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 - 76 of 76 in total
Sun, 14 Jan 2018 #61
Thumb_img-0590 Mina Martini Finland 194 posts in this forum Offline

Clive>>Let me put it this way: When each one of us is violent (which we are, in so many ways) we contribute to a sort of sea of violence in human consciousness. This has been going on for thousands of years. The existence of this sea allows storms to manifest. These storms are circumstantial – sometimes it happens in Ireland, sometimes in Rwanda, sometimes in Cambodia, in Palestine, some mass shooting in the US, …...... The potential for such storms are ever present as long as the sea of internal violence is there.

So the slightest act of violence in this brain feeds the sea of violence in the stream, and ultimately brings about war. This is why I used the phrase “a terrible responsibility”

Mina: Yet it is not a TERRIBLE responsibility, since it is fully carried only in freedom from all terror, from all fear. (-I do not mean to pick on some´specific
wording when saying this, the meaning is profoundly serious.) I would say 'tremendous responsibility', as large (immeasurable) as life itself.

What I am saying is that we are not talking about 'someone's', which would be an idea of separation, responsibility. This someone could be really horrified at the idea of one's every action affecting the whole, one's subtlest resistance turning into the ground where wars being fought, etc, or of the idea of 'being forever caught in the stream' (these last words being something you mentioned in another post of yours).

This post was last updated by Mina Martini Sun, 14 Jan 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 14 Jan 2018 #62
Thumb_img-0590 Mina Martini Finland 194 posts in this forum Offline

"We have to see what our actual consciousness is."

The actual is not the consciousness that is put together and maintained by thought. That would be a conceptual consciousness, an image of it.

The actual is neither the individual nor the collective, neither the conscious nor the unconscious, but that which is beyond both.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 14 Jan 2018 #63
Thumb_avatar Juan E Spain 430 posts in this forum Offline

Peter Kesting wrote:
Would anyone disagree with the suggestion that the stream of sorrow is a part of the stream of matter and that it actually consists entirely of matter?

I disagree, why not? ...

Because if it is as you say perhaps you could explain me how is it that i broke my pinky finger one Friday due to a punch on the table to stop some discussion at home, and until Sunday i didn't went to the doctor (not because i wanted to go but because my girl friend pushed me to go), without the slightest suffering (neither physical nor psychological) ... And when the doctor told me "this is going to hurt you" before putting the bone in its place, i didn't felt any hurt, on the contrary i did asked "is it done yet?" and sketched a smile to him, which made him to look at me very surprised.

Therefore, Clive has put a very interesting question in #58 that still has not been answered neither by you nor by Mina, the two proponents of "the stream of sorrow is a part of the stream of matter".

Clive Elwell wrote:
But even if that is so, one can still ask: "what is it that suffers?"

Would you both dare to give an answer to him?

"When i talk to audiences, they know what i'm talking about ... another thing is that they do something about it" - K. Brockwood Park (Making ideas of the Teaching)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 15 Jan 2018 #64
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2054 posts in this forum Offline

Juan E wrote:
Clive Elwell wrote:

But even if that is so, one can still ask: "what is it that suffers?"

Would you both dare to give an answer to him?

It's the body which feels in great distress when there's an extremely frightening situation which the mind is projecting....even if it only exists in ones imagination. Like the fear of losing ones job and becoming homeless. Such fear causes suffering...physical as well as psychological. Its similar to the way that the body feels great distress if one is facing a tiger in the jungle. