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

What does it mean to deny and yet live with what is?


Displaying posts 61 - 88 of 88 in total
Thu, 28 Dec 2017 #61
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 770 posts in this forum Online

Interesting in light of your discussion, for me today to 'wrestle' with D. Bohm's 'Implicate Order' in John R's post... memory as "hologram" for instance:

D.B. "We owe some light on this question to some works on brain structure, especially those of Pribram He supported the idea that the memories are, in a general way, recorded holographically in the whole brain. It follows that information on such object is not stored in a particular cell or in localized area of the brain; it is in the entirety of it that the totality of the information is recorded.
This allows us to suggest that when the "holographic" record is properly activated, it responds by creating a model of nervous energy reconstituting a partial experience, similar to that which had originally produced in a 'hologram'. But it also differs in that it involves less details, that memories accumulated at many different times can be melt together and that the circuits of logical thinking can intervene to impose a certain higher order on the whole model. In addition, if the senses are present at the same time, the whole of the answer coming from the memory will generally fuse with the nervous excitement from the senses to create a 'global experience' where memory, logic and sensory activity are combined into a whole that can not be analyzed. The fact remains that consciousness can not be reduced to the activation of the combined memory and the immediate sensation. It also involves the sense of self, attention, perception, acts of intellection and perhaps even more."

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 29 Dec 2017 #62
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 438 posts in this forum Offline

Dan, I think there's surely a proper place for scientific enquiries through scientific and mathematical concepts and theories, but for me it's not relevant in terms of facing "what is", of being aware. Aren't self-observation and self-understanding put aside in all this? Don't such enquiries take one away from the awareness of the workings of one’s own mind which is needed for self-understanding?

Sorry. I hope I don't sound dismissive. I do see a certain relationship between what Bohm says about “holomovement” etc. and our own enquiry into consciousness, image-making, and so on.

Such enquiries are in any case simply beyond the abilities or talents of this particular brain (my brain). Maybe “ultimately” this approach will solve the mysteries of the cosmos but, like I say, it’s so beyond my abilities that it actually hurts my brain if I try to understand it.

In today’s QOTD, K says, “if you are really confronted with a burning problem and there is no possible way of escape, then you will see that that problem does a miraculous thing to you. It is no longer merely a problem; it is intensely vital, it is to be examined, to be lived with, to be understood.” The approach taken by Bohm here is truly very interesting. But it does not give as sense of “being confronted with a burning problem”, does it? At least, not for me. To me, it does not address the burning problems we face in daily relationship.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 29 Dec 2017 #63
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 438 posts in this forum Offline

Dan,

By “abstraction”, do you mean “extraction”?

Why do you say that the mind “abstracts/extracts” problems from wholeness? Does wholeness mean a nondescript void? Does wholeness exclude problems, planets, atoms, etc.? Does the wholeness of the body exclude its parts or disease? Does wholeness of the forest exclude the trees? Does the wholeness of the ocean exclude its currents, its living creatures, its pollution?

Does awareness reveal that our burning problems are not burning problems at all but an abstraction (extraction) from wholeness? When one is experiencing a burning problem, how does one face it?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 29 Dec 2017 #64
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 438 posts in this forum Offline

In case you didn't notice the full quote, this is where the phrase "burning problem" that I used came from:

Quote of the Day (December 28-29, 2017 in my time zone)
New York City | 2nd Public Talk 13th March, 1935

Now, you cannot accept my word for it: all you can say is that you do not know. You do not know whether loneliness and fear will disappear, but by experimenting you will understand the whole significance of loneliness. If we merely seek a remedy for loneliness or fear, we become very superficial, don't we? To the man who has everything he wants, or the man who wants everything, life becomes very shallow. In merely seeking remedies, life becomes meaningless, empty; whereas, if you are really confronted with a burning problem and there is no possible way of escape, then you will see that that problem does a miraculous thing to you. It is no longer merely a problem; it is intensely vital, it is to be examined, to be lived with, to be understood.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 29 Dec 2017 #65
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3919 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
When you say, “Images somehow enter the mind, consciousness”, what do you mean? Isn’t the mind, consciousness, already a massive warehouse of images - memories consisting of the visual and the verbal, together with their associated emotions, opinions, ideas, beliefs, conceits, sorrows, pleasures, values, and so on?

