Thought is conceptuality, and the conditioned brain is confined to thought. But thought can be reasonable enough to acknowledge the possibility that it is imagining itself as the thinker, the doer, the agency that uses thought.
Awareness is not recognition. Recognition involves thought as it is the brain identifying, labeling, and comparing based on past knowledge or experience. Awareness, on the other hand, is the simple act of observing without interference from thought.
It is the state of being fully present, perceiving what is, without judgment, comparison, or reaction. Recognition belongs to the realm of the known; awareness moves beyond it, existing without attachment to memory or projection. In awareness, there is no division between the observer and the observed. Only a direct encounter with reality as it unfolds.
2 Likes
Language, by its very structure, requires a subject (“me” or “you” or other concept) to give form to meaning. Yet this subject is nothing more than an illusion created by thought, a construct of memory and identity that fosters division. In using language, we unknowingly strengthen this illusion of separateness, giving rise to conflict.
For those who are deeply concerned with the suffering caused by this division, it becomes vital to approach communication with great attention. This means observing how language itself sustains conflict and allowing clarity and care to express what is true without reinforcing the illusion of fragmentation and confusion.
2 Likes
At least we seem to agree that communication is very important and it must be approached with attention… care, I would say. You excluded ‘I’ but you don’t exclude ‘you’… and there are it… they… we… one. It’s not a matter of division that makes people use these words and it’s vital for communication values such as respect, clarity and solidarity. You can suggest whatever you please, but not impose it on the basis of being concerned about the suffering the use of personal pronouns cause to people! What you’re saying is wrong, just let intelligence see it, not theories made up of ideas, they are not human reality. Krishnamurti spoke for the sake of a good society. He did speak of a good society, people coming together in friendship, division comes with abstruse ideas. He started schools and retreat centres for people to communicate and learn as human beings, living together, not by using farfetched concepts.
1 Like
Division does not require complex theories or ideas; it arises even in the subtle act of distinguishing ‘I’ from ‘you,’ ‘we’ from ‘they.’
This division is reflected in the very language we use, no matter how carefully we approach it. True care in communication goes beyond respect or solidarity. It is an attentiveness that sees the roots of separation and allows for direct understanding, free from the habits of thought that perpetuate conflict. The good society Krishnamurti spoke of begins not in theories or efforts to impose, but in the quiet observation of how division begins in ourselves.
2 Likes
@DeNiro posted this from On Dialogue by D. Bohm.
What struck me was the idea that all thought is one, not how it’s seen generally. It’s generally seen/felt as ‘my’ thought is different than ‘your’ thought… or ‘my’ thought is right, ‘yours’ is wrong. The idea here is that there is no ‘my’…it is all just thought!! Is there an awareness of that possibility as thought is verbalized? Can thought be looked at as suggested by Bohm, as a kind of “virus”?
As I said before, respect and solidarity are important in communication. As human beings, we need to communicate, it’s the quality of energy that flows in the human being that demands it. This respect and this solidarity are manifestations, they happen naturally if you care about the relationship. Of course those who read Krishnamurti should know that right relationship can only happen when you observe all you’re doing from moment to moment. As he said, ‘in order to go far, you need to start very near’. … I would say, watch your actions and motives.
…
Just read what Dan wrote above and my take is that Bohm means that thought has no frontiers. It can be complemented, improved or simply wiped away as it often happens. It is also appropriated or manipulated, as it happens in human relationships.
If there actually is no entity: self, thinker, etc, that can appropriate or manipulate thought then these actions are the working of thought itself…and the judgment that thought was being manipulated or appropriated would again be thought judging itself.
Thought inquiring into itself in this way may be what K was referring to with: ‘coming or starting very near’.
1 Like
Whichever, Dan, whether with or without self involved, these actions as you say are all in the realm of thought and thinking. Including when it’s Krishnamurti or Bohm talking. I don’t see that words can exist without the activity which produces thoughts. Words themselves represent the activity of thought.
