Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
The Sacred | moderated by Berthram Redwood

Consciousness

Closed_forum

Displaying posts 31 - 60 of 229 in total
Wed, 17 Jun 2009 #31
Thumb_417412_234781426642305_395805484_n jean-m girard Canada 43 posts in this forum Offline

Stephen Smalley wrote:

jean-m girard wrote:
is consciousness only the result of the accumulation of the content

Is consciousness time?


I did not understood consciousness has being the product of
content, before I came to this forum. I have been looking and I see more and more
that it is so. So if I say that the content of my brain is time, it would be difficult to say that my consciousness is not time, both of them being the same. And also I saw my mind
going into several situation where my view/consciousness, of those happening repeated it self, when in reality the situation were different, so my reaction being the same in different situation is a good indication to me that yes, consciousness is time. What do you think?

The dead can be put into words but the living cannot. Every word used to communicate about the living is the denial of the living.

Back to Top
Thu, 18 Jun 2009 #32
Thumb_copy_of_image0065 Ramesh G India 47 posts in this forum Offline

jean-m girard wrote:
Stephen Smalley wrote:

jean-m girard wrote: is consciousness only the result of the accumulation of the content

Is consciousness time?

Yes consciousness is time. Time is thougt, desire, fear. And the desire and the longing to be free of time as consciousness is still part of consciousness.

<pre> At the end frustration remains,
a crow caws,
I tremble in fear.
Light at the end of the tunnel!
Forgetfulness of my story happens
for a moment. And
Silence reigns Supreme.
For a moment.
</pre>

Freedom from the known is Attention in the Unknown: Krishnamurti J

Back to Top
Thu, 18 Jun 2009 #33
Thumb_mypictr_140x185-5 Stephen Smalley United States 27 posts in this forum Offline

jean-m girard wrote:
if I say that the content of my brain is time, it would be difficult to say that my consciousness is not time, both of them being the same.

You see, I had not looked at it in quite this way either, that the brain actually contains time!

Back to Top
Thu, 18 Jun 2009 #34
Thumb_mypictr_140x185-5 Stephen Smalley United States 27 posts in this forum Offline

Stephen Smalley wrote:

jean-m girard wrote:
if I say that the content of my brain is time, it would be difficult to say that my consciousness is not time, both of them being the same.

You see, I had not looked at it in quite this way either, that the brain actually contains time!


Is time then stored in the brain as memory, as knowledge? We are getting into deep waters here!

Back to Top
Thu, 18 Jun 2009 #35
Thumb_copy_of_image0065 Ramesh G India 47 posts in this forum Offline

Stephen Smalley wrote:
Is time then stored in the brain as memory, as knowledge? We are getting into deep waters here!

The human consciousness wants a safe future, is afraid that unpleasant past will recur in future and wants to avoid it, and also seeks the pleasures of the past to repeat themselves in future. All our present is a passage from past to future. All this is time, isn't it? Never for a moment we are out of time. A pause in that consciousness is the need of the hour. How can we create that pause?

Freedom from the known is Attention in the Unknown: Krishnamurti J

Back to Top
Thu, 18 Jun 2009 #36
Thumb_417412_234781426642305_395805484_n jean-m girard Canada 43 posts in this forum Offline

Ramesh G wrote:
How can we create that pause?

I recall one quote from this site, many years ago, where JK was talking
about one movement of the mind which was not of time. The raison why it was not of time, was that there was no reaction coming from this movement.
This is a fact I believe that every movement of the mind is a action/reaction isn?t it ?

This action which does not create a reaction is a movement into the unknown.
Now this idea can be very abstract, it was for me at the time because we are entering
into the indescribable, which is the unknown. Unknown not because we don?t know and
we may know one day, unknown because of it?s emptiness.

The dead can be put into words but the living cannot. Every word used to communicate about the living is the denial of the living.

Back to Top
Thu, 18 Jun 2009 #37
Thumb_417412_234781426642305_395805484_n jean-m girard Canada 43 posts in this forum Offline

Stephen Smalley wrote:
Is time then stored in the brain as memory, as knowledge?