Huguette

I am just replying to the first part of your post at the moment, as it seems to me we have hit some fundamental issue of understanding. I welcome this, at it may clear up some basic misconception I have. Or it may simply be a matter of how we are using words, let us investigate.

For me, what you describe as “mind”, “consciousness”, does exist, but I would call it the river, or stream, of human consciousness. Yes, it is a massive warehouse, a reservoir, containing experiences that have happened “to this brain/body” in this lifetime, and also all the human experiences since man started, since the beginning of time. I have used the term “common human consciousness” in the past.

However, This is not what “I” experience as consciousness at any moment. I only experience a part of it at any given time.

Now when I say “I only experience” that needs some explanation. I am not suggesting that there is a “me” separate what is experienced, but language practically forces me to express it that way. So I hope that can be understood.

So I am saying that “my consciousness” is always just a small part of the common human consciousness – a particular thought, feeling, image, idea. A fragment of the reservoir. Yes, these fragments do arise out of the reservoir, I have an intimation of that (I could be wrong) but what is experienced as “my consciousness” is always only a fragment. It is not the whole reservoir. And this, rightly or wrongly, is how I use the word consciousness.

I await your comment on this – and of course the comment of others is very welcome.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 29 Dec 2017 #66
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 438 posts in this forum Offline

I don’t think we’ve hit a fundamental misunderstanding, Clive. I understand that you’re not suggesting a “me” separate from the experience. It’s very clear to me what you mean by the stream of common human consciousness and that’s how I see it as well. (Watch, you’ll tell me I’ve got your meaning all wrong!) I also understand that in the moment, only a fragment is active. However, that moment does not negate the whole, does it? Can’t I - the mind - see both simultaneously: the fragment and the whole, the tree and the forest, the bird in the tree and the tree?

In any case, the reservoir of human consciousness is not what I was questioning. It was the word “enter” that made me think that you see the image as “entering” human consciousness from the outside, from the environment. This suggests to me that you view the image as a flat, one-dimensional photograph of sorts, an image “taken in” by the brain much like a tourist takes photographs of things on the “outside”. That's where the misunderstanding between us lies, I think.

Maybe I’ve got it ALL wrong ... not that it’s a matter of “right and wrong” ... or IS it? ... There’s just no certainty to hang conclusions on, is there. :0)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 29 Dec 2017 #67
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 438 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Don't our 'burning problems' (and the one who would 'solve' them ) arise from the lack of awareness of what we truly are? Of what is beyond the 'manifest'? Maybe we've all "got it all wrong"?

I'm not saying the burning problems have to be solved. They have to be understood, don't they? They can't just be ignored on the basis that we are part of the whole. They are BURNING! Burning - not as an idea, a metaphor, a conclusion! What is right action in the face of burning problems? Life demands action, doesn't it? Do I base my action on the knowledge, awareness or understanding that life is a whole?

This post was last updated by Huguette . Fri, 29 Dec 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 29 Dec 2017 #68
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2054 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
it may also be 'burning' to glimpse that the "burning problems" we are facing are really not that at all but a sort of "abstraction" from the reality of 'wholeness'.

But war is not an abstraction from the reality of 'wholeness' is it? It is unfortunately very real. As is nationalism, racism, and all the other factors which divide us from our fellow man and divide us 'internally'. Are you trying to say that underneath all that division is 'wholeness'? Underneath violence is peace....underneath hate is love? Can I say "I love you", if I'm feeling hate or anger... or if I'm judging you? Some parents back when I was young would hit/beat the child (for being 'bad') and say, "I'm only doing this for your own good because I love you". Does this talk of wholeness help us to understand violence...to understand ourselves(the violence) as we actually are?

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Fri, 29 Dec 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 29 Dec 2017 #69
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 438 posts in this forum Offline

re 71 and 72

Dan,

As long as there is no pretense, effort, repression or suppression in “living with death in timeless silence”, then to me that is right action. Then it is awareness - timeless silence - which acts, not pretense, is it?

