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

The Future Of Humanity


Displaying posts 61 - 90 of 318 in total
Fri, 14 Jun 2019 #61
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 539 posts in this forum Offline

idiot,

I WAS essentially responding to your post #58, via your post #57, if you know what I mean. I have nothing to add about the question of one consciousness.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 14 Jun 2019 #62
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 1187 posts in this forum Offline

Below is the common meaning of the word consciousness. It may help us not to give that word too many different meaning and make it more complicated.

con•scious•ness (?k?n ??s n?s)

n.
1. the state of being conscious; awareness.
2. the thoughts and feelings, collectively, of an individual or of an aggregate of people.
3. full activity of the mind and senses, as in waking life: to regain consciousness.
4. awareness of something for what it is; internal knowledge: consciousness of wrongdoing.
5. concern, interest, or awareness: class consciousness.
6. the mental activity of which a person is aware, contrasted with unconscious thought.
7. Philos. the mind or the mental faculties, characterized by thought, feelings, and volition.
Idioms:
raise one's consciousness, to make or become aware of one's own or another's needs, attitudes, etc., esp. stemming from political or social repression.
[1625–35]
Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary, © 2010 K Dictionaries Ltd. Copyright 2005, 1997, 1991 by Random House, Inc. All rights reserved.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 14 Jun 2019 #63
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 1187 posts in this forum Offline


  1. the thoughts and feelings, collectively, of an individual or of an aggregate of people.

I think k means the above by the word consciousness. We must agree on the meaning of the word in order to proceed. Otherwise we will get nowhere.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 14 Jun 2019 #64
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 1187 posts in this forum Offline

If one's intention is to find out what k says about the mind then referring to his work will do the best. But if one's intention is to sustain an image here then we run into psychological war with each other. So to be conscious or aware of one's intention is the first step and maybe the last step in this forum to be of any use,I think.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 15 Jun 2019 #65
Thumb_001 Sean Hen Spain 844 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
Did K change totally? If he did, did mankind change totally? If mankind did, then why are we still in violence, conflict, suffering?

As far as I can tell, K did indeed "change totally". It seems very clear that mankind didn't change totally. For manking to "change totally", it appears there needs to be more than one person who changes.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 15 Jun 2019 #66
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 1372 posts in this forum Offline

Sean Hen wrote:
It seems very clear that mankind didn't change totally. For manking to "change totally", it appears there needs to be more than one person who changes.

Hi Sean,

but can you say it that way? Has the totality of humanity not been changed by all those people who worldwide are wondering what K. is talking about? If you see how David Bohm has managed to connect "wholeness" with Einstein's and Bohr's discoveries in the scientific world, how Scott Forbes brings "holistic education" into a much wider public?

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 15 Jun 2019 #67
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3169 posts in this forum Offline

Sean Hen wrote:
idiot ? wrote:

Did K change totally? If he did, did mankind change totally? If mankind did, then why are we still in violence, conflict, suffering?

As far as I can tell, K did indeed "change totally". It seems very clear that mankind didn't change totally.

K said that if one man changes totally he will affect the whole. He didn't say that the effect of his changing will be to totally change the whole. He had an effect, as Einstein's discovery had an effect...not totally changing mankind but having an effect. There's a difference, obviously. I don't think he ever said that if one man changes totally, mankind will be totally changed. Not sure if I expressed this correctly....just got up...need my morning coffee!

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Sat, 15 Jun 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 15 Jun 2019 #68
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 1228 posts in this forum Offline

jamie f wrote:
In the garden this morning a robin flew down and fluttered between the camellias. A female robin, it was much plainer than the male and as I looked at its small, rounded body, I suddenly found myself wondering if there wasn't one indivisible consciousness that all living things are part of. To limit it to the consciousness of man seems, well...limiting. It may have been my imagination but it was there again this afternoon floating on the breeze in between the showers. Krishnamurti is popular with those who like to intellectualize and theorize things half to death but how on earth do you intellectualize something that comes to you on the breeze?

