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

Cause and Effect


Displaying posts 121 - 150 of 210 in total
Thu, 03 Aug 2017 #121
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 414 posts in this forum Offline

re 115:

Huguette . wrote:

It is in this way that the brain produces the mind, and that the mind then has a perceived independence or separateness from the brain, as I see it. Does this make sense?

Clive Elwell wrote:

Ah! So the important word here is "perceived", then? You are not saying that the mind is ACTUALLY independent.

What DOES K mean when he says that the brain gives birth to the mind (“the mind is the child of the brain”)? That the brain actually produces a separate, independent material physical organ? Can he possibly mean giving birth along the lines of a biological birth where the child is actually physically separate and (eventually) independent from the mother? Or does he mean giving birth as when an author (the brain) gives birth to a novel, where the novel/story is separate and independent from the author’s brain but it not an independent separate entity having its own independent movements? When K says that “the mind is separate from the brain”, does he mean that the material brain gives birth to an immaterial or material mind which is from then on an independent organ separate from the brain? Does he mean that when the mind moves, the brain does not?

Looked at in these hypothetical ways, it seems clear that the independence and separation of the mind from the brain is (thought to be) “perceived” to be actual, doesn’t it? Still, I’m not sure about anything. I’m asking. Furthermore, the "mind" DOES seem to have some independence from the brain, in the sense that - through its efforts, desires and fears - it can and does sometimes affect the functioning of the rest of the brain and body. No? But isn't that effect of the mind on the brain and body still in fact the effect of the brain on itself and therefore on the whole body?

Then who “perceives” mind/self to be separate and independent? Isn’t it the brain itself? To whom does this perception “appear”? The deluded brain, thinking that the separate mind/self is perceiving? The brain which does not realize that IT has put together or produced this mundane mind-self-consciousness? And does the actual perception by the brain of the nature of the mind/self/consciousness - does it end the false division/duality? Does this actual perception open the door to silence that is not forced (as discussed in Dan’s post #117)? I hear (the brain/mind hears) a distant echo of K saying, “Just do it!”.

Ultimately, aren’t we still trying - through intellectual effort and will - to figure out exactly what mind-brain-thought is? Hasn’t the intellect - one of the functions of the brain - taken “us” as far as it can in terms of “understanding” the human condition? Mental effort cannot solve this mystery, can it? It cannot bring the unknown into the known. Whatever questions remain cannot be answered by the intellect. There are things which mental effort can accomplish but not this. There is nothing left to “do” but to be silent, is there? I don’t mean taking a vow of silence. I don’t mean deciding to be silent, never speaking of these things again. I will surely speak of these things again.

Whatever understanding there is - intellectual and beyond intellectual - is THERE. Whatever understanding there is, is not erased by silence, is it?

I know this post is a messy hodge-podge … just like my mind, I guess :-)

This post was last updated by Huguette . Thu, 03 Aug 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 03 Aug 2017 #122
Thumb_rodin_de_denker Olive B Netherlands 238 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Well no, as I posted yesterday, the separate self seems always to be unaware of its true nature (as thought)

Re#113

I didn’t say that –thought-- is aware of its true nature. It is Awareness that is conscious of it.

Clive Elwell wrote:
But you are separating "YOU" from the separate self. Just how many selves are there, according to you, Olive?

No Clive I don’t.
In past discussions it is not spiritual understood what i am saying, so I am avoiding to say:
Be the presence of awareness knowingly and then think, feel and act as that.

Clive Elwell wrote:
Are you saying that you can 'choose' not to exist?

Only the separate self can choose not to act on behalf of itself.

It is an illusion but still you, as the separate self, think and feel that you are making the choice.

But if you know yourself to be infinite everpresent awareness than you choose moment by moment not to act on behalf of this separate self.

Clive Elwell wrote:
How can freedom have anything to do with choice? Psychologically choice is an illusion, and there is no freedom in illusion, is there?

Well, what K was pointing out is that we, as a separate self, have seemingly the choice moment by moment to free ourselfs from the illusion of the separate self.

