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

"Thought and Perception"


Displaying posts 61 - 90 of 109 in total
Mon, 10 Apr 2017 #61
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 1151 posts in this forum Offline

From the same book..begining of 6th talk:

KRISHNAMURTI: We have asked what is the origin of all human movement. Is there an original source, a ground from which all this—nature, man, the whole universe—sprang? Is it bound by time? Is it in itself completeorder, beyond which there is nothing more?
And we have talked about order, whether the universe is based on time at all, and whether man can ever comprehend and live in that supreme order. We want to investigate, not merely intellectually but also profoundly, how to comprehend and live, move from that ground, that ground that is timeless, and beyond which there is nothing. Can we go on from there?

I don’t know if, as a scientist, you will agree that there is such a ground, or that man can ever comprehend it, live in it; not in the sense that he is living in it,
but that itself is living? Can we as human beings come to that?

DAVID BOHM: I don’t know if science as it is now constituted can say much about that.

KRISHNAMURTI: Science doesn’t talk about it but would you, as a scientist, give your mind to the investigation of that?

DAVID BOHM: Yes, I think that implicitly science has always been concerned with trying to come to this ground, but to attempt it by studying matter to the greatest possible depth, of course, is not enough.

KRISHNAMURTI: Didn’t we ask if a human being, living in this world that is in such turmoil, can be in absolute order first, as the universe is in absolute order, and comprehend an order which is universal?

DAVID BOHM: Yes.

KRISHNAMURTI: I can have order in myself, by careful observation, self-study, self-investigation, and understanding the nature of disorder. The very insight of
that understanding dispels disorder. That’s one level of order.

DAVID BOHM: Yes, that’s the level that most of us have been concerned with till now, you see. We see this disorder going on in the world and in ourselves, and
we say it is necessary to be aware of it and to observe it and, as you say, to dispel it.

KRISHNAMURTI: But that’s a very small affair.

DAVID BOHM: Yes, but we agreed that people generally don’t feel it is a small affair. They feel that clearing up the disorder in themselves and the world would be a very big thing, and perhaps all that is necessary.

(Italics and bolding are mine)

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Mon, 10 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 11 Apr 2017 #62
Thumb_nolet Rich Nolet Canada 235 posts in this forum Offline

This is kind of the subject of another thread, but to clarify things a bit, your quote is out of context. Her is the context. Otherwise, it can be misleading.

KRISHNAMURTI: Well, we will, if human beings are all tremendously orderly in
that inward sense, perhaps create a new society. But that again is a very small
affair.

DAVID BOHM: I understand that, but I feel we should go into it carefully because
people commonly don’t see it as small. Only a few have seen that there’s
something beyond that.

KRISHNAMURTI: Much more beyond that.

DAVID BOHM: Perhaps it might be worth thinking about why it is not enough to
go into the order of man and society, just to produce orderly living. In what sense
is that not enough?

KRISHNAMURTI: Because we live in chaos, we think that to bring order is a
tremendous affair, but in itself it isn’t. I can put my room in order, so that it gives
me certain space, certain freedom; I know where things are, I can go directly to
them. That’s a physical order. Can I put things in myself in order, which means
not to have conflict, not to have comparison, not to have any sense of ‘me’ and
‘you’ and ‘they’, everything that brings about such division, out of which grows
conflict? That’s simple. If I’m a Hindu and you are a Muslim, we are eternally at
war with each other.

This post was last updated by Rich Nolet Tue, 11 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Tue, 11 Apr 2017 #63
Thumb_nolet Rich Nolet Canada 235 posts in this forum Offline

( finishing this chapter 4, which I recommended the reading )

KRISHNAMURTI: I should think one of the qualities of total perception is
compassion.

DAVID BOHM: You see, the centre can only have feelings which are attributed to
it, so it will have compassion for whatever it’s identified with.

KRISHNAMURTI: Of course. I love you and I don’t love others. Or I love others
but I don’t love you.

DAVID BOHM: It would have no understanding and therefore it would have no
meaning.

