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

On the action of the total negation of the human consciousness (to Patricia/all)


Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 39 in total
Wed, 25 Feb 2015 #1
Thumb_stringio Mina Martini Finland 749 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Dear all,

Patricia rightly put the essence of K's teaching into these words:

" K's teaching is the total negation of the human consciousness.

What is the ACTION of that? "

...

Would like to add to this and share with others:

The human consciousness is exclusively made up of fragments. It is fragmented, broken up, THROUGHOUT. There is nothing in it that is not fragmented, so nothing whole in it.

No fragment, no part of the concsciousness in other words, (and there are nothing but parts in it as was said) can therefore see the total of the consciousness.

This is why seeing the whole never comes from the content of consciousness. This is why there is no content in what is whole and this is what the negation of consciousness is about.

It is the Action of seeing the whole which is the same as being the whole.

There cannot be a separate seer, that would again be possible only in the fragmented consciousness. This is why seeing the whole and being the whole is one and the same.

This post was last updated by Mina Martini (account deleted) Wed, 25 Feb 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 25 Feb 2015 #2
Thumb_stringio mike c United States 941 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Mina Martini wrote:
No fragment, no part of the concsciousness in other words, (and there are nothing but parts in it as was said) can therefore see the total of the consciousness.

This is why seeing the whole never comes from the content of consciousness. This is why there is no content in what is whole and this is what the negation of consciousness is about.

It is the Action of seeing the whole which is the same as being the whole.

There cannot be a separate seer, that would again be possible only in the fragmented consciousness. This is why seeing the whole and being the whole is one and the same.

Yes, I think this can only occur when thought becomes aware of itself. Not the center watching. But this is theory to me...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 25 Feb 2015 #3
Thumb_stringio Mina Martini Finland 749 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Mina to Mike: No it is not theory to you only...

mina: Suddenly realising that this sentence has been misunderstood. What I meant Mike was that I definitely feel that all that is being pointed to is NOT mere theory to you, although you claimed so. I could not easily state such a thing about another, that feels violent! But instead, I can sense things in you, therefore I said what I said..sorry for a possible misunderstanding.

This post was last updated by Mina Martini (account deleted) Fri, 27 Feb 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 25 Feb 2015 #4
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

mike c wrote:
. . . this can only occur when thought becomes aware of itself.

But can thought "become aware"? Thinking and awareness are not the same thing.

max

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 25 Feb 2015 #5
Thumb_stringio Natarajan S India 289 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

When the whole human being (without dividing him as thought or awareness) discerns the role of memory in perception, thought falls silent.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 26 Feb 2015 #6
Thumb_avatar Ravi Seth India 1573 posts in this forum Offline

max greene wrote:
But can thought "become aware"?

Who else this thought if not you, Max ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 26 Feb 2015 #7
Thumb_stringio Mina Martini Finland 749 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Dear Natarajan,

N: "When the whole human being (without dividing him as thought or awareness) discerns the role of memory in perception, thought falls silent."

Mina: How beautifully expressed and true! Your words (and beyond, the silence itself) makes one fall silent. Thank you. Feeling your special energy from all your replies here. The energy of seeing and being the whole. silent.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 26 Feb 2015 #8
Thumb_stringio David T United Kingdom 124 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Morning Minnie,
Interesting post as usual.
Can't help wondering whether the discussion of fragmentation is not further fragmentation. I see that my responce is from fragmentation,hence it is not the end of fragmentation.
It could be said that any posts or responses here are examples of fragmentation. The question then arises why does one prefer fragmentation. What does fragmentation give that is not available in the wholeness.
Too many fragmentations for me????.
Sarah(daughter) Enzo and I went on an expedition yesterday,looking for a religious site,but we couldn't find it. She sent you some photos to Facebook.

I am a figment of my and your imagination

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 26 Feb 2015 #9
Thumb_1507053_1_ Jayaraj Kapila Kulasinghe Sri Lanka 1208 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
The human consciousness is exclusively made up of fragments. It is fragmented, broken up, THROUGHOUT. There is nothing in it that is not fragmented, so nothing whole in it.

Yes. In fact the fragments are there because mind holds illusions in contravention to the whole.So you are right, fragments & wholeness never meet. I can never meet. Only the negation which is awakening right understanding is way of the whole.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 27 Feb 2015 #10
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

Ravi Seth wrote:
Who else this thought if not you . . .

Are you saying that thought is capable of being aware? How is this possible?

Thinking and thought is never "you." The physical body, the brain, is "you."

max

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 27 Feb 2015 #11
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5367 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
The human consciousness is exclusively made up of fragments. It is fragmented, broken up, THROUGHOUT. There is nothing in it that is not fragmented, so nothing whole in it.