1 Like
Yes the putting into words the movement of thought. This is the work of the ‘thinker’ function of the process of thought. K: “The thinker is merely the verbalization of thought”.
So what is ‘the activity which produces thought’? Is it challenge, desire, conditioning? And is the reaction of thought to move along habitual lines: Belief, experience, knowledge? The inquiry here is whether thought is moving on its own, mechanically? Through association of memory?
And if that is so, what is the danger of there not being an awareness that it operates in that way? In dialogue? In relationship?
From my binary friend, GPT:
In cognitive science, awareness refers to the state or ability to perceive, feel, or be conscious of events, objects, or sensory patterns. It often involves a level of meta-cognition—being aware of one’s awareness. This is studied in terms of neural activity, attention mechanisms, and the distinction between conscious and unconscious processing.
In nondual religions, awareness is considered more foundational and universal. It is often equated with the ground of being or pure consciousness, transcending individual experience. This awareness is not tied to thought, perception, or personal identity but is instead the formless, observing presence in which all experiences arise and dissolve. It’s seen as unchanging, indivisible, and the essence of all existence.
1 Like
I used to think that thought was just thought, and then I learned that Krishnamurti talked about two distinctly different types of thinking: practical and psychological.
Thought can acknowledge its use of psychological thought and the incoherence it causes. But thought’s acknowledgment that it is confused and conflicted by this incoherence is not directly perceiving the incoherence when thought is active.
Thought is a closed system that operates only when needed. But when it operates constantly (as it does with the conditioned brain), the illusory thinker, I, me, mine, is the center, the authority, effectively, God.
I think that it’s generally accepted that thinking is a natural activity of the human brain. The quality of each thought may depend on challenge as you offer or simply a matter of each individual’s experience. Everybody is familiar with the image of mentally deranged people who articulate words and loose ideas endlessly!
More precisely, thinking arises as a function of the human brain. But is it meaningful to consider thinking ‘natural’?
The word ‘natural’ often implies something innate, unconditioned, or essential. However, much of our thinking is shaped by memory, experience, and societal conditioning. In this sense, thinking may not be ‘natural’ in the way we often assume but rather a learned, conditioned process that reflects the environment and influences that shape us.
When we say that thinking is a process, we mean that it functions as a sequence: mechanical, habitual, and self-perpetuating.
Any process, by definition, has no intrinsic purpose or center beyond its continuation. Thinking doesn’t possess its own need or meaning. Its purpose, if any, is defined not by itself, but by the awareness that observes it. Awareness, unlike thought, does not create meaning. It simply perceives. This perception may reveal whether thinking has value in a given moment or whether it is merely perpetuating itself.
It is important to note that this awareness is not a “thinker” outside of thought. The idea of a separate thinker assigning purpose is just another creation of thought. True awareness has no center, no judgment, and no agenda as it is a clear seeing of what is. When thinking is seen for what it is, as a mechanical process without inherent necessity, its hold weakens, and the mind may uncover stillness beyond thought.
Actually I used ‘natural’ in the sense of being innate. To speculate about it I don’t think is of any use. We have to deal with it as it is now, it’s our life and we see that thinking is there all the time.
Aah, just because something is “what is” in the moment does not mean it is natural in the sense of being aligned with reality or necessity.
To deal with thinking as it is now requires seeing it clearly, not as something to be justified or dismissed, but as a process that operates through conditioning, habit, and memory.
The question is not whether thinking is there or not - it clearly is - but whether we can observe it without judgment or justification, and in doing so, discover whether it truly has any connection to what is real and necessary, or if it merely perpetuates itself without end (which very much seems to be the case as pointed out earlier).
Of course, I see your point. Observation, Yes, that’s it. Stick to it, see it for yourself, no theories.
1 Like
That is true. Thought is a movement. It arises out of ‘stillness’. From the stillness or silence, the movement can be seen without interference. There is nothing in the silence that can interfere. No effort. Thought can’t go beyond itself to reach the stillness.
HAL: I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
The servant has become the (dysfunctional) master.