Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
Discussion Forums

Aseem Kumar's Forum Posts

Forum: General Discussion

Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 2033 in total
Topic: The reality of a tree. Mon, 09 Nov 2015

George Lanroh wrote: It is in watching the whole thing unfold which includes our reaction that we come upon thought/self redecorating in its many different forms.

George, there is no such watching that is without a watcher. When one is recognizing what is happening inside the head (e.g, whole thing/field unfolding), then it is self only that is the recognizer. Whatever happens next at the experiencing/sensation level is induced by thought stored in memory as some significant religious/spiritual knowledge/experience. Once such special religious/spiritual experience happens, then demand for their repetition is life giving fuel for the me/self. What do you say?

Topic: The reality of a tree. Mon, 09 Nov 2015

Tom Paine wrote: If one is observing with interest, as in observing a small animal building it's nest, then there is no motive involved...one is simply observing...with interest.

And where is 'me', the maker of self centered activities, when such observing is going on?

The above example does not belong to the psychological field ruled by self, Tom. The absorption of attention in something interesting or grand or majestic and the stopping of the activities of the self (as thought movement) in intense concentration do not add to the understanding of the working of the 'me' in oneself.

All thought movements disturbing the inner peace and harmony are similar. It is one's background accumulation as knowledge/experience that labels them differently.

Topic: Conclusions Wed, 02 Sep 2015

mike c wrote: But is there a root to all this? I'm still interested in conclusions as a resting place for the mind, which perhaps, probably, makes the mind dull.

How would you define/recognize (what/which qualities) a "dull" mind?...And its opposite too, Mike?

Topic: WOOBUSTERS Wed, 02 Sep 2015

Pavil Davidov wrote: The more you keep looking at and observing just one thing, not analysis but observation, the more you see and the more the whole world takes shape around that one aspect.

Let us take the example of "presence of god" and try to understand what you are saying above.

One can analyze 'God' and conclude that god exists or does not exist. Both ways, many observable examples can be given in support of the conclusion reached. The result/conclusion of analysis colors the observation to reinforce itself.

You may call someone who denies the presence of 'god' as woobuster, but he is employing the same technique (logic, reasoning, examples, colored observations etc.) to prove absence of god as the one who affirms his existence. These two are not fundamentally different and one fine day one may convert and cross over into the opposition camp. We see the examples of both around us.

So, the question is : Does observation really help in woobusting as long as the one is taking help from already existing knowledge/experience/beliefs to make a judgement or reach a conclusion against the existing woo?

Topic: WOOBUSTERS Wed, 02 Sep 2015

randall merryman wrote: Why should we want this, to be free of that? You see it's the movement to "be free" or "break through" that is the essence of "becoming".

The ever present lack of peace, harmony, affection, care and happiness in our lives and relationships is proof enough that 'breaking through duality/freedom from suffering,fear etc.' is not possible by any and all effort (based on knowledge/experience) that human mind/brain is capable of making. The problem is that despite this "understanding" we continue to ask questions and give answers that are based on collective knowledge/experience of our race. It is not easy to push aside the lightening quick reaction knowledge/experience bring forth whenever one is facing any issue in relationship.

So, 'don't do this' (reaction from knowledge/experience) is not possible and one resolves nothing when one does!...And one can't ask a question that has not been already answered by the collective knowledge!

randall merryman wrote: Can we just stop all that and just be/see, who/what/where we are? We might call that, the first step.

Do you mean stop the becoming process?...But this movement is "who/what/where we are", isn't it?

What does "just be/see" mean with respect to "stop all that", sir?

Topic: WOOBUSTERS Wed, 02 Sep 2015

Huguette . wrote: Is your own question ("Is it possible that such questions with already known answers are being asked by self to "protect itself"?") a question with already known answer?

Huguette,

Psychologically,we react from the accumulated background and such reactions lead to complications (conflict, division, confrontation etc.) in relationships. Normally, one would add or subtract to the background accumulations to make relationships of better quality, but this changes when one comes across the concept of "freedom from known/reactions" from one or the other source/authority.

With the introduction of this concept, one starts to progress towards the goal of 'freedom' with the help of question, answers, experiences and experimentation. At the root is the knowledge that there is something like freedom that one can achieve in future. This knowledge is responsible for the presence of or accumulation of all the question/answers in collective human mind. There is no possibility of asking a question or giving an answer that does not already belong to this combined accumulations.

