Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
A Quiet Space | moderated by Clive Elwell

To understand the ground.........


Displaying posts 61 - 83 of 83 in total
Fri, 26 Feb 2016 #61
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 1324 posts in this forum Offline

Sudhir,

The "I" is the self, as otherwise there is awareness, with which there is no entity. Our language and our conditioning makes it difficult to converse without actually misusing the pronouns.

max

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 26 Feb 2016 #62
Thumb_img001 Sudhir Sharma India 591 posts in this forum Offline

richard villlar wrote:
That's what I say, the false (illusion, thought, self) move in awareness,...

This is like saying that mud (self) moves in clear water (awareness)...

richard villlar wrote:
That's what I say, the false (illusion, thought, self) move in..., in observation...

There can be attention of/to whatever is causing inattention in perception , but attention is not the same as awareness.

K says somewhere something like this "In attention there is no center and in awareness there is no division."

FLOW WITH LIFE!

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 26 Feb 2016 #63
Thumb_img001 Sudhir Sharma India 591 posts in this forum Offline

max greene wrote:
The "I" is the self, as otherwise there is awareness, with which there is no entity. Our language and our conditioning makes it difficult to converse without actually misusing the pronouns.

As stated above, the difference between the attention, perception, distorted perception and awareness are qualitative and these are are not interchangeable.

FLOW WITH LIFE!

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 26 Feb 2016 #64
Thumb_img001 Sudhir Sharma India 591 posts in this forum Offline

George Lanroh wrote:
That which has no form outside of being a quality of awareness is going to borrow a form through identification to express its self.

Do you mind having another look at "identification" in the statement "borrow a form through identification", George?

Does awareness need to borrow identification or identify itself with anything to express itself?

Is it not the flame that burns all identification/conditioning centered around self/I?

FLOW WITH LIFE!

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 26 Feb 2016 #65
Thumb_img001 Sudhir Sharma India 591 posts in this forum Offline

Patricia Hemingway wrote:
Sudhir Sharma wrote:

So, there is a movement of thought in right place and another which is out of place. Is there a way to find/notice/observe this difference which is not just more words as explanation/logic/reasoning etc?

P H :Yes Sudhir - but it is not going to happen without an insight into what constitutes living a 'religious life'.

Which implies that there is no simple, easy to understand/comprehend, straightforward answer to the question asked...ok, so be it.

Patricia Hemingway wrote:
Asking if there is a 'way' is like asking if there is a path to truth...no there is not.

The path is a problem, as is the mention of truth. Any definition/projection of later creates an immediate demand of a path. can it be otherwise?

What is this truth mentioned in your statement which is not a definition/projection?

FLOW WITH LIFE!

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 26 Feb 2016 #66
Thumb_dsci0664 George Lanroh United States 33 posts in this forum Offline

Sudhir Sharma wrote:
Do you mind having another look at "identification" in the statement "borrow a form through identification", George?

Does awareness need to borrow identification or identify itself with anything to express itself?

Is it not the flame that burns all identification/conditioning centered around self/I?

I understand what your saying about the whole problem for awareness has been false identifications. It is just the sense here that the problems of time disappear when psychological time is used by awareness rather then time using awareness.
I read once to exist means to stand out. Awareness having no attributes other then the quality of object awareness has no recognizable subject. Taking on an identification such as name and identification with occupation and family status is just a few ways awareness uses identification to stand out. Why does it need to stand out? In standing out it acquires a psychological address as to who it is and its understanding of this human life. Most often the problem is beyond name, we become to fixed concrete and our current understanding looses its flexibility to incorporate new understandings leaving behind old an incomplete understandings. We as the awareness become so fixed in our beliefs and understanding when they are challenge we feel that our very existence is challenged. We have lost sight that even without a single belief or understanding we as the awareness still exist, we still are. As seen here the problem lies in unconsciousness. We have become unconscious of our true nature that of being unassociated awareness as our essence and have because of this have identified with our bundle of understanding and beliefs, the reason we defend them till physical death. How many soldiers and for that matter civilians have died defending ideology? Theres a reason for this and I am pointing out that it is taking ones beliefsand understandings as to being our actual self's.

Sudhir, let me attempt to be open and hear what your saying so I do not fall pray to what I am talking about above.

