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

It's very simple


Displaying posts 61 - 90 of 126 in total
Fri, 14 Apr 2017 #61
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 236 posts in this forum Offline

Eight Conversations - Eighth Conversation (1969)

Krishnamurti: So the question now is, have you really turned your back on that road?

Questioner: How do I know whether I have turned my back on it or not?

Krishnamurti: You don't know, but if you see what that road actually is, not only its end but its beginning, which is the same as its end, then it is impossible for you to to walk on it. You may, knowing the danger of it, occasionally stray on to it in a moment of inattention and then catch yourself on it suddenly - but seeing the road and its desolation is the ending of that road, and this is the only act. Don't say, "I don't understand it, I must think about it, I must work at it, I must practice awareness, I must find out what it is to be attentive, I must meditate and go into it," but see that every movement of fulfilment, achievement or dependence in life is that road. Seeing this is the abandonment of that road. When you see danger you don't make a great fuss trying to make up your mind what to do about it. If, in the face of danger, you say, "I must meditate about it, become aware of it, go into it, understand it," you are lost, it is too late. So what you have to do is simply to see this road, what it is, where it leads and how it feels - and already you will be walking in a different direction.

This is what we mean when we speak of awareness. We mean to be aware of the road and all the significance of that road, to be aware of the thousand different movements in life which are on the same road. If you try to see or walk on the "other road" you are still on the same old road.

Questioner: How can I be sure that I am seeing what to do?

Krishnamurti: You can't see what to do, you can see only what not to do. The total negation of that road is the new beginning, the other road. This other road is not on the map, nor can it ever be put on any map. Every map is a map of the wrong road, the old road.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 14 Apr 2017 #62
Thumb_img_20150716_212047-1-1 richard viillar France 200 posts in this forum Offline

Clive, Dan, yes that's it

Clive Elwell wrote:

You have stated that “thought cannot see”. Yet thought starts to think about what has been seen, does it not? What is seen somehow enters thought. So there must be some communication between seeing and thought, or some sort of communality between them, no? What is the nature of this connection, would you say?

Dan McDermott wrote:
Memory?

yes

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 14 Apr 2017 #63
Thumb_img_20150716_212047-1-1 richard viillar France 200 posts in this forum Offline

but to inquire, we focus always on the movement of this part of memory which is "consciousness"... and not to what is close to the senses...

as i see, it seems that to "inquire" always on the field of "consciousness" leads to maintain this field or something like that...

to be attentive to all what appear in the field of sensations before thought is..

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 14 Apr 2017 #64
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3138 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
For me, at least in the present context, “mind” is the intellect or the brain. Personally, I think using “brain” as a synonym for “mind” is sometimes ambiguous or confusing since ultimately the brain controls all bodily functions and I don’t see breathing, smelling or coughing, for instance, as being part of the mind. Nonetheless, “brain”, “mind” and intellect can, as I see it and in the present context, mean the same…. but not quite.

It is my conditioning, no doubt, but my first association with the word “brain” is that of a physical organ of the body, like lung, liver, stomach...... It is that, of course, and yet it obviously has another significance. K has said that the brain is another sense organ – it has the ability to sense thoughts.

More in the following post.

Huguette . wrote:
In another sense of the word, “thought” is the brain’s faculty or ability to reason, remember and to manipulate its product (also “thought”). In this 2nd sense, “thought” is the intellect, the brain, the mind which CAN see in a limited way.

This relates very closely to a question that came up for me yesterday. Often says that thought is “the response” of memory. Which suggests thought and memory are different things. As you say, thought is more than memory – it encompasses the ability to reason, to manipulate thoughts, to integrate thoughts (into more thoughts), to compare two thoughts, to develop preferences, opinions, ….. The results of all this thinking (is that the appropriate word?) is always more memory, isn't it?

Other questions comes – what 'part of the brain' does all this manipulation? Is there another level, another dimension of brain activity. And why does memory respond so readily, so compulsively to stimulus? And if not to the stimulus of the senses, it responds to the stimulus of itself. Is the answer simply “It has been conditioned to do so”?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 14 Apr 2017 #65
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3138 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
. K has said that the brain is another sense organ

Out of curiosity, I googled K saying the brain is a sense organ, and came upon a site called, of all things, http://www.veteranstoday.com/. Here is the start:

Our sense organs detect different frequencies of energies or vibrations. The ears detect sound. The skin detects vibration. The eyes detect light. The nose detects chemicals. Does the brain detect consciousness? That would be logical since ALL the other senses evolved to detect what was already there. Is the brain a sense organ like all the senses? This is a logical deduction and would explain much of the observed phenomenon of consciousness.

