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

About the unconscious mind......Revisited


Displaying posts 31 - 60 of 135 in total
Fri, 05 Feb 2016 #31
Thumb_stringio richard nolet Canada 39 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Are conscious and uncouscious two different things, two separate things. ? That was the question ? K. said that there is no separation between the conscious and the uncouscious. If, as he said, conciousness is his content, then there is a content that maybe we are not aware of, which one can call the unconscious . But then, there is no real separation between them. There is only one thing which is consciousness, which is his own content. And what one call unconscious can in fact reveals itself with attentive observation.

This post was last updated by richard nolet (account deleted) Fri, 05 Feb 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 05 Feb 2016 #32
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

"K said there is no separation between the conscious and the unconscious." If there is no separation, obviously they are one -- consciousness. And that is exactly what I said.

max

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 05 Feb 2016 #33
Thumb_stringio richard nolet Canada 39 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

max greene wrote:
I would say that consciousness is thought.

The image I have made of another, is it also thought ? Do we include the image I have of something or someone as also being thoughts ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 05 Feb 2016 #34
Thumb_stringio richard nolet Canada 39 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

A more important question would be also: what is in fact consciouness. If, as K. said, it is its content, of what is it made of , what is the content ? At a larger level, can we say that chrisianity, or nationalism can be include as a content of consciousness? Can we say that our hope and despairs, if there is any, pleasure and pain, are also part of consciousness ?

This post was last updated by richard nolet (account deleted) Fri, 05 Feb 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 05 Feb 2016 #35
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5655 posts in this forum Offline

Consciousness is, as K often pointed out, it's content. The content of consciousness is all of the conditioning; the experiences and knowledge that one accumulates through out life and those things learned by our forbearers, some of which, are now part of the genetic code of our brains. Consciousness is the belief in religion, nationalities, social organization.

Further K has stated that until the consciousness is completely "cleaned", "cleared" of all it's content there is no way the unknown can be revealed. Or words more or less stating this.

Now should we be concerned with splitting consciousness into parts? It seems to me that just a discussion of what one thinks consciousness does and doesn't do is fairly superficial. It seems to me that consciousness is the self and as long as their is this self interpreting and intellectualizing there is no truth. K often stated that where the self is truth is not. Where self is the love is not.

The problem, it seems to me, is not to try to understand the consciousness through the formulation of opinions and theories, through thought, but the ending of consciousness. The freeing of the mind of the limitation of consciousness.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 05 Feb 2016 #36
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5655 posts in this forum Offline

richard nolet wrote:
A more important question would be also: what is in fact consciouness. If, as K. said, it is its content, of what is it made of , what is the content ? At a larger level, can we say that chrisianity, or nationalism can be include as a content of consciousness? Can we say that our hope and despairs, if there is any, pleasure and pain, are also part of consciousness ?

Richard I didn't see your post until after I posted the one above this one. Those are all good questions. I don't claim to be an expert on this subject but it seems reasonably to say yes all of what you have named above is part of consciousness.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 05 Feb 2016 #37
Thumb_stringio richard nolet Canada 39 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Good post Jack ( #35). Nothing to add to it for now . It is simple, and at the same time complex. What is said can be corroborate by our own observation. And as you said, simply intellectualize about it and putting it into pieces would be pointless.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 05 Feb 2016 #38
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 1381 posts in this forum Offline

Jack Pine wrote:
The problem, it seems to me, is not to try to understand the consciousness through the formulation of opinions and theories, through thought, but the ending of consciousness. The freeing of the mind of the limitation of consciousness.

Jack, this iis a very good description of how it's seen by me too.

Jack Pine wrote:
Wim you have not only frequently criticized Jean in the past you have done so using vulgar words. Surprisingly nasty words that most of us don't use on this site. So stop being a hypocrite.

You may have your opinion of me Jack, but I'm sure that this is not the case.
I realize very well that I am no better than the others on this forum and yes in my communication with Jean, I adapted myself to his abuse, it's called mirroring.

See you.

Truth will unfold itself to those who enquire their own actions.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 06 Feb 2016 #39
Thumb_001 Sean Hen Spain 858 posts in this forum Offline

Jack Pine wrote:
The freeing of the mind of the limitation of consciousness.

