Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
Discussion Forums

Jim F's Forum Activity | 52 posts in 1 forum


Forum: General Discussion Thu, 26 Aug 2010
Topic: Why are you seeking at all?

Why are you seeking at all?

One is seeking mindfullness, another the sense of I am, or short moments of awareness, or presence, or nirvana, or enlightenment, or peace, or..........

Isn't it because your daily life is unsatisfactory? Or there is memory of an unsatisfactory past, so the urge to guarantee a better future? Unsatisfactoriness, or suffering is caused through a lack of clarity. When there is clarity one doesn't suffer!

So you see, the seeking is born out of a lack of clarity, and then not seeing this, the seeking is given great importance, and the whole circus rolls on.

This reminds me of a joke - A man is driving around unfamiliar country lanes and getting truly lost, he sees a simple local leaning on a gate and stops to ask him directions. When the local hears where the man wants to go to he replies "oh, I wouldn't start from here!". (Please don't get caught up in the joke)

You see? You're asking the wrong question. First, find out why you suffer!

Isn't it because you are repeatedly resisting life? This should happen, that shouldn't happen etc. etc.

And aren't you resisting life because you have an agenda?

The central agendas are the urge for security, for pleasure, for peace. But if you don't see that these are all projections of thought, you treat them as real, and the search goes on. There's only 'what is', the eternal present, but you project a future that is different from now, and not seeing that it's a projection you try to act on it.

So, you have to see the nature of thought, see what it is, what it can and can't do, see how it breeds illusion. Have an insight into thought. You can only have an insight into thought if you watch it and explore how it works. One must not condemn thought, as then you will not be able to watch and enquire with an open mind.

Freedom, clarity, peace, are all present and experienced eternally now for one not caught in illusion. There truly is nowhere to go. But to repeat these words when one is caught in illusion, when one is seeking, when one is trying not to try, trying to surrender, and all the other psychological gymnastics that people go through, then this just breeds more illusion.

The key is an insight into thought. Put all your spare time and energy into examining, exploring and watching thought.

Forum: General Discussion Thu, 26 Aug 2010
Topic: Unstoppable thought

Most people experience that they cannot stop their thoughts.

The reason is that the central concept of I am ______ this, that, not this, not that, etc. etc. creates all the thoughts that follow. The creation of the idea of 'me' and the subsequent desire to control experience (maintain pleasure, avoid pain, guarantee the future) has set thought a challenge which it cannot meet.

It's impossible to solve a problem with no true parameters. If you ask the question "what is the highest number possible?" It can't be answered. Infinity isn't definable.

So when the question "how can I (my idea about myself ("ego")) have security?" It's akin to asking how can an illusion/idea/concept have security. Can you see the problem?

This may have been the origin of the koans like "What is the sound of one hand clapping?" There is no answer to a question with no true parameters.

Thought then gets stuck in an infinite loop trying to solve the unsolvable. So if you find that thought just runs and runs, you now know why!

Ultimately, it's not about stopping thought, it's akin to saying "I can't stop breathing"! You may succeed for a short while, with a great deal of training/practice, but what's the point? When there are no false questions, thought only functions when it's needed with no control required whatsoever.

Forum: General Discussion Thu, 26 Aug 2010
Topic: Why are you seeking at all?

Bob D wrote: Ultimately...this statement too...is a trap.

Why make a statement without any supporting evidence? Please expand.

Forum: General Discussion Thu, 26 Aug 2010
Topic: What is my self image?

The creation of a self image is the first movement of illusion. Not seeing that it's purely a fiction we then seek security for that projected image. All the confusion and conflict follows on from this.

Forum: General Discussion Thu, 26 Aug 2010
Topic: What is my self image?

RICK LEIN wrote: Hi Jim.Can we say then that fear of the unknown,and the desire for the comfort of the known gives life to self image?

Hi Rick Thinking about myself (psychologically) creates the image. Desire for comfort of the remembered, and fear of the discomfort of the remembered breathes life into it.

There is no fear of the unknown, is there?

Forum: General Discussion Thu, 26 Aug 2010
Topic: What is my self image?

ganesan balachandran wrote: from seeing in a objective mirror and before that? Does not self form out of desire. gb

I am talking about a psychological self image, not a physical one. Thinking about myself psychologically creates that image. Desire for security and pleasure breathes life into that image.

Forum: General Discussion Thu, 26 Aug 2010
Topic: What is my self image?

It's the thinking about myself psychologically that actually creates the insecurity and the urge for control. When there is no thinking about myself, there are no problems to solve!

Thinking about myself psychologically creates psychological time. When there is no thinking, there is no psychological time. Nowhere to go and nothing to solve!

Forum: General Discussion Thu, 26 Aug 2010
Topic: Why are you seeking at all?