Instead of thinking so hard and coming to various conclusions and generalizations about consciousness why not just say:
Consciousness is. A person will either be aware of consciousness or not. Why give them extra things to think about? It seems to me that you are simply adding to the conditioning one already has about consciousness.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Fri, 27 Feb 2015 #12
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5367 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
No it is not theory to you only...

It is also a theory to you. Because your description of consciousness is part of your consciousness and therefore, according to what you have written, a fragmentation.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Fri, 27 Feb 2015 #13
Thumb_stringio Mina Martini Finland 749 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Dear David,

David:Can't help wondering whether the discussion of fragmentation is not further fragmentation.

Mina: The discussion of fragmentation is further fragmentation if it is the fragment thinker discussing. As simple as that. That is an altogether different thing from thoughts arising in awareness/intelligence. And, only Intelligence can discern which is the case. Thought can only deal with itself, with more and more fragmentation. It has no ability to discern between true and false, because it is throughout false in itself.

David: I see that my responce is from fragmentation,hence it is not the end of fragmentation.

Mina: If that is the case, then it is clearly not the ending of fragmentation.

David:It could be said that any posts or responses here are examples of fragmentation.

Mina: Words per se are clearly fragmented, in all or any posts or responses. That is the nature of words, language. What differs is 'the place' where they come from. Again, thought can never find another place apart from itself. This is also why the only thing important is to understand thought/ourselves wholly instead of for example speculating about where a writer here comes from.

David:The question then arises why does one prefer fragmentation. What does fragmentation give that is not available in the wholeness.

Mina: One surely doesn't prefer fragmentation. Wholeness, intelligence, true spirituality is everything, in the lead so to say. Only then does the so called 'wordly' fall into its right place also, as a great blessing also. But never the other way round.

Will check facebook, thank you and Rachel.

P.S Bella sleeping in her bed. I just lay down a while ago on the floor, put my head next to hers..

This post was last updated by Mina Martini (account deleted) Fri, 27 Feb 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 27 Feb 2015 #14
Thumb_stringio Mina Martini Finland 749 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

'Only the negation which is awakening right understanding is way of the whole.

-Yes, this is so.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 27 Feb 2015 #15
Thumb_stringio David T United Kingdom 124 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Dear Minnie,
The question arises 'what is the difference between inspirational thought and fragmentational thought'?

I am a figment of my and your imagination

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 27 Feb 2015 #16
Thumb_stringio Mina Martini Finland 749 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

The fragrance.

Smell the flower to see if it is an artificial or a real one.

:-)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 27 Feb 2015 #17
Thumb_stringio Pavil Davidov Poland 4402 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Mina Martini wrote:
Smell the flower to see if it is an artificial or a real one.

Smell the smeller!

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

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 2 readers
Back to Top
Fri, 27 Feb 2015 #18
Thumb_stringio Mina Martini Finland 749 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

'Because your description of consciousness is part of your consciousness and therefore, according to what you have written, a fragmentation.'

m:

We are here (I can of course only speak for myself) to move beyond the mere description/thought/fragmentation/content of conscioussness, and all the limited cleverness and endless conclusion that are part of its movement. This does not mean that words by themselves would not maintain their fragmented and descriptive nature.

No movement from the content can of course go beyond it. Can THIS be SEEN, not just drawn another intellectual conclusion about.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 27 Feb 2015 #19
Thumb_stringio Mina Martini Finland 749 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

If you are artificial yourself, you cannot tell the difference of course.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 27 Feb 2015 #20
Thumb_stringio David T United Kingdom 124 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Minnie,
So truth is smelt(sensed)not told.
This reminds me of a phrase that came from the unknown:- 'menu munchers',those who prefer to eat the description rather than the meal.
The menu feeds the unnecessary,but the meal feeds the necessary.
So here I am Minnie fed up with the boredom of myself,fed up with the taste of the cardboard menu,seeing that discussion is just an action avoidance activity.
What action can be taken to end the self?

I am a figment of my and your imagination

This post was last updated by David T (account deleted) Fri, 27 Feb 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 27 Feb 2015 #21
Thumb_avatar Ravi Seth India 1573 posts in this forum Offline

max greene wrote:
Are you saying that thought is capable of being aware? How is this possible?

Thinking and thought is never "you." The physical body, the brain, is "you.

Is memory not part of the body through which thought takes birth? The body gives nourishment to each and every part of itself. Don't your finger write when writing is necessary. Does not your heart beat and breathing goes in and out in a mechanical way that is repeat and repeat. Are they merely only machines or what and qualitatively are all parts of the body not same like machines? Dosen't body has its own intelligence ? Why then this separation and objection to only thought? Whatever information body has through comparing evaluating the memory, body takes the best course of action.

