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

Cause and Effect


Displaying posts 31 - 60 of 210 in total
Tue, 25 Jul 2017 #31
Thumb_stringio Mina Martini Finland 614 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Clive Elwell wrote:
Can anyone comment on this? Is the "wrong conclusion" he mentions above in the quote, the separation of cause and effect?

m:Yes. Cause separate from effect, or observer from the observed psychologically, is the very nature of an experience of a separate self. Psychological time also lives only in this imaginary separation between cause and effect, as 'becoming'.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 25 Jul 2017 #32
Thumb_stringio Mina Martini Finland 614 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Olive B wrote:
If we belief that there are separate causes for things, we will always find the separate self there.

mina:Yes, the illusory experience of cause and effect as separate, IS the self.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 25 Jul 2017 #33
Thumb_rodin_de_denker Olive B Netherlands 238 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Didn't you leave out 'thinking' Olive,

Re#30

Dan, I didn’t mention ‘think’ and ‘sense’ because they are no perceptions.

Experience alone must be the test of reality.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Jul 2017 #34
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3743 posts in this forum Offline

Olive B wrote:
Dan, I didn’t mention ‘think’ and ‘sense’ because they are no perceptions.

K has said that the brain is a sense organ. I'm not saying that we have to accept his words as authority, and in fact I have long pondered this, as at first it seemed puzzling.

But I would agree with you, Olive, the origin of all experience lies in the senses (as with a dream, it may involve the memory of experience).

Now I suggest - and I am merely imitating K's terminolgy, if the senses are operating in the present moment, without any interefernce of the past, memory, then 'experiencing' is talking place. I think this is not at all common. And I think, tentatively, it does not produce any 'experience'- that is, it is not laid down in the mind as memory. And I suggest for this to happen, all the senses have to be operating. I have been meaning to go into this for some time.

So what does 'experience' mean as a verb? If I say, for example, I experience pain, what does that mean exactly? isn't there some form of recognition and identification going on? So is not the past involved?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Jul 2017 #35
Thumb_de4 Dan McDermott United States 740 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Now I suggest - and I am merely imitating K's terminolgy, if the senses are operating in the present moment, without any interefernce of the past, memory, then 'experiencing' is talking place. I think this is not at all common.

No it's not at all. Maybe for the squirrels and the birds etc. but for us that other 'sense', thought/ thinking/time is always operating. "Refining and reshaping" all that is seen, heard , tasted etc. You can't leave it out of the equation. This gift of thought is what separates us from all other life here. But it needs to be in its 'right place' in us. Because it is a response from the past, it deprives us of being in the present. (where life is)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Jul 2017 #36
Thumb_rodin_de_denker Olive B Netherlands 238 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
I experience pain,

Re#3

The common presumption is that experience is divided into a subject and an object and joined together by an act of knowing, feeling, perceiving.

For example:the experience of seeing, touching, smelling a flower.

Subject: I

Object: flower

Joint by the act of seeing, touching, smelling

The subject and object are inseparable aspects of the same belief, called duality.

Experience alone must be the test of reality.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Jul 2017 #37
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2003 posts in this forum Offline

Olive B wrote:
The subject and object are inseparable aspects of the same belief, called duality.

I'm not sure I'd call that a belief. They are interelated images in thinking...products of thought. The belief is that there is a central controlling image...me....separate from the other images. But that may be another way of expressing what you are calling a belief in duality. K. and others have said that this central image is the cause of suffering....inner and outer, in the world.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 27 Jul 2017 #38
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3743 posts in this forum Offline

Olive B wrote:
The subject and object are inseparable aspects of the same belief, called duality.

I understand this, Olive, at least there is some understanding - but I was asking

Clive Elwell wrote:
So what does 'experience' mean as a verb? If I say, for example, I experience pain, what does that mean exactly? isn't there some form of recognition and identification going on? So is not the past involved?

So when this duality is not functioning, is there then experience laid down? Because it is the "I" concept that creates the river of time, is it not?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 27 Jul 2017 #39
Thumb_rodin_de_denker Olive B Netherlands 238 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
So when this duality is not functioning

We are saying: “we see the flower”.

All we can know for sure is “I am experiencing the seeing”or “there is seeing”.

Are we sure there is a flower, outside the experience of seeing?

The seeing OF the flower is an assumption.

All we know is experience.

All experience is pervaded by the knowing of it.

Experience is knowing, it is aware and alive.