We can imagine our ancestor let say 400,000 years ago, with a brain that is starting to develop. The priority is to survive, so what is important for this young man, the night, and the day, season, the winter and summer which has a lot of importance for his survival. His brain starts noticing, remembering, and by so begin to modify his behavior, according to those happening which he can not control. So the concept of time is for him a question of survival. And all of this information is being accumulated, transfer from one generation to the other, and this is all about time/yesterday/memory. The brain
continue to develop and put a lot of importance in yesterday. He can even improve his condition by remembering yesterday/pass. He has no way to recorder, to write this info so the brain/consciousness is force to develop, even improve his performance in remembering this information of time/yesterday if he wants to survive.

The dead can be put into words but the living cannot. Every word used to communicate about the living is the denial of the living.

Back to Top
Fri, 19 Jun 2009 #38
Thumb_mypictr_140x185-5 Stephen Smalley United States 27 posts in this forum Offline

Ramesh G wrote:
Never for a moment we are out of time. A pause in that consciousness is the need of the hour. How can we create that pause?

There is time involved in the question itself, is there not?

Have you never stepped out of time? The curious thing is, thought does not want to acknowledge it's own limitation - even to allow the possibility of something beyond it's capacity to understand.

Back to Top
Fri, 19 Jun 2009 #39
Thumb_mypictr_140x185-5 Stephen Smalley United States 27 posts in this forum Offline

jean-m girard wrote:
the brain/consciousness is force(d) to develop, even improve his performance in remembering this information of time/yesterday if he wants to survive.

Good point, but I question how much of this development was brought on by competition and comparison out of fear, jealousy, and so on - not mere survival. I think you have to be careful of thought creating a self-justifying loop for it's own existence, for it's own perpetuation.

Back to Top
Fri, 19 Jun 2009 #40
Thumb_mypictr_140x185-5 Stephen Smalley United States 27 posts in this forum Offline

jean-m girard wrote:
Unknown not because we don?t know and we may know one day, unknown because of it?s emptiness.

That speaks volumes in itself - of the volumeless!

Back to Top
Fri, 19 Jun 2009 #41
Thumb_mypictr_140x185-5 Stephen Smalley United States 27 posts in this forum Offline

Stephen Smalley wrote:
Is time then stored in the brain as memory, as knowledge?

How is time stored in the brain? Can we go slowly with this?

Back to Top
Fri, 19 Jun 2009 #42
Thumb_copy_of_image0065 Ramesh G India 47 posts in this forum Offline

jean-m girard wrote:
I recall one quote from this site, many years ago, where JK was talking about one movement of the mind which was not of time. The raison why it was not of time, was that there was no reaction coming from this movement. This is a fact I believe that every movement of the mind is a action/reaction isn?t it ?

This action which does not create a reaction is a movement into the unknown. Now this idea can be very abstract, it was for me at the time because we are entering into the indescribable, which is the unknown. Unknown not because we don?t know and we may know one day, unknown because of it?s emptiness.

Jean,

Beautiful. I like what you have said.

Freedom from the known is Attention in the Unknown: Krishnamurti J

Back to Top
Fri, 19 Jun 2009 #43
Thumb_copy_of_image0065 Ramesh G India 47 posts in this forum Offline

jean-m girard wrote:
So the concept of time is for him a question of survival.

Jean, I haven't thought about time this way. So we need time for physical survival. If I say I will go to my workplace tomorrow for the sake of earning my livelihood, there's no issue there. But if I say tomorrow or in the coming months I will prove myself in my workplace, I limit myself to a particular area, ignoring the vast space of life. This is the birth of psychological time and consciousness, I think.

Freedom from the known is Attention in the Unknown: Krishnamurti J

Back to Top
Fri, 19 Jun 2009 #44
Thumb_copy_of_image0065 Ramesh G India 47 posts in this forum Offline

Stephen Smalley wrote:
There is time involved in the question itself, is there not?

No. Unless we put questions without the weight of time we can never dream of stepping out of time.

