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

Stop!


Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 60 in total
Mon, 21 Sep 2015 #1
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

The instant we "stop," we are dead. This is true not only of the physical organism, but in everything we do. For example, if we stop being greedy, we are dead to greed.

We say that "the observer is the observed." If we stop, with the observed, we are dead at that point. But with observation there is no stopping, there is continuing movement.

The observer is the observed, but observation never arrives. Why is this? It is because there is no entity who observes. There is no entity who is aware.

max

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 21 Sep 2015 #2
Thumb_dsci0664 George Lanroh United States 200 posts in this forum Offline

Hi Max

Yes, but as seen here you have never been any image you have identified with but you and the awareness are one the reason awareness can't be negated. As seen here.

There is no other.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 21 Sep 2015 #3
Thumb_stringio mike c United States 941 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

max greene wrote:
Why is this? It is because there is no entity who observes. There is no entity who is aware.

This is the case with you, Max?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 21 Sep 2015 #4
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

Yes, it is. And it is the case in all true observation. The self -- the thinker, the observer -- is totally imaginary. It is the result of the brain's process of thinking.

max

This post was last updated by max greene Mon, 21 Sep 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 21 Sep 2015 #5
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

George,

There is no individual entity with awareness. The individual is a product of the brain's thinking. In the present moment, can there be other than unity?

max

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 21 Sep 2015 #6
Thumb_stringio mike c United States 941 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

mike c wrote:
max greene wrote:
Why is this? It is because there is no entity who observes. There is no entity who is aware

Then you have no more self-image, no thought, only that beauty and immensity, total energy and supreme intelligence? Is that what you're saying? Or is this a semi-logical explanation. I don't mean to berate, but you're making pretty big claims if you say you observe without an entity which is aware, with unity, and only the present.

It seems to me you're making perceptions of K into logical, abstract laws.

This post was last updated by mike c (account deleted) Mon, 21 Sep 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 21 Sep 2015 #7
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

There is no entity with awareness. That is all that I am saying. I believe this is no more than what Krishnamurti said: at the moment of observation, there is no observer. Same thing.

So when there is awareness, the self (thinker) is absent. By "absent" is meant, obviously, that the brain is not thinking, that the brain is not creating the imaginary self.

max

This post was last updated by max greene Mon, 21 Sep 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 21 Sep 2015 #8
Thumb_stringio Bobby D United States 589 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Max is the winner of the 2015 Enlightenment Hunger Games! Thank you to all those that participated. Tell him what he's won, Vern!

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 21 Sep 2015 #9
Thumb_dsci0664 George Lanroh United States 200 posts in this forum Offline

max greene wrote:
George,

There is no individual entity with awareness. The individual is a product of the brain's thinking. In the present moment, can there be other than unity?

No, unity is the absolute/truth. But you and I part and that's ok regarding ones true nature. I say awareness is the constant, Krishnamurti's eternal. Awareness and ones self are not two separate things. It is you as awareness which gets mixed up in idea's concepts and beliefs when really, in truth awareness is nothing more then the quality of awareness its self. You can't negate awareness because you are awareness. As seen here reincarnation is nothing more then awareness dropping one false identity and picking up a new one. I say reincarnation because awareness is the constant between ever changing identities and awareness even exist with no identity or between identities. To awaken as seen here is to find ones self being this awareness and coming to the understanding that beyond being the quality of awareness one is moving into time and picking up and using a avatar. I say awareness can become aware that it is using time instead of time using awareness which is the outcome of being unconscious of ones true nature.

I see your saying awareness has no entity, yes and no. Yes your right because without the movement into time awareness is nobody. And no because awareness its self is an entity and is the one speaking to you now. Any and all other images I may present to you are images, fabrications but through consciousness hopefully at least a tool.

Just sharing ones sense here max for your entertainment or to feel and sense if it rings true to you.

There is no other.

This post was last updated by George Lanroh Mon, 21 Sep 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 21 Sep 2015 #10
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

George Lanroh wrote:
Awareness and ones self are not two separate things.

Here, in a sentence, is the difference in our views, George. I see the self as a psychological creation of the physical brain. It seems that you see awareness as the self.

max

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 21 Sep 2015 #11
Thumb_dsci0664 George Lanroh United States 200 posts in this forum Offline

Max wrote: you see awareness as the self.