KRISHNAMURTI: It’s very interesting, this. How would you convey all this to
somebody sentimental, romantic, wanting illusions, full of fanciful imaginations,
with problems of sex, of fear? You tell him something and he won’t even listen.
Here we have the leisure to go into it; and we want to find out, because we’re
totally objective about ourselves. I think that’s where compassion comes in.

Gstaad, 25 July 1975

This post was last updated by Rich Nolet Tue, 11 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 11 Apr 2017 #64
Thumb_img_20150716_212047-1-1 richard viillar France 37 posts in this forum Offline

KRISHNAMURTI wrote:
To go back, if there is total perception of the nature of thought
and all its activities, therefore there is the total perception of the content of
consciousness. The content makes the consciousness, and all the rest of it, that
used to be the centre. Total perception can only exist when the centre is not; then
consciousness must be totally different.

KRISHNAMURTI wrote:
But it hasn’t succeeded, ever. When the centre is not—which is
perception of the totality of thought

something seems not clear...

i Just want to clarify with you all step by step maybe?

Well first can we say what is exactly the diference between the consciousness and the memory?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 11 Apr 2017 #65
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 1040 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Thought/memory creates a feeling in the body. Isn't it pleasure....the memory of a pleasurable...or painful...experience that leads to the center? I come into being when I say "I want more of that!"....that woman...that delicious food or drink....the beauty of the sports car or a beautiful home. I think about it and make an effort to get more, not realizing that pain is right around the corner. Of course the opposite occurs when we recall a painful experience.

Tom,

By noticing the atmosphere is pleasant and/or
enjoying the first sun in spring, where is the 'I' coming in ??

Are this not just observations !!

only if there is a wanting for continuation, repetitions and/or avoiding of certain situations in such a processes the 'I' is born or created, 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.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 11 Apr 2017 #66
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 1040 posts in this forum Offline

Jack Pine wrote:
Took the wrong turn by elevating the existence and importance of the center, the self, that has lead to so much human suffering.

Jack,

Are all our actions self centered or are there also non targeted loving acts Performed by some people ??

It is not provable if there's somewhere egoism working in someone's head, but I have seen examples of loving actions that may be allowed to get such a stamp !!

From this exercise - rereading this chapter 4 - it's clear for me that the wrong turn is not ones taken in the past and inherited but is repeated in the present as a kind of habit of which we are not aware off all the time. It's not in our genes but like a confusing diffuus reflexion resonating in our minds.

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.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 11 Apr 2017 #67
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 1040 posts in this forum Offline

richard viillar wrote:
Well, as i see it, it seems that the process of seeking security is prior than thought.

Richard,

Thoughts function is seeking security - second sentence of this chapter !!-
and made out of this reality a copy, a reflexion as a thought,
so it's not compleet, it's partly !!
that how it's seen by me. what do you say ?

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.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 11 Apr 2017 #68
Thumb_img_20150716_212047-1-1 richard viillar France 37 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
Thoughts function is seeking security - second sentence of this chapter !!-

yes i saw it lol

Wim Opdam wrote:
Thoughts function is seeking security

I do not say the opposite Wim, I'm just saying that this process of need for security is prior to thought, thought extends the seeking

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 11 Apr 2017 #69
Thumb_nolet Rich Nolet Canada 235 posts in this forum Offline

richard viillar wrote:
Well first can we say what is exactly the diference between the consciousness and the memory?

Consicousness is his own contain. It seems they are not two different thing. I believe in God, as an example, is a fragment of the whole of consciousness. Do one see this ?

The brain record,all the time, which make memory, which is the past, always. And thought is the reaction of memory, is it ? Isn't it consciousness the result of the thought process ?

This post was last updated by Rich Nolet Tue, 11 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 12 Apr 2017 #70
Thumb_baboon-9186 dave h United Kingdom 1156 posts in this forum Offline

randall merryman wrote:
Yes yes quite, it is so much easier to secure comfort/security in a pleasant atmosphere. All that annoying challenging and pointing to the reality of what folks are actually engaged in can be a bit discomforting. We can't have any of that, then can we?

Sorry Jack, couldn't resist. I'll leave your thread now, carry on.