By logical extension, that means that anything one does will be a trap. And so, if you continue as you have, then nothing will change.

Thought projects, that is a fact. It is very useful when planning the weeks food shopping, it's a disaster when the content is psychological. Psychological thought creates a division between what is, and what should/could be. Watch how thought projects psychologically and see the effects of this movement.

Forum: General Discussion Sun, 29 Aug 2010
Topic: What is my self image?

Thinking about myself psychologically, creates an image of myself. If I don't see that its just an image I act as if that imaginary self is real. This imaginary self creates a feeling of insecurity because it can be projected into the future, and as the future is unknown, there is fear as to what might happen. This is the source of all our psychological problems.

Thought is a natural function of us. It allows us to plan and create in the physical world. It's only when thought gets carried over into the psychological realm that it causes all the problems. Watching my 2 children (5 & 3), it's clear to see that they don't have a single psychological problem. My wife and I haven't told them to feel anything other than what they are feeling. We never tell them to behave in a certain way, or speak in a certain way etc. I'm clear from watching other parents and children, that it's when children are told to say thanks when they don't feel like it, or to feel grateful when they don't, or that they should feel bad about this that or the other that they have said or done, that creates this duality in them. And once started, the child starts to project the idea of themselves and thus the fears and confusions - i.e. the whole psychological content, begins.

Forum: General Discussion Sun, 29 Aug 2010
Topic: Why are you seeking at all?

Bob D wrote: Is it your perception that I am arguing with you here? Considering the volatile history of some of the personalities on this board over the past 10 years...I decided I better ask.

Not arguing, no. I did wonder why you would begin on such a pessimistic footing.

Forum: General Discussion Sun, 29 Aug 2010
Topic: Unstoppable thought

nick carter wrote: The unstoppability of thought is its solution to the "problem" of silence. Thought is conditioned to mistake constancy for integrity.

Thought doesn't have a motive, it doesn't want to do anything mischievous. Thought just runs and runs when it is set an unaswerable question.

Forum: General Discussion Tue, 31 Aug 2010
Topic: Why are you seeking at all?

Paul Davidson wrote: But even seeing that fragmentation does not end it.

The fragmentation has to come to the end of itself.

How and why would fragmentation come to the end of itself? True seeing does give birth to insight, and it's insight that resolves the fragmentation.

Your belief above Paul, is probably the reason that you are so dismissive of others. It doesn't allow the possibility that they may see something more clearly than you.

Forum: General Discussion Tue, 31 Aug 2010
Topic: What is my self image?

Paul Davidson wrote: My grand-daughter has a lot of 'excess energy,' at least, more than she can presently usefully employ in her environment, and she gets quite frustrated. Since she was 18 months she took to hitting, pinching and scratching. Her parents have had to talk to her about it regularly, but never in such a way as to shame her or make her feel bad about herself. It is just something that happens, arises in her. And she will have to be the one to deal with it. Now she is 30 months and one can see her reasoning abilities being increasingly employed to get to grips with the rogue energy. She listens carefully. Yes, she loves daddy. No, she doesn't want to hurt him. She observes herself. It is heartening.

I question what was meant by "usefully employ"? Children just want to explore and play with what they find. There's no limit to this it seems, and the only barrier is usually adults who create limits as to what is acceptable and what is not. This will be what frustrated her. The solution is to create an interesting environment where the child cannot harm themselves, or damage prized possessions. Then you will find that they play/learn/explore until they run out of energy and need to sleep/eat/rest.

Our 2 boys wake between 6&7am and sleep between 8&9pm and in between they are on the go all day. They bounce out of bed with great enthusiasm, and they tell us when they are ready to sleep at the end of the day. Our greatest challenge is having the energy to keep up with them - e.g. after meals we like to take it easy for a while.

Forum: General Discussion Tue, 31 Aug 2010
Topic: What is my self image?

Paul Davidson wrote: Yes, she loves daddy. No, she doesn't want to hurt him.

This is where the problems begin!! To create an image of oneself as one who loves daddy and doesn't want to hurt him, creates conflict and the psychological division when sometimes in fact she does want to hurt him.

The telling of any psychological story is the creation of duality. One only is whatever one is now. Any ideas other than that is where the division/conflict/duality begins.

Forum: General Discussion Tue, 31 Aug 2010
Topic: Unstoppable thought

nick carter wrote: I didn't say or imply that thought has a motive. Its function is to solve problems by devising solutions. Motive is formed when there seems to be a problem, an obstacle to overcome or avoid. When the brain is conditioned to regard silence as a problem, the solution is be constantly noisy.

The "unanswerable question" theory does not explain why thought "runs and runs" because so much of that running is just pointless, mindless noise, i.e., filler. If thought was obsessed with finding the answer, the content would reflect that. But what the content of incessant thought reflects is a compulsion to be constantly occupied, regardless of how banal or inane the occupation is.

