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

Cause and Effect


Displaying posts 61 - 90 of 210 in total
Sat, 29 Jul 2017 #61
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 348 posts in this forum Offline

re 55:

Tom,

I do see a connection between this QOTD and what we’re talking about. Like I asked Olive, how can I be sure, how can I know whether I am perceiving without the influence or authority of the past, or whether I am in fact thinking under the influence and authority of knowledge? Can I know? It sounds like it should be clear and easy to distinguish, “But how can the mind comprehend reality if it is twisted by beliefs, prejudices,dogmas and fears?” What else can one do but look into it all with that realization?

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 29 Jul 2017 #62
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 348 posts in this forum Offline

re 56:

Dan,

The way you phrased this makes it clearer … In effect, it is the brain seeing itself without the past, isn’t it?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 30 Jul 2017 #63
Thumb_rodin_de_denker Olive B Netherlands 238 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
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.

Re#60

IN K’s book: “FREEDOM IS THE FIRST STEP AND THE LAST STEP” he explaned that to be a separate self, is not a choice that you made in the past, it is a choice that we make moment by moment.

You can make the first step at any moment.

Experience alone must be the test of reality.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 30 Jul 2017 #64
Thumb_de4 Dan McDermott United States 708 posts in this forum Offline

Olive B wrote:
it is a choice that we make moment by moment.

The difficulty here for me in what you say here Olive is that you are suggesting that there is 'someone' who can make this "choice". This is the difference between K. and the organized religions which say things like you must make a "decision for Christ, take him into your heart", etc. The 'chooser' IS the separate 'self'. And the 'choice' the separate self makes is for a 'better'(more spiritual?) situation. K. as far as I understand, is saying 'see' what you are without choosing. See without judgement, condemnation, comparison etc. It is the 'seeing', the 'self knowledge' that can lead to 'freedom' through seeing the 'false as false'. Thought/thinking/time maintains and perpetuates the self/thinker/chooser etc. Only thought through awareness of itself can end that. As K has said, there is no other factor that can do it.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 30 Jul 2017 #65
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 1826 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Olive B wrote:

it is a choice that we make moment by moment.

Dan McDermott wrote:
The 'chooser' IS the separate 'self'. And the 'choice' the separate self makes is for a 'better'(more spiritual?) situation

True enough, Dan. 'I' AM the separate self. I choose based upon my conditioning of like and dislike....and based upon the known. I myself am a product of all that....nothing more. I'll let Olive comment further if she likes. Perhaps she's speaking 'metaphorically' in some manner?

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 30 Jul 2017 #66
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 1826 posts in this forum Offline

Olive B wrote:
IN K’s book: “FREEDOM IS THE FIRST STEP AND THE LAST STEP” he explaned that to be a separate self, is not a choice that you made in the past, it is a choice that we make moment by moment.

Do you have a quote for K saying that Olive? I'd be very surprised if he said we choose to be angry, frightened or jealous, for instance. As if anger itself can choose non-anger...greed can choose non-greed. Just observe for a moment what happens in a moment of anger or fear. See if there is someone separate from that who can choose to not be angry? By the time you think of this 'someone' the anger may be a thing of the past....but it will surely arise again given the appropriate conditions.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Sun, 30 Jul 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 30 Jul 2017 #67
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 1826 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
“But how can the mind comprehend reality if it is twisted by beliefs, prejudices,dogmas and fears?” (K.)

Olive is saying that we can choose to drop all that at any moment. Post 63. Dan pointed out that the chooser is the choice, however in #64.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Sun, 30 Jul 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 30 Jul 2017 #68
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 1826 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Like I asked Olive, how can I be sure, how can I know whether I am perceiving without the influence or authority of the past, or whether I am in fact thinking under the influence and authority of knowledge? Can I know?

When I talk to my wife or child, am I free of the authority of the 'me'...my should's and should not's, ideals, beliefs, desires, attachments? Am I free to perceive them...to listen to them...to relate to them....free of that 'authority' of the 'me'? Are you asking if one is unaware of all that background which influences how we relate to one another? Olive was saying that 'we' can choose to be free of that conditioning. But this 'we'/'me' is a product of that. And how can we be free of it, if we are mostly unaware of it?

