I didn’t mean a hand-held tool. I meant to say that the heart is a device for pumping blood. There is no “user” in this equation of the heart in its relation to the body through which the blood must circulate. I don’t think the body cares one way or another if the heart stops. I have nothing to do with the heart, and it is not my heart. It’s a human heart.
What do I know? Is it memory, thought, knowledge, and this is all a human brain activity in the field of thought? Thinking or not, isn’t the thinker fundamentally me; not separate? I say, I know such and such, from memory, etc., but when talking, writing, what is this said, or written, but I don’t know? It is called insight, isn’t it?
What separation? There is only thinking. The “thinker” arises when there is self awareness: the materialization of the ghost.
It’s confusing! And it has nothing to do with Krishnamurti. It has to do with life being an enigma, a confounding puzzle that speaks to you, challenging you to crack it. You can’t do it and you won’t move on.
The question is asking about “To think or not?” Isn’t there a realization and we call it insight?
This is not an activity looking at some words or ideas, and verbally addressing these. It is a deeper, fuller understanding, with no division of what he or she said, or what I think it means.
I don’t mean to create confusion. This is not a simple topic, and each comes from a different place to partake in a complicated discussion.
Part of this activity called a discussion is listening to/looking at, what someone has said/written and thinking about it. Ordinarily we take this in verbally, and interpret it within the field of thought, and add an idea, an opinion. That is the reactionary mind. Aware of this, there is a contemplative mind, and it is aware of this reactionary process, and sees that thought is endlessly working with problem solving (thought or no thought), and is stuck in complications. The contemplative mind is not making any thing of the discussion, not looking to make it an activity to pursue. In this quiet, effortless attention there comes some thoughts, but they are not the individualistic thoughts. I think this is called insight, isn’t it?
I don’t think so. In stating this, I am adding an opinion to this discussion. If I don’t react and just contemplate on what you said, how is that an insight? Insight into what?
I am using words to point to something. If you don’t see it, that’s all there is to it.
PaulDavidson,
" Awarness has to be of something actual,whether that may be something material or something such as thought".
In front of me there’s Swimming pool with sold floor and some plants around it. Now when I am aware of this actual, there’s no division as water,floor,plant etc. It is just awarness of actual as it is. But is it possible to be aware of thought. In case of thought, the moment there is awarness, thinking stops immediately. So it seems actual awarness and thought can not exist simultaneously.
PaulDavidson
“It is easy to use the term awarness but more problematic to delve into what we are referring to rxactly”
Fully agree. It seems it is impossible to convey by words the actual state of awarness.
That thinking stops when awareness is present is not my experience.
1 Like
It’s not my experience either. Consciousness is a process in thinking; otherwise, there is no awareness which is cognitive perception in action.
Are you are not confusing awareness with checking? Checking yourself? Admiring or judging what has been thought?
No but there is an ‘art’ to it. On reading your question there was an awareness and curiosity how thinking was going to reply…it takes a light touch to follow the thinking without shutting it down. It’s not accustomed to the light of awareness?
Oh dear. If you are not aware of the difference between the water in the pool and the deck that surrounds it you are in danger of drowning. What you are calling ‘awareness’ seems to me to be lack of awareness of differentiation, and awareness of differentiation is a an absolute necessity for life.
Imagine the poor monkey that is so ‘aware’ he cannot distinguish between the banana and the thistle.
PaulDavison,
When I said “not aware of difference” it meant difference through words/through means of thought.
One is not so stupid that one is not aware of difference in quality of water, floor and plant surrounding the Swimming pool, when one is in state of awarness.
Dan,
There is no thinking when one is in deep sleep and also one is actually aware. Of course in partially awarness thinking goes on as in case while one is walking and thinking. That is my experience.
It may be what you meant but it was not what you wrote. And all you are really doing is counterposing awareness to thought, as if they are mutually exclusive.
My example of the monkey challenges that. The monkey is quite able to distinguish between the banana and the thistle without having to think about it. Indeed, when the monkey sees fruit it simply goes and eats. Thought is not necessary for simple discernment. It does not even require a frontal cortex.
I think what you are doing is turning ‘awareness’ into an abstraction. Awareness is something simple.
What about silence ? What does it take to avoid constantly filling the silence?
PaulDavidson,
“I think what you are doing is turning awarness into abstraction”.
Is it?