There is no other.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 26 Feb 2016 #67
Thumb_stringio Mina Martini Finland 614 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

max greene wrote:
"The thinker [the self] and his thought are a unitary process. Neither has an independent existence." (Commentaries on Living, Series 3, Chapter 12)

Mina: Yes. This is what is meant by the thinker being the thought or the observer the observed. Well said, unitary process, one does not exist without another.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 26 Feb 2016 #68
Thumb_dsci0664 George Lanroh United States 33 posts in this forum Offline

Patricia, Sudhir and all.

Isn't the reason that there is no path possible to the truth because the truth lies outside any dimension of time, outside of any manufactured human idea of themselves and the world they live in.
Krishnamurti pointed out that his message laid between the lines of his speaking and not so much in the words themselves, not directly anyways. Was this because he was speaking about how we have created a story about ourselves and our world and he was speaking of being unconditionally free from any such stories? At least free enough that we could walk in and out of the world of stories as he did. He understood the limitations imposed upon ourselves through our unconsciousness conditioning and blind acceptance of the world of time. Yet he entered our world of psychological time to speak to us and spoke of another world, our original world where we began life free from the unconscious influence of time. For the most part most if not all of us could not see the world he spoke of because the first thing we do is listen through the filters of psychological time unconsciously imposed upon us. If I am correct he said in my words: Your out! out of psychological time that is. There is no slow ever increasing way to step out though negation of time seems to be a doorway to come upon our original timelessness.
So what I see here is any path implies the very psychological time Krishnamurti warned to be the beginning of a dream state. So what lays between the lines of Krishnamurti's message? As to the dreams of psychological time Krishnamurti's "I don't mind" comes to mind :) He does not take the bait of any dream and become involved as if it exist separate from his buy-in. So he is free to walk in and out as he pleases. He is a master of time instead of time being a master of him.

PS doesn't the ground lie between our born and unborn natures of being awareness. Is that the between the lines Krishnamurti spoke of? Born or unborn to the accumulation of time and identity.

There is no other.

This post was last updated by George Lanroh Fri, 26 Feb 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 26 Feb 2016 #69
Thumb_stringio Mina Martini Finland 614 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Max and Patricia,

Patricia:>The mistake is in believing . . . that all reason and logic must have a psychological motive, but this is completely false...and can be observed as such.

Max:All reason and logic is psychological. Reason and logic don't "have a motive." The self, the thinker, thought, motive, reason, are all a nice little psychological package. On the other hand, brain cells, arms, legs, the sky, trees are our physical world. That's what I observe.

Mina: It is clear that reason and logic can be without the image of oneself as a driving force. One may still need reason and logic to fix a broken heater, but that does not need to happen in order to feed a self-image, but to keep the body warm...:-)..I may need reason and logic to help a friend with a practical matter, and do it out of love and compassion, and not out of wanting to feed a self-image...(!)

But..perhaps Max's point lies in the observation that thought is always limited, even when functioning practically...and that the observer-observed division is still there in the very structure of thought itself, even if purely practical

Awareness does not think at all...awareness may use words, but such words do not come as a result of thinking at all, but keep appearing in the moment. They are not a result of anything, not an effect of anything. Awareness is beyond cause/effect, and thought is never beyond it. (practically or psyschologically)

This post was last updated by Mina Martini (account deleted) Fri, 26 Feb 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 26 Feb 2016 #70
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5098 posts in this forum Offline

richard villlar wrote:
Oui bien sûr. ;-) yes of course. .. and clive, for all it is the same but we don't see/look clearly. . For exemple: "I'm walking".. there is a walking. Even if there are again words, that's a better "label".

C'est juste, Richard. The language is obsessed with pronouns (French and English). It is as if nothing can happen in this world unless someone makes it happen (some self). It is indeed as you point out, most deceptive.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 26 Feb 2016 #71
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 649 posts in this forum Offline

Max quoted: "The thinker [the self] and his thought are a unitary process. Neither has an independent existence." (Commentaries on Living, Series 3, Chapter 12)

Suppose the words imediately preceding this quote were: When the self is present

That would make the complete quote:

"When the self is present, the thinker [the self] and his thought are a unitary process. Neither has an independent existance."

The presence of the word "his" in the original justifies this interpretation..

