Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
Discussion Forums

Huguette . 's Forum Activity | 1266 posts in 3 forums


Forum: General Discussion Thu, 27 Jun 2019
Topic: The Future Of Humanity

Ken D wrote: Asking "Who am I?" is vastly different from asking "What am I?" Both have different assumptions behind them.

I don’t disagree, Ken.

As I see it, “one who” begins questioning life, action, relationship, suffering, and so on, might ask “who am I” - “I am sometimes angry, afraid, conceited, self-deprecating, anxious, jealous, kind, cruel, and so on. So who am I really, which one is the real me?”

By looking into it, the questioning itself is in movement, it changes, and a new question arises: “what am I?”

Forum: General Discussion Thu, 27 Jun 2019
Topic: The Future Of Humanity

re 202:

You have a point, Idiot. I’m not saying any question is invalid or wrong where it arises spontaneously, innocently. What makes a question wrong, as I see it, is where it is attached to a conclusion or motive, where it is attached to the desire to be right, to win an argument, and so on. That is a wrong question, a frivolous question, as I see it.

idiot ? wrote: We cannot know in advance anything about the moment. It is only accessed when we set aside everything and look. Yes?

It is not that “we set aside everything and look”, as I see it. It is that nothing is set aside and everything is looked at. If nothing is set aside, then fear, conceit, desire, and so on, are observed, and it is from the looking itself that understanding flowers and questions arise. I could be wrong.

Forum: General Discussion Thu, 27 Jun 2019
Topic: The Future Of Humanity

idiot ? wrote: if I notice that I am afraid, I have the opportunity to look at it in the moment, directly, to not be apart from it. To do that, I must set aside ideas about fear, and really ideas period. I have to let go of thought and go into what is: fear. Then I may realize that I am not different than the fear. Then there can be staying with.

I'm not contradicting you. I'm looking into it with you.

Can I "set aside ideas"? If I'm afraid and I think that "I should not be afraid", isn't it necessary to be aware of both elements, to see the whole thing - the ideas about fear and fear itself? If I look "only" at fear and not at the ideas about fear, there is only partial seeing and so no understanding, isn't it?

Is fear independent or separate from the idea that "I should not be afraid"? "Staying with" is staying with everything that arises as it arises, as it recedes, as it fluctuates, as I see it. Staying with or facing what is does not start once I have let go of thought. It starts immediately, with awareness of anything and everything that arises in the moment. And the awareness of ideas and thoughts is not the pursuit of ideas and thought.

I can only "discover a connection between thought and fear" if both are looked at.

Forum: General Discussion Thu, 27 Jun 2019
Topic: The Future Of Humanity

re 213 and 214:

Whether physical or psychological, isn’t the fear that one is aware of always felt as physical sensation, whether mild or strong? Without the physical sensations of fear, would it be called fear? “I’m afraid” means feeling sensations in the gut, in the chest, in the heart, in the blood flowing through the arms and face, in weakness in the legs, or as a surge of energy, and so on. It may be rooted in actual physical danger or threat, in which case fear serves as an intelligent warning. It may be wholly rooted in psychological thought and time, but “psychological fear” is also experienced physically, isn’t it? Psychological fear can also be strong, debilitating, incapacitating, visceral.

Forum: General Discussion Fri, 28 Jun 2019
Topic: The Future Of Humanity

For heaven's sake, Jack, stop! One Self, you too. "Just do it!"

Forum: A Quiet Space Mon, 01 Jul 2019
Topic: Theory of Life (2014)

Clive Elwell wrote at #19: Is he saying that it is “not enough” to be passively aware of one’s mind, of oneself, and one must also “probe” into thought/oneself? Is this probing a different process? What does it mean, “to probe”? Is it an active process? Is it to use the capacity of thought to reason?

Isn’t probing a wordless movement which spontaneously arises as the brain encounters something which it does not comprehend? As long as it is not in a vegetative state, it spontaneously starts questioning wordlessly, observing, examining a thing which challenges, puzzles or disturbs it. In questioning, observing, probing, the brain is its own tool or instrument. In the field of science, the brain has extended its powers of observation and probing through tools and instruments of its own design but even then, it is still fundamentally the tool of probing, questioning, observation.

For example, if I see in the distance a dark object on the ground, I spontaneously want (the brain spontaneously wants) to understand what it is. Is the dark object moving, is it alive, an animal, a human being, a coat…..? Similarly, if the brain encounters a problem or challenge in relationship, it wants to understand it, to make sense of it. That is part of being human, isn’t it?

There can be no probing without attention. If I “see” without “seeing” - if there is only superficial awareness, sensory perception without that mysterious quality of attention - then the “seeing” is merely registered or recorded by the brain without questioning or probing arising ... as I “see” it.

