Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
General Discussion | moderated by Dev Singh

From Where Else?


Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 70 in total
Sun, 23 Aug 2015 #1
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

Thinking, itself, is the source of stupidity and belief.

max

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 24 Aug 2015 #2
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

Joan,

The more involved in analysis, justifying, comparing, and so on that the thinker is -- the more he thinks -- the more stupid he becomes. It is only with awareness that there is clarity.

max

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 24 Aug 2015 #3
Thumb_dev Dev Singh United States 48 posts in this forum Offline

Max,

I would appreciate it if you don't address John/Joan directly on the forum. You would be encouraging madness.

Dev

Kinfonet Admin

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Mon, 24 Aug 2015 #4
Thumb_stringio Pavil Davidov Poland 4402 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

max greene wrote:
Thinking, itself, is the source of stupidity and belief.

Well, that's also a thought, Max. K said that it was thought's identification with a part of itself that's the root of the problem, not thought itself. He said it in the section you referred to in "Beginnings of Learning." He said that thought has a tendency to take over, as a function, the other functions of mind and body and to dominate them. From there it creates a 'center' and regards that center, which is only a product of its own workings, as the creator of itself. This false separation of the center from the periphery is what distorts the thought function and corrupts the whole psyche.

It seems to me that K was right.

"Wherever you go, there you are." Insight from Mullah Nasruddin

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 24 Aug 2015 #5
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

Thought it right to do so, Dev, as he asked me a question before his account was discontinued. He deserved the courtesy of a reply.

max

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 24 Aug 2015 #6
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

Pavil Davidov wrote:
Well, that's also a thought, Max.

How can you say for sure that it is? It may be an observation. It may be an insight.

max

This post was last updated by max greene Mon, 24 Aug 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 25 Aug 2015 #7
Thumb_stringio mike c United States 941 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

max greene wrote:
Thinking, itself, is the source of stupidity and belief.

Yes, but you have to go deeper. What is the source of belief? It seems that it is the desire for security, comfort.

Another question is, is thinking all we have? Logic, stupidity, denial- Is thinking it? Everything? And please don't just say awareness.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 25 Aug 2015 #8
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3181 posts in this forum Offline

mike c wrote:
max greene wrote:

Thinking, itself, is the source of stupidity and belief.

mike: Yes, but you have to go deeper. What is the source of belief? It seems that it is the desire for security, comfort.

And insecurity is the source of the desire for security. It does all seem to be related to thinking....fear and the desire for security.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 25 Aug 2015 #9
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

mike c wrote:
What is the source of belief? Another question is, is thinking all we have?

The source of belief is in the acceptance of something as a fact, or the truth, without seeing that it actually is. The source of belief is in blind acceptance.

The brain functions as the control center for the body's activities, and it is most likely the organ through which awareness operates. Other than thinking, I can't see much else.

max

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 25 Aug 2015 #10
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
. . . insecurity is the source of the desire for security. It does all seem to be related to thinking....fear and the desire for security.

Yes, it all springs from thinking. Desire, for example: There is an initial pleasant sensation through the nervous system. This sensation is recorded in the brain as memory, and then thinking takes place, "Oh, how good that felt! I want more!" This "want" is desire.

max

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 25 Aug 2015 #11
Thumb_stringio Pavil Davidov Poland 4402 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

max greene wrote:

Pavil Davidov wrote:

Well, that's also a thought, Max.

How can you say for sure that it is? It may be an observation. It may be an insight.

Are you saying that your post opener is not a thought, Max. Are you saying it is a direct observation of "what is?"

We should state things as they are, Max, not as we'd like them to be.

But let's admit the possibility that you'd had a direct insight and spoke from that. If your statement, "Thinking, itself, is the source of stupidity and belief." is not thought but 'Truth,' it means that K's teaching on this point is not 'Truth' but thought.

That's OK, but it raises some interesting questions.

K said the source of stupidity and belief is the identification of thought with a part of itself. Thought creates within itself a 'center' and regards that center as the source of itself and calls that center 'the thinker.'

Your 'insight' (if it is such - we would like to know) throws all that aside and makes 'thinking' the villain of the piece.