Where there is no pretending that no burning problem is being experienced, where there is no pretending that the wholeness is “taking care of it”, where there is undivided, silent awareness of what is inwardly going on, then action flowers out of awareness, no?

To see wholeness does not mean that understanding is complete, does it? To see the parts also does not mean that understanding is complete. The parts cannot be extracted out the wholeness to exist hypothetically on their own. And the wholeness cannot exist without its parts. Without its parts, isn’t it non-existent? Can there be a forest if there are no trees, no earth, no rain, no insects, and so on?

Whatever understanding there is, partial or complete, it must be rooted in awareness, not in supposition or idea, don’t you think? Does awareness of the wholeness actually guide action? Again, how can there be awareness of the whole without there being awareness of the parts? As for me, I can only say that “wholeness as a guide for action” is a meaningless supposition or idea. I see the wholeness in creation, the indivisibility of the whole. I also see the parts within the whole - the beauty, sorrow and compassion, violence, fear, burning problems, and so on. Do I deny the parts, do I deny the sorrow, beauty and compassion? For me, such “denial” can only be pretending that it is not so.

You say in your reply to Tom, “we lost our connection with the whole”. What does that mean? How can we know that?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 29 Dec 2017 #70
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 438 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
To see wholeness does not mean that understanding is complete, does it?

Dan McDermott wrote:
I would say that the 'wholeness', 'vastness', creator, 'god', can't be known or seen....only the 'manifested' available to our senses (and instruments?) and that which is limited by our 'scale of time',color,sound, materiality etc.

If the “wholeness, vastness, creator, God” can’t be known or seen, doesn’t that mean that I (the mind) can’t be aware of it, that it is an inference, a supposition, an idea - which is thought, isn’t it? If the “wholeness, vastness, creator, God” can’t be known or seen, why are we concerning ourselves with it? What is its significance in the face of our burning problems?

Is awareness not needed for self-understanding, for learning about the mind, about confusion, compulsion, fear, sorrow, action, freedom, consciousness, relationship, and so on? I’m not trying to convince you of anything, just looking into the implications of what we are saying.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 29 Dec 2017 #71
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 438 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
You say in your reply to Tom, “we lost our connection with the whole”. What does that mean? How can we know that?

Dan McDermott wrote:
Obviously I can't, I can only infer that 'something' was lost in us that all the other creatures seem, because of their relative harmony, to still have.

“Inferring” is not “seeing”, is it? How can we say that something was lost in us? Can we be sure that we ever had “it”? We can only know - in the sense of “observe” - that we want that inferred “something”. No?

Whatever the other creatures have, the wild and free creatures, do we want everything in their life - being hunter or prey, etc. - or just that “something” we don’t have? Can we just observe that desire and its influence?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 30 Dec 2017 #72
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3919 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
I also understand that in the moment, only a fragment is active. However, that moment does not negate the whole, does it? Can’t I - the mind - see both simultaneously: the fragment and the whole, the tree and the forest, the bird in the tree and the tree?

I would start a new thread, except in my experience that is the quickest way to bring a discussion to an end :-)

So how is the whole - and it seems by "the whole" we are referring to the whole of human consciousness, the reservoir - to be seen, as you suggest, Huguette? If "I" am always a fragment - which is how it seems at the moment at least - how can that fragment see the whole? Can it?

Your analogies of tree/forest etc have particular meaning, but I do not see how they apply to seeing the whole of human consciousness. I am outside of the forest, or appear to be, and so can see the forest, but I am I outside the reservoir?

Huguette . wrote:
In any case, the reservoir of human consciousness is not what I was questioning. It was the word “enter” that made me think that you see the image as “entering” human consciousness from the outside, from the environment.

Yes, I think the word "enter" is misleading, wrong. I am drawn to the word "manifest". Is it that the reservoir manifests in a particular brain, at any given moment? And that is what our 'individual' conscious is, a manifestation of the reservoir (I am using the word "individual" with great caution)?

Huguette . wrote:
This suggests to me that you view the image as a flat, one-dimensional photograph of sorts, an image “taken in” by the brain much like a tourist takes photographs of things on the “outside”. That's where the misunderstanding between us lies, I think.