The unanswerable question set to thought is the finding of psychological security. As this is impossible, yet seen as a vital imperative, there is a great deal of stress created. If one observes the content of thought, by far the greatest volume is that concerned with myself. When there are periods of lesser activity it brings to light the fact that one is so ill at ease, hence the demand for endless drama/entertainment/busyness.

Forum: General Discussion Tue, 31 Aug 2010
Topic: Unstoppable thought

RICK LEIN wrote: Can a mind that is occupied with it's content[whatever it may be] see what is?

But the content is important. If I'm planning a shopping trip, then attention will be on the thoughts about shopping. If I'm seeking psychological security, then a great deal of attention and energy is tied up with that unattainable project. When there is no movement psychologically, then there is plenty of energy and attention for meeting life with and without memory as required.

Forum: General Discussion Tue, 31 Aug 2010
Topic: Why are you seeking at all?

Paul Davidson wrote: But have you had that insight or are you in the same boat as me . . . working on it?

That insight has occurred here, yes.

Paul Davidson wrote: It would only be a trap if one believed that by the examination of thought, conducted by thought itself, one could come to an insight.

Thought is an image, a reflection, it can never examine anything. Observation is how insight may come about.

Forum: General Discussion Tue, 31 Aug 2010
Topic: Unstoppable thought

ganesan balachandran wrote: and if it is then it is energy itself.

I don't understand what you're saying at the end of this sentence.

If what is, then what is energy itself?

Could you try again?

Forum: General Discussion Wed, 01 Sep 2010
Topic: Unstoppable thought

nick carter wrote: Are you speaking experientially or theoretically? When, if ever, is there "no movement psychologically"?

From present moment experience. The psychological movement has ended here.

nick carter wrote: If such a phenomenon was real for me, I would not be inquiring into "unstoppable thought", but speaking from silence and emptiness.

This is a projection, an assumption. You do not know as this is not real for you. The passage at the beginning of this thread was written from insight. It was prompted when asked by another why thought is unstoppable.

Thought is a natural human function, it functions when necessary and ceases when not. But only if it is not set (unknowingly) impossible tasks.

Forum: General Discussion Wed, 01 Sep 2010
Topic: Unstoppable thought

Paul Davidson wrote: Only part of thought enters the rarefied heights we are 'conscious' of. This constant chatter has been called the monkey mind. Is this constant chatter what you are mostly referring to as 'unstoppable?'

But there is also the underlying structure of thought which is mostly 'unconscious. K does not like to use the terms conscious and unconscious because they stress a division he says is not there.

What psychologists have called 'unconscious' K refers to as the deeper layers of consciousness. This contains the deeper memory, the suppressed materials, the structures and so on. These deeper layers are also in continuous flux.

We seem to live in the surface tension of the sea of thought and know little what lies beneath, the hidden currents. But it is all one body of water.

We seek to calm the waves on the surface, whereas it is the whole ocean which needs draining. Can an ocean drain itself?

These are all thoughts about thought. They just add more content to an already confused person.

There has to be an insight into the nature of thought itself. Then thought functions where and when it's necessary.

Just ask the question, "what is thought?", and then not accepting a secondhand answer, just observe and see what arises.

Forum: General Discussion Wed, 01 Sep 2010
Topic: Why are you seeking at all?

Paul Davidson wrote: Maybe. Who are what is conducting the observation?

There is a person named Jim here typing these replies onto a keyboard. That is who. He is observing, without thinking about what is being observed.

Paul Davidson wrote: K says that observation by the observer is thought looking at itself. One thought looking at another. One fragment trying to control another.

K says there can be observation without the observer and there can be observation where the observer is the observed. Two types of observation, one from the present and one through the eyes of the past.

I just read it once again in the talks with Anderson.

Is it K's teaching that says thought cannot look at itself or is it an interpretation. I am asking factually, not to score points. But I have heard it said like that on this forum before and I would like to know where it comes from. It does not sound correct or in keeping with the teaching somehow. Maybe it has grown up in these discussions. Can you recall?

It's a careless/inaccurate/unfortunate use of language by K. Thought cannot look at anything. Thought isn't a doer. If I attribute characteristics to thought that are inaccurate then much confusion is caused. It's not unlike a driver trying to get his car started and saying that the engine is stubbonly refusing to start! It assigns attributes that are simply untrue.

This inaccurate use of language is one of the biggest stumbling blocks for those that engage with K's work.

When there is insight into the nature of thought, this all becomes very simple indeed.

