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

About the unconscious mind......Revisited


Displaying posts 61 - 90 of 135 in total
Mon, 08 Feb 2016 #61
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

richard nolet wrote:
You look like two old ladies gossiping

Sexist image making ? :-)

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 08 Feb 2016 #62
Thumb_001 Sean Hen Spain 858 posts in this forum Offline

What Krishnamurti says below about "thought itself becoming aware of its own movement" seems to be very important. He was obviously pointing this out in as clear a way as he possibly could. However, I don't think it's at all easy to grasp what he is saying here. If we did manage to see this clearly, then presumably we would be able to observe the movement of thought not as an observer. Does anybody have any, er, thoughts on this?

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
Back to Top
Mon, 08 Feb 2016 #63
Thumb_stringio natarajan s India 257 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Sean Hen wrote:
However, I don't think it's at all easy to grasp what he is saying here. If we did manage to see this clearly, then presumably we would be able to observe the movement of thought not as an observer. Does anybody have any, er, thoughts on this?

As I see, K is asking, 'Can there be a transformation in you?' or to put it more straight 'Can you transform?', we are most likely pretending we are not hearing that question, and, if we can't hear that question really, I would say we are not 'aware'.

contraria sunt complementa

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 08 Feb 2016 #64
Thumb_001 Sean Hen Spain 858 posts in this forum Offline

natarajan s wrote:(referring to a K quote)
we are most likely pretending we are not hearing that question, and, if we can't hear that question really, I would say we are not 'aware'.

Hello Natarajan. I don't understand when you say "we are most likely pretending we are not hearing that question." Could you elaborate?

You wrote "if we can't hear that question really, I would say we are not 'aware'." We come here, presumably, because we are intertested in learning about being more aware. Is the quote simply too complex for us? Or can we actually "observe the movement of thought, not as an observer looking at thought, but thought itself becoming aware of its own movement"?

The K quote we are speaking abot is this:

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
Back to Top
Mon, 08 Feb 2016 #65
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5655 posts in this forum Offline

Jean Gatti wrote:
Sexist image making ?

No he was just stating an obvious fact. You're a complete fraud Jean.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 08 Feb 2016 #66
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1430 posts in this forum Offline

Sean Hen wrote:
If we did manage to see this clearly, then presumably we would be able to observe the movement of thought not as an observer. Does anybody have any, er, thoughts on this?

Hi Sean,
I posted this on John's site a short while ago regarding this and also in reference to what he had posted this morning of K (with John's highlights):

K: "Do we understand anything through struggle, through conflict? Does not ( the insightful self-?) understanding come when the mind is utterly still, when the (dissipative ?) action of (self-centred ?) effort has ceased? The mind that is ( purposedly ?) 'made still' is not a tranquil mind; it is a 'dead' ( self-confined ?) , insensitive mind. When (the self-centred thought and ?) desire is (interfering ?) , the beauty of (inner) Silence is not."

Dan:This spoke to me this morning. I had a question for several days now about something K had said regarding thought: that it must understand itself, that it must become aware of itself. My 'way' prior to reading this was to observe thought by creating an 'observer' apart from the thought itself and to see what could be seen. He said this was a mistake in that the observer was actually not separate from what it was observing (which I thought I had understood) and that this 'method' was relatively easy to do (which I don't agree with but...) And that the 'observer created for this 'task' of watching thought was the past itself etc. So I read on with interest to learn that in his words, "thought had to become aware of itself", it had to become aware of itself as a "material process'...So how does a lifetime of thinking without awareness change and this awareness is somehow brought to thought, brought to itself?

Reading your post this morning John, made me 'aware' that there was a struggle here going on, an 'effort' to 'solve' this, and as a result a movement away from the 'what is' to acheive some 'result' namely the 'quieting of thought'. (Which I guess IS the 'what is'...You can't win!)

This may be all wrong of course

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Mon, 08 Feb 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 08 Feb 2016 #67
Thumb_stringio natarajan s India 257 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Sean Hen wrote:
We come here, presumably, because we are intertested in learning about being more aware.

Allright, Apols, but learning about being more aware is an obvious trap.