George: yes that's right Max :) l also see awareness original state as being timeless as far as identity. Are views are very close, a hairs difference. Yet maybe that hair is enough to keep one in time even though there is only traps within the dreams of time. When awareness realizes this it/we are out of the trap we were never really in. All this by cell phone hope it post OK :)

There is no other.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 21 Sep 2015 #12
Thumb_blue_hills Robert Neilson Australia 46 posts in this forum Offline

Hi George,

I found your statement very interesting, If I may contribute, learning for me has been in a large part didactic and not experiential. And, I have found that I am having to contend with a significant amount of poverty, that is a large amount of heavy unresolved psychology with which I have had little to no opportunity to resolve as it comes from other sources, ( I am talking about when I was young) so that a lot of my 'time' has been spent as the thinker outside of action.

George Lanroh wrote:
I say awareness can become aware that it is using time instead of time using awareness which is the outcome of being unconscious of ones true nature.

This resonated a lot with me and I would go so far to say that being a "thinker" heavy person I have come upon something like this. Is this not what some philosophers call transcendence?

Hi there max,

max greene wrote:
I see the self as a psychological creation of the physical brain. It seems that you see awareness as the self.

Is your contention here ontological reductionism, that the physical is really all there is? So That reality is composed of a minimum number of kinds of substances in effect claiming that all objects, properties and events are reducible ultimately to a single substance?

Have you considered that the unity of consciousness and information are irreducible to physics and chemistry?

I want to postulate in a very soft way here If you cut away all the diversions are these two views not resonant with theism and a-theism?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 21 Sep 2015 #13
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

Robert Neilson wrote:
Is your contention here ontological reductionism, that the physical is really all there is? So That reality is composed of a minimum number of kinds of substances in effect claiming that all objects, properties and events are reducible ultimately to a single substance?

Depends on how we define "physical." Krishnamurti saw thinking as a physical act and he considered thought as physical. I see it the same way. I see anything and everything that is known or that can be known as part of our existing universe -- as part of our physical existence.

There is only one way that something, anything, can be created -- i.e., brought into existence -- and that is through the present. It is absurd to say that creation takes place in the so-called past or in the projected future. But the present does not exist; the present is not measurable by time -- at least, the quantum physicists are yet to reach the "present." The present is timeless and does not exist, yet it is eternal, ever new, and actually more real than is our existence. As I said in a previous post, existence swims in the present.

Both existence and the present are a unity, with existence unfolding, flowering, as evolution. The present builds on the present; the present does not build on the past.

max

This post was last updated by max greene Mon, 21 Sep 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 21 Sep 2015 #14
Thumb_stringio Pavil Davidov Poland 4402 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

max greene wrote:
But the present does not exist; the present is not measurable by time -- at least, the quantum physicists are yet to reach the "present." The present is timeless and does not exist, yet it is eternal, ever new, and actually more real than is our existence. As I said in a previous post, existence swims in the present.

Max . . . "STOP!"

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

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 4 readers
Back to Top
Tue, 22 Sep 2015 #15
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5755 posts in this forum Offline

You know I've read some pretty crazy and confused shit on this forum in the past several years. But this thread, with a few exceptions, is right off the rails.

This forum has turned into so much idealistic pap and extravagant opinions.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 3 readers
Back to Top
Tue, 22 Sep 2015 #16
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

Jack and Pavil,

Comments, but no substance. Where is the discussion? Have physicists arrived at the present? Is the present measurable by time? Does the present exist? Isn't the present real?

What do you have to say about such questions, for example, rather than simply calling it all shit and begging one to STOP!

max

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 22 Sep 2015 #17
Thumb_stringio Richard Nolet Canada 325 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

If I may, the all think is so confused, I don't understand anything, since you ask. It would maybe take 400 post of questions and answers to go through all what is up here (with some exceptions or course :)). But for what ? For that everyone can prove that he is right ? And secondly, I don't see much which is related in one way or another to K. and his works. Are we talking about life ? Or about each one individual enlightement ? Not that I care, but what is the purpose, the motive ? To prove that we got something ? Why ?

This post was last updated by Richard Nolet (account deleted) Tue, 22 Sep 2015.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Tue, 22 Sep 2015 #18
Thumb_stringio Pavil Davidov Poland 4402 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

max greene wrote:
Comments, but no substance. Where is the discussion? Have physicists arrived at the present? Is the present measurable by time? Does the present exist? Isn't the present real?

What do you have to say about such questions

Max, since you ask, I think your "questions" are all totally invalid. They all hinge on your discredited adoption of ordinary words and their subsequent twisting and shredding. The questions make no sense. To demand from others that they should be answered . . .and to do so on every damn thread, no matter the theme, is downright . . . what was the word you used . . . ?

"Have physicists arrived at the present?" What the hell does that even mean?