:o)

In order to understand anything, clearly it is necessary to observe it - not merely to register the sensory perception. And in order to observe anything, it is necessary for thought to be still. I cannot understand a child, for example, if I don’t take care to truly observe him - not merely register his activities. To understand this is part of the natural capability of the human brain, part of being human, isn’t it? The brain understands this very fact through self-observation - that I (the brain) cannot observe myself or anything else if there is no break or interval in thinking, interpreting, concluding, desiring, willing myself to to achieve, and so on.

So looking attentively at all the facets of a fact - not merely registering it sensorily - without interpreting it or making any effort to repress or change it - isn’t this probing?

Forum: A Quiet Space Mon, 01 Jul 2019
Topic: Theory of Life (2014)

Tom Paine wrote: If probing is wordless, how would you differentiate it from K’s ‘choiceless awareness’? Why would he use ‘probing’ instead of simply ‘observing’?

Tom Paine wrote: ...questioning is not totally wordless...or is it? If I’m facing a difficult problem in life, my mind is not normally silent. There’s questioning yes, but thought is involved. If my mind was silent from the very beginning, there wouldn’t be any problem or conflict, would there?

Tom, I don’t see awareness and probing as one and the same. Nor do I see them as separate. Perhaps more as facets of one “thing”. Don’t take my word for it though (I know you wouldn’t)! I’m just probing. I’m not claiming to know.

There is not always probing in choiceless awareness, is there? Probing arises when there is awareness of something which is not understood, not clear, as in the example I gave of a dark object seen in the distance, or the “misbehaviour” of a child. So it seems to me.

"The thing" - the puzzlement, the lack of clarity - is there before the word, isn't it? As I see it, it is. There can be puzzlement or misunderstanding without inner or outer conflict. If a child "acts up", I'm not all-knowing. Observation is still necessary in order to understand, isn't it?

Forum: A Quiet Space Tue, 02 Jul 2019
Topic: Theory of Life (2014)

Clive Elwell wrote at 40: I think you miss one other reaction of the mind to a new challenge, that of ignoring it, shying away from it, denying it, pretending it is not there, if it threatens to be disturbing. I’m afraid such a response is all too common.

Of course, that is a fact - denial, repression, pretense, and so on.

What we are doing right now is probing into “probing”, isn’t it? There is probing because there is non-understanding.

“The function of the mind is to probe and understand. ... “The function of the mind is not only to probe, to delve, but also to be silent.” (from the quote at #19)

Love, intelligence, awareness, probing, silence, understanding, energy, space, matter, order, and so on, are inseparable, as I see it. Facets of the mysterious ground. Wordless although words arise in them.

When the mind doesn’t understand something, that non-understanding awakens probing, as I see it. Isn't the very “not-understanding something" awakened where there is caring, alertness, attention? The root of all these inner actions - the interest, the caring, the attention, the not-understanding, the probing - is NOT intellectual. They arise out of silence … out of ‘nowhere and nothing’, don't they? There is no effort in the awakening of probing, of understanding, interest, caring - so no division. They arise spontaneously, effortlessly, as I see it.

If probing is ROOTED in thought, that’s not probing - just as love that is rooted in thought is not love, just as awareness is not thought but there is awareness of thought. In probing (or love), words might arise spontaneously to express, to communicate, but the essence or root of probing itself is not thought, as I see it.

Forum: A Quiet Space Tue, 02 Jul 2019
Topic: Theory of Life (2014)

Tom Paine wrote: ...the noise is there. To try to deny it only intensifies it.

Yes, the noise IS there! Denial itself is part of the noise. And the mind/brain doesn’t understand it. Therefore there is silent probing, observation, care. It is not the anger, the noise, the confusion, the frustration that is probing. It is “nothing”. Where the light of understanding arises, the probing of that particular “why” effortlessly ends, doesn’t it?

Forum: A Quiet Space Tue, 02 Jul 2019
Topic: Theory of Life (2014)

Tom Paine wrote: It appears you are using probing to mean the same as observing.

There can be awareness, observation, attention, perception, and so on, without probing. When the flower or beauty or love is observed, there is no probing is there? Probing arises where there is non-understanding. Where there is non-understanding and there is alertness, observation, awareness, observation, perception of that non-understanding, there is probing, as I see it.

Added: ... probing which is not engendered by thought, which comes from "nothing".

Forum: A Quiet Space Tue, 02 Jul 2019
Topic: Theory of Life (2014)

Dan,

I’m peacefully going about my day and suddenly, words I spoke earlier are violently remembered and peace is shattered - there is self-recrimination and blame, anxiety, fear, and “how could I have done that?” The unfolding of the whole thing is observed and not understood - peace, then sudden remembering, then self-condemnation and anxiety. So there is the probing of it all.

I’m peacefully sitting at home, and there is no probing of anything. Then I smell smoke, and there is non-understanding of it and probing into it.

I’m sitting in a boat on a peaceful lake, and there is no probing at all. Then I notice a leak and there is non-understanding of its origin, severity and implications, and probing into it.

My child feels a pain in his leg, and I must probe his leg to understand where the pain is. And so on. No?

So probing is not just for understanding consciousness, is it?

Non-understanding is not an idea; probing - "the thing" - is not the tool of thought, it is not desire, will, fear, as I see it. Is it the action of intelligence?

Forum: General Discussion Tue, 16 Jul 2019
Topic: How does one go to the very source of thought?

idiot ? wrote at #14: Not knowing is the opposite of knowing, obviously.

Up is the opposite of down; big is the opposite of small; fat is the opposite of skinny; short is the opposite of tall or long, and so on. “Opposites” means that there is a connection, a relationship, a continuum between 2 things. At one end of the continuum is one opposite (“up” for example), and at the other end of the continuum is the other opposite (“down” in this case). Opposites can only exist in pairs. Up has no meaning without down; big has no meaning without small, light has no meaning if there is no such thing as darkness, and so on.

Is there a similar relationship between knowing and not knowing? Is there a continuum which has “knowing” at one end, and “not-knowing” at the other end? There can be. If I don’t know the distance to Paris, I can get that knowledge. If I don’t know the law, I can study books to know the law. Then "not-knowing" becomes "knowing". Then there is a relationship between not-knowing and knowing. Knowing is the accumulation of memory.

But we are NOT talking here about the “not-knowing” which IS related to knowledge/memory. It is the STATE OF MIND of “not-knowing” that K is pointing to, and this state of mind has nothing to do with acquiring knowledge. The state of “not knowing” that K is pointing to is NOT the mere absence of accumulated knowledge; it cannot be "cured" by acquiring knowledge. It is not related to knowledge, it has nothing to do with knowledge. There is no “opposite” to the still state of mind of not knowing.

The question being examined here has 2 parts. The 2nd part of the question is “so that there is a possibility of silencing the thinking process itself”. Doesn't this 2nd part point to the questioner’s conclusion that “silencing the thinking process” is necessary? And so it is the motive for asking “How does one go to the very source of thought...”. THAT’s what makes the question “invalid” or “wrong”, as I see it.

Forum: General Discussion Tue, 16 Jul 2019
Topic: How does one go to the very source of thought?

http://jiddu-krishnamurti.net/en/1981/1981-01-0...

7th QUESTION: What is the source of thought? How does one go to the very source of thought so that there is a possibility of silencing the thinking process itself?

K: This is a wrong question. Sir, what is thinking? I am asking you. What is thinking? You do that all day long. Right? When you go to the office, when you go to the temple, when you talk, when you are destructive. What is thinking? Go on, sirs. Have you ever even thought about what is thinking? What is the movement of thought? Let's begin slowly. This is the last question. It's quarter to nine. Good lord! We have been an hour and a quarter here, I'm sorry.

Now, what is thinking? Not what to think, not what you think about, not what thought should do, or not do, but we are asking what is thinking itself. You think if you are a businessman in one way, you think as a lawyer in another way, an engineer, a computer expert, you think in these ways; but we are asking, what is thinking itself. If one is asked your name, you reply instantly. There is no hesitation - hesitation being time interval. Please just follow this for a little. When you are familiar with something there is no activity of thought, there is instant response. You know the house you live in, the street you go by, that is familiarity, constant repetition as your name, there is instant response. That response has been immediate because there has been past repetition: my name is so-and-so, I have been called that name since I was a small boy, and I repeat it, repeat it, repeat it, when you ask what my name is, out it comes.

Forum: A Quiet Space Wed, 17 Jul 2019
Topic: All one inquiry

Clive Elwell wrote at 754: But it is not perfectly obvious to me why "fragmented" should translate into "conflict" Why should the fragments be in conflict with each other?

It seems to me that the QOTD speaks exactly to this question of yours, Clive. I am pasting it below for easy reference. I don’t know if it will strike you in the same way.

You will be able to see for yourself how you are conditioned only when there is a conflict in the continuity of pleasure or the avoidance of pain. If everything is perfectly happy around you, your wife loves you, you love her, you have a nice house, nice children and plenty of money, then you are not aware of your conditioning at all. But when there is a disturbance - when your wife looks at someone else or you lose your money or are threatened with war or any other pain or anxiety - then you know you are conditioned. When you struggle against any kind of disturbance or defend yourself against any outer or inner threat, then you know you are conditioned. And as most of us are disturbed most of the time, either superficially or deeply, that very disturbance indicates that we are conditioned. So long as the animal is petted he reacts nicely, but the moment he is antagonized the whole violence of his nature comes out.