Could the word "thought" substitute the word "consciousness" here? Most of us here on this forum have had a great deal of contact with Krishnamurti's teachings over the years, yet it seems we find it very, very difficult to free ourselves of this limitation. Why is this?

This post was last updated by Sean Hen Sat, 06 Feb 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 06 Feb 2016 #40
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

Sean Hen wrote:
Could the word "thought" substitute the word "consciousness" here?

It seems to me that thought is consciousness. That is why "the unconscious" seems rather ridiculous when considered as thought, for is it possible to have unconscious thought? Only if thought is encoded in the brain cells, and so far there is no evidence that it is.

"The unconscious, as I see it, is buried memory, hidden memory, repressed memory -- and memory is not the same as thought.

max

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 06 Feb 2016 #41
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5655 posts in this forum Offline

Sean Hen wrote:
Could the word "thought" substitute the word "consciousness"

Consciousness is thought. What else would it be.

A while back I was wondering about something K said about memory: Memory is incomplete experience. I didn't understand why some experiences become part of memory while others are not registered.

Experience becomes part of memory when it is verbalized. When we use words to describe a particular experience then it becomes memory which, of course, is part of our consciousness. So why verbalize an experience? We verbalize experiences we have enjoyed so that we can continue to think about that particular experience and get some vicarious thrill from it. This is just one example and recording experience as memory is not limited to this.

When we do memorize a pleasant experience and relive it in our memory we are not, obviously, reliving the original event but the memory of that experience. Most of us live vicariously from moment to moment in this way for most of our lives. Never seeing the new but always comparing the new with the old, the memory of past experiences.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 2 readers
Back to Top
Sat, 06 Feb 2016 #42
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

Jack Pine wrote:
Experience becomes part of memory when it is verbalized.

Verbalization is a result of thinking and thought. Do we remember only after thinking and thought? I would say no, that memory comes with awareness. The naming and verbalization of a memory comes in after awareness, when thinking about the memory takes place.

Memory is a part of awareness, as I see it. The two are inseparable. The instant of sensing is the instant of memory. I would say we have an immense store of memory, the largest part of which isn't recalled and never will be recalled.

max

This post was last updated by max greene Sat, 06 Feb 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 06 Feb 2016 #43
Thumb_001 Sean Hen Spain 858 posts in this forum Offline

max greene wrote:
It seems to me that thought is consciousness.

Jack Pine wrote:
Consciousness is thought. What else would it be

Thanks for the replies Max and Jack. While I think it's helpful to define and clarify what we're talking about, it's probably not a good idea to get bogged down in definitions. An example of a dictionary definition of consciousness is the following:

"the state of being aware of and responsive to one's surroundings."

That is not necessarily thought at all. Anyway, I imagine that we'd agree on the importance of freeing the mind of the limitations of thought.

Here we have Krishnamurti on this subject:

"Thought and the things that thought has built as consciousness with its content, can all that come to an end? If the speaker says it can, what value has that? None whatever. But can one realize the nature of consciousness and the movement of thought as a material process and observe it - can one do this? Can one observe the movement of thought, not as an observer looking at thought, but thought itself becoming aware of its own movement; the awakening of thought and thought itself observing its movement?"

Questions and Answers (Para 350)

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Sat, 06 Feb 2016 #44
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1430 posts in this forum Offline

Sean Hen wrote:
K:Can one observe the movement of thought, not as an observer looking at thought, but thought itself becoming aware of its own movement; the awakening of thought and thought itself observing its movement?"

Very interesting how subtle this is: not an "observer looking at thought", but thought itself awakening and observing its own movement. Becoming aware of its own movement as "a material process". Would this be the same as saying : "can I be aware of myself as a projection of thought, as the movement of thought"?

This may be all wrong of course

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sat, 06 Feb 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 06 Feb 2016 #45
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

Jack Pine wrote:
Experience becomes part of memory when it is verbalized.

What about traumatic events (accidents, death of dear ones, aggressions, wars etc) which are not necessarily verbalized ?

