Keeping your self alive!
1 Like
The question is when is there flowering in freedom. If mind is occupied with thought, there seems to be unawareness, lack of space. If thought is not active, there is a silence that is sensitive, aware. So there seems to be a value for the mind to be unoccupied. It brings into question what is the value of occupation of the mind.
Now or never, so it’s meaningless to ask.
If mind is occupied with thought, there seems to be unawareness, lack of space. If thought is not active, there is a silence that is sensitive, aware. So there seems to be a value for the mind to be unoccupied.
The “value” of one’s self is what has to seen clearly for there to be “flowering in freedom”, and there’s no clarity when the illusion of self persists because the self can’t see itself. What has value is awareness of how subliminal thought creates and recreates the illusion of self.
According to K, the free, unlimited brain thinks only when thought is necessary. But since all we can know about thought is what we can observe of its activity, why aren’t we observing thought as assiduously as we are imagining what it would be like for thought to be in its place?
In kinfonetland the answer is : when we are not being driven by motive. Does that resonate with you?
Motive might seem to be something inside, but it is also outside in society. Media, Religious preachers, Politicians are also driven by motive. The motive is expressed through the different selves. The self being motive.
Can anyone give me peace? Can it be shared from outside, religion, politics has failed to bring about peace. Society is not peace, so society cannot give peace.
There is no peace in thought, whether inside me or in words of others outside. Perhaps nature is silent and peaceful.
So how to discover silence? Not through thought. Nature can directly speak silence to us. So I give up trying to find peace in words, in thought both inside and outside. So the words outside like politics, religion, ideology lose all value for me. Even if I read the entire University library it will not lead to peace, this philosopher, that philosopher, so I give that up. Nature can tell me about peace so I learn to directly listen to nature instead of surfing the internet or watching videos on YouTube. Nature is not created by thought. In that silence then there is awareness of my inner feelings or thoughts. That awareness is silent and not based on thought.
Trying to find peace, wanting to discover silence - isn’t this motive? Isn’t it the self in action?
The self as the known (he that has an idea of peace and silence) and the self as desire (wanting to acquire the known).
If we seek an answer in words, sure, that is motive.
If there is no answer in words, it may not be.
Say you are in nature, there is no one there to answer our questions. What would happen?
The internal thought meets the outer silence of nature, in that something changes. There is only one without the other. When thought meets silence something might change. If we cannot be in nature, but we drop outer thought, it might also be same. If we spend a lot of time watching TV, reading, surfing internet then there is less possibility of silence, that is what I feel.
The seeking is the motive (do you see this simple fact clearly?)
Usually we also understand that the answer (whatever form it comes in) or absence of answer is besides the point - being reasonable we don’t say that getting an answer (or not getting an answer) somehow negates the fact that we wanted a particular answer. The answer does not negate the fact that we initally had a motive. (simple fact again)
However K states that : if the source of our action/question is motivated by x, then the answer/effect is merely a continuation of x.
I don’t want to go too much into this, we don’t need to if we can just see the simple fact of motive (which includes fear, resistance, avoidance etc)
But it does remind me of the popular and simplistic confusion we often have about the wise man that leaves society and meditates alone on the mountaintop - and also the superficial self help movement of avoidance of bad stuff - but I agree : internet is a powerful stimulant - and nature is a calming environment.
I think the absence of answer does bring about something different.
It’s like your mind is restless with a lot of thoughts buzzing. If you go for a walk in nature, it gives a space to those thoughts. That space being same as silence. Ultimately your mind calms down as the thoughts have space, they move and ultimately subside.
What happens if one thought suppresses another thought. There is no space there. It is the same as watching TV or surfing internet. The thought on TV suppresses the thought inside you for some time. It does not have space as it is suppression. It makes the mind dull, not sensitive. Same is if I accept some answer from outside, say I am very religious or ideological and diligently follow a religious or philosophical book. One thought in me which is the idea I want to follow is suppressing another thought in me.
It seems outer thought does not give space for inner thought to blossom. Even if thoughts are inside me, motive is inside me, in silence it seems to blossom rather than suppression of one thought with another.
Well, suppression would be the movement of motive. But what do you mean by the “blossoming of motive”?
Are you saying that by not reacting to one’s desire for silence, the motivation loses its power?