Hello jamie,

We have a dog as a pet. It is obvious that she has awareness.. that there is the same sentience there in that one as here in this one. Several crows and a squirrel visit our backyard. As I see it they are also sentient beings. So as I see it sentience goes very far down the phyla of living beings.

As I see it sentience is not material, it has no memory. Memory is stored in the matter that is the nervous system. Sentience then, is not personal. Not yours or mine, but it is one, universal. Everywhere that it is it is the same one. We are not the person that most think they are, having attributes, memory, a body, and so on, We are the "light" of awareness. Same one here in this one as there in the one where "you" are. What "we" actually are is this "light" everywhere it exists. "We" are that.

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Sat, 15 Jun 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 15 Jun 2019 #69
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 1228 posts in this forum Offline

Something that produces a lot of confusion here is the word self. As seen here the self is most often taken to be the material "self", which has attributes... but the self that most fail to see that actually is onesself, is this "light" that is sentience itself, that is universal, that is at once the sentience in all sentient beings.

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Sat, 15 Jun 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 15 Jun 2019 #70
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5609 posts in this forum Offline

Peter, K did point out, or spoke of, there
only being one life. There is just life without the divisions we give it.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 16 Jun 2019 #71
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1425 posts in this forum Offline

Peter Kesting wrote:
As seen here the self is most often taken to be the material "self", which has attributes... but the self that most fail to see that actually is onesself, is this "light" that is sentience itself, that is universal, that is at once the sentience in all sentient beings.

Yes "failure to see it" seems to be an understatement. Peter in this "material self" is where all the pain is, where all the mischief is, all the 'evil' is, all the confusion, etc....How does the the "material self" with its concept of psychological time end? How does it cease to obscure the vision of the "light"? Isn't that what K. spent 60 years talking about? What do you say?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sun, 16 Jun 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 16 Jun 2019 #72
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 641 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
The individual narratives differ, the circumstances differ, the sophistication, crassness, style or polish of individual behaviour differs, the expressions and degrees of deceit, pretense, anger and fear vary, and so on. But every single “individual” approaches life and faces life’s challenges THIS WAY - through the illusory self. Isn’t it so? And isn't this approach to life responsible for all conflict, chaos, deterioration, danger, and so on? Isn’t the total consciousness of man as it presently is - one in this way?

To say that nearly all human beings approach life as separate selves is clearly true. To say that in general we share similar experiences is also obvious. Most everyone would accept those. But that is quite different from saying there is only one consciousness of mankind and separate consciousnesses are an illusion.

Suppose I said that all pencils are writing implements. Some may have sharper or duller points or their points may be broken off, but basically they are all writing implements and their purpose is to be useful for writing. We'd likely agree. But if I said therefore there is only one pencil. It is an illusion that there are separate pencils. Most people would say wait a minute, that's both untrue and illogical.

So the question is, what is K really saying? If he's just saying that we are one in the sense that we all share suffering, face life as separate selves, etc., it's obvious that yes, that is a general commonality for virtually all mankind. But read the Future of Humanity carefully:

The Future of Humanity page 19:

DB: Now the feeling is that the consciousness is individual and that it is communicated....

JK: I think that is an illusion, because we are sticking to something that is not true.

DB: Do you want to say that there is one consciousness of mankind?

JK: It is all one.

...

DB: And the sense of separateness is an illusion?

JK: That is what I am saying, over and over again. That seems so logical, sane. The other is insanity.

DB: Yes, but people don't feel, at least not immediately, that the notion of separate existence is insane, because one extrapolates from the body to the mind. One says, it is quite sensible to say my body is separate from yours, and inside my body is my mind. Now are you saying that the mind is not inside the body?

JK: That is quite a different question. Let's finish with the other first.

They later go into "the brain" and "the mind" in depth. To K, who may be using these words a bit differently than many of us would, these two are completely different. It is quite fascinating to read their discussion of "the brain" and "the mind."

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 16 Jun 2019 #73
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 641 posts in this forum Offline

Sean Hen wrote:

idiot ? wrote:

Now part of the body is the brain. As best as science has figured out, the brain is where consciousness arises.

I'm not sure that there is scientific consensus on this point.