Sean Hen wrote:
Is the quote simply too complex for us? Or can we actually "observe the movement of thought, not as an observer looking at thought, but thought itself becoming aware of its own movement"?

As I see, the quote is a pointer towards bringing about an effortless action in attention which leaves the awareness free.

contraria sunt complementa

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 08 Feb 2016 #68
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

Jack Pine wrote:
You're a complete fraud Jean.

You are not seeing others as they are Jack ... you are seeing others as YOU are ... it is YOUR movie ...

Can you see that the cause of your reactions are not to be found in others Jack, but in yourself, in your own past, in your own hurts ... your reaction is a reflection of your own past ...

Why resist 'what is' ?

This post was last updated by Jean Gatti Mon, 08 Feb 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 08 Feb 2016 #69
Thumb_avatar P Sylvan United Kingdom 309 posts in this forum Offline

Sean Hen quoting K wrote in post 62:
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?

Hello Sean,/Dan,/All,

In relation to the above, I recently posted the following extract on another thread which seems to be addressing the same question. I have also copied below that a further extract which I think is relevant.

“but also to be aware of what the machinery is that creates the image.
Now let us see what that machinery is. You understand my question? That is, first one has to be conscious, to be aware, to know - not verbally, not intellectually, but actually know as a fact - the existence of this image. It is one of the most difficult things because to know the image implies a great deal. You can know, you can observe that microphone - that is a fact. You may call it by different names, but if we understand what you call by these names, then we see the fact of it. So there is no interpretation there; we both know it is a microphone. But it is a different thing to understand the image without interpretation, to see the fact of that image without the observer, because the observer is the image-maker, and the image is part of the observer. This is a very complex thing.”

First Talk in Bombay, 1966

(Highlighting mine)

AND:

"Now the question is a little more difficult, more deep. Can thought - please listen to this - which is, you can be aware as anger arises, that is fairly simple, but is there an awareness of thought itself? You understand what I am saying? You are thinking now, aren't you? Or are you all absent minded? You are thinking now, aren't you? Now as you are thinking find out if that thinking can be aware of itself. Not you aware of thinking - do you understand the problem? I wonder if you see this. This is really great fun if you go into it. Not only fun, it is very, very serious, because we can go very, very deeply into all this. That is, you are thinking about something, about your dress, how you look, what people have said, what you are going to meet, and this and that - thinking is there. Now take one thought and see if that thought can know itself. Ah, yes, sir, this requires tremendous attention which you are not used to. You are thinking about the dress you have had or you are going to buy. The thought that arises, can that thought say, 'Yes, I am awake' - you understand? I see myself, itself, not you observe the thought, because you are also thought. Do you understand? So you are not aware as thought arises, but thought itself is aware as it comes into being. I wonder if you see this.”

J. Krishnamurti Second Question & Answer Meeting at Brockwood Park 30 August 1979

http://www.jkrishnamurti.org/krishnamurti-teach...

(Highlighting mine)

Paul S

In the spirit of dialogue

This post was last updated by P Sylvan Mon, 08 Feb 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 08 Feb 2016 #70
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5655 posts in this forum Offline

Jean Gatti wrote:
You are not seeing others as they are Jack ... you are seeing others as YOU are ... it is YOUR movie ...

No Jean it's your movie. People point out your flaws and instead of engaging them in a discussion you hit back at them with one of your slogans. One of your pat, often repeated, answers. Your ego will simply not allow you to take an objective look at yourself to see if there is any truth in what so many people on this forum have pointed out about your superficiality, conflictions and general confusion.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 08 Feb 2016 #71
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5655 posts in this forum Offline

Jean Gatti wrote:
Can you see that the cause of your reactions are not to be found in others Jack, but in yourself, in your own past, in your own hurts ... your reaction is a reflection of your own past ...

Once again Jean instead of looking inward and seeing yourself the way you are you are judging others and telling others what their faults are. You do that to so many people on this forum. Look at yourself. Understand your self first before you attempt to understand anyone else.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 08 Feb 2016 #72
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

Jack Pine wrote:
Understand your self first before you attempt to understand anyone else.

