Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
Discussion Forums

Huguette . 's Forum Activity | 822 posts in 4 forums


Forum: General Discussion Mon, 22 Sep 2014
Topic: Many meanings of "awareness"

Falco Peregrinus wrote:

294

The question is whether there is an awareness OF sensing? an understanding of what sensing (working in conjunction with consciousness) implies?

Are you questioning whether there is awareness of sensing? What do you see that there is awareness OF?

300

Huguette, as I see, unless one is in a state of comatose, sensing is that which connects the human being to the outside world and thereby establishing a relationship. The words like love, beauty, joy, understanding, intelligence etc etc doesn't make any sense at all if they don't translate to action within a relationship.

As I see it, sensing the outside world is not sufficient to make a relationship with the outside world or with any part of life. If it were, would there be despair, suicide, violence, betrayal, insensitivity, etc.?

Where awareness is not obstructed by self/consciousness, intelligence acts and this action in relationship is non conflictual. To me, love, beauty, joy, understanding, intelligence ARE action in relationship. Where awareness is obstructed by thought - by will, desire, ambition, fear, and so on - there is only the mechanical movement of thought, and this engenders disorder in relationship. Where relationship is limited to and by consciousness, outer and inner relationship is conflictual.

Forum: General Discussion Mon, 22 Sep 2014
Topic: Many meanings of "awareness"

Falco Peregrinus wrote: Huguette, a human being unlike a motion detector is a physical body/brain operating in awareness.

Take away the physical, there is no human being left.

So awareness to you is a physical, material attribute or function of the body? Are love, beauty, etc., also physical, material?

Forum: General Discussion Mon, 22 Sep 2014
Topic: Many meanings of "awareness"

Ravi Seth wrote: Huguette:

Is life more than sensing, or not?

Yes, it seems to be. This led to the old fabled concept of matter and spirit.

Senses / thought belonged to matter or material processes and life or what ever one may name it , to spirit.

In short , like Hindu say that the spirit ( soul) resides in the body ( soul's clothes ) and death is simply soul changing clothes to take birth in new body ( new clothes ).

As I see it, beyond concept, there is order and intelligence in the universe which is not "my" doing, and the infinite universe is so vast that whatever I do know is mere "dust in the wind". Whatever the truth is cannot be altered by my concepts or theories. So to me, what any of the religions say has no relevance in terms of me coming face to face with truth. But I do see them as expressions of mankind's search for meaning, love, beauty, joy.

Forum: General Discussion Sun, 28 Sep 2014
Topic: Some things Krishnamurti said seem incorrect?

Herb,

If you look at fear as it actually occurs, I think it is only in relation to “something”. When we try something "new", we can be afraid to fail, to be ridiculous, to be hurt, and so on, again. It can also be that nothing frightening or terrible has ever happened to me personally but I’m afraid that it might. So in that sense, I can be afraid of the “unknown”, but even then fear is still in relation to something.

When one is relaxed and happy, one doesn’t say “I’m afraid”, does one? And don't I “know” I’m afraid because there are physical symptoms? As I see it, I do not say “I’m afraid” if there are no symptoms - pain in the chest or stomach, weakness, easy to startle, obsessive, repetitive thoughts in time, etc. Otherwise, what would make the thinking mind say it is frightened?

If I’m inattentive, I can miss the actual moment when fear arises, and therefore, the cause. But with attention, it reveals itself.

Forum: General Discussion Sun, 28 Sep 2014
Topic: Some things Krishnamurti said seem incorrect?

max greene wrote: We seem always to be looking for meaning because we want security.

As living organisms, we NEED security; physical security is essential, top priority. But because the thinking mind is fragmented, “security” has been expanded to include security for the non-existent self. In its quest to establish security for the self, the mind sabotages itself by establishing the psychological grooves which isolate and enslave it. As I see it, this causes suffering; then self looks for meaning.

