|
|
Post by sree on Oct 5, 2022 14:04:39 GMT -5
I don't know what her top picks were. She was concerned about my lack of love for reading. Like a mother bird feeding food to her chick, she would regurgitate the gist of the books she read into my head at dinner as we ate. The only way she could get me to "swallow" was by provoking me to question the ideas she put before me. It's what I do to you guys. Same method for waking a dead mind. Below are the books I recall: Mikail Bulgakov Master and Marguerita
Graham Greene Quiet American
Alan Bloom Closing of the American Mind
Nietzsche God is Dead.
Michel Foucault Madness and Civilization
Fyodor Dostoevsky Crime n punishment
Tolstoy War and Peace
V S Naipul An Area of Darkness
Hemingway Old Man and The Sea
Krishnamurti
F scott fitzgerald The Great Gatsby
Phillip Roth The Human Stain.
Thanks. Have only read these. Have these but they have not been a priority. I have another obscure book by Foucault, he seems like a very smart dude. I may get to it some day. I have browsed Nietzsche but have not read. You would probably like him. Did your Mom ever mention Simone Weil? Sounds like she might have liked her. Weil is virtually unique. She was a philosopher-teacher-writer-mystic-political philosopher-laborer-WWII Nazi resister in France (laborer to understand the common man/woman). Albert Camus loved her work, her life. He basically "resurrected" her and made her known to the public. She died to early, she did not take care of her body, died in 1942 or '43. Gravity and Grace is my favorite book of hers. I'll try to find a couple of quotes. Read 13. Simone Weil is your kind of spirituality. 4. " Absolutely unmixed attention is prayer." - Simone Weil, Gravity and Grace 5. "Justice. To be ever ready to admit that another person is something quite different from what we read when he is there (or when we think about him). Or rather, to read in him that he is certainly something different, perhaps something completely different from what we read in him. Every being cries out silently to be read differently." - Simone Weil, Gravity and Grace 6. "He who has not God in himself cannot feel His absence." - Simone Weil, Gravity and Grace 7. "The world is the closed door. It is a barrier. And at the same time it is the way through. Two prisoners whose cells adjoin communicate with each other by knocking on the wall. The wall is the thing which separates them but it is also their means of communication. … Every separation is a link."- Simone Weil, Gravity and Grace 8. "Electra weeping for the dead Orestes. If we love God while thinking that he does not exist, he will manifest his existence." - Simone Weil, Gravity and Grace 9. "Stars and blossoming fruit trees: Utter permanence and extreme fragility give an equal sense of eternity." - Simone Weil, Gravity and Grace Gravity and Grace Quotes. 11. "The man who has known pure joy, if only for a moment ... is the only man for whom affliction is something devastating. At the same time he is the only man who has not deserved the punishment. But, after all, for him it is no punishment; it is God holding his hand and pressing rather hard. For, if he remains constant, what he will discover buried deep under the sound of his own lamentations is the pearl of the silence of God."- Simone Weil, Gravity and Grace 12. "Time’s violence rends the soul; by the rent eternity enters." - Simone Weil, Gravity and Grace 13. "If we know in what way society is unbalanced, we must do what we can to add weight to the lighter scale ... we must have formed a conception of equilibrium and be ever ready to change sides like justice, 'that fugitive from the camp of conquerors'."- Simone Weil, Gravity and Grace 14. "Man only escapes from the laws of this world in lightning flashes. Instants when everything stands still, instants of contemplation, of pure intuition, of mental void, of acceptance of the moral void. It is through such instants that he is capable of the supernatural." - Simone Weil, Gravity and Grace 15. " The mind is not forced to believe in the existence of anything (subjectivism, absolute idealism, solipsism, skepticism: c.f. the Upanishads, the Taoists and Plato, who, all of them, adopt this philosophical attitude by way of purification). That is why the only organ of contact with existence is acceptance, love. That is why beauty and reality are identical. That is why joy and the sense of reality are identical." - Simone Weil, Gravity and Grace quotes from this website: www.aamboli.com/quotes/book/gravity-and-grace Looks like you and I are literary standouts in this dump. We class up this place. Feels good, doesn't it? So, what made you feel so worthless that you wanted to die back then in Colorado? |
|
|
|
Post by sree on Oct 5, 2022 14:54:46 GMT -5
And what are you here for if it is not for conversation? This forum, as all spiritual forums are, is a talk shop. Reefs dismisses me as a talk addict. Why me? Are we all not talk addicts? I am not the worst addict here. I don't think you are that bad as well because your posts are not long-winded. My posts are not either. Reefs can talk up a storm and have much to say. This is an observation, not a criticism.