We never get in contact with anything else then experience and it never goes away.

Experience alone must be the test of reality.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 27 Jul 2017 #40
Thumb_de4 Dan McDermott United States 740 posts in this forum Offline

Olive B wrote:
We never get in contact with anything else than experience and it never goes away.

Hi Olive, I think I'm getting what you are saying: that there is nothing else, only experiencing from moment to moment. It never ends. And there is no subject and object, no see=er and the seen, no experiencer and the experience etc. only the experiencing. (And the 'experiencing' can be aware of itself?)

Would the word 'perception' also describe what you are trying to get across: I perceive the flower (subject/object)...take away the duality and there is just the 'perceiving'? The physical body is the center from where the perceiving originates. So in that respect all perception, experiencing will be different, will have its own 'point of view'.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Thu, 27 Jul 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 28 Jul 2017 #41
Thumb_rodin_de_denker Olive B Netherlands 238 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
The physical body is the center from where the perceiving originates.

Yes Dan, the word perceiving can be used, but I don’t think perceiving originates from the physical body.

It is not perceiving from a location somewhere behind the eyes.

It is awareness/consciousness that perceives, which is not located somewhere.

Experience alone must be the test of reality.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 28 Jul 2017 #42
Thumb_de4 Dan McDermott United States 740 posts in this forum Offline

Olive B wrote:
but I don’t think perceiving originates from the physical body.

I don't understand this. The physical body with the brain contains the sense organs. Those sense organs, in contact with the world, trees, flowers etc. is the 'experiencing'. This sensory experience is different for every living thing. While 'awareness' is not 'owned'(located) by the sense organs, each living thing will have a unique sensory experience,it's own 'picture' or point of view of the world around, no?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 28 Jul 2017 #43
Thumb_rodin_de_denker Olive B Netherlands 238 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Those sense organs, in contact with the world, trees, flowers etc. is the 'experiencing'.

Re#42

Are we sure there is a flower, outside the experience of seeing?

All we can know for sure is “I am experiencing the seeing’ or “there is seeing”.

The seeing OF the flower is an assumption.

Dan McDermott wrote:
'awareness'

Dan, what is awareness to you?

Experience alone must be the test of reality.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 28 Jul 2017 #44
Thumb_de4 Dan McDermott United States 740 posts in this forum Offline

Olive B wrote:
what is awareness to you?

It's the realization in every thing that says "I am here", "I exist".

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 28 Jul 2017 #45
Thumb_rodin_de_denker Olive B Netherlands 238 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
"I am here", "I exist"

Who/what is it that says “I am here”, and “I exist”?

Experience alone must be the test of reality.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 28 Jul 2017 #46
Thumb_de4 Dan McDermott United States 740 posts in this forum Offline

Olive B wrote:
Who/what is it that says “I am here”, and “I exist”?

I would say every living thing has this sense of 'being'(awareness)...each in its own way. It is alive and does what it can to stay alive. (and propagate itself)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 28 Jul 2017 #47
Thumb_rodin_de_denker Olive B Netherlands 238 posts in this forum Offline

Do you mean I, the body, or I the mind or…..

Experience alone must be the test of reality.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 28 Jul 2017 #48
Thumb_de4 Dan McDermott United States 740 posts in this forum Offline

Olive B wrote:
Do you mean I, the body, or I the mind or…..

I'm thinking of it like the poet Rumi, that there is 'room' for only one 'I'...

The'I' that has manifested in this bewildering array of life forms from the virus to the human. Why so many? Why such a dazzling display of living possibilities? Your questions led me to ask myself, what does it mean to be fully 'human'? A perfect human? In the same way the flower, the tree, the tiger, is 'perfect'...Krisnamurti and perhaps others, has pointed out that humanity's 'problem' is that our development has become 'arrested'. That our problem is that of wishing to 'become' (psychologically) something we are not, at every moment. That "thought/time' dominates in us. An unbalance between the 'three brains', etc. Isn't that our 'task' as humans, to get to the bottom of what's 'wrong'? To understand it and perhaps go beyond it? Not for oneself, but because there has been enough violence, enough sorrow?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Fri, 28 Jul 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 28 Jul 2017 #49
Thumb_rodin_de_denker Olive B Netherlands 238 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
I'm thinking of it like the poet Rumi, that there is 'room' for only one 'I'...

If you are thinking of “I” like Rumi, then you know yourself as Awareness/Consciousness.

