Hello.
First, Why there is need of “Imagine Anything”?
Second, If we keep on speaking/questioning/inquiring about “Time or ANYTHING”, will it End/Stop?
Third, If Time Stops or continues - what’s the problem/matter/issue?
1 Like
Do you have no imagination?
If we keep on speaking/questioning/inquiring about “Time or ANYTHING”, will it End/Stop?
It doesn’t matter if one does it for the love of inquiry.
If Time Stops or continues - what’s the problem/matter/issue?
Krishnamurti and others tell us that time is all in our minds, is just measurement, and that life, however, is movement, the unfolding of events, which is always now, and is the only “time” there is. If this is not a “problem/matter/issue” for you, ignore it and move on. Some minds find inquiring into this question worthwhile.
1 Like
Conveniently, we use the ordinary meaning of a word, and its ordinary implications, when we are supposedly exploring thought, with no limited attachment to the words.
2 Likes
Is there something to gain by “hanging around Kinfonet”?
It is all about whether I can take on board what is laid before me and yet retain reason and sanity
If it’s a threat to your reason and sanity, you probably shouldn’t take it on board.
This is the second time you’ve mentioned thought “acting in its own interests”, and it isn’t clear to me what “thought” you’re referring to. If, as you’ve stated, psychological thought deals only with the past and the future, its interests are not rooted in the here and now. And if you’re referring to practical thought, its interests are only in what is here and now.
But if blocking “what it does not know and cannot imagine in order to make life comfortable for itself”, is practical, the difference between psychological and practical thought is negligible because both are conditioned by beliefs drawn from experience, i.e., wishful/dreadful, should/shouldn’t, right/wrong, true/false, reckoning.
“I have very little to offer and a lot to gain”
This is what you said about participating in this forum. It got me wondering what, if anything, I might have to “gain” from this exercise, and I think I may have gained a better understanding of how to talk about the teaching with others, but I’m not sure if I have.
The conditioned mind, whether using psychological or practical thought, is always limited by the conditions imposed by its reactive conclusions, i.e., beliefs. Whether thought says of its perpetual compulsive reactivity that “thought cannot stop” or “we cannot stop thinking”, makes no difference.
Autonomy is self-governance, and conditioned thought can be strategic, tactical, analytical, can execute decisions, etc., and in that sense it is autonomous. But it can’t act outside of or in spite of the conclusions that form its foundation, so in that sense it is not completely autonomous; it is not free.
Discussing thought? Its like watching the TV where the TV News Host has formulated questions to ask derived from the content of the news report. It is the known content turned into inquiry, and the interviewee responds with details of the report. They may also, in the nature of free speech, compare details of the report with the usual common values, or bias, and debate their worthiness.
Think of a leader of a country saying, as heard the other day on the news, we have womens rights according to our tradition and religious beliefs. For better or worse we find a place in society conforming to the society. Having this place is held to be more important than the actuality of the conditions. We prioritize the ability to talk about it all, to debate or to rebel, over any insightful rejection.
It seems very much that we have individualized dictatorship. So from kingship to dictatorship a change unfortunately very superficial.
The above is your reply to this statement: “Whether thought says of its perpetual compulsive reactivity that “thought cannot stop” or “we cannot stop thinking”, makes no difference.”
What significant difference does it make whether we say “thought cannot stop” or “we cannot stop thinking”? If there is no thinker, thought is like the wind - it just is. We can harness it and put it to use, but it still goes on, ignored or unconsciously.
When/if thought does stop and the ineffable prevails, we can’t know it until thought resumes, verifying that it had been absent.
There are lots of books, movies and TV programs which obviously are scripted drama. Yet we think there is some relevance in this way of acting and conversing…
The identities are different brains discussing what they all have in common: incessant thought
1 Like
What would you refer to it as?