Talk is a soothing distraction. I don't come here to sooth or distract.
I said addiction to thinking, not talking. Big difference.Really? Thinking and talking are two different things? How did you figure this out? We need zendancer to arbitrate this. He is the scientist, the authority on the use of reason.
We use words to talk to one another through speech and script in a post. When those words are not spoken or written out, they stay in our heads in the form of what?
|
|
|
|
Post by sree on Oct 5, 2022 15:10:17 GMT -5
What do you mean by an intellectual approach to life?
The Collins dictionary says "intellectual" means involving a person's ability to think and to understand ideas and information. Are you questioning sree's ability in this regard?
And what do you mean by "life"? Are you referring to things that people do and experience that are characteristic of a particular place, group, or activity?
If spiritual discourse is meant for illuminating the way to live in freedom of disharmony, then you need to be clear about the question you are posing to me.
I look forward to this exchange. Intellectual in the sense of solely guided by reason. Ironically, that's what they sell you as 'wisdom' in the West. No wonder that, traditionally, most philosophers in the West have had a predominantly negative outlook on life and humanity. Life in the sense of your general, day-to-day experience. How would you define wisdom? Is it the soundness of an action or decision with regard to the application of experience, knowledge, and good judgment?
|
|
|
|
Post by sree on Oct 5, 2022 15:39:09 GMT -5
I might have asked you this already, but why don't you give yourself a broader or more expansive purpose? What would be the problem of doing that, for you? Back in my existential civilian days.  I used to try to shift to the big picture. And then try to keep zooming out. From what we can see of the Universe the Earth is quite rare. From a benighted personal perspective, we can use the lens that the Universe creates these playgrounds, islands of riotous life, probably billions or not hundreds of billions of them right now (although the concept of simultaneity itself, in the big picture is .. different .. no star you see in the sky is now, and all are at different times, looking out is looking back in time, and on massive scales ...). It's like "God is playing dice", on a cosmic scale. What eventually "works", is what eventually "works". Then, on the biggest scale, we can anticipate the eventual heat death of the Universe. If we are here so that the "Universe can know itself", then perhaps, we might extend the life of that Universe by outliving it? So, the existential civilian, with the most expansive picture, can see a sort of choice buried in a question. It is perhaps easier to perceive this underlying, core question, with a series of multiple questions: do I care if the human race survives, if Earth survives? Is it possible that something of this Universe might outlive it at the end? If so, do I want to be a part of building, of helping and working toward that eventuality? The easy cop-out, which probably is where most existential civilians land and get stuck is "well, I'm just one person. a speck of dust. it doesn't matter". Those are the grundoons (a term Steve Bannon uses to describe menial manual laborers). Or to use a different metaphor, these are the sticks-in-the-mud. The Hobbits who never leave the Shire.
Now, for those who get past that point, the next inevitable wall is Hamlet, or, a bit more explicitly and on the bright side, Arjuna. This is where the existential civilian either stays a civilian or enlists as an existential warrior. "What am I to do? And why?".
heh heh ..  .. the mind has all sorts of survival strategies. As E' used to say, there's no outsmarting the ego ... If you buy this story, then you become a character in it, trapped as a human being on planet earth in a space-time cosmos. It's over. You live out a bug's life in a movie scripted by science. Bug spirituality. You are a bug, Laffy.
|
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Oct 5, 2022 17:18:34 GMT -5
I said addiction to thinking, not talking. Big difference.Really? Thinking and talking are two different things? How did you figure this out? We need zendancer to arbitrate this. He is the scientist, the authority on the use of reason. We use words to talk to one another through speech and script in a post. When those words are not spoken or written out, they stay in our heads in the form of what?
I chanced on this earlier today. Tolle, what are the signs of beginning to awaken. It's almost very strange that you say this, but I guess not. Tolle speaks about the difference between the thought of his subject, and the recognition, before thought. It's about ten minutes, I watched only the first part. He gets there in the first minute. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 5, 2022 21:25:45 GMT -5
I said addiction to thinking, not talking. Big difference.Really? Thinking and talking are two different things? How did you figure this out? We need zendancer to arbitrate this. He is the scientist, the authority on the use of reason. We use words to talk to one another through speech and script in a post. When those words are not spoken or written out, they stay in our heads in the form of what?