Freedom only exists from the view point of the separate self.

From the view point of awareness/conciousness, freedom doesn’t exists.

So ultimately from the view point of awareness/consciousness there is no such thing as freedom, or choice, or separate self.

Experience alone must be the test of reality.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 03 Aug 2017 #123
Thumb_rodin_de_denker Olive B Netherlands 238 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
I don't find this at all an adequate answer, Olive. I asked you to produce a single, referenced quote by K, saying that real choice, psychologically, is a possibility for the mind.

If a quote from K does give you an adequate answer, then you can ask yourself the question: “what/who am I investigating?”

Experience alone must be the test of reality.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 03 Aug 2017 #124
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2045 posts in this forum Offline

Olive B wrote:
If a quote from K does give you an adequate answer, then you can ask yourself the question: “what/who am I investigating?”

A quote from K would prove whether he said what you said he said...or not. But I think you have misquoted K, Olive, and Clive was saying the same. That's all. This is a K forum. If you are misquoting him, that's an issue.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 03 Aug 2017 #125
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 414 posts in this forum Offline

124:

Huguette . wrote:

Ultimately, aren’t we still trying - through intellectual effort and will - to figure out exactly what mind-brain-thought is?

Dan McDermott wrote:

Probably, and the 'thinker' will do anything it seems to avoid 'seeing' ( becoming aware of) itself in action. It 'understands' intellectually that it is the central source of the problem, which is really no understanding at all. It (the 'thinker') feels it has every 'right' to be here. It feels that its existence is the 'most important thing in the world'. There is nothing more important than 'my' being here and continuing to do so. So I will (the 'thinker' will) question, struggle,to 'understand' but when it comes to actually possibly bringing about that 'real' understanding (watching myself, itself in action) that 'could' put an end to me, (the 'thinker').. I say "thanks, but no thanks, I will ( the 'thinker' will) just keep trying to figure this whole thing out". (And prefer to operate in the 'dark'? Why?)

Dan, I’m not sure.

More from my messy mind:

IS the non-existent thinker (i.e. the brain, yes?) trying to avoid seeing itself? Many on the forum (including me) have said that “thought” is afraid of the death of the self, of the void, of nothingness, and that this fear is what motivates its constant noise-making, its constant movement. But I’m wondering if this is accurate.

Surely it is clear to the brain, isn’t it?, that there is no actual death in the ending of thought, that life does goes on even without any thinking going on. The “void” that thought fears is not an actual inner vacuum but rather “inoccupation”, the silence or ending of thought. Nothing actually dies “organically”, nothing disappears, the intellectual capacities do not end, nothing is lost from memory. The brain is not afraid of an abstraction of death but of physical death or the living death of brain incapacity, isn't it?

Also, isn’t pleasure a big factor? The pleasure of anger, of conceit, of winning against an opponent, of being the first, the best, the smartest, of self-pity, and so on? I may, on some level, see the necessity for thought to end but am I prepared to renounce these and other pleasures?

Doesn’t the brain love and desire to be occupied because it has been conditioned to the idea that thinking is the essence of the human being? Aren't we conditioned to the idea of being constantly "busy, occupied"? Aren’t we conditioned to think of thinking as the only path to action? Aren’t we conditioned to think that thinking is a measure of a healthy, intelligent mind, and that without it (!), there must be chaos? Aren’t we conditioned to think that it is through thinking (i.e. the thinker) that beauty and love are experienced? That thinking about beauty and love IS beauty and love? Aren’t we conditioned to believe that, without thinking, beauty and love cannot BE? Is that because we confuse the idea of love and beauty with the thing?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 03 Aug 2017 #126
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2045 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Huguette . wrote:

Aren’t we conditioned to think that thinking is a measure of a healthy, intelligent mind, and that without it (!), there must be chaos?

Dan: Yes I would say that that is the view of the 'thinker' and yet its existence is the central source of the "chaos"!

Ah! But do we really see that? Asking myself as well.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 03 Aug 2017 #127
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 551 posts in this forum Offline

Boy,you guys (and gal) are making this much too hard. It's not this difficult. There is another approach.

