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

Are we exerting all our energy to meet the current crisis?


Displaying posts 31 - 60 of 78 in total
Sun, 10 May 2020 #31
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 1731 posts in this forum Offline

Paul Dimmock wrote:
But who is saying, ‘I don’t know’?

Thought realizes that it knows nothing psychologically. Thought sees the truth about itself. Therefore thought becomes quiet. That is meditation. Thought seeing it's own fallacy .

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 11 May 2020 #32
Thumb_pd Paul Dimmock United Kingdom 253 posts in this forum Offline

One Self: Thought realizes that it knows nothing psychologically. Thought sees the truth about itself. Therefore thought becomes quiet. That is meditation. Thought seeing its own fallacy.

Thought cannot realise anything. That’s not its function or remit. Thought can only move from concept to concept, making its own versions of reality. It can become quiet, just as it can become noisy; but it is still in a process of becoming. Thought detecting fallacy will always then construct its own notion of the truth; and that notion then becomes the basis of its next fallacy. Who sees all this?

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Mon, 11 May 2020 #33
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

One Self wrote:
Thought realizes that it knows nothing psychologically. Thought sees the truth about itself. Therefore thought becomes quiet. That is meditation. Thought seeing it's own fallacy .

I am not an expert in what K pointed out. Who is? But it appears fairly clear from your above statement that you have no idea what K pointed out. Indeed, most if not all, of your above statement seems to be the exact opposite of what K pointed out.

Thought is the psychological self. Thought is the accumulation of knowledge; experience, conditioning, etc which is all limited and not related to "truth".

Thought cannot "see" the truth because thought is not the truth. Our thought is what is actually blocking the seeing of what is, of truth.

This post was last updated by Jack Pine Mon, 11 May 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 11 May 2020 #34
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 1731 posts in this forum Offline

Paul Dimmock wrote:
Thought cannot realise anything.

You are thought. If you can't realize anything then you must be dead. And most of us are dead people with a moving body. Because you seperate yourself( habitually) from your thought you never realize The fact that you are your thought. The thinker (you) is his thought. But you can't realize that because you have already chosen to be ignorant.(sorry to say that but it is you in general).

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 11 May 2020 #35
Thumb_pd Paul Dimmock United Kingdom 253 posts in this forum Offline

One Self: You are thought. If you can't realize anything then you must be dead.

We are dead. Psychologically, we are all composed of dead matter, as the accumulated memories of the past with their stored nuggets of knowledge and experience. In the interactions of this dead matter there is constant movement and activity, stimulus and reaction, which provides the illusion of living. It is a tremendous psychological shock to discover that one cannot realise anything; and there is an automatic reaction to such a shock. But both the shock and the reaction are part of the same illusion. It is only when that entire activity comes to an end that real intelligence awakens. It is this intelligence that sees the nature of thought.

This post was last updated by Paul Dimmock Mon, 11 May 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 11 May 2020 #36
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1487 posts in this forum Offline

Paul Dimmock wrote:
But both the shock and the reaction are part of the same illusion. It is only when that entire activity comes to an end that real intelligence awakens. It is this intelligence that sees the nature of thought.

Is it the brain's realization that it has trapped itself into a limited way of functioning, for whatever reason: security, safety, trapped itself in a set of 'patterns' with a 'self', a 'center', etc, which restricts it fuller functioning?...Is the awakening of 'Intelligence' this fuller functioning of the organ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 12 May 2020 #37
Thumb_pd Paul Dimmock United Kingdom 253 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott: Is it the brain's realization that it has trapped itself into a limited way of functioning, for whatever reason: security, safety, trapped itself in a set of 'patterns' with a 'self', a 'center', etc, which restricts it fuller functioning?...Is the awakening of 'Intelligence' this fuller functioning of the organ?

Intelligence may have nothing whatsoever to do with the brain. In which case, the brain itself has nothing to do in order to bring about intelligence. Any activity of the brain is a limited form of functioning, including its own realisations. Those so-called realisations only produce more and more limited thinking. What the brain calls realisation is never real; it is ideation only.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 12 May 2020 #38
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1487 posts in this forum Offline

Paul Dimmock wrote:
Intelligence may have nothing whatsoever to do with the brain. In which case, the brain itself has nothing to do in order to bring about intelligence.

