What do you mean, I don’t listen to anyone?
Paul,
With all due respect, what Patricia posted above, again:
was in essence to affirm that the understanding of the self ends the movement of the self, the “I”; and as long as the “I” is active, listening isn’t possible.
So, listening is not possible while the “I” is.
1 Like
Forget respect and what Patricia said. What do you mean, I don’t listen to anyone? What do you mean? - not what Patricia or anyone else means.
Apologies for the delay in replying - I have been away the last couple of days.
I simply mean to suggest that there is - in my understanding at least - a distinction between the immediate responses we might have to events (such as joy, laughter, horror, sadness, irritation, etc), and the storing up of such responses in memory, or as elaborated through thought and memory.
I see (for instance) someone suffering or abused, and there is immediate sympathy, shock, sadness, outrage - or whatever the feeling might be. But if one were to dwell on this incident in memory, ruminate over it, repeat it in one’s mind, then the simple reaction turns into a psychological complex: perhaps hatred, or depression, despair; or sentimentality, etc.
Naturally, it is not necessary to give words to our responses as they occur; but we are talking on a website about them in the third person, in order to communicate. You may not like the word “psycho-physical”, that’s fine. Any word will do as long as the distinction being made is communicated. However, if one doesn’t accept any such distinction in the first place, another word for the same thing is not immediately relevant.
Do not you not accept that thought plays a significant, central role in putting together the contents of a normal person’s consciousness? Is it not thinking which creates self-pity, debilitating depression, anxiety, etc, and nourishes animosity (hatred, malice)? Thinking takes our simple reactions and converts them into fixed identities, mechanical feeling-reactions, and complex psychological states. Do you not accept this? It is difficult to proceed further on this matter without some shared consensus in communication.
The rest of your reply is not clear to me. You seem to suggest that you have undergone (or are undergoing) K’s process and that you live in a meditative state. That may or may not be the case, but I do not see how it is relevant to the point we were discussing. What is clearer is that you seem to distinguish psychological conditioning from thought/time:
and
I find this somewhat confusing. In order to clear this up it may be worth being clear about the way I am using these words. By thought/time I do not mean particular thoughts or a phenomenon limited to superficial verbal/cognitive movements. As I understand it, the way K uses the word thought encompasses all psychological movement: thought, emotion, pleasure, fear, sorrow, hatred, desire, identity, etc - what he calls the contents of consciousness (which make up consciousness). Conditioning is this consciousness and all its contents (which have been put together through time/thought). So time/thought - in the way I am using this term - is the root, the essence, the matter of all these psychological conditionings (the various contents of consciousness).
We are conditioned (naturally) by food, climate, geography, biology, etc. But psychological conditioning (i.e., the contents of our consciousness) is not “natural” or necessary according to K: it is maintained solely through (and is identical to) the movement of time/thought. So if time/thought can end, consciousness can be emptied of its contents (along with our psychological conditioning).
Are you happy to use the words thought and conditioning in this way (for the sake of communication)?
This is similar to what I meant by an initial feeling of cognitive dissonance: Something is off.
Thought is usually a key part of the chain of reactions to an event, such as watching a video of a Kyiv apartment building taken out by a Russian missile. Feeling and emotion are too. Though interdependent, these three energies are imo not identical.
James,
Thanks for your response,
Yes, indeed, thought does do all of the above. We are on the same page here.
One apologizes for any lack of clarity.
You see, one never concerned oneself with trying to understand “thought/time”, because as one sees this now, that would only be an intellectual understanding. One never thought/reflected seriously about it, until - really - one wandered into this site. It seems to be the raison d’être for most of the discussions. One kinda skipped Bohm in one’s initial reading of K. For Charley, like most people who have never encountered this approach (thinking of thought/time as a source of conditioning), please understand, that while sitting alone in one’s space, while reading K, all that one understood, is that stuff happened in one’s past. These were events that formed Charley to be as Charley used to be. One didn’t even consider thought/time. Why should one have to go through all those intellectual understandings (thought//time) in order to be free of the past, of what was known to have happened? So, Charley skipped all these intellectual gymnastics, and did exactly what K suggested to do - YES, WHAT HE SUGGESTED THAT ONE SHOULD DO: ALLOW HIS WORDS TO ENTER DEEPLY WITHIN AND WAIT AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS.