In the piece you quoted from on another thread K said that the mind, when free of its content, can use thought rightly, without identifying itself as 'the thinker' or the self. You deny that. You say thought has no legitimate place at all. You say that thinking and self are one and the same. That's a pretty basic difference. I say your idea about thought is also thought. I say K had insight into the matter and you only have thought. You observe from the aspect of your own theory, not directly.

"Wherever you go, there you are." Insight from Mullah Nasruddin

This post was last updated by Pavil Davidov (account deleted) Tue, 25 Aug 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 25 Aug 2015 #12
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

Pavil Davidov wrote:
I say your idea about thought is also thought. I say K had insight into the matter and you only have thought.

Say what you want to, Paul. I intend to do the same.

If stupidity is the identification of thought with a part of itself, as Krishnamurti said, isn't thought, then, the source of stupidity?

And isn't it impossible, in actuality, for thought to be split in such fashion? (The thinker is the thought.) So long as there is motive and purpose, there is the thinker -- the self. And there is no thinking without motive and purpose.

The thinker is the self, the self is thought, and thought is basically confused and stupid as it is always limited and conditioned.

max

This post was last updated by max greene Tue, 25 Aug 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 25 Aug 2015 #13
Thumb_stringio Pavil Davidov Poland 4402 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

max greene wrote:
If stupidity is the identification of thought with a part of itself, as Krishnamurti said, isn't thought, then, the source of stupidity?

No. Not in the sense that you understand it anyhow. Because you want to identify thought as being inevitably stupid, inevitably wrong, inevitably bad. K said that thought may or may not identify a center and build upon it a self. He said it was possible to think without a center. That would be impossible if thinking is, as you say, the self.

Max, the point of difference does not hinge on the word "source" a word which can be treated in various ways (as I'll point out further down). The point of difference between you and K hinges on your identification of thought being the self. You say thinking and the self are the exact same thing and that there can be no thinking without there being a self. K said that in the absence of self, thought falls back into harmony with mind and body, does not act in such a way as to try to dominate the mind/body organism. He says it in the piece you took a one-phrase, out-of-context quotation from. He spelled it out very clearly there.

The ending of thought, for K, is not the ending of thinking. It is the ending of the content and structure that has been built up, over time, around a central pillar of thought, the identification with part of itself as a separate 'self,' the 'thinker.'

So, what does it mean to say that thought is the source of stupidity? It's a bit like looking at a stream and asking what is the source of the stream. Is there an absolute point which we can name as the source? The source may be named as the spring or it may be named as 'water.' The source may be identified as the the water contained in the rocks from whence the spring emerges. It may be named as the pressure the rock water is under that allows it to emerge or the force of gravity which creates that pressure, or the rainfall which puts the water underground, or the clouds or the factors which allow for precipitation, or evaporation of the stream itself.

So a question arises: Can one say there is any ultimate source for stupidity? Certainly stupidity characterizes much of our thought-based activities. Thought, as a system, as a structure, as an accumulation, is the result of ongoing stupidity, the ongoing stupor of man. The state of stupor is continued through thought, is structured, consolidated and reinforced by the ever-accumulating package. We are mostly lost in thought, but fundamentally, the fact is that we are lost. We are also lost in emotion, in sensation and in instinct.

What I am saying is - Stupidity is its own source. Take thought out of the equation and stupidity does not vanish.

But, clear thought of its 'psychological' content, the factor of 'self,' the word which K uses to describe the center around which the history of personal hurt has accumulated, which K also calls the whole 'consciousness' structure, with its content, then one can be conscious, he says, without having a 'consciousness' as structure and content and one can think without having 'thought' as a structure and content, and one can 'experience' without an experiencer, which is the accumulated structure of experience, one can observe without the observer, which is the 'psychological' past and one can emote without the sediment of sentiment.

"Wherever you go, there you are." Insight from Mullah Nasruddin

This post was last updated by Pavil Davidov (account deleted) Tue, 25 Aug 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 25 Aug 2015 #14
Thumb_80010981_01_l Praveen Boyeneni United States 18 posts in this forum Offline

max greene wrote:
Thinking, itself, is the source of stupidity and belief.

K said several times that Thought is a material process and there is nothing sacred about it. Attributing ‘Stupidity’ to thought itself is like saying matter is stupid. If thought - manifestation of matter - is stupid then it implies water or flower or cells in JK body which are all different manifestation of matter should also be stupid…which is nonsense. So I think it will be foolish to say thought is stupid. Thought itself may not be stupid but a thought about “thought is stupid” can be stupid (stupid meaning senseless).

