Yes, speculations and conclusions can be just objects of desire… but where do any words, or thoughts come from? If you say that awareness is limited to speculation or ideas/conclusions, that’s almost like saying that a river is limited by rocks.
Said another way, we have lots of chattering inside, but that chattering doesn’t change the core functionality of the brain. Our brains seem to ebb and flow, just like a river around rocks. The rocks are attachments, thoughts, and some are slowly polished, while others tumble down the cliff. I’m getting a bit poetic, but my main point, is that the simple fact that we are aware of any thoughts at all, seems to be overlooked.
If knowing we are aware was just pure speculation, then speculation would be impossible.
In the above statement, you mentioned “Objects of desire”.
What is desire?
Where do any words and thoughts come from?
Inside the head first image from memory will appear, and then mind will react to that image resulting into the thought. If there is a gap between image and mind, then thought will not happen. My answer is simple, everyone can understand. You said something about Objects of desire, which I have no idea at all. Simplify it, if you can?
I like this statement a lot, but I’m having trouble seeing the reality that you are pointing to. Is this gap made through effort, or by thinking about a gap? Or, is it effortless?
Sure! All I meant by throwing in the phrase “objects of desire”, was that we can identify or attach to certain concepts or conclusions, in order to feel like we are reaching some imaginary goal, or achievement. Conclusions can also be seen as valid, through our attachment to feelings. Most often, we spend our lives constantly searching, and trying to bring about states of pleasure, peace, etc., through the activity we perceive all around us.
Conclusion, means a judgment, something reached at the end through reasoning or some other means. But what I’m pointing to… There is this phrase: “The ends justify the means.” It is commonly understood to mean, that the end result is all that matters, not the way or means by which the result came about.
What I’m pointing to, is that no end result can be interpreted, without being aware of it. This is important, because happiness, love, peace, does not reside within what we experience. Being happy, seems to “swell up” from “inside”. This is why so many people repeatedly seek situations that make them excited, because we believe that happiness is an object that we can claim.
I hope I am being clear, please help me to clarify anything!
" Is this gap made through effort, or by thinking about a gap? Or, is it effortless?"
It is not possible to reach a thoughtless state by just thinking about it. Effort is required to understand the whole dynamic happening in between mind and brain. Such that information in the mind (content of consciousness) starts changing about itself, and finds the traps in those thought processes.
What about all the things you know well enough to avoid injury, damage, or mistreatment of others? That knowledge is essential and does not come from “words, ideas, thought”, but from experience.
Friends sharing together, using language, is not a practice of knowing.
To the contrary, “using language” requires knowing how to use it correctly and appropriately, making oneself clear, not rambling, digressing, etc.
Seeing or watching the movement of thought happens inside. If the mind understands the importance of it. It is a kind of meditation, I think.
Based on the psychological structure of the person, it will be either effort or effortless. I was a kind of brat in my starting stages. Therefore, it was a hell of effort to understand the patterns and dynamics of the thought process happening inside.
Still I have to agree that I may be the person of my imagination. At the same time, I can say that there is a transformation inside.
The brain has learnt language, but it is using a mechanical process to speak and write. When I am speaking and writing the brain is working automatically. This is all a function of thought as is self, I, ego, etc. It works in the day to day world, coordinating with people, places, actions, emotions, desires, all of that. It is a practical affair. But you can be alert, careful, and more in touch with living than all that. So when you read or hear what someone says, don’t jump on the words. Don’t react. Hear or read what is said with a full comprehension of the sharing together. It is not about what the time and place or the individual position, means to you. You don’t have to struggle to be living, nor to assert your knowledge. Friends sharing together, using language, is not a practice of knowing.
Does anyone have “full comprehension” of anything? For very specific things and processes, some do, but for most of us trying to communicate verbally, we work with what we have, and we may not have the skill to communicate clearly or effectively. When someone who lacks such skill advises you to “hear or read” with full comprehension, that person is asking you to read his mind, his intention, because he can’t express what he can’t articulate.
Do people see this contentious approach and the adversity? It is completely in conflict, and can not sit with any understanding. It is in competition. This verbal understanding is forced to find meaning, or not, in another’s words, or in some theory. But there are all the different speakers and writers, and all the words and ideas, and the satisfaction in this competition, in this conflict, is only momentary. There is always something more, intellectually. Dissatisfied, there is a struggle to organise thought, to want to find a solution or to think we can change the way someone is acting. The living does not need some calculation, or fabrication, and is not in the future.
Right, I am not expressing anything with verbal skill. I am reaching out with a non-verbal understanding. I am not formulating ideas for consumption, I am using language to point to something. It is not about reading a mind, it is self-reflection, and careful listening and watching.
Where are you? Do people see this wall, this dictatorship, of thought? It is relentless. It is mechanical. I am a part of this. I conform or I rebel, but this is still part of the mechanics, and is not living. To see all this completely, there is this flow of thought, and there is not a disturbed mind in reaction. There is a resonating with the whole flow of living.
I see there is conflict in him or her, or between people, and in society. I see it as a level of performance, of ability. I don’t see it is an internal conflict in thought. I can understand conceptually there is conflict. I don’t see the struggle, or the complacency, with everything, and with the resultant poor performance, inadequacy, incompetency, is an internal conflict. The performance, expectations and assumptions we have, are basically the authority of I, me, self, ego. This way of looking at the world is fragmented, and not actually at rest; it is its own unfulfillment. So we have I, self, performing, and presenting adequacy, completeness, but in this artificialness, it is not actually complete. There is thought, and separately, the life I live, a result of thought. It is divided. Internally this is a conflict. We have produced remedies, such as with technology, sophistication, cleverness, but basically this fills a shallow emptiness, and is not actually living.
Isn’t obvious, to always respond in contention, there is something going on in the readers mind? To be selective about what is read, and to not see this readers activity, not observing that there is a reading limited to the reader, by the reader, is a mistake. The whole exercise has been for the reader to take a specious interpretation of the others words, and to then cleverly add a revamp of this specious interpretation. It is up to the reader to see the way the mind works, is in the thinker, in the reader, and is anyone exempt?
Does anyone really know anything? In this moment? If all is new, unprecedented, the only way to see how the mind works is to see (now) the mind work. So, no exemption, not even for Krishnamurti.
That’s why we keep looking at the ‘same’ themes … because every looking is new.
I think we should have a conversation, instead of just sharing our views on a particular aspect. After reading the reply, I felt,
Everyone cannot converge to the same point as it is completely dependent on the perspective of the mind. You mentioned it as a mistake, but the mind which reads the content does not know it is doing the mistake. It just tries to understand and express its view, as I did. I can say that if there is an active discussion on a specific point, participants may converge to the same understanding about the concept.
The I, self, ego is caught up in thought. Isn’t that enough understanding to be careful about what I, you are doing, and not repeating the way of thinking?