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

Consciousness

Closed_forum

Displaying posts 181 - 210 of 229 in total
Sun, 28 Jun 2009 #181
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 49 posts in this forum Offline

Ramesh,

"It may look odd, but theory and reality of daily life should merge somewhere, shouldn't they?"

Excuse the delay in replying to this. I've been in emergency mode here myself.

Offhand, I would say we can do very well without theories. Just daily life will do. We would probably do best to look at facts, the reality, observe and be aware to the best of our ability and thereby go step by step into the heart of a matter.

But do we need theories, thought, in our path as something to mull and stumble over? What is necessary is to look and to listen to everything that comes our way, to inquire and to question. When you are looking, seeing, you are not theorizing.

max

Back to Top
Sun, 28 Jun 2009 #182
Thumb_417412_234781426642305_395805484_n jean-m girard Canada 43 posts in this forum Offline

max greene wrote:
So we have the duality of two kinds of knowledge. How can knowledge be observed, since knowledge is the memory of facts? Isn't this "observation" usually called "remembering"?

To be in a state of conflict is to be in a state of duality, we can not have only one idea in conflict with it self. It is always in conflict with an other idea: two ideas (within) that oppose to each other. This is also call fragmentation, so by understanding each of those ideas they will fuse and there will be no more conflict.

In a state of observation we observe the 2 idea that are in conflict, from this observation intelligence will reveal there true nature, this is what we are doing here going from
being fragmented mind to a more integrated person, by understanding each pieces.

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
Sun, 28 Jun 2009 #183
Thumb_417412_234781426642305_395805484_n jean-m girard Canada 43 posts in this forum Offline

max greene wrote:
The "consciousness of the 'self'/'thinker' " that turned out to be a "what" had better be alive, otherwise it will not be able to act in any wise.

The content of consciousness is dead matter (conditioning), it is frozen in time, and many people will spend their whole life with it. But JK is saying that if we put our observation on it, observation being life it self, intelligence, (what is) or reality, will integrated it.
It will still be a piece of information but it will fit in.

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
Sun, 28 Jun 2009 #184
Thumb_417412_234781426642305_395805484_n jean-m girard Canada 43 posts in this forum Offline

Krishnamurti: To find out if there is something beyond this consciousness,
I must understand the content of this conscious- ness.
The mind must go beyond itself. Then I shall find out if there is
something other than this or not. But to stipulate that there is
has no meaning, it is just a speculation.

Naud?: So are you saying that what we commonly call
consciousness, and what we are talking about, is the
very content of this consciousness? The container
and contained are an indivisible thing?

Krishnamurti: That's right.

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
Sun, 28 Jun 2009 #185
Thumb_copy_of_image0065 Ramesh G India 47 posts in this forum Offline

max greene wrote:
None of us will see absolutely clearly. We will make errors, and we should be glad to stand corrected. But what we speak will be the way we see it. It will be honest. There is something deceptive and dishonest about speaking from memory on these important topics.

Well said, max. The truth about myself can't be far from what you have said.

But why do people speak from knowledge and not from their actual condition?

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

Back to Top
Sun, 28 Jun 2009 #186
Thumb_copy_of_image0065 Ramesh G India 47 posts in this forum Offline

max greene wrote:
Just daily life will do. We would probably do best to look at facts, the reality, observe and be aware to the best of our ability and thereby go step by step into the heart of a matter.

I like your observation. Thanks max. If someone uses the brain and not the heart the result will be mere theory.

So it's upto the individual to speak with heart.

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

Back to Top
Sun, 28 Jun 2009 #187
Thumb_copy_of_image0065 Ramesh G India 47 posts in this forum Offline

jean-m girard wrote:
Naud?: So are you saying that what we commonly call consciousness, and what we are talking about, is the very content of this consciousness? The container and contained are an indivisible thing? Krishnamurti: That's right.

This is where Michael differs from us. According to him this is a thinker/self consciousness. He says there's something more to this.

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

Back to Top
Sun, 28 Jun 2009 #188
Thumb_jan09_012 Peter Stephens Australia 53 posts in this forum Offline

Michael Cecil wrote:

Peter Stephens wrote:
I am that division.