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Fri, 26 Feb 2016 #72
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 649 posts in this forum Offline

So far then there is no substantiation of your notion, Max, that K viewed all thought as being self driven. In fact K has stated that the use of language necessarily involves thought. I take it that that includes the words that he used when he was giving talks.

So are you able to give up this view that you are so attached to?

It's not really that hard a thing to do except that you must abanden cherished beliefs and self immage.

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Fri, 26 Feb 2016.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Fri, 26 Feb 2016 #73
Thumb_stringio richard villlar France 624 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Peter Kesting wrote:
That would make the complete quote:

"When the self is present, the thinker [the self] and his thought are a unitary process. Neither has an independent existance."

OK....... thanks for that peter. So, this quote as a lot of quote similar Just say that the thinker is the thought, the observer is the observed. ..

vivre, est le verbe de la vie...

This post was last updated by richard villlar (account deleted) Fri, 26 Feb 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 26 Feb 2016 #74
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5098 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
Yes. This is what is meant by the thinker being the thought or the observer the observed. Well said, unitary process, one does not exist without another.

I read the original passage in Commentaries on Living 3. Before K states it is a unitary process, he says:

Let us inquire into it without
assertiveness, without haste or dogma-
tism. How does thinking arise? There
is perception, contact, sensation, and
then thought, based on memory, says,
"That is a rose." Thought creates the
thinker; it is the thinking process
that brings the thinker into being.
Thought comes first, and later the
thinker; it is not the other way
round. If we do not see this to be a
fact, we shall be led into all kinds
of confusion.

Now please note i am not starting an argument on this. But it seems curious to say thought comes first and later the thinker, if it is a unitary process. Do not thought/thinker appear together, as one thing?

And why is it so hard to see this clearly?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 26 Feb 2016 #75
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 649 posts in this forum Offline

Well, lets see what Max has to say.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 26 Feb 2016 #76
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 525 posts in this forum Offline

Peter Kesting wrote:
Well, lets see what Max has to say.

Peter, it is always a pleasure and a joy to see you here :-)

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 26 Feb 2016 #77
Thumb_stringio richard villlar France 624 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Yes clive,
Thought Come first. But even when the thinker is elaborate, it's just only thought. Thought is not what it evokes, it's thought. The thinker is an idea/erroneous
content. The thinker (the élaboration) is one whith thought because that is just thought.

vivre, est le verbe de la vie...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 26 Feb 2016 #78
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 1324 posts in this forum Offline

If there is no thinker, can there be thought? If there is no thought, who can we call "a thinker"? The truth is not logic, but the truth is always logical.

It is as Krishnamurti said, there is neither one without the other. This is true whether the thought is about the technical or the psychological. The thinker is the thought.

max

This post was last updated by max greene Fri, 26 Feb 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 26 Feb 2016 #79
Thumb_stringio richard villlar France 624 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

max greene wrote:
If there is no thinker, can there be thought?

Yes.

max greene wrote:
The thinker is the thought.

Yes.

vivre, est le verbe de la vie...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 27 Feb 2016 #80
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5098 posts in this forum Offline

richard villlar wrote:
Thought Come first

But what does this mean?? Does it come first in time, before the thinker is somehow formed? This does not sound like a unitary process.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 27 Feb 2016 #81
Thumb_stringio richard villlar France 624 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Clive Elwell wrote:
unitary process

What is an unitary process is that the content of thought doesn't exist "outside" thought. And, in mecanics term, as "I" see, the thought is expulsed from memory before brain élaboration of it.

vivre, est le verbe de la vie...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 27 Feb 2016 #82
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5098 posts in this forum Offline

richard villlar wrote:
What is an unitary process is that the content of thought doesn't exist "outside" thought.

OK

And, in mecanics term, as "I" see, the thought is expulsed from memory before brain élaboration of it.

Sorry Richard, cannot follow what you are saying here. Brain elaboration?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 27 Feb 2016 #83
Thumb_stringio richard villlar France 624 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Clive Elwell wrote:
Brain elaboration?

In the sense that brain, the organ, compose, with all the element which reaches it, which compose it. .

vivre, est le verbe de la vie...

This post was last updated by richard villlar (account deleted) Sat, 27 Feb 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 61 - 83 of 83 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.)