Facts-Only Inquiry :: The Unconscious Mind

Kinfonet Discussion
102

The context of the previous discussion - just to point this out - was to find out whether thought is limited (and why it is limited). I was suggesting that thought is limited because thought is essentially memory (which is a mere simulacrum of an original perception).

And in my understanding it is principally thought and memory that make up our psychological conditioning (our biological conditioning is a more general conditioning that we share with all animals). So to have an insight into thought would be relevant to our conditioning too (I am not claiming to have had this insight).

But to take your point about status quo - an “existing state of affairs”: our conditioning is just that, right?

Our conditioning is ‘what is’: it is our present state of affairs (psychologically speaking). That conditioning is self-perpetuating, robust: like a long-formed habit, it resists being altered.

So what is one to do about it (given that we are our conditioning, we are not separate from it)?

Obviously we cannot act upon it through will or decision. We cannot force it to dissolve (because when we attempt to use force we are only suppressing parts of our conditioning with other aspects of the same conditioning).

This is why I feel that passive (or choiceless) awareness of our conditioning is the only intelligent action our minds are capable of. And this passive awareness is not an act of determination or will either, so it is not a moralistic or prescriptive thing. Rather,

To be aware that we are not passive [i.e. choiceless] is the beginning. (The First and Last Freedom)

What do you feel about this?

103

You know, it just occurred to me that Krishnamurti might be said to have set out to show, through thought, that thought is limited; just as Nagarjuna set out to show, through logic, that logic is limited.

Apparently to imply that there is a different way of being, or a different mode of perception (a different “tool” of the mind), that is not based on thought or logic.

It reminds me of a moment in one of JD Salinger’s Nine Stories when a character (Teddy) says:

You know that apple Adam ate in the Garden of Eden, referred to in the Bible? You know what was in that apple? Logic. Logic and intellectual stuff…. So… what you have to do is vomit it up if you want to see things as they really are.

104

The self can be seen as being made up of many parts - Logic might not be essential for there to be self. Being a central basis that reacts to its environement in the light of its knowledge of good and evil, seems like the essential components.

Logic and reasoning might be tools to deal with suffering - suffering being what was offered by the apple.

105

I’m not 100% sure what you are saying here Douglas, but I will do my best to address your reply (and then maybe you can tell me if I have grasped your point or not).

By using the word “self” here are you referring to the “apple” in the Biblical story?

If we interpret the story liberally (in a Krishnamurtian way) we might say that the apple represents psychological thought and knowledge, which has also created the ego (the self).

Logic on the other hand is perhaps something distinct - a useful tool of the brain. In Krishnamurti’s language, logic might be thought of as a practical tool of thought (which has its place).

But practical thought and logic are only tools, and both Krishnamurti and Nagarjuna have shown that such tools are limited, and can never “know” the absolute truth, or resolve suffering. So if we are relying on logic (or practical thought) to reveal to us the truth, we will not get far.

Again, if we take a Krishnamurtian approach (some people may judge me for using this expression, but I trust you will not!), the suffering has been created by psychological thought. So thought, thinking (even the most rational, logical thinking), can never completely resolve suffering because thought itself - inasmuch as it has impacted the psyche - is the cause of suffering.

This is why - as far as I have understood Krishnamurti - there needs to be another tool of perception other than thought (or even logic) for the ending of suffering and the revelation of truth.

But pease let me know if I have strayed off track here.

106

Lovely thought! (See, thought can be beautiful, and edifying. :wink: ) I think Nagarjuna saw the irony (wrong word?) in what he was doing: using logic to unravel logic. But I’m not so sure Krishnamurti saw the irony of using thought to expose the limited nature of thought. He might have just used thought because, well, how would you communicate without using thought?

This reminds me of one of my favorite descriptions of emptiness (sunyata): It’s like an emetic that, once swallowed, causes you to vomit up all your views/beliefs, and then to vomit up the emetic itself!

1 Like
107

But a tool is nothing without someone employing it (which implies choice), so I’m not sure that “tool” is the right word for what you’re referring to.

If direct perception isn’t something one does with the appropriate tool, it happens when one is without will, desire, or choice.

108

Yes. I don’t particularly like the word “tool” either. I only used it because that is the word that K sometimes used.

The context for the usage of that word (“tool”) probably goes back to his time in India, because in India they have a long tradition of what they call “epistemic instruments” (pramanas in Sanskrit), which include sense-perception, thought (or logical inference, as well as the use of analogy and comparison), the testimony of others, and so on. In this light the word “tool” just means one of the epistemic instruments (i.e. a means of arriving at true knowledge).

So at one level a tool (in this context) is simply a means of arriving at some kind of knowledge of the world.

In his discussions with Pupul Jayakar they establish that there are two obvious tools that human beings have:

  1. thought
  2. the senses

And so the question Krishnamurti often posed in his talks was, “Is there another tool aside from thought?”

Sometimes he would imply it was awareness or attention, other times he would talk about intelligence and insight, and still others he would say it is love.

Late on in his teaching life he seemed to suggest that there is a relationship between the holistic activity of all the senses acting together, and total attention (which would also constitute a “tool” of perception other than thought).

But you are correct of course. One cannot do anything consciously or directly about direct perception (or total attention).

Krishnamurti seems to have suggested that having an insight into the limitations of thought brings this attention about naturally.

Although he also said that by allowing the senses to operate holistically that attention can arise naturally.

So I don’t know if these are two different insights, or the same insight looked at from two different points of view.

In any case, this insight or complete attention would be a “tool” that is other than thought.

1 Like
109

Realizing that thought is essentially memory is a profound realization because so much of its content is the product of imagination, a capacity that can provide escape from the limits of the known to the realm of the plausible, if not possible. For thought, imagination is freedom, though in fact, it is just thought exercising its ability to explore its capacity and extend the boundaries of its limitation.

110

Thought is a tool that prevents/precludes direct perception because it is too limited. When the brain is aware of this limitation, thought ceases to operate. That is, the brain puts down the tool of thought to perceive directly, and this is choiceless because it’s the only thing to do. But if the brain is not merely dropping the tool of thought, but picking up a more sublime tool, it’s choosing to do so.

It seems to me that the brain is the tool, and when it knows the limitation of thought, it knows when not to think.

111

If you visit my blog you will see that I have a pet theory about the Genesis story - and I think we are pretty much in agreement here - I’m basically saying that Knowledge of good and evil is suffering - which necessitates a self (a center in a relation based on desire and aversion towards its environment).

This seems like a good entry into something that has been bugging me about your recent (otherwise excellent) comments here - Who needs these tools, which includes the special/mystical tool?
Meaning that it is not the me the Knower, the Doer, that reaches the opposite shore. That without the insight that provokes Psychological death, any attempts at choiceless awareness may be meaningless.

112

My favourite definition of Sunyata is : That reality is not filled (empty) with all the things/concepts that we project into it.

1 Like
113

Yes. Though we should probably say that there is a ‘right place’ for the imagination - in art, literature, music and play. The ‘wrong place’ is the creation of ideologies and dogmas, or a narcissistic personality.

Yes, this is my understanding (intellectually).

Yes. I think this is what K called intelligence - which I take to be the natural intelligence (of the mind?) when the brain is no longer dominated by thought.

114

Ah. Ok - I’ll take a look at your blog to unpack this a little more.

I had no idea that the language of “tools” would be so disruptive! - I should never have brought it up :sweat_smile: (I forget now why I did so in the first place…)

Oh yes - I think we were discussing the limits of thought, and that when (or if) thought is seen to be limited, it naturally raises the question of whether there is another capacity of the mind (other than thought). Because if a limited ‘tool’ like thought is incapable of taking in the whole, and there is no other capacity of the mind, then we are doomed to remain within this limited fragment forever (until we die).

So the question of whether there is another capacity of the mind - or possibility of perception - is bound to come up.

It was Krishnamurti - btw - who used the word “tool”, which is probably why I used it. But maybe ‘capacity of the mind’, or ‘possibility of perception’ are better choices of words?

Naturally, the word “tool” refers to a dualistic point of reference. The tool is for us to discover something that we have not yet seen. But if there is such a tool - or capacity or possibility - other than thought, then perhaps this is no longer dualistic.

I recall Krishnamurti calling it a perception without the perceiver, or an intelligence that is not yours or mine. At which point, of course, the language of “tools” would no longer be meaningful.

115

No I don’t think so James but I prefer right now to see how things unfold and not try to describe.

1 Like
116

I just remembered that this delightful vomit metaphor applies to Nagarjuna’s Mulamadhyamakakarika Scarf the MMK down, vomit up yer views, then vomit up the MMK. It’s the Nagarjuna Purge! :wink:

Mine: “Nothing is as it seems, nor is it otherwise.” – from the Lankavatara sutra, if memory serves

1 Like
117

I must now go and read the sutra to see if they are being naughty and illogical.