← Back to Kinfonet

The Limit of Thought

I did post the quote on time from K. Just scroll up the page until you see it.

Yes, this is how it appears to you, but as you know, appearances can be deceptive.

since you seem to have your own unshakable interpretation in what K pointed out I don’t see any point in going on with responding to your posts.

I’m sorry this is how it seems to you, but I’m only pointing out that Krishnamurti was not infallible in his use of the language - I’m not disputing the teaching itself.

I don’t see any point in going on with responding to your posts.

Yes, considering your suspicion, it would be best to quit responding to my posts.

This would be division, wouldn’t it? Breaking up is throwing in the towel. Krishnamurti never threw in the towel. He kept trying to reach us till he died.

Shame on us. :frowning_face:

Conflict is division. My thought vs your thought is division. When I am seen, the towel drops of its own accord.

Are we capable of listening and understanding? Not understanding K is no different from not understanding a Mr. Nobody - the only difference comes from our dependance on appearances.

Can we see without judging? For that judgement is thought, that judgement is me.

May I add my two pence to this interesting discussion of yours in a collaborative spirit?

One aspect of our mind is measuring, comparing. Is that bad in absolute? No, it’s a necessity in daily life and all science is based on measuring. Measuring becomes destructive when I apply it to the psychological realm, that is the field of ourselves and our relationships. I’m more intelligent than you. I’m poor and you are rich, that’s not fair!

Now your statement about time: why you ask “what was time before we conditioned ourselves and each other to measure the ongoing process of life”? This is a metaphysical question, i. e. an attempt to define and explain cosmos with words, with intellect. It’s useless. Metaphysics was created in ancient Greece and was the forefather of science. It didn’t help man to live better or to understand sufficiently the world, so it was put aside when science came up.

The speech of K. about chronological and psychological time is neither metaphysical or scientific, it’s just common sense without any claim to be exact. We can also say that it’s a self-evident assertion and it’s immensely useful to understand ourselves. There is time: today, tomorrow, yesterday. We don’t know what it is but it is there and - what’s more important - we can use it. Only a philosopher with his mind in a cloud or in a metaphysical world would deny its existence and its usefulness. We can speculate a world without time, but that is just speculation.

But the point – the main point and the most important one – K. wanted to stress is that there is no problem with chronological time while all our problems comes with psychological time: I’ll get richer, I’ve been hurt, I hope to get a job. Now once you understand this difference, what is the point in discussing whether chronological time is real or not?

3 Likes

Chronological time is a description of the universe.
Psychological time is a description of identity and becoming

1 Like

Chronological time is a measurement - not the thing itself, just as thought is only a description. Similarly, Krishnamurti used the word “observation” for seeing directly, immediately, not methodically, which is the what the word means in common usage.

What was Krishnamurti referring to when he spoke of the “immeasurable”? Did he mean that the procession and duration of unfolding events, i.e., life, when measured is not the thing itself? If that’s true, then our measurement of it, what we call “time”, is not the thing itself.

So, can the mind quit measuring and behold what-without measur? Can the mind suspend its conditioned response to the ongoing process of life as it is, untouched by the mind?

Chronological time could be argued to be the measurement of time. The measurement of the thing being in this case the actual thing.
Time on the other hand being a description of a lot of other concepts, including sometimes chronological time, a 4th dimension of reality (?!), a succession of moments etc…

Semantics aside, isn’t what we are really trying to figure out our relationship to those concepts - Our emotional, subjective relationship to being and becoming. Our Psychological relationship to the passing of time. Psychological time.

In other words how the concept of time affects the concept of self. (Relationship is key)

Your are not only badly confused but you are confusing two things, or more. Chronological time IS. We use it to run our lives, keep records. Just as we use practical thought to do all those things that life requires us to do everyday. What K said about the “immeasurable” has nothing whatever to do with chronological time. You are a certain age. You were born you will die. That is chronological time. Why do you make it so complicated? It’s not really. K explained it so succinctly and clearly.

Do you see how it is likely that your own limited thought, as all thought is, is trying to make a simple fact difficult? This is not the first time.

My answer refers to your whole post and not only to the above sentence.