Since there has to be body's intelligence or you can say body's identity through which all that is mechanical is converted to an understanding this world moves. Without body,'s identity who else is there to understand what thought says or ask heart to beat or lungs to breathe? ? Will it not be akin to a camera clicking pictures and nobody there to understand what the pictures say. . The identity when identified with thought does what the thought tells and is called self. Identity when identified with cosmos is called universal self.

The identity in the both case remain.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 27 Feb 2015 #22
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5367 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
If you are artificial yourself, you cannot tell the difference of course.

Mina are you artificial? Do you think what you write here is infallible? That it is beyond questioning by yourself and others? Have you ever questioned yourself about why you need to pass along these frequent "edicts" of yours that the rest of us are suppose to take for "gospel"?

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Fri, 27 Feb 2015 #23
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

Ravi,

Certainly the body (brain) thinks, and so, using memory, creates thought. But this thought does nothing, and can do nothing. It is the body and the brain that "does." The individual creates the psychological (thought) and then is influenced to all kinds of horror by the very thing it has created.

Memory is not thought. Memory is an encoded record of experience in the cells of the brain whereas thinking (thought) is the referral to those cells by the body/brain in its creation of the psychological.

Mankind will not be free of the tyranny of thought until there is an awareness of what thinking is and what thinking does.

The "natural man" is a physical body with its memory, together with awareness in the present moment. The psychological is a construction.

max

This post was last updated by max greene Fri, 27 Feb 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 27 Feb 2015 #24
Thumb_1507053_1_ Jayaraj Kapila Kulasinghe Sri Lanka 1208 posts in this forum Offline

Ravi Seth wrote:
The identity when identified with thought does what the thought tells and is called self. Identity when identified with cosmos is called universal self.

How is that Ravi?

To identify there must be recognition. And there cannot be recognition without the past which is thought. So the self is thought, created by thought.

However cosmos? What is identifying there? Then you must recognize because otherwise you cannot identify. And if you recognize, is it then cosmos or matter?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 28 Feb 2015 #25
Thumb_stringio Mina Martini Finland 749 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Minnie,
So truth is smelt(sensed)not told.

-M: Yes, that was meant.

david:This reminds me of a phrase that came from the unknown:- 'menu munchers',those who prefer to eat the description rather than the meal.

m: right, it is the content of consciousness thriving on itself, chewing itself. menu munchers indeed. one is tired of that.

david:The menu feeds the unnecessary,but the meal feeds the necessary.

mina: Exactly! one needs to stay with what is necessary actually. no more, no less.

david: So here I am Minnie fed up with the boredom of myself,fed up with the taste of the cardboard menu,seeing that discussion is just an action avoidance activity.

mina: yes, feeling the same discouraged and fed up when reading some replies here, based on unquestioned assumptions.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 28 Feb 2015 #26
Thumb_3018 Richard Lewis Bulgaria 84 posts in this forum Offline

ehm, that the devil is in the detail?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 28 Feb 2015 #27
Thumb_stringio Mina Martini Finland 749 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

'ehm, that the devil is in the detail?

mina: The devil is not in the detail itself, but in taking a fragment for the whole.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 28 Feb 2015 #28
Thumb_3018 Richard Lewis Bulgaria 84 posts in this forum Offline

aha, then the king is a but in paris?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 28 Feb 2015 #29
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 1244 posts in this forum Offline

Dear Mina,

Although still working on my ‘last post’ in “For the thinker only thinker exist.” in a break of this one, there is something here that that you will enjoy.
This one is a site trip, so keeping it short.

In the journal of the Belgian television an Islamic female artist painting on black flags colorful verses from the Quran as her contribution to inform the young ones in her city, known for it’s ‘IS-warriors’ that there’s wrong interpretation of this holy book.
One of them was this:

‘Every civilization, which doesn’t contribute humanity will eventually die from itself’.

On the same evening I heard ( I don’t know where ): “ The drug of fighting wars “

And also later on, my car broken, writing a birthday message for my grandchild’s birthday (couldn’t go because of that) came, with the help of my wife, this out of our pencil:

You are always there
We some time longer here
Together making pleasure
And connected by LOVE
Are we there.

Bye Wim, it still is, isn’t it ?

Truth will unfold itself for those who enquire their own actions and only to them and for them and to or for no one else.

This post was last updated by Wim Opdam Sat, 28 Feb 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 01 Mar 2015 #30
Thumb_stringio Richard Nolet Canada 325 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Mina, my friend, mio amore ; ) , here is the quote of the day. Maybe the indescribable just cannot be describe. Don't be discourage, dishearten or dispirit.

Feeling as 'the whole' comes perhaps later. But first, you are nothing and you are not concerned with what comes after.

Krishnamurti Quote of the Day | Feb 28, 2015

This post was last updated by Richard Nolet (account deleted) Sun, 01 Mar 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 39 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.)