And, the meditation began all by itself, some mos. later (not sure of date - don’t recall). One didn’t really “do” anything, apart from realizing that one had no idea what to do. So, Charley had insights which resulted in mutation, and all the while emptying the contents of one’s consciousness with meditation, awareness, attention, etc. Inside, there was the seeing of oneself thinking, which led backwards in time to the event(s) of conditioning (the actual seeing of the event which lay behind the thoughts) and which eventually led to fear itself and there the movement of meditation ceased and all there was was fear. So, all one did, because K said so, was to own whatever one saw within as being “me”. So, one said an “I am that” - i.e. Charley said precisely, “I am fear”. And it all ended - major explosion, release of energy, and mutation. The next day, Charley took a shower, and noticed that the hair at the back of her head had fallen out, so went out for a walk, Charley noticed that everyone had colours of energy floating around their heads. It was all so simple. Charley read in a book that said that the gland inside the brain closest to where that bald spot is called (is known) as the pineal gland and there was a suggestion of possible psychic activity. In spades !!! Everything so simple, and one comes in here, and almost everything (but not all) is being done by thought, and everything appears so complicated, and Charley goes “what…?” So, Charley does exactly what K suggested to do, Charley observes and reads posts and tries to understand why… it has taken one year !!
K said that the seeing of the conditioning and understanding it ends the conditioning. Yes, true.
So, it may be we are on the same page re: psychological conditioning; or not, especially if the events inside that occurred in one’s life have not been seen. Because, in the end, we are living human beings which live and interact with everyone, and stuff happens.
Parents/guardians do stupid things to us and around us, because that is all they know. It is the seeing of all these stupid things that yields freedom.
Now, you state:
You seem to be saying that all one has to do is end thought/time (“if”) and then the contents of one’s consciousness (which includes conditioning) can be emptied. The problem as one sees it is the following: Were thought/time to be ended at first, that would imply there were no thoughts at all; it would also imply that since there were no thoughts, there was no “I”, so no reason to empty anything, since the “I” contains all the contents. The "I’ is the contents!, right? This is logical, right? To Charley, seeing that someone might believe/conclude that one has to end time/thought first, well, that is like putting the cart before the horse. Has anyone ever ended thought/time first? “I” doubt that. One is skeptical of this state of affairs, so to speak. Perhaps Charley is wrong. The proof is in the results eh?
Everyone starts simply, everyone starts with a little bit of awareness of “what is” happening within, and without (i.e. in the world). And as K said, it all involves a lot of work!!! And this work, does not involve a discussion with others about all of this.
I don’t understand your dismissal of the investigation of thought and time? First of all, while Bohm clearly had his own unique approach to these matters, using his own words and knowledge to do so, it was K who spent 80 years or so talking about the nature of thought, of thinking. He taught that psychological thought (and time) are the root of all the problems in society and inwardly, in ourselves. In Buddhism and other Eastern religious traditions they have investigated this too to some extent, although K’s teaching about the centrality of thought/time is relatively unique (at least in the manner of his expression).
Just because something sounds intellectual on first hearing doesn’t mean it is merely intellectual: to say this again and again might reflect a prejudice we have had from childhood (although I am not defending others on this platform), no? The investigation of thought/time is simply an investigation into the movement of the mind. The mind is this movement, no? So to call it “intellectual” doesn’t change the fact. K often quoted Keats’ saying that “to think is to be full of sorrow” - so thinking/thought is not merely a matter for intellectuals to speculate about. It is an investigation for the common person too.
The way you have lifted my words out of their context misses the general point that was being attempted (but I grant you there is no “if” and “then”).
The general point that was being made had to do with the relationship between conditioning and thought/time (which you seem to separate). In my usage of the words (as I have understood them to be used by K) conditioning refers to the contents that go to make up our general consciousness (fear, pleasure, hate, desire, sorrow, etc, the “I”, the self), while thought/time is the matter, the root, the essence of all such contents. So conditioning (psychological conditioning) is made of, has its essence in, the movement of time/thought. They are basically synonymous.
So if thought/time ceases, then naturally so do the contents (which are themselves made of thought/time). It is not so much if and then (this was just a lazy way of putting it), because they are synonymous: the ending of thought/time = the emptying of the contents of consciousness = the unconditioning of the brain. It is not that one first of all ends thought/time and then empties the contents of consciousness: these are different ways of talking about the same action (or insight).
That is, according to K, this action requires (or is synonymous with) insight into the nature of the mind (the essence of which is thought/time). The investigation of thought/time (which you may prefer to call conditioning) through inquiry, through awareness and attention, is something that I take to be a valid and fundamental activity. Would’t you agree?
Of course, one may be wholly intellectual about it, but that is a different and distinct point from what is being discussed. As I see it war begins in the minds of human beings, and so the investigation of the mind is essential for our common survival on this earth.
But ideas are always involved, aren’t they? The missile is the outward expression of an internal idea.
