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

We have to see what our our actual consciousness is


Displaying posts 61 - 69 of 69 in total
Tue, 16 Jan 2018 #61
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4639 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
Thought can never be fully aware of anything, its very existence is created and maintained by unawareness.

Clive: Yes Mina, that is how it seems to me.

You say that whether one is aware of it or not, the stream is there. I say that the stream itself is a creation of thought as unawareness.

Clive: it HAS BEEN created by unawareness, yes. This is the same as was just said. And having been created, it has permanence, continuity, surely? Yes, Without awareness, thought takes on an absolute sort of quality. And experience, knowledge, is created from the moment, laid down as memory. As I see it, The Stream is the collective memory, created by every individual who has ever lived, or is living. So yes, The Stream has been created by thought. But it is THERE.

Within this limited reality that thought creates, there is no essential difference of 'it being aware' (in the case of thought it means knowing about something) or 'it not being aware' (thought not knowing about something).

Clive: I do not understand why you are equating “being aware” and “knowing about something”. The knowledge of thought is image and knowledge, is it not? Which implies time, whereas being aware is not in time.

In full awareness of the limitation of thought there cannot be anyone to be or not to be aware of it.
Awareness is the ending of the stream created by thought.

Clive: Like you, I do not want to reduce this to mere intellectual argument. But …… Let us suppose that K “stepped out of the stream”, whatever that means. Clearly that did not mean that The Stream suddenly ended for the billions of people caught in it.

At the root of this duality is the impression of separation between thinker and thought. The seeing of this IS an action of /in awareness.

Clive: Clear.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 17 Jan 2018 #62
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 597 posts in this forum Offline

"What is it that suffers?"

Very good question Juan.

First i may be mistaken. Let's see to it that we are not competing. Not against each other. We would like to find out together. I think we can do that. And let's be patient.

I'm looking now, not knowing.

This comes into my mind. I believe that there are people who do not experience physical pain. This puts them in great risk. Lepperocy, as i understand it, is a disease where the nerves don't send pain signals to the brain. Having no pain when those with the disease injure their hands they feel nothing and as a result over time they loose fingers. Physical pain has a function. The nervous system has evolved pain signaling because it has a survival advantage.

Things can "go wrong" in the functioning of the organism. There can be physical pain where it is not usefull and there can be no pain when it would be usefull.

The body is driven in certain directions. We can be too cold and be driven to find warmth or too hot and driven to find escape from the heat. There are smells that we want to avoid.. Likewise there are tastes that are avoided. We can be hungry which is painfull and at times we can be wanting to vomit. There are sights that we avoid. When we are held under water we struggle to get air. Being sick is painfull. These are physical pains, suffering. There are also physical pleasures. Sexual attraction and fulfillment. A beautiful view. A smile. A beautiful flower and its scent. Rest when you are tired, a good meal

All of these involve movement towards or away from. Like and dislike. Pain and pleasure.

We could, it seems, build a robot programed so that it would react towards or away from all of these things in similar ways. But it would not feel a thing, no suffering no pleasure.

There is also psychological pleasure and suffering. No way to program these into a robots computer and i am assuming there would be no feeling, no experiancing there. For us the psychological is dependant on memory which is stored as structure in matter. I just now am seeing that this is dependant upon structure that operates as species memory not just personal memory but it is also structure in matter, in the brain, put there as a result of genetic encoding. That we can hate, that we can be angry, that we can smile, there must be material structure there that predisposes all of what can be there as human experiencing. Everything that we actually experience is qualia. We cannot explain it experiencing is not matter. The material structure is there and it operates but the experiencing is, as i see it directly, not explainable as only matter.

So what is it that suffers? As i see it there is something here in the writer that is not matter. There is feeling, experiencing, a field of qualia. This field, the seeing of color, the feeling of things, touch, hearing the seeing, experiencing of things including thought, including suffering, the experiencing of what is otherwise only the movement of signals in nerves, a movement of matter, atoms, molecules, electrons in the nerves in the body and the brain is experienced here as feeling, as seeing, experiencing... the experiencing of the material world is not program not matter at all but what is experienced derives from the structure of matter. It has material correlates that are movement in matter but it is beyond matter. Or do we want to say that matter itself is an illusion? When the structure that is a human being breaks up decays with the death, isn't that the end of all memory there?

What is suffering? What is sorrow? What is empathy? Are these like pain? Do they depend on material structure? ....But there is this that is beyond the material.

Suffering and sorrow seem for this writer to be two different things. Is there a stream of suffering and another stream, a stream of sorrow?

If i remember it right in a conversation with my docter about a proctological exam, there would be pain involved. Exploring this further with him he explained that after the process i would get a shot that would take away all memory of the procedure.

We really dont know how it is that the field of qualia, the awareness of beingness interacts with the field of matter. As seen here but speculative, it seens that this beingness, nowness is of another dimension beyond the field of threespace/time/matter/energy. Just as we cannot derive time from considering things that are only three dimensional we cannot derive sentience from considering things that are only of a four dimensional field, a field which is everything that is confined to science. Limited to that diminsionality only.

So what are these streams, the stream of suffering, pain, and the field of sorrow? Even the field of sorrow seems to two distinct fields. The field of personal sorrow, self, and the field of compassion. Is this last, empathy only, or more then that?

Sometimes here there is a great sadness.

