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

It's very simple


Displaying posts 61 - 90 of 100 in total
Fri, 14 Apr 2017 #61
Thumb_rodin_de_denker Olive B Netherlands 238 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......

Experience alone must be the test of reality.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 14 Apr 2017 #62
Thumb_img_20150716_212047-1-1 richard viillar France 222 posts in this forum Offline

Olive B wrote:
From consciousness.

what is "consciousness"?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 14 Apr 2017 #63
Thumb_rodin_de_denker Olive B Netherlands 238 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.

Experience alone must be the test of reality.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 14 Apr 2017 #64
Thumb_img_20150716_212047-1-1 richard viillar France 222 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 #65
Thumb_rodin_de_denker Olive B Netherlands 238 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)”?

Experience alone must be the test of reality.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 14 Apr 2017 #66
Thumb_img_20150716_212047-1-1 richard viillar France 222 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 #67
Thumb_img_20150716_212047-1-1 richard viillar France 222 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 #68
Thumb_img_20150716_212047-1-1 richard viillar France 222 posts in this forum Offline

richard viillar wrote:
Several People

Many*

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 14 Apr 2017 #69
Thumb_rodin_de_denker Olive B Netherlands 238 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.

Experience alone must be the test of reality.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 14 Apr 2017 #70
Thumb_img_20150716_212047-1-1 richard viillar France 222 posts in this forum Offline

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 14 Apr 2017 #71
Thumb_rodin_de_denker Olive B Netherlands 238 posts in this forum Offline

Thank you Richard for this nice conversation.

Experience alone must be the test of reality.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 14 Apr 2017 #72
Thumb_img_20150716_212047-1-1 richard viillar France 222 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 #73
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 561 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 #74
Thumb_img_20150716_212047-1-1 richard viillar France 222 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 #75
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 561 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
Fri, 14 Apr 2017 #76
Thumb_img_20150716_212047-1-1 richard viillar France 222 posts in this forum Offline

Oui, Ce Qui Est Vécu au Niveau Sensoriel Pour La Première Fois est Une Perception directe. donc des propos venant de quelqu'un comme K, entendus, dont le sens est quelque chose qui ne fait pas référence à quelque chose de connu, sera une perception directe...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 14 Apr 2017 #77
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4264 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Eight Conversations - Eighth Conversation (1969)

This is a tremendously powerful quote. So uncompromising. Such simlicity, such clarity.

What questions could there be?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 14 Apr 2017 #78
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4264 posts in this forum Offline

Olive B wrote:
Thought is superimposing on the experience of seeing.

This is exactly what came to me, a few seconds before reading your post.

I am not sure that "memory" is the answer to my question, as Dan and Huguette said. We are talking about seeing, or to use another word, insight. Memory is the result of experience, is it not? but is insight an experience?

Something is remembered, that is apparent, but is it the pure insight? Or is it thought's interpretation of the insight, according to the knowledge that thought already has? A distortion of the insight.

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

This I cannot follow, Olive.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 14 Apr 2017 #79
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4264 posts in this forum Offline

Olive B wrote:
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.

First of all, Olive, these were not my words, but from the article on the website that I posted. However, they seems to me acurate, scientific facts that do not depend on "points on view". At least I see no evidence to dismiss them.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 15 Apr 2017 #80
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 845 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Or is it thought's interpretation of the insight, according to the knowledge that thought already has? A distortion of the insight.

Not a "distortion" but a re-presentation. Just a recording of what was seen...but 'thought' will appropriate it and put it into the 'library' of the 'known'. (and this is the problem, it will 'desire' to experience it again, bringing the 'ego' to life which was absent during the initial 'insight'.) That is one aspect of the 'nature' of thought.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sat, 15 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 15 Apr 2017 #81
Thumb_img_20150716_212047-1-1 richard viillar France 222 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
si par l'utilisation de la pensée un peut avoir une perception directe de ce qui est entendu ... Qu'en pensez-vous?

Non c'est impossible. La pensée est un filtre à la perception directe.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 15 Apr 2017 #82
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 561 posts in this forum Offline

#58:

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?