By “The only one” Rumi’s is pointing to the everpresent unlimited Awareness/Consciousness.

Re#40
Dan:The physical body is the center from where the perceiving originates.

RE#41
Olive:but I don’t think perceiving originates from the physical body.

It is not perceiving from a location somewhere behind the eyes.

It is awareness/consciousness that perceives, which is not located somewhere.

Olive:So the “I” is “The only one” the everpresent unlimited Awareness/Consciousness.

Experience alone must be the test of reality.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 28 Jul 2017 #50
Thumb_de4 Dan McDermott United States 740 posts in this forum Offline

Olive B wrote:
“I” is “The only one” the everpresent unlimited Awareness/Consciousness.

Maybe but that really has little bearing on what we actually do and how we actually live. It's in a way like saying "well nothing really matters because it's all just a dream, It's just 'awareness/consciousness' dressing up and putting on masks for its own amusement etc." That there is only one awareness/consciousness may be, as the poet says, but belief in that can become just another 'escape' from our 'own' situation. (which is humanity's)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 28 Jul 2017 #51
Thumb_rodin_de_denker Olive B Netherlands 238 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
belief in that can become just another 'escape'

I agree with you Dan, If you/somebody don’t experience awareness/consciousness it will stay a belief.

Experience alone must be the test of reality.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 28 Jul 2017 #52
Thumb_de4 Dan McDermott United States 740 posts in this forum Offline

Olive B wrote:
If you/somebody doesn't experience awareness/consciousness it will stay a belief.

Yes Olive, I'm afraid that that is the situation for most of us.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 29 Jul 2017 #53
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 398 posts in this forum Offline

Re: 29 and 39

I don’t see it this way, Olive.

Our so-called perception or experiencing of the world can also (as Dan suggests at #30) be influenced, corrupted and distorted by intellectual knowledge, by the stored accumulation of memories, ideas, beliefs, opinions, conclusions, information, and so on, can’t it? Therefore the past - where it is accepted as authority - is one factor which distorts perception. Isn’t the authority of the past - what I know, what I believe, what I think, my experience - the factor which conditions?

There can also be the distortion such as when someone hears voices or sees things and people that are “not there”; where perception is not corroborated either by bystanders or by scientific measurement. So even experiencing cannot be “the test of reality”, can it?

Any test of reality can only be a conclusion or supposition of the limited intellect but, as K says, “truth has no abiding place”. That is, in the field of relationship, no conclusion, theory, belief, idea, and so on, can be held as proof of the truth. As soon as experiencing is turned into a conclusion etc., what is being experienced is not the living fact but the past, isn’t it? Then the living fact is looked at through the conclusion, rather than being faced without any preconceptions.

We also speak about “self-knowledge”, where the term “knowledge” has nothing to do with memory but refers rather to experiencing without reference to the past, experiencing in the immediate moment. Although the word “knowledge” is used in both instances, it means something radically different in each case. So it is with the word “experience”. It means something radically different depending on whether the word is being used as a verb or a noun. So if “I” say that my only knowledge of the world is the 5 senses, the brain has (“I have”) already left the field of perception by holding that idea or conclusion to be truth, no?

There is - fortunately or unfortunately - NO such thing as a “test of reality”, is there? I can only “know” what I perceive or experience (the verb) in the fleeting moment. Beyond that, there is memory and experience (the noun). If we truly speak to each other out of experiencing, out of what is perceived in the living moment, i.e. out of self-knowledge, then the past is not distorting or corrupting perception. But we are so heavily conditioned that we can’t always tell the difference between perception and knowledge, no?

This post was last updated by Huguette . Sat, 29 Jul 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 29 Jul 2017 #54
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 398 posts in this forum Offline

There is awareness, observation of all perceptions, whatever their source. That awareness is experiencing, isn’t? It is not the movement of memory. Only through awareness, can there be insight or understanding. But through experience/memory there cannot be. Is it so? In awareness or observation, there is no “illusory time interval” as mentioned in the K quote at post #1.

As I see it, memory is a 6th sense of perception - which is not to say that there are only 6… or that I’m right. As I see it, movement of any kind inside or outside of the body is the root of perception. The brain senses movement as sound, sight, smell, taste, touch … and thought. The memory of such movements having occurred constitutes experience (the noun), doesn't it? When I say I have experience or I speak of what I experienced yesterday, I am referring to memory. If I had no memory of past experience, I could not say that I have experience, could I? So there can be the experiencing of a remembered experience, which is the movement of the memory in the present living moment. The experience is sensed or remembered because there is movement going on in the brain, isn’t it? If there is no cerebral movement, there can be no experiencing of memory. This movement of memory is also what creates the illusory time interval, the interval between now and then, between now and "some day".