I am just staying with your words about the multi-dimension image , waiting to see if anything comes from them.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 30 Dec 2017 #73
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 438 posts in this forum Offline

78:

Clive Elwell wrote:
So how is the whole - and it seems by "the whole" we are referring to the whole of human consciousness, the reservoir - to be seen, as you suggest, Huguette? If "I" am always a fragment - which is how it seems at the moment at least - how can that fragment see the whole? Can it?

Isn't there more to the human being - to being human - than these fragments?

This post was last updated by Huguette . Sat, 30 Dec 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 30 Dec 2017 #74
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 438 posts in this forum Offline

re 77 etc:

Dan,

There is “something” holy, something sacred which whispers to each of us, isn't there? That “something” can be turned by us - by the intellect - into desire, dissatisfaction, hope, conceit, will, and so on. Or it can be heard, listened to without interpretation.

We are a speck of dust in the vastness and mystery of Life, which we did not create. No matter how we interpret it, there's no escaping this fact. But we seem to willingly “forget” that fact in our everyday lives, dont we? Maybe it is an attempt to escape the fact that we cannot intellectually understand the Whole. Even so, wishful thinking, desire, ambition, etc., cannot reduce the significance of this Vastness to personal fulfilment or cleverness. As I see it, Life demands more of the human being than the mere pursuit of pleasure, than mere personal fulfilment.

For me too, Life is holy, an indivisible whole. Creation, the Vastness, the Wholeness, God - call it by any name - is holy and indivisible. To see that is not a personal achievement, to see that does not absolve us from the responsibility of finding out about right thinking and right action, does it?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 30 Dec 2017 #75
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 438 posts in this forum Offline

re 82:

Dan,

To realize that I don’t see the Wholeness, that I don’t see that the observer is the observer, is clarity, isn’t it? That clarity wipes away the known, wipes away the lies, the interpretations and the opinions I had about it. It does not destroy or cut out the known from my brain, but it is denied in looking inward. This is not a high school debate where a “side” is assigned to me and I must support it, whether it makes sense to me or not. This is my life, so I must be clear on what I’m REALLY interested in from the beginning, mustn’t I?

So I can put aside Wholeness etc. and talk about the issues that are actually burning for me, in my life. Knowledge, good science, can explain much but it cannot explain the burning issues satisfactorily, truthfully, fully. So in terms of self-understanding, in terms of the burning issues (if there are burning issues), mustn’t I put aside all knowledge - Thor the god of thunder, the sacrificial virgins, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Mohammed, and even good science - and consider only what is directly observable?

K also said something like, there is no guru, no expert, no authority who can explain “what is” to you, no one who can tell you what you are and what you are not, no one who can solve problems of relationship, action, meaning for you. Isn’t that clear too?

So am I not left with considering that "something" that whispers and sometimes shouts at me, that flame of discontent, the pain of relationship, the beauty, the joy, the fear, the love, the compassion, the lies, the deceit, and so on?

This post was last updated by Huguette . Sat, 30 Dec 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 31 Dec 2017 #76
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3919 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Isn't there more to the human being - to being human - than these fragments?

I would not like to state categorically what a human being is. My question was, "can a fragment see the whole?".

You were asking "can I see the whole?", and by whole I think we were both referring to this vast reservoir of human consciousness. I don't think I would be honest if I said I see this reservoir completely, all of it. Indeed, I cannot even imagine what it might mean to see all of it, in one look. I have had certain experiences which have suggested its existence, and I "get the sense" that each fragments arises from this reservoir. But that is not the same as seeing the whole of it. Perhaps "the whole of it" is only an image I have created, in fact.

Can you say what you mean, Huguette, by seeing the whole of this reservoir of human consciousness?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 31 Dec 2017 #77
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2054 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
You were asking "can I see the whole?", and by whole I think we were both referring to this vast reservoir of human consciousness. I don't think I would be honest if I said I see this reservoir completely, all of it. Indeed, I cannot even imagine what it might mean to see all of it, in one look.