As long as you are attached to, and identify with an identity--the identity of the "I"--you are imprisoned within the consciousness of the 'self' and the 'thinker'. Stepping outside of that consciousness into the "more" is to lose the identity of an "I" altogether. The "I" or the 'self' no longer exists at the very center of the universe. It is at that point that there occurs the emergence of a knowledge which is not accessible to the 'self' and the 'thinker'.


You are using the word knowledge in a tricky way.

Back to Top
Sun, 28 Jun 2009 #189
Thumb_jan09_012 Peter Stephens Australia 53 posts in this forum Offline

Michael Cecil wrote:
Don't worry about being completely consumed in the knowledge that is observed so that there is no longer any "you" to say "I am that division."

I don't understand; what is a knowledge to observe?

This post was last updated by Peter Stephens Sun, 28 Jun 2009.

Back to Top
Sun, 28 Jun 2009 #190
Thumb_avatar Michael Cecil United States 68 posts in this forum Offline

max greene wrote:
Perhaps I don't understand here. I was not aware that scientists have any metaphysical basis for consciousness. I have a psychiatrist friend who would laugh at the assertion that consciousness can be separated from the working of the physical brain itself.

The fundamental assumption of the entire scientific method is the separation of physical "stuff" from 'mind' stuff.

When Stephen Hawking talks about the "big bang" he completely disregards consciousness altogether because he considers the "big bang" to be only physical energy. Evolutionists assert that consciousness simply "emerges" (somehow) out of the neurology of the human brain. I have spent a considerable amount of time arguing and discussing these issues with "scientists of consciousness", and they insist that the subject of consciousness is entirely within the framework of the scientific method and thought.
But, if you ask the physicists, they will tell you that they don't really know what time is. And, if you turn to Krishnamurti, you will be told and maybe you will observe for yourself that time is nothing more than thought. But "scientists of consciousness" are principally concerned with preserving the paradigm of the scientific method and cornering the market on knowledge by thought rather than arriving at a genuine understanding of consciousness which will directly threaten the image they have of the 'thinker' being the origin of all knowledge.

Back to Top
Sun, 28 Jun 2009 #191
Thumb_avatar Michael Cecil United States 68 posts in this forum Offline

max greene wrote:
So there is this duality in nature, the "selves" and the "not selves." I would like to know more about them. Are they both alive? Did they come from the same source? Is this "conflict" going on throughout nature--the universe?

Max,

There can be no 'self' without a 'not self'. My 'self' is over here and your 'self' is over there. To me, you are a 'not self'; and, to you, I am a 'not self'. Each one of us has different experiences of living. This is the origin of different 'selves'. There is some kind of a boundary line between 'self' and 'not self', between life and death, between the 'known' and the 'unknown', between the sanity of the 'self' and the insanity and chaos of the 'not self'. So, yes, they both came from the same source: the 'movement' of self-reflection.

The 'self' implies a neurology capable of self-reflection. And, in order for that neurology to self-reflect, the brain must be alive. That 'self' is also the known. Thus, the 'not self' is both death and the 'unknown'.

In response to your last question, I have heard it repeated by followers of Krishnamurti: "I am the world."

To me, this sounds like megalomania.

My statement would be: the conflicts within the consciousness of the 'self' and the 'thinker', as well as the conflicts between the consciousness of the 'self'/'thinker' and the "observing consciousness" are extrapolated/projected upon the space-time reality.

Back to Top
Sun, 28 Jun 2009 #192
Thumb_avatar Michael Cecil United States 68 posts in this forum Offline

max greene wrote:
I'm sorry to keep hammering on this, but this important question is still open. Who created this "What," and is it alive, or is it a construct?

Max,

I don't mind you "hammering" on this at all. It is the fundamental issue with regards to the origin of the duality. It is the foundation of conflict and violence which is then intensified by thought.

Time goes both forwards and backwards here: This consciousness of the 'self' created itself through the 'movement' of self-reflection...

By means of what is referred to in physics as "backwards causation". (This has been demonstrated to be of the structure of reality in TSQM--time symmetrical quantum mechanics.)

Before the 'movement' of self-reflection, there was no duality at all. Then, with self-reflection, the original consciousness was fractured into a 'self' (which is considered conscious) and a 'not self' (which is considered not conscious).

