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

what am I really 2


Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 111 in total
Sun, 08 May 2016 #1
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4192 posts in this forum Offline

Trying a new thread on this question I was trying to investigate, 'what am I really?', as the original thread has gone off on tangents. I have been asked what I am trying to get at, which is difficult to answer as I don't KNOW where I am going exactly. Let us try a different approach.

What ithes relationhip of 'me' to awareness? But already in that question there is a suggestion of a me separate from awareness. - otherwise it seems there could not be a relationship between the two. And that is not what I am implying, not what I mean, at all. Because when there is awareness there is no me. That can be discussed, questioned, of course

There is no me that is aware, but in that state I am not physically dead. Living is still there, aliveness is still there. So am I not then that awareness? One has to be very careful with t hat question. It is not to say that there is a 'me' separate from that awareness.

Gosh, this is difficult. There is awareness. Awareness CARRIES the sense of being. Without any center created by the mind.

If I am trying to get at anything it is sense of the 'I am – ness'. That is, the feeling of life within me, before it is identified WITH anything. Identified with anger, with any feeling, with thought.

Can one say we are talking about the totality of our being, the very root of our energy?

Mike asked if it is possible to investigate all this without speculation, which is a very valid question

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 08 May 2016 #2
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 1324 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
So am I not then that awareness?

I would say that there is no "you" who are awareness. Awareness is unity and lack of conflict because with awareness there is no separate entity who is aware. There is just that, that of which there is the awareness.

max

This post was last updated by max greene Sun, 08 May 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 08 May 2016 #3
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2164 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Living is still there, aliveness is still there. So am I not then that awareness? One has to be very careful with t hat question. It is not to say that there is a 'me' separate from that awareness.

You are an image....the self image....an image or images in the brain matter. Perhaps 'you' are all the images. I think K said something like that. You are not just the self image, but the images of right vs. wrong, the good Christian or Jew, God and the devil, 'my future', my pleasure or pain(the images of those), my success, etc....the content of consciousness. Bernadette Roberts("What Is Self") equates the self with consciousness. I know you're looking for a different answer to your question Clive, but is there a separate 'you' at all other than as image...division...observer separate from observed?

Clive: Awareness CARRIES the sense of being. Without any center created by the mind.

T: Are you aware of yourself when you're listening to your friend or neighbor? Is that sense of being present then? Just questioning.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Sun, 08 May 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 08 May 2016 #4
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 1324 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
. . . when there is awareness there is no me.

True, because at the moment of awareness there is only -- the awareness. Quite obviously, there can be no separation, no distance, no other as a "me" in the unity of the present moment. This seems so logical, so apparent.

max

This post was last updated by max greene Sun, 08 May 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 08 May 2016 #5
Thumb_farside0411 m christani United States 650 posts in this forum Offline

Maybe as Clive said in the original post of this topic, one should approach this negatively.

There is both a me and awareness right now for all of us here. It would be foolish to say we have no awareness, nor, awareness exists only when there is no "I". I see this screen, typing my opinions, hear the dishwasher. And there is a "me".

And there is time. I'm partly thinking of what I have to do after I type this, which is partly or greatly informed by knowledge.

So we have "I"-ness, awareness, and time, all of us.

The question that comes to mind is, is this awareness tainted? Obviously it is by time, by my self-image, by thought, knowledge, desire and so on. Can we move from there? And I think we confound awareness with attention.

mike

This post was last updated by m christani Sun, 08 May 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 08 May 2016 #6
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 1324 posts in this forum Offline

As I see it, the only "me" there is, is the physical body. The brain creates all of the psychological, which includes a "self" and the idea of time as past and future.

The physical universe is reality. The brain-created psychological has only the reality of thought.

max

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 08 May 2016 #7
Thumb_img001 Sudhir Sharma India 591 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
'what am I really?'

One needs to be clear about the need/compulsion for asking this question.

Why is one asking such a question?

'what am I really?

How does one know that one is or may be something the nature of which is currently unknown to oneself?

'what am I really?'

