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

Why does the self keep going?


Displaying posts 31 - 60 of 62 in total
Sun, 20 Aug 2017 #31
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 590 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
So you are saying that the source of awareness does not change, but our ability to somehow "pick it up", or "utilise it" varies with time and circumstances, it that it Wim?

No I'm not saying that, that's your interpretation !!

If awareness would have a source it's not free or limitless, is it ??

The light and source can not be separated but distinguished, so the light is the source.

Truth will unfold itself for those who enquire their own actions and only to them and for them and to or for no one else.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 20 Aug 2017 #32
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 756 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Inviting you to say more on this, Dan, if you can. What are the 'limits' of the self? And why is it intrinsically blind?

When I am in a dream at night, a necessary element of dreaming is that I don't realize that i am in a dream and that I am not aware that what is happening to and around me is not 'really' happening. So I react as if it were all real, right? Now when I wake, I'm in a different state of consciousness which I again consider to be reality (the real reality). But K. is implying, isn't he, that there is yet another 'reality' open to us...one that is not this 'self-centered' one we take to be 'real' reality. So a 'necessity'(hallmark?) of this 'waking' consciousness it seems, is the "blindness" you have brought up and which Mina spoke to, a blindness to the duality of experiencer/experience or controller/controlled etc. Namely that it is an illusion created by the state of consciousness we are in. What can "see through"(as Mina put it) this self-centered' dream' that we live in, is I believe what K. calls "choiceless awareness", which is the awakening of Intelligence.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sun, 20 Aug 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 20 Aug 2017 #33
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 551 posts in this forum Offline

Dan wrote: "But K. is implying, isn't he, that there is yet another 'reality' open to us...one that is not this 'self-centered' one we take to be 'real' reality. So a necessity of this 'waking' consciousness is perhaps the "blindness" you have brought up and which Mina spoke to, a blindness to the duality of experiencer/experience or controller/controlled etc. Namely that it is anillusioncreated by the state of consciousness we are in."


It is possible to see that there no doer. The self is constantly assumeing that it is there, a real thing. But we are not really doing this that we seem to be doing. Or anything at all. We never do any thing that is done. Everything is always being done by the whole of what exists. This illusury self has no hand in it. No division, the observer is the observed.

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Sun, 20 Aug 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 20 Aug 2017 #34
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 551 posts in this forum Offline

As long as there is this seperate doer there is conflict.

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Sun, 20 Aug 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 20 Aug 2017 #35
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 551 posts in this forum Offline

This illusion is deeply wired in. Through hundreds of millions of years of evolution.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 20 Aug 2017 #36
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2040 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
I think of idea of “doing something about it” is a great curse. It is a curse that permeates human thinking. It brings in the issue of choice, the question of just WHAT should one about it. It brings about various forms of 'practice', various 'disciplines', and gives rise to authority figures who claim to KNOW what should be done about it. All that mass of confusion.

Right, but that confusion is already there...the conflict, violence, suffering of some sort. The 'it' you speak about acting upon is our inner and outer conflict. And the authority is part of us already...the authority of right vs. wrong, good vs bad, should vs should not, beliefs, ideals. We're not born with it obviously, but by the time we start to question why we suffer, why we're violent, we've got a mind that's based upon many centuries of authority handed down to us from teachers, parents, priests (the worst, perhaps!), TV, movies, psychology, economics, political leaders, etc. So that confusion and conflict is present...part of our daily living... and we seek an authority to help us remove it. We go to a psychologist or religious authority to find answers. We feel something must be done about the violence in the world and in us. You have made the case that this effort to do something only leads to more problems and confusion. Can we just do nothing about our suffering? When all our lives we've been told that we must do something? Be more, better, stronger, smarter, kinder, work harder, be good, be a success, be this or that. All that division. The 'curse', as you call it. That division is what has caused the problems in the first place! Just exploring 'out loud' here the issues that come immediately to mind.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 20 Aug 2017 #37
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 756 posts in this forum Offline

Peter Kesting wrote:
This illusion is deeply wired in. Through hundreds of millions of years of evolution.

