I look at the Mandevilla. It is a wordless experience. Just a sense awareness of the thing. Then there is thinking: “The red color is beautiful…I’ve never seen such a deep red, etc” . The first is pure perception, then there is the naming, judging, liking, disliking, recording what was seen, wanting to see it again, share it with others, etc…the second is the material that makes up what we call the ‘me’, the self-image…Isn’t it this ‘me’ that is sometimes aware that there is a kind of dullness in the way I go through life with only flashes of a pure perception of a thing, like the Mandevilla? So the question is, is it thought that is asking, why is it like this?
Because we have the eyes to see what we’ve never seen and the senses to experience what we’ve never experienced, we assume that since everything is always in flux, unfolding, always new, we should experience what we’re familiar with in the same way we experience the unfamiliar.
But is this a reasonable assumption? Is it practical to always be wide-eyed with wonder, not-knowing? Or is it necessary to perceive things in a more rudimentary way in order to function? I suspect the latter, though I also think that we must be able to lose our familiarity when we have the leisure to do so, and marvel at the mystery of it all, the poverty of our knowledge.
To function, survive, attend to practicalities, we must be dualistic, knowledgeable. But to realize what we actually are, we must be whole, inseparable.
The “problem” here is that this leads to further questions;
- Are all questions a product of thought?
- If they are, does this in some way invalidate all questions?
For what it’s worth, I agree with what you’ve written here Inquiry.
Whether you’re a train driver, check-out assistant, pilot or cleaner, you need to focus on your work in orger to do it efficiently and well. A train driver can’t be staring vacantly at the countryside while driving a train. So no, it is not practical to go around in a state of wide-eyed wonder all the time. However, under certain circumstances, is a state of seeing things as if for the first time somehow of great importance?
When we use the word nature don’t we mean some kind of natural state? But then I think we have got it back to front. It is not about getting thought to change, or the brain to change, or any kind of modification, not being pragmatic, none of that. It is the way of thought, having all its fragmentation, trying to keep developing with the things it has, and this is all against nature. There have been lots of attempts by different groups, to get back to nature. What we do is think of an ideal, and then puzzle about how to get there, in the way we think, and with all the factors, we have accumulated. This condition is the antithesis of any naturalness, and with this way of thinking we just go around in circles, building another conditioned society.
If thought is operating in the ‘wrong’ place as some have suggested, then questions about why things are happening the way they are, are invalid no matter what brilliant answers thought comes up with, because thought’s movement in the ‘psyche’ is a mistake. But not in the practical world, where its questions lead to discoveries, practical discoveries, that lead to inventions of all kind.
So “why don’t I see as if for the first time” may be ironic if being asked by thought. If for whatever reasons, thought has seen it necessary to label the natural world in order to navigate it, and form images of things, classify, separate things in order to reduce the actual ‘wonder’ of the environment so it could use it to its own benefit, ‘own’ it, plunder it, pollute it, etc and then ask "where did the wonder go? A simpler example occurred to me: if I hold a smoky glass if front of my eyes to reduce the brightness of the world and then forget that I am holding it, then if I question why the light is so dull, the question ‘seems’ valid and then thought can come up with theories, methods, beliefs, about how to realize, regain the original brightness… 
1 Like
Could be that a close connection with Nature provides something that is lost living in a city. The city is man made and we did not create Nature. It seems to me that it goes about its business in quite an orderly way. Fascinating really. The world of Man seems crazy in comparison. 
The thing is, who decides this? We are not Krishnamurti after all. It is probably very subjective whether a question is part of exploration which could lead to discovery or not.
I don’t know, maybe Intelligence? Thought has been trying to understand for thousands of years and all its resulted in is millions of books, philosophies, fantastic ‘religions’, etc. Humanity seems worse off in terms of its destructive capability than ever before. Now a few are able to influence the thinking of millions for their own perceived ‘benefit’. Control of the ‘masses’ on a massive scale is within reach. “The house is on fire”
J.K. “Is it possible for the mind to be so quiet- not partially but in its totality as to have direct experience of that which is unthinkable, of that which cannot be put into words?”
Sean: We are not Krishnamurti after all.
Dan: Nor should we be. What he pointed at is more important, isn’t it?
Of course, and it’s what we want and need to break the pattern of constant recognition, always knowing. We want to turn off the default mode network that operates for the sake of the future, for survival, so as to experience the unfolding unknowable eternal present, and find blessed relief in that emptiness and immensity. But we can’t bring it about because our will can’t free us from our will.
What if intelligence asks a question, it is analysed by thought and then the question is branded a product of thought? There is a possibility of a door to investigation being closed here.
As a habit of the brain, what we do is think to exploit nature. When we look at nature, actually the thinking is an exploitation of nature. Can we just look at nature and quietly see it all for its beauty? When we see this wholeheartedly, the mind doesn’t need to figure anything out. Does this experience carry into our daily life, and we have a bit more clarity, a different outlook on life?
The way i’m reading this Sean and I may be wrong, but it’s that thought is asking if the “doors of perception can be cleansed” (as A. Huxley put it). Can I see the world, when its appropriate, “as if for the first time”? Is there an impediment to that seeing and if so, can I discover what it is? When I’m walking in the woods, sitting quietly, etc., why does thought continue to move when there is no ‘call’ for it? Is that movement of thought the impediment?
If intelligence can be negated by thought, we’re doomed. It’s more likely that thought rules because intelligence has not awakened.
It’s because thought is all we have. “Intelligence” is just a magic word, a holy grail, a hoped-for savior until/if it reveals the biases and limitation of thought.
I would say that, like most things, it’s basically habit and we’re unaware that we’re thinking a lot of the time. When Krishnamurti talked about the biases and limitations of thought, his absolute clarity on this matter shone through. Clarity in the seeing of these biases and limitations would seem to be of key importance.
I think that’s so. Have you noticed that when you realize you’ve been thinking and then become aware of it, that there is a kind of self-scolding that takes place? A judgement that what was taking place before the awareness, was ‘dreaming’ and now you were ‘awake’…in other words I ‘should’ be aware and not ‘unaware’. But is this so, or just another pattern? Another form of conflict?
Yes, and apparently, clarity comes immediately or not at all. Thought cannot see its limitation - it can only acknowledge it after the fact, and this self-knowledge doesn’t bring an end to thought’s dominance. Knowing it is limited, and in how many ways it is limited, is just more fragmentation. The totality of thought’s limitation must be seen for what it is in “one fell swoop”, so to speak, before thought takes its proper place relative to the intelligence that reveals it. At least, this is what Krishnamurti has indicated…
Is this immediate clarity accompanied by a certain intensity of alertness? In the case of Krishnamurti, one can observe the physical intensity of his connection to the present in the way that he sat, watched and moved. His alertness also came across in the way which he answered questions with his sharpness of mind flying like an arrow to the root of what was being asked. The response of thought in answering a question seems to have a different quality altogether.
We don’t really know if Krishnamurti was who we like to think he was, because we’re not free of bias. Likewise with the effect of his teaching upon us, since no one “got it”. I like to think I’m better off for K’s teaching, but I’m still self-centered, so it hasn’t had its intended effect.