Back to Top
Sun, 28 Jun 2009 #193
Thumb_avatar Michael Cecil United States 68 posts in this forum Offline

jean-m girard wrote:
Krishnamurti: To find out if there is something beyond this consciousness, I must understand the content of this conscious- ness. The mind must go beyond itself. Then I shall find out if there is something other than this or not. But to stipulate that there is has no meaning, it is just a speculation.

Naud?: So are you saying that what we commonly call consciousness, and what we are talking about, is the very content of this consciousness? The container and contained are an indivisible thing?

Krishnamurti: That's right.

Sorry. But, to me, this is utter nonsense.

How is it possible for the 'mind' to "go beyond itself" unless it is a spatial entity in the first place? What is the 'space' that the 'mind' goes 'into' when it "goes beyond itself"? Does it expand into a 'larger mind'? If it is a spatial entity in the first place, it has become such a 'space' by virtue of the 'movement' of self-reflection. And that 'movement' has, necessarily, created a 'self'.

The 'container' of consciousness is the 'space' in which the consciousness exists as a 'self', a 'space' and a 'container' that have been created through self-reflection. That 'container' then has 'contents'.

'Mind' is already thought. To adhere to the thought of a 'mind' is to remain imprisoned within the consciousness of the 'self' and the 'thinker'.

Krishnamurti is saying here that the only 'kind' of consciousness is the consciousness of the 'self' and the 'thinker'; that there is, in fact, no escape whatsoever from that consciousness. But, on numerous other occasions, he provides incontrovertible evidence for the existence of a dimension of consciousness outside of the 'mind' and the 'thinker'. That evidence is not speculation at all. Can't quite understand why he did not take that final step by actually articulating that there is an actual dimension of consciousness beyond the 'self'/'thinker'.

Back to Top
Sun, 28 Jun 2009 #194
Thumb_avatar Michael Cecil United States 68 posts in this forum Offline

Ramesh G wrote:
This is where Michael differs from us. According to him this is a thinker/self consciousness. He says there's something more to this.

Yes. But this is so not because I say it; but because it can actually be observed.

Back to Top
Sun, 28 Jun 2009 #195
Thumb_417412_234781426642305_395805484_n jean-m girard Canada 43 posts in this forum Offline

Michael Cecil wrote:
How is it possible for the 'mind' to "go beyond itself" unless it is a spatial entity in the first place? What is the 'space' that the 'mind' goes 'into' when it "goes beyond itself"? Does it expand into a 'larger mind'? If it is a spatial entity in the first place, it has become such a 'space' by virtue of the 'movement' of self-reflection. And that 'movement' has, necessarily, created a 'self'.

To be able to have a conversation about the functioning of the mind, we need to identify them with word.
There is consciousness, we have no difficulty with that, we all know, we are all conscious we know we exist (by content) our conditioning, self, I, and of course we are conscious of it. Also we are talking about a different state of the mind witch is observation, consciousness is not a state of observation.

Observation is and action a movement, consciousness is dead and motionless, a result.

This is what we need to understand if we want to explore what JK is proposing, now what come after will come anyway. Personally I can talk about consciousness and observation because I can see it within, JK when on into describing what you call (greater or better consciousness) as the unknown, nothingness, emptiness, awareness.

Now is it so difficult to accept that there is thing that we will never be able to describe?
I can live with the idea of the undescribable. Actually it make a lot a sense to me, because It is not a good idea to limite some thing that
we don't understand by a word.

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
Sun, 28 Jun 2009 #196
Thumb_417412_234781426642305_395805484_n jean-m girard Canada 43 posts in this forum Offline

Michael Cecil wrote:
but because it can actually be observed.

ok, you can observe it, now can you describe it ?

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
Sun, 28 Jun 2009 #197
Thumb_henry Thérèse Doyle Okamoto United States 8 posts in this forum Offline

Ramesh G wrote:
I belong to the O ye of little faith category

Why are ye fearful?

Health care is everyone's job, not just in treating illness but in promoting healthy living. We must take personal responsibility, engaging our minds and hands in meaningful work - all essential components of healthy, secure lifestyles and communities.

