Why assume I’m offended? I commented on what you said to danmcderm: “You can’t talk about yourself, that is vanity”, because who are you or I or anyone to say such a thing?
One’s self, illusion that it is, is all that matters to the conditioned brain, so when someone tells another that he can’t talk about himself because it is vanity, where is he coming from? Is he not vanity?
Apparently we don’t understand each other’s English.
When you say “conditioned” brain that means your Brain is unconditioned . If you don’t lable the Brain as conditioned or unconditioned then the fact of the Brain may be revealed to you.
Then inquiry cuts my paragraphs and make it meaningless.
That seems like the right attitude to me.
Are we aware of the subtle and most likely wide-dispersed effect of his statement that ‘there are no borders’?
If we accept it as correct it is thought, but if we understand its actuality, its correctness, realise it is not thought and is not based on thought.
So how do we name that?
@wim sorry for this late reply. Hope you will read it , eventually …
No, i wasn’t sure, that’s why i put a question mark.
I do not know what right thinking is all about. Do you?
No ‘border’ as ‘me and mine ‘ or ‘you and yours’? No ‘border’ between ‘things’? How do you understand ‘no borders’ in relation to this idea of ‘inward security’?
No border between the thinker and the thinking? No border between the observer and what is being observed?
How do you arrive at this conclusion? Of course my brain is conditioned. Only conditioned brains are interested in K’s teaching. Free, unlimited brains have no use for the teaching.
If you don’t lable the Brain as conditioned or unconditioned then the fact of the Brain may be revealed to you
Again, you presume to know something the rest of us do not. Why don’t you tell us all about the Brain? We eagerly await your teaching.
I tell you read Krishnamurti to find out ,our so called conditioned brain is useless and vain and on top of it is sarcastic.
You should have your own website where you can tell us all about it.
In fact, it’s a good thing you don’t know it.
But let’s dig deeper into it.
The verb ‘thinking’ linguistically denotes 'Present Continuous and ‘thought’ denotes something from the past. Moreover, Present Continuous has a similarity to the ‘now’. No beginning or end.
In the present, psychologically, you may or may not be dominated by the past and right thinking may refer to the past but not be guided by it.
Right thinking, in my view, is as such a continuous activity in the present it is a doing without structure and therefore not subject to any definition.
Is this make any sense to you?
An easy answer would be “TRUTH” but the answer is not living it,
Perhaps, at least to some extent, we have actually experienced some of what K said and wrote about. For example, when he talks about attachment, dependency etc. in relationships, we have gone through this and seen it for ourselves - that’s why K’s teachings “ring true” to many of us here. It seems that it’s easy for all of us to get a bit carried away with the teachings and not stick to talking about where we actually are. Does this make sense?
While clothing myself realised that even claiming it is ‘right thinking’ is thought in action!
Yes, but it would be helpful if you could provide an example or two of where we’ve “got a bit carried away”.
How can a mechanical process (signs, symbols, concepts, images) do anything “without structure”?
You show that you have not understood.
By asking ‘how’, you are asking for structure.
Moreover, you claim without any argument that ‘right thinking’ would be a mechanical process.
I keep coming back to the idea that ‘thinking’ is a mechanical process like a calculator or computer and by projecting itself as ‘me and mine’ it overstepped its boundaries, as Bohm said, “because it could”. ‘Right thinking’ then is thought in its ‘right’ place …as a ‘tool’ not as a ‘person’, not as ‘me’, not with ‘continuity’.
@WimOpdam Thought has set up ‘borders’ that actually aren’t there. You and I are actually the same…only thought has erected the ‘border’ between us. That is the danger it has created, perhaps as @Inquiry says , unwittingly, between us all.
Let’s approach right thinking which is a positive thing negatively or obliquely.
What is not right thinking?
Thinking is always a mechanical process, be it right or wrong.
incoherent thought…