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

"The 'I' is non-existent without memory. . . ."


Displaying all 10 posts
Page 1 of 1
Mon, 14 Mar 2016 #1
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 1324 posts in this forum Offline

I wonder if we see the tremendous significance and importance of today's quote.

There isn't any "you" ! "You" are nothing but recalled memory -- massaged and worked over, of course, with thinking.

There is no entity with awareness, and awareness is life. The human being is a physical body together with awareness.

max

This post was last updated by max greene Mon, 14 Mar 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 14 Mar 2016 #2
Thumb_dsci0664 George Lanroh United States 33 posts in this forum Offline

max greene wrote:
There is no entity with awareness, and awareness is life. The human being is a physical body together with awareness.

Hi Max

How is my old friend? I am yet to rest this sense I have and maybe never know the answer to. Can and does awareness exist both without memory and the physical body? We know awareness exist with the ever changing content of consciousness but does it exist even free of content? I sense it does, or at least an awareness unassociated with the accumulation psychological time can know its self in a few different ways. Take for example: I know myself as the awareness in this particular body as being the sense of "I am". Not "I am" anything but only "I am" the awareness residing as a quality in this particular body. I am also aware that any accumulation of identity beyond (I am the awareness) is for the lack of better words a (Time body) its a map but not the territory. That being said, this means not one of us were ever born in the conventional sense. Ether we were the awareness that took up residence in the human body because conditions were right or because conditions were right awareness came into being. Ether way it would seem that there is no such thing as birth when it comes to the self. The self comes into being, the self of accumulated time that is, after the human body is birthed.

So I leave you with my parting question: Is awareness always ( eternal ) and takes up residency in a sentient entity such as a human body using its doorways of inputs. Or does awareness come into being when conditional are right such as with the appearance of the human body?

There is no other.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 14 Mar 2016 #3
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 1324 posts in this forum Offline

George Lanroh wrote:
So I leave you with my parting question: Is awareness always ( eternal ) and takes up residency in a sentient entity such as a human body using its doorways of inputs. Or does awareness come into being when conditional are right such as with the appearance of the human body?

And this is a crucial question, George.

Is awareness created by the brain? It seems likely that the brain, with its tremendous capacity and capability developed through aeons of evolution, acts as a conduit for awareness. Awareness is just a matter of course whenever sensing capacity and capability in any living being has been sufficiently developed through evolution.

max

This post was last updated by max greene Mon, 14 Mar 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 17 Mar 2016 #4
Thumb_dsci0664 George Lanroh United States 33 posts in this forum Offline

max greene wrote:
Awareness is just a matter of course whenever sensing capacity and capability in any living being has been sufficiently developed through evolution.

Hi Max, sorry for the delay. Personal things :) I know there is the sense here that awareness may exist before any doorways of inputs are in place. Its as if awareness is the most early thing in the sense that it must be present earlier then sense inputs to be there to greet the inputs from the senses. Sounds like duality but is it? Awareness maybe there prior to any of the senses but like light which doesn't light up a room without boundaries such as walls, ceiling and floor, awareness is not recognizable separate from its quality of illumination of sense inputs. But is it still there ready to illuminate. Does it create the reflection, the echo of stimulation which without awareness acting as a wall sense inputs would meet no target for reflection, illumination, and keep on going. Like light when it strikes nothing. I maybe off track it is I just found all this interesting to investigate. Maybe awareness is not dependent on an particular stimulation for its existence, yet for it to be seen its must be at work and that is dependent on external inputs. So is awareness both independent ( most earliest thing ) and depend in the sense that it cannot be seen like light separate from its work of illumination.
Maybe this is all to speculative, yet I just wanted to share my pondering.

There is no other.

This post was last updated by George Lanroh Thu, 17 Mar 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 17 Mar 2016 #5
Thumb_dsci0664 George Lanroh United States 33 posts in this forum Offline

Juan Eyegaray wrote:
My question then, is (and it is related somehow to my first question above): has awareness to be seen which would imply a 'seer' different from what is 'seen' or awareness is seeing in itself independently if there's someone 'seeing'?

Hi Juan

I wonder if like experiments that were done in the 1950's and 1960's most likely even now if in complete deprivation of all outer stimulation if awareness is present awaiting stimulation. I can cover my ears and I am still here. I can close my eyes and I am still here, and so it goes with the other senses. Unlike the experiments in the 50's and 60's through negation the accumulated self can be negated through seeing its illusion and transcending it. This presence that is transcending physical stimulation through shutting them off in an experiment and negating the accumulated self through seeing the falseness of such accumulation is that awareness along with its innate intelligence?
You mentioned for awareness to be seen it would require the presence of a separate seer. I also wonder if awareness which to this man is in its true nature formless and psychologically timeless intuits its presence by feeling/seeing its own action of illumination. Not to get to speculative again but it seems to this man that a quality of awareness outside of illumination is intelligence, its ability to read between the lines and discover such things as seeing the unseeable such as its timeless self. Is it not awareness that has negated all that its not ( the accumulated self ) and has come upon that even stripped of all identifications and stimulus inputs it is still there/here.