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 06 Feb 2016 #46
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

Jack Pine wrote:
So why verbalize an experience? We verbalize experiences we have enjoyed so that we can continue to think about that particular experience ...

What about fears ? Aren't fears memorized ? Isn't memory also a tool to protect us from fearful situations ? a 'protection and defense system' ?

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 06 Feb 2016 #47
Thumb_001 Sean Hen Spain 858 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Very interesting how subtle this is: not an "observer looking at thought", but thought itself awakening and observing its own movement.

Hello Dan. I agree, this is subtle and complex. The quote I posted earlier continues:

Krishnamurti: "Can one observe the movement of thought, not as an observer looking at thought, but thought itself becoming aware of its own movement; the awakening of thought and thought itself observing its movement? Take a very simple example, greed: observe it as it arises in one and then ask oneself, "Is the observer, is the thinker, different from thought?'' To observe thinking is fairly easy. I separate myself as an observer and watch my thinking, which most of us do. But this division is illusory, is fallacious, because the thinker is thought. So can the observer be absent in his observation? The observer, the thinker is the past - the remembrances, images, knowledge, experiences, all the things that he has accumulated in time is the observer. The observer names a reaction as greed and in naming it he is already caught in the past. By the very naming of the reaction we call greed, we have established it in the past. Whereas if there is no naming but pure observation - in which there is no division as the observer and the observed, the thinker and the thought, the experiencer and the experience - then what takes place? Our conditioning is to make this division between the observer and the observed and that is why we take such enormous trouble to control the thing that is observed. I am greedy, that is the reaction. But we say,"I am different from greed and therefore I can control it, I can operate on it, I can suppress it, I can enjoy it, I can do something about it''. The fact is, the thinker is the thought. There is no thinker without thought."

Questions and Answers (Para 350)

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 2 readers
Back to Top
Sat, 06 Feb 2016 #48
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 1381 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:

Sean Hen quoting K. wrote:

K:Can one observe the movement of thought, not as an observer looking at thought, but thought itself becoming aware of its own movement; the awakening of thought and thought itself observing its movement?"

Very interesting how subtle this is: not an "observer looking at thought", but thought itself awakening and observing its own movement. Becoming aware of its own movement as "a material process". Would this be the same as saying : "can I be aware of myself as a projection of thought, as the movement of thought"?

Jack, Sean and Dan, Thanks for this new turn on this topic, much appriciated here.

In my view one can distinguish in the whole different parts, which are not always harmonious active. By being aware of ones actions one can observing the unconscious becoming conscious.

Truth will unfold itself to those who enquire their own actions.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 06 Feb 2016 #49
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
By being aware of ones actions one can observing the unconscious becoming conscious.

Exactly so Wim (except the word 'observing' to be replaced by 'observe' for a grammatically correct sentence :) ... this is also in line with what K says ... when there is awareness there is no 'unconscious' any more ... all the movements in the whole consciousness can be seen ...

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 07 Feb 2016 #50
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5655 posts in this forum Offline

Jean Gatti wrote:
What about traumatic events (accidents, death of dear ones, aggressions, wars etc) which are not necessarily verbalized ?

Jean Gatti wrote:
What about fears ? Aren't fears memorized ? Isn't memory also a tool to protect us from fearful situations ? a 'protection and defense system' ?

Jean, don't you think it is way past time to stop letting your mouth, or in this case your written responses, out pace your brain? Once again you didn't understand what I wrote but that doesn't keep you from commenting on it.

Nothing I wrote precludes your second post and your first post is just plain gibberish.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 07 Feb 2016 #51
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

Jack Pine wrote:
Nothing I wrote precludes your second post and your first post is just plain gibberish.

Well, isn't this the negation of dialogue Jack ?

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 07 Feb 2016 #52
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5655 posts in this forum Offline

Jean Gatti wrote:
Well, isn't this the negation of dialogue Jack ?

You are not even making sense anymore Jean. You're just writing a lot of words with no meaning.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 07 Feb 2016 #53
Thumb_3288 jaidip k India 51 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
By being aware of ones actions one can observing the unconscious becoming conscious.

