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

What can we do?


Displaying posts 61 - 90 of 131 in total
Thu, 08 Jun 2017 #61
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 319 posts in this forum Offline

re 55:

Huguette wrote:
So the content is stored in the brain and it is inactive until it is activated by ... 'friction', isn't it?

Clive Elwell wrote:
This sounds a little odd, Huguette. Which is the cart and which is the horse? Is not that friction part of the consciousness? Otherwise where would it come from?

The content includes memory of pain, hurt, conflict. But unless there is friction - a reaction or resistance to a reaction or challenge that is encountered, that stored content is not causing friction, is it?

K quote from #1 in the thread "Consciousness comes into being when there is friction":
Consciousness comes into being when there is friction, when I meet a response, when there is disharmony. Consciousness begins when there is interruption. When I am awake and look at the trees there is no friction, there is no response. I am only watching the tree.

This post was last updated by Huguette . Thu, 08 Jun 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 08 Jun 2017 #62
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 319 posts in this forum Offline

55:

Huguette wrote:
And we obviously do not want to get rid of the whole content anyway.

Clive Elwell wrote:
Again, I find this a little odd, sugesting as it does the me is different from the content. But yes, this is the perpetual pretence of the mind.

When the mind understands itself, when it understands the nature of self, that it is 1 not 2, that what it believed was a separate self was actually part of itself, the mind does not disappear, does it? It is whole, undivided, and the thinking mind does not have a problem with the whole content. The whole content is there as needed. What is not needed in the moment is dormant.

This post was last updated by Huguette . Thu, 08 Jun 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 08 Jun 2017 #63
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 319 posts in this forum Offline

55:

Clive Elwell wrote:
So, in the quote that you give; we might go into the question of what is this act of denial.

Is it something other than negation?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 08 Jun 2017 #64
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 319 posts in this forum Offline

52:

Huguette wrote:
Experience is thought, isn't it? Experiencing is one thing, it is living in the moment. Experience is of the past, no?

Juan E wrote:
I think this is a clear example of conditioning ;-) ... Joking aside, i don't have the feeling that Olive is using the word "experience" in the sense you interpret here through K's explanation of the word.

You might be right, Juan. Maybe Olive does mean "experiencing" not "experience".

Still, when I see a statement like, "So maintaining for let’s say 18 hours a day a separate self is an activity and requires a lot of effort", it strikes "me", the reader of the statement, as an idea, a conclusion, not as experiencing. So, we're just talking things over. Maybe I'm mistaken.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 08 Jun 2017 #65
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 319 posts in this forum Offline

#46:

Huguette wrote:
Experience is thought, isn't it? Experiencing is one thing, it is living in the moment. Experience is of the past, no?

Clive Elwell wrote:
We experience according to our conditioning, do we not? So I cannot see that experience is the proof of anything.

I've often heard things like, "I know what [people] are like. I have a lot of experience with them." Then the experience is strengthened each time "I" come face to face with one of "them" or each time I encounter a certain behaviour, isn't it? I have a ready-made explanation and I'm not actually seeing the other person, am I? I'm experiencing my conclusion about them, and this causes friction. Then I have to wonder if I am having a relationship only with myself, or with the other.

This post was last updated by Huguette . Thu, 08 Jun 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 08 Jun 2017 #66
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 319 posts in this forum Offline

45:

Huguette wrote:
I'm not sure that tremendous effort is required to maintain a belief.

Olive B wrote:
Thoughts perceptions feelings etc. arise effortless as a form of awareness, so far no effort.

Thought (The illusory separate self, the belief) is superimposing on the form, is resisting(friction/conflict) what is, and that is an effort.

So maintaining for let’s say 18 hours a day a separate self is an activity and requires a lot of effort.

That thoughts, perceptions, feelings arise effortlessly, I have no argument with that. But I don't see thoughts and feelings as a form of awareness. Thoughts can arise seemingly spontaneously but still as a reaction to something, no? Not necessarily an unpleasant reaction. But awareness is not a reaction, is it? You said at #45 that "awareness is everpresent". Is it present when I make an effort to respond to fear or anger, when I resist fear or anger? For me, there is awareness when fear or anger are observed without a mental movement; but there is no awareness when I resist or make an effort, and I am not resisting or making an effort all day long.

This post was last updated by Huguette . Thu, 08 Jun 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 08 Jun 2017 #67
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 319 posts in this forum Offline

45:

Huguettte wrote:
Doesn't the tremendous effort come into it where friction or conflict arises,

Olive B wrote:
The friction/conflict IS the effort.

The effort is a consequence of the friction, the emotion, that has been stirred up. The emotion can arise without any effort necessarily following it so that, as I see it, the friction is not the effort.

Olive B wrote:
A separate self is not what you are, it is what you do.

What/who is the "you" in "what you do"? What the "separate self" DOES, what "you" do, is based on the self-image, on "what you are", isn't it? Image consists of thought, image is put together by thought, so then isn't it the intellect/thought which acts, which does whatever it is that "self does"?

This post was last updated by Huguette . Thu, 08 Jun 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 08 Jun 2017 #68
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 319 posts in this forum Offline

45:

Huguette wrote:
the security of continuity and safety we desire,

Olive B wrote:
K talks about that people want security.

If you take your stand as an separate self nothing is or will be secure.

Something that comes and goes, starts and stops can never be secure.

So why should you, if you belief you are a separate self, want something that is not there.

Or is the separate self believing there is security in being a separate self?

I'm not saying you're wrong in your reasoning, Olive, but reasoning alone cannot make us understand the root of our problems, can it? If it could, surely we would have peace on earth by now. It does no good, for example, telling someone that they have no reason to be afraid if they ARE afraid, does it?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 08 Jun 2017 #69
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 319 posts in this forum Offline

45:

Huguette wrote:
I'm not sure what you mean by what "you" are.

Olive B wrote:
You are not an illusory separate self you are awareness.

Here too, Olive, an affirmation like this on its own does not help me see the fact of it. Does it? Can it?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 08 Jun 2017 #70
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 623 posts in this forum Online

Huguette . wrote:
It does no good, for example, telling someone that they have no reason to be afraid if they ARE afraid, does it?

No because they ARE 'afraid'. For me being 'afraid' is an opportunity to see what fear is...not to indulge in it, but to look at this 'thing' that in many ways rules our life. So I agree, hearing that I am "awareness" is 'comforting' but unless I come upon it myself (through meditation, self-observation...), it is just a 'belief', a theory.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Thu, 08 Jun 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 08 Jun 2017 #71
Thumb_rodin_de_denker Olive B Netherlands 168 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Thoughts can arise seemingly spontaneously but still as a reaction to something, no?

As a reaction to what? What is that something? Where is it made of?

Experience alone must be the test of reality.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 08 Jun 2017 #72
Thumb_a1056283319_2 Tom Paine United States 1687 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Huguette wrote:

I'm not sure what you mean by what "you" are.
Olive B wrote:

You are not an illusory separate self you are awareness.
Here too, Olive, an affirmation like this on its own does not help me see the fact of it. Does it? Can it?

If I crave a cigarette, does it help to say 'I am not that craving' or 'I am awareness'? Isn't the craving part of 'me'.... what I actually am at that moment? I'm just fooling myself if I say 'I am NOT that craving'. But it's much more satisfying to say, 'I am awareness.... I am not just a worried, confused, frustrated, man or woman who is running away from my problems and craving a cigarette.' 'I am NOT that confusion and conflict.'

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Thu, 08 Jun 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 08 Jun 2017 #73
Thumb_rodin_de_denker Olive B Netherlands 168 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
For me, there is awareness when fear or anger are observed without a mental movement

There is still seeing Huguette, a subject and an object.

Awareness doesn’t know subjects and objects.

Experience alone must be the test of reality.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 08 Jun 2017 #74
Thumb_rodin_de_denker Olive B Netherlands 168 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
The effort is a consequence of the friction, the emotion, that has been stirred up.

If it was an emotion that arises then it was already an effort(emotion).

It is not an emotion that arises, but thought/feeling tells(is superimposing on awareness) you it is an emotion.

Experience alone must be the test of reality.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 08 Jun 2017 #75
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 306 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
You might be right, Juan. Maybe Olive does mean "experiencing" not "experience".

Today i went to a bar to eat after work, and as i was interested in finding out if it was possible to continue listening to a youtube video even when the mobile screen turns off i started looking for it in Google while waiting for food to come ...

So, as i had success i made a search in youtube for a K video to check it, choosing a video that i had never seen before: "Madras 1984 - Small Group Discussion 1 - Living is a constant movement" ... Casually there (if there is such thing as chance) there is this interesting dialog between Pupul Jayakar and K which is related to our dialog about 'experience':

"Madras 1984 - Small Group Discussion 1 - Living is a constant movement"



  • Pupul Jayakar: No, i want to ask Krishnaji one question ... If experience and knowledge are two separate things, then it is possible to divide them and only experience ... Is it possible to do this?

  • Krishnaji: What?! What?!

  • PJ: If knowledge and...

  • K: I've got it, i've got it!

  • PJ: ...are two separate things...

  • K: yeah

  • PJ: ...then it must be possible to experience without knowledge!! ... Is it possible?!

  • K: Wait, wait! ... Yeees!


You can listen to it, if you want, following THIS LINK.