To see how the brain works, what is perception, experiencing, thought, awareness, is all part of self-understanding or self-knowledge, isn’t it?

This post was last updated by Huguette . Sat, 29 Jul 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 29 Jul 2017 #55
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2003 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Any test of reality can only be a conclusion or supposition of the limited intellect but, as K says, “truth has no abiding place”. That is, in the field of relationship, no conclusion, theory, belief, idea, and so on, can be held as proof of the truth. As soon as experiencing is turned into a conclusion etc., what is being experienced is not the living fact but the past, isn’t it? Then the living fact is looked at through the conclusion, rather than being faced without any preconceptions.

Isn't this why we never face 'the living fact' of fear or anger or some craving or other? We always observe it through some conclusion....even the conclusion that I am not that....'I am formless and limitless awareness'... 'I am love'. Here's today's QOTD . I'm not sure if it applies here or not. I may use it to start a new thread:

"Do not let us concern ourselves about what is cosmic consciousness, truth, and so on. That which is real will be known when the various forms of illusions have ceased. As the mind is capable of such subtle deceptions and has the power to create for itself many illusions, our concern should not be about the state of reality, but to dispel the many delusions that are consciously or unconsciously springing up. By belonging to a religious organization with its dogmas, beliefs, creeds, or by being one of these new dogmatic nationalists, you hope to realize God, truth, or human happiness. But how can the mind comprehend reality if it is twisted by beliefs, prejudices,dogmas and fears? Only when these limitations are dissolved can there be truth. Do not preconceive what is and then adjust to that conception your wants. "

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Sat, 29 Jul 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 29 Jul 2017 #56
Thumb_de4 Dan McDermott United States 740 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
To see how the brain works, what is perception, experiencing, thought, awareness, is all part of self-understanding or self-knowledge, isn’t it?

Yes I think that's all well said Huguette. I would add to the quote of yours above that this seeing is actually the brain seeing itself in a 'different' way. Trying to be aware of itself without judgement, condemnation or comparison entering means that the judgmental 'thinker' is not 'presiding'...the judgmental 'thinker' is included...this I think is what is meant by 'meditation without the meditator'. The brain then is seeing itself in a new way, not through memory or the past. (This can be somewhat 'destabilizing' as the 'stability' of the self is put into question.)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 29 Jul 2017 #57
Thumb_de4 Dan McDermott United States 740 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
K.: Do not preconceive what is and then adjust to that conception your wants. "

The urge to hold on to something, anything, is so strong. Yet 'holding on' is death and life is movement, motion. AS K. put it, a "gathering and a letting go, it is the 'self that 'holds on'..."

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 29 Jul 2017 #58
Thumb_rodin_de_denker Olive B Netherlands 238 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Our so-called perception or experiencing of the world can also (as Dan suggests at #30) be influenced, corrupted and distorted by intellectual knowledge,

Re#53

Hi Huguette,

I am talking about the act of perception before what you call distorted by intellectual knowledge, by the stored accumulation of memories, ideas, beliefs, opinions, conclusions, information,

Experience alone must be the test of reality.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 29 Jul 2017 #59
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 398 posts in this forum Offline

Hi Olive,

What you say is relatively easy to understand when talking about the 5 senses. But it is not so straightforward when we are looking into perception, awareness, cause-and-effect, consciousness, duality, belief, and so on, as we are doing here, is it?

If I perceive these things one way, and you perceive them differently, are we both perceiving? How can I know whether I am perceiving or whether I’m thinking? Can there be alternative perceptions? If there is such a thing as an act of perception which is untainted by knowledge, what if anything can we do - what can the mind do - so that knowledge does NOT taint perception?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 29 Jul 2017 #60
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2003 posts in this forum Offline

Olive B wrote:
I am talking about the act of perception before what you call distorted by intellectual knowledge, by the stored accumulation of memories, ideas, beliefs, opinions, conclusions, information,

But the distortion has already happened by the time we're school children. The distortion is what is. The 'before' the distortion is not a fact. We may discuss what once was and make it into an ideal, but this only complicates our obversation of what actually is, doesn't it?

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 31 - 60 of 210 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.)