If one looks at the conscious,putting aside ones self importance what is there?One long tale of becoming that’s all.Some of it is intellectual,some emotional but all of it is part of the becoming.Probably why K describes memory as “incomplete”.
My question is why should the unconscious be any different?By talking about the quiet mind ,allowing the unconscious to bubble forth and so on,what is it we expect to see?More of the same?If the unconscious contains “the story of man”,what is that anyway?The story of becoming no doubt.
So why give the unconscious any importance?Conscious/unconscious it seems to be garbage all the way through.
Being ‘aware’ and coming upon deeper and deeper levels of junk can take lifetimes .Either one sees the whole thing at a glance or not at all. :)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 07 Feb 2016 #54
Thumb_3252 Voco . Luxembourg 878 posts in this forum Offline

Jean Gatti wrote:
Well, isn't this the negation of dialogue Jack ?

Jack seems does not wants a dialogue, he wants you accept what he is saying, because he himself accepts blindly what K is saying. He wants you to obey, because he thinks he is an authority. He seems put so much faith in K, that his beliefs are indestructible. But, there is a coward hiding behind K word's, and he knows that, he only don't have any guts to admit that, but he don't have to, because that coward is seen every time he opens his mouth.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 07 Feb 2016 #55
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5655 posts in this forum Offline

Voco . wrote:
Jack seems does not wants a dialogue, he wants you accept what he is saying, because he himself accepts blindly what K is saying.

This is your mantra. Something you repeat over and over again because you don't have any other response. Instead of accusing others of being too interested in K I suggest you get more interested in K and expend a little energy and find out what K has pointed out. The is a Krishnamurti site.

The way you question something, whether something K said or some scientific hypothesis, is to go into what has been pointed out. You test it, dig into it, find out with your own experiments whether it is true or not. You don't come up with some baseless lame-brain theory of your own, like several people on one of these forums do, and hang onto it like a dog hangs onto a bone. The problem is a lot of people don't know how to think.

When K points out that insight has nothing whatsoever to do with thought you go into that. You don't take an opposite view and claim to be thinking for yourself. That's idiotic

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 2 readers
Back to Top
Sun, 07 Feb 2016 #56
Thumb_3252 Voco . Luxembourg 878 posts in this forum Offline

Jack Pine wrote:
I suggest you get more interested in K and expend a little energy and find out what K has pointed out.

I don't need your suggestions.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 07 Feb 2016 #57
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 1381 posts in this forum Offline

jaidip k wrote:
Being ‘aware’ and coming upon deeper and deeper levels of junk can take lifetimes .Either one sees the whole thing at a glance or not at all. :)

Hi Jaidip

Seeing the Unconscious becoming conscious is the trigger for the flash, seems to me.;-)

Truth will unfold itself to those who enquire their own actions.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 07 Feb 2016 #58
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

Voco . wrote:
Jack seems does not wants a dialogue, he wants you accept what he is saying, because he himself accepts blindly what K is saying. He wants you to obey, because he thinks he is an authority.

Yes, using K to leverage self importance ... this is not uncommon unfortunately, we see this in all religions where God himself is used for personal interests and power ...

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 08 Feb 2016 #59
Thumb_stringio richard nolet Canada 39 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Voco . wrote:
Jack seems does not wants a dialogue, he wants you accept what he is saying, because he himself accepts blindly what K is saying. He wants you to obey, because he thinks he is an authority. He seems put so much faith in K, that his beliefs are indestructible. But, there is a coward hiding behind K word's, and he knows that, he only don't have any guts to admit that, but he don't have to, because that coward is seen every time he opens his mouth.

Jean Gatti wrote:
Yes, using K to leverage self importance ... this is not uncommon unfortunately, we see this in all religions where God himself is used for personal interests and power ...

You look like two old ladies gossiping, two dreadful gossip ...LOL !!

This post was last updated by richard nolet (account deleted) Mon, 08 Feb 2016.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 2 readers
Back to Top
Mon, 08 Feb 2016 #60
Thumb_3288 jaidip k India 51 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
Seeing the Unconscious becoming conscious is the trigger for the flash, seems to me.;-)

Well said Wim.That may be so.Insignificance must be seen/comprehended for what it is I guess.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 31 - 60 of 135 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.)