So how is the "wiring' bypassed Peter?

How do you see that this illusion of 'separateness' is 'seen through'? Intellectually it's fairly obvious but what does it take for it to actually 'dissolve'?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sun, 20 Aug 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 20 Aug 2017 #38
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2040 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Peter Kesting wrote:

This illusion is deeply wired in. Through hundreds of millions of years of evolution.
So how is the "wiring' bypassed Peter?

This must be asked, right? No half way sane person can watch the horrors on the news every day and not ask how can man change....how can this madness end.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Sun, 20 Aug 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 21 Aug 2017 #39
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3817 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Now when I wake, I'm in a different state of consciousness which I again consider to be reality (the real reality).

So woud you say, in essence, that when the self is in operation, it is absoutely incapable of realising that it IS the self, thought, that is operating? Instead there is a sort of implicit assumption that whatever the self is thinking (The self IS thought) is some sort of absolute truth?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 21 Aug 2017 #40
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3817 posts in this forum Offline

Peter Kesting wrote:
Or anything at all. We never do any thing that is done. Everything is always being done by the whole of what exists.

My immediate response to this statement of yours, Peter, was:
"Yes. How could it be any other way?"

Logically, though, it was not a statement "of yours", it was produced by everything that exists ( I am not being humorous)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 21 Aug 2017 #41
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3817 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Right, but that confusion is already there...the conflict, violence, suffering of some sort.

What do you mean by "being already there", Tom? Would it be already there if there was no "doing something about it"?

Tom Paine wrote:
Can we just do nothing about our suffering?

Indeed, this seems to me the key question. When I "do nothing about it", then there is space for complete attention, no? And this attention is the true 'doing'.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 21 Aug 2017 #42
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2040 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Tom Paine wrote:

Right, but that confusion is already there...the conflict, violence, suffering of some sort.
What do you mean by "being already there", Tom? Would it be already there if there was no "doing something about it"?

I simply meant that the psychological conditioning of the brain is what we wake up to every morning and carry with us throughout the day. The brain has been conditioned by all kinds of authority, no? Conflict was there in those who attended K's talks...or they wouldn't have attended. If someone calls me a Jew(for example), I react. I don't have to do anything about it...it happens spontaneously, as well as any further reaction that may be triggered by that reaction. I'll attempt to tackle your last question later. That's a tricky one, I think ;)

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 21 Aug 2017 #43
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 756 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Dan- So how is the "wiring' bypassed Peter?

Tom- This must be asked, right?

It seems to me now Tom, that I posed the 'wrong' question because it implies that the 'solution' lies in the future. That such and such needs to be done and then I'll have the answer. But does it work that way? Isn't this desire to "bypass the wiring" the very "wiring" itself? Desire with thought wishes to achieve an image it has created. In this case, me bypassing the wiring and finding freedom etc. But this image I have constructed and now must find a way to achieve, means that 'time' must be employed. And this takes me out of the 'Now'. This movement of desire/thought takes me out of 'reality' (the Now) and that movement (of 'becoming') is the very "wiring" itself.

It seems to me to be the same 'paradox' when K says "Freedom is at the beginning"... thought sees everything in terms of reaching a solution in time, "freedom" included, so how can it be "at the beginning"? Isn't it because "Freedom" is already there, (always has been and always will be?) and thought not being aware of that, 'searches' for the image it has of 'freedom' (in the future). So it is the very movement of desire/thought in its 'ignorance' of what real Freedom is, that keeps it searching for it in time, in a future that is illusory. But it is always there "at the beginning"...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 21 Aug 2017 #44
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2040 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
This movement of desire/thought takes me out of 'reality' (the Now) and that movement (of 'becoming') is the very "wiring" itself.