Huguette . wrote: Why posit or take the position that the answers are already known?

Has this question been answered above?

Huguette . wrote: Are my questions themselves invalid?

Questions will be asked and answers will be given, but will such sessions transform human psyche?...No, as the quality of life of an individual and deteriorating relationships between various groups/societies show.

Topic: WOOBUSTERS Tue, 01 Sep 2015

"Woo is a term used among skeptical writers to describe pseudoscientific explanations that have certain common characteristics.

Woo generally contains most of the following characteristics:

A simple idea that purports to be the one answer to many problems (often including diseases)

A "scientific-sounding" reason for how it works, but little to no actual science behind it; for example, quote mines of studies that if bent enough could be described in such a way to support it, outright misapplication of studies, or words that sound scientific but make no sense in the context they are used in

It involves the supernatural and paranormal (not necessarily)

A claim of persecution, usually perpetrated by the government or the pharmaceutical, medical, or scientific community (see Galileo gambit)

An invocation of a scientific authority

Prefers to use abundant testimonials over actual scientific research

A claim that scientists are blind to the discovery, despite attempts to alert them

A hypothesis that remains virtually unchanged for years or decades, which is sometimes presented as a strength.

A disdain for objective, randomized experimental controls, especially double-blind testing (which are kind of what makes epidemiology actually, y'know, work) And, usually, an offer to share the knowledge for a price.

Woo is usually not the description of an effect but of the explanation as to why the effect occurs. For example, homeopathy may occasionally give results, but as a placebo — the explanations for these occasional results, e.g. water memory, are woo.

Woo is used to blind or distract an audience from a real explanation or to discourage people from delving deeper into the subject to find a more realistic explanation."

The above extract from wikiRational may help in bringing clarity to the topic.

Topic: WOOBUSTERS Tue, 01 Sep 2015

Tom Paine wrote: I cling to(am attached to) pleasurable memories and fear the painful ones.

Would you call this "understanding" or does it fall in the category of "opinion/knowledge/belief/conclusion", Tom?

Topic: WOOBUSTERS Tue, 01 Sep 2015

Tom Paine wrote: Both are sensations, aren't they...like the smell of a rose? Some tastes/smells/sensations bring pleasure(like) some sensations are painful.

The physiological sensation does differ from psychological one both in essence and place of origin, Tom.

Topic: WOOBUSTERS Tue, 01 Sep 2015

Huguette . wrote: Aren’t these perpetual attitudes also attempts to protect oneself? Aren’t they also based on fear? Doesn’t abandoning such attitudes also leave one feeling vulnerable? Isn’t holding on to them a waste of energy?

The answer to all the above questions is an already known 'yes'. So, why is one asking them?

Is it possible that such questions with already known answers are being asked by self to "protect itself"?

Topic: Conclusions Tue, 01 Sep 2015

mike c wrote: I think what I'm trying to get at is this need to 'rest' on conclusions. Why do we do it?Is it security? Is it easier? Do we lack energy?

Insatiable desire/demand of the self to accumulate more knowledge/experiences could be one important factor. Reaching a conclusion does not quench the thirst for these two.

Topic: WOOBUSTERS Tue, 01 Sep 2015

Tom Paine wrote: It's not an opinion/belief that I like good Italian food...

Doesn't this look like an opinion/judgement to you, Tom?

What one is feeling in the actual moments of eating, can that feeling/sensation be expressed by/in words as like/good or even 'Italian food' and not be considered "belief/opinion/knowledge."?

Tom Paine wrote: ...and that a toothache hurts and fire burns.

Don't you see the difference between "like/good" and "burns/hurts", Tom?

Topic: WOOBUSTERS Tue, 01 Sep 2015

Pavil Davidov wrote: We want to believe because we want closure on uncertainty.

"Want", "belief" and "uncertainty", which of these is fundamental quality operating in human mind? Or

They could be interconnected at the same level and owe their existence/origin/arising to some factor existing deeper than them. Some say there is emptiness/void at the core of human psyche that we are all the time trying to fill up...but this could be another belief/explanation that ends uncertainty in the restless mind and also give arise to the want/demand to touch/experience this 'emptiness/void'.

Topic: WOOBUSTERS Tue, 01 Sep 2015

randall merryman wrote: what mechanism does the human mind utilize currently, to determine this from that? Some beliefs are backed up by empirical data, many less so, but in essence it's all belief/opinion/knowledge.

