…and stop judging everybody…”judge not, that ye be not judged.” 
Forget the “we”, speak for yourself and only yourself.
[quote=“DanMcD, post:21, topic:544”]
…and stop judging everybody…”judge not, that ye be not judged.
[/quote
Do I judge everybody? Can you provide a few examples of my judging someone? I want to see what you mean.
You’re not conflicted? Do you not believe you know what should be?
No and why do you care about what I believe and what I think "should be’?
So if you’re not conflicted, why aren’t you helping us who are conflicted to understand how it is that you are not?
Sorry but if I may, this is getting ridiculous. The question was: what is psychological thought ? By which logic does the question has become : who is conflicted and who is not. Are you inquirying into conflict, into what is psychological thought, or about who is in conflict and who is not? Please , see how this is …I have no word ; that doesn’t make any sense.
We talk a lot about observing. Are we? Are we observing our reaction without the words, the explanations ? Are we aware of the way of the mind by direct experience ? Are we aware that we are being personal, you and me ? That we are divided? Of what value are those conversation about the self,division and conflict if we are totaly blind to what we are doing?
We are becoming nothing but intellectual. We think a lot. We say tirelessly that we have to observe ourselves in relation with the world. But we don’t. We just argue. Make point, use logic. Intellect take the lead, not awareness. The intellect will not solve any conflict, any division. The intellect is a tool, intellect is thought and it will not help in this realm.
2 Likes
What realm is this?..
Please, find out. Look at the question of the O.P.
Psychological thought, which is thinking that creates a duality in the brain, of a fictional ‘thinker’ is, as I see, it the source of all psychological conflict. Without the false ‘me’ character, thinking, the intellect, can function effectively as a ‘tool’ of survival. In the psyche, it turns out to be an ‘abomination’ because of the division it has brought about. It has no business being there. JK says we are “nothing”. If so, then what is the relationship of this fictitious ‘me’ to the body, to others? As ‘nothing’, this ‘me’ can be seen for what it is, an ‘image’ with no reality except the false reality thought has given it, and gives it…How does ‘nothing’ help ‘nothing’?
In other words, you don’t know.
Self-image, the person you imagine you are is an illusion, but its obvious to anyone who’s paying attention and doesn’t create conflict because it’s clear that there is no actual “me”, the thinker - there’s only thought.
But realizing that I am just thought doesn’t resolve the fundamental conflict that prevents us from being individuals, and keeps us in a perpetual state of confusion and delusion. It’s what we don’t understand about thought that creates the conflict we can’t resolve, whether for lack of interest, or because one thinks he’s not conflicted.
It is very simple . From there, I look, I am attentive to what I have accumulate from moment to moment, which is the knowledge about myself, about my hurts, about my belives, you know, all the rest of it, all of which are the cause of our conflicts , our confusion…etc.
1 Like
Yes, but how are “our conflicts” to be resolved? Attending to your hurts and “belives” is essential, but if this attention doesn’t bring understanding of why you accumulate psychological knowledge, it’s not discerning enough to reveal the mechanics of the conflict, the heart of the matter.
The words become definitions, and I limit my thinking with words. The word conflict is not just a specific verbal meaning, it it is pointing to the division, X and Y. So we can think of the word conflict, and see also opposition, competition, contradiction, disagreement, antagonism, etc. Then we see what then develops from the deeper conflict, are not really what we think they are. What we call cooperation, consensus, agreement, unity, peace, etc., are an accommodation to live in conflict. A life in conflict is what I try to solve with thought, by creating acceptable forms of conflict. That is the logic of the psyche.
Otherwise known as seeking comfort, and feathering the nest, even when the nest is suffering.
Right…seeking acceptable and comfortable images of one another and/or of our group identity that we can share and then feel like we’re related. Just like the liberals here in the US feel related to those who share their views…same with the conservatives.
Here’s an excerpt from K. that I think might be relevant. I found it interesting anyway:
If I consciously make an effort to listen to what you are saying, most of my energy has gone into that conscious, concentrated effort; but if I am listening to you very casually, that is, attentively but easily, then what you are saying goes much more into the unconscious, and it takes root. I don’t know if you have experimented with this—you must have.
We are trying to find out whether it is possible to see the totality of life, and not be caught in the particular, because it is only when we understand the totality, the whole picture of life, that the particular issues and problems can be resolved. If that is true, factual, as I think it is, then the question is: How is the mind to see the totality of existence?
The conscious mind can never see the totality. The conscious mind is the individual mind, whereas the unconscious mind is never individual. The unconscious mind is the race; it is the collective experience of man. Outwardly the various races may have different colors, and you may live in America, in Russia, or in India, but in essence the unconscious is everywhere the same; therefore, in the unconscious there is no individuality. It is shaped and limited by the racial or collective tendency, the vast, hidden inheritance of man, and therefore it is not an individual, a separate entity.
Please, this requires a great deal of thinking, of going into, so don’t accept or deny it, but rather inquire into it.
The Collected Works of J. Krishnamurti: 1964-1965: Volume 15: The Dignity of Living
J. Krishnamurti
1 Like
**Are ‘you’ consciously choosing to limit your thinking? Or is this a psychological interpretation? Is there really an ‘I’, separate from the observed words, limiting it’s thinking with words?
Can we simply say that words are limiting? Thought is limited. Can we see that it’s a fact …or not?