Then it might work, though if I were in the group I’d probably say that the fact is: We all agree it appears to be raining.
The passage you quote is not meant to be read in isolation: All I meant to say in the line you quote - “Thinking is obviously a tool involving memory” - is that thinking obviously involves (and is based on) memory. The rest of the paragraph (coming after the line you quote) goes on to reflect on the evolutionary significance of thought and memory for our animal ancestors.
Who is the tool for? The answer depends on what criterion you apply (for instance, one might say that the tool is for the law of natural selection, or for the process of universal life) - but at a minimum we can say that the tool is for the the brain and nervous-system. Thought (and memory) are an extension of the senses that has evolved in and for the brain.
I do not separate thought from the “thinker”. The “thinker” is part of thought, as I understand it at least. There is no separate soul or dimensionally transcendent “CEO Self” in charge of our thoughts. Thought has separated itself for originally functional reasons into a centre (which is essentially just a particular brain and nervous system) and a periphery. But it is all one process emerging in the brain for the purposes of physical survival.
There is no thinker without thought, as K often said.
I think it is simply the body. The particular brain-body creates a functional centre which separates it, or distinguishes it, from another functional centre. This is a very primitive function of the senses - to distinguish the local (particular) body for whom the sensations exist, from the multiplicity of other local bodies which are the outward or peripheral “cause” of my sensations.
What thought does is to abstract from this functional centre (of the body) to create a provisional centre in thought - aka the “thinker” - which is how I recognise my own face in the mirror, or recognise you are different from myself when we meet. This is not a problem if it is limited to this functional horizon.
However, over time, through inattention (ignorance) thought has invested more and more emotion, feeling, memory and knowledge in this abstract centre, so that it has taken on a wholly non-functional identity. It is this identity which becomes the self-interest, egotism - the psychological “thinker” (with its separate periphery of thought) - and that causes all the conflict/wrong-doing in the world.
Does this make sense to you?
Yes - I agree with you. Knowledge has its place within the movement of the periphery and the centre (this sounds very abstract as I write this, but we have talked about it already so I think we can say it like this); but more… (fundamental? universal?) … more expansive states - like love or the perception of truth - cannot be limited by the centre and its periphery. If they were, then they would not be the real thing: they would be love or truth on the terms of our psychological or functional self-interest - i.e., not worth that much!
I think this is why K bangs on and on about having a brain that is quiet - quiet in the sense that the movement of thought as self-interest is quiet - because only then do the really valuable aspects of the world (like beauty and love) become available to perception.
When I think of love, I think of the actions, the behaviour, the experiences, and the benefits. It is quite difficult to see it as a whole, natural, organic, non-divided, effortless, and beautiful integration with people and the world. Unfortunately, we think of this as romantic, and idealistic, which it is, in a way of thinking, and continue with our lives in despair.
Right for you, perhaps, but for others, “a castle or an island” may be appropriate. One can always invite guests to one’s castle/island.
Hi Pilgrim, thanks for rekindling this thread and I can say yes, I do indeed sometimes wonder about dialogue.
Yes, that seems to be true. But is that a bad thing or simply inevitable? One of my favourite Krishnamurti books was The Second Penguin Krishnamurti Reader as it contained beautiful descriptions of his walks in nature, stories of people he met then question and answer sessions with an audience. The descriptions of nature seemed to me another angle into seeing what K was talking about when he talked of observing with a silent mind. It also seemed to me that this was something that was available to us all - to simply observe while being watchful of any movement of thought rushing in and filtering and interpreting what we are observing.
I’m sure I would enjoy a visit to your garden Pilgrim - I may even be offered a cup or glass of something while admiring the plants. However, even though the word is never the thing, a well written description can communicate a lot.
Isn’t it the case regarding the “movement of thought as self interest” that even the slightest interest in ‘changing’ what is psychologically IS self interest? Is this what K was pointing at with his, “change is the denial of change”? The idea that what is taking place in me could or should be different than what is taking place imagines a ‘time’ when this ‘other thing’ could take place. A time other than now. This is obvious but the question of time / thought having a ‘stop’ seems involved with this desire for some. any, change in what is? Any motive at all , to understand, to realize, etc, behind psychological change IS desire, IS the movement of thought as self interest. Thought as self interest cannot stop as long as there is a ‘goal’ to achieve anything psychologically?
Hello Pilgrim, thanks for the reply. I will now need to ruminate myself a little and get back to you once I have.
I thank you for the kind offer of tea and cakes which sounds splendid. I would certainly hope that the said treats did in fact exist outside of consciousness. Anyway, please excuse my little joke. As I said, I will reflect on what you wrote and post my reply later.
Hello Pilgrim. I think we could have a really interesting discussion about the nature of reality here. However, my understanding of the teachings and what K said about observation is a different discussion I think.
I understand that K pointed out how thought acts like a filter of past knowledge and distorts our observation. We are often surrounded by great beauty but can’t see it because thought blocks our direct perception. Likewise, we never really listen as our minds are too busy chattering and filtering what is going on around us. I understand that K said that the movement of thought has a separating and dividing effect - we might both be sitting in front of a tree but neither of us are really in contact with the tree or each other as we are both in separate envelopes created by thought. Does the tree really exist? Well, of course it does.
That’s my understanding but I may be wrong.
I think the question is, what happens if we observe the tree with no movement of thought? Is there any separation between us and the tree?
Hi Sean,
The tree as wel as you exists really on the material level.
So on the materal level it’s necessary to make this distinction otherwise you or the tree becoming damaged, isn’t it🤣
But on the non materal level like beauty and care and enjoying our coexistences, on that level seperation is a crime and the source of damaging the whole, that’s my view on the matter.
Hello again Pilgrim. I’m not sure what your first question actually means but two and three seem very good ones to me and ones, I think I’m right in saying, which Krishnamurti encouraged us to explore through observation rather than speculation. In my understanding of the teachings, this is a central point - the awareness of the movement of thought.
Well, thought seems to be something that we all generate. As far as I can see, we generate thought based on memory and past experience. For example, I might think about the cat we had when I was a child. I don’t see a problem with this unless I’m thinking about my old cat when I’m doing something else, as this will lead to a drop in awareness and a lack of attention. ell, I’m not sure I’ve really answered your question. How do you see this?
Yes, this is a good way to express a spirit of joint enquiry. I’m not sure how we could do this here without words.
Hi Wim. I think you’ve expressed that very well.
Besides words, i.e., rhetoric, prose, poetry, there are other media. Communication is not limited to verbal language, but most of us are, so we work with what we have.
I don’t know what “sacred” can refer to other than life, so did K use the word to refer to something more than life, something immortal, omniscient, omnipotent, etc.?
If we don’t know what sacred means, how can we know whether something is, or is not, sacred?
Especially if the thing that might be the unknown thing is also pretty undefined?
eg. Is djvberhsdj itself kcekhh?
And if I do have an intimate feeling for what djvberhsd or kcekhh mean, how real are they actually - ie. when I die what happens to djvberhsd or kcekhh? Are the djvberhsd or kcekhh that live on (in the minds of others or in art etc) the same as they were at some point in me?
Zhnevv! (Obviously.)
Wrong question,
This is a wrong question, … because that which is sacred/holy cannot be “known”… and as long as any one is speculating, that which is sacred/holy won’t go near that person… - as there has been an interesting phrase recently citing K: “spade work”, which among other things would involve the cessation of all speculation… because it is a really bad habit…