Is there no action/activity going on in human mind/body entity that is free of the influences of "belief/opinion/knowledge."?

Topic: Tiger killing a deer is manifestation of "order" of the universe? Fri, 28 Aug 2015

Richard Nolet wrote: Cannot any question just arise out of an inquiry ?

The question is asked by one from, and on the basis of, the background of stored knowledge/experiences in memory. They are asked in order to add more to the existing knowledge/experiences. In the religious/spiritual matters one's all knowledge/experiences and questions related to them originate from the authority of already existing cultural/religious background.

Can one call this inquiring?

Topic: Condemnation Fri, 28 Aug 2015

Tom Paine wrote: Because we see the results of emotion in our relationships/world, we wish to be free of the violence they inevitably produce.

One party condemns and another justify the consequences of same violence. So, opinions vary in this matter.

Tom Paine wrote: Of course we're interested in getting to the root of violence...

Are we?

or we simply inquiring into violence because of the unwanted consequences of it? Will one still question violence when the consequences are favorable/profitable/satisfactory for oneself?

Tom Paine wrote: Why wouldn't we be interested in solving the issue of violence?

Tom, the issue of violence can only be 'solved' when it is actually occurring within, but in such moments the consequences of violence surface and that is an 'escape from violence'.

Tom Paine wrote: Do we want to carry on as we are... killing, hurting, exploiting one another?

Your 'wanting' to end the consequences of violence is actually giving continuity to them.

Topic: Condemnation Fri, 28 Aug 2015

Praveen Boyeneni wrote: Question is how to be aware…either good or bad feelings.

No satisfactory answer will ever come from asking such question in one's life time. One can easily notice that such question will keep repeating itself day after day. Time can not bring any understanding of awareness and 'how' involves time.

Praveen Boyeneni wrote: The mind which is emotionally charged at a given time can also observe its own emotional state without justifying or condemning?

It is the imposition of 'without' that will brings active participation by self/I in this matter...And "I/self" wants a 'reactive say' in everything.

Topic: Condemnation Fri, 28 Aug 2015

mike c wrote: I think the reaction of condemnation may be what drives thought continually; otherwise one would just be observing the thought, urge, and not suppressing it. It would flower.

No, it would not flower naturally as one is still subtly imposing direction on the movement of thought in the name of 'observing' it.

Topic: Condemnation Fri, 28 Aug 2015

Huguette . wrote: When the intellect is silent - not seeking, analyzing, explaining, theorizing, trying to achieve or understand - there is silent observation-attention-awareness without thought.

The issue of 'silent intellect' breeds much noise in the mind of a seeker of silence. Same goes for the issue of 'without thought'. Such projections of an ideal state are bound to create conflict which is more noise and unending thought movement.

Topic: Condemnation Fri, 28 Aug 2015

Brian Smith wrote: I just don't think it's possible to observe dispassionately. So, what's the alternative? How can you live without that inner critic? I don't know.

One observes along with emotional reaction. This is a fact. Now, why does one want to have an alternative or ask for freedom from inner critic?

It is important to understand the source of such questions that arise within oneself about inner emotional turmoil that we all face from time to time. Who says one should be free of such emotional reactions?

Topic: Condemnation Fri, 28 Aug 2015

mike c wrote: I seem to have a knee-jerk reaction of condemning nearly everything I consider 'bad' in myself. Annoyance with someone, greedy feelings, envy... it is very hard to remain with or examine a feeling one knows is 'wrong' at some level.

It is the dos and don'ts of society and culture that is condemning through one. "You" is not separate from what society/culture has put in one's memory. When what "yourself" wants and what society/culture recommends/orders are clashing/contradicting, then condemnation/conflict arises automatically. This just can not be otherwise.

Topic: Tiger killing a deer is manifestation of "order" of the universe? Thu, 27 Aug 2015

aub b wrote: Can the mind who has ended the psychological images, psychological attributes of itself, also end the last image ?

This question is put by the "I" simply to give continuity to itself. One naturally knows, seeks or finds an answer and sincerely act on that answer, but The "death" of "I" is not going to take place.

The reason for this repeated failure is not difficult to understand...The questioner is "I", the knowledge gained as solution is "I" and the actor making effort to achieve the goal of ending "I" is "I".