You have only to use an internet search engine with "brain consciousness science" to find articles about the scientific consensus on consciousness originating in the brain. The old religious theories that there is some kind of conscious soul that evaporates out of the body at death is not supported by evidence. By contrast, there is evidence that consciousness cannot continue when certain parts of the brain have been destroyed.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 16 Jun 2019 #74
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 641 posts in this forum Offline

jamie f wrote:
In the garden this morning a robin flew down and fluttered between the camellias. A female robin, it was much plainer than the male and as I looked at its small, rounded body, I suddenly found myself wondering if there wasn't one indivisible consciousness that all living things are part of. To limit it to the consciousness of man seems, well...limiting.

Exactly so. The whole is everything, totality. To talk about the "whole consciousness of man" is to divide it off from other consciousness, like that of animals. So it ain't so whole anymore.

Either totality is, which means thought has stilled to zero, or some subset of totality is considered, which means that thought has seeped back in.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 16 Jun 2019 #75
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 641 posts in this forum Offline

Sean Hen wrote:

idiot ? wrote:

Did K change totally? If he did, did mankind change totally? If mankind did, then why are we still in violence, conflict, suffering?

As far as I can tell, K did indeed "change totally". It seems very clear that mankind didn't change totally. For mankind to "change totally", it appears there needs to be more than one person who changes.

Which assumes that there is more than one person. If separateness is an illusion, then the total change of one is the total change of all.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 16 Jun 2019 #76
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 641 posts in this forum Offline

One Self wrote:
We must agree on the meaning of the word in order to proceed.

Yes. K says what he means by "consciousness" in The Future of Humanity. It is the me. That is, K says consciousness is its content! DB says, wait, a glass is not the water it contains. K says it's all one.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 16 Jun 2019 #77
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 641 posts in this forum Offline

If there is only one consciousness of mankind and separate consciousnesses are an illusion, why is it that when you stub your toe I don't feel it? With distance between us, I don't even know that you stubbed your toe.

Why?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 16 Jun 2019 #78
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 539 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
To say that nearly all human beings approach life as separate selves is clearly true. To say that in general we share similar experiences is also obvious. Most everyone would accept those. But that is quite different from saying there is only one consciousness of mankind and separate consciousnesses are an illusion.

Suppose I said that all pencils are writing implements. Some may have sharper or duller points or their points may be broken off, but basically they are all writing implements and their purpose is to be useful for writing. We'd likely agree. But if I said therefore there is only one pencil. It is an illusion that there are separate pencils. Most people would say wait a minute, that's both untrue and illogical.

I understand the difficulty (I think). But I’m not just referring to the fact that the psychological processes of self and time are the same in all mankind. I mean that the inner state - the movements of thought and emotion - of the human being is not hermetically sealed off from and impervious to his environment, and vice-versa. For example, if one is in a room where there is angry shouting going on, doesn’t it have a direct impact on one’s inner state? Also if there's shooting or fighting in the street outside. Or if you witness an injustice on TV or in person. Or if you witness kindness. Isn't the impact of all this on the inner state observed if one is attentive? So “outer” behaviour - the environment - impacts the inner, negatively and positively. To think that "what I do" is none of anyone’s business is not a reflection of fact, as I see it.

Another example: you know how some people are very prickly and quick to anger when they feel criticized. Someone might say something to them when they don’t pick up after their dog, or when they are seen verbally or physically abusing their child, or when they steal from the office, or cheat on their income taxes, and so on. (There’s also the issue of “why” one might feel compelled to make such criticism but it's not what we're looking into right now). What’s relevant here in terms of our questioning the “oneness of consciousness”, is the kind of responses that are often given: “What’s it to you? It’s none of your business.” In other words, the person - the mind, the so-called “individual” - thinks that whatever he or she does is nobody’s business but his own, that it is “not supposed to” have any impact on “society”, on the human collective. Doesn’t such anger also stem from the concept of a separate self?

As I see it, K was addressing this same issue of oneness in different words when he said:

"So, if we are clear that the outer is the inner - the inner is the outer, that there is not the division, the society and the individual, the collective and the separate human being, but the human being is the whole, he is the society, he is the separate human individual, he is the factor which brings about this chaos.” https://jkrishnamurti.org/content/knowledge-and...