To go way out Juan, I think the God image has risen from a mistake, a false projection by awareness of its own formless presence. Picture the God image, picture that it is said to be there from the beginning, that it always was, unborn, a formless presence. I get this strange sense that this projection from man, of God, has risen from his own identity as the presence of awareness. His projection gets hijacked through the filters of his conditioning, the many false identifications and a God and a religion is born. He now worships something outside himself which is really his own self projection. What is really happening if I am right is he is getting hints, footprints to follow along the road of negation to come upon his own true identity as being the timeless/formless presence of awareness within.

There is no other.

This post was last updated by George Lanroh Thu, 17 Mar 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 17 Mar 2016 #6
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 1324 posts in this forum Offline

Juan Eyegaray wrote:
Is 'awareness' 'to be aware', or there's a gap between them? ...

I would say that there is more than a gap between them; they are two different things. "Aware" is just that. But "to be aware" implies an entity who is aware -- and this is an impossibility. There is no entity who is aware or who can be aware. Awareness is its own thing.

max

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 17 Mar 2016 #7
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 1324 posts in this forum Offline

George Lanroh wrote:
. . . still there ready to illuminate. . . . Maybe awareness is not dependent on an particular stimulation for its existence, yet for it to be seen its must be at work and that is dependent on external inputs. So is awareness both independent ( most earliest thing ) and depend in the sense that it cannot be seen like light separate from its work of illumination.

This is a good observation, George. It would appear that awareness is always there, if only the right circumstances allow it.

So what are the "right circumstances"? Could this be evolution itself, the unrolling of the present? Life, which is love and awareness, is inevitable with the flowering of the present.

max

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 17 Mar 2016 #8
Thumb_dsci0664 George Lanroh United States 33 posts in this forum Offline

max greene wrote:
So what are the "right circumstances"? Could this be evolution itself, the unrolling of the present? Life, which is love and awareness, is inevitable with the flowering of the present.

Hi Max

"The right circumstances" I have mentioned before about awareness and its intelligence being in essence the embodiment of (mother nature) under another name. Has nature and its awareness/intelligence found away through evolutions to see its self in a non-dualistic universe? Again here we are speaking of creator and creation being one yet for nature to see its self in a non-dualistic environment it had to play a trick, it had to bend the reality of one (non-duality) into the duality of subject object, the seer and the seen. Hasn't our journey been to come upon this seeing, this understanding so we can maintain the seeing of ones self as the (observer is the observed) and yet cast out the conflict duality created which allowed us to see ourselves as one.
Maybe I am taking this to far but I am trying to explain to myself and now you and Juan how nature gave birth to its own eyes through duality in order to see its self in a non-dualistic world. Since the duality was false, not true, (Krishnamurti's pointer towards man's conflict) was the outcome of creating this anomaly of illusion. Yet I must say it was intelligence in action when nature caused the blind to see (its self). Just some more enquiry into the essence of our shared nature and why we are all one with each other and everything :)

There is no other.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 18 Mar 2016 #9
Thumb_dsci0664 George Lanroh United States 33 posts in this forum Offline

Juan Eyegaray wrote:
You'll tell me something if you read it

Thank you for your very interesting and thought provoking reply, and yes I will try in the near future to read the book you recommended. I always enjoy a new take on things even if it is as you say the same as what K said and the Buddhist, I like a new way of hearing it :) Take care and hope to exchange again. You sound very well read.

There is no other.

This post was last updated by George Lanroh Fri, 18 Mar 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 19 Mar 2016 #10
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 1324 posts in this forum Offline

George Lanroh wrote:
. . . for nature to see its self in a non-dualistic environment it had to play a trick, it had to bend the reality of one (non-duality) into the duality of subject object, the seer and the seen.

Lately it dawned on me that there is only one duality, and that is the distinction between the physical and the psychological. The physical (the brain) creates, through thinking, an imaginary world with an imaginary self at its center. This is our duality. Without this imaginary world, there is unity of the physical with all else, whatever "all else" might be.

max

This post was last updated by max greene Sat, 19 Mar 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying all 10 posts
Page 1 of 1
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.)