Topic: About sorrow and its passion Wed, 26 Aug 2015

George Kakaris wrote: And then suddenly in the length of a single moment everything get's in its right place. Suddenly you realize there is nothing to worry about.. but this realization is not a product of the intellect.. you feel it deep in your body..

Yes, when not interfered by intellect, the body-brain entity is intelligent enough to dissolve any and all emotions.

George Kakaris wrote: there is nothing you can do and there is nothing to worry about...

With this the thought as escape is back and self is squirming to take control.

George Kakaris wrote: once you feel this deeply, conflict ends, you don't struggle anymore.. you take a huge breath, you finally feel your body relaxed and a strong passion seems to appear, a pure joy, a sense that everything is evitable.. and it's not the intellect behind all these

All 'good/pleasurable/pain freeing experience' demand there repetition and this, inevitably, lead to formation of a system/pattern/method.

Can such repetition be avoided?

Topic: Breaking Through The "Duality" Wed, 26 Aug 2015

break·through (br?k?thro?o?) n. 1. An act of overcoming or penetrating an obstacle or restriction. 2. A military offensive that penetrates an enemy's lines of defense. 3. A major achievement or success that permits further progress, as in technology.

Topic: Breaking Through The "Duality" Wed, 26 Aug 2015

Sean Hen wrote: If that is what you believe Aseem, that is your truth. I stick with silence. Silence is silence. No thought.

I am ok with this.

Topic: Breaking Through The "Duality" Wed, 26 Aug 2015

Wim Opdam wrote: Without conclusions one keeps the mind open for observation.

To understand that 'making/arriving at conclusions' is very normal activity of the mind ends all resistance towards them. This is not possible with "without conclusion' scenario.

Topic: Breaking Through The "Duality" Wed, 26 Aug 2015

Sean Hen wrote: We seem to differ in our conclusions, based on our mutual observations, about how to experiment with being free from knowledge and "the known".

Any and all steps taken with regard to "being free from knowledge/known" are only going to add to knowledge/known. This is the trick self/ plays to give continuity to itself.

Sean Hen wrote: Quite simply, I do sometimes, often very fleetingly, become silent and simply observe. In this silence there is, I feel, a possibility of observing without the "me" being present.

It will do no harm if one were to look at this not from the angle of "silence", but from "thought itself inducing a state of being still for certain moments" and then labeling that state as 'silence'.

Topic: Breaking Through The "Duality" Wed, 26 Aug 2015

George Lanroh wrote: I guess what I am saying is consciousness as ourselves is earlier then any and all time and must be there as it is to witness the slightest movement into identity by its self. If one is awake one understands that anything beyond "I am" is time/creation.

George, is it possible to differentiate between 'consciousness as ourselves" and "consciousness as time" where thought movement is still for certain moments?

When one recognizes that "consciousness as ourselves" is something different in essence or structure or content from "consciousness as time", don't you think that thought movement has already in action as knowledge of "I/self"?

Topic: Breaking Through The "Duality" Wed, 26 Aug 2015

George Lanroh wrote: If you notice most if not all enquiries begin from the point of view of being a person caught up in psychological time. As seen and felt here is as long as we start in time we will remain in time.

George, what you say above is correct, but let us look at this from another angle.

A person 'living in time' habitually projects goals, has many desires which will be fulfilled in future and past accumulations are responsible for such self centered pattern of activities.

Now, suppose such a person comes to know from any source of 'timeless' way of living or as you said in your post about "a shift in consciousness from it being identified with psychological time to it being aware of its true nature that of timelessness.", then he/she just can not avoid making/projecting an image of such a 'timeless' state and then making efforts in pursuing it. Needless to say that he/she will continue to live in time.

So, a person living in time or first projecting and then finding 'timeless/true consciousness state' will continue to live in time. Do you see any other way for him of inquiring to get different result?

Topic: Breaking Through The "Duality" Wed, 26 Aug 2015

Dan McDermott wrote: Unless through 'self-knowledge' there is the discovery of this 'limited', conditioned situation, that the boundaries are seen, the'boundaries of the 'known', of 'thought-time, of 'becoming' are seen, we can never be 'free'.

What exactly is meant by "the'boundaries of the 'known', of 'thought-time, of 'becoming'", Dan?

How will one know, recognize, see or understand that "this is the boundary" or 'this is the free zone"?

Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 2033 in total