It’s okay.
I did not get what you said exactly.
What was the last thing you were thinking about? If you don’t know, try and see what the next thing you think about is related to.
I’m saying that our thoughts are usually related to fixing some problem, solving some conundrum, checking some situation, planning some action, reviewing some narrative, re-evaluating some conclusion - all for the purpose of solving or avoiding whats wrong.
Okay, now I am seeing what you felt. If I am correct, you are talking about events happening in daily life.
I have to think again, for saying something to you about what I felt by seeing the question. I will tell you after sometime.
I was thinking about the chance of failures in which I was passionate about, when I read the question. Hope you understood my view.
I’m talking about how we experience our daily life. What it means to be me.
This seems to correspond exactly with what the self is supposed to do - worry about bad things, and try to catch good things
1 Like
It happens, the question is pointing at the ability to be ourselves while facing such things.
Hubert Benoit French psychiatrist wrote The Supreme Doctrine. He also wrote a little book which I read years ago, Lacher Prise. In it he said our thoughts come to us as if through a trap door…they are related one to another by associations between them. There is an underlying subject, the main association, and the form the associated thoughts take as they emerge is in a universal syntax: subject, verb, predicate,etc. Anyway he saw for whatever reason that there was a need to interfere with this functioning of the associative thinking process. The method he used was to practice writing complete sentences with proper syntax but to avoid any associations between the words. Nonsense writing or automatic writing, it’s been called elsewhere. This he hoped might bring the thought process into a needed ‘balance’…
It was interesting to experiment with but as it turned out, dangerous. Benoit himself, I heard, got into very serious mental trouble.
You seem to be describing a method of calming the mind, in order to be more efficient.
Its like a way of tricking myself into not worrying too much so that I can actually get on with the job in hand.
Weird - I’ll have a look - Lacher Prise sounds like good advice - but strange method to have come up with - I suppose it all seemed to him like a string of reasonable thoughts that came to a reasonable conclusion.
Yes a brilliant guy but a good example that there is no method where Thought is concerned
Now that I’m recalling my experience with that writing excercise was that the actual writing had no value at all. Where he saw the possible value was in the attention one had to bring to the excercise to NOT associate one word with another…in other words our associative thinking is completely ‘mechanical’ in its functioning.
I think the mind could be like that, if it is passionate on what it is doing. For the rest of the things, I do not know.
Post #112
To me, the distinction between “pointing to” and “explaining” is the same as the distinction between “observing” and “thinking”. The distance or space produced by an explanation which is rooted in self, effort and desire is already reflected IN the explanation. It is the psychological space or distance between the thing and the thought, between the thing and time, between the observed and the explainer. For example, if I observe the moon, there is an actual physical distance between me and the moon but it does not follow that there is a psychological distance — unless of course thought enters into or taints the observation.
I can observe my child or a tree, etc, because I AM physically distinct from them. Otherwse, can there BE such a thing as observation at all? But there is no psychological space or distance in pure observation, is there.
1 Like
Yup - pointing just means : look at this!
Explaining means : let me tell you what to think about this
Humm. Not sure I understood the explanation here 
. Isn’t it explanation a description ? I don’t see anything wrong with explanation . Here is a quote from K. which clearly point out the nuance here, if I may.
K.: So explanation is one thing, and direct action is quite another. Either you are merely following the words, the explanations, or in the very process of listening, you are directly experiencing what is being described - which has much more significance, far greater validity, greater vitality than being satisfied with words.
…So it is very important to comprehend where the verbal or intellectual explanation ends, and direct perception or experiencing begins.
Talk by Krisnamurti in India 1959 , New Delhi (Sixth Talk in New Delhi, 1959)
1 Like
Is explanation a description, or is pointing (verbally) a description?
Let’s say that an explanation should merely accurately describe the facts. But maybe this debate should be allowed to run out of steam?
As the K quote above says : the important thing to be aware of is our relationship with the world, not the world itself - what is is not our problem, our problem is my vision of what is.
I would say that a talk is a combination of all that.
Sorry, I didn’t see this quote. Can you show it to me ?
I meant what you posted :
He’s just referring to our relation to whats happening - I’m the one adding the stuff about whats important and what is or isn’t our job/problem
There is s realization that conflict is a sign of immaturity as K stated. That, thought is behind the conflict by its separation of a thinker, me, separate from the thinking. This is an explanation, these words… but if at the same time there is an awareness of the ‘explanation’’ , the words and sentences describing the mental situation, that is a direct perception and the ‘thinker’ is absent.
Images, imagination doesn’t create conflict, it is the reaction, presence, of the false , illusory ‘image-er’ to the images that IS the conflict.
1 Like
But he also pointed out that we are the world; that the world is a projection of our inner state. If this is not only an idea but a reality, then how can we say that the world is not our problem ?
1 Like
There are 2 different ideas here:
-
“We are the world” can be seen as the well known idea that society is violent and confused because we are violent and confused - society is made up of the individuals within that society.
-
The world is a projection of our inner state is the idea that the “observer is the observed” - meaning that what we see is not the world as it is, but our interpretation of it.
The world is our problem in that we have created problems in this world due to our greed and confusion (and that we, and all other beings, have to live in it).
The question is whether we should be trying to solve the problems we see in the world or whether we should be trying to understand what we are.
This question arises because there is a doubt as to whether we actually see the world as it is - or whether we are seeing a projection of our own conditioning - as long as there is a doubt, we should obviously not be trying to solve the problems “out there” (thus the world is not our job/problem - our job is to see what we are; what being me implies)