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 22 Sep 2015 #19
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

Pavil Davidov wrote:
"Have physicists arrived at the present?" What the hell does that even mean?

Physicists having been trying to get back to zero time as that is the supposed instant of the Big Bang. So far they have been unable to reach this zero time, or present -- nano seconds etc., but not the moment of the big blast. So the question is, can this zero time, or present, be reached at all? Some physicists are questioning our concept of time, as a result.

Can time be analyzed completely out of existence, so that we are left with zero time? The present, as I see it, cannot be reached through the analysis of time. The present is outside of time, yet it is very real. The present is all that is. We live in it.

Thought is time. Thought is not the timeless present.

max

This post was last updated by max greene Tue, 22 Sep 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 22 Sep 2015 #20
Thumb_blue_hills Robert Neilson Australia 46 posts in this forum Offline

Hi there i'd just like to add that I consider I may have caused a cross thread comment like;

Pavil Davidov wrote:
Have physicists arrived at the present?"

Definatley not intended, so sorry about that I certainly hate to be the cause of any ill will and will endeveaour to pay more attention.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 22 Sep 2015 #21
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

No problem Robert, so far as I am concerned. You didn't cause anything.

max

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 22 Sep 2015 #22
Thumb_stringio Pavil Davidov Poland 4402 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

max greene wrote:
Physicists having been trying to get back to zero time as that is the supposed instant of the Big Bang.

That is a garbled rendition of something you've heard somewhere but failed to understand, Max. Can you give even one citation where "zero time" as "the present" has been named as a goal for "physicists" to reach??

The rest of your post devolves from that point so cannot be commented on until one can either take that point seriously or dismiss it entirely.

Citation please. "Zero time" as "the present."

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 22 Sep 2015 #23
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

"During the past few years the most exciting area in science has been in this overlapping area between high-energy physics and astronomy. The frontier of knowledge of the early universe has been pushed back to somewhere between ten to the minus thirty-fifth and ten to the minus forty-third second of the Big Bang -- an interval so short that our concept of time itself may have to be redefined before we go any further." "The Moment of Creation," page 3, James s. Trefil Dover edition, 2004.

As for "zero time" and "the present" -- when else can creation take place? Certainly not in the past or in the future.

max

This post was last updated by max greene Tue, 22 Sep 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 22 Sep 2015 #24
Thumb_stringio Pavil Davidov Poland 4402 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

max greene wrote:
As for "zero time" and "the present" -- when else can creation take place? Certainly not in the past or in the future.

Max. you have not given a citation akin to your statement about physicists

max greene wrote:
"The Moment of Creation," page 3, James s. Trefil Dover edition, 2004.

The book, first published in 1983 (32 years back) is a popular account of the supposed Planck Time interval right after the supposed Big Bang. It is mostly an account of various speculations of physicists. It has nothing to do with "zero time" or a quest to arrive at the present, which is arrant nonsense in any case.

Your other statements are as vacuous as the questions that precede them, Max. But it does show that you are promoting your own theory under the guise of some misinformed points about what physicists are doing and you have no citation to back any of it up. So be it. Battle on if you wish.

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 22 Sep 2015 #25
Thumb_dsci0664 George Lanroh United States 200 posts in this forum Offline

Robert Neilson wrote:
This resonated a lot with me and I would go so far to say that being a "thinker" heavy person I have come upon something like this. Is this not what some philosophers call transcendence?

Yes, I sense also that it has been associated with the phrase and meaning transcendence.

Robert, just my feelings on some of the things you said. With transcendence taking place it no longer matters who you were or what you went through as a child or young person, you as the awareness are now timeless and have totally step out of any and all identities in which maybe in the past you have gotten caught up in, identified with. Those memory may serve you to better understand now your fellow man but you as the awareness are no longer limited by such attachments to accumulated identities. As Krishnamurti hoped for you, with your letting go of the past you are now unconditionally free.

For most of us this seems impossible to let go to such an extent. Who can't let go? The very false identity you should be letting go of. I feel its important to remember that there is no identity which is not clothing for the lack of better words for the invisible man called awareness. As awareness it is felt here that we can become and remain conscious of the avatar we are playing in the present moment. THe difference between heaven and hell is our consciousness or unconsciousness of our involvement with psychological time.

Please I am just sharing my sense on things for you to take a look at. Many see thing differently.