James,
To add, and say in other words, from one’s own meditation, there was the seeing of thought, going back into one’s past for the seeing of the conditioning (time), and finally fear. All three are the components which make up the “I”. They are all connected inside. To separate any combination of these 3 into separate groups is perhaps the only way an intellectual can grasp what K was talking about. The thing is, are you free now? Has thought/time ended… one is skeptical of anything close to this happening. One has seen people coming in here, having been part of dialogue groups for 10-20-30 years, complaining that they have never changed. That’s a fact. As well, some have only known dialogue groups, and have absolutely no understanding of what mutation means, even though K brought up that word many many times. Obviously, anyone can investigate all they like, to their mind’s content, to their heart’s content, and in another 10-20-30 years, will such investigations only add to one’s intellectual understanding, one’s knowledge, or will such investigations result in mutation? You see, when one sees people “investigating” here on this site, they are only (for the most part) exchanging thoughts, right? In the end, they articulate brilliantly everything K, but they are still the same people, perhaps slight modifications, but still the same; and corruption, exploitation, etc. still exist globally. Meanwhile, (cough), climate change is going to kill millions.
1 Like
The Ukraine,
It also appears that Putin controls most things like potash, etc. (not at all an expert on these things) but apparently absolutely necessary in agriculture (fertilizers) which, apart from the large reserves of oil and gas which he also controls, will also result in a tremendous crisis in agriculture when the farmers cannot get their stuff from him. He has been allowed to dominate these sectors and use such resources to enrich himself (the richest man on the planet, apparently) for many many years all because of the silence of the “free” world… He is counting on the complacency of the “free” world (those politicians are discussing a lot, eh?) and their fear of losing whatever they do have in order to push forward with his plans. It’s just like 1938 all over again.
1 Like
We seem to be talking past each other for some reason?
The thread began with the question of how people who are interested in K are reacting to Putin’s “special operation” (aka war) in Ukraine. I responded by saying that apart from horror, outrage and sadness, the present war raises the question of whether the social identities created by the mind (as nationalism, race, etc) can come to an end. These identities are essentially the outcome of our thinking. So I asked the same question K has asked many, many times: can thought (or time) end?
This is a natural question that many people who meditate have asked (verbally or nonverbally). In Buddhism and various other Indian schools of religion they have - for centuries - investigated this, invented systems to attempt to bring it about, so it is not a question only being asked now on a small semi-sectarian website. It is a human question.
Has time/thought ended in me? No. Like many others, I have had experiences of thought/time apparently momentarily coming to an end, which brought about a sense of emptiness, expansiveness, infinitude, heightened existence - but the seed of time/thought was still operating in me. I have met others who have had different kinds of experiences, or who claim to have had a mutation, been transformed, realised. Sometimes they really are remarkable people in some ways. But in all cases I am skeptical of people’s reports (including my own). Humans have an endless capacity for self-deception, vanity, deceit. But even if one’s experiences are valid, they belong to the past, they are over. One is always a beginner.
This is not to defend a certain intellectual subculture which may exist on this website, or in dialogue groups - but one mustn’t conflate every discussion about the mind with the subculture of a few people. The Buddha held discussions and dialogues (if the reports about him are to be even partly believed), as did K. It’s true that there are religious approaches which eschew dialogue altogether - but merely remaining silent is not going to stop the mind from deceiving itself. And getting attached to one’s experiences are another way of deceiving oneself. The experiences may feel profound and transformative - and, relatively speaking, they are - but they are still limited. And, because they belong to the past, they get in the way of learning.
I am not interested in endlessly dialoging for no reason, or having intellectual discussions for the intellect’s sake - nor am I interested in people’s non-ordinary experiences - I am just interested in whether what K spoke about can happen in my own life and that of others.
3 Likes
Always? I dunno. Maybe feelings/emotions can stand on their own, without thought. But even if the ideas are not in the mix, they are surely lurking close by.
Dan, just to clarify the ground for the inquiry into technical thinking as separate from psychological thought.
The only thing that thought can do is measure. It is an ability which occurs through the process of thinking in interaction with pure perception - being the sensory nervous system.
To count for example, thought first technically isolates the single and then reacts to it, creating the division arising in two.
There is no violence or conflict in this ordered mathematical logic of thought’s action - it is holistic ordered thinking.
As K clearly pointed out - mathematics is pure order.
There is no ‘becoming’ in counting (in mathematical logic), as the numbers counted are a direct measurement of what is being counted, so the measurement is ONLY technical thinking.
However, if the brain counting measures itself - for example: concluding that its ability to count makes it superior to another brain which cannot count - then that is a psychological measurement. It is the measurer measuring his/herself, as opposed to the empirical observation of what is actually counted as technical thinking.
In counting to one hundred (technically) there is no becoming on the part of the measurer.
While physical time elapses in the counting, the measurer him/herself does not change psychologically - he/she does NOT become a better human being, with less fear, or whatever so- called emotional identity might claim to improve or grow over the counting process.