Back to Top
Sun, 28 Jun 2009 #198
Thumb_avatar Michael Cecil United States 68 posts in this forum Offline

jean-m girard wrote:
To be able to have a conversation about the functioning of the mind, we need to identify them with word. There is consciousness, we have no difficulty with that, we all know, we are all conscious we know we exist (by content) our conditioning, self, I, and of course we are conscious of it. Also we are talking about a different state of the mind witch is observation, consciousness is not a state of observation.

Observation is and action a movement, consciousness is dead and motionless, a result.

This is what we need to understand if we want to explore what JK is proposing, now what come after will come anyway. Personally I can talk about consciousness and observation because I can see it within, JK when on into describing what you call (greater or better consciousness) as the unknown, nothingness, emptiness, awareness.

As I see it, these statements are more or less gibberish.

I do not acknowledge the existence of any 'mind' at all as an ultimate reality. As I have already said numerous times, 'mind' is nothing more than thought and another word for 'self'. To me, it is similar to the word "phlogiston", which also had no reality. Thus, there is no "different state" of any 'mind' at all. All of that is thought and dialectics.

I have significant difficulties with your 'use' of the word "consciousness". Essentially, you are saying that there is only one 'kind' of consciousness (so, you might as well start the nuclear war now); and, thus, that it is categorically impossible ever to escape from that one 'kind' of consciousness. This, to me, demonstrates a determined blindness to reality.

Then you use the word "conscious" as meaning nothing more than "aware" or awareness; which, also, drains it of any significant meaning. Psychotics are aware of their delusions, although not necessarily that they are delusions; while 'thinkers' are aware of their thoughts; while there is also an awareness that thought is time and fear. There is a different 'kind' of awareness for each 'kind' of consciousness. And every number can be divided by one; which has almost as much meaning as what you say about being conscious.

Similarly, you say that consciousness is not a state of observation. The consciousness of the 'self' and 'thinker' is not a state of observation. But neither is the "observing consciousness" a state of observation. Rather, it is the knowledge that it observes. (I have been over all of these things numerous times and begin to get the impression that no one really recognizes my responses as having any meaning at all; possibly because observations, unlike thoughts, cannot be retained in memory.)

And I really have no desire to 'explore' what Krishnamurti says above. Apparently, he is utterly blind to the consequences of the 'movement' of self-reflection; apparently, he is utterly blind to the 'mind' being merely another word for the 'self' and a thought used to stop further inquiry. He is going down the wrong road in his investigation; from which the use of such words as the "unknown", "emptiness" etc. will not be able to save him.

In addition, however, I marvel at how you simply disregard the questions I have asked in the beginning, as if they have no meaning and no relevance whatsoever to a determination of what consciousness is. In other words, Krishnamurti's words here are simply gibberish consisting of the annihilation of the meaning of words. This is no small problem. It cannot simply be ignored as not being of any significance.

Back to Top
Sun, 28 Jun 2009 #199
Thumb_avatar Michael Cecil United States 68 posts in this forum Offline

jean-m girard wrote:
Observation is and action a movement, consciousness is dead and motionless, a result

I don't see that observation is an action or a movement at all. Self-reflection is an action or movement. Thought is an action or movement. Observation, on the other hand, is motionless and occurs completely outside of the dimension of time and thought.

Back to Top
Sun, 28 Jun 2009 #200
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 49 posts in this forum Offline

Michael,

The self and the not-self come from the same source: the 'movement' of self-reflection. (That is the way I understand what you are saying.)

Is this 'movement' in the brain? If it is, the self and not-self are constructs of the brain. As constructs, they are passive and lifeless--as are bricks and automobiles. The selves are incapable of taking action on their own. They must be guided, manipulated, molded, modified, etc. by the brain itself. As an alive thing, the brain can act and create Now.

Thought, either as the self or in any other mode, is powerless. The 'selves' actually do not exist. They are mere images thrown out by our brains. It is the physical organism that is the actor on the stage. The physical organism with its distorted thinking is responsible for the chaos within itself and in society. I don't see that we need complicated theories to explain this.

max

Back to Top
Sun, 28 Jun 2009 #201
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 49 posts in this forum Offline

Ramesh,

But why do people speak from knowledge and not from their actual condition?