Kimo, I don’t want to be inpolite or unkind but my mentioning methaphysics produced no effect.
You must understand one simple and important thing if you want to discuss with me, Methaphysics can be a wonderful way to spend time but I’m not interested in it. I’m not interested in speculation which do not help me in my real, day to day life. I do speculate some time here, but just like a game, a play, not giving much importance to it.

We can speculate for one hundred years or more about what K. meant with “immensurable” and at the end we will have nothing in our hands or heart. To me immensurable means simply another way to call God. We can call it in a thousands way but we will always be empty-handed.

1 Like

Let’s say immeasurable is timelessness, but to use the word ‘time’ to imply timelessness (as I see that’s what your point is) is to include paradoxes in the sentences he uses. I agree with that observation, but the deeper implication is that paradoxes becomes meaningful only when two sets of reality, or rather two equally valid perspectives on any given situation interacts with each other. Another example is that living and dying becomes a part of the same movement.

I would agree with that.

Right, and that’s radically re-defining “religion” as it is ordinarily used. Nobody outside of the K-world regards religion as the discovery of Truth - quite the opposite, in fact.

Krishnamurti referred to himself as “a religious man”, but he was probably the only one to do so because the word meant something completely different to him than it means to everyone else.

I am reminded of that dialogue with Laura Huxley where he said exactly this phrase. But the description he gave for it is an example of how much scriptural content from Hinduism went to his understanding. Speaking about masculine and feminine aspects, being absolutely alone and having no centre etc. are the meeting point of Sankhya, Vedanta and Yoga. I am considering that he carried the Theosophical societies influence all along which in turn has derived much of it’s content from the Hindu scriptures.

This I think is what we may be missing. That there is a ‘dimension’ apart from the one that our senses are attuned to and that would explain a lot of what we don’t understand? For example ‘growth’…which we experience as a process that happens over ‘time’. First the seed then the shoot ,the flower, etc, etc. And which ends in ‘death’. But that the thing ltself ,was ,is and ‘always’ will be…In our 'dimension, the growth over ‘time’ is only the limited perception, an illusion of our senses… But there may be this ‘other’ ,and this I feel, is what K. lamented :…that we live and die without perceiving that ‘immensity’, the “immeasurable”…That the world of birth, life, death,; the world of ‘becoming’ is a perception of our ‘dimensional’ perceptivity. It is an illusion of our senses. That the All, actually, IS. And importantly, that this ‘truer’ perception is accessible by us.

That,… actually, there is no ‘becoming,’… everything,… everyone,… already IS. He intimated that perception I think, when he said , why hold onto your attachments, you’re already dead? You have already died. Your death has already taken place… This also helps for me to explain his ‘secret’: “I don’t mind what happens”.

No need to speculate. Just consult the dictionary. It’s unlikely that K was using the word idiosyncratically.

It must be a horrible thing to be so conditioned by a particular belief, like a religion, that you can’t see anything new without first going through the heavy filter of what you already have learned and believe in.

Personally, I saw through Christianity when I was about 9 years old. I could see that it was almost complete BS. We have people in this country, the US, who are completely blinded by nationalism, for example, and are lead to support a narcissistic sociopath and who, themselves, have become Fascists. All because they have been blinded by conditioning and stupidity too, of course.

OK, what’s your point?

I think you are missing the point again. It’s not what K meant by immeasurable, it’s the way you have misinterpreted what he said and what he meant.

And didn’t you just point out above that K uses some words, a religion man, much differently than anyone else? So why is it unlikely, in your opinion, that he used one word or phrase differently than everyone else and it was highly “unlikely that k was using the word idiosyncratically”? Seems to be a conflict here. But then thought is conflict as K so often pointed out. Perhaps if you didn’t think so much, come to conclusions so much you would understand what K is saying better?

Some words can be given special meaning and some cannot. “Religion” is one that can be used to denote the opposite of its common usage. “Immeasurable”, however, can only be taken literally.

Idiosyncratic behavior follows no principle and is not consistent.

What I am trying to get you to see is that thought is the essence of psychological time. Chronological time has nothing to do with thought. Chronological time has been since the Universe began. It has nothing to do with thought.