Forum: General Discussion Sun, 28 Sep 2014
Topic: Some things Krishnamurti said seem incorrect?

max greene wrote: As I see it, thinking is always fragmented

I’m not sure what you mean by “thinking is always fragmented”. As I see it, “fragmentation” alludes to the breaking up of a "whole" - a rock, a bomb, a bone, thought. Thought is fragmented when it is broken down into “me” and “not me”, and the attachment, fear, desires that are a consequence of this misunderstanding.

By nature, thought is limited, partial but, to me, those limitations do not constitute fragmentation. The limitations of thought in themselves do not cause conflict. We can talk things over, strongly disagree, without there being conflict or hurt. I think that it is only when there is self-image, self-interest, self-protection, attachment and time, that conflict arises. As I see it, it is that splitting of thought into "me" and "not me" which is fragmentation.

Forum: General Discussion Mon, 29 Sep 2014
Topic: Some things Krishnamurti said seem incorrect?

max greene wrote: Thought is limited, partial, and because it is limited and partial it fails to include the whole. It includes only a part a fragment, of the whole, and this is what I meant by thought being fragmented.

Thinking is limited and partial, or "fragmented," and it is conditioned and biased by the the individual's background and environment.

Does this difference in thinking, every man's thinking all over the world slightly different or very much different from all the others, lead to conflict? History says that it does.

As I see it, it is not that thought FAILS to include the whole. Being partial, limited, means thought is UNABLE to include the unknown; thought is unable to summon love, beauty, intelligence or compassion, all that is beyond its scope, nature or abilities. And not understanding its own nature, thought tries to overstep its limitations, to be what it is not, to do and control what it cannot. Where thought does not try to overstep its limitations, I do not see that conflict arises. Then, thought is still limited, but unfragmented in itself and it can function sanely. It is when thought puts together self and then TRIES and desires to go beyond its limitations that conflict begins.

I am conditioned to a certain way of dressing, talking, language, education, diet, eating, customs of all sorts, etc. That in itself does not lead to conflict, as I see it. To me, “differences” in customs and other superficial behaviours are not fundamental differences that lead to conflict.

If thought is inevitably, inescapably, fundamentally the source of conflict, then it seems to me that we are doomed, for we cannot live without thought. Thought is essential. But as I see it, thought is NOT inherently divisive and conflictual. It is thought which fragments itself into “me” and “not me” which is divisive, placing self at the centre of consciousness, attached to time, history, importance, conclusions, beliefs, desires, etc.

Forum: General Discussion Fri, 03 Oct 2014
Topic: Some things Krishnamurti said seem incorrect?

Teulada,

I was just looking at a promotional store flyer to see if there were any specials on items that I need. To me, that’s purely utilitarian. There’s thought involved in that (memory, measure, comparison, etc.), but not self. As I see it, it is self alone which is the source of conflict in relationship, not “thought”. All self is thought, but not all thought is self.

Thought measures, that seems accurate to me too. It also compares, analyzes, reasons, and so on. To say that I am better than you is the result of thought fragmented into me and not-me and it therefore inevitably causes conflict in relationship. To conclude that the round wheel is better than the square wheel is not conflictual, unless self comes into it to say “I’m right and you’re wrong, my wheel is better than your wheel therefore I’m better than you”.

Thought puts together mental representations in imagination. I saw an actual table yesterday and now I can picture it in my mind, to some degree. There's no conflict there. But when I remember “you” insulting "me", the “you” I remember consists not only of the physical person, but also of the insult, my reaction to it, my emotions, my good attributes, your bad attributes. That image is put together by self, i.e. by fragmented thought, and carried forward in time; it is gnawed at like a bone, it is identified as a “problem”. The image of the table causes no problem, no fear, no anger, no pride, no desire to retaliate.

To me, logically, thought is not inherently conflictual. The conflict arises when thought mistakenly uses its ability to remember and imagine in order to put together something which, outside of mental imaging, does not exist. The table exists. Self does not. When I compare tables or wheels, there’s no duality in that, no self.