Freedom from the known is Attention in the Unknown: Krishnamurti J

Back to Top
Fri, 19 Jun 2009 #45
Thumb_417412_234781426642305_395805484_n jean-m girard Canada 43 posts in this forum Offline

Stephen Smalley wrote:

Stephen Smalley wrote:
Is time then stored in the brain as memory, as knowledge?

How is time stored in the brain? Can we go slowly with this?


Time is constructed and store in the brain using also space, meaning that time is always
the space between now and then. Take one thought, there is always a space between a thought (memory) and now, it could be 2 seconded, or 20 years. The space between now and that thought is time, the time between now and a thought is also a space.

Why do astronaut use light year to express the distance between the earth and a far away star. One light year is the space/time that will travel light in one year. The earth, (starting point) to a far away star, this is physical time/space.

Here we are talking thought so we are talking psychological time/space, we could call it (thought year) the space/time there is between the point of origin,(now) to a far away thought, is the space there is between now and then.
To me it is easier to think in term of space when we talk about psychological time. We need to have two point of reference when we talk about space/time, the now with the pass or the future.

The now is the only time/space with only one point of reference. I am here now, you know where I am. There is no space/time in the now. If I tell you that I was reading 5 minute ago you know there is a time/space of 5 minute with my now.
So if I have a thought, that thought was recorded and store let say 10 year ago, the time/space between now and 10 year ago is the structure that the brain as develop to know where it is. And it is always calculated from now.

The dead can be put into words but the living cannot. Every word used to communicate about the living is the denial of the living.

Back to Top
Fri, 19 Jun 2009 #46
Thumb_417412_234781426642305_395805484_n jean-m girard Canada 43 posts in this forum Offline

Ramesh G wrote:
So we need time for physical survival. If I say I will go to my workplace tomorrow for the sake of earning my livelihood, there's no issue there.

That the way I see it also!
.

JK said, many times that the brain is an excellent machine, man has made incredible thing.
But the area where we need to improve is in our relation, we need to learn to love each other. Before we can do that we need to understand what love is, because our
understanding right now of love does not work, we talk about love and act in the name of love and for some raison problem keep multiplying and we never sort out anything.
JK is saying, to think that we will be happy tomorrow is time and an illusion because love is only in the now it will never be in the future. So love does not growth like a apple tree, the law of nature contain time. One, of JK proposition is remove the factor time when we are dealing with our relation, not when it is time to go to work.

The dead can be put into words but the living cannot. Every word used to communicate about the living is the denial of the living.

Back to Top
Sat, 20 Jun 2009 #47
Thumb_417412_234781426642305_395805484_n jean-m girard Canada 43 posts in this forum Offline

Stephen Smalley wrote:
. I think you have to be careful of thought creating a self-justifying loop for it's own existence, for it's own perpetuation.

Yes, I agree, this is a very liniar idea in the history of man.

The dead can be put into words but the living cannot. Every word used to communicate about the living is the denial of the living.

Back to Top
Sat, 20 Jun 2009 #48
Thumb_jan09_012 Peter Stephens Australia 53 posts in this forum Offline

Stream of consciousness. The opening point I take it to be that I am not aware of this, and I live in fear. I am interested to talk about this more deeply. Talking now are there any pointers to directly engage the process in the brain? Can I look at what is deeply going on in the brain to change the habit of fear? I don't want to refer to an idealistic stream of consciousness. I want to be fully engaged in the crazy world, where my brain is working, but not react as it is doing.

Back to Top
Sat, 20 Jun 2009 #49
Thumb_copy_of_image0065 Ramesh G India 47 posts in this forum Offline

Peter Stephens wrote:
I want to be fully engaged in the crazy world, where my brain is working, but not react as it is doing.

Peter, To me it seems that Attention is the only way out of this crazy outer and inner world. But that Attention is not the product of the reacting brain or our common consciousness. Words won't take us there. That's the beauty of it.