Can we 'see' it in the sense that 'seeing' it totally brings understanding? To understand what it is. Can I understand what human consciousness is....what 'I' am...I, who am a product of that whole? My thoughts and actions are of it. When 'I' act, it's human consciousness acting, though it feels like it's originating from this sense of a 'me' somewhere inside 'me'. Not sure I'm making any sense. But I was looking into this issue this AM, and I'm looking into it as I type.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Sun, 31 Dec 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 01 Jan 2018 #78
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 438 posts in this forum Offline

84:

Huguette . wrote:
Isn't there more to the human being - to being human - than these fragments?

Clive Elwell wrote:
I would not like to state categorically what a human being is. My question was, "can a fragment see the whole?".

You were asking "can I see the whole?", and by whole I think we were both referring to this vast reservoir of human consciousness. I don't think I would be honest if I said I see this reservoir completely, all of it.

85:

Tom Paine wrote:
Can we 'see' it in the sense that 'seeing' it totally brings understanding? To understand what it is. Can I understand what human consciousness is....

When I say “there’s more to the human being than the fragments”, I too am not trying to define what the human being is or isn’t. I mean it in the simplest sense that I think everyone can understand - there’s more to being human than thought. Is that a categorical, authoritative, false, presumptuous statement? Aren’t experiencing, awareness, feeling, intelligence, part of being human? Do you see them as products of thought, conditioning, self, time?

So what does it mean to see the whole of consciousness? Doesn't seeing "the whole" of consciousness lie in the quality of the seeing, and not in seeing every single fragment of consciousness? Where it is self who is “seeing”, self determines the quality of the seeing, in that the seeing is distorted by time, ideas, conclusions, beliefs, etc. Distorted perception is incomplete perception, incomplete in that "what is" is not seen clearly, and in that the perception is devoid of awareness.

But where seeing is the action of awareness, then there is seeing of the whole of consciousness even if every single fragment of the whole is not seen. Where there’s awareness of "what is" - fear, conceit, pretense, deceit, anger, pleasure-seeking, and awareness of efforts to avoid facing it all - then understanding of the nature and process of consciousness flowers, doesn’t it? Out of the wholeness of seeing "what is" without distortion, comes the understanding of the nature, process, functioning of consciousness. That is seeing the whole of consciousness at a glance, isn't it? Not sure though.

Tom, is this also what you're saying at #85?

This post was last updated by Huguette . Mon, 01 Jan 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 01 Jan 2018 #79
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3919 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Aren’t experiencing, awareness, feeling, intelligence, part of being human? Do you see them as products of thought, conditioning, self, time?

I don't see awareness and intelligence as part of conditioning. Not sure how you are using the word "feeling". To feel unhappy about something, for example - is that not part of conditioning?

Huguette . wrote:
So what does it mean to see the whole of consciousness? Doesn't seeing "the whole" of consciousness lie in the quality of the seeing, and not in seeing every single fragment of consciousness?

Yes Huguette, this clarifies things a lot for me. The wholeness is in the quality of the seeing, not in what is seen. Thanks.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 01 Jan 2018 #80
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2054 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Where there’s awareness of "what is" - fear, conceit, pretense, deceit, anger, pleasure-seeking, and awareness of efforts to avoid facing it all - then understanding of the nature and process of consciousness flowers, doesn’t it? Out of the wholeness of seeing "what is" without distortion, comes the understanding of the nature, process, functioning of consciousness.**

That's it in a nutshell, Huguette. That's what I meant by 'seeing' it...seeing/understanding consciousness. You put it much clearer than I did. When you see/understand the part, you understand the whole of consciousness...which is reflected in all the parts. It's all the same consciousness which is manifesting as fear, anger, greed, loneliness, craving, etc. Ah...just saw the QOTD which touches on this subject of consciouness: "As long as self-protective memories exist and give continuity to the "I" process, there cannot be the plenitude of life." (K)

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Mon, 01 Jan 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 02 Jan 2018 #81
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 438 posts in this forum Offline

79:

Huguette . wrote:
Aren’t experiencing, awareness, feeling, intelligence, part of being human? Do you see them as products of thought, conditioning, self, time?

Clive Elwell wrote:
Not sure how you are using the word "feeling". To feel unhappy about something, for example - is that not part of conditioning?