So, as I see it, it's not necessary to condemn thought, to try and try to do away with thought. What's necessary is self-understanding, thought understanding itself within its limited field, seeing its limitations and nature. Then it does not try to overstep its limitations.

Forum: General Discussion Fri, 03 Oct 2014
Topic: Some things Krishnamurti said seem incorrect?

Huguette . wrote:

All self is thought, but not all thought is self. The thinker is the thought. Thought is the thinker. The thinker is the self, ergo, thought is the self.

max greene wrote: Are you saying this is true only sometimes, only under some conditions?

As I see it, the instant of thinking creates the thought/self -- which is one, a unit, a package. I don't see it possible to think without a thinker, a self. They may be one, but the self -- he's there. He's the one who stands to gain, the one for whom the thinking takes place.

To me, the thinker (self) is the thought (which includes desire, fear, emotion, anger, jealousy, etc.), NOTHING BUT THOUGHT; all of the thinker (self) is thought. There is no thinker without thought.

That does not mean that ALL thought is self (the thinker). There is thought without the thinker. Every movement of thought does not put together the thinker (self).

I don’t see it that thinking is not possible without the thinker. I do not see that when I say, “it’s 5 o’clock” to someone who asks me the time, that it is self which is answering. That is thought alone, unfragmented. There is no desire, fear or other emotion involved in saying “it’s 5 o’clock”.

Forum: General Discussion Fri, 03 Oct 2014
Topic: Some things Krishnamurti said seem incorrect?

Chris Dent wrote: Right Huguette, so you are looking at the catalogue. There is the thought 'I like that' or 'I want that'. Surely these thoughts are describing the self? 'I need xyz' is a thought about myself to a far greater degree than it is about xyz.

As I see it, the thing that causes problems in our lives is not functional thought. There needs to be toilet paper in the house. I can buy it for $7 instead of $15. That is a functional requirement if I want to have enough money left over for other necessities. It doesn't involve or revolve around self-image.

Self (which thought mistakenly thinks is separate from itself) wants to find out if there is a way to live without fears, tears, despair, depression, compulsion. Isn't this what draws listeners to K and others like him? If there is this flame of discontent (as K called it) burning, it doesn't make sense to put energy into formulating ideas, concepts and theories about self which move away from the suffering that is actually experienced?

Forum: General Discussion Sat, 04 Oct 2014
Topic: Some things Krishnamurti said seem incorrect?

Yes, thought - unfragmented, sane, non-dual thought - answered the question. As I see it, that is thought’s proper place to intervene in such instances. Why is it a problem? If I want to find the best price for something, what is wrong with thought measuring and comparing? Such thought does not cause conflict, it does not stir up anger, ambition or fear. It does not block awareness since thought is not fragmented. What obstructs awareness is the fragmentation of thought into self separate from thought.

Thought is not appropriate and fitting to act where there is fear, anger, greed, hurt, depression, despair and desire. Observing its own movements in its limited field, thought can see that it simply does not know what to do about fear, anxiety, compulsion, anger and despair. Thought can see that here it is out of its depth. Therefore, it does not make any effort and falls silent, and through awareness, there is non-conflictual, non-dual action.

Forum: General Discussion Mon, 06 Oct 2014
Topic: Some things Krishnamurti said seem incorrect?

Jean Gatti wrote: It is correct to say that self is a product of thought ... but indeed thought itself does not necessarily imply a 'self'.

When thought operates without the erroneous concept of self (the 'me' as a separate entity), then thought is a good tool. But when thought operates as the 'defense system' of a 'me' then problems and conflicts arise. In this case we become an 'object' manipulated by thought, and there is no freedom in this, we become a slave of our own thought.

In other words thought can be a good servant but is a bad master.