Sound is very bad, which makes someone who's not english speaker like myself to lose part of the dialog, but i think that for an english speaker able to listen everything despite the quality of sound, it may be a quite interesting dialog.

"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 Thu, 08 Jun 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 08 Jun 2017 #76
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 319 posts in this forum Offline

Juan,

I'll listen to the link later. For now, I can say that "to experience" (the verb) is indicative of a different process than "experience" (the noun).

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 08 Jun 2017 #77
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 319 posts in this forum Offline

71:

Huguette wrote:
Thoughts can arise seemingly spontaneously but still as a reaction to something, no?

Olive B wrote:
As a reaction to what? What is that something? Where is it made of?

Might it be a reaction to an insult, pleasure, boredom, fear, depression, desire, a sound, an insight, and so on? I can be sitting quietly observing, for example, and the divided mind doesn't like it. That 'not liking it' is a subtle form of thought, a subtle desire to escape from this unpleasant inactivity, isn't it? Then inattention creeps in and awareness is gone.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 08 Jun 2017 #78
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 319 posts in this forum Offline

73:

Huguette wrote:
For me, there is awareness when fear or anger are observed without a mental movement

Olive B wrote:
There is still seeing Huguette, a subject and an object.

Awareness doesn’t know subjects and objects.

I see it that way too, Olive: awareness doesn't know subjects and objects, whether "the observed" is the surroundings/environment, or whether it is inner thoughts and emotions, or whether it is the naming by thought of the surroundings, thoughts and emotions. Seeing anything, the act of seeing, has no subject and object. Awareness is not memory, it is not knowledge, but what it sees is recorded and then the memory is known to thought, isn't it? So there is no subject and object in the moment of awareness, but there is a subject and object in the recording/memory of it, as I see it.

This post was last updated by Huguette . Thu, 08 Jun 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 08 Jun 2017 #79
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3370 posts in this forum Offline

Olive B wrote:
Clive, the separate self is not the activity OF…

The separate self IS the resistance to what is.

The separate self IS the activity.

it seems just a question of grammar. Seems to me we are saying the same thing, Olive

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 08 Jun 2017 #80
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3370 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
The spaces or intervals between the manifestations of consciousness or the movement of thought/emotion are limited. OK, but does it matter?

It matters just as much as thought makes it matter.

Huguette . wrote:
We observe what is in THIS moment. "What is" being the manifestations of consciousness that arise in the moment, and all that is observed outwardly and inwardly. What else can we do?

What you say is true, but thought brings in time. Thought IS time, in fact. Thought wants to capture understanding, thought records understanding and then compares different understands - which then are NOT understanding.

Huguette . wrote:
What else can we do?

I don't think we can even DO that - ie doing as an action of will, but sometimes seeing and learning come, yes. Again, the trouble is that thought tries to interfere. And then, yes, this can be seen, this is part of the seeing and learning.

Huguette . wrote:
It is just something that is observed, not something that is a roadblock, not something to be overcome. Just seeing the fact, the whole process, is learning, isn't it?

When there is pure observation, awareness, then there is no problem, no roadblock, that is true. And when that is not there there is every kind of problem. And those problems are all associated with thought (me) trying to do something about it

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 08 Jun 2017 #81
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3370 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
The content includes memory of pain, hurt, conflict. But unless there is friction - a reaction or resistance to a reaction or challenge that is encountered, that stored content is not causing friction, is it?

I'm sorry Huguette, but something must be eluding me here. By "stored content" I take it you mean consciousness when dormant. Unmanifested. But dormant does not mean not alert, or unconscious. It is ready to react at any moment. And when it meets a 'challenge' - and I do not know why it should interpret certain things as challenges - it 'erupts', and this is the friction?

Comment please.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 08 Jun 2017 #82
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3370 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote: #63
Clive Elwell wrote:

So, in the quote that you give; we might go into the question of what is this act of denial.
Is it something other than negation?

But this just substitutes one word for another - at least to thought it does. What is the nature of negation? I think I have a feel for it, but it seems to elude description.

Can we say negation is the perception of what is false, and in that perception, in the light if that perception, the darkness of the false necessarily disappears, evaporates?

Here is an relevant quote, and Juan, if you are reading this, it relates to an earlier quote about insight/transformation not being random:

“The negation of thought is attention; as the negation of thought is love. If you are seeking the highest, you will not find it; it must come to you, if you are lucky – and luck is the open window of your heart, not of thought. ”

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 08 Jun 2017 #83
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 319 posts in this forum Offline

81:

I am having a peaceful moment. In fact, there is no "I" present in that tranquility. Then, someone or something "pushes my buttons". It is not a question of interpreting it as a challenge. Something happens - something is seen, heard, smelled, remembered - that "turns on" the mechanism or process of desire, anger, fear, and with this, the "I" is also turned on. Much like any recording is turned on.