Is there answering/inquiring/looking into this question except from already present accumulations in memory?'

FLOW WITH LIFE!

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 08 May 2016 #8
Thumb_img001 Sudhir Sharma India 591 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Can one say we are talking about the totality of our being, the very root of our energy?

Mike asked if it is possible to investigate all this without speculation, which is a very valid question

With regard to "totality of our being, the very root of our energy", the I can not move an inch in investigation without speculating. There is no other option available to I.

FLOW WITH LIFE!

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 08 May 2016 #9
Thumb_farside0411 m christani United States 650 posts in this forum Offline

max greene wrote:
As I see it, the only "me" there is, is the physical body. The brain creates all of the psychological, which includes a "self" and the idea of time as past and future.

But there is a self and it dominates, completely, our lives, and it needs going into. Definitions and explanations are not the way, they are ashes.

mike

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 08 May 2016 #10
Thumb_farside0411 m christani United States 650 posts in this forum Offline

Sudhir Sharma wrote:
How does one know that one is or may be something the nature of which is currently unknown to oneself?

Hence, the need for negation.

mike

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 08 May 2016 #11
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 1324 posts in this forum Offline

Yes, there is a self (post 9). It has been created by the brain as thought. The self (the psychological) dominates our lives, dominates our societies, dominates our world. We sacrifice ourselves (physical beings) for our psychological constructions. We do this out of ignorance and belief. And we never learn.

max

This post was last updated by max greene Sun, 08 May 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 08 May 2016 #12
Thumb_farside0411 m christani United States 650 posts in this forum Offline

Max, what do you consider is the "self"?

mike

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 08 May 2016 #13
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 1324 posts in this forum Offline

Sudhir Sharma wrote:
Is there answering/inquiring/looking into this question ["what am I really"] except from already present accumulations in memory?'

Are you saying that there can be no discovery of what we really are? If you are saying otherwise, how can this discovery be brought about, in your view?

max

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 08 May 2016 #14
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 1324 posts in this forum Offline

Mike,

I see the self as thought. There is, in my view, no thought without purpose and motive, and the beneficiary of motive and purpose is not a mechanically functioning physical body, the beneficiary is the self. The self is an inherent part of every thought, psychological thought as well as so-called practical and technical thought. He is the little guy who stands to benefit.

max

This post was last updated by max greene Sun, 08 May 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 08 May 2016 #15
Thumb_img001 Sudhir Sharma India 591 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
T: Are you aware of yourself when you're listening to your friend or neighbor?

The attentive listening may not be interfered by the uttering of self, but this comes into being only after one has the total/complete understanding of what is attentive listening in/to the whole field of the interference by the self. What do you say, Tom?

FLOW WITH LIFE!

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 08 May 2016 #16
Thumb_img001 Sudhir Sharma India 591 posts in this forum Offline

m christani wrote:
But there is a self and it dominates, completely, our lives, and it needs going into.

By what means this "going into " would start, Mike?

Can all dominating self investigate and find out its nature/contents of itself by going into itself?

FLOW WITH LIFE!

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 08 May 2016 #17
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4192 posts in this forum Offline

max greene wrote:
I would say that there is no "you" who are awareness.

I know this, Max, I KNOW I KNOW. What is wrong that I cannot get this point over?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 08 May 2016 #18
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4192 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
T: Are you aware of yourself when you're listening to your friend or neighbor? Is that sense of being present then? Just questioning.

There is no me when there is listening. That is, there is no me separate from the listening. So the very listening fills consciousness. It is consciousness. That consciousness is the "I am - ness" It is pure awareness

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 08 May 2016 #19
Thumb_img001 Sudhir Sharma India 591 posts in this forum Offline

max greene wrote:
Are you saying that there can be no discovery of what we really are?

You/I can and will certainly discover what we already know (thought as knowledge) 'we really are'.

max greene wrote:
...how can this discovery be brought about, in your view?

This is not a question I am asking...so no reply, Max.

FLOW WITH LIFE!