Yes, if there is no conflict, then there is blossoming. It blossoms in the wholeness as there is no other. The wholeness is the space. You may call it space if you feel silence has the connotation of an opposite.
Space or wholeness or freedom seem to have same meaning.
If there is space there is silence. The bombardment of words from outside seems to limit space in mind. We probably have developed an addiction for outside words as occupation or suppression like internet, TV, religious dogma, rituals, gossip. I guess for me first step is drop that, that would give space for my own inner movement of feelings and thoughts. Better to write a diary than watch TV. Better to have some quiet time, go for a walk, look at the trees, feel the breeze than surf the internet. The information world with its constant bombardment is robbing us of our freedom, freedom to feel, think, play, live fully.
How familiar are you with silence? It seems to me that silence is the only threat to the self-center, so moments of silence are rare and too brief to have much effect.
It seems to me that the self-centered brain is committed to the prevention of silence, and as such, its desire and attempts to be silent are only futile but dishonest.
I am wondering if we are being honest with ourselves - whether we can express ourselves more simply, Are we making sense?
Space, wholeness or freedom is fine - except if we use thise words to mean objects, separation or authority.
You seem to be saying that motive or self blossoms to fill the whole space, becomes all there is. That the wholeness as self is space.
Its hard for me as an outsider to know where your thoughts are coming from : remember that even if they come from clarity/insight, by holding on to them we fall back into corruption and confusion - and there does seem to be a bit of confusion.
For example :
Why are your thoughts better than “outside thoughts”?
I don’t think it is a question of which thoughts are better, but what is space and freedom. Say for example someone you know passes away or you face some crisis in life. It would be better for all the feelings to flower than be suppressed. You would need some space for those feelings to come up and flow. That space would be difficult if we are occupied externally.
Why is the space to flower important? Probably same reason why sleep is important. It gives space for inner feelings to flow. It seems sane to have some inner space. That space being without conflict, clear, aware
Yes, suppressing thoughts or avoiding thoughts via TV are not the way to go.
I’m just worried that thinking that my thoughts can lead to space and freedom, and that other peoples thoughts must be avoided, is a form of discrimination. That we have not really gone deeply into what experience is.
Other people, TV, internet might be as much a part of my inner experience as my own thoughts. Does this make sense at all?
We are trying to discover if there is another quality of mind which is not thought. Inner thoughts don’t lead to awareness without observer, as much as outer thoughts don’t lead to awareness. No one outside can share in words what is awareness. Krishnamurti probably tried sharing through negation by pointing what it is not.
So I am trying to inquire directly into what is awareness.
Outside no one can share in words what is awareness.
Perhaps outside only nature can show what is awareness as nature is not words and does not communicate with words but directly.
The inner chatter cannot show what is awareness too. So inner chatter in the mind is as useless as outer chatter of others, media etc.
So then how to discover awareness that is not thought?
Not through thought. Not through outer chatter, surfing internet, TV. Also not through inner thought.
Indirectly if one is on a retreat in nature, outer word stimulations are absent. After some time inner chatter also subsides and there is silence that is sensitive.
Once we are back in normal wordly life with constant bombardment of words from outside, can we still be aware and silent and not be absorbed in thought.
The question is, is thought the right tool to meet life. We have used thought to meet life, understand life. Is there another tool. In the modern world we only talk about the intellect, we don’t talk about heart meaning compassion, Non-division, sensitivity, balance. Education has cultivated the intellect at least education in India is all about intellect. Is there something as feeling with the heart at all, this is dismissed as something imaginary in the modern world. Now K seems to turn that upside down. Awareness, wholeness, sensitivity being truth and thought being conflict, division, selfishness
Is that realy the case?
Quantum physics does not make relativity obsolete but has enhanced our understanding about reality.
Cause and effect has its place at one level but is not the working force the other. Likewise with thought which has no place at the psychlogical level.
Since there are apparently no sharp boundaries anywhere the question should be, can we be aware when we cross the boundary?
1 Like
I am not sure whether science uses thought, science does use knowledge with perception. In the sense science is based on a clear mind that perceives and uses knowledge. It is a clear silent mind that listens, perceives, learns and uses knowledge. It is not a blind repetition of thought.
Agreed. So what is experience?
What I call the outside world, and what I call the inner world, are these not the contents of my experience?