To paraphrase Herbert Morrison .. "oh the irony!" ... |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 5, 2022 21:27:04 GMT -5
Back in my existential civilian days. I used to try to shift to the big picture. And then try to keep zooming out. From what we can see of the Universe the Earth is quite rare. From a benighted personal perspective, we can use the lens that the Universe creates these playgrounds, islands of riotous life, probably billions or not hundreds of billions of them right now (although the concept of simultaneity itself, in the big picture is .. different .. no star you see in the sky is now, and all are at different times, looking out is looking back in time, and on massive scales ...). It's like "God is playing dice", on a cosmic scale. What eventually "works", is what eventually "works". Then, on the biggest scale, we can anticipate the eventual heat death of the Universe. If we are here so that the "Universe can know itself", then perhaps, we might extend the life of that Universe by outliving it? So, the existential civilian, with the most expansive picture, can see a sort of choice buried in a question. It is perhaps easier to perceive this underlying, core question, with a series of multiple questions: do I care if the human race survives, if Earth survives? Is it possible that something of this Universe might outlive it at the end? If so, do I want to be a part of building, of helping and working toward that eventuality? The easy cop-out, which probably is where most existential civilians land and get stuck is "well, I'm just one person. a speck of dust. it doesn't matter". Those are the grundoons (a term Steve Bannon uses to describe menial manual laborers). Or to use a different metaphor, these are the sticks-in-the-mud. The Hobbits who never leave the Shire.
Now, for those who get past that point, the next inevitable wall is Hamlet, or, a bit more explicitly and on the bright side, Arjuna. This is where the existential civilian either stays a civilian or enlists as an existential warrior. "What am I to do? And why?".
heh heh .. .. the mind has all sorts of survival strategies. As E' used to say, there's no outsmarting the ego ... If you buy this story, then you become a character in it, trapped as a human being on planet earth in a space-time cosmos. It's over. You live out a bug's life in a movie scripted by science. Bug spirituality. You are a bug, Laffy.
Nah, existential civillian laffy from 20 years ago wasn't an insect. He was a man.  |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 5, 2022 23:06:13 GMT -5
I said addiction to thinking, not talking. Big difference.Really? Thinking and talking are two different things? How did you figure this out? We need zendancer to arbitrate this. He is the scientist, the authority on the use of reason. We use words to talk to one another through speech and script in a post. When those words are not spoken or written out, they stay in our heads in the form of what?
Reason is a tool. You pick it up and use it when needed, like when you make plans or communicate. And when you are done planning and communicating, you put it down again. Reason as an approach to life, or addiction to thinking means you are unable to put it down again. It's like a hair dryer. It makes a lot of noise but it does the job of drying your hair. Once your hair is dry, you switch it off and put it away again. That's using reason to your advantage. If you are addicted to thinking, your hair dryer is always on and you take it with you wherever you go, so that the noise is omnipresent in your life. Which means your perception of the world is severely inhibited. You can't take it all in, you can only take in what's above the noise level of your hair dryer. Similarly, if your mind or intellect is running all the time, a lot gets drowned out by the omnipresent mental noise and your perspective of the word is severely limited. And so this would be using reason to your disadvantage. I hope this illustrates the difference between being an authority on the use of reason (ZD) and being a victim of reason (Sree). |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 5, 2022 23:23:24 GMT -5
Intellectual in the sense of solely guided by reason. Ironically, that's what they sell you as 'wisdom' in the West. No wonder that, traditionally, most philosophers in the West have had a predominantly negative outlook on life and humanity. Life in the sense of your general, day-to-day experience. How would you define wisdom? Is it the soundness of an action or decision with regard to the application of experience, knowledge, and good judgment? That's not a good definition. It would put it in the context of morality and culture, i.e. reduce it to conventional wisdom or common sense. I'd rather see wisdom as great insights into the nature of things, the world and life in general. And that's where reason fails. Reason can help you live a fairly good life by conventional terms, i.e. the middle way that will help you live long, healthy and prosperous, but the flipside to this is that reason turns everything into a somewhat boring, stale, lifeless affair, because it is based on abstractions. On the other hand, a life not guided by reason but spontaneity and direct experience will make you feel fully alive. That's the difference between a reason-based approach to life and a spontaneity-based approach to life, between just existing and actually living. Do you feel fully alive? |
|
|
|
Post by sree on Oct 5, 2022 23:29:28 GMT -5
Really? Thinking and talking are two different things? How did you figure this out? We need zendancer to arbitrate this. He is the scientist, the authority on the use of reason. We use words to talk to one another through speech and script in a post. When those words are not spoken or written out, they stay in our heads in the form of what?