In the post today that John put up on his site, Bohm and K discuss this subject of Intelligence. What I get from their thoughts among other things, is that Intelligence and thought come from the same 'source' but while Intelligence has remained 'whole', thought has become fragmented, polluted, etc. So in that sense, thought, as you say, can not bring about Intelligence...the 'brain' functioning in a self-centered way cannot bring about Compassionate Intelligence. But I wouldn't dismiss the 'brain' as you seem to do because the 'new' brain has never been totally functional, has it? Only some fraction of its potential is operating according to the scientists. Has it been dominated by self-centered thought, as they say, which then came to see itself as the 'essence' of the organism, and not just one of its functions? We don't 'know' what a total functioning of the new brain would be. Why would that unknown development be just "more of the same" as you suggest? Why would it not be the 'full flowering' of a human being?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 13 May 2020 #39
Thumb_pd Paul Dimmock United Kingdom 253 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
In the post today that John put up on his site, Bohm and K discuss this subject of Intelligence. What I get from their thoughts among other things, is that Intelligence and thought come from the same 'source' but while Intelligence has remained 'whole', thought has become fragmented, polluted, etc. So in that sense, thought, as you say, can not bring about Intelligence...the 'brain' functioning in a self-centered way cannot bring about Compassionate Intelligence. But I wouldn't dismiss the 'brain' as you seem to do because the 'new' brain has never been totally functional, has it? Only some fraction of its potential is operating according to the scientists. Has it been dominated by self-centered thought, as they say, which then came to see itself as the 'essence' of the organism, and not just one of its functions? We don't 'know' what a total functioning of the new brain would be. Why would that unknown development be just "more of the same" as you suggest? Why would it not be the 'full flowering' of a human being?

Because it is all theoretical, hypothetical; it exists somewhere in the future; and that’s where we always go to solve our deepest psychological problems. I am not a fully flowering human being; that's just an idea. I am a mediocre, second-hand human being; that's a fact. Meeting the idea never changes the fact; it merely generates more ideas. Are we free to meet the fact?

This post was last updated by Paul Dimmock Wed, 13 May 2020.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Wed, 13 May 2020 #40
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1487 posts in this forum Offline

Paul Dimmock wrote:
I am a mediocre, second-hand human being; that's a fact.

Why is that a fact? Isn't that a judgement, a conclusion that you have made about yourself? The observer separate from the observed? Who are you comparing yourself to, to judge your "mediocrity" and your "second-handness? To someone who's not mediocre or second-hand?? Isn't it the fact that we don't 'know' what we are...? And that that 'not-knowing', is the 'fact' that we are not "free to meet"?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 13 May 2020 #41
Thumb_pd Paul Dimmock United Kingdom 253 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott: Why is that a fact? Isn't that a judgement, a conclusion that you have made about yourself? The observer separate from the observed? Who are you comparing yourself to, to judge your "mediocrity" and your "second-handness? To someone who's not mediocre or second-hand?? Isn't it the fact that we don't 'know' what we are...? And that that 'not-knowing', is the 'fact' that we are not "free to meet"?

You introduced the idea of a fully flowering human being. That idea has its genesis in a fact, which is that one is dissatisfied with the current state of affairs and wants to imagine something better. That’s all I am saying. We only project an ideal because we are dissatisfied with the actual. But the actual, once we eliminate the ideal altogether, has a completely different dimension to it because we have begun to break through our resistance to the fact.

This post was last updated by Paul Dimmock Wed, 13 May 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 13 May 2020 #42
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 820 posts in this forum Offline

Paul Dimmock wrote:
It is a tremendous psychological shock to discover that one cannot realise anything.

That one really belongs on my joke thread. But I think it would be funnier if you changed it to: "It is a tremendous realisation that one cannot realise anything."

And then a Monty Python character needs to walk by and say, "No broyn!" (no brain)

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Thu, 14 May 2020 #43
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 1731 posts in this forum Offline

We are the modern day monkeys. We are the product of social networks. We monkeies have mastered the habit of intellectual acrobats. We can easily argue with anybody including krishnamurti. We are not true people. We are fake creatures caught in the limitation or network of thought. If we were true seeker of the truth it would have been all different. (That is too much for this thread ofcoarce. )

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 14 May 2020 #44
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 545 posts in this forum Offline

re #43:

That’s exactly right, One Self. At least, I see it that way too. And I see 2 questions arising out of that perception, realization, understanding.

One is, when we say “we are monkeys”, are we saying it from the perspective of one of the monkeys, or are we saying it from the perspective of one who is NOT a monkey? Another way to put this is: when we say “we are monkeys”, are we including ourselves as one of the monkeys, are we perceiving or understanding that we too are those monkeys?