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Thu, 03 Aug 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 03 Aug 2017 #128
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 414 posts in this forum Offline

127:

Huguette . wrote:

IS the non-existent thinker (i.e. the brain, yes?) trying to avoid seeing itself?

Dan McDermott wrote:

No you (we) are trying to avoid "seeing yourself", not the "brain". You are conditioned to see everything but yourself. That's what I was getting at.

I don't follow. The thinker is denied as being factual/actual. And the brain (including its capacity for thought) is not denied, is it? When "we" see that there is actually no thinker, is it not the brain seeing, observing, being aware of the fact? It is not the thinker seeing that there is no thinker, is it? What do you mean by "you, me, we" being the one who is trying to avoid "seeing yourself" and not the "brain"? Can the brain SEE the nature of the thinker while the thinker (not the brain?) is still trying to avoid seeing itself?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 03 Aug 2017 #129
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 414 posts in this forum Offline

128:

Huguette . wrote:

The brain is not afraid of an abstraction of death but of physical death or the living death of brain incapacity, isn't it?

Dan McDermott wrote:

Yes but isn't it equally afraid of losing the 'security' that you give it? With your avoidance of psychological pain and pursuit of pleasure. (hopefully more pleasure than pain:)

Yes, the image-making, ideals, beliefs, conclusions, etc., of thought provide the illusion of security, not actual security. It is seen that this is the nature of self, of consciousness, of time, of the mundane mind which acts according to the known. Weren't we asking why - seeing this - the brain/mind does not fall silent? Why does the brain not just "do it" and find out what happens?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 03 Aug 2017 #130
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 414 posts in this forum Offline

128:

Huguette . wrote:

I may, on some level, see the necessity for thought to end but am I prepared to renounce these and other pleasures?

Dan McDermott wrote:

No it seems we are not. But we are not talking about "renunciation", we are speaking about the ending of the 'renouncer'. Aren't we?

Yes, "renunciation" is the wrong word. It implies an effort, an act of will on the part of the thinker. So we are still left with, "just do it", aren't we?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 03 Aug 2017 #131
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 414 posts in this forum Offline

129:

Huguette . wrote:

Aren’t we conditioned to think that thinking is a measure of a healthy, intelligent mind, and that without it (!), there must be chaos?

Dan McDermott wrote:

Yes I would say that that is the view of the 'thinker' and yet its existence is the central source of the "chaos"!

Exactly!

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 03 Aug 2017 #132
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2045 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Yes, "renunciation" is the wrong word. It implies an effort, an act of will on the part of the thinker. So we are still left with, "just do it", aren't we?

I'm not sure. The phrase "just do it" always seems to imply someone to do something...a 'doer' if you will. It implies will in my mind. Seeing/understanding is nothing to do with will...or a 'someone' doing the seeing. It's an undoing of the someone or an understanding of this 'someone'/me. I don't know if I'm making sense. Perhaps this 'just do it' is somehow related to K's phrase 'choiceless awareness'.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Thu, 03 Aug 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 03 Aug 2017 #133
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3842 posts in this forum Offline

Olive B wrote:
I wouldn’t be so hasty

https://www.theguardian.com/science/life-and-ph...

Yes, I followed the link, and read the article as much as I could. Although I have some knowledge of Quantum Theory, I find it hard to appreciate just what a 'Quantum Field' is.

Whenever I read of such explorations into matter/energy, the 'rules' the Universe seems to follow, or does not follow, I am filled with a deep awe. And amazing that the human brain can penetrate into these mysteries as it does. Yet at the same time there is a sense of frustration, knowing that knowledge is ALWAYS limited. It can never understand, explain, everything. There will always be more that we do not know.

So knowledge is not the way of complete understanding, including psychologically, 'spiritually'. So we seem to be left with this "choiceless awareness".

Also reminded of K's words:

"The distance between the stars is far less than the space within ourselves"
(sorry, cannot find exact words)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 03 Aug 2017 #134
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2045 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Tom Paine wrote:

Perhaps this 'just do it' is somehow related to K's phrase 'choiceless awareness'.