Randy, do you really we are doing something completely different to what K/Bohm were doing when discussing the same things?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 12 Apr 2017 #71
Thumb_stringio randall merryman United States 3832 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

dave h wrote:
Randy, do you really we are doing something completely different to what K/Bohm were doing when discussing the same things?

If your sentence lacks the word "think", I will just suggest that Bohm was doing the same thing as what goes on at Kinfonet and elsewhere. You know, trying to fit the words into coherent structure to find some kind of logical meaning in what Krishnamurti talks about.

Stuff happens

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 12 Apr 2017 #72
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 1040 posts in this forum Offline

richard viillar wrote:
I'm just saying that this process of need for security is prior to thought,
thought extends the seeking

Yes, it extends the seeking, but with the wrong focus and handicapt by being partly !!
Being insecure by knowing nothing, being too busy collecting knowledge
which prevents to deliver security and fails to fulfil its own functioning.

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.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 12 Apr 2017 #73
Thumb_baboon-9186 dave h United Kingdom 1156 posts in this forum Offline

randall merryman wrote:
If your sentence lacks the word "think", I will just suggest that Bohm was doing the same thing as what goes on at Kinfonet and elsewhere. You know, trying to fit the words into coherent structure to find some kind of logical meaning in what Krishnamurti talks about.

I see. K didn't seem to mind?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 12 Apr 2017 #74
Thumb_stringio randall merryman United States 3832 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

dave h wrote:
I see. K didn't seem to mind?

I see what you are getting at and it's a valid point.

How do you feel K would respond to what goes on at Kinfonet? Sitting with a personal friend and allowing him to pull explanations (out of K's mouth) that might make sense to the scientific mind, is one thing, what goes on at Kinfonet, is another.

Stuff happens

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 12 Apr 2017 #75
Thumb_img_20150716_212047-1-1 richard viillar France 37 posts in this forum Offline

Rich Nolet wrote:
The brain record,all the time, which make memory, which is the past, always. And thought is the reaction of memory, is it ? Isn't it consciousness the result of the thought process ?

if there is no diference between the memory and the consciousness, and that the thought is the manifestation of the memory,we say also that thought "create" the consciousness...

maybe we have to be careful to not confuse various sorts of recording... there is the recording from the direct translation of senses which is memorised (and which as i see constitutes a "first level" basic illusory ME) which is prior then thought, there is the recording also from what memory then expulse (thought) which can be used (by false way?) to elaborate an extention of the firt level (basic) ME and which is also then memorised and constitutes into the memory, what is named: CONSCIOUSNESS

it seems......

This post was last updated by richard viillar Wed, 12 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 12 Apr 2017 #76
Thumb_nolet Rich Nolet Canada 235 posts in this forum Offline

Yes it seems right. The important thing is this totale perception that this consciousness is made of innumerable fragments that are in conflicts one with the other, interiorly and externaly. And this division , this conflict between all the parts, the fragments, is thought creating the me, you and them: a center, is it ? This consciousness, mine and yours, is made of our believes, our fears, ours opinions in conflicts one with the other and is what constitute consciousness.

This post was last updated by Rich Nolet Wed, 12 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 12 Apr 2017 #77
Thumb_nolet Rich Nolet Canada 235 posts in this forum Offline

KRISHNAMURTI: The
consciousness which we have is with the centre, with all the content, with all the
thought, with all that movement, and when there is total perception of that, that is
not. ( Thought and perception chapter 4 )

This post was last updated by Rich Nolet Wed, 12 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 12 Apr 2017 #78
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 4906 posts in this forum Offline

Randall and Dave h I would very much appreciate it if you would start your own thread. What you are arguing about has been argued ad nauseum before. It's a bankrupt argument. There is no end and no solution for it. Please don't do it on this thread.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 12 Apr 2017 #79
Thumb_img_20150716_212047-1-1 richard viillar France 37 posts in this forum Offline

Rich Nolet wrote:
The important thing is this totale perception that this consciousness is made of innumerable fragments

yes it is important Rich,

since many time i try to talk here and there about the fact that there is two levels of a ME.

to observe deeply the whole movement of thought, the whole movement of consciousness, is one thing, a very important thing. but this observation operates in the field of thought and not in the field of what is prior thought...

i don't know how i can say diferently for now but something happen when the attention is on what is prior thought....