I chanced on this earlier today. Tolle, what are the signs of beginning to awaken. It's almost very strange that you say this, but I guess not. Tolle speaks about the difference between the thought of his subject, and the recognition, before thought. It's about ten minutes, I watched only the first part. He gets there in the first minute. The recognition of thought is not a thought, he says. Let's track this out.
Is the object of cognition separate from cognition itself? Let's go into this, as Krishnamurti would say.
The image (A) of a person (B) is captured by a security camera (C) that transmits it to the monitor screen (D). This is how Ekchart Tolle views the process of cognition.
Is the natural phenomenon of cognition a mechanical process?
Krishnamurti said that the observer (recognizer) is the observed (thought). There is no separation. There is only the state of observation.
Who is right?
|
|
|
|
Post by sree on Oct 5, 2022 23:38:38 GMT -5
Really? Thinking and talking are two different things? How did you figure this out? We need zendancer to arbitrate this. He is the scientist, the authority on the use of reason. We use words to talk to one another through speech and script in a post. When those words are not spoken or written out, they stay in our heads in the form of what?
Reason is a tool. You pick it up and use it when needed, like when you make plans or communicate. And when you are done planning and communicating, you put it down again. Reason as an approach to life, or addiction to thinking means you are unable to put it down again. It's like a hair dryer. It makes a lot of noise but it does the job of drying your hair. Once your hair is dry, you switch it off and put it away again. That's using reason to your advantage. If you are addicted to thinking, your hair dryer is always on and you take it with you wherever you go, so that the noise is omnipresent in your life. Which means your perception of the world is severely inhibited. You can't take it all in, you can only take in what's above the noise level of your hair dryer. Similarly, if your mind or intellect is running all the time, a lot gets drowned out by the omnipresent mental noise and your perspective of the word is severely limited. And so this would be using reason to your disadvantage. I hope this illustrates the difference between being an authority on the use of reason (ZD) and being a victim of reason (Sree). Where the hell is he? Would the authority on the use of reason, namely zendancer, the scientist, be kind enough to examine Reefs argument and present his opinion? |
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on Oct 6, 2022 6:54:29 GMT -5
There are some fortunates who hear the pointers and see the truth immediately. I've become convinced of that. But far more who've deluded themselves to believe they have. In these latter, when life throws them a curve ball, which is inevitable, they whiff.
For the rest of us, Dogen's words ring true:"Practice is enlightenment and enlightenment is practice."
Practice comes in many forms but essentially it adds up to keeping your head out of your ass: meditation, ATA, self remembering, self-enquiry, etc.
There's not much else to say or argue about.
|
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Oct 6, 2022 7:38:17 GMT -5
Reason is a tool. You pick it up and use it when needed, like when you make plans or communicate. And when you are done planning and communicating, you put it down again. Reason as an approach to life, or addiction to thinking means you are unable to put it down again. It's like a hair dryer. It makes a lot of noise but it does the job of drying your hair. Once your hair is dry, you switch it off and put it away again. That's using reason to your advantage. If you are addicted to thinking, your hair dryer is always on and you take it with you wherever you go, so that the noise is omnipresent in your life. Which means your perception of the world is severely inhibited. You can't take it all in, you can only take in what's above the noise level of your hair dryer. Similarly, if your mind or intellect is running all the time, a lot gets drowned out by the omnipresent mental noise and your perspective of the word is severely limited. And so this would be using reason to your disadvantage. I hope this illustrates the difference between being an authority on the use of reason (ZD) and being a victim of reason (Sree). Where the hell is he? Would the authority on the use of reason, namely zendancer, the scientist, be kind enough to examine Reefs argument and present his opinion? Here's a pertinent quote from Sengstan: "The more you talk and think about it the further astray you wander from the truth. Stop talking and thinking, and there is nothing you will not be able to know." The intellect is a great servant but a terrible master. After one learns how to stop thinking, it becomes obvious that 95-99% of all thinking is unnecessary. Psalms 46:10 sums it up, "Be still and know....." |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Oct 6, 2022 8:57:33 GMT -5
I chanced on this earlier today. Tolle, what are the signs of beginning to awaken. It's almost very strange that you say this, but I guess not. Tolle speaks about the difference between the thought of his subject, and the recognition, before thought. It's about ten minutes, I watched only the first part. He gets there in the first minute. The recognition of thought is not a thought, he says. Let's track this out. Is the object of cognition separate from cognition itself? Let's go into this, as Krishnamurti would say. The image (A) of a person (B) is captured by a security camera (C) that transmits it to the monitor screen (D). This is how Ekchart Tolle views the process of cognition.