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 25 Aug 2015 #15
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3181 posts in this forum Offline

max greene wrote:
The thinker is the self, the self is thought, and thought is basically confused and stupid as it is always limited and conditioned.

Is all scientific endeavor stupid, then? In the field of medicine...the search for new cures...new drugs...new inventions, etc.? Being aware of its limitations, can't the inventor use thought with intelligence? Just asking.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 25 Aug 2015 #16
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
? Being aware of its limitations, can't the inventor use thought with intelligence?

This is exactly the point, Tom. If one is using thought with awareness, is he thinking, or is he acting put of awareness? As I see it, when one is aware of what they are doing, they are acting out of that awareness, not out of thinking and thought.

I believe Krishnamurti identified this condition as "right thinking." It is, as I see it, a misnomer. It is awareness that is acting not thinking.

max

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 25 Aug 2015 #17
Thumb_stringio Pavil Davidov Poland 4402 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

max greene wrote:
I believe Krishnamurti identified this condition as "right thinking." It is, as I see it, a misnomer. It is awareness that is acting not thinking.

You are playing with words yet again, master, and giving them a new meaning, a new twist, every time.

Awareness is always and inevitably at the center of all action and reaction. You don't react unless you are aware, at some level, of the stimulus.

Awareness, acting through the mental process of thought, still implies thought and thinking. You can't wave thinking away by chanting "awareness, awareness, awareness" anymore than you can wave 'walking' away by saying it was an act of awareness.

To walk one has to be aware. Look, let's do our own little word-swap here and see how 'walking' pans out under your theory:

"I believe Krishnamurti identified this condition as "right walking." It is, as I see it, a misnomer. It is awareness that is acting not walking."

You cannot counterpose everything that awareness does to the mode through which it does it.

"Wherever you go, there you are." Insight from Mullah Nasruddin

This post was last updated by Pavil Davidov (account deleted) Tue, 25 Aug 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 25 Aug 2015 #18
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

Paul,

Can you confine your posts to the subject matter? When you have personal comments, innuendos of a personal nature wrapped up in the topic, send them via PM. We can discuss them in private.

max

This post was last updated by max greene Tue, 25 Aug 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 25 Aug 2015 #19
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

Pavil Davidov wrote:
Awareness is always and inevitably at the center of all action and reaction.

As I see it, awareness is understanding and action. All three are a unity. Reaction is the result of motivation and stimulus. Awareness is not driven by motivation and stimulus. Awareness is sensing, not thinking, not considering, not an action by the brain.

max

This post was last updated by max greene Tue, 25 Aug 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 25 Aug 2015 #20
Thumb_stringio Richard Nolet Canada 325 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

max greene wrote:
As I see it, awareness is understanding and action. All three are a unity.

I am aware of the rose. I am aware of the description of what you say about awareness. And it come to my mind that there is no undestanding or action interfering in the awareness of the rose. I see the rose, I am aware of its color, its form, its texture and all. It is what K. call the first degree of perception or of awareness. Do you agree with that ? Or not ?

This post was last updated by Richard Nolet (account deleted) Tue, 25 Aug 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 25 Aug 2015 #21
Thumb_stringio Richard Nolet Canada 325 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

To be aware is to be aware of something, isn't it ?

This post was last updated by Richard Nolet (account deleted) Tue, 25 Aug 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 25 Aug 2015 #22
Thumb_stringio Richard Nolet Canada 325 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

K.: Awareness is the perception of what is without distortion.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 25 Aug 2015 #23
Thumb_stringio Richard Nolet Canada 325 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

max greene wrote:
Reaction is the result of motivation and stimulus.

Is there something wrong with that ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 25 Aug 2015 #24
Thumb_stringio Richard Nolet Canada 325 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

max greene wrote:
Awareness is sensing, not thinking, not considering, not an action by the brain.

I understand that an action can comes out of awareness. But are you saying that awareness doesn't need a brain, a perception of any sort ?.Sorry Max for all the questions, but, I don't understand what you are saying.

This post was last updated by Richard Nolet (account deleted) Tue, 25 Aug 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 25 Aug 2015 #25
Thumb_stringio Pavil Davidov Poland 4402 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

max greene wrote:
Paul,

Can you confine your posts to the subject matter? When you have personal comments, innuendos of a personal nature wrapped up in the topic, send them via PM. We can discuss them in private.