I think that he's saying Tom "Look at yourself, there's no-one who can 'do it' for you."

Right....look...observe...look into it. I think he also means, 'go into it'. As he used to say in his talks and discussions, 'go into it for yourself sir'.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 04 Aug 2017 #135
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3842 posts in this forum Offline

Olive B wrote:
Well, what K was pointing out is that we, as a separate self, have seemingly the choice moment by moment to free ourselfs from the illusion of the separate self.

You have yet to demonstrate that K said this at all.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 04 Aug 2017 #136
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3842 posts in this forum Offline

Olive B wrote:
But if you know yourself to be infinite everpresent awareness

The thing is Olive, I don't find that "if" has any meaning at all. It is what is that concerns me, not what might be.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 04 Aug 2017 #137
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3842 posts in this forum Offline

Peter Kesting wrote:
Boy,you guys (and gal) are making this much too hard. It's not this difficult.

For me it's so good to see all this deep inquiry going on, into consciousness and IN the human consciousness.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 04 Aug 2017 #138
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3842 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Surely it is clear to the brain, isn’t it?, that there is no actual death in the ending of thought, that life does goes on even without any thinking going on.

This is a major issue, isn't it? Is it clear to the brain? - as Tom touched upon.

We, the brain, might KNOW that there is no actual death in the ending of thought. We might KNOW a great many things, all appearing as great insight. But what we know is still knowledge, is it not? (Once again, apologies if it seems I am merely picking on words, but I think there is more that that involved). That knowledge may be the result of prolonged investigation, it may be based on a profound insight, perception, and that perception may only be a few seconds old. But knowledge is still..... only knowledge.

Does knowledge have any value, and does in have any power – in particular the power to transform the mind?

Of course in the practical, technological field it has value and power – the power to practically destroy the Earth in fact. But we are interested in fundamental psychological change. Does knowledge have any power to bring that about, to contribute to that, to facilitate that? I think this is a profound question.

My first take on it is: I cannot see how it can. It is always a dead memory, isn't it? What it can do, and often does, is create an ideal to be achieved in the future, but that has no power to change, in fact I would say it is detrimental.

So the brain can go repeating to itself "that there is no actual death in the ending of thought" until the cows some home, but it makes no difference - that knowledge cannot reach inside of thought and change how it is acting, cannot touch the roots of thought. Thought carries on in the fear of its own ending. And basing most of its action on that fear. It won't let go, even when it is causing great suffering to itself.

So this is not “clear to the brain”. It's odd, because “I” would say it was clear, and I assume that I am the brain. But manifestly, it is not clear to the brain.

So what will make it clear to the brain? Is there anything?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 04 Aug 2017 #139
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3842 posts in this forum Offline

In today's QOTD K says:

"To become aware, you must think wholly and intensely"

which points to an interesting connection between awareness and thought. This is unexpected to me, and makes me wonder if I have a wrong idea of awareness

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 04 Aug 2017 #140
Thumb_rodin_de_denker Olive B Netherlands 238 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
You have yet to demonstrate that K said this at all.

Re#146

My intention was, and I did in #63, #74, #104, to explain what K was meaning by the title of his book“freedom is he first step and the last step”.

He starts with the title and ends with the title and throughout the whole book (in a very wordly style) he is explaining what he is meaning by “freedom is he first step and the last step”.

In fact the whole book is a quote.

But in the future i will make sure there are quotes.

Experience alone must be the test of reality.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 04 Aug 2017 #141
Thumb_rodin_de_denker Olive B Netherlands 238 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
I don't find that "if" has any meaning at all. It is what is that concerns me, not what might be.

Re#147

What –is-- concerns you but what is that according to you?

And, if I was sure of the fact that you were knowing yourself to be infinite everpresent awareness, I wouldn’t have used the word "if".

Experience alone must be the test of reality.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 04 Aug 2017 #142
Thumb_rodin_de_denker Olive B Netherlands 238 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
all this deep inquiry going on, into consciousness and IN the human consciousness.