Forum: General Discussion Wed, 17 Jul 2019
Topic: How does one go to the very source of thought?

Idiot,

K may have said “valid” or he may have said “wrong”. Whatever he said, he was not the Delphic Oracle, as he himself has said.

It’s not because someone stands alone in speaking out against the rest of the world that he or she is “wrong”. But one MUST be aware of the cause of one’s speaking-out - not the explanation, but the cause. One MUST be aware because the crucial importance of awareness is understood, isn’t it?

The truth is not a position, it simply IS. The very taking of positions about anything obfuscates the truth, don’t you think? No truth can be understood or spoken without self-awareness, wouldn’t you say?

As I went to log in, I noticed the QOTD:

As long as there is a guiding principle in our lives to which we are trying to be true, there must be duality in action, and therefore a problem.

Forum: General Discussion Wed, 17 Jul 2019
Topic: How does one go to the very source of thought?

idiot ? wrote: But a thousand years ago, most people thought that the sun goes around the earth.

Exactly. And people did then and still do now kill or attack those who disagree. Whether one believes the Earth goes around the sun or vice-versa, or whether one believes K said this or that - does not justify physical or verbal violence, does it? Nor does belief make the world a better place. But we attach value, virtue and significance to belief, we are attached to our beliefs and to the sense of security they provide. And so we feel justified in attacking non-believers. Science can only “help us get at the truth” if we drop all belief and conclusions. There is no dearth of beliefs and conclusions, even those which have been disproved by science. Good audio equipment cannot help us. Those who transcribed the tapes of K’s talks at the time had access to the horse’s mouth, didn’t they?

So where does this leave us? What are we really interested in? Whether K said “valid” or “wrong”? Is this the truth we hunger for? The truth that we hunger for cannot be proffered to us by science, can it? It cannot be understood by looking outwardly but only by looking inwardly. No?

http://uberfritz.blogspot.com/2018/12/nietzsche...:

“No matter how strongly a thing may be believed, strength of belief is no criterion of truth.”

I'm not very familiar with Nietzche, but this makes sense, doesn’t it? I have often heard people say, “I really really believe….”, as though adding an extra “really” strenghtens the truth. But it only shows the strength of the belief, not the truth.

Forum: A Quiet Space Thu, 18 Jul 2019
Topic: All one inquiry

Clive Elwell wrote: "But it is not perfectly obvious to me why "fragmented" should translate into "conflict" Why should the fragments be in conflict with each other?"

It is almost obvious that fragments of the mind must be in conflict - but not quite. K has often said "where there is separation/division there MUST be conflict" That is actually becoming more obvious the more I stay with the question, feel into the question without searching for an answer.

Can there BE conflict without fragmentation?

All words are verbal images, as I see it. There are words/images which have a counterpart in reality, and there are words/images which do not reflect ANY reality. For example, there ARE apples and oranges, blue eyes and brown eyes, there IS love and intelligence, brothers and sisters, jobs, knowledge, ignorance, darkness and light, and so on. These names reflect a fact that can be observed. Such words merely reflect a fact or truth that actually is, but they are never the truth itself. A word or name can never fully reflect or contain the wholeness of the thing named. A word explains nothing. An explanation is never the truth itself. An explanation is never complete. So these fact-based words are necessarily limited. Understanding or insight is needed to complete their full meaning. Intensity is necessary to communicate. Energy is necessary for intensity.

There are other verbal images or words - and to complicate matters, they can be (usually are) the SAME words - which are routinely imbued with qualities, measures and values which are NOT in any way reflective of actuality. The qualities, measures and values attached to these words are pure fantasy or illusion. They have no basis in fact, they do not reflect “what is”. They distort “what is”. They measure “what is not”. Self is the leading example.

Consciousness is fundamentally whole, unbroken, unfragmented. Isn't it the attribution of illusory qualities, measures and values which breaks consciousness down into illusory fragments? Fragmentation does not reside in the fact that thoughts are in themselves incomplete, as I see it. Fragmentation lies in the fact that something which IS whole - like the universe itself - is broken down by illusion/thought. But it is not actually broken. The fragmentation ends as soon as the illusion ends. And illusion ends as soon as thought is still.

The universe is whole and the universe is also diverse. But diversity does not fragment wholeness. What fragments wholeness is the illusion that the word is the thing, that the explanation is the truth, as I see it.

