I am bored, looking for something to do. Psychologically, the thought activity, the inner dialogue, is an amusement. The particular theme or subject of the thinking are an indulgence, even if I think I have a serious interest or purpose. It is all an entertainment.
The inner dialogue may have some benefit, I don’t know. I need to attentively, carefully, more comprehensively, observe the whole environment of awareness, not attaching myself to what the thoughts are saying.
This may be called negative thinking, and someone may have more to say about it, but the point is, discovering this whole movement of thought, not deciding on negative thinking.
1 Like
If I may Peter, is it not a kind of inner chattering ? And when you say not attaching myself to what the thoughts are saying, do you have the sentiment that you are separate from that chattering ? That the observer of the thoughts is separate from the thoughts observed ? But you don’t have to answer . I’m just trying to understand.
Inner shattering? Is this saying the inner construct disappears, or something? I don’t know. When attentively listening, watching, when there is a clear and careful observation of what’s before you, like listening to a bird, watching machinery, or sitting in a forest, with a sense of integration, not separate to the listening and watching, the same is with thought. I am not concerned with what was before, what has gone, as if would know anyway. I am not deliberating on anything. A discussion about what happens or is involved is a separate exercise and does not begin to grasp the quality of completely listening and watching.
I thought Richard meant ‘chattering’.
1 Like
Good guess - as I’m imagining that he’s French, I thought it might be a translation of “brisure”, which would convey the idea of break, separation.
Sorry. Thanks and yes I meant chattering. Shattering doesn’t make sense. I should have check before. I’m gona correct it. Peter feel free to answer if the correction clarify the question or something. Thanks .
Does freedom from bondage necessarily imply that the prisoner and their chains are 2 separate things?
Freedom from chattering can just imply that the chattering is not the boss of me. (whether I am distinct or separate from my chattering is irrelevant, no?)
Freedom from chattering means that I do not mistake my chattering for some ultimate authority about reality.
Do I have to react to my chattering ? Is it possible just to be aware that there is chattering? - Awareness being a moment of silence (and absence of chatterer)
1 Like
Just want to high light the importance of this. If the contents (images) of consciousness empty themselves, the consciousness itself disappears. Without content there is no container. Without the ‘container’ , images cannot accumulate. They have no ‘place’. Reification of this description is necessary. Negative thinking is the negation of the accumulative process in the moment.
1 Like
As humans are once again involved in the mass slaughter of each other, it clarifies the urgency of the need for radical change.
1 Like
He not only meant it - he wrote it. I don’t know why Peter mistook it for “shattering”.
It is only relevant if from the awareness of the chattering arise a thinker separate from the chattering, who want to act upon the chattering. With passive awareness it is as you say irrelevant.
@Inquiry No, Peter was correct . The thing is I correct the mistake by editing the post, as said in the post that follow after Dan and Mcdougdoug note it to me. Sorry for that.
Humans are the victim, those who slaughter them are anti social and evil.
We talk about and advocate radical change, but we can’t make it happen because it’s just another idea, something we can imagine and approve of and “get behind”, as they say. Everything Krishnamurti said sounds so good and right, we can’t walk away from it. All you can do is stay with it because when you’re lost, you stay with what holds your attention. And, when you’re attentive enough to see that you’re moving in the only direction you know, you can see that nothing is new.
We take life for whatever it tells us to do, and unless life can fail us, we can’t stop following our leader. We’re animals with technology that put animals to shame and humans to blame
I don’t know if this is of interest : when I drop a burning hot potato (because it burns my hands) I (my brain/body) have created the pain, the reaction to the pain and the memory of the pain. I drop the potato however I may interpret the situation. The hot potato burns whether I think I am the same or separate from the pain.
When there is awareness, there cannot be chattering. Whether the awareness arises from a conscious choice or not. Does this sound right?
This is a a question of the survival of the body . We don’t have the time to think in such a situation. Though I will remenber that pain…I hope . As I will remenber to run if I meet a snake
Does chattering arise from a conscious choice ? Or is chattering inattention, unawareness ? Chattering may be something mechanical that happen in inattention. I get aware of it. Chattering is irrevelant. I have no interest in it. As you say, it dissipates.
Passive awareness says you left out three commas.
. Strangely, I had put them and finally take them off. I felt that the sentence was to short.
Sounds confusing. Why can’t there be chattering “when there is awareness”? If chattering is banned from awareness, it will only get louder and more obnoxious.
Hi Richard,
Ah! … the key to understand all of this. “The observer is the observed.”
This was Charley’s first insight, with the ensuing explosion of energy, coursing throughout the body. One of the most interesting after-effects of this particular insight is that all projection ceases immediately, and then there is a clear understanding of knowing who one is… and the wonderful passion that comes with this insight - hence knowing what one is to do in one’s life - correct action, and obviously a correct/right choice in one’s decision as to what area of life to direct one’s actions to earn a living.
Without this insight, thought continues; and as can been seen, there are those who treat thought as some strange entity, separated from the centre of the psyche. In other words, one part of the “I” consciously acting on another part of the “I”… Hence, thought seems to generate itself almost in the same way that Bitcoin is mined (dirty money - cough)… (lol), with one thought arising at a time, and hence energy consciously directed to understand that particular thought, and when that is over, another thought arising, then understanding - an endless cycle of never-ending thought. It all seems like an endless self-generating cycle, indeed! And the very conditioning of the past is still ignored/dismissed. Further, the conditioning is seen/heard as having been thought itself, not the event in one’s past that caused the thought. The trouble with this approach is that one has not even reached the point where one can ask, “Can thought stop?” It’s almost as if the person indulging in such activity has unconsciously decided that thought cannot stop.
There is also the fact that anyone doing the above has not put thought in its right place - easily seen when someone uses one’s memory to remember who the other is… which K referred to as “sacrilege”. So anyone who treats x in a certain way because of what they “know” of another has never put thought in its right place. Right, you all understand this?
In googling online, apparently, one read that the brain can generate @ 6,000-70,000 thoughts per day…
Also, one read, " As a number, … the average adult human brain has the ability to store the equivalent of 2.5 million gigabytes digital memory.
1 Like