Re#148

Clive, are you saying that there is the human consciousness separate from consciousness?
Are they two different consciousnesses? Is the human consciousness located in consciousness?

Experience alone must be the test of reality.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 04 Aug 2017 #143
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2045 posts in this forum Offline

Olive B wrote:
Clive Elwell wrote:

all this deep inquiry going on, into consciousness and IN the human consciousness.
Re#148

Clive, are you saying that there is the human consciousness separate from consciousness?

Here's K. on inquiry into human consciousness:

"I am not preaching self-contentment or satisfaction. Quite the contrary. I say that as long as the mind is in any way constrained, it is unable to discern the many hindrances that impede true perception. To discover those hindrances you must become fully aware of all your words, your actions, your thoughts and feelings. In that flame of awareness, the cause and the effect are understood instantaneously, and thereby is created that harmony without struggle or effort.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 04 Aug 2017 #144
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 764 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
K- I say that as long as the mind is in any way constrained, it is unable to discern the many hindrances that impede true perception.

What "constrains" the mind?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 04 Aug 2017 #145
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2045 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
What "constrains" the mind?

An ideal, belief, conclusion. I am good or I am bad....right or wrong? Wouldn't any of that prevent perceiving what is....understanding ourselves and our actions and feelings... as we actually are?

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Fri, 04 Aug 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 04 Aug 2017 #146
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 414 posts in this forum Offline

re 149:

Clive,

Do you not KNOW you are breathing? Is this knowledge of or from the past or is it awareness? Is it merely a conclusion, theory, idea or belief? Is the brain (you, me) afraid that it will stop breathing if thought doesn't constantly remind itself that it is through will and effort? Is the brain actually afraid that it will die if thought is silent? Does the word "knowledge in "self-knowledge refer to knowledge of the past? Or are you (the brain) saying that one absolutely cannot "know" that one is actually breathing; that one can put one's hand in boiling water and not know it? I'm not saying you ARE breathing. Maybe you're not. As for me, I know I'm breathing and I know - understand - that nothing or no one dies when thought is silent.

I will leave it at that for now.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 04 Aug 2017 #147
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2045 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Is he saying that because the mind is constrained, it doesn't function properly in regard to discerning hindrances that impede true perception? So if so, how did it get 'constrained'? What is the factor(s) that "constrained" it?

The hindrances. Not trying to be clever. But the mind is constrained by thought with its beliefs and ideals etc. That's just another word for hindered as far as I can see. I may be mistaken, however.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 04 Aug 2017 #148
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3842 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Thought could still function when needed but it would no longer be self-centered, there would no longer be the desire behind the 'me' and the 'mine'.

But does it see this? Does the brain see this? Or is it constrained by its very self centred activity that is it essential movement, and so cannot see it?

Dan McDermott wrote:
Is he saying that because the mind is constrained, it doesn't function properly in regard to discerning hindrances that impede true perception? So if so, how did it get 'constrained'? What is the factor(s) that "constrained" it?

Seems to me, very strongly, that is constrained, by its essential desire for continuity. Which stems from its desire for security - it interprets security as continuity. And presumably the idea of psychological security (and it is merely an idea) stems from the body's real need for physical security. So I think that is how it "got that way", as the whole psychological field developed in the brain, the cortex.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 04 Aug 2017 #149
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3842 posts in this forum Offline

Olive B wrote:
But in the future i will make sure there are quotes.

Thank you Olive, I think such rigour is necessary.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 04 Aug 2017 #150
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3842 posts in this forum Offline

Olive B wrote:
And, if I was sure of the fact that you were knowing yourself to be infinite everpresent awareness, I wouldn’t have used the word "if".

Please don't be sure of anything about me! I'm not.

What is is in constant flux, so it cannot be defined, described, held down. It is not an image. I am not trying to be mysterious in saying that. It is the fact of what I am from moment to moment.

And feeling more and more, as K said, that what is is most holy

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 121 - 150 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.)