Right. Interesting post. 'Thought is time'(K)....and 'me' is time...consciousness is based in time. I think I see that. And I see the results of this human consciousness and say 'I must change'. But this 'I' is caught in time...conditioning.. ..IS that. This 'freedom is the first and last step' of K's is quite an interesting statement. Logically it makes sense to not rely upon time to bring about freedom as time is what binds us.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Mon, 21 Aug 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 21 Aug 2017 #45
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 551 posts in this forum Offline

As i see it, There is a three dimensional space. There is also a four dimensional space. These are real spaces along with the one and the two. Moving from one dimension to a higher dimension brings in something radically new. Time is a good example in what is the four dimensional. Something that could not have been predicted from three space. As i see it sentience belongs to a next higher dimension. In any examination restricted to any lesser dimension there cannot be any contact with the higher. You will not discover the existance of time if you confine youre inquiry to the three dimensional, topology. Likewise, as i see it, sentience cannot be come upon through an exploration that is cconfined to the dimension which is time/space.

There are relationships that exist in each dimensional space. Geometry in the two dimensional. Science, cause and effect, determinism, is the relationship in time space. Our ordinary thinking is there, it is actually scientific thinking though we dont think of it as that. The next dimensional includes (as i see it) mind, inteligence, consciousnes, meaning, nowness, qualia, seeing and ? (But not broken up like that).

So we operate in these two fields. What we actually are is of this higher field, this higher dimension.

As i see it, it is helpful if we can precisely separate these two highest fields and see what belongs to which. A thought experiment will make some things clearer. If we assume breifly that matter is completely deterministic, (we will ignore the probalistic ideas of quantum physics (the physists agree that they dont really know what is going on there)) we can think about what it would be like to produce a perfect material copy of ones self. All of the activity of the matter in that copy will parallel at every scale the movement of oneself. The question that arises is, would there be a someone in that replica. If we look at the possibility that the copy would be dark inside, no one there, we can consider removing what is the "light" in oneself and putting it into the copy. All of the memories which are in the material brain would be there. You would not even be aware that anything had happened. Thought in process would not miss a beat.

If we were to go thru the identical procedure with a second person that one would also be unaware that anything had changed.

Now suppose we were to rdmove this "light" in each one and switch them. Neither would know that the switch had taken place. Each one would think that s/he had always been that other person.

If you are able to go thru this demonstration as if it were a mathematical proof it will be possible to drop identification with the material. This works. I dont know if there is another way. You can put aside the psychological past. You've only just now arrived. If you hold to identity as the person, as memory, you are failing to see that you are actually this "light" in oneself, only that. This light has no attributes, no age, no past, no form, no color, not male, not female, not person. There in nothing in that "light" that is here, that can be used to distinguish it from that "light" that is there. It is the same one. The same one that is in the dog or the bird. It is the same one in the "saint" and the tyrant. You could switch them where ever this "light exists. No one would know. If this "light" were removed from every place it exists, the world would be completely mechanical. There would be no value, no meaning, no experiencing. There would be nothing. Everything that is of time only, goes into disorder. Human life is that. There is no escaping that. For this other, that which is of this dimension, beyond time there is no death.

Some how this other is in contact with what is only time/space/matter/energy. As K points out there is no connection in the other direction.

Where there is identification that is the self. "Love is where the self is not". This "light" is what we are, only that. But there is no identification there. It is not mine or yours.

i dont know if there can be an end to terrible things. But if so it must come from that

Somehow these two fields that we live in are connected. Matter/time/space/energy and this other. It is one way. Perhaps its like time and space were before einstein. Seeming seperate things. But there is no division. This other field has impact in/on the material.

A conversation like this could not arrise in a world that exists being matter only. Could there be in that blackness talk about this "light"?

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Mon, 21 Aug 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 22 Aug 2017 #46
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 756 posts in this forum Offline

Thank you Peter for that explanation...I have read and copied and printed it and will look at it again very carefully.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Tue, 22 Aug 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 22 Aug 2017 #47
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3817 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
I simply meant that the psychological conditioning of the brain is what we wake up to every morning and carry with us throughout the day.