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Sun, 30 Jul 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 30 Jul 2017 #69
Thumb_rodin_de_denker Olive B Netherlands 238 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
you are suggesting that there is 'someone' who can make this "choice".

Re#64

There are several ways to look at this.

First the separate self has to be presumed to be a reality before choice can be considered real.

So at a relative level, where choices seem to be real, what/who is it that chooses? It is obviously the mind, because it is our experience that the choice arises as a thought.

But the entire substance of the mind is made of Awareness/Consciousness.
So, who/what “creates” the choice and the apparent chooser? Awareness/consciousness.

And , we could also say, from the point of view of awarenes/consciouseness, that there is no choice, as well as there is no chooser.

Experience alone must be the test of reality.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 30 Jul 2017 #70
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 348 posts in this forum Offline

re 68:

Tom Paine wrote:
When I talk to my wife or child, am I free of the authority of the 'me'...my should's and should not's, ideals, beliefs, desires, attachments? Am I free to perceive them...to listen to them...to relate to them....free of that 'authority' of the 'me'? Are you asking if one is unaware of all that background which influences how we relate to one another? Olive was saying that 'we' can choose to be free of that conditioning. But this 'we'/'me' is a product of that. And how can we be free of it, if we are mostly unaware of it?

Where there is attention or awareness, the hints, intimations, stirrings, assumptions, conclusions, desires, of the subconscious are seen but can I be sure in this moment that the source of my immediate action is not belief, ideal or conclusion? I’m definitely NOT saying that therefore it is useless to look into all these questions and problems. I think it is essential to look into it all. In any case, essential or not, it is what we are driven to do, isn’t it?

We cannot be free if we are unaware of our conditioning. But if we look into the human condition, can we just look with care, caution, attention, awareness, with doubt, with uncertainty, not accumulating, starting afresh at every moment, always looking for the infiltration of conclusion and certainty… without making THAT into a method or path to follow?

I can easily think that I have understood and that I am free of the past - that the mind is free of the past - but in fact still be a prisoner of time, belief, conclusion, desire, etc. I thought I understood a piece of it yesterday, but today relationship is once again driven by the past - having concluded yesterday that I understood the whole process, I am assuming that this understanding is still operating in today’s relationship. Or I can be attentive one moment and inattentive the next without being aware that it has happened. Or I have seen the dangers and ubiquity of conditioning and I cannot see beyond, so “seeing the danger” is the resting place beyond which I do not venture. And so on.

There is no conclusion that can end or conclude learning, is there? There is no accumulation of learning that can make me say, "Now I know". There is no conclusion which is the abiding place of truth. I don’t know if this makes sense.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 30 Jul 2017 #71
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 1826 posts in this forum Offline

Olive B wrote:
First the separate self has to be presumed to be a reality before choice can be considered real.

But you are the one who brought up 'choice' ..." he explaned that to be a separate self, is not a choice that you made in the past, it is a choice that we make moment by moment." This issue is getting too confusing. I don't see that there's any choice other than in thought...knowledge and belief. The choice is the chooser, and visa versa. Do you agree on this point, Olive?

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Sun, 30 Jul 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 30 Jul 2017 #72
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 1826 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
I can easily think that I have understood and that I am free of the past - that the mind is free of the past - but in fact still be a prisoner of time, belief, conclusion, desire, etc. I thought I understood a piece of it yesterday, but today relationship is once again driven by the past - having concluded yesterday that I understood the whole process, I am assuming that this understanding is still operating in today’s relationship.

Yes, this is how it works. It can be a self deception to say 'I am free', or worse, that 'I choose to be free'.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Sun, 30 Jul 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 30 Jul 2017 #73
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 544 posts in this forum Offline

Dan you wrote: "Only thought through awareness of itself can end that. As K has said, there is no other factor that can do it."

Can thought be aware? Isn't awareness something completely different, something other than thought? And if one sees, as K says, that the self is thought. Then awareness is not self.
Only awareness, which is not the self, can do it.