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 08 May 2016 #20
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 1324 posts in this forum Offline

Clive (post 17):

But didn't you ask, "So am I not then that awareness?" This certainly implies that you are saying that you are awareness. My reply was based on this understanding.

max

This post was last updated by max greene Sun, 08 May 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 08 May 2016 #21
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 1324 posts in this forum Offline

Thanks for the no response, Sudhir.

max

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 08 May 2016 #22
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4192 posts in this forum Offline

m christani wrote:
There is both a me and awareness right now for all of us here. It would be foolish to say we have no awareness, nor, awareness exists only when there is no "I". I see this screen, typing my opinions, hear the dishwasher. And there is a "me".
(cut)

The question that comes to mind is, is this awareness tainted? Obviously it is by time, by my self-image, by thought, knowledge, desire and so on. Can we move from there? And I think we confound awareness with attention.

This issue is exactly covered in the discussion with Buddhist scholars.
Here is an extract - from towards the end, I already posted the whole dialogue:

": Leave it for the moment. Attention implies no division, me attending. And so it has no division, therefore no measurement and therefore no border.

R: In attention.

K: In complete attention.

R: In that sense it is equal to awareness.

K: No.

R: Why not?

K: In awareness there may be a centre from which you are being aware.

SS: Even if there is no choice?

R: No, that is not awareness.

K: Wait, I must go back.

N: You are making a distinction between awareness and attention.

K: I want to.

SS: Are you saying attention is a deeper process.

K: Much more, a totally different quality. One can be aware of what kind of dress you have. One may say, "I like it", or "I don't like it", so choice doesn't exist, you are aware of it, that's all. But attention, in that there is no attender, one who attends, and so no division.

R: In awareness also you can say the same thing, there is no one who is aware.

K: Of course, that's right. But it has not the same quality as attention.

R: I don't want to go into these words, but the Buddha's teaching is that in this practise of meditation there is no discrimination, there is no value judgement, there is no like or dislike, but you only see. That's all. And what happens will happen when you see.

K: In that state of attention what takes place?

R: That is another explanation.

K: No, if you totally attend, with your ears, with your eyes, with your body, with your nerves, with all your mind, with your heart in the sense of affection, love, compassion, total attention, what takes place?

R: Of course what takes place is an absolute revolution internal and complete revolution.

K: No, what is the state of such a mind that is completely attentive?

F: It is free of the stream.

K: No, that's finished.

R: The stream is dried now, don't talk about it! It is desert now!

K: I am asking what is the quality of the mind that is so supremely attentive? You see it has no quality, no centre, and having no centre no border. And this is an actuality, you can't just imagine this. That means has one ever given such complete attention.

SS: Is there any object in that attention?

K: Of course not.

R: Object in the sense of.?

K: Subject and object. Obviously not. Because there is no division. You try it, do it, sir.

SS: I mean not merely physical object but any phenomenal object such as sorrow, or all those.

K: Give complete attention, if you can. Say for instance, I tell you meditation is the meditator.

R: That is right. There is no meditator.

K: Wait, wait, wait. I say, meditation is the meditator. Give your complete attention to that, and see what happens. That's a statement you hear. You don't make an abstraction of it into an idea, but you just hear that statement. It has the quality of truth, it has the quality of great beauty, it has a sense of absoluteness about it. Now give your whole attention to it and see what happens.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 08 May 2016 #23
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4192 posts in this forum Offline

Sudhir Sharma wrote:
Why is one asking such a question?

Hi Sudhir

Seems to me it is the most natural question in the world. Why wouldn't anyone want to know what he truly was?

Sudhir Sharma wrote:
How does one know that one is or may be something the nature of which is currently unknown to oneself?

One doesn't know. One is inquiring.

'what am I really?'
Is there answering/inquiring/looking into this question except from already present accumulations in memory?'

Any answers the mind might give obviously must come from memory - and so are invalid.