Could the mind be the interface with the brain. The brain detects the field and interacts with it, you, the “I”, are the intersection of the two peering out into reality.

The brain as a sense organ for consciousness is a very radical idea because science believes the brain creates consciousness. All the other senses detect vibrations or frequencies but because consciousness can not be detected the idea of the brain as a sense organ is resisted.

Proving this theory might seem an impossible task, but all we have is myth, and we can never know the ultimate reality as observers in a hologram. I am going to weave a new tale that the brain is sensing consciousness in this essay, the brain isn’t just a computer, it is a sense organ that taps a greater realm via the subconcious.

Philosophers since Aristotle have wrestled with the concept of consciousness, what is it, where is it, is it real? Modern science is having a go at it and no one can pin it down. This debate has been going on for thousands of years with little progress. Hard science has followed in the footsteps of the great minds of history, now scientists have to listen to philosophers on this topic, that drives them batty, ‘What do philosophers know?’ they smirk.
But what if the brain that animates the mind is actually tapping the larger energy field, and the individual mind actually an integrated part of the larger field. Think of it this way, the brain isn’t animating the mind, but the mind animating the brain. This reverse order of what seems logical is nothing new, the ancient Vedic scriptures informed us long ago this model. The Universe is Consciousness experiencing itself through us, thus it is consciousness invading the folds of our brain, and our mind is the result of the interaction.

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/11/10/276792/

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 14 Apr 2017 #66
Thumb_img_20150716_212047-1-1 richard viillar France 200 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
. K has said that the brain is another sense organ

Yes i see it like that! But not only consciousness but all memory/ thought movement...

Yes as i see it, there is six sense

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 14 Apr 2017 #67
Thumb_rodin_de_denker Olive B Netherlands 104 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote: So there must be some communication between seeing and thought, or some sort of communality between them, no?

Hi Clive,

Thought is superimposing on the experience of seeing.

(Apparent) memory is the current thought/image.

The past to which apparent memory refers is non-existent.

(Apparent) memory is the imagined link between apparent memory and the current thought.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 14 Apr 2017 #68
Thumb_img_20150716_212047-1-1 richard viillar France 200 posts in this forum Offline

Olive B wrote:
memory is the imagined link between apparent memory and the current thought.

hello Olive,

when i liten a CD of jimmy hendricks, it is it's obvious that jimmy hendricks (the past) doesn't exists, but the CD (memory) and all its content is real.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 14 Apr 2017 #69
Thumb_rodin_de_denker Olive B Netherlands 104 posts in this forum Offline

richard viillar wrote:
when i liten a CD of jimmy hendricks, it is it's obvious that jimmy hendricks (the past) doesn't exists, but the CD (memory) and all its content is real.

Hello Richard,

When you are listening to “All Along The Watchtower” my favorite song of Jimi and you are
thinking of Jimi, or his music, or the experience you had while listening in the past to his gitarsolo, it is a thought/image which is newly created in the moment.

Memory is the current thought, as I see it.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 14 Apr 2017 #70
Thumb_rodin_de_denker Olive B Netherlands 104 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
The ears detect sound. The skin detects vibration. The eyes detect light. The nose detects chemicals. Does the brain detect consciousness?

Clive, you are assuming that the ears detecting sound, and the eyes detecting light.

This is only the case from the illusory point of view of the separate self.

From the view point of consciousness itself there is only seeing, hearing, etc.

Clive Elwell wrote:
That would be logical since ALL the other senses evolved to detect what was already there.

Clive, what do you mean with “what was already there”?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 14 Apr 2017 #71
Thumb_img_20150716_212047-1-1 richard viillar France 200 posts in this forum Offline

Olive B wrote:
it is a thought/image which is newly created in the moment.

From where?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 14 Apr 2017 #72
Thumb_rodin_de_denker Olive B Netherlands 104 posts in this forum Offline

richard viillar wrote:
From where?

From consciousness.

The mind/thought superimposes on consciousness, and creates just an other thought/image, and an other, and an other......

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 14 Apr 2017 #73
Thumb_img_20150716_212047-1-1 richard viillar France 200 posts in this forum Offline

Olive B wrote:
From consciousness.

what is "consciousness"?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 14 Apr 2017 #74
Thumb_rodin_de_denker Olive B Netherlands 104 posts in this forum Offline

richard viillar wrote:
what is "consciousness"?

Consciousness/Awareness-is-knowledge-of-itself.

Consciousness /Awareness is the only knowledge that remains the same in all states under all conditions, at all times in all places in all cicumstances.

