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

It's very simple


Displaying posts 91 - 120 of 126 in total
Fri, 14 Apr 2017 #91
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 414 posts in this forum Offline

richard viillar wrote:
Or not! ;-)

Tu m'as fait rire, merci! ;-)

richard viillar wrote:
Anyway what he is thinking about, he can only make links and think from which he already know.

Right ...

Cela dit, peut-il devenir la cause d'une perception directe de ce qui est entendu?

"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 #92
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 #93
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 414 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
If we did not suffer, would we look into any of this?

If we did not suffer, there would be any need at all to look at all this?
Let me answer your questions later or tomorrow, when i can have a quiet time to do 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 #94
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 414 posts in this forum Offline

richard viillar wrote:
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...

Je crois que vous me avez mal compris (excuse-moi si je suis celui qui a mal compris votre réponse) ... En fait, ce que je demande est si la pensée, ne sachant rien de ce qu'il entend, et en utilisant le connu pour essayer de comprendre, si ça peut devenir la cause d'une perception directe de ce qui est entendu ... En d'autres termes: si par l'utilisation de la pensée un peut avoir une perception directe de ce qui est entendu ... Qu'en pensez-vous?

"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 #95
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3851 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 #96
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3851 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 #97
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3851 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 #98
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 766 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 #99
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 #100
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 415 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 #101
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 414 posts in this forum Offline

richard viillar wrote:
Non c'est impossible. La pensée est un filtre à la perception directe.

Oui, mais ... combien de fois avez-vous eu une perception directe qui a effectivement commencé avec une pensée?

"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
Sat, 15 Apr 2017 #102
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 414 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Then can thought SEE?

Yes!

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

Not necessarily ... Look for "right thinking" in any of K's talks.

"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
Sat, 15 Apr 2017 #103
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 #104
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3851 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 #105
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 #106
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 414 posts in this forum Offline

richard viillar wrote:
Je n'ai jamais eu de perception derecte impulsée par la pensée...

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

"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
Sat, 15 Apr 2017 #107
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 #108
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 #109
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 #110
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 414 posts in this forum Offline

richard viillar wrote:
D'accord oui je vois.

On peut donc dire que l'insight a bénéficié de la mémoire/l'enregistrement et de la pensée en quelque sorte? ... Qu'ils ne sont pas vraiment séparés et donc n'empêchent pas vraiment la perception directe? ... Qu'en pensez-vous?

"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
Sat, 15 Apr 2017 #111
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 415 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 #112
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 414 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Yes, thought, the intellect, can see in a limited way.

Yes ...

Is it when thought perceives its own limitation and naturally stops then, that a much broader seeing appears? ... Or in other words: is right thinking the understanding itself or it is just a vehicle that is "abandoned" when real understanding appears, like a seed disappearing in the sprout?

So, can thought, seeing its own limitation to go further, stop naturally leaving space for a much broader (whole) understanding? ... Is that right thinking (which according to K can only come with self-knowledge)?

"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
Sat, 15 Apr 2017 #113
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 414 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
The intellect must fall silent so that total perception can act, and then right thinking comes about. No?

That's it! ...

Would you say then that intellect, following the path of right thinking at certain point becomes aware of its own limitation and fall silent letting right thinking to continue the walk until it dies too in the total perception?

"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
Sat, 15 Apr 2017 #114
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
Sat, 15 Apr 2017 #115
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 414 posts in this forum Offline

richard viillar wrote:
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?

Selon le dictionnaire Merriam-Webster: 1. Le pouvoir ou l'acte de voir dans une situation: pénétration; 2. l'acte ou le résultat d'appréhender la nature intérieure des choses ou de voir intuitivement ... Je l'ai utilisé (peut-être mal utilisé) comme synonyme de "perception directe".

Dans le contexte de ce que nous parlons ici, pour moi il signifie que l'un pense ou observe quelque chose et tout à coup une perception directe de la chose observé apparaît ... Ma question alors, est de voir si cette perception directe profitez en quelque sorte de la mémoire / enregistrement et de la pensée, ou rien du tout.

"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
Sat, 15 Apr 2017 #116
Thumb_img_20150716_212047-1-1 richard viillar France 222 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
voir si cette perception directe profite en quelque sorte de la mémoire / enregistrement et de la pensée, ou rien du tout.

d'accord,

de ce que je vois, la perception directe est la cessation de toute interférence qui découle sur la disparition de la dimension objet/sujet.

de ce que je vois, je ne peux pas dire si la perception directe a une origine, je peux dire qu'elle se produit dans certaines conditions mais qui ne sont pas considérées comme son origine.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 16 Apr 2017 #117
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3851 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
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.

Clive: I am looking at this. I have always assumed that recording in the brain takes place when the incident, the perception is happening. I am willing to challenge this idea.

I had thought that the brain is a recording machine, and this recording goes on continually – albeit at an unconscious level. I have sometimes been astounded that the brain – through the senses – is able to record so much information. The capacity to recall in the state of hypnosis seems to provide evidence that EVERYTHING is recorded, but of course not everything is always recalled (I think there is a condition where some people actually do). But it may be acting at a sub-conscious level.

H: Can I see anger and already remember it as I am seeing it?

C: Clearly perception and memory cannot occur simultaneously.

H: So the memory arises right after the actual seeing, no? Remembering is involuntary. It happens without effort or desire, doesn't it

C: Absolutely. Thought arises unbidden to the mind, as I keep writing :-)

H: 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.

Clive: Neither do I. But it seems that the mind demands something to think about, it is compulsive.

H: 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.

C: I am still not clear about what the distinction between thought and memory. Can you clarify this?

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?

No, I don't think thought can see. Thought is image, idea, word. What I was inquiring into is how seeing gets passed over into thought. Perhaps it is a non-question.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 16 Apr 2017 #118
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3851 posts in this forum Offline

richard viillar wrote:
what is "consciousness"?

I would say that cosciousness is this vast reservoir of all (all) human experience and knowledge, starting from year zero. That is where we live, breath, and have our being, and we are adding to it all the time.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 16 Apr 2017 #119
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3851 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
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.

Clive: Do you? Do you actually sense the physical movement in the brain, rather than just being aware that thought is saying something?

H: 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.

C: I agree that to study the brain “from the outside” is very limiting. Interesting, but limited.

Huguette: But there’s no end or limit to my interest in understanding what awareness reveals, in understanding silence, and so on.

Clive: Indeed.

Huguette: Awareness reveals fragmentation in the moment, doesn’t it?

Clive: Yes.

H: --- 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.

Clive: Yes, it always leads to sorrow. That is, the self does. The strange thing is, it never seems to fully realise this. The apparent victories of the self are actually its defeats. It never has realised it, apparently. This non-realisation is very strange, isn't it?

H: 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?

C: Yes.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 16 Apr 2017 #120
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3851 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
If we did not suffer, would we look into any of this?

I'll tell you when I cease to suffer :-). When all conflict, duality, ends.

K seemed to endlessly look into things, even though apparently he was beyond suffering. Or perhaps he only did so as part of looking at things with others.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 91 - 120 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.)