Is the natural phenomenon of cognition a mechanical process?
Krishnamurti said that the observer (recognizer) is the observed (thought). There is no separation. There is only the state of observation.
Who is right?
I had been internet hopping earlier, chanced on that video, remembered it. It was a reply to your question about the difference between talking and thinking. You asked, so what's going on with thoughts when you're not talking. 'When words are not spoken or written out, they stay in our heads in the form of what?' That's the context of the video, and I thought, that's the perfect answer. I said a clue is in the first minute. And here you are analysing again. So you missed the answer. If you do not have a continual internal dialogue going on, then you are an unusual person. Tolle points out that most people do not realize they have this inner talking almost continually. You asked the question, quoted above. So, in asking the question it seemed sree doesn't realize there is this unending inner talk. So Tolle says the recognition comes first, a non-thinking nonverbal recognition. But then almost immediately, the thinking machinery can start up again. Recognition, then, Oh, I think nonstop. So just consider that... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ But you have started up a new thread of consideration. First, most people do not understand what Krishnamurti is pointing out by "The observer is the observed". And you have drawn out of the Tolle video what he's not talking about, at least in the first 2 minutes, I watched a few minutes more but still not the whole video. If you watch more of the Tolle video he draws out that the thinker arises from thought, not the reverse. We usually think, sdp is thinking. Tolle explicitly says no, thoughts just happen, and we *form* the self from the thoughts. That's precisely what Krishnamurti means also, precisely. So there is no who is right, they're the same. Krishnamurti is saying there is no observer who thinks thoughts, the observer and what it observes, are one and the same. Now, you can expand that, but he is, within those words, saying exactly what Tolle is saying. But the following is where people cease to follow/understand Krishnamurti. He, just like Tolle, talks about going beyond the observer that observes. Krishnamurti sometimes talks about observation without the observer. But he never explains this, he never goes into the process, he never describes it. Because here you begin to get beyond words, period. So K doesn't try to say it. And very few people get this, Krishnamurti takes people to the very edge, and then just leaves them there. One of his books is titled Freedom From The Known. Krishnamurti launches people into the unknown, but he never describes what that is, he never puts it into words. So sree has failed completely in understanding the whole message of Krishnamurti. You yourself have admitted, I throw Krishnamurti out here, he is just wrong here, he failed here. He didn't fail, sree failed. Tolle goes a tiny bit further. He points out, there is this space of recognition. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Now, just a little further. *Doing* Krishnamurti for about 5 years plus, I came to know that it all boils down to attention, that attention is the answer. But I couldn't get further with Krishnamurti. But later, I understood. This continual dialogue in the head, that, takes your attention. But I learned later that attention is separate and free from thinking, free from the self, the ego, the boatman (awareness also, awareness is free from the boatman). So this point of recognition Tolle talked about, is a freeing of attention from thought, it's a gap. The recognition comes from a point of freeing attention from thought (it just occurred, somehow). But the next time, it doesn't have to just happen. It's possible to live from attention which is separate from thought, the thinker/observer, the "boatman". And then understanding this, I could go back and say, Oh, that's what Krishnamurti was talking about. But being in attention (and/or awareness), is observation without the observer. So just stop analysing all the time. Be attention. Eventually you can live through your attention most of the time (50.01%-to-51%-to-55%...to 80%...and up to 95%, eventually even 100% is possible). A word or a thought is just a copy, a copy of an experience, an existential moment. Living through attention, or awareness, is to live without copies. Most people live second hand, through copies (memories), never now. Living now, the mind is silent, no internal chatter. Continuously now, there isn't time for copies. And this is nonduality. If you can take all this in, you can go back and read Krishnamurti and understand everything he says. |
|
|
|
Post by sree on Oct 6, 2022 11:32:23 GMT -5
The recognition of thought is not a thought, he says. Let's track this out. Is the object of cognition separate from cognition itself? Let's go into this, as Krishnamurti would say. The image (A) of a person (B) is captured by a security camera (C) that transmits it to the monitor screen (D). This is how Ekchart Tolle views the process of cognition.
Is the natural phenomenon of cognition a mechanical process?
Krishnamurti said that the observer (recognizer) is the observed (thought). There is no separation. There is only the state of observation.