Freedom from the known is Attention in the Unknown: Krishnamurti J

Back to Top
Sat, 20 Jun 2009 #50
Thumb_avatar Michael Cecil United States 68 posts in this forum Offline

Ramesh G wrote:
Krishnamurti's statements on consciousness and its contents have touched me deeply.

Is it really possible to talk intelligently about the 'contents' of consciousness at all while simply ignoring the 'container' of consciousness, as if there is simply no such thing?

It is the 'movement' of self-reflection that gives rise to the 'form' and the 'space' of the 'self' as the 'container' of consciousness. (In other words, my 'self' or 'mind' is over here and your 'self' or 'mind' is over there. This is duality and the origin of conflict and violence.) And it is within that 'container' of the 'self' ('I', 'you', etc.) that there exists the 'contents' of consciousness. Then, with the postulation of the thought of the 'thinker', the 'form' and the 'space' of the 'self' is (and the 'contents' of that consciousness of the 'self' are) extended in 'time'.

The question, as I see it, is whether there is a consciousness--it would not be a specifically human consciousness--prior to the 'form', or the 'container' of the human consciousness or 'self' which originates in self-reflection.

Back to Top
Sat, 20 Jun 2009 #51
Thumb_417412_234781426642305_395805484_n jean-m girard Canada 43 posts in this forum Offline

Peter Stephens wrote:
Talking now are there any pointers

Pointer: one thing I have notice in the functioning of the brain is
that the brain seems to project on to other its own thinking. So
I look around and critic other, not always realizing that I am
seeing my own.

What do you mean by stream of consciousness? Are you talking
composite mind? Are talking consciousness in term of culture?

The dead can be put into words but the living cannot. Every word used to communicate about the living is the denial of the living.

Back to Top
Sat, 20 Jun 2009 #52
Thumb_417412_234781426642305_395805484_n jean-m girard Canada 43 posts in this forum Offline

Michael Cecil wrote:
The question, as I see it, is whether there is a consciousness--it would not be a specifically human consciousness--prior to the 'form', or the 'container' of the human consciousness or 'self' which originates in self-reflection.

Consciousness being the result of the content/self, the content is the human experience, so as far as I can see, prior to the form, there is no consciousness.

Am I following you?

The dead can be put into words but the living cannot. Every word used to communicate about the living is the denial of the living.

Back to Top
Sat, 20 Jun 2009 #53
Thumb_avatar Michael Cecil United States 68 posts in this forum Offline

jean-m girard wrote:
Consciousness being the result of the content/self, the content is the human experience, so as far as I can see, prior to the form, there is no consciousness.

A physicist or a cosmologist--let's say Stephen Hawking--looks at the "big bang". What does he see?

He sees only physical energy: light, heat, sound, gravitational energy, "strings", etc. He sees individual trees, but he is unable to see the forest. He is unable to see that the quantity called consciousness is in any way related to any of these physical energies.

Why? Why is he capable of seeing these energies as only physical? Why is he unable to see the forest? Why is he incapable of seeing consciousness of any kind at all?

Because of the belief in the metaphysical duality, which is founded in the 'movement' of self-reflection which creates a 'self' and a 'not self'; the 'self' being conscious, and the physical universe, the 'not self', being 'not conscious'. In other words, the physicist and cosmologist have a very fundamental misperception of the physical reality because they see it through the prism of the metaphysical duality, which is a thought based upon a 'movement' of consciousness and the 'self'.

Resolving this fragmentation results in the realization that, since the time of the "big bang" itself, consciousness was an element of the physical universe. But it is not a living consciousness, the chemistry of life not having yet existed; nor it is a human consciousness, the neurology capable of self-reflection not yet existing. But it is a consciousness which permeates all of the physical reality.

So, the first thing that needs to be understood about the consciousness of the 'self' originating in self-reflection is that it is a differentiation from the 'not human' consciousness which has existed since the "big bang" itself.

This has nothing to do with God. This has nothing to do with anything "supernatural". It is nothing more than an insistence on resolving the duality and error in the fragmentation of consciousness brought about by the "big bang".