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 12 Apr 2017 #80
Thumb_de4 Dan McDermott United States 1214 posts in this forum Offline

Richard

Are you referring to the 'energy' prior to its 'movement' as 'thought/thinking'?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 12 Apr 2017 #81
Thumb_img_20150716_212047-1-1 richard viillar France 37 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Are you referring to the 'energy' prior to its 'movement'

It seems more prior, the 'energy' prior to its 'movement' is a movement which come from more prior.. maybe close to the senses/sensation...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 12 Apr 2017 #82
Thumb_de4 Dan McDermott United States 1214 posts in this forum Offline

Are you saying that there is a gap between a sensation and thought?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 12 Apr 2017 #83
Thumb_nolet Rich Nolet Canada 235 posts in this forum Offline

Or do you mean what is prior to words ? Is there a gap between the reaction and this reaction put into words ? Is it what you are talking about ? Are we aware that there is a gap, as Dan is saying between the reaction and the reaction translate in words ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 12 Apr 2017 #84
Thumb_img_20150716_212047-1-1 richard viillar France 37 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
a gap between a sensation and thought?

Yes it seems that the informations Which comes from senses are prior thought.

This post was last updated by richard viillar Wed, 12 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 12 Apr 2017 #85
Thumb_img_20150716_212047-1-1 richard viillar France 37 posts in this forum Offline

Rich Nolet wrote:
between the reaction and the reaction translate in words ?

It seems also that there is thought (which come from kind of memory) before Word (which come from another kind of memory)...

But i'm not talking about that..

This post was last updated by richard viillar Wed, 12 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 12 Apr 2017 #86
Thumb_nolet Rich Nolet Canada 235 posts in this forum Offline

Can you related this to the topic about thought and perception , if I may ask Richard? Or is it a different subject ? I don't see how it is related to the totale perception we where talking about.

This post was last updated by Rich Nolet Wed, 12 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 12 Apr 2017 #87
Thumb_de4 Dan McDermott United States 1214 posts in this forum Offline

richard viillar wrote:
Yes it seems that the informations Which comes from senses are prior thought.

Well the "information" entering through the sense organs, the sight, the sound, the touch etc. is a kind of 'energy' isn't it? The 'energy' is received and assessed by the sense organ as to color, brightness, loudness, timbre,texture, smooth, rough, wet, dry, etc....and that information goes to the brain, which recognizes what has been sensed and thought then "shapes" it names, classifies it (likes, dislikes it) etc. I'm just guessing how this actually works but how do your observations 'fit' into this simple scheme I've sketched?..Or do they?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Wed, 12 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 12 Apr 2017 #88
Thumb_img_20150716_212047-1-1 richard viillar France 37 posts in this forum Offline

Rich Nolet wrote:
Can you related this to the topic about thought and perception ,

Im sorry Rich... there is a link.

If i do not succeed to explain it, i stop.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 12 Apr 2017 #89
Thumb_img_20150716_212047-1-1 richard viillar France 37 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
the sight, the sound, the touch etc. is a kind of 'energy' isn't it?

It is a process...

Dan McDermott wrote:
etc....and that information goes to the brain, which recognizes

First memorises. .

Dan McDermott wrote:
what has been sensed and thought then "shapes" it names, classifies it (likes, dislikes it) etc.

Brain when receives again the same information, stimules memory and expulse the thought which covers the information which comes from organ, and add like/dislike. This association is also memorised and memorised etc. ...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 12 Apr 2017 #90
Thumb_de4 Dan McDermott United States 1214 posts in this forum Offline

richard viillar wrote:
Brain when receives again the same information, stimules memory and expulse the thought which covers the information which comes from organ, and add like/dislike. This association is also memorised and memorised etc. ...

So we are not 'getting' fresh sensory information but only "memorized" associations? That is why we don't really 'see' the 'tree'? We see...what?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 61 - 90 of 109 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.)