K himself always made a distinction between psychological thought (based on a self) and functional (or practical) thought. He did never throw the baby away with the bathwater :-)

re: #53

Yes. It seems misleading to me though to say that “we become a slave of our own thought”. I rather see it that thought is its own slave due to its misunderstanding of itself. Do you see what I mean?

Forum: General Discussion Mon, 06 Oct 2014
Topic: Some things Krishnamurti said seem incorrect?

Huguette . wrote: I do not see that when I say, “it’s 5 o’clock” to someone who asks me the time, that it is self which is answering.

Chris Dent wrote: Well, I would say that there is now my knowing it's 5 o'clock. Totally harmless in the overall image of the 'known'. Knowing what time it is makes no noticeable contribution to the goliath of the self but the self is still there sort of idling along in neutral. If it is not the self who now knows what time it is then you wouldn't know that it was 5 o'clock.

There are degrees to which the self is engaged or affected by thought. There can be 'it's five o'clock' and there can be 'oh bugger, it's already five o'clock and I meant to.....' I don't think we need to get at all hung up about the bland end of the scale.....

re: #54

As I see it, it is thought which knows it's 5 o'clock, not "me" (self) knowing.

For practical purposes of communication, unfragmented thought expressing itself functionally, dispassionately, practically, uses the word “I”. But in this utilitarian use of “I”, there is no psychological residue causing conflict, no effort to continue once thought has served its utilitarian purpose, no rehashing, no fear or desire, therefore no self. My understanding is that self arises only when there is fragmentation of thought. The utilitarian use of "I" is not self to me.

Forum: General Discussion Mon, 06 Oct 2014
Topic: Some things Krishnamurti said seem incorrect?

Aseem Kumar wrote: Thought can "see, understand and help in taking rational/corrective action" is not happening. It may come to a conclusion that it should not react when facing fear, anxiety, anger or despair and fall silent, but does this silence actually come?

It is not happening because all the thinking is still going on with the obvious/subtle aim of getting rid of "fear, anxiety, compulsion, anger and despair". How is thought going to deal with this?

re: #56

Whatever the thinking mind does while in a state of agitation, fear or anxiety, cannot end conflict. To me, thought can understand this. Memory alone attests to it - over 5000 years of memory - and reason supports it. Conflict cannot end conflict. Understanding that there is actually nothing it can “do” to end fear, it naturally follows that, without effort or will, thought falls silent, ceases its efforts to deal with conflict.

In that stillness of thought, thought does not have to choose a course of action. Seeing the facts of its duality and limitations, the naming, labelling, explaining, efforts, end. This is action which is not put together by thought.

Forum: General Discussion Mon, 06 Oct 2014
Topic: Some things Krishnamurti said seem incorrect?

b teulada wrote: it seems logical too, thought not being inherently conflictual unless self intervenes; but then self itself is pure thought, so it gets complicated. at least it does for me. they seem to be inextricably tied together.

re: #59

They are more than tied together, I think, teulada. As Max says, self is thought, thought is self. As I see it, when thought sees the erroneous duality, when it sees that self is not its “master”, as Jean said, but is itself thought, then thought's efforts as self cannot continue, in the same way that I would stop using what I thought was salt if I realized that it was actually deadly poison (not sure this is a good analogy).

Forum: General Discussion Mon, 06 Oct 2014
Topic: Some things Krishnamurti said seem incorrect?

b teulada wrote: if fear, anger, greed, hurt, depression, despair and desire are, all of them, thought gone wrong, wouldn't it seem normal and logical that thought might think it can do something about them? (similar to what Aseem says in #56, 2nd paragraph, i think)

re: #60

Thought thinks it can do something about them because it imagines a duality where there is none, it has separated self from itself (thought). It has separated fear from self.

Fear IS thought - there is no fear without thought. When fear arises, self thinks it can do something about it, get rid of it somehow, throw it overboard. But fear and self are both within the field of thought. It would make sense for self to be able to get rid of fear, if fear and self were separate things. But how can self get rid of fear when both fear and self are part of consciousness?