As for the example of the pencils, I think there is no parallel with what we’re talking about, which is consciousness. I think you would agree that pencils have no consciousness, no notion of self or time, no conflict, desire, fear, and so on!

:o)

K also said somewhere (I can’t find a quote) that saying that there is no division between me and the tree doesn’t mean that I AM actually the tree. It means that psychologically, there is no division, that I don’t look at the tree through my memories, knowledge, and so on.

I don’t know if I’m clear.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 16 Jun 2019 #79
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 539 posts in this forum Offline

I see a parallel between the layers of consciousness and the layers of the ocean (from top to bottom, the sunlight zone, the twilight zone, the midnight zone, the abyss and the trenches). As far as I know, there are no clear divisions or barriers between these layers. And yet, the forms of life, activities, temperatures, atmospheric pressures, and so on, in each layer are quite different and distinct. Does this mean that the ocean is not one?

The same parallel can be made for the Earth as a whole. I remember (but can’t provide a reference) Jacques Cousteau saying that the chemicals from every cigarette smoked on Earth end up in the ocean. The effects of man-made pollution are more and more obvious - from the Earth’s outer atmosphere, to the depths of the oceans.

And looking with the mind’s eye at the universe as a whole, no dividing barriers are seen.

So all these levels exist as one goes about one's daily tasks and activities, in awareness or no awareness, in attention or inattention.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 16 Jun 2019 #80
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 539 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote at #77:
The whole is everything, totality. To talk about the "whole consciousness of man" is to divide it off from other consciousness, like that of animals. So it ain't so whole anymore.

Either totality is, which means thought has stilled to zero, or some subset of totality is considered, which means that thought has seeped back in.

To talk of the whole consciousness of man is not necessarily to separate it from other consciousnesses. Man may be “one with the tree” psychologically, but he separates himself from the tree by observing it through time, through knowledge, through emotion. Whatever man’s consciousness is, it is not divided by the mere fact of observing his own consciousness. Self-understanding comes through self-observation. What else can be observed directly, not as an idea or as a theory, but simply through choiceless awareness? The human mind is observing itself. “Itself” is mankind. The human mind cannot DIRECTLY observe the dolphin mind or the tree mind through choiceless awareness. Where there is choiceless awareness, where there is no time, no memory, no knowledge, what is seen, what is observed?

It may very well be that there is “one indivisible consciousness that all living things are part of“, as Jamie says. As I see it, it is beyond my ability to observe that directly or understand it. Perhaps a scientist like Bohm or Einstein can come to it, I don’t know. As I see it, this is one of the things that is beyond the limits or capabilities of thought, and beyond choiceless awareness, direct observation and human understanding. It can only be speculation as I see it. And THAT is where thought creeps in, isn't it?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 17 Jun 2019 #81
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 1187 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
Yes. K says what he means by "consciousness" in The Future of Humanity. It is the me. That is, K says consciousness is its content! DB says, wait, a glass is not the water it contains. K says it's all one.

Is that "me" out there or is it in here? I think that the "me" or consciousness is the movement of thought going inward. (This is complicated and needs careful examination.)
My 'me' is the same as your 'me' . My consciousness is the same as the rest of mankind's consciousness. (This is a great discovery in itself.)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 17 Jun 2019 #82
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 539 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote at #79:
K says consciousness is its content! DB says, wait, a glass is not the water it contains. K says it's all one.

idiot,

One Self's comment made me look at what you wrote in #79.

As I see it, consciousness is not a container in the way that a glass contains water. Where a glass contains water, there are clearly 2 objects - the container and its content. Each can and does exist on its own: the glass as an empty glass, the water as a puddle.