Sorry if this sounds tedious, but actually there is no "we" that wakes up to the conditioning, no "me" that carries it throughout the day. There is only that conditioning, and it is the nature of that conditioning that has divided it into "me" and "conditioning". Actually there is no such separation.

This is a living truth that is there throughout the day. and night. In this truth, it seems to me, is the key to psychological change.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 22 Aug 2017 #48
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3817 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
I react. I don't have to do anything about it...it happens spontaneously,

Indeed Tom, reaction, thought, the self, arises spontaneously. And any attempt to "do something about it" is always too late - the 'it' has already happened, hasn't it?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 22 Aug 2017 #49
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2040 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Sorry if this sounds tedious, but actually there is no "we" that wakes up to the conditioning, no "me" that carries it throughout the day. There is only that conditioning, and it is the nature of that conditioning that has divided it into "me" and "conditioning". Actually there is no such separation.

Right, but you asked what I meant by the statement, "It (the conditioning) is already there." That feeling of a me who is conditioned is already there....as a fragment of the conditioning. That 'me' is an essential part of the conditioning....perhaps the central core, without which it can't exist(?) That is 'the living truth' for most of humanity....that division....all the dividing that the mind does.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Tue, 22 Aug 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 22 Aug 2017 #50
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2040 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
And any attempt to "do something about it" is always too late - the 'it' has already happened, hasn't it?

Right....but I will do 'better' in the future! The anger or violence or drinking or smoking happened and I want to prevent it from happening again by becoming non-violent or a reformed alcoholic.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Tue, 22 Aug 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 22 Aug 2017 #51
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 756 posts in this forum Offline

Peter Kesting wrote:
You can put aside the psychological past. You've only just now arrived. If you hold to identity as the person, as memory, you are failing to see that you are actually this "light" in oneself, only that.

But the 'conditioning' that K. says we have inherited 'keeps' us identified with memory, with the 'person'. Doesn't there have to be more than an intellectual understanding of our situation (as you have described) to break through the 'hypnosis' of seeing ourselves as separate individuals? He obviously saw that the only 'way' out of this "self created bondage" was through self-knowledge? You are suggesting that it can happen through the realization that we are the "light"?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 22 Aug 2017 #52
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 551 posts in this forum Offline

Dan: You are suggesting that it can happen through the realization that we are the "light"

That "light" is empty of any characteristics (no atributes)from there one can observe the person, what one is not, without any identification with that. Any identification is self. The observation most here are doing involves a division. One part of the i is looking at another part. "I am observing", "I must watch my self", That winds up with, or rather starts with conflict. Conflict is inherent in that. One must look at oneself without identifying with that identified self. From the empty state. being without any structure without any i. There is the empty seer. Seeing acts.

One can see that if one, if this "light" were switched with some other, one would think that ones thoughts, behave as that one behaves. Have all of the blindness there. One would do exactly the things that one would be doing however brutal. Believing the beliefs that that one believes.

Oneself, the one that one mistakenly takes oneself to be also has false seeing. One can only observe all of that from some seperation from that.

Of course there is no way to distinguish the "light" that is here from that, "light" that is there

As i see it, but it sure seem right.

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Tue, 22 Aug 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 22 Aug 2017 #53
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 551 posts in this forum Offline

Dan: "But the 'conditioning' that K. says we have inherited 'keeps' us identified with memory, with the 'person'."

Can't you see that you are this "light"? Can't you see that and drop this identification. It's a matter of what you see. It's right there where you are now.

What is it that sees?

You are that.

As are all.

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Tue, 22 Aug 2017.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Wed, 23 Aug 2017 #54
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 756 posts in this forum Offline

Peter Kesting wrote:
Can't you see that you are this "light"? Can't you see that and drop this identification. It's a matter of what you see. It's right there where you are now.