Can there BE conflict without fragmentation, without the process of attributing qualities, measures and values to things which have no counterpart in reality? As long as the mind is unaware of its own habit or process of fragmentation, it MUST BE in conflict. And conflict is what alerts the mind to the process of fragmentation, which is our conditioning.

You will be able to see for yourself how you are conditioned only when there is a conflict in the continuity of pleasure or the avoidance of pain. If everything is perfectly happy around you, your wife loves you, you love her, you have a nice house, nice children and plenty of money, then you are not aware of your conditioning at all. But when there is a disturbance - when your wife looks at someone else or you lose your money or are threatened with war or any other pain or anxiety - then you know you are conditioned. When you struggle against any kind of disturbance or defend yourself against any outer or inner threat, then you know you are conditioned. And as most of us are disturbed most of the time, either superficially or deeply, that very disturbance indicates that we are conditioned. So long as the animal is petted he reacts nicely, but the moment he is antagonized the whole violence of his nature comes out.

I don't know if this clears up anything or if it only muddies it more. I don't know if it's right or wrong.

Forum: A Quiet Space Fri, 19 Jul 2019
Topic: All one inquiry

Tom,

You addressed your question to Manfred, so I hope you don't mind if I respond since I've been thinking this over anyway.

:o)

As I see it, “the whole” or “wholeness” cannot be visually observed DIRECTLY as a “thing” in itself. It can only be seen by its results or effects.

For example, one can observe that a polluted stream can cleanse or purify itself when polluting activity is ended. Or “human wisdom” might have decided to remove a seemingly insignificant element from a stream and so unwittingly destroyed it by interfering with its natural harmony. Doesn’t this show the wholeness of the stream? That is, the stream is not just a sterile pool of water containing various disparate, unrelated elements. It is a living organism. There is a relationship between all the elements which comprise and also surround the stream - the water, the aquatic plants, animals and microorganisms living in or on it, the animals which bathe, fish or drink in it, the minerals on its floor and the earth’s core beneath it, the sun, wind and air above it, and so on. The totality of the relationships or interactions between all the elements which comprise the stream IS the wholeness of the stream, isn’t it? That wholeness was not created by man. And isn’t that wholeness fragmented or destroyed by man’s waste and garbage, by cigarette smoke, by runoff from industry, by bombs, by the introduction of invasive species, and so on? It is not the water of the stream alone, nor any one of its elements alone, which cleanses the stream. It is the whole or the wholeness of it - if it is given a chance.

Another example: We now understand that bees are crucial to the survival of all life on Earth. Who knew. We don’t understand the relationship between all the seemingly disparate elements “around” us and “within” us but we can observe that there IS such a relationship, an interconnectedness; and so - indirectly - we observe and understand that there IS a whole. No?

Similarly, every element which comprises the identifiable layers of Earth - troposphere, stratosphere, core, crust, etc. (which are in turn part of a greater whole) - is part of the wholeness of each layer which, in turn, is part of the wholeness of Earth, and so on, which are all part of the endless limitless unknowable wholeness. So each element is whole in itself and each body of which the element is a part is whole in itself, endlessly inwardly and outwardly. Can’t that can be understood even if it cannot be directly observed? Or is this imagination, fantasy?

"People" may believe that they are independent, aloof, impervious to, separate from the wholeness. They may believe that their cleverness protects them from the dangers of life or that they can protect themselves by isolating themselves in various ways. They may justify their aggressive, thoughtless or selfish actions with statements such as, “What’s it to you? I can do what I want. I won't conform to your values. What I do is none of your business.” But doesn’t that very view of life indicate psychological fragmentation? Isn’t it a symptom of our conditioning? The arrogant, fragmented mind thinks that “I” - this incredibly miniscule speck in the universe, which is ignorant of the whole of life, which is ignorant of the significance of its own action in relationship - this ignorant mind surveys its perceived domain from atop a high horse. And from this height, it pontificates, judges, concludes, and so on. Man is not the centre of the universe. Man is one of the elements of the whole which is beyond Man's understanding.

It is an illusion to think that “I” am free to live as I desire and that it is no one else’s business but my own. That is not freedom but the darkness of ignorance, fear, as I see it.

Can the mind step off this high horse? Can “it”/I/we somehow climb to the mountaintop to get a “bird’s eye view” of the consequences of our aggressive, thoughtless and selfish activities - war, islands of plastic in the oceans, flooding, exploitation, poverty, injustice, brutality, isolationism, cruelty, disease, famine, industrial agriculture, pollution of food, air and water, and so on? From the mountaintop, it can be seen that everything is connected, that whatever one does affects the whole, though we still cannot directly see or understand “the whole”.