There is no other.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 22 Sep 2015 #26
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3169 posts in this forum Offline

George Lanroh wrote:
With transcendence taking place it no longer matters who you were or what you went through as a child or young person, you as the awareness are now timeless and have totally step out of any and all identities in which maybe in the past you have gotten caught up in, identified with. T

The problem most of us have with this, George, is we can't consciously or willfully drop who we are...our unconscious fears, beliefs, etc. You may tell us that we aren't that, but who is separate from fear or desire to drop the desire/craving or fear? Isn't any separate one an invention of thought...a product of the fear itself? Fear is trying to escape from the pain it causes by pretending that it is awareness? When one is angry, K. said, "you are the anger". You are saying that one is NOT the anger. This seems in direct opposition to K's 'teaching'. Not taking any sides here :) But, how does one drop a belief or identification without creating a 'dropper' or time to do the dropping...another 'self'/identification in the process?

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 22 Sep 2015 #27
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
. . . how does one drop a belief or identification without creating a 'dropper' or time to do the dropping. . . ?

As I see it, there is no dropper. There is only awareness itself, no entity at all, at the moment of awareness. That awareness is understanding and choiceless action.

The dropper is the self, the thinker, who does not survive the understanding of thinking and thought.

max

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Tue, 22 Sep 2015 #28
Thumb_dsci0664 George Lanroh United States 200 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Isn't any separate one an invention of thought...a product of the fear itself? Fear is trying to escape from the pain it causes by pretending that it is awareness?

Tom

In truth as seen here there is no self who is fearful outside our false identifications with a self image which is fearful. Why escape what we are not in truth? The fearful one is like a dream we are having, a dream of who we are in the dimension of time. To create a new self image which will transcend our fearful self image is still to be in the dimension of psychological time. What I am speaking about here is awareness/you/us becoming aware of the field of time and coming to the understanding (that to be more then awareness its self) we have to cheat, tell a little lie and present consciously our present image we are using. And to quote Krishnamurti: "The word is not the thing" or in the case of awareness the image is an extension of ourselves but it is not awareness which in essence is timeless/formless.

So yes as seen here Krishnamurti's statement is true, anger and ourselves are not two separate things. Awareness which has no form of its own is appearing as anger or sadness or jealousy or one of countless identifications. The one thing it doesn't appear as is unassociated, unidentified with time awareness. Tom to me awareness is not a thing as much as it is a quality of a presence. What awareness is and does is the same thing. In essence you as awareness is the light of the world, its a quality of illumination which can become self aware. Because it has no form of its own outside its illumination quality we had to negate every false idea we had about ourselves and hopefully notice, that even without a self image we are still there/here. We are the only constant while all concepts, identifications and beliefs come and go. We are Krishnamurti's eternal its self. We did not know that it was ourselves that we were looking for.

How can an invisible, intangible, formless quality of existence see its self accept for seeing what its not. Seeing that in the absence of all false identifications we as awareness still are. For awareness conscious of its nature, identity becomes a non-concrete address, not unlike the invisible man putting on a robe to be seen. Identity becomes a means to an end, the end being a creative expression. But like any artist with a used canvas all future paintings are limited by the artist ability to wipe clean his canvas. The danger is always in the organization of the image of the artist. It all boils down to conscious or unconscious becoming. A true artist always comes right out of emptiness being that awareness has no self separate from the self one is playing. It is here where a leap of understanding must take place. Krishnamurti said the light can't be past to another, but it can be past to an awareness waking up to the fact that without an image its invisible/timeless.

Tom, I will get hell for what I just wrote but I feel its important to try to express what one has come upon. So far nothing comes close to shaking this seeing. Shaking what? Psychologically speaking, self, world? All is time. Only awareness is not :)

There is no other.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 22 Sep 2015 #29
Thumb_dsci0664 George Lanroh United States 200 posts in this forum Offline

max greene wrote:
As I see it, there is no dropper. There is only awareness itself, no entity at all, at the moment of awareness. That awareness is understanding and choiceless action.

Max

Yes, what you wrote above is what is seen here. You and I seem to get stuck on a strange phenomenon. If I was to say I am awareness that is duality, there is only awareness, and yet awareness is I :)

There is no other.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 22 Sep 2015 #30
Thumb_stringio Richard Nolet Canada 325 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

George Lanroh wrote:
Yes, what you wrote above is what is seen here. You and I seem to get stuck on a strange phenomenon. If I was to say I am awareness that is duality, there is only awareness, and yet awareness is I :)

When you say Georges that awareness is I, it can be confusing, since we generaly use the expression the I as the self. You really mean that ? Saying that awareness is I...or the I, the self...can you clarified ? In a not to much words, if possible :-)

This post was last updated by Richard Nolet (account deleted) Tue, 22 Sep 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 60 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.)