Why is that what K was doing /saying didn't work /isn't, working? I suggest it is because the self is broken. As i see it a thing that is broken cannot fix itself. K was wrong when he led people to think that the self could observe itself choicelessley while it was still the central actor. That might have happened with him, i don't know, but for ordinary people it seems there needs to be a seperation, a seeing, that is a distancing of the seer from the self.

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Sun, 30 Jul 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 30 Jul 2017 #74
Thumb_rodin_de_denker Olive B Netherlands 238 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
IN K’s book: “FREEDOM IS THE FIRST STEP AND THE LAST STEP” he explaned that to be a separate self, is not a choice that you made in the past, it is a choice that we make moment by moment.

The first freedom:

You as the separarate self can take the first step any moment to direct the knowing with which you know your experience back towards yourself.

Who makes the choice?

1

You make the first step knowing your self as a separate self.
This is at a relative level because the separate self must first considered real.
So who/what is that chooses at this relative level where choices seem to be real? Your experience say the mind, because choises arises as a thought.

2

But if we go further then we can ask ourselves what is the mind made of?
The entire substance of the mind is made of Awareness/Consciousness.
So, then we can say awareness/consciousness “creates” the choice and the apparent chooser?

3

And the third way of looking at it is from the view point of awareness/consciousness.
Then there is no choice, and there is no chooser.

Experience alone must be the test of reality.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 30 Jul 2017 #75
Thumb_de4 Dan McDermott United States 708 posts in this forum Offline

Peter Kesting wrote:
Can thought be aware? Isn't awareness something completely different, something other than thought? And if one sees, as K says, that the self is thought. Then awareness is not self.
Only awareness, which is not the self, can do it.

I know that it struck me as strange, Peter when I first read him asking, can thought become aware of itself? And in another place, that the total consciousness must become 'aware' of itself. Since then I have seen what he was pointing at: Thought is a material process by the brain, it can work 'mechanically' or more or less automatically with a 'controlling' thinker in 'charge' but it can begin to become aware of the illusoriness of this duality. Only it, the brain/thought can realize this and through that realization (meditation) perhaps become still or silent except when needed. But the conditioning behind this is extremely strong and well-protected, the brain depends on it for its security and has for millennia. K. is pointing out that such a 'sense' of security is mislaid, mistaken,...that the only real security is in non-attachment to any 'thing', to 'nothing'. That what we are in essence, is 'being'... naked, unadorned, 'awareness'...

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sun, 30 Jul 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 30 Jul 2017 #76
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 348 posts in this forum Offline

re 73:

Peter,

I think this is probably a momentary lapse of thought on your part (I have many of those!). What K talked about is choiceless awareness, about awareness being a choiceless action, and not about self observing itself choicelessly, no? Still, the fact that, at times, K seemed to use the words “brain” and “thought” interchangeably, made or makes this question of awareness one of the most confusing and difficult to understand. Along the lines of what Dan is saying, it seems clear that thought cannot be aware… thought being a function of the brain.

Isn’t asking if thought can be aware a bit like asking, “Can comparison be aware?” or “Can analysis be aware?”. Comparison, thought and analysis are functions of the brain. The brain compares, the brain thinks, the brain analyzes. Comparison, thought, analysis, etc., are things that the brain does. But can’t the brain be aware.... choicelessly? Can't the brain observe..... silently?

Here are some quotes on the matter:

The Future of Humanity Chapter 2, 2nd Conversation with David Bohm Brockwood Park 20th June 1983:

DB: I think that it would help if we
could see with regard to the brain
whether it has any activity which is
beyond thought. You see, for example,
one could ask, is awareness part of
the function of the brain?

JK: As long
as it is awareness in which there is
no choice. [...] Choice means
confusion. [...] we are talking of the
psyche that chooses [...] to become.