When K says that consciousness is its content, isn’t it because there simply is NO container outside of the “content”, outside of the totality of the brain’s memories (as knowledge, belief, opinion, etc.)? So the totality of memory is consciousness and consciousness is not a container. No? There is no consciousness or “me” which possesses or controls its memories, knowledge, beliefs, opinions, etc. Consciousness IS THE TOTALITY of memories, not a container holding the content. Isn't what holds the content "together" the very illusion of a separate self?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 17 Jun 2019 #83
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1425 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
There is no consciousness or “me” which possesses or controls its memories, knowledge, beliefs, opinions, etc. Consciousness IS THE TOTALITY of memories, not a container holding the content. Isn't what holds the content "together" the very illusion of a separate self?

Yes I think One Self put it well that all 'me's are the same illusion of 'individualism' or the same 'center'. And this totality of memories, experiences, ideals, opinions you mention are often times 'opposed' to one another, in contradiction, etc. I recall K. saying somewhere that what the self, the 'me' is, is a result of this "friction", this collision of things in us that make up consciousness...so there is always a certain level of suffering going on as long as a 'center', a 'self' is believed to exist controlling (judging?) the various 'fragments'.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 17 Jun 2019 #84
Thumb_001 Sean Hen Spain 844 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
You have only to use an internet search engine with "brain consciousness science" to find articles about the scientific consensus on consciousness originating in the brain.

Well, I'm no expert in this field but I watched an interview with Dr. Peter Fenwick who is a neuropsychoglist. I would say that this interview is, at the very least, very interesting. He has done extensive research into near death experiences which seems to raise questions about the relationship between the brain and consciousness. If anybody is interested in this, they can watch the interview here:

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 17 Jun 2019 #85
Thumb_leaping_fire_frog_by_sirenofchaos natarajan shivan India 87 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
You have only to use an internet search engine with "brain consciousness science" to find articles about the scientific consensus on consciousness originating in the brain.

Looks like they don't have any consensus yet; still talking about neuronal correlates of consciousness and building theories around it.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05097-x

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 17 Jun 2019 #86
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 641 posts in this forum Offline

We're really covering a lot of things very fast that I was hoping we might go into a bit more slowly and carefully.

In particular, I was hoping we'd get into "consciousness is its content," which by the way is another way of saying "the observer is the observed," a little later. Also, I wanted to get into the ending of conflict a bit later. Both of these have already come up and are very important. So maybe we'll have to jumble everything together. It is all related, after all.

I've been trying to keep us focused on: there is one consciousness of mankind and separate consciousnesses are an illusion. I want to understand what K really means by this and if it is true. I want to understand what is true about it and what is false, if anything. And we have been saying many interesting things.

Now to put things crudely and in a formulaic way:

thought = self = conflict

silence = no self = love

In other words, thought divides. It separates this from that. That's clear. And separating me from not me creates the self. That's a fundamental division that thought does. And this division of me and mine from you and yours creates conflict. Therefore, we have wars and violence in the world.

Silence, the natural stilling of thought, is radically transforming, is freedom from the limiting, boundary process of thought. In silence, there's no thought to do its division of me and you, mine and yours. So no self has arisen. The question of if there is a self or not has not even come up, since that is a thought. Without division and separation, there is nothing to be in conflict. Love may bloom out of present moment awareness.

Now with this foundation, however you might quibble with its brevity and crudeness, we turn to the consciousness of mankind. Are we going to look at the consciousness of man with formula #1 or formula #2 (or perhaps some other way)?

K is not going to embrace seeing the consciousness of man with something like formula #1, is he? He calls it insane how we have been fighting with one another, in conflict. And he sees the source of that conflict in the separative self and in the division that thought does, yes?

So looking at the consciousness of mankind, perhaps from silence/no self/love, he says that we all share "fear, sorrow, pain, anxiety, loneliness, and all the human travail." So we're not so very different. He wants us to see how generally we are the same, how we are one consciousness in that we all suffer, see things from an "I" perspective, and so on, yes? He is nudging us from formula #1 to #2, or at least he is bringing the perspective of #2, yes?

Anyway, that's roughly how I'm understanding it and I welcome your views on any of this, including any corrections.

But like DB, I feel science is very important. Often he questions K with a common sense and scientific approach that I really appreciate.