When self desires things, has ambitions, it thinks that it can use thought cleverly to fulfill its desires. Self sometimes follows experts, motivational speakers, preachers, giving advice or “secrets” (for a fee) on how to manipulate thought to have a better life, usually meaning riches. It would make sense for self to be able to control thought, if self and thought were separate things. But how can self, which is put together by thought, act on thought, control thought?

Forum: General Discussion Mon, 06 Oct 2014
Topic: Some things Krishnamurti said seem incorrect?

max greene wrote: But can thought understand itself? Thinking, which is the source of thought, is limited to what is already known and, additionally, is invariably biased and conditioned. How can limited, conditioned thought actually understand anything?

re: #61

There are things that thought CANNOT understand - right action in relationship, love, compassion, beauty, intelligence, the unknown, the limitless and the ground from which everything arises. But, to me, thought CAN understand that these are its limitations and that it is incapable of going beyond them.

And as I see it, thought CAN understand what falls within its limited field of competence, its limited abilities, such as measure, comparison, extrapolation, reason, thought itself, and what it is not capable of. I’m not good at thinking of examples, but things like: I understand that if I don’t leave the house by 10 o’clock, I will miss the train. I understand how to solve math problems (well, if not me, the human brain can); how to build a bridge; how to prepare a meal, how to plan a gathering, that an exchange of banalities when neighbours cross paths is a non-conflictual gesture of acknowledgement, and much much more. And when a non-divisive mental task is done, there is no conflict, no left over residue, no desire or effort to continue, no obsession or endless rehashing.

Forum: General Discussion Wed, 08 Oct 2014
Topic: Some things Krishnamurti said seem incorrect?

Huguette . wrote:

Whatever the thinking mind does while in a state of agitation, fear or anxiety, cannot end conflict.

Aseem Kumar wrote: This is clear. It is so.

Huguette . wrote:

Understanding that there is actually nothing it can “do” to end fear, it naturally follows that, without effort or will, thought falls silent, ceases its efforts to deal with conflict.

Aseem Kumar wrote: This is logical, but does not happen actually. Why?

re: #101

Aseem,

You say that it is clear that the mind in a state of fear cannot end conflict. This is your understanding, isn’t it? How do you come to it?

I of course, like every human being, have been in fear; I remember the darkness of fear; whatever the specific fear, it involves some kind of threat, not necessarily physical; I see that self cannot act sanely where there is fear; that where self is “acting”, there is no clarity. This to me is not a conclusion arrived at in order to gain advantage or to impress. I see this as sane reasoning, part of thought. Is it? I could be mistaken in my understanding. I (thought, not self) realize that I can’t say anything with certainty, that I can never see the totality.

The self-understanding of thought does not bring about insight or enlightenment. As thoughts arise, the limitations and dangers are seen, and therefore there is no effort to pursue thought. That is the ending of thought. Not forever, not once and for all. “Forever” is still desire and fear, isn’t it? I don’t put my hand in the fire because I see the danger. Thought doesn't pursue will, effort and desire because it sees the danger. That simplifies everything. That is clarity, I think.

Forum: General Discussion Wed, 08 Oct 2014
Topic: Some things Krishnamurti said seem incorrect?

pavani rao wrote: I would say understanding that aspect clearly is still half battle won . As when we are talking of further deeper emotions like fear , desire , envy , jealousy , sorrow , greed etc .... which are common to all of us ...... Facing them head on and understand them and put them in their proper place ....... There in lies the major challenge or let us say the major part of work remains .

re: #106

Hello Pavani,

Can the nature of self and the limitations of thought be understood by thought without going deeply, without looking intently at the deeper emotions and facing them head on, without thought going as far and as deep as it can?

Forum: General Discussion Wed, 08 Oct 2014
Topic: Some things Krishnamurti said seem incorrect?