What does it mean to climb to the mountaintop in this sense? Isn’t it simply to abandon “the view from the centre”? Which means to understand the nature of the centre, the processes which constitute the centre, including thought, time and fear. Isn’t that very “view from the centre” the cause of man’s conflict and suffering? The centre, the self.

One can observe that when an angry, agitated person enters a space - a room or a public place - the whole of that space is affected by that angry, agitated, scattered energy. In the same way, it can be seen that a fearless person entering that space brings a calming energy into the space. Am I fantasizing?

Isn’t it seen or understood that everything and everyone is interrelated or interconnected? Isn’t that seeing wholeness?

I don’t fully know how to express what I mean, and I could be wrong. I throw it out here as one might throw a message in a bottle into the ocean.

Forum: A Quiet Space Mon, 22 Jul 2019
Topic: All one inquiry

Manfred Kritzler wrote: As long as we are aware that whatever thought is creating is not separate from the whole...

Manfred,

Everything you say in your post 787 is clear and well put, except for the one phrase above. Forgive me for saying so. I could be wrong.

As I see it, that “whatever thought is creating is not separate from the whole” cannot BE awareness. It can be an expression of understanding but it is not something AWARENESS sees. There can be awareness of the moment the intellect fragments into "me" and thought. Maybe that's what you meant.

Thought is not awareness and awareness is not intelligence or understanding. Awareness can open the door to the understanding that self is thought and that whatever self creates is not the action of intelligence or understanding. It seems to me that it is important to distinguish the meanings of the terms awareness, intelligence, understanding, and so on. They certainly are interconnected. They are facets or aspects of the whole mind, as I see it (and maybe I'm blind).

As I see it, awareness, intelligence, understanding, love, compassion, and so on, have no significance on their own, as separate entities. They can't act alone. Even thought has no significance without awareness, love, intelligence, understanding. In this way, it is understood that all the facets of the mind are part of an indivisible whole.

I begin from where I am - in the moment of sorrow, discontent. In the awareness of what is in the moment, there is no fragmentation in the mind, no naming or analyzing, no opposing “what is” with the ideal. Fragmentation begins with opposition and effort.

Where the mind understands the significance/error of its efforts to name and explain every thought and emotion, and to pursue the opposite - which is fragmentation - the understanding of it ends the effort. How can it not? Then there is only the fact itself, not the artificial, contradictory duality of the fact and its imagined opposite. In this spontaneous ending is the gathering of energy; the mind no longer being occupied with seeking to solve its problems, no longer being intent on finding joy and serenity, and so on. It sees and understands the process of fragmentation which leads to thought fighting against itself. And so it indiscriminately faces pain, sorrow, fear, anger, hate, joy, love, pleasure, and so on. It is experiencing all of life as it is.

So it is not awareness which says, “whatever thought is creating is not separate from the whole”, is it?

Am I flogging a dead horse? I talk too much sometimes.

Forum: A Quiet Space Mon, 29 Jul 2019
Topic: All one inquiry

Tom Paine wrote: Personally speaking I do question the value of asking impossible questions .... You can't investigate the unknown, can you?

I understand a “possible” question to mean a question for which, as far as the questioner is concerned, an answer DOES exist. He or she doesn’t know the answer but he knows that SOMEONE knows the answer. It can be a request for information: “How much does this cost; how do I get to the bus station; on what day is the garbage picked up”, and so on.

For other questions, there is an answer or explanation based on personal conclusion, tradition, belief or experience: “Why did you do that; what’s wrong with you (or me, or them); why are human beings greedy, cruel, cunning, dishonest”, and so on.

So the answers to possible questions are totally within the field of time-thought-knowledge. They do not address what lies beyond the field of knowledge.

An “impossible” question cannot be answered by the known. So when K puts the impossible question “can the mind empty itself of the known?”, he is pointing to a state of mind which can be pointed to ONLY by asking an impossible question. It cannot be pointed to verbally. To find out what is the action which empties the mind of the known, to discover what that state of the mind IS, the mind obviously cannot search through the known, through its memory banks. The answer is unknown, it is not of the known. “The answer” IS the stillness of the mind. The mind is still because it is not searching. There is nowhere to look, no movement it can make to find the answer. That stillness is not the movement of thought. That’s what I understand K to mean when he says: “If you put it with tremendous earnestness, with seriousness, with passion, you'll find out.”

Isn’t that the value of such a question? In the stillness of not-knowing and not searching, the mind is beyond concerning itself with “investigating the unknown”, isn’t it?