The only concern of science and the scientific method is the consciousness of the 'self' and the 'thinker'--in other words, the consciousness which has existed since the 'movement' of self-reflection. It is not at all interested in the consciousness existing since the "big bang".

Back to Top
Sat, 20 Jun 2009 #54
Thumb_avatar Michael Cecil United States 68 posts in this forum Offline

Michael Cecil wrote:
It is nothing more than an insistence on resolving the duality and error in the fragmentation of consciousness brought about by the "big bang".

Oops. What I meant to say here is "It is nothing more than an insistence on resolving the duality and error in the fragmentation of consciousness brought about by the 'movement' of self-reflection."

Back to Top
Sun, 21 Jun 2009 #55
Thumb_jan09_012 Peter Stephens Australia 53 posts in this forum Offline

jean-m girard wrote:

Peter Stephens wrote:
Talking now are there any pointers

Pointer: one thing I have notice in the functioning of the brain is
that the brain seems to project on to other its own thinking. So
I look around and critic other, not always realizing that I am
seeing my own.

What do you mean by stream of consciousness? Are you talking
composite mind? Are talking consciousness in term of culture?


I was referring to the words used in the thread and responding like you say. My, your thinking, as my own, or yours, is very much what I think needs to come out in a discussion. Not hide it, nor make it mine or yours alone, where the subject remains separate to all. A stream of consciousness is not the calculated, applied, process of talking.

Back to Top
Sun, 21 Jun 2009 #56
Thumb_jan09_012 Peter Stephens Australia 53 posts in this forum Offline

It is nothing more than an insistence on resolving the duality and error in the fragmentation of consciousness brought about by the 'movement' of self-reflection.

There is sense of depth and freedom in what you say. I wonder though in this context whether the word consciousness loses it's relevance and is then energy? And wouldn't the scientist share that? I think for a lot of us the understanding, sharing, of such an energy, just has not been raised, talked about.

This post was last updated by Peter Stephens Sun, 21 Jun 2009.

Back to Top
Sun, 21 Jun 2009 #57
Thumb_mypictr_140x185-5 Stephen Smalley United States 27 posts in this forum Offline

Ramesh G wrote:

Stephen Smalley wrote:
There is time involved in the question itself, is there not?

No. Unless we put questions without the weight of time we can never dream of stepping out of time.


The dream of is not the actuality.

Back to Top
Sun, 21 Jun 2009 #58
Thumb_mypictr_140x185-5 Stephen Smalley United States 27 posts in this forum Offline

jean-m girard wrote:

Stephen Smalley wrote:
. I think you have to be careful of thought creating a self-justifying loop for it's own existence, for it's own perpetuation.

Yes, I agree, this is a very liniar idea in the history of man.


But do we see how we carry it - linear thought - forward by the way we interpret history?

Back to Top
Sun, 21 Jun 2009 #59
Thumb_mypictr_140x185-5 Stephen Smalley United States 27 posts in this forum Offline

jean-m girard wrote:

Michael Cecil wrote:
The question, as I see it, is whether there is a consciousness--it would not be a specifically human consciousness--prior to the 'form', or the 'container' of the human consciousness or 'self' which originates in self-reflection.

Consciousness being the result of the content/self, the content is the human experience, so as far as I can see, prior to the form, there is no consciousness.

Am I following you?


Michael seems to be asking if there is a seed of consciousness that is carried forward, perhaps through evolution. If our brain is the repository of the entire arc of evolutionary history, then it would seem that the brain has a consciousness of that history, however modified over millenia it may have become - which makes us related to all life forms on the most primordial level.

Back to Top
Sun, 21 Jun 2009 #60
Thumb_mypictr_140x185-5 Stephen Smalley United States 27 posts in this forum Offline

jean-m girard wrote:
There is no space/time in the now.

Only when there is no distortion of space/time is the eternal possible now. Otherwise we are in the field of time. The so-called now can be many things, can it not, from the sacred to the profane? It seems rather insidious to speak of the now in a way that is already defined, when by it's very nature it is like the physics of quantum theory, changeable at every turn!

Back to Top
Displaying posts 31 - 60 of 229 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.)