This post was last updated by Huguette . Fri, 09 Jun 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 08 Jun 2017 #84
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3370 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Something happens - something is seen, heard, smelled, remembered - that "turns on" the mechanism or process of desire, anger, fear, and with this, the "I" is also turned on.

Why? Why is it turned on?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 09 Jun 2017 #85
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 319 posts in this forum Offline

I may be walking on an unfamiliar street and come upon a storefront that suddenly triggers the memory of having passed by there years ago. Or someone says something about me that triggers a connection or pathway to anger. Or something triggers a connection to a hurt that was registered when I was a defenseless, innocent child, even though I don't consciously remember it. Or I may be offered a food and I remember that I ate this food once and it made me sick, and so on.

It is all a vast "network of thought" common to all of us. Events have been registered and cerebral connections have been made. Why? That is just how the brain functions, isn't it? "I" don't have to do anything to activate this process. I couldn't prevent it if I tried or wanted to. This network, these connections, that is our conditioning.

Remembering that a food makes me sick does not trigger friction or effort. I just don't eat the food and that's the end of it, isn't it? Remembering the storefront doesn't trigger friction or effort - unless it is connected to a painful memory. The storefront is remembered and that's the end of it.

But in the situations that trigger friction and effort by awakening an unpleasant or a pleasant connection to memory, conscious or unconscious, isn't that when self is put together? Psychological hurt and pleasure are memory and time, they are based on memory stored in the brain, aren't they? The connection that is made to the past doesn't come from an attack on the kidneys or the big toe, or from a punch in the face.

This post was last updated by Huguette . Fri, 09 Jun 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 09 Jun 2017 #86
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 319 posts in this forum Offline

82:

Clive Elwell wrote:
So, in the quote that you give; we might go into the question of what is this act of denial.

Huguette wrote:
Is it something other than negation?

Clive Elwell wrote:
But this just substitutes one word for another - at least to thought it does. What is the nature of negation? I think I have a feel for it, but it seems to elude description.

Can we say negation is the perception of what is false, and in that perception, in the light if that perception, the darkness of the false necessarily disappears, evaporates?

K wrote:
“The negation of thought is attention; as the negation of thought is love. If you are seeking the highest, you will not find it; it must come to you, if you are lucky – and luck is the open window of your heart, not of thought. ”

As far as I can see, K used words differently at different ages of his life and also in different contexts. I can't say that "negation" and "denial" meant exactly the same thing to him, but they do seem at least very similar to me.

What you say about negation being the perception of what is false rings true to me. If I see in the moment that thought cannot solve problems of relationship, and that the pursuit of pleasure is the same process as escaping psychological pain, the perception of that is not a positive affirmation made by the intellect. An affirmation on its own is not perception. The intellect does not perceive truth in relationship. There can be no perception without attention or awareness. And attention is not an intellectual activity, is it? Then doesn't the perception negate making psychological effort in the moment of attention?

A moment later, attention may be "lost" and effort may begin again. Then what was perception becomes nothing more than a positive affirmation based on memory, and so effort/thought/consciousness is no longer negated.

Later:

It occurs to me that it's also important for the mind (for us) to acknowledge, to be aware of, the pleasure, comfort and reassurance it gets from its incessant movements of effort, somewhat like it gets pleasure, comfort and reassurance from other painful habits, like picking at scabs for example.

This post was last updated by Huguette . Fri, 09 Jun 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 09 Jun 2017 #87
Thumb_rodin_de_denker Olive B Netherlands 168 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Might it be a reaction to an insult, pleasure, boredom, fear, depression, desire, a sound, an insight, and so on?

Re #77

Sitting quietly observing, is not jet the source Huguette.

Thought doesn’t arises as a reaction to something, this is already away from the source.

Awareness in the form of thought arises.

Mind/thought superimposes on to awareness and makes it into an emotion.

Experience alone must be the test of reality.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 09 Jun 2017 #88
Thumb_rodin_de_denker Olive B Netherlands 168 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
but what it sees is recorded

Re #78

What should awareness record? Awareness doesn’t know objects.

Why should awareness record? Awareness has no motive to record.

Experience alone must be the test of reality.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 09 Jun 2017 #89
Thumb_rodin_de_denker Olive B Netherlands 168 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Why? Why is it turned on?

You are turning it on because you as the separate self loves the drama, Clive.

Experience alone must be the test of reality.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 09 Jun 2017 #90
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 319 posts in this forum Offline

87:

Olive B wrote:
Sitting quietly observing, is not jet the source Huguette.

That's fine, Olive. I don't know anything about the source. The source is obviously, it seems to me, not something that can be conveyed or pointed to.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 61 - 90 of 131 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.)