7th Public Discussion in Saanen, August 1971, The Awakening of Intelligence:

...the moment there is no observer,
there is no awareness of being aware.
Obviously, sir, that is my... the
whole point is that. The moment I am
aware that I am aware, I'm not aware.
No, just remain with it, sir, two
minutes - remain with it. The moment I
am aware that I am humble, humility is
not. Right? The moment I am aware that
I am happy, happiness is not. So if I
am aware that I am aware, then that is
not awareness, in that there is
division between the observer and the
observed. Now you're asking a
question, which is, is there an
awareness in which division as the
observer and the observed comes to an
end. Right? Obviously - awareness
means that. Awareness means the
observer is not.

(Verbatim Reports) Third Talk in New Delhi, 1959:

So, what is the mind? Obviously, the
mind is our total awareness or
consciousness; it is the total way of
our existence, the whole process of
our thinking. The mind is the result
of the brain. The brain produces the
mind. Without the brain there is no
mind, but the mind is separate from
the brain. It is the child of the
brain. If the brain is limited,
damaged, the mind is also damaged. The
brain, which records every sensation,
every feeling of pleasure or pain, the
brain with all its tissues, with all
its responses, creates what we call
the mind, although the mind is
independent of the brain. You don't
have to accept this. You can
experiment with it and see for
yourself.
[K spoke differently about the nature of mind after 1979 - Huguette]

Q&A 44th question, Brockwood Park, 1st Q&A meeting, 2 September 1980, “Thought and Consciousness”:

Can one observe the movement of
thought, not as an observer looking at
thought, but thought itself becoming
aware of its own movement; the
awakening of thought and thought
itself observing its movement?

This post was last updated by Huguette . Sun, 30 Jul 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 30 Jul 2017 #77
Thumb_de4 Dan McDermott United States 708 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
But can’t the brain be aware.... choicelessly? Can't the brain observe..... silently?

Yes it can, at least, in real 'meditation'. But for the brain to do this 'choicelessly', the 'thinker', 'you', 'me' must become a part of the 'scene', no 'outside' watcher or observer (or 'chooser').

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 30 Jul 2017 #78
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 1826 posts in this forum Offline

Olive B wrote:
And the third way of looking at it is from the view point of awareness/consciousness.
Then there is no choice, and there is no chooser.

But you said self is a choice we make from moment to moment. Who is the chooser? A thought arises..."I want that new Mercedes", "My wife is not doing enough to keep the house clean and neat", "My husband should get a better job and make more money." "I need to work harder, I should be a better person, I shouldn't eat so much, I want another beer, I wish I was a better tennis player", etc. Is there a thinker...a chooser? Is the separate self a choice, as you seemed to be saying?

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Sun, 30 Jul 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 31 Jul 2017 #79
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3555 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'...

Do you have a real, actual sense of this 'one I', Dan? Is it a living reality to you?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 31 Jul 2017 #80
Thumb_de4 Dan McDermott United States 708 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Do you have a real, actual sense of this 'one I', Dan? Is it a living reality to you?

No but it sounds so 'right' doesn't it? Rumi said it. All these little silly 'I's part (unknowingly) of this one splendid 'I'?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Mon, 31 Jul 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 31 Jul 2017 #81
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3555 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
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.

Gosh, this is interesting, Huguette. The unifying of perception as always being perception of movement, inside or outside the brain. That had never occurred to me.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 31 Jul 2017 #82
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3555 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
. (This can be somewhat 'destabilizing' as the 'stability' of the self is put into question.)

Indeed :-)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 31 Jul 2017 #83
Thumb_rodin_de_denker Olive B Netherlands 238 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Is the separate self a choice, as you seemed to be saying?

Re#78

The separate self is not an entity it is an activity, so it is a choice that we make moment by moment.

Experience alone must be the test of reality.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 31 Jul 2017 #84
Thumb_de4 Dan McDermott United States 708 posts in this forum Offline

Olive B wrote:
The separate self is not an entity it is an activity, so it is a choice that we make moment by moment.