I kept right on topic, Max. But when I say at the end of a post, "I have no more to add" and you make a one word response, "Good" it is you who are personalizing. You also responded to a post here with, "Say what you want to, Paul. I intend to do the same." which again personalized matters and totally avoided the direct and relevant questions I raised to you.

So please, Max, if you are so sensitive to criticism, don't do it yourself.

You started by making a very strong statement about thought. I said that your statement was also thought. You asked me how I could be sure so I asked for clarification as to whether, in your opinion, since you asked, your statement was one of insight or of thought. You have yet to answer.

And, it's the cardinal point.

"Wherever you go, there you are." Insight from Mullah Nasruddin

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 25 Aug 2015 #26
Thumb_stringio Pavil Davidov Poland 4402 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Richard Nolet wrote:
To be aware is to be aware of something, isn't it ?

Just so. 'Awareness,' as a noun, describes a movement of mind in which one is being stimulated by something, either something internal or external. One is aware of the thing. If there is nothing to be aware of, is there awareness? How would you know?

The funny thing is that Max says one cannot be conscious of awareness, and yet he writes about this thing he is not conscious of quite a lot. He will not explain how. It all seems very 'intellectualized' to me, word games and logic.

"Wherever you go, there you are." Insight from Mullah Nasruddin

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 25 Aug 2015 #27
Thumb_stringio Pavil Davidov Poland 4402 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Richard Nolet wrote:
I understand that an action can comes out of awareness. But are you saying that awareness doesn't need a brain, a perception of any sort ?.Sorry Max for all the questions, but, I don't understand what you are saying.

Jean Gatti had a mantra that the mind lies outside the brain - or he sometimes put it that the brain is within the mind . . . but never mind. Awareness, he said, was of the mind rather than of the brain. Awareness is just sort of 'out there.' I'm not sure how far Max agreed with this. Perhaps he'll say. But the idea that awareness exists without a brain is pure woo woo. I mean, how could you know? And to say it without knowing it is the power of woo in a nutshell.

But if it were true that awareness is outside the brain, an untethered quality of the universe without a referent, then who is to say that stupidity is not the same. At least we can be sure that stupidity does require a whole brain . . . half a brain will do :-)

"Wherever you go, there you are." Insight from Mullah Nasruddin

This post was last updated by Pavil Davidov (account deleted) Tue, 25 Aug 2015.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Tue, 25 Aug 2015 #28
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5853 posts in this forum Offline

max greene wrote:
Thought it right to do so, Dev, as he asked me a question before his account was discontinued. He deserved the courtesy of a reply.

Max, if he deserved the courtesy of a reply he would still be on the forum. He more than used up his "right" to a courteous answer.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 25 Aug 2015 #29
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

Richard Nolet wrote:
I am aware of the rose. I am aware of the description of what you say about awareness. And it come to my mind that there is no undestanding or action interfering in the awareness of the rose. I see the rose, I am aware of its color, its form, its texture and all. It is what K. call the first degree of perception or of awareness. Do you agree with that ? Or not ?

There is no "I" in awareness, as awareness is prior to memory, thinking and thought, and so it is prior to the formation of the "I."Awareness is sensitivity. It operates through the
senses.

Awareness is the understanding. To the extent that there is an awareness of something, an awareness of anything, to that extent there is an understanding of it. And, this understanding is the action, as one will always do what is understood, unless prevented from doing so from outside or by his own thinking.

Is all of this the "first degree of perception or awareness"? I don't know. It's the way I see it.

max

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 25 Aug 2015 #30
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5853 posts in this forum Offline

max greene wrote:
As I see it, awareness is understanding and action. All three are a unity. Reaction is the result of motivation and stimulus. Awareness is not driven by motivation and stimulus. Awareness is sensing, not thinking, not considering, not an action by the brain.

Max, can there be just choiceless (no opinion or judgment)observation without all the definitions, rules and ideals it seems that you have set up. What you are describing seems so complicated, so thought out, so specific.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 70 in total
To quote a portion of this post in your reply, first select the text and then click this "Quote" link.

(N.B. Be sure to insert an empty line between the quoted text and your reply.)