgarity..,the cruelty...the despair and misery and poverty?

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Thu, 05 Mar 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 05 Mar 2020 #25
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1855 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Aren’t we appalled by the violence we see on the news and around us...the vulgarity..,the cruelty...the despair and misery and poverty?

Yes and to see if it is possible for it to come to an end in us.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 05 Mar 2020 #26
Thumb_stringio Rich Nolet Canada 31 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

I understand.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 05 Mar 2020 #27
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1855 posts in this forum Offline

K...For most of us, with what is the mind occupied? When you observe your own mind, when you are aware of it, what is it concerned with? With how to make itself more perfect, how to be healthy, how to get a better job, whether it is loved or not loved, whether it is making progress, how to get out of one problem without falling into another - it is concerned with itself, is it not? In different ways it is everlastingly identifying itself with the greatest or with the most humble. And can a mind occupied with itself ever be profound? Is it not one of our difficulties, perhaps the major difficulty, that our minds have become so extraordinarily shallow? If any difficulty arises, we rush to somebody to help us; we have not the capacity to penetrate, to find out; we are not investigators into ourselves. And can the mind investigate, be aware of itself, if it is occupied with any problem? The problems which we create in our superficiality demand not superficial responses but the understanding of what is true, and cannot the mind, being aware of the causes of superficiality in itself, understand them without struggling against them, without trying to put them aside? Because the moment we struggle, that in itself becomes another problem, another occupation which merely increases the superficiality of the mind.

The Revolution from Within, 5th talk in the Grove July 4,1953

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Thu, 05 Mar 2020 #28
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5938 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
That’s ultimately why we’re here I think, isn’t it....to find out if suffering can end?

Nevertheless, if we act with a motive to end suffering, that motive is part of thought, the self, and I suspect the outcome eventually would increase suffering.

But I am already questioning this. Can I not just give a beggar some money, can I not give time to a friend, to listen to their suffering? But perhaps these things stem from a deeper level than thought.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 05 Mar 2020 #29
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3474 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Tom Paine wrote:

That’s ultimately why we’re here I think, isn’t it....to find out if suffering can end?

Nevertheless, if we act with a motive to end suffering, that motive is part of thought, the self, and I suspect the outcome eventually would increase suffering.

Why else would we visit here? Idle curiosity....to have a nice chat about K.? Why do we seek self understanding? We see the endless suffering man creates with his wars and violence and selfishness, right? And we know we are a part of it. And we know we ourselves suffer. Do we not want to change? K asked countless times, 'Why don't you change?' didn't he? Sorry, I'm not sure that enquiring into the wrong turn man has obviously taken will increase suffering as you seem to say, Clive. Can you say anything further about this?

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Fri, 06 Mar 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 06 Mar 2020 #30
Thumb_stringio Rich Nolet Canada 31 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Dan McDermott wrote:
When I am disturbed by some event in my life and I start to suffer, worry, feel deflated, imagining different possible outcomes, there is a 'resistance' to that suffering and an attempt to alleviate it...that is thought's dilemma: it is responsible for the suffering and then wants be rid of it.

I still have a problem with the word dilemna, because it imply that a choice must be made. But words are really not important.

I wonder if we can look at it from a different angle. Thought must be the result of something. It is a reaction of memory. Then for thought to happen, there must have been some kind of accumulation in the first place. Isn't it?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 56 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.)