It seems to me that we have physical bodies and brains. The body's brain physically gives rise to individual consciousnesses in human beings. Those individual consciousnesses may share "fear, sorrow, pain, anxiety, loneliness, and all the human travail." But they also have individual particulars. You may be able to paint masterpieces and my drawings look childish. I may be an entomologist and you may know nothing about bugs. And so on. We're all unique. We all have particulars. I refuse to deny that part of reality.

As much as we are one and share in suffering, self, etc., we are also separate, individual, and so on.

It is an individual, separate body with a separate brain that can touch the outside of time beyond all separation. That eternal belongs to no one. And each of us has the opportunity, in every moment, to open to its reality.

That's my view. I'm not sure if it's in agreement with K or not. I continue to grapple with what K really means by one whole consciousness of mankind and no separate consciousnesses. And I appreciate all the contributions to this thread helping us continue to explore these issues.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 17 Jun 2019 #87
Thumb_em3 Ken D United States 29 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
When K says that consciousness is its content, isn’t it because there simply is NO container outside of the “content”, outside of the totality of the brain’s memories (as knowledge, belief, opinion, etc.)? So the totality of memory is consciousness and consciousness is not a container.

Clearly this is a complicated issue. To me, it seems that consciousness is not simply recollection. It's a kind of process, an activity. This must be the case because if consciousness is merely content and the content is removed, consciousness would disappear, and that doesn't sound right.

"Whence should there be joy to a peaceless man?" Bhagavad Gita

This post was last updated by Ken D Mon, 17 Jun 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 17 Jun 2019 #88
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 539 posts in this forum Offline

Ken,

I do agree that aside from memory and its derivatives (knowledge, opinion, theory, belief, etc.), there are also mental processes such as reasoning, extrapolating, categorizing, comparing, and so on. As I see it, the mental connections or pathways established by these processes are essential for giving meaning to memory. Without these processes, memory would be a meaningless collection of words, phrases, images, and so on, wouldn’t it?

In fact, it seems to me that consciousness as we know it DOES disappear where the content is “removed” and/or where mental connections and pathways are disrupted or broken, as in Alzheimer’s to illustrate. In a sense, memory and its derivatives have no meaning on their own, that is, no meaning without the processes which process them. I could be mistaken.

It seems to me that when K says that consciousness is its content, it merely means that there is no “SELF” outside of consciousness who “owns, manages and controls” the content of consciousness..

“Consciousness is it content” does not mean that the content of consciousness is useless, unnecessary or dangerous , as I understand it. The very seeing that consciousness is its content does not “remove” the content which IS consciousness. Seeing that consciousness is its content merely removes the illusion that there is a duality in consciousness - a duality of “me” and the content - as I understand it. There is only the content and this content - consciousness - is not the totality of the mind.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 18 Jun 2019 #89
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5609 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
If there is only one consciousness of mankind and separate consciousnesses are an illusion, why is it that when you stub your toe I don't feel it? With distance between us, I don't even know that you stubbed your toe.

Why?

Do you really believe what you wrote above? Seriously? If so you have, once again, completely misunderstood what K actually said. K didn't mean, idiot, that we experience everything everyone else experiences like stubbing one's toe at the same time they have stubbed their toe. That's ridiculous.

K was pointing out that we share a consciousness because we all feel loneliness, insolation, fear of death, jealousy, greed, and so on. You have set a pattern for yourself where you completely misunderstand what K has pointed out by taking it too literally to a point of ridiculousness. And then you proceed to base your equally ridiculous conclusions on your misunderstand. This is what I meant when I said you are your own worst enemy and you blew it off by saying you could say that about everyone. NO! Everyone on this forum is not as confused and almost totally unable to understand the most basic things K pointed out as you appear to be.

This post was last updated by Jack Pine Tue, 18 Jun 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 18 Jun 2019 #90
Thumb_em3 Ken D United States 29 posts in this forum Offline

Jack Pine wrote:
K was pointing out that we share a consciousness because we all feel loneliness, insolation, fear of death, jealousy, greed, and so on.

True, but Krishnamurti also implied that a change in one's consciousness has an effect on the whole of human consciousness. That is quite a stretch.

"Whence should there be joy to a peaceless man?" Bhagavad Gita

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 61 - 90 of 318 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.)