Jack, I am not the one who is constantly reacting emotionally and insulting others ... you appear to have many unresolved issues Jack ... just mirroring back to you ...

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 08 Feb 2016 #73
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1430 posts in this forum Offline

From Paul S #69:

K;"...This is a very complex thing.”

Very relevant Paul S. Thanks. I want to ponder this a bit.

This may be all wrong of course

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 08 Feb 2016 #74
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

Jack Pine wrote:
you are judging others

Jack, the seeing of facts is NOT judgement ... it is what it is ... judgement appears when there is resistance to 'what is' ... condemning others IS a resistance ... doing this you 're-act' to something (or somebody) because it/he is not as it/he 'should' be ... you create a duality, a separation, between the observer and the observed ...

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 08 Feb 2016 #75
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5655 posts in this forum Offline

Jean Gatti wrote:
Jack, I am not the one who is constantly reacting emotionally and insulting others ...

If this is true how come you are the one who keeps getting thrown off this forum? Jean, the fact is that nearly every serious poster on this forum has had a negative run in with you. Now most just ignore you.

And yes Jean you are the one who is constantly reacting emotionally and insulting others. You just do it in your own feminine passive aggressive way.

This post was last updated by Jack Pine Mon, 08 Feb 2016.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Mon, 08 Feb 2016 #76
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 1381 posts in this forum Offline

P Sylvan wrote:

Hello Paul #69

Thanks for the quotes.

Very understandable for those who take the opportunity to look into themselves instead of to others.;-)

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 09 Feb 2016 #77
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1430 posts in this forum Offline

P Sylvan wrote:
K: "The thought that arises, can that thought say, 'Yes, I am awake' - you understand? I see myself, itself, not you observe the thought, because you are also thought. Do you understand? So you are not aware as thought arises, but thought itself is aware as it comes into being. I wonder if you see this.”

Yes but only when 'attention' is present? I think he is calling this "fun" but only because it is so 'slippery', so 'difficult'.

This may be all wrong of course

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Tue, 09 Feb 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 09 Feb 2016 #78
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

Jack Pine wrote:
Now most just ignore you.

But you can't Jack ... you are reacting ... what are the buttons being pushed ?

What is it you fear to face in your own past ?

You constantly demonstrate problems with 'authority' ... why fear this so much, why fear so much to be 'taught' something ? Was you father authoritarian maybe ?

Why resist 'what is' ?

This post was last updated by Jean Gatti Tue, 09 Feb 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 09 Feb 2016 #79
Thumb_001 Sean Hen Spain 858 posts in this forum Offline

P Sylvan wrote (quoting K):
Now as you are thinking find out if that thinking can be aware of itself. Not you aware of thinking

Hello P, Dan, Natarajan and all. Thanks for the very interesting quotes. Indeed, "a very complex thing" and one that seems to require a great deal of attention. Surely this is something we need to experiment with and find out for ourselves.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 09 Feb 2016 #80
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 1381 posts in this forum Offline

Poona, Maharastra, India | 5th Public Talk 21st September 1958

Why are we influenced?
In politics, as you know, it is the job of the politician to influence us; and every book, every teacher, every guru - the more powerful, the more eloquent the better we like it - imposes his thought, his way of life, his manner of conduct, upon us.
So life is a battle of ideas, a battle of influences, and your mind is the field of the battle.
The politician wants your mind; the guru wants your mind; the saint says, do this and not that, and he also wants your mind; and every tradition, every form of habit or custom, influences, shapes, guides, controls your mind. I think that is fairly obvious.
It would be absurd to deny it. The fact is so.

This seems to me, very much the struggle that is going on in this topic.

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 09 Feb 2016 #81
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
This seems to me, very much the struggle that is going on in this topic.

The only struggle there is is the struggle within yourself ...

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 09 Feb 2016 #82
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5655 posts in this forum Offline

Jean Gatti wrote:
Jack Pine wrote:
Now most just ignore you.

But you can't Jack ... you are reacting ... what are the buttons being pushed ?