Forum: General Discussion Wed, 01 Sep 2010
Topic: Unstoppable thought

nick carter wrote: So you say of yourself. But if it's true, why announce it? Those here for whom "the psychological movement" continues can only believe or disbelieve your testimony, so why put them in that awkward position? Why, for that matter, participate in a forum which exists for those inquiring into the psychological movement? If for you it's over, start your own web site or write a book or give public talks. This forum has seen a dozen or more of your ilk come and go.

You asked the question nick, that prompted the answer. No announcement was made, not that an announcement is a problem when it comes from compassion.

There is a 3rd way, neither believe nor disbelieve.

I'm free to participate where I see fit, it's not for anyone else to tell me what to do.

There may be some on these forums who would like to ask questions, or clear up some confusion. I'm curious to see what might come of such open minded communication.

When I was still searching, I would have been very happy to have a friendly insightful companion.

If it suits you, you can ignore my posts - that's your choice.

Forum: General Discussion Wed, 01 Sep 2010
Topic: Why are you seeking at all?

Dean R. Smith wrote:

What is 'he'?

2 arms, 2 legs, etc. etc. I don't know what you're expecting, but when psychological time ends, there's still a living being. This one happens to be named Jim and has all the usual body parts.

Forum: General Discussion Thu, 02 Sep 2010
Topic: Why are you seeking at all?

Dean R. Smith wrote: If you look at it in terms of expectation, a delusion was expected. Certainly, when psychological time ends, there is still a physical world, inc. the body, but you are not the body. Thought has identified with the body. The great majority of the human race suffers the same delusion. God only knows what it is that you call 'insight', because whatever it is; it has only reinforced an illusory state. There is a body and the psyche, the psychological phenomenon, aka 'consciousness'. That consciousness is what you are. It is the movement of memory, which is thought and like the wind, it does not exist without the movement that it is.

Wow, you do jump to a lot of conclusions!

And yet you type

Dean R. Smith wrote: In truth, there is really only a body.

Which is in fact what was said. This one, it's fingers typing on a laptop in India, is named Jim.

Hello Dean.

Forum: General Discussion Thu, 02 Sep 2010
Topic: Why are you seeking at all?

Paul Davidson wrote: Thank you Jim for a truthful response. Whereas I do not find the same as you do with K, that is less significant than your honest reply. By the way, what do you mean by 'those engaged in K's work.' I am not sure if I would use this as a description of myself. Does it appertain to you?

When you see clearly the nature of thought, you'll see that it cannot look at anything. It is purely an image. Sometimes an image of what does exist, or (problematic when not realised) an image of what does not exist.

The word 'engaged' was used to simply mean; to read &/or listen to what K wrote &/or spoke.

Forum: General Discussion Thu, 02 Sep 2010
Topic: Unstoppable thought

nick carter wrote: Yes, we're free to do what we will in this forum within reasonable, permissible limits, but I wonder why anyone who sees clearly would speak condescendingly to those who don't see. If I could see what another is blind to or oblivious of, I wouldn't want the other to think I could. I would want the other to see for himself, and the way to do that is to pose questions, not to provide answers.

Again, this is your hypothesis without any experiential basis.

Please show what you consider was condescending.

And finally, can you see that this post of yours breaks your own rules?

Forum: General Discussion Thu, 02 Sep 2010
Topic: Why are you seeking at all?

Dean R. Smith wrote: That state does not sit at a computer and post at forums. :)

How would you know that?

Forum: General Discussion Thu, 02 Sep 2010
Topic: Did K ever instructed for dialog between/among ignorants?

K spoke at length with Bohm about many things, I don't recall if he spoke to him about dialogue itself. Bohm became very interested in the possibilities of dialogue, and if memory serves, wrote a book entitled 'On Dialogue'. It goes into quite some detail as to what is required for dialogue to 'work'. As you will probably find, most (all?) K forums are a zoo of opinions, beliefs and posturing. As one participant wittily put it "It's like the blind kneeing the blind in the groin"!!

There are some insightful participants, but the fact that they have no following and so no automatic 'kudos' they are often misunderstood or ignored or sometimes attacked.

Forum: General Discussion Fri, 03 Sep 2010
Topic: Why are you seeking at all?

Dean R. Smith wrote: re: That state does not sit at a computer and post at forums. :)

Jim F wrote: How would you know that?

Dean R. Smith wrote:There is something that is very much absent from that state. :)

Let's try that again Dean, how would you know?

Forum: General Discussion Sat, 04 Sep 2010
Topic: Why are you seeking at all?

Dean R. Smith wrote:

Jim F wrote: Let's try that again Dean, how would you know?

Dean R. Smith wrote:Your question is understood, but you're looking for something that's irrelevant. 'There is only the body' doesn't translate to thought saying "I am the body". The person is not the body. So, the real question is how did your delusion come to be.

Why you don't answer the question?