Thought and Awareness

Is thought continuous or intermittent?

If thought is intermittent, can it know when it is not operating, or is there no such thing as knowing without thought?

Thought cannot know when it is not operating because its operation is on demand, only when there’s a need for it. This means thought seems to itself to be operating continuously because it is effectively dead until it is revived by the next demand for it.

Because thought is intermittently dead when it is not necessary, it can’t know that it is intermittent, revived constantly, thus, it has a false sense of continuity. Thought can believe it is immortal because it is unaware of how mechanical it is.

What about awareness? If awareness is constant, continuous, on demand constantly when the body is awake and deliberately active, its sense of continuity is not false, not imagined, not patched together like thoughts.

So if awareness is continuous and thought is intermittent, actual time is awareness without measure, and mechanical time is what seems to be a continuous stream of events.

Can awareness awaken thought to what it cannot do, or does thought submit to awareness when it is aware of how mechanical it is?

I can’t grasp the concept that thought “knows”. I see it as vaporous and intermittent; solely a function of the brain. I’ve seen an upcoming KFA Event entitled " There is No Thinker, Only Thought" as if thought operates independently in the universe. Here’s what they stated in the Program Description: “Krishnamurti stated that thought is time (the past, knowledge) and that time is the enemy.” This makes me think, they are demonizing thought (time).

Haven’t we all had the experience of finding out that something we believed to be true was, in fact, not true at all, either because we were misinformed or because we chose to believe something that turned out to be false?

If you can grasp the concept of believing, you can grasp the concept of knowing.

Or as if thought arises out of the universe as a whole.

The “no thinker/only thought” concept is usually used to question the feeling that thoughts are produced by me. The idea is that we might be curious enough to consider what we mean by “me”, and how “me” is related to the thoughts that arise.

My experience of time, might be the “enemy”, as in : come into conflict, with my relationship to the actual?

1 Like

I can grasp the concepts of believing and knowing. I believe, you believe, we believe. I know, you know, we know. But does thought believe, does thought know? That would be anthropomorphising thought. Thought is the function of the brains of animals that think.

Thought arises within brains that think, like bubbles. Collective thought (a massive bubble machine) may be sensed by individual brains, especially during the hypnagogic state, before sleep.

By this I just meant the endless network of causation usually referred to as determinism.

I am not familiar with ideas about extra sensory perception.

Don’t we personalize thought? I think this, you think that, etc? Thought is a mechanism we identify with. Do I exist without thought? Am I actual or an illusion?

I think of myself as thought because I can’t imagine who I am without it. But do I need to imagine myself, or is imagining myself habitual, something we all do because it’s “normal” to have a self-image?

These are very good questions. I will need some time to explore them.

I just finished a breathwork session (Try A Free Online Breathwork Session - Neurodynamic Breathwork Online) and your questions popped in during it. I see the body as the median between the external world, and the inner portal. Thought migrated with me as I observed the adventure. It’s like the interpreter, translator for experience. It will take more work to have a clearer understanding of your last two questions.

I think I’m starting to get part of it @Inquiry. Thought is the interpreter of experience to the human body. Existence is an experience that thought interprets to the body. The body exists, has a brain from which thought functions, therefore thought is telling the body it exists. It’s some what of a feedback loop. But Krishnamurti said ‘the experiencer is the experience’. The experience of having a body may be seen as an illusion in an altered state of consciousness. And we know Krishnamurti had some extraordinary states of consciousness. Why would we attempt to live from someone else’s states of consciousness? We trust that they knew what they were talking about, we believe in their intelligence. But Krishnamurti’s bottom line was to find out for ourselves and he cautioned against belief.

I can’t speak for anyone but myself, and I’m not “trying to live from [K’s] consciousness”…are you?

All I’ve been trying to do is to “get” what K was saying by not interpreting or forming my own “take” on what he meant by his use of familiar words he gave special meanings to, what he was trying to convey to conditioned brains.

1 Like