Jayaraj Kapila Kulasinghe wrote: Thought reins in itself. Now where is insight? Is not thought still there? Only that it is no more in pursuit of a resolution?

Then what? Is this then the beginning of observation K talked about without a separate entity watching or differently put- part of the consciousness watching the other part? Now the observer is the same as the observed.But do we still have insight in to that?

Has insight anything to do with thought?

re: #171

Jayaraj,

If insight had to do with thought, it seems to me to follow that we would long ago have thought our way to insight ..... which does not seem to be the case. It seems to me then that insight is an action which does not result from thought. This “understanding” itself is not insight; it is reasoning. So, as I see it, by going as far as it can, using all its abilities (including reason, comparison and measure), thought can “understand” its limitations.

Seeing its own limitations and the nature of self, the intellect operates sanely, where appropriate, without the confusion engendered by duality. This is not the same as saying that thought reins itself in. In the same way that if I understand clearly that putting my hand in the fire hurts, I don’t have to rein myself in to keep my hand out of the fire. I just don’t do it! K used the example of the cobra in the room. If there’s a cobra in my room, I don’t have to “make an effort” to be vigilant. As I see it, understanding its own limits and the nature of self, is the seeing of the cobra in the room.

Seeing the cobra, the effort and will of thought in relationship ends. As soon as there is the stirring of effort, time, imagining, will and desire in pursuit of “fixing” relationship, of getting rid of fear, of chasing pleasure, the cobra is seen, and thought falls silent. Thoughts arise, and they appear and disappear without conflict.

As I understand (or perhaps misunderstand) it, the self-understanding of thought allows creative intelligence whose source lies beyond the limited field of thought to act. In this action, there is no will, desire or effort.

Forum: General Discussion Fri, 10 Oct 2014
Topic: Some things Krishnamurti said seem incorrect?

Aseem Kumar wrote: It is not difficult to understand the limitations/dangers of thought on the basis of explanations, logic, analysis, reasoning and also by observation of what is happening in the world around us. This kind of "seeing" has not transformed the general pattern of functioning of human beings which remains divisive, confrontational, conflict ridden and destructive.

Are you referring to some other kind of "seeing" in relation to 'limitations and dangers' of thought?

re: 179

As I see it, observation of the world AROUND US and explanations cannot lead to understanding of thought’s limitations and dangers. Self-understanding can only come from direct inner self-observation. Observation of the outer is not direct observation of thought. Explanation is not direct observation of thought. Observing the external world cannot lead to insight into thought.

If I look at the corruption, brutality, unkindness and greed that is happening in the world outside of me, I react with outrage, condemnation and anger. There is certainly plenty of outrage, condemnation and anger around. But there is no understanding of thought in that outward look. My own reactions is where the danger can be observed directly. Observing my reactions is observing thought fragmenting into self and not-self. That inner division is the danger that needs to be understood. Thought can understand itself only by observing its activity directly.

Similarly, where “explanations” are listened to without directly observing what is being pointed out, they only serve to further expand knowledge, and knowledge cannot lead to self-understanding. I put “explanations” in quotes because "explanations" cannot bring about understanding. The “seeing” that is purely the result of explanation is superficial. I may for example “accept” an explanation according to my existing biases and preferences but this is not “seeing”.

Just as I see clearly for myself that it is not within my physical abilities to fly by flapping my arms, in the same way, I see that mental effort cannot solve man’s problems of relationship; that in certain matters, thought is necessary, but in matters of relationship, thought is simply incapable of doing the right, the sane, thing. I (generic “I”) have been struggling and struggling, thinking and thinking about ending sorrow for 5, 50, 500, 5000 years, in vain.

Forum: General Discussion Fri, 10 Oct 2014
Topic: Some things Krishnamurti said seem incorrect?