Forum: A Quiet Space Mon, 29 Jul 2019
Topic: All one inquiry

Tom Paine wrote: The noise is there...present...I can't avoid it when there is suffering/conflict...some deep disturbance. It's what is. That's what I must understand...and perhaps question....investigate. Why do I have opinions and conclusions and beliefs about my problem/s? What is my thinking?

Aren't these words the noise itself - thought - separating itself into “the noise” and the “I” who can and must understand?

Tom Paine wrote: What is the value of the known when facing suffering?

None. Doesn't the very question point to the known itself - thought - coming to the understanding that it is powerless in resolving suffering, and to “the necessity of thought being still”? Thought's efforts are not just useless. They waste and scatter energy. They wear the brain out, damage the brain. Isn't this seen?

Tom Paine wrote: I've often come upon the necessity of thought being still, yet, these moments of stillness didn't lead to self understanding...only to brief moments of peace and freedom.

Again, is it stillness when thought is waiting in the wings, hoping, desiring, supervising, guiding, expecting the outcome of peace and freedom? Aren't these the tricks thought plays on itself? It understands the need for stillness but it "takes part" in experimenting with stillness thereby preventing stillness.

Then realizing that hoping and expecting are obstacles to stillness, it decides that it will NOT hope and expect and it stifles its hopes, desires and expectations. That again is not stillness, is it?

To come upon the necessity of thought being still is not the same thing as thought’s effort to “be still”. And thought CAN see and understand that its expectation and its efforts to be still are part of the noise.

Below is a quote posted by Clive in Mina’s thread, “The gift that lies in the heart of all suffering”. I don’t see suffering as a gift, but the quote seems relevant here. It points to the fact that you can be aware integrally OF confusion and suffering. Confusion and suffering do not arise out of any EFFORT to be confused and to suffer. Confusion and suffering arise spontaneously. Thought is still when there is no EFFORT or WILL to be, to become, to do, to achieve, and so on.

Ommen Camp 1938 talk 2:

When you are aware integrally, with your whole being, of this confusion and suffering, without any hope of escape, then there will arise spontaneously that which is real. But you must love, be enthused by that very confusion and suffering. You must love with your own heart, not with another's.

If you begin to experiment with yourself, you will see a curious transformation taking place. In the moment of highest confusion there is clarity; in the moment of greatest fear there is love. You must come to it spontaneously, without the exertion of will.

Forum: A Quiet Space Mon, 29 Jul 2019
Topic: All one inquiry

Tom Paine wrote: I don't know the answer. Thought is there, isn't it, when there's suffering? It's part and parcel of the suffering.

Is thought part and parcel of suffering or is it entirely the material out of which suffering is made? Does suffering lie outside of thought? The “I” who is questioning is the source of the suffering, IS part and parcel of the suffering, isn't it?

Are you really saying that you don’t have the answer to the question “What is the value of the known when facing suffering?”? I don’t think that it is an impossible question. To me, it is a possible question, a question that thought can answer, like the question: “What is the value of a spoon to excavate the foundation of a high-rise?” Or “What is the value of anger in resolving a conflict?” Can’t thought correctly say, “None”? Thought CANNOT “answer” the problem of suffering. It is UNABLE to answer it. It has tried and tried for years personally, for millennia collectively. Or are you saying that perhaps thought HAS value in resolving suffering but we just haven’t discovered it yet? Does thought need more time to figure it out?

So is it a mistake for thought to say, “I cannot resolve suffering. It is beyond my capabilities”? As I see it, it can be seen and said but I could be wrong.

Forum: A Quiet Space Mon, 29 Jul 2019
Topic: All one inquiry

Tom Paine wrote: If thought is present with suffering, as you yourself agreed, then obviously we don't see that it has no value. Asking Ks impossible question is thinking.

Asking the impossible question is thinking. Answering the impossible question is not. Asking the possible question is thinking. Answering the possible question is also thinking.<

Thought is not present WITH suffering. They are not 2, they are 1 and the same material process. Thought IS suffering, suffering IS thought, isn’t it? You and I see and understand that thought is suffering, don't we? Why does it follow that “we” (thought) can’t see that thought has no value in terms of ending suffering? Can’t thought legitimately correctly appropriately rightly say, “I can teach you how to swim, I can sweep the floor, I can’t flap my arms and fly, I can’t end suffering/thought”, and so on?

So to say that thought is incapable of ending suffering doesn’t mean that the intellect is incapable of discerning and understanding anything at all. We often say here that thought does have a proper place, that thought is necessary.

“Thought is suffering, suffering is thought” doesn’t mean that all thought is suffering, does it? It means only that suffering is thought - which is not what we were educated to. We were educated to thinking that I and thought and suffering were all separate things.

Is there psychological suffering where there is no thought? If thought can see that suffering and thought are one and the same, can’t thought SEE that it has no value or role in ending thought, will, effort, desire?