To build a bridge to cross a river for practical reasons requires physical time and technical thinking - BUT those building the bridge will not ‘become’ psychologically superior to those who did not build the bridge. (The bridge-builders may have more technical knowledge than those not involved in building the bridge, BUT that does not imply that the builders are psychologically superior to the non-builders.)
Equally the town with the bridge is NOT superior psychologically to the town without a bridge over the same river. They are technical facts - not psychological “improvements’.
It is a fact however that the technical thinking of measurement has spilled over into the psychological, and brought about a totally confused consciousness - making it almost impossible to even begin to question the difference - so complete is the conditioning.
So there is NO ‘becoming’ in purely technical thinking.
It is only the self which ‘becomes’ - due to its trap of psychologically believing it can ‘become’ other than it is - over time.
Making a better self - a better image of identity. Perfecting the ‘higher self’ - separating into self and other - comparing - competing - desiring - measuring the ‘self’ against another ‘self’ - and all with great psychological, hence physiological, consequences.
And hence inventing and sowing the seeds of war.
Sorry this reply is so long Dan, but there is a lot of conditioning to untangle and decode.
2 Likes
So let’s find out and get it clear. I think this is important to find out because even if we are only vaguely aware of our own actions we can see how fast and explosive are the ideas we form about other people. This is probably something which is happening so frequently and quickly that we take such violent inner reactions for granted through the course of our daily lives. We say things like, ‘What an evil man,’ especially during a time of war, as though this is a perfectly respectable response. This image of the evil man then produces another image of one’s own violence against the evil, again an apparently natural response. Or, even worse perhaps, we form an image that we are way above such petty responses, living on a higher plane of existence.
Good and evil,
As one has stated elsewhere, there is such a thing as goodness, as the word “good” also implies correct, and well-fitting. In other words, goodness implies right action. This is well-known not only by the Buddha, but by K and so many others. Hence, building a foundation of goodness within must be what one must demand of oneself, especially in these dark times.
- K: “The word ‘good’ means ‘well fitted, psychologically without any friction’ - well fitted like a good door. You understand? Like a good motor. But, also ‘good’ means ‘whole, not broken-up, not fragmented’. So, are we, the elder people, prepared to bring about through education a good human being, a human being who is not afraid - afraid of his neighbour, afraid of the future, afraid of so many, many things, disease, poverty, fear? And, also, are we prepared in the search of ‘the good’, or in establishing ‘the good’, prepared to help the child and ourselves to be integral - integrity? The word ‘integrity’ means, ‘to be whole’, and integrity also means ‘to say what you mean and hold it, not say one thing and do something else’. Integrity implies honesty.”
K, Questions & Answers, 1979-1980, 1st Public Q & A Meeting, Ojai, 6 May 1980, 6th Q, Education, spoken version
So, a good person would not be afraid of war, nor of conflict… right? Get that?
So, as one can see, honesty is the hallmark of a good person, someone who doesn’t contradict himself (i.e. lie). Hence, one asks, are you a good person? (for your own personal reflections, eh?)
One has understood that there actually is something else that exists in reality called evil. One did some research a long time ago, and discovered online that there is a connection between the word “evil” and the word “will” - an old Germanic word pronounced evul… (something like that - unfortunately, one doesn’t have the exact source anymore). It is the epitome of incorrect action. And those who practice such incorrect action are evidently “evil”.
There are people (adults) who choose to live in a fantasy world, imagining and believing all sorts of things, even that evil doesn’t exist - like the proverbial ostrich with its head buried in the sand. The reality is that there are loads of wilful people on the planet. The big-fat lie guy (my always example, Trump) and as one can see, Putin, are really evil.
So many seem to have been caught off-guard by the actions of Putin. The refusal to see that fact is nothing more than the result of “positive thinking”, the lowest form of thinking - which is the result of the “conditioned mind” (K phrases). Oftentimes, one sees that positive thinking leads to tunnel vision, narrowmindedness, pettiness, etc. Positive thinkers can’t help but speculate and draw numerous conclusions from all their speculation. Btw, negative thinking - the highest form of thinking - is not the opposite of positive thinking. Negative thinking negates everything resulting from positive thinking - the actions of the self - selfishness, greed, ambition, exploitation, violence, corruption, beliefs, etc.
The fact is that we all live in a very dangerous world. And the human body is a very fragile thing.
Freedom is not an image. Especially not an image of oneself becoming free…the ‘self’ is itself a slave of the past, ‘freedom’ is its dissolution not something that it can attain.
Sounds good. I’m in.
Stands to reason that this would happen - you are poking the bear by trying to reason with the unreasonable.
Is there such a thing as ‘psychological superiority ‘?
But are we actually together in the same space in the midst of this violent and unpredictable world where all we have is the feeling of being afraid? Not afraid of this or that, but just to feel afraid and be willing to look at the roots of this feeling. It’s a very strange question.