Aseem Kumar wrote: Thoughts that are pushed to conscious level have the energy made available to them from unconscious accumulations of the past. As long as unconscious wields this power, is there any meaning to "ending of thought' momentary or otherwise?

re: 179

It seems to me that the unconscious makes itself felt whenever fear (anger, conceit, self-recrimination, and so on) arises. There is observation of whatever arises as it arises. There is no effort in observation, no getting caught up in what is observed. If there is effort in the observation, it is thought.

Seeing its limitations and the danger of self, if what arises is an effort to fix relationship, for example, effort is observed and thought does not pursue it. That, to me, is the ending of thought “each time”. To my understanding, it is the first and last step because, in observation, there is no connection to time, no preoccupation with the past, no concern with the future.

Forum: General Discussion Fri, 10 Oct 2014
Topic: Some things Krishnamurti said seem incorrect?

Aseem Kumar wrote: "This understood by thought", is it what is referred to as "insight" in K teachings or insight is something else, Huguette?

re: 180

As I see it, Aseem, self-understanding by thought is not insight; self-understanding prepares the ground for insight. Insight may come and it may not.

Thought works hard to come to self-understanding, using all its abilities as far and deep as it can. If thought could produce insight through its efforts, we would all be Buddhas (or Krishnamurtis), it seems to me! I think that insight is clarity that comes suddenly, effortlessly, when thought is silent. It can be about something technical or something psychological or something else. Does this make sense?

Forum: General Discussion Fri, 10 Oct 2014
Topic: Some things Krishnamurti said seem incorrect?

Jayaraj Kapila Kulasinghe wrote: You know here I think thought understanding its limitation ends will as conscious thought in action. Otherwise how do thoughts arise & disappear? They do arise-that is a fact.

Now after laying this foundation, which in itself seems a difficult task , we have to ask what makes thought arise? What is the ending of thought?-because as a thought arises the will has operated but unconsciously, isn't it? Or at least, to be more apt, the past has responded, is it not?-which is, at that instant, the self?

re: 187

Jayaraj,

Doesn’t thought arise either as a reaction or out of attachment to time and continuity?

When you say “the will has operated UNCONSCIOUSLY”, do you mean INATTENTION? Is it out of wrong education, habit and inattention that the illusion of self is put together?

Forum: General Discussion Wed, 15 Oct 2014
Topic: Some things Krishnamurti said seem incorrect?

Aseem Kumar wrote: The question about self being a 'danger' has already been put in above post.

Effort in mending relationship is thought, right? Observation of it is certainly possible, but effort will not continue further as a chain reaction to previous effort (thought), this needs to be looked into.

What is the NEW factor that is now making the ending of thought or cessation of effort possible?

Why isn't ending of thought a kind of reward of observation that "me" has captured and is expertly doing/projecting?

re: 226

I don’t think that “seeing the danger of thought” is something that happens once and for all. We cannot now sit in our armchairs and think “we have seen the danger, we are done with it”.

It is at the very moment of anger, desire, fear, conceit, that the danger can be seen. Otherwise, the “seeing of the danger” has become another idea. At the immediate moment that there is anger or conceit opposed by desire (wanting to do something about it, to overcome it), there is conflict. For example, self (thought), observing anger, immediately opposes the anger as wrong - “I should not be angry because anger is immoral”; or “I should not be angry because I have seen the danger of thought”. Either way, there is conflict.

Can thought see the inner flowering of anger without any condemnation, suppression, explanation or comment at all? So that, at the actual moment thought and emotion arise, I see (the thinking mind sees) the fragmentation of thought, the nature of the self which is opposing the thought-emotion, the source of my reaction, that I cannot solve the conflict through my efforts (i.e. the limitations of thought). I see these things as I see the clouds in the sky, without condemnation or explanation. They are there and they are observed.

So I “die” to will, desire, condemnation, analysis, not hoping for a reward, but because I see the danger of making efforts in this direction. To me, this IS the “new factor”.

Forum: General Discussion Wed, 15 Oct 2014
Topic: Some things Krishnamurti said seem incorrect?