There appear to be a lot of reasons. One wants to impress others and thereby make a name for himself--he's playing big-shot. Perhaps the man is deliberately trying to "muddy the waters." Possibly everyone around him is speaking quickly and superficially and he simply goes along with them. Maybe he just doesn't know any better. This last reason is understandable. The others are merely pathetic.

max

Back to Top
Sun, 28 Jun 2009 #202
Thumb_avatar Michael Cecil United States 68 posts in this forum Offline

It seems that there is one fundamental experience which very effectively prevents people from understanding the meaning of the words that I use: the direct observation of the absolute and irreversible annihilation of the consciousness of the 'self'/'thinker', and the emergence of "psychosis" (and the archetypes of the 'unconscious') as a completely separate dimension of consciousness altogether, as alluded to in the opening passages of the Second Meditation of Descartes (an experience which is now some 35 years in the past for me).

The consciousness of the 'self'/'thinker' has an image and a belief in itself as always having existed and as existing for eternity. It can acknowledge only theoretically that there was ever a time that it did not exist, or that a time ever will come that it does not exist. But that is nothing more than a thought. It has no reality. This is why it is so difficult for it to acknowledge the reality of both the 'movement' of self-reflection (which demonstrates both the origin of the 'self' and the existence of the "observing consciousness") and its own total annihilation (in "psychosis").

This is the Matrix and the prison within which the consciousness of the 'self'/'thinker' exists. Unless it can acknowledge from the very outset that there is a frame of reference in terms of consciousness for the observing of that dualistic consciousness, it will be locked forever within that prison.

Prior to that experience, Krishnamurti was a teacher to me. After that experience, I saw that Krishnamurti never once, as far as I have been able to determine, observed the 'movement' of self-reflection or its consequences in terms of creating the prison of the dualistic consciousness.

Can anything be said to help those who are imprisoned within the consciousness of the 'self'/'thinker' to escape from that prison?

The answer to that question is probably "yes".

But what precisely that is, I have no idea. Nothing I say seems to have any effect whatsoever.

Back to Top
Mon, 29 Jun 2009 #203
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 49 posts in this forum Offline

Michael,

"My statement would be: the conflicts within the consciousness of the 'self' and the 'thinker', as well as the conflicts between the consciousness of the 'self'/'thinker' and the "observing consciousness" are extrapolated/projected upon the space-time reality."

For the life of me, this is completely undecipherable. Would you please explain just what this sentence means? I'm especially thrown by "space/time reality,"
since time doesn't exist at all, isn't real, except as a measuring device. (It's a little harder to visualize, but the existence of space just might suspect as well.)

max

Back to Top
Mon, 29 Jun 2009 #204
Thumb_avatar Michael Cecil United States 68 posts in this forum Offline

max greene wrote:
Is this 'movement' in the brain? If it is, the self and not-self are constructs of the brain. As constructs, they are passive and lifeless--as are bricks and automobiles. The selves are incapable of taking action on their own. They must be guided, manipulated, molded, modified, etc. by the brain itself. As an alive thing, the brain can act and create Now.

Thought, either as the self or in any other mode, is powerless. The 'selves' actually do not exist. They are mere images thrown out by our brains. It is the physical organism that is the actor on the stage. The physical organism with its distorted thinking is responsible for the chaos within itself and in society. I don't see that we need complicated theories to explain this.

Max,

My guess is that I could probably say this ten thousand more times and it would still not compute to your consciousness:

You are interpreting everything I say from the frame of reference of thought; which means that you have not really understood one word that I have said in any of my replies. You really have no other choice in the matter since you have never really observed the annihilation of the consciousness of the 'thinker' or the reality of the "observing consciousness". Your approach is fundamentally no different than the "scientists of consciousness" who also deny on a theoretical basis the existence of any other dimension of consciousness.

The 'movement' of self-reflection does not occur "within" any brain. This whole approach demonstrates too strong of an attachment to the space-time reality (and the neurology of perception) in the first place. Rather, that 'movement' creates the 'space' itself in which the consciousness of the 'self' exists in the first place. Merely to ask the question you have asked demonstrates that you do not see even what I am talking about. It is the difference between pumpkin seeds and elephants.