Something is seen, some psychological movement - maybe fear, preoccupation, compulsion, anger, depression, habit, conceit, pretense, outrage, self-righteousness, and so on. Whatever is seen in the living moment is not memory or thought while it is being seen, is it? The actual seeing is not memory or thought, not based on memory or thought. There is no memory or thought in perception. Memory does not play a part in the actual act of seeing, does it? Isn't it when the seeing has ended that the memory of what was seen is recorded? It is one thing to see anger as it occurs and another thing to remember anger that was. Can I see anger and already remember it as I am seeing it?

So the memory arises right after the actual seeing, no? Remembering is involuntary. It happens without effort or desire, doesn't it? And without the memory or knowledge of what was seen - being the past, time - thought has nothing to think about, does it? What can thought think about without memory or knowledge? At least I don't see how there can be thought without memory.

Thought is based on memory, and thought begins thinking about the memory, about what it knows. It is preoccupied with it --- trying to figure out what to do about what was seen, projecting it into the future.

Of course I could be mistaken but that is how it seems to me. Then can thought SEE? Or is what it "sees" merely the past it remembers and the future it imagines?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 15 Apr 2017 #83
Thumb_img_20150716_212047-1-1 richard viillar France 222 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
effectivement commencé

Pourquoi effectivement? Je n'ai jamais eu de perception derecte impulsée par la pensée...

This post was last updated by richard viillar Sat, 15 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 15 Apr 2017 #84
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4264 posts in this forum Offline

My apologies to Dan and Huguette. I am feeling I should have put my point in #96 to them, before putting it to Olive, as I was really responding to them.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 15 Apr 2017 #85
Thumb_rodin_de_denker Olive B Netherlands 238 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
We are talking about seeing, or to use another word, insight. Memory is the result of experience, is it not? but is insight an experience?

You as awareness/consciousness are perceiving an object, and you as awareness/consciousness has no idea what is perceived.

Thought (awareness taking the shape as a thought)come in and superimpose on this object, and says “it is a flower”.

Thought has an image of a flower, because it is refering to the past.
But the past doesn’t exist.

You are thinking right now in this moment “it is a flower” and a new thought is created.

Experience alone must be the test of reality.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 15 Apr 2017 #86
Thumb_img_20150716_212047-1-1 richard viillar France 222 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
Je n'ai pas dit impulsée, j'ai simplement dit que le commencement a été une pensée...
Vois-tu la différence?

D'accord oui je vois.

Oui il est tout à fait possible d'être même dans la perception directe pendant le mouvement de la pensée. . .

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 15 Apr 2017 #87
Thumb_rodin_de_denker Olive B Netherlands 238 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
because consciousness can not be detected

Why can consciousness not be detected? (consciousness as “the larger energy field”, where you are talking about.)

Clive, stand up and take a step towards yourself……it is not a trick question….it is impossible to take a step towards yourself, because you are to close to yourself.

Consciousness is to close to itself to be detected, everything you detect is consciousness.

Experience alone must be the test of reality.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 15 Apr 2017 #88
Thumb_rodin_de_denker Olive B Netherlands 238 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
The Universe is Consciousness experiencing itself through us

Thus, the Universe is Consciousness experiencing itself through itself.

Experience alone must be the test of reality.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 15 Apr 2017 #89
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 561 posts in this forum Offline

#102:

Huguette . wrote:
Then can thought SEE?

Juan E wrote:
Yes!

Huguette . wrote:
Or is what it "sees" merely the past it remembers and the future it imagines?

Juan E wrote:
Not necessarily ... Look for "right thinking" in any of K's talks.

Yes, thought, the intellect, can see in a limited way. Obviously, it must see memory in order to be able to analyze it, expand on it, opine on it, and so on. It must see into the contents of consciousness in order to re-assemble and expound on what it sees there.

This "seeing" is also within consciousness. It is not whole, it is not total understanding. To have such total perception, there must be observation without division, mustn't there?, observation which is not the action of the intellect, observation without the intellect. The intellect must fall silent so that total perception can act, and then right thinking comes about. No?

5 minutes later:

... which touches upon what K said at the original post #1: "...when there is no control, when there is no measurement, when there is no sense of 'me' operating on things, psychologically" ... then there there can be right thinking.

This post was last updated by Huguette . Sat, 15 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 15 Apr 2017 #90
Thumb_img_20150716_212047-1-1 richard viillar France 222 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
l'insight

Juan, je ne sais pas bien traduire ce mot. Peux tu me dire d'abord, ce qu'il signifie pour toi s'il te plaît?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 61 - 90 of 100 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.)