Aseem Kumar wrote: When "thought is silent" is a prerequisite for insight to come, then it becomes a cause/effect happening. That would fall in the realm of time. I don't feel that insight can be cultivated.

re: 228

I don’t see it as a prerequisite. It doesn’t follow that where thought is silent, there WILL BE insight, only that there can be no insight where thought is constantly making noise. Just as I can't listen to what you say as long as I'm talking. It doesn't follow that if I stop talking you will say anything.

Forum: General Discussion Thu, 16 Oct 2014
Topic: Some things Krishnamurti said seem incorrect?

Huguette . wrote: It doesn't follow that if I stop talking you will say anything.

randall merryman wrote: But it does follow that IF one does say something, it can be heard.

re: 275

That’s what I said earlier, that if I keep on talking, I cannot hear what you say…. or conversely, I can hear you if I stop talking.

Forum: General Discussion Thu, 16 Oct 2014
Topic: Some things Krishnamurti said seem incorrect?

max greene wrote: Unless the brain is physically incapacitated in someway -- drugs, for example-- it would seem that the states are either awareness, thinking/thought, or sleep.

Isn't "insight" just the description of a special case of awareness? Unless thinking or asleep, the brain is in a state of awareness.

re: 277

To me, insight is a sudden clarity that cannot be brought about by thought. Awareness also is not the movement of thought, and there cannot be insight where there is no awareness/attention, but, as I see it, awareness is not insight. For example, I don’t see awareness of fear, joy, love, contradiction, sorrow, in itself as insight. I could be mistaken.

Forum: General Discussion Tue, 21 Oct 2014
Topic: Some things Krishnamurti said seem incorrect?

Aseem Kumar wrote: Seeing the danger of thought moving out of its rightful/correct place to create conflict in psyche, is this an understanding that needs to be renewed again and again?

Or is the insight into the movement of thought going out of its correct place to solve any psychological issue does not go away once it has come?

Does one walk into the danger/trap again an again to renew understanding or the walking into the trap /danger shows that the understanding has been "intellectual"?

re: 281

In order to be seen, the danger must be seen by undivided thought at the actual moment in which thought stirs - at the moment where “self” says this or that, makes an effort to formulate an action plan or an idea, imagines future revenge, fortune or glory, puts together a clever comeback, and so on. This actual, fresh seeing is thought seeing itself in the mirror of relationship = self-understanding. This understanding acts immediately to silence thought - ends self’s efforts, formulating, planning, etc.

Can self-understanding “stay” with me except as an idea? If the limitations, nature and danger of thought are seen clearly, thought moves where necessary and is still (silent) where self stirs. Beyond that, thought cannot understand what right action is, what to do about its conditioning, its limitations, its fears and desires. Therefore, it is silent - it does not endlessly try to solve what it cannot solve, to change to who knows what.

In that spontaneous silencing of thought, is the action of intelligence. To me, self-understanding is the awakening of intelligence.

There are still moments of inattention, and they are not seen as a problem or a failure. Where there is attention, there is fresh, living understanding.

I could be mistaken in all this.

Forum: General Discussion Tue, 21 Oct 2014
Topic: Some things Krishnamurti said seem incorrect?

Aseem Kumar wrote: The thought that can so observe/see has to be different than the thought that comes as a reaction to the previous thought? What is different about this thought?

why doesn't thought normally stay in this "correct" mode of seeing/observing?

re: 281

Reaction is the fragmentation of thought into me and not-me; it is a part of cause and effect. Thought is thought, but thought can be fragmented or not. Fragmented, it is disorder. Unfragmented, it is sane… as I see it.

As I see it, where thought is observing itself, is not observing through the lens of self. In self-observation, it is unfragmented thought observing the whole of itself, dispassionately; it is not reacting to the past; it is not angrily observing anger. The past - consciousness - is always “there” stored in the brain, but observation itself is not part of anger, and anger is not part of observation.