Presuming that we are clear about the above what does this imply regarding our attempts to observe our thoughts in order to understand ourselves?
If I decide to observe my thoughts, the self is doubly present and in control. Present as the thought, the thinker, the observer, and the judge deciding on which of the parts it has reified to focus its attention.
If I can see my thoughts and can pass them in review for analysis, the self is again present and in control.
If this is not clear, further inquiry may be necessary. Not an inquiry dependant on thought of course, but rather through experimentation - thinking about thought is for philosophers.
Is it possible to be aware of thought as it arises? (Is awareness and thought possible, at the same moment)
There is the state of being consciously involved in the thinking process : there is some intellectual challenge in which I am caught and wholeheartedly invested - eg. I was made a fool of in the workplace/playground, if only I had told them to etcā¦ If they said this, I should say this etcā¦ but despite the fact that we know that we are thinking, is this awareness, is it even observation of thought?
There is also the reviewing of the thoughts that one has had via repetition. Because we find the thought fascinating for some reason - but this also is not awareness of the thought as it arises.
Is it possible to see the thought as it arises?
What happens when we observe our breathing?
What about our understanding of the outside world? Who is providing this knowledge? Is that thought? Is that movement being observed?
Its enough to see that this is pretty tricky - no need to get too tied up trying, for that would just be further conflict and confusion.
Who/what notes that there is "no thought of an āIā doing the looking? This can be wishful thinking. One can be meditating for the purpose of ridding oneself of the āIā, in which case it isnāt meditation but self-hypnosis. The āIā can be determined to annihilate itself which it can do by becoming self-deluded by such practice.
If anything, meditation serves to enable the appearance of every movement of the conscious mind while being mindful that there is much unconscious movement beneath, only some of which bubbles up.
If the absence of āIā could not be noted by thought, thought would be totally corrupt and useless. But despite being bent to the will of ambition, thought is still capable of acknowledging facts.
Iām having difficulty following - If I am noting my absence, surely I am not absent? If I want something, and am acknowleding what I know, surely I am completely present? Yes? - is this what you are saying?
Are the words ever the thing? It appears that a lot of effort is put into the correct order of words to make for the most accurate description.
Is a more accurate description helpful or is it simply ego gratification?
K & Bohm tried to institute a dialogue process where an attempt was made to go deeper & more accurately describe things in greater detail to assist others seeing.
I and they give me a lot of trouble when I am listening I am triggered by I and they, us and them, me and youā¦
So I often listen for the I to speak. I say I donāt know a few times, and go about my day, if something comes to me in the form of an insight there is no I no me no they hearing/seeing that insight; it just is.
This reminds me of the story that one of the first thoughts that the Buddha had after enlightenment was that it would be impossible to share his understanding with anyone. Obviously we always try to interpret from memory, so how could we understand something we had never experienced?
We might also ask the question : Should K had bothered talking so much for all those years.
Here on Kinfonet, Iāll just say that speaking clearly helps communication - whether through dialogue we may help each other I donāt know - by being honest with ourselves, maybe we might in our relationships, see what we are.
That is true in an ideal world, but in reality we impose our idea, again in what we consider the best description, that feeling of Iāve got it right is always there, let me tell you all about itā¦ Hopefully Iām being too honest?
I see in myself the drive to get it right & to speak more correctly and more precisely whereas the description is what I do best, I was trained to be that way, my brain and all its functions including thinking is now shaped to work reasonably well that way, but I want more out of it. I want clarity.
Not I the self, the whole being demands it, it may be the most natural thing for the mind to want, like the want for food for the hungry body.
What to do? If the smooth talker is talking rubbish point it out. Unfortunately if the manner in which they express themselves is the problem - tough. We cannot impose our right to not be offended - it doesnāt exist.
I know what you are saying, I have felt it all along but, for me it is not a battleā¦ I realize that I have only the power to look at myself come what may, if thatā¦ & Iāve already surrendered to what can only be more fear out of violence, and more violence out of fear, due to direct conflict and this immediate feeling or need to fix the mess we find ourselves in; but i digress.
Reading todayās quote makes the most sense to little ole unevolved meā¦
āPhilosophy means love of truth, not love of thought.ā
And that is how I also feel about it. I do not love thought but I must be pretty good at itā¦ as in clear and coherentā¦ but, I do want to know the truth, if possible but I am reluctant to fight about it.
I recall watching K on several videos trying so hard to get his point and the picture, the image, the description across the great divide of seeing something and thinking something for the audience to do. K was already there so to speakā¦ not all the time; he was a human type of being.
There is so much speculation about the ending of thought. And it appears that there is very little of it happening. So understandably there is more and more speculation about it.
Thought ends easily, naturally, effortlessly, after a lot of observing has gone on and its quiet and then there is a bit of pondering over what was observed. That is what has occurred. K was right about that.
Anyhow, everybody have a peaceful weekend as I am doing now. bye
Krishnamurti divided thought into practical and psychological thought. When psychological thought is absent, practical thought is present, and notes the absence.
If I want something and am acknowledging what I know, surely I am completely present?
Not sure what you mean by this. Desire is expressed by psychological thought.
Practical thought has itās demands and practical needs, psychological thought is all about the me, the fictitious self and all of itās selfish demands.
Psychological thinking may be completely unnecessary so the question is how does it melt away. Probably easiest way is to acknowledge itās existence and look at it without a goal in mind since it is a real phenomena manufactured by thought so thought observing thought may be capable of figuring it out from observing what it is and how it operates without accumulating more information about it, passively, unselfishly with tremendous curiosity to quietly let it find itself out so to speak.
The word truth is referring to what is true, what is straight, and that is what the observing is all about, looking clearly, at what is, in the present, straightforward. This is not to be confused with the word truth with its verbal meaning and involving thought and all its speculation.
We can say there is psychological thought and practical thought, but to endorse a practical point of view is pragmatism. There is the responsibility of listening and watching, thought, and this is inquiry, not settling on any point of view, nor following along with any way of life, practical or not.
Even if the speculation about someoneās character flaws or motives were reasonably justified, it must be refrained immediately. It is akin to a bar brawl when spoken aloud in the presence of oneās adversary, or gossip if kept under cover. Nor does it help with our inquiry - we should keep to the ideas under discussion. A dialogue leading to understanding being the preferred goal over simple conflictual debate.
Furthermore, the speculation is not reasonably justified. For example, may one necessarily conclude that a preference for expression in the form of incomprehensible word salad is a possible sign of humility? What may one conclude about my desire to express myself in the form of contemporary dance?
I donāt see how the first half of the statement necessarily leads to the other - your affirmation is probably not based on practical thought (ie.logic) - it needs to be demonstrated - however if I accept the statement as true, it would mean that there is no space for silence.
Desire, knowing (or strong belief or acknowledgement of what is known) and thought are the movement of self - if the self is in movement, it is necessarily present.
what does this imply regarding our attempts to observe our thoughts in order to understand ourselves?