The other question is: is there something to be done about it? Is there something a monkey can do to extricate himself from his monkey state? And can he/we remain with the perception, realization, understanding of the fact that "we are caught in the limitation of thought" without reverting to his/our ancient habit of "arguing" and losing sight of the perception or understanding?

More questions arise from there: How do we communicate with each other about this? Being aware of the fact that “we can easily argue with anybody”, that “we are fake creatures caught in the limitation or network of thought”, how do we relate with each other about it?

And can we know that “if we were true seekers of the truth, it would have all been different”?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 14 May 2020 #45
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1487 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Another way to put this is: when we say “we are monkeys”, are we including ourselves as one of the monkeys, are we perceiving or understanding that we too are those monkeys?

"Monkeys" may have their problems but I'd say ours is somewhat and even radically different than what they go through. I don't know but I think our problem is a result of our 'new' brain... like a new fangled machine that we haven't got the hang of. It is, its particular ability to 'imagine'. I say, I don't know but I don't 'see' any instance of that being anywhere else in nature. If that is 'our' problem, why is 'imagining' such a hang-up? It has worked out in our favor when it comes to survival: technology, medicine, transportation, art, science, etc, but not so much when it comes to our understanding what its role is in our 'psyche'. Does it have a role, this 'imaging' process, there at all? You image one way and I another and someone else different again...A confusion of images about who we are what we are doing here and what will happen after the body dies as we know it will...and yet we are looking at all this and saying, asking: "Is this our basic problem, that each of us has been 'conditioned to have an image of themselves as different and unique from everyone else? Different than the "world"? And is this the reason we are so fearful, so greedy, so careless and violent with our environment? And so isolated from one another?...If so can we keep all that in mind when we attempt to communicate with one another...even if the 'other' doesn't?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 14 May 2020 #46
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 545 posts in this forum Offline

re: #45

Dan (and Clive if I may include him here),

On this question of “old brain” and “new brain”, my understanding is completely different from yours, it seems to me.

I do not take the old brain to refer to the “reptilian brain” and the new brain to refer either to the limbic brain and the neocortex together, or to the neocortex individually. I’m not sure what the “new brain” means to you. I have just looked up these terms and come across the “triune brain” concept that I’m not very familiar with or knowledgeable about. In looking inwardly, it’s necessary to have a scientific approach in the sense of using observation, logic, reason, and so on, to understand what CAN be understood. But I’m not a scientist and my ability to look into the physiological structure of the brain scientifically, mathematically, etc., is limited by my naturally limited ability. What really interests me is not intellectually to dissect the functioning of the brain but to understand the psychological functioning of the brain. For this, I don’t see that the concept of the triune brain is useful or necessary. I might be wrong but the reptilian brain is irrelevant to me in this respect.

To me, the “new brain” does not refer to the cerebral cortex. I’m not disputing the science of brain studies. As I see it, the “new brain” has not and does not come into being as long as the brain still adheres to the self-centre as the controller and manager of action, as long as there are self-images having authority. As I see it, the “old brain” does not refer to the reptilian brain and there are not three conflicting parts of the brain.

As I see it, the “old brain” means the brain which takes its psychological conditioning as the basis for action; and the “new brain” is the brain which does NOT take its emotions and psychological reactions “personally”. That to me is the “new brain”. It is the brain which understands itself.

As I see it, what K talks about when he talks about the “new brain” is still to come into being. It does not exist as long as the “old brain” is in charge of action - the old brain being the brain which is under the influence of time, thought and image. If the “new brain” refers simply to the neocortex or frontal cortex, then it already exists. But the “new brain” that K is talking about does NOT exist, where there is conflict, confusion, anxiety, and so on.

As I understand it, K too is not talking about the physical or physiological structure. Of course everything affects everything else, but it is the QUALITY of the brain - which comes about where understanding and intelligence are not blocked by the self - which is a new QUALITY of the brain, and it is this which turns the “old” into the “new”. Isn’t it?

... so that a new quality of the brain which has never been touched, operates. This has happened, sir, this is not my only experience. Any top scientist - top scientist, not a scientist who is a slave to government - but top scientists free from government and environment, and the desire for success, position, those are not scientists at all, they are merchants - but the scientist who is free of government and the demands of government and so on, he must have asked this question because how does he discover new things? If the old brain is in operation all the time it can't discover anything new. So, it is only when the old brain is quiet something new is seen.
https://jkrishnamurti.org/content/old-must-be-s...

