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

The totality of consciousness


Displaying all 3 posts
Page 1 of 1
Wed, 21 Jun 2017 #1
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 319 posts in this forum Offline

I understand "duality" to refer to the apparent division between thinker and thought, observer and observed, and so on, i.e. a false division which does not accurately reflect what the source of thought actually is, what the thinker is, what the whole of thought is.

Another way to express it, I think, is that duality is the false division between the "conscious" and the "unconscious".

The "conscious mind" thinks of the unconscious (more or less) as the repository of its primitive and childhood memories, of all its repressed and "forgotten memories" - fears, betrayals, abandonment, helplessness, abuses, lost loves, etc., doesn't it? It realizes that there is a vast repository of memories which it doesn't (consciously) remember.

Unless an obvious conflict arises, doesn't the conscious mind think that in its daily actions, it is (more or less) unaffected by the unconscious? Doesn't it think that the unconscious acts only when there is an obvious conflict or friction?

But isn't it the fact that the conscious mind is (for the most part) unaware and inattentive to the unconscious motives, hints and intimations which influence its "consciously rational" actions? The "conscious mind" thinks it is informed and that it is acting rationally, doesn't it?

For the most part then, can one say that the unconscious intervenes in all our "conscious" actions and that we only THINK "we" are acting freely and in full awareness? That is, the conscious mind only thinks it is aware of its motives whereas in fact the whole of consciousness acts as an undivided whole.

Is this so? Is there any point or interest in giving consideration to this?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 21 Jun 2017 #2
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 314 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
That is, the conscious mind only thinks it is aware of its motives whereas in fact the whole of consciousness acts as an undivided whole ... Is this so?

Yes to me it is so ...
Unfortunately i must go to sleep now, so i will expand on this tomorrow.

Huguette . wrote:
Is there any point or interest in giving consideration to this?

Absolutely, this is the crux of the matter to me ...
So, thanks for starting this thread!

"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
Wed, 21 Jun 2017 #3
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 1765 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
For the most part then, can one say that the unconscious intervenes in all our "conscious" actions and that we only THINK "we" are acting freely and in full awareness? That is, the conscious mind only thinks it is aware of its motives whereas in fact the whole of consciousness acts as an undivided whole.

Yes to the part in bold. The conscious mind is not separate from the unconscious. I think it's important to realize that the observer fragment is not superior to the observed fragment/s...is not more sane or rational. K once said, I think, that the observer fragment is a product of the other fragments. Can any part/fragment/thought separate itself and observe the other parts free of the influence of the totality? Am 'I separate from the total conditioning of consciousness?

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Thu, 22 Jun 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying all 3 posts
Page 1 of 1
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.)