But looking does not come from memory - if it does it is not looking

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 08 May 2016 #24
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 1324 posts in this forum Offline

Seems to me that he is saying (post 22) that with awareness there is object but with attention there is is no object. We might say that with awareness there is that of which there is awareness (the object) but with attention there is only the state of being aware.

max

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 08 May 2016 #25
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4192 posts in this forum Offline

Sudhir Sharma wrote:
With regard to "totality of our being, the very root of our energy", the I can not move an inch in investigation without speculating. There is no other option available to I.

Right! This is what makes the question so interesting.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 08 May 2016 #26
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2164 posts in this forum Offline

Sudhir Sharma wrote:
this comes into being only after one has the total/complete understanding of what is attentive listening in/to the whole field of the interference by the self.

Welcome back Sudhir! Makes sense....listening....observing...the interference itself...'me'. That's what I am in essence....the conditioning ...the background....the opinion...the like or dislike...the desire...which interferes...divides.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 08 May 2016 #27
Thumb_farside0411 m christani United States 650 posts in this forum Offline

I'd like to put in one of my favorite parts of The Ending of Time, may be relevant:

K: The memory of experiences, hurts, attachments, the whole of it. Now can that come to an end? Of course it can. This is the point: it can come to an end when the very perception asks, what is it? What is hurt? What is psychological damage? The perception of it is the ending of it. Not carrying it over, which is time. The very ending of it is the ending of time. I think that is clear. `X' is hurt, wounded from childhood. And he, by listening, talking, discussing, realizes that the continuation of the hurt is time. And to find out the ground, time must end. So he says, can my hurt end instantly, immediately?

DB: Yes, I think there are some steps in that. You say, he finds that hurt is time, but the immediate experience of it is that it exists on its own.

K: I know, of course. We can go into that.

DB: That simply is something on its own.

K: Which means, I have created an image about myself and the image is hurt, but not me.

DB: What do you mean by that?

K: All right. In the becoming, which is time, I have created an image about myself.

DB: Well, thought has created that image.

K: Thought has created an image through experience, through education, through conditioning, and made this image separate from me. But this image is actually "me', although we have separated the image and the me, which is irrational. So, in realizing that the image is"me', I have become somewhat rational.

DB: I think that will not be clear - because if I am hurt I feel the image is `me'.

K: The image is you.

DB: The person who is hurt feels that way, you see.

K: All right. But the moment you operate on it you separate yourself.

DB: That's the point. Now the first feeling is that the image is `me' hurt, and the second feeling is that I draw back from the image in order to operate on it...

K: ...which is irrationality.

mike

This post was last updated by m christani Sun, 08 May 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 09 May 2016 #28
Thumb_img001 Sudhir Sharma India 591 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Why wouldn't anyone want to know what he truly was?

The reason for the origin of the above kind of 'wanting' in oneself is significant. It is usually some outside religious or spiritual source/authority that implants in memory the knowledge that one is truly/really different from what one considers or has been considering the actuality of oneself.

The next step is the 'want' to know/find out/understand what one really is. With one step taken to fulfill this 'want', the status quo of self perpetuating itself is maintained endlessly. Such 'want' can never come to fruition.

FLOW WITH LIFE!

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 09 May 2016 #29
Thumb_img001 Sudhir Sharma India 591 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Sudhir Sharma wrote:

How does one know that one is or may be something the nature of which is currently unknown to oneself?

C E : One doesn't know. One is inquiring.

Actually one knows and from here the inquiring needs to start.

Clive Elwell wrote:
But looking does not come from memory - if it does it is not looking

All meaningful (looking that conveys some meaning to the one who is looking) is influenced in various degree by memory. Why and how does any other kind of looking come into being?

FLOW WITH LIFE!

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 09 May 2016 #30
Thumb_img001 Sudhir Sharma India 591 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:

Sudhir Sharma wrote:

With regard to "totality of our being, the very root of our energy", the I can not move an inch in investigation without speculating. There is no other option available to I.

Right! This is what makes the question so interesting.

In what way/s the question "Is there answering/inquiring/looking into this question except from already present accumulations in memory?" becomes so interesting?

FLOW WITH LIFE!

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 111 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.)