Until you can actually observe for yourself these other two dimensions of consciousness as elements of reality, you will forever accuse me of propagating a "complicated theory". This is not any "theory" at all since it does not originate in thought but in observation.

My situation is like trying to explain what snow and ice is to a resident of a south Pacific island. He has seen water. He has seen steam over a cooking pot. But for me to say that this very same water can exist as millions of particles of cold white fluffy stuff, or that it can become so solid that it can be used to stab a person or to walk on is utterly and completely beyond his powers of imagination. All that he can say is that I am surely conveying a very complicated theory about water.

When I say "observing consciousness", you really have no experiential background for understanding the meaning of that term. You really have no idea whatever what I am talking about. And it does no good for me to try to explain.To you, it is nothing more than another thought. Similarly, you clearly have no direct experience of "psychosis"; so the word really means nothing to you whatsoever. Nothing. You may read books and more books describing what "psychosis" is; but all of that is nothing more than thought. You still don't know what it is in reality.

Don't know that this can be resolved. Only if someone from the south Pacific goes to Alaska will he understand the reality of snow and ice.

Back to Top
Mon, 29 Jun 2009 #205
Thumb_avatar Michael Cecil United States 68 posts in this forum Offline

max greene wrote:
For the life of me, this is completely undecipherable. Would you please explain just what this sentence means? I'm especially thrown by "space/time reality," since time doesn't exist at all, isn't real, except as a measuring device. (It's a little harder to visualize, but the existence of space just might suspect as well.)

This is an example of what I am talking about.

You want me to "explain" that comment; in other words, to translate it into thought in order that you can 'understand' it.

I can't.

It is something that is observed. It is on its face obvious.

It is either seen or it is not seen.

Space can be observed. So can time.

But, if you are trapped in thought, you will say that they are nothing more than an illusion.

And, if you could see that they are an illusion, rather than merely 'think' that they are an illusion, what I say about consciousness would be glaringly obvious to you.

Back to Top
Mon, 29 Jun 2009 #206
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 49 posts in this forum Offline

Michael Cecil wrote:

max greene wrote:
For the life of me, this is completely undecipherable. Would you please explain just what this sentence means? I'm especially thrown by "space/time reality," since time doesn't exist at all, isn't real, except as a measuring device. (It's a little harder to visualize, but the existence of space just might suspect as well.)

This is an example of what I am talking about.

You want me to "explain" that comment; in other words, to translate it into thought in order that you can 'understand' it.

I can't.

It is something that is observed. It is on its face obvious.

It is either seen or it is not seen.

Space can be observed. So can time.

But, if you are trapped in thought, you will say that they are nothing more than an illusion.

And, if you could see that they are an illusion, rather than merely 'think' that they are an illusion, what I say about consciousness would be glaringly obvious to you.


Michael,

In other words, to put it shortly, you can't explain what you wrote.

max

Back to Top
Mon, 29 Jun 2009 #207
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 49 posts in this forum Offline

Folks, let's look at it this way: The Self, the psychological "I," is at it heart a thought, a construction of the brain. It is a thought that has been protected and enhanced and has become so powerful that most of us look upon this thought construct as real, as--ourselves! (Isn't it always "our" body?)

As a construct, this "I" is passive, lifeless, powerless. It exists only because the brain allows it to and can function only as the brain demands--just as an automobile will do only what the driver commands.

Because we look at this construct as ourselves, we are protective of it. We want to keep it from harm, and from dying. We can see where all this leads by observing the world around us.

So, can the physical brain, which created the construct in the first place, understand that this "I" is merely a thought? Can it see that the "I," or Self, does not exist except as this thought? Can it understand this thought and put this thought aside? If this can be done, the brain's every thought is no longer weighed and judged for its effect on the "I," but instead the brain's thinking is straight and direct, no longer distorted.

max

Back to Top
Mon, 29 Jun 2009 #208
Thumb_avatar Michael Cecil United States 68 posts in this forum Offline

max greene wrote:

Folks, let's look at it this way: The Self, the psychological "I," is at it heart a thought, a construction of the brain. It is a thought that has been protected and enhanced and has become so powerful that most of us look upon this thought construct as real, as--ourselves! (Isn't it always "our" body?)