There is imagination which is necessary and there is imagination which is divisive. The divisive imagination is the operation of the self. It can only be seen - MUST be seen - “each time” it arises. These images, ideas, reactions come up. Does this mean that there is no understanding whatsoever of their nature? Isn’t the expectation or desire for it to be “over with once and for all” also part of the old brain? Fear still arises, anger still arises. Is this a new problem, on top of all my other problems? The reactions in their complexity can simply be observed. It is arduous, as K often said.

This post was last updated by Huguette . Thu, 14 May 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 14 May 2020 #47
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 820 posts in this forum Offline

Old is stored memory. New is right now.

Imagination is thought about the future. Reality is now.

Simple, yes?

This post was last updated by idiot ? Thu, 14 May 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 14 May 2020 #48
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1487 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
K too is not talking about the physical or physiological structure. Of course everything affects everything else, but it is the QUALITY of the brain - which comes about where understanding and intelligence are not blocked by the self - which is a new QUALITY of the brain, and it is this which turns the “old” into the “new”. Isn’t it?

Yes. I think we are grasping this old/new brain in the same way. I don't know anything really about the brain and its functioning, synapses and such. I have a 'simple-minded' way of thinking about it. That it is like an airplane which for whatever reason hasn't got past its 'taxi-ing function' but is and has been, quite capable of flight. And that it is the 'self-image' that has kept it stifled. Some of the human brain's potential is glimpsed when, for whatever reason, there is a glimpse of insight that breaks through the veil or 'wall' created by the 'I process' and its self protective images dominating the psyche. That it is that this marvelous organ, is in short, in a 'rut' and we are looking at, each of us here, what a pernicious rut that seems to be. The rut is this self-image. Imagining what would take place if the self-image totally dissolved, or 'trying to do' something about it is as I think you were saying (or would agree), just more of the same old 'rut', 'groove', 'patterning', 'imaging', etc...True?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 14 May 2020 #49
Thumb_pd Paul Dimmock United Kingdom 253 posts in this forum Offline

It is a tremendous psychological shock to discover that one cannot realise anything.

idiot: That one really belongs on my joke thread. But I think it would be funnier if you changed it to: "It is a tremendous realisation that one cannot realise anything."

Can you stay with the shock and not make a realisation out of it? It is not a joke; it is a deadly serious question. A shock is something visceral that cuts you through to the core. A realisation is just more of the same old thing.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 14 May 2020 #50
Thumb_leaping_fire_frog_by_sirenofchaos natarajan shivan India 98 posts in this forum Offline

Paul Dimmock wrote:
Can you stay with the shock and not make a realisation out of it?

Experiencing it is a different matter altogether, staying is only because we can't do away with the physical, whereas the psychological apparatus is in a state of total collapse, an implosion. The fact of illusory division of physical and psychological will be discovered in it's depth and will be evident in the intensity and clarity of the moment. In my view, it is a point from whereon there is a reorientation. The psychological aspect, if we say there exist something as such, from then on, will co-operate much more in observation without holding back, without wanting to split off.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 14 May 2020 #51
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1487 posts in this forum Offline

natarajan shivan wrote:
without wanting to split off.

Is the "splitting off" you mention, the moment when thought ceases to be just a process and creates the 'thinker'? When this moment is seen or felt as a sort of resistance,or 'identification' there can be again the "total surrender" (as I think Douglas once put it) to 'what is'. (A not-minding what takes place?) What is "arduous' is thoughts constant 'desiring' to hold onto, remember, register what is seen?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 14 May 2020 #52
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 1731 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
And I see 2 questions arising out of that perception, realization, understanding.

It is always more than one question is it not?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 15 May 2020 #53
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 1731 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
when we say “we are monkeys”, are we saying it from the perspective of one of the monkeys, or are we saying it from the perspective of one who is NOT a monkey?

We are surely not anything but monkeys who communicate with symbols. If I am the world then can I still have a personal perspective?
I am not trying to or wanting to catch flaws on others when it doesn't help in any way. But if I realize that I am the rest of mankind is there any room for personal perspective ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 15 May 2020 #54
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 1731 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
The other question is: is there something to be done about it? Is there something a monkey can do to extricate himself from his monkey state?

First of all should I not look at this state that I am in witch we call "Modern monkey state"? Am I aware of it or is it just a comparison therefore an illusion?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 15 May 2020 #55
Thumb_pd Paul Dimmock United Kingdom 253 posts in this forum Offline

Can you stay with the shock and not make a realisation out of it?

natarajan shivan: Experiencing it is a different matter altogether, staying is only because we can't do away with the physical, whereas the psychological apparatus is in a state of total collapse, an implosion. The fact of illusory division of physical and psychological will be discovered in its depth and will be evident in the intensity and clarity of the moment. In my view, it is a point from whereon there is a reorientation. The psychological aspect, if we say there exist something as such, from then on, will co-operate much more in observation without holding back, without wanting to split off.