Forum: A Quiet Space Tue, 30 Jul 2019
Topic: All one inquiry

Dan McDermott wrote at 845: ...or is it, that it [thought] can't cease and it is now just another operation of the brain like beating the heart, breathing or just another of its 'secretions'?

As you say, the brain regulates the beating of the heart, breathing and all the other bodily functions and organs, including itself. But as I see it, thought is not like the other movements and functions which are regulated by the brain. The other functions and organs MUST NOT be still: the heart can't stop beating, breathing can't stop, blood can't stop circulating, saliva can't dry up, without causing death or serious harm to the body. But the stillness of thought does not damage or kill the body. Thought may not like the feeling of emptiness or nothingness, but it realizes that the stillness of thought doesn’t cause the body's death, doesn’t it?

Forum: A Quiet Space Tue, 30 Jul 2019
Topic: All one inquiry

Tom Paine wrote at 846: I have trouble with your statement. Thought creates suffering, yes, but thought IS sufferings?

The hurt is not separate and distinct from thought. If not for the “me”, if not for the fragmentation of thought - conscious or unconscious - there is no hurt, no pain, no suffering. Suffering is totally rooted in thought but it is felt physically. The psychological root of it is not always seen, but the physical suffering is felt. So you might be right, that thought causes the physical suffering but it is not the suffering itself.

Forum: A Quiet Space Tue, 30 Jul 2019
Topic: All one inquiry

Tom Paine wrote at 847: I think we're leaving out the main reason that thought persists when there's suffering.

Tom, can we just put it as a question and not seek to answer it: "Why does thought persist?" That’s an important question, isn't it? An impossible question, like K’s other question, “can the mind empty itself of the known?”

It can be asked by thought, but not answered, as I see it. Over the years, we here have come up with many explanations for it, haven’t we? But none of the explanations have moved us. Understanding thought’s limitations and the nature of self, isnt it seen that any answer thought comes up with can only be partial and false?

But if the question is asked “with tremendous earnestness, with seriousness, with passion” as K suggests (The Impossible Question Part 2, Public Dialogues Saanen 1970), perhaps we can find out. He says we will - “you'll find out” he says. Or perhaps not. I think that is the only worthy approach. To ask earnestly, passionately, and not to seek the answer.

Forum: A Quiet Space Tue, 30 Jul 2019
Topic: All one inquiry

Clive Elwell wrote at 849: ...why does the mind keep making the same old effort to become other than it is?

Another important impossible question! Which is essentially the same as Tom's imposible question.

Forum: A Quiet Space Wed, 31 Jul 2019
Topic: Negative thinking

Manfred Kritzler wrote: When we ask what is absolutely necessary for the life the eagle lives, what could be put aside?

The tree, the wood, the prey of the eagle, the surrounding of the prey, the planet earth, our sun system, the milky way, the universe, the whole of existence?

That's wonderful, Manfred.

Forum: A Quiet Space Wed, 31 Jul 2019
Topic: All one inquiry

Tom Paine wrote: It's still thought making an effort as I see it....the intellect is asking.

It occurs to me that to ask the impossible question without trying to find the answer IS thinking.

Isn't negative thinking the movement of energy which is NOT willfully pushed and pulled by thought in a desired direction? So that positive thinking means the movement of thought which DOES have an intentional direction given by effort, desire, will. Any direction intentionally taken by thought can only be towards what is “already” known. Clearly, thought cannot deliberately move in the direction of the unknown.

The new cannot be discovered by the positive thinking of effort or will, can it. The new cannot be discovered through the persistence of thought reviewing and repeating what is known. Persistent “thinking” cannot engender understanding. Doesn’t understanding flower where there is negative thinking?

Forum: A Quiet Space Wed, 31 Jul 2019
Topic: All one inquiry

Clive Elwell wrote: But in a way thought has created "another body", an imitation of the body, a virtual body - I refer to the self, the ego, of course. And so, to thought, the ending of thought, even for a moment, which is the ending of the self that thought is forever putting together, IS the like the ending of the body. In fact sometimes people are more willing to let go of the body's existence than the self's existence, something that self has identified with.

I agree with what you say about the self, Clive. But in this instance, I was not questioning psychological death. I was not questioning the death of the psyche-self-thought which is driven to isolation, to anger, to kill a “loved one” out of jealousy, to kill millions out of pique, to punish a toddler by putting him in a scalding bath, to kill itself out of despair, and so on.

I was speaking only to Dan’s question at 845:

or is it, that [thought] can't cease and it is now just another operation of the brain like beating the heart, breathing or just another of its 'secretions'?