And what is your excuse Jean for continuing to react to what I am writing about you? Is it because that somewhere in your suppressed mind there is a glimmer of light, of truth, that what I'm pointing out about you is true. You never question yourself. It's always others who are to blame and never you.

I don't know how old you are, that avatar picture isn't you probably. I don't know how long you have been deluding yourself into believing that you are enlightened and that you are here to "free" the rest of us. But do I know this Jean this persona you have invented has long since moved from being a combination of amusing and disgusting to one that appears to be more pathological.

You have to learn how to discuss things with people as opposed to preaching to them. There has to be a give and take between people talking together and not one person being patronizing toward the other. This approach of yours has been attempted on many sites, apparently, and rejected. What will it take for you to learn? To change? To drop your illusions? Perhaps it's too late.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 09 Feb 2016 #83
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1430 posts in this forum Offline

Sean Hen wrote:
P Sylvan wrote (quoting K):

K: Now as you are thinking find out if that thinking can be aware of itself. Not you aware of thinking

S: Hello P, Dan, Natarajan and all. Thanks for the very interesting quotes. Indeed, "a very complex thing" and one that seems to require a great deal of attention. Surely this is something we need to experiment with and find out for ourselves.

Agreed.
I'm also seeing this question as, can the image that thought has created of myself, can that image become aware of itself? Can the whole process of 'thought/thinking' awaken to itself?

This may be all wrong of course

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Tue, 09 Feb 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 09 Feb 2016 #84
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

Jack Pine wrote:
You have to learn how to discuss things with people as opposed to preaching to them. There has to be a give and take between people talking together and not one person being patronizing toward the other.

But Jack why do you make a problem out of that ? There must be something in you (in your past experience) that has been triggered and forces you to react ? Some button has been pushed ? Why do you fear so much 'authority' ? Can you look at this more closely ?

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 09 Feb 2016 #85
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5655 posts in this forum Offline

Jean Gatti wrote:
But Jack why do you make a problem out of that ?

Jean it's your problem that the rest of us have to deal with. Many on here have pointed this out to you. You don't dialogue you preach. You can't deal with this until you look at it. Quit escaping by trying to transfer your shortcomings to others.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 09 Feb 2016 #86
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

Jack one can lead a horse to the water but cannot make it drink ...

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 09 Feb 2016 #87
Thumb_stringio natarajan s India 257 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

P Sylvan wrote (quoting K):
You can know, you can observe that microphone - that is a fact. You may call it by different names, but if we understand what you call by these names, then we see the fact of it. So there is no interpretation there; we both know it is a microphone. But it is a different thing to understand the image without interpretation, to see the fact of that image without the observer, because the observer is the image-maker, and the image is part of the observer. This is a very complex thing.”

max greene wrote:
There memory is, whether it is labeled or not. The memory sits there in the cells of the brain, alone, unlabeled. This memory has no label

Memory though unlabeled has to have a correspondence with something real, as I see, the unlabeled memory is something which cannot be separated from the observed. The observed, the second time we encounter it, therefore, has got a reality that is beyond that of the image, which has to be revealed as observation deepens. We may call it attention.

contraria sunt complementa

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 09 Feb 2016 #88
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

Jack Pine wrote:
You don't dialogue you preach.

Are you blaming me for this Jack ?

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 09 Feb 2016 #89
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5655 posts in this forum Offline

Jean Gatti wrote:
Why do you fear so much 'authority' ?

Not fear authority but reject it. So did Krishnamurti. You would know that if you would bother to read something K wrote instead of the entertainment fluff you obviously prefer. And besides Jean, you're not an authority if that's what your implying. How did you get to be so deluded? Why do you think you are an authority? Do you think authority is a good thing? The way you quote dozens of sources it appears that you do. Maybe if you would look at that you might begin to see why you need to be accepted as an authority.

Jean, take this seriously, this could be a break through for you.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Tue, 09 Feb 2016 #90
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5655 posts in this forum Offline

Jean Gatti wrote:
Are you blaming me for this Jack ?

Well, whose fault is it that you preach instead of discuss? Are you blaming me for you being a preacher?

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Displaying posts 61 - 90 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.)