Hi Peter

Yes I do see what you are getting at here. It explains a great deal about the human situation. It has been a question for me for some time as to how the animals and birds around were so 'completely themselves' if I can put it that way. 'Harmonious' in their interactions with each other and the environment. Not in a sentimental way, they just 'fit in'. But with humans, we don't. What I am seeing now, is that we have been given the 'gift' to perceive what we (and they) truly are... and not having been able to realize what we are, we have tried to compensate and have wound up being neither this or that, neither 'human' or animal...somewhere in the confused middle. Which has turned out to be a 'muddle'. What K. has called our "self-created bondage".But realizing that this 'light' you mention and it could be any of the other words, 'love', 'awareness', compassion, intelligence, sentience etc. realizing that it is in all living things, with no 'attributes' of its own, changes the 'picture' radically. It is a world of 'love' but Man is caught in his 'sorrow' because he has not discovered his 'essence'..

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Wed, 23 Aug 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 23 Aug 2017 #55
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 551 posts in this forum Offline

Yes sir!

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 23 Aug 2017 #56
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2040 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
But realizing that this 'light' you mention and it could be any of the other words, 'love', 'awareness', compassion, intelligence, sentience etc. realizing that it is in all living things, with no 'attributes' of its own, changes the 'picture' radically.

Love, compassion, and intelligence are in a rattlesnake...a shark or tiger that eats people without a second thought? There may be a certain 'intelligence' in the order of nature, but compassion? I once watched a cat eat a chipmonk with the blood running down the cat's face. He seemed to be enjoying the experience immensely....the cat that is. The chipmonk might have protested, but it's head was gone by then....it was inside the cat's stomach ;)

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Wed, 23 Aug 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 23 Aug 2017 #57
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 756 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Love, compassion, and intelligence are in a rattlesnake...a shark or tiger that eats people without a second thought? There may be a certain 'intelligence' in the order of nature, but compassion? I once watched a cat eat a chipmonk with the blood running down the cat's face. He seemed to be enjoying the experience immensely....the cat that is. The chipmonk might have protested, but it's head was gone by then....it was inside the cat's stomach ;)

I think that if we saw it from the snake's, tiger's, or cat's perspective, we'd see it very differently.;)... But we can't. Our perspective is the human, or better said, could be the 'whole' human perspective and from that perspective those words (words we have created) 'Love', Compassion, Freedom, Awareness, etc which are only our attempts to describe the indescribable, they can 'manifest' in us to a degree not possible in the animals. That was the 'gift' I was alluding to.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 23 Aug 2017 #58
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2040 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
I think that if we saw it from the snake's, tiger's, or cat's perspective, we'd see it very differently.;)

Yes for the tiger, human = ummmm,delicious! ;)

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 24 Aug 2017 #59
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 756 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Yes for the tiger, human = ummmm,delicious! ;)

Thinking about this, is the way in which we view the 'life and death' around us, 'influenced' by our personal ( the self's) way of seeing it? At one level it can all seem 'cruel', un-compassionate, 'heartless etc. But is it that? We are living in a 'material' world, a world of 'matter'. Is the process that we see of the life and death of things, at another level just the re-formation of matter itself? Is 'evolution' just the re-formation of matter in different and unique ways. A kind of 'play'? K. has spoken about this I believe when he said there are only "beginnings", no endings. Is this what he was referring to? The movement of 'creation'?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 24 Aug 2017 #60
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2040 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
At one level it can all seem 'cruel', un-compassionate, 'heartless etc. But is it that? We are living in a 'material' world, a world of 'matter'. Is the process that we see of the life and death of things, at another level just the re-formation of matter itself? Is 'evolution' just the re-formation of matter in different and unique ways. A kind of 'play'?

I don't know about that 'play', Dan. But if I meet a bear in the woods, I won't stick around and see if he wants to 'play' ;) As far as 'compassion' goes, the bear and rattlesnake don't know what it means, so in a sense, maybe you're right. Their behavior may be part of the 'play' of matter. When humans murder other humans however we see it very differently than we see killing done by the tiger. K. talked about the 'wrong turn' that man took because we're not acting out of instinct when we kill, but rather, out of psychological disorder.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Thu, 24 Aug 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 31 - 60 of 62 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.)