Somewhere here is perhaps something that touches on the question " What suffers"

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Wed, 17 Jan 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 17 Jan 2018 #63
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 597 posts in this forum Offline

This beingness here as i see it is empty, not a person, which is a thing. It is empty. It sees but doesn't record. Having nothing in it of time. Having no characteristics, no attributes, no form, it cannot be distinguished from that that is there. It is the same one. As i see it it doesnt suffer. So as i see it the stream of suffering is structure in mater. We mistakenly identify with matter. Without this nowness which we are there would be nothing.

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Wed, 17 Jan 2018.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Wed, 17 Jan 2018 #64
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4639 posts in this forum Offline

Peter Kesting wrote:
Everything that we actually experience is qualia. We cannot explain it experiencing is not matter. The material structure is there and it operates but the experiencing is, as i see it directly, not explainable as only matter.

Thank you for this post, Peter, you have succeeded in putting into words that which seems amost possible to put into words.

In what way does a "qualia" differ from awareness, would you say, if it does?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 18 Jan 2018 #65
Thumb_open-uri20180717-8420-135f99u-0 Mina Martini Finland 248 posts in this forum Offline

Peter Kesting wrote:
This beingness here as i see it is empty, not a person, which is a thing. It is empty. It sees but doesn't record. Having nothing in it of time. Having no characteristics, no attributes, no form, it cannot be distinguished from that that is there. It is the same one. As i see it it doesnt suffer. So as i see it the stream of suffering is structure in mater. We mistakenly identify with matter. Without this nowness which we are there would be nothing.

Mina: Yes, this is how it is seen/lived also. The being does not do any psychological recording, as judgement, to be carried along. It does not suffer, there is no experiencer(self) in it to suffer, or to be in any state. In other word as you said, there is no division, only IT. -Yes, memory is matter and psychological memory comes about when thought/memory identifies with itself.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 18 Jan 2018 #66
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4639 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
Yes, memory is matter and psychological memory comes about when thought/memory identifies with itself.

What do you mean, Mina, “identifies with itself”?

One has been watching this process of identification lately, and one feels little doubt that identification is the very root of the self. The self has no existence in itself, and the only way it can claim existence is through identifying with something, that seems clear. But surely this identification is with many things – with an idea, with a person, with the body, with a belief or ideology, with a nation/race/tribe, with a football team, a family …, an illness ...... I am sure I do not have to list such things for you. Yet you say thought identifies with itself. Can you explain what you mean?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 22 Jan 2018 #67
Thumb_open-uri20180717-8420-135f99u-0 Mina Martini Finland 248 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Yes, memory is matter and psychological memory comes about when thought/memory identifies with itself.

What do you mean, Mina, “identifies with itself”?

One has been watching this process of identification lately, and one feels little doubt that identification is the very root of the self. The self has no existence in itself, and the only way it can claim existence is through identifying with something, that seems clear. But surely this identification is with many things – with an idea, with a person, with the body, with a belief or ideology, with a nation/race/tribe, with a football team, a family …, an illness ...... I am sure I do not have to list such things for you. Yet you say thought identifies with itself. Can you explain what you mean?

Mina: All your examples express thought that identifies with itself. It can only identify with ideas of a person, of the body, of the family, of an illness etc..by itself identification is a phenomenon created by the mind, happening in the mind. No, better say that it is a phenomenon that creates the mind!

This is why it is said that the mind identifies with itself. It could be apparently different things that the mind identifies with, but it doesn't change the fact that it is the mind identifying with itself, playing a game of duality with itself.

This post was last updated by Mina Martini Mon, 22 Jan 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 23 Jan 2018 #68
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4639 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
This is why it is said that the mind identifies with itself. It could be apparently different things that the mind identifies with, but it doesn't change the fact that it is the mind identifying with itself, playing a game of duality with itself.

Hi Mina

Let us take for an example something we probably all identify with – our bodies. Most people are sensitive about “their appearance” - meaning their bodies. They don’t feel the same way about the bodies of most others. Most people have fears around “their bodies”, that it might get injured, might fall seriously ill; fears around the aging of the body. All this points towards an identification with the body, does it not?

And the object of identification is real, not imaginary. If one wants one’s body to become stronger, fitter, more atractive, then one can exercise. This produces actual changes in the body, muscles,leanness, whatever, it is not an idea. Of course thought, image forming, is involved in all this, one feels good about the changes (or bad about the lack of change) but what one is identified with is something actual, not just an idea. It does not seem reasonable to describe this process as “thought identified with itself”.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 26 Jan 2018 #69
Thumb_open-uri20180717-8420-135f99u-0 Mina Martini Finland 248 posts in this forum Offline

Clive,

Clive:>Most people have fears around “their bodies”, that it might get injured, might fall seriously ill; fears around the aging of the body. All this points towards an identification with the body, does it not?

And the object of identification is real, not imaginary.

Mina:

In the case you describe it is an idea of the body that is the object, not the body itself! This is fundamentally so. It is the subject separate from object, or the thinker from thought, (which is the root of identification and means the same as thought identifying with itself) that looks at the body and takes the body for an image. Identification is a phenomenon happening within thought. The body itself is not having ideas of itself. :-)

So, when you say that the object of identification as the body for example is real because the body is real, I understand your point, but I am only going to the root of this by saying that for there to be a subject or an object, it is all thought-created reality. Identification is not in true contact with the thing it identifies with, but only with its idea of it.

This post was last updated by Mina Martini Fri, 26 Jan 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 61 - 69 of 69 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.)