Who is right?
I had been internet hopping earlier, chanced on that video, remembered it. It was a reply to your question about the difference between talking and thinking. You asked, so what's going on with thoughts when you're not talking. 'When words are not spoken or written out, they stay in our heads in the form of what?' That's the context of the video, and I thought, that's the perfect answer. I said a clue is in the first minute. And here you are analysing again. So you missed the answer. If you do not have a continual internal dialogue going on, then you are an unusual person. Tolle points out that most people do not realize they have this inner talking almost continually. You asked the question, quoted above. So, in asking the question it seemed sree doesn't realize there is this unending inner talk. So Tolle says the recognition comes first, a non-thinking nonverbal recognition. But then almost immediately, the thinking machinery can start up again. Recognition, then, Oh, I think nonstop. So just consider that... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ But you have started up a new thread of consideration. First, most people do not understand what Krishnamurti is pointing out by "The observer is the observed". And you have drawn out of the Tolle video what he's not talking about, at least in the first 2 minutes, I watched a few minutes more but still not the whole video. If you watch more of the Tolle video he draws out that the thinker arises from thought, not the reverse. We usually think, sdp is thinking. Tolle explicitly says no, thoughts just happen, and we *form* the self from the thoughts. That's precisely what Krishnamurti means also, precisely. So there is no who is right, they're the same. Krishnamurti is saying there is no observer who thinks thoughts, the observer and what it observes, are one and the same. Now, you can expand that, but he is, within those words, saying exactly what Tolle is saying. But the following is where people cease to follow/understand Krishnamurti. He, just like Tolle, talks about going beyond the observer that observes. Krishnamurti sometimes talks about observation without the observer. But he never explains this, he never goes into the process, he never describes it. Because here you begin to get beyond words, period. So K doesn't try to say it. And very few people get this, Krishnamurti takes people to the very edge, and then just leaves them there. One of his books is titled Freedom From The Known. Krishnamurti launches people into the unknown, but he never describes what that is, he never puts it into words. So sree has failed completely in understanding the whole message of Krishnamurti. You yourself have admitted, I throw Krishnamurti out here, he is just wrong here, he failed here. He didn't fail, sree failed. Tolle goes a tiny bit further. He points out, there is this space of recognition. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Now, just a little further. *Doing* Krishnamurti for about 5 years plus, I came to know that it all boils down to attention, that attention is the answer. But I couldn't get further with Krishnamurti. But later, I understood. This continual dialogue in the head, that, takes your attention. But I learned later that attention is separate and free from thinking, free from the self, the ego, the boatman (awareness also, awareness is free from the boatman). So this point of recognition Tolle talked about, is a freeing of attention from thought, it's a gap. The recognition comes from a point of freeing attention from thought (it just occurred, somehow). But the next time, it doesn't have to just happen. It's possible to live from attention which is separate from thought, the thinker/observer, the "boatman". And then understanding this, I could go back and say, Oh, that's what Krishnamurti was talking about. But being in attention (and/or awareness), is observation without the observer. So just stop analysing all the time. Be attention. Eventually you can live through your attention most of the time (50.01%-to-51%-to-55%...to 80%...and up to 95%, eventually even 100% is possible). A word or a thought is just a copy, a copy of an experience, an existential moment. Living through attention, or awareness, is to live without copies. Most people live second hand, through copies (memories), never now. Living now, the mind is silent, no internal chatter. Continuously now, there isn't time for copies. And this is nonduality. If you can take all this in, you can go back and read Krishnamurti and understand everything he says. I asked a direct question: who is right, Tolle or Krishnamurti? And you tell me (in bolded words above) that they are saying the same thing. Let me try again.
Tolle said that the recognition of thought is not a thought. His use of the word "recognition" needs examination. He pointed out that "The recognition (that there is a voice in the head) is not a thought." How do we recognize that water is not wine?
Please stay with this, for Christ's sake! (As Krishnamurti would say.) Forget about the speaker (sree). He doesn't exist. Just focus on the goddam conversation.
The sloppy use of words is evidence of a deficiency of attention. zendancer suffers from this also when he used the word "imagine" instead of "cognition". And he is a scientist. Good lord!. No wonder settled science is never settled once and for all.
It seems to me that Tolle is equating the word "cognition" with "insight" (Krishnamurti) or "spontaneous enlightenment" (Hui Neng). This is so lame. And he gets away with it performing to fools who have made him a multi-millionaire.
|
|