By feeling I mean touch on the skin (a breeze, a hot iron, a tickle, a slap, a cut), stomach ache, toothache, headache, a sensation of pressure. I also mean fear, anger, jealousy, love, beauty - the physical experiencing of them, not the psychological explanations and ideas about them.

To feel unhappy (or happy) is also a physical FEELING, isn’t it? It is felt physically but it is also explained by “me” - I say I feel unhappy because ....... and I explain why. The explanation is not the feeling described but, in my understanding, the explanation is also a feeling, a cerebral sensation that is experienced as thought. Problems arise where self is emotionally attached to the explanation, it gives value to the explanation, it attributes meaning to the cerebral sensation, to the narrative of the explanation.

I think that the quote you provided at #1 of your thread “QOTD - quite a challenge to understand this” is relevant HERE (sorry to mix up the threads). It clarifies the question of feeling raised here, and it also clarifies its own meaning by being juxtaposed here. Do you think so?

“Every living thing is force, energy, unique to itself. This force or energy creates its own materials which can be called the body, sensation, thought or consciousness. This force or energy in its self-acting development becomes consciousness. From this there arises the "I" process, the "I" movement. Then begins the round of creating its own ignorance. The "I" process begins and continues in identification with its own self-created limitations. The "I" is not a separate entity, as most of us think; it is both the form of energy and energy itself. But that force, in its development, creates its own material, and consciousness is a part of it; and through the senses, consciousness becomes known as the individual. This "I" process is not of the moment, it is without a beginning. But through constant awareness and comprehension, this "I" process can be ended.”

This post was last updated by Huguette . Tue, 02 Jan 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 03 Jan 2018 #82
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2054 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
By feeling I mean touch on the skin (a breeze, a hot iron, a tickle, a slap, a cut), stomach ache, toothache, headache, a sensation of pressure. I also mean fear, anger, jealousy, love, beauty - the physical experiencing of them, not the psychological explanations and ideas about them.
>To feel unhappy (or happy) is also a physical FEELING, isn’t it? It is felt physically but it is also explained by “me” -

It's a physical feeling, yes, but it's a product of thought....conditioning... time. The feeling of anger doesn't exist separate from thought.

Problems arise where self is emotionally attached to the explanation, it gives value to the explanation, it attributes meaning to the cerebral sensation, to the narrative of the explanation.

If I have overpowering greed and ambition, for example, that is a problem in and of itself, isn't it? If I get easily angered by something my wife or neighbor says, that again doesn't need any explanation to be problematic, I don't think. I may simply smack my neighbor in the face and justify the action.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Wed, 03 Jan 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 03 Jan 2018 #83
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 438 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
... but it's a product of thought....conditioning... time. The feeling of anger doesn't exist separate from thought.

Yes, Tom. I had said that there’s more to being human than thought: awareness and feeling for example. I was clarifying what I mean by “feeling”.

So yes, there’s a relationship between thought and feeling. There’s a connection between thought which arises, feeling provoked by that thought and conditioning, and thought which explains or analyzes the feeling that was provoked by thought. But the feeling itself is not the thought, and thought itself is not feeling, is it?

Can a feeling be faced, and the associated thought denied or wiped away, released like a balloon - without effort? The thought on its own is not painful. The word is not the thing, the thought is not the pain (or the pleasure). What is painful (or pleasurable) is the actual feeling, isn't it?

Not sure about anything.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 03 Jan 2018 #84
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 438 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
If I have overpowering greed and ambition, for example, that is a problem in and of itself, isn't it? If I get easily angered by something my wife or neighbor says, that again doesn't need any explanation to be problematic, I don't think. I may simply smack my neighbor in the face and justify the action.

Are you saying that desire and anger are seen as obvious problems by everyone? And how does this relate to “I may simply smack my neighbour in the face and justify the action”? Sorry, I just don’t understand. It’s hard to express these things. It’s ok with me though if you don’t want to go into it.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 03 Jan 2018 #85
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2054 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
But the feeling itself is not the thought, and thought itself is not feeling, is it?