As a construct, this "I" is passive, lifeless, powerless. It exists only because the brain allows it to and can function only as the brain demands--just as an automobile will do only what the driver commands.

Because we look at this construct as ourselves, we are protective of it. We want to keep it from harm, and from dying. We can see where all this leads by observing the world around us.

So, can the physical brain, which created the construct in the first place, understand that this "I" is merely a thought? Can it see that the "I," or Self, does not exist except as this thought? Can it understand this thought and put this thought aside? If this can be done, the brain's every thought is no longer weighed and judged for its effect on the "I," but instead the brain's thinking is straight and direct, no longer distorted.


This clearly articulates the difference in our perspectives.

The "I" is not merely a thought. This is precisely where it appears to me that Krishnamurti erred; significantly erred.

Before the "I" exists at all, there occurs a 'movement' of self-reflection which creates the 'space' in which the consciousness of the 'self' exists. That spatial entity exists even in the absence of thought. Only then did there occur the postulation of the "I". This 'movement' created the 'container' of consciousness; thought creates the 'contents'.

Neither will I accept that the physical brain created this construct in the first place. Before such a statement can be made at all, before there was any knowledge of the brain at all, thousands upon thousands of years ago, human organisms were engaging in self-reflection. Before self-reflection there was no knowledge of any individual identity at all, much less that there was a brain which is thought to be responsible for self-reflection. Before self-reflection, it is not possible to make any comments at all with regards to consciousness or the physical reality or what the brain does. All such statements are preceded by the 'movement' of self-reflection. Without self-reflection, neither the physical universe nor the consciousness of the 'self' exists at all. There is simply nothing. (This, of course, does not make any real sense to the 'thinker', for reasons which should be obvious.)

Now, the reason why this perspective is typically rejected is because it consists of a time-reversal which is intensely offensive to the consciousness of the 'self'/'thinker' which depends upon time going only in a forward direction.

And what happens if this thought is simply put aside?

Read Descartes. If he put away the "I think, therefore, I am", he would be back in 'deep water' as described in the opening passages of the Second Meditation. He would be on the very edge of psychosis; not merely the thought of psychosis but the reality of psychosis.

Fundamentally, it simply does not appear to be possible to me to have any genuine knowledge of precisely what the consciousness of the 'self'/'thinker' consists without, simultaneously, having a direct knowledge of psychosis. Such knowledge cannot really be conveyed by words. It can only be pointed to by words. The direct experience of this is crucial to the understanding.

Back to Top
Mon, 29 Jun 2009 #209
Thumb_copy_of_image0065 Ramesh G India 47 posts in this forum Offline

Therese Okamoto wrote:
Why are ye fearful?

That's what I don't know, Therese. Write more about faith if you will; it will be good, I feel.

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

Back to Top
Mon, 29 Jun 2009 #210
Thumb_avatar Michael Cecil United States 68 posts in this forum Offline

max greene wrote:
In other words, to put it shortly, you can't explain what you wrote.

I suggest you read the poem If, by Rudyard Kipling.

Just read it.

Then, I suggest that you try to write an 'explanation', using thought and different words, of what that poem means to you. Do you see how ugly your 'explanation' is when compared to the poem itself?

The first time I read If, I focused exclusively on understanding the meaning of the words. I was only peripherally aware that there was a meter to those words and not at all aware of the rhymes which were present. Then, when I realized that the meaning of the poem was conveyed in meter as well as rhyme, I was utterly amazed.

Some things simply cannot be explained by thought.

The beauty of poetry is that meaning is conveyed by meter and rhyme, almost as if each one of those words has been specifically and instantly created only for the purpose of conveying the meanings of that particular poem itself. No other word, no other word which does not rhyme, could possibly be substituted for the words that are used by the poet.

Neither can Beethoven's Fifth Symphony be 'explained' by thought.

Certain aspects of reality must be immediately experienced in order to be understood. Thought is of no use whatsoever in such cases.

So, yes, I can't explain what I wrote.

It is an observation which must be experienced.

Back to Top
Displaying posts 181 - 210 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.)