First, let's be clear what we are talking about. We said that psychologically we are dead. That’s the shock. That’s the tremendous fact we are facing. Therefore it cannot be a psychological event or experience. Do you see what I am saying? There is no psychological reorientation. If there is, we are not dead; we are merely playing dead.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 15 May 2020 #56
Thumb_leaping_fire_frog_by_sirenofchaos natarajan shivan India 98 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Is the "splitting off" you mention, the moment when thought ceases to be just a process and creates the 'thinker'? When this moment is seen or felt as a sort of resistance,or 'identification' there can be again the "total surrender" (as I think Douglas once put it) to 'what is'.

Yes, in agreement with what you have stated.

Dan McDermott wrote:
What is "arduous' is thoughts constant 'desiring' to hold onto, remember, register what is seen?

Yes, and in being subjected to that, it's no longer a part of the process, no longer in 'what is'.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 15 May 2020 #57
Thumb_leaping_fire_frog_by_sirenofchaos natarajan shivan India 98 posts in this forum Offline

Paul Dimmock wrote:
Therefore it cannot be a psychological event or experience. Do you see what I am saying?

Yes, it's not an 'internal' event so to speak, as the whole of being is involved. And therefore 'experience' is not the word that captures it, maybe 'experiencing' as in a process.

Paul Dimmock wrote:
There is no psychological reorientation.

I am not sure about that assertion, psychological as in processes of thinking, feeling etc are not hampered, reorientation is still the word I would prefer.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 15 May 2020 #58
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 545 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote at 47:
Old is stored memory. New is right now.

Imagination is thought about the future. Reality is now.

Simple, yes?

My child spits on me, runs away from home, roams the streets with a gun; my husband is cruel and unfaithful; my wife nags endlessly; I don’t have a job and can’t pay my bills; my boss belittles me; I must speak in front of an audience and am paralyzed with fear.

Does realizing that “old is memory and new is right now” actually end my fears, anger, contradictions, confusion, compulsions, obsession, and so on?

Are you essentially saying that, after all, thought HAS the power to transform the human being; that simply understanding that “old is memory and new is right now” actually and truly ends conflict?

If understanding it, realizing that it is so, does NOT actually end fear etc., what is the significance of understanding it?

Does the “truth” of any idea bring about insight? IS it insight? Or is understanding it merely the final point of a linear intellectual enquiry, arrived at through reasoning? As I see it, whatever is understood intellectually through reasoning is partial understanding. Partial understanding is immediately added to the old. It does not remain new. Intellectual understanding cannot transform the human being. Maybe nothing can, but that’s another question.

To understand intellectually that the present moment is totally new, is not to EXPERIENCE the present moment as totally new. To actually experience the present moment as totally new is to fully understand the significance of the old - to understand with one’s whole being, not just with the intellect, which is rooted in the old. To fully understand the old - which as you say is memory-time-knowledge - demands awareness. As I see it, there can be no true understanding without awareness. As I see it, awareness alone awakens understanding, intelligence and compassion. Intelligence and compassion are not the accumulated old of memory. Are intelligence and compassion not needed in the world?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 15 May 2020 #59
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 545 posts in this forum Offline

Awareness, insight, compassion, intelligence are not linear.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 15 May 2020 #60
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 820 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Awareness, insight, compassion, intelligence are not linear.

Right. They are not functioning in or through the past or future.

Whether we say they are "now," "outside of time," "non-linear" are various ways of the verbal attempting what the verbal cannot express.

Realizing that the old is memory and the new is now does not change or deny the fact that "my child spits on me, runs away from home, roams the streets with a gun." But it allows me to see the child freshly. What is going on with the child? Can there be an entirely new relationship? What is happening with me? What is this self, separated from the child? What does "my" mean with regard to this person? Can I engage this person afresh, with respect, love? Any past or future ideas only color clear discovery now, yes?

Huguette . wrote:
Are you essentially saying that, after all, thought HAS the power to transform the human being; that simply understanding that “old is memory and new is right now” actually and truly ends conflict?

No, neither of us is saying that.

This post was last updated by idiot ? Fri, 15 May 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 31 - 60 of 78 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.)