They can't be separated, can they? The feeling of anger and the thought which provokes it? Aren't they two sides of a coin? Just questioning.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 03 Jan 2018 #86
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3919 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
By feeling I mean touch on the skin ( breeze, a hot iron, a tickle, a slap, a cut), stomach ache, toothache, headache, a sensation of pressure. I also mean fear, anger, jealousy, love, beauty - the physical experiencing of them, not the psychological explanations and ideas about them.

I am balancing the words "feeling", "emotion" and "sensation". Is there any real difference? Something is felt, something that is not a symbol, not a representation of something else, as a thought, a word, is.

Huguette . wrote:
the explanation is also a feeling, a cerebral sensation that is experienced as thought.

I have read where K says thought is also sensation (or feeling, I forget), and this has puzzled me. Seems to me that there is always the symbol, the meaning, side by side with the feeling that has become associated with the word. That word, or words, would also include explanations.And a word may have different associated feelings in different contexts.

Is there a thought free of associated feeling? And is there feeling free of associated words?

Huguette . wrote:
It clarifies the question of feeling raised here, and it also clarifies its own meaning by being juxtaposed here. Do you think so?

I have to say that I still do not feel any clarity about that quote, Huguette. If you can say more I would be grateful.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 03 Jan 2018 #87
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 438 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
But the feeling itself is not the thought, and thought itself is not feeling, is it?

Tom Paine wrote:
They can't be separated, can they? The feeling of anger and the thought which provokes it? Aren't they two sides of a coin? Just questioning.

You can’t take ONLY ONE SIDE of a coin without also taking the other side. You must take both sides or not take the coin. In this sense, it is seen that pleasure and pain are 2 sides of the same coin. You can’t take pleasure without also taking pain. I don’t mean that they must occur simultaneously but they are part of the same process.The process which produces pleasure also inevitably produces pain. Self wants pleasure, but not pain. But there can’t be only pleasure and no pain. That process of conditioning, thought, time, self, and so on, is part of being human, isn’t it?

In “dissecting” self, in examining what self consists of, how it acts, one does see that thought and feeling can’t be separated. The fear, anger, desire, sadness, loneliness, depression and pleasure that self feels consists of both feeling and thought. Thought and feeling are inseparable parts of conditioning: thought evokes feeling and feeling evokes thought.

But feeling is not always associated with thought, with conditioning. There can be feelings without thought playing a part in them - feelings, what is felt. For example, feeling the pain of being burned or cut or of broken bones, feeling nausea, etc., are not feelings which are evoked by thought. They can be exacerbated by thought, but they are not caused by thought. Beauty, compassion and love are feelings (they are felt) which are not put together by thought. These feelings do not arise out of conditioning, do they?

Here we are asking “What does it mean to deny and yet live with what is?” So we see that we cannot deny pain and keep pleasure. Or do we? We see that “what is” is conditioning, thought and feeling, fear, pleasure, anger, attachment, desire, pleasure, time, self and it is also laughter, beauty and love. Doesn’t denying all that mean to deny - wipe away, release - any attempt by thought to control “what is”, to modify it, to keep all or part it or get rid of all or part it? Is that it? I’m not sure.

http://www.jkrishnamurti.org/krishnamurti-teachings/view-daily-quote/20170208.php?t=What%20is:

A mind that is confused in the false can never find the truth. Therefore, I must understand what is false in my relationships, in my ideas, in the things about me, because to perceive the truth requires the understanding of the false.”

Added: And "understanding the false" sure is arduous, isn't it? :0)

This post was last updated by Huguette . Wed, 03 Jan 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 03 Jan 2018 #88
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2054 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Beauty, compassion and love are feelings (they are felt) which are not put together by thought. These feelings do not arise out of conditioning, do they?

Right, as well as the 'feelings' of being burned or the pain accidentally hitting your thumb with a hammer...or the itch of poison ivy. There was some confusion on my part as to how you and Clive were using the word 'feelings'. I was using it in my posts above to refer to emotions...which are conditioned....of self and time. I 'feel' angry, or you 'hurt my feelings', and so on. Sorry if this is getting too mixed up. We probably should use the word 'emotions' for emotions and 'feelings' for physical sensations of hurt, touch...or the 'feeling' of joy, beauty, compassion, awe....which are not emotions.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 61 - 88 of 88 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.)