I would agree Olive that the 'separate self' is not an entity but as you say an 'activity' from moment to moment. But it is an 'activity' of thought/time. It is a 'patterning' based on the collection of experiences, memory etc. It has had the status of 'an entity' bestowed upon it by giving it a 'name', Olive, Dan. And it arises with each 'new' thought...it is thought. The 'separate self is thought. When there is no thinking, there is no self. The pattern each 'self' takes is different for each of us, but the underlying movement is thought, the "stream of human thought". One 'self' is powerful, another self or 'ego' is weak...and through these 'individual' patterns of self, we interact with each other, create societies etc.

The 'chooser' that maintains this 'activity is the movement of thought itself. Thought has created the idea of a self apart from itself for whatever reason, continuity, permanence, security etc. But the 'self'( the 'me' and 'mine') and the movement of thought are one and the same. When and if thought 'ends', the separate self ends with it. Can thought end then and operate only when it is necessary?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 31 Jul 2017 #85
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 1826 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Olive B wrote:

The separate self is not an entity it is an activity, so it is a choice that we make moment by moment.

Dan: I would agree Olive that the 'separate self' is not an entity but as you say an 'activity' from moment to moment. But it is an 'activity' of thought/time.

Tom: K said that the 'me' is born of desire. Don't have the exact quote,but he was talking of the young child who gets great pleasure out of a toy, for instance, and wants it for his own. 'Mommy, I want that!' I made the mistake of letting my young niece run around in a toy store for about a half hour. She was in 'seventh heaven'....however when the time came to leave she would't go without screaming and kicking. I want the Yankees to continue winning. I want that sports car...that beautiful woman or man...more money....bigger house...fame...success and recognition at golf or music or art...status. Isn't it about fulfillment for 'me'. It's still not clear how Olive is using the word 'choice'. Thoughts and desires arise...they aren't chosen I don't think.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Mon, 31 Jul 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 31 Jul 2017 #86
Thumb_rodin_de_denker Olive B Netherlands 238 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Can thought end then and operate only when it is necessary?

Re#84

Yes Dan, but It is not necessary to end thought.

Let thoughts do there thing in the background whatever they are conditioned to do, it is just a pattern of thinking .

You don’t have to free yourself from your thoughts.

Treat them like you treat the sound of, for example, traffic.

Experience alone must be the test of reality.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 31 Jul 2017 #87
Thumb_rodin_de_denker Olive B Netherlands 238 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
It's still not clear how Olive is using the word 'choice'.
Re#85

The separate self is an activity because it is acting on behalf of thought.

It is a moment by moment choice not to follow your thoughts.

The separate self always has the choice to question its true nature, and therefore to step out the destiny to be a separate self.

Experience alone must be the test of reality.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 31 Jul 2017 #88
Thumb_de4 Dan McDermott United States 708 posts in this forum Offline

Olive B wrote:
It is not necessary to end thought.

Let thoughts do there thing in the background whatever they are conditioned to do, it is just a pattern of thinking .

You don’t have to free yourself from your thoughts.

Treat them like you treat the sound of, for example, traffic.

This sounds to me Olive that you are saying that there is an 'entity' who can decide to ignore the 'thinking process', as if this entity is 'separate' from this thinking process and can simply treat it like "background" noise...isn't this the definition of the thinker/thought duality (illusion)? That the thinker feels that he/she is not the thought? That the 'ignorer' feels that he/she is separate from what he/she is 'ignoring'?

And then this 'entity' is calling itself 'Consciousness' or 'Awareness'?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Mon, 31 Jul 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 31 Jul 2017 #89
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 1826 posts in this forum Offline

Olive B wrote:
It is a moment by moment choice not to follow your thoughts.

The separate self always has the choice

this 'choice' you've been speaking of is itself thought...is the self!

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Mon, 31 Jul 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 01 Aug 2017 #90
Thumb_rodin_de_denker Olive B Netherlands 238 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
to ignore

Re#88

Why don’t you ignor the sound of traffic, because you think it is outside of you.

You think by treating thought the same way as the sound of traffic that you(separate self) are ignoring thought because you think thought is me, thought is not out side me.

Thought is not generated by a separate self.

Thought doesn’t belong to a particular separate self.

Thoughts comes to you in the same way that the sound of traffic or the weather comes to you.

Experience alone must be the test of reality.

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