Consciousness /Awareness is thus said to be absolute knowledge.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 14 Apr 2017 #75
Thumb_img_20150716_212047-1-1 richard viillar France 200 posts in this forum Offline

Olive B wrote:
Consciousness/Awareness-is-knowledge-of-itself.

Consciousness /Awareness is the only knowledge that remains the same in all states under all conditions, at all times in all places in all cicumstances.

Consciousness /Awareness is thus said to be absolute knowledge.

it seems that you are missing one step Olive, the recording

without memory there is no thought. there is first recording, storage (memory) and redistribution (thought)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 14 Apr 2017 #76
Thumb_rodin_de_denker Olive B Netherlands 104 posts in this forum Offline

richard viillar wrote:
it seems that you are missing one step Olive, the recording
without memory there is no thought. there is first recording, storage (memory) and redistribution (thought)

I also miss the steps storage and redistribution.

I have no idea what you are talking about, it is not my experience.

Do you experience,”first recording, then storage (memory) and redistribution (thought)”?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 14 Apr 2017 #77
Thumb_img_20150716_212047-1-1 richard viillar France 200 posts in this forum Offline

Olive B wrote:
I have no idea what you are talking about, it is not my experience.

OK no problem

Olive B wrote:
Do you experience,”first recording, then storage (memory) and redistribution (thought)”?

There can be seeing of that yes of course...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 14 Apr 2017 #78
Thumb_img_20150716_212047-1-1 richard viillar France 200 posts in this forum Offline

Several People sees this process. If not, How can it be talked about that thought is expulsed by memory?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 14 Apr 2017 #79
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 187 posts in this forum Online

Huguette . wrote:
In another sense of the word, “thought” is the brain’s faculty or ability to reason,

Why the brain has to have a faculty or ability to reason?
Would it not survive without it?

"When i talk to audiences, they know what i'm talking about ... another thing is that they do something about it" - K. Brockwood Park (Making ideas of the Teaching)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 14 Apr 2017 #80
Thumb_img_20150716_212047-1-1 richard viillar France 200 posts in this forum Offline

richard viillar wrote:
Several People

Many*

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 14 Apr 2017 #81
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 187 posts in this forum Online

Huguette . wrote:
So all THIS, this reasoning, thinking, is the brain/mind/intellect’s struggle to understand its predicament, to make sense of the human condition,

Why the brain had the need to understand itself?
Why it was not able to go on without such understanding?

But it did, it tried to understand itself without seeing that the ONLY WAY to understand itself was to divide itself from itself, and not having yet understood itself it still continues divided from itself ... which is our own division, yours and mine ... while we are, our brains still are, trying to understand themselves

But it's only our brain trying to understand itself which causes all our confusion, nothing else ... "else" being all the creations that brain has build FROM NOTHING to help itself to understand itself ... The 'me' being its more precious and cherissed creation.

Who knows, perhaps someday that brain will see that such understanding of itself is utterly impossible and all confusion will come to an end.

"When i talk to audiences, they know what i'm talking about ... another thing is that they do something about it" - K. Brockwood Park (Making ideas of the Teaching)

This post was last updated by Juan E Fri, 14 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 14 Apr 2017 #82
Thumb_rodin_de_denker Olive B Netherlands 104 posts in this forum Offline

richard viillar wrote:
There can be seeing of that yes of course..

I take my stand knowingly as (ever-present)consciousness and examine from there, and discover in a experiential way.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 14 Apr 2017 #83
Thumb_img_20150716_212047-1-1 richard viillar France 200 posts in this forum Offline

It seems to be the right "way"...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 14 Apr 2017 #84
Thumb_rodin_de_denker Olive B Netherlands 104 posts in this forum Offline

Thank you Richard for this nice conversation.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 14 Apr 2017 #85
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 187 posts in this forum Online

Huguette . wrote:
is useful where appropriate but it does not provide a truly satisfactory understanding of man’s fundamental questions and problems

I question that such man's fundamental questions and it's so called understanding can exist beyond the field of thought ... or beyond man's believe that he exist in the way thought says he exist.

It's us, our unhabilty to see the emptiness of such so called "man's fundamental questions" which create all kind of theories and believes, and therefore confusion which eventually translates into fighting one each other, belief against belief, a so called "seeing" against another "seeing" ...

So, there are no man's fundamental questions ... But as we don't see it that's the reason why we live in this constant struggle that is first putting them, and then spend our whole life trying to give them an answer.

The end of all struggle is the seeing that those questions are utterly empty ... something most of us are not disposed to see by ourselves if that is so or not, attached as we are to all those theories (either material or spiritual) that prevents us to see clearly with our own eyes without any translation.

"When i talk to audiences, they know what i'm talking about ... another thing is that they do something about it" - K. Brockwood Park (Making ideas of the Teaching)

This post was last updated by Juan E Fri, 14 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 14 Apr 2017 #86
Thumb_img_20150716_212047-1-1 richard viillar France 200 posts in this forum Offline

Olive B wrote:
Thank you Richard for this nice conversation.

Thank you too Olive :-)

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Fri, 14 Apr 2017 #87
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 187 posts in this forum Online

richard viillar wrote:
it seems that you are missing one step Olive, the recording

Let's say that someone goes to listen K and listens him saying thinks that he has never heard before and much less thought about it ... So, he starts thinking on what he is hearing ... From which memory/recording arises his thought on what K is saying?

"When i talk to audiences, they know what i'm talking about ... another thing is that they do something about it" - K. Brockwood Park (Making ideas of the Teaching)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 14 Apr 2017 #88
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 236 posts in this forum Offline

re #64:

Clive,

The mind or brain as a sense organ is logical to me. When a thought is perceived - when “I am thinking something" and “I know I am thinking something” - I realize that there is an actual physical movement of matter (hormonal, electrical, whatever, however it works) occurring within matter (neurons, myelin, whatever it is), just as there is when there is perception via the other sensory organs.

Thought and memory are perhaps not identical phenomena but they are clearly interrelated. Without memory, there can be no thought, can there?

The functioning of the brain is certainly very interesting but there is a limit to my interest in understanding its physical functioning through the microscope as it were, perhaps because there’s a limit to my capacity to understand science and math.

But there’s no end or limit to my interest in understanding what awareness reveals, in understanding silence, and so on. Awareness reveals fragmentation in the moment, doesn’t it? --- fragmentation as time, self, effort, desire, fear, resistance, attachment, obfuscation, pretense, vanity, etc. And where there’s NO awareness, there’s no self-understanding. So the mind sees that action based on fragmentation or division is bondage, it is false, partial, conditioned action, corrupt, conflictual, divisive action leading to sorrow. Therefore the mind doesn’t act based on these, not because it is trying to overcome or suppress them but because it sees the bondage in them. Which is the same as saying, “You can't see what to do, you can see only what not to do”, isn’t it?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 14 Apr 2017 #89
Thumb_img_20150716_212047-1-1 richard viillar France 200 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
So, he starts thinking on what he is hearing ...

Or not! ;-)

Juan E wrote:
From which memory/recording arises his thought on what K is saying?

It depend on about what exactly he is thinking about. Anyway what he is thinking about, hé can only make links and think From which he already know.

when we live, feel somenthing never lived before, generally, there is no thought (apart "what is It? ") but there is a print, a recording...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 14 Apr 2017 #90
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 236 posts in this forum Offline

79:

Huguette . wrote:
In another sense of the word, “thought” is the brain’s faculty or ability to reason,

Juan E wrote:
Why the brain has to have a faculty or ability to reason?
Would it not survive without it?

81:

Huguette . wrote:
So all THIS, this reasoning, thinking, is the brain/mind/intellect’s struggle to understand its predicament, to make sense of the human condition,

Juan E wrote:
Why the brain had the need to understand itself?
Why it was not able to go on without such understanding?
But it did, it tried to understand itself without seeing that the ONLY WAY to understand itself was to divide itself from itself, and not having yet understood itself it still continues divided from itself ... which is our own division, yours and mine ... while we are, our brains still are, trying to understand themselves
But it's only our brain trying to understand itself which causes all our confusion, nothing else ... "else" being all the creations that brain has build FROM NOTHING to help itself to understand itself ... The 'me' being its more precious and cherissed creation.
Who knows, perhaps someday that brain will see that such understanding of itself is utterly impossible and all confusion will come to an end.

Can the brain survive without reasoning? My understanding is that it cannot, but I can’t say that I know with certainty. It also seems to me that the brain CANNOT PREVENT itself from reasoning where it perceives reasoning to be needed.

At #52, you requoted the following words from K: “So can the mind observe itself without accumulation?” [The Collected Works, Vol. X,53,Choiceless Awareness] and responded, “that conditioning is what i'm trying to look at”. Why do you now say that the mind or brain has no need to understand itself?

Isn't this “looking” what most of our threads are about? --- understanding oneself, understanding one’s mind, understanding one’s brain, understanding one’s conditioning, understanding one’s behaviour, understanding one’s contradictions, understanding the self-centre, understanding one’s consciousness, understanding one compulsions, understanding one’s conflict-sorrow-despair-fear, understanding one’s action, and so on and so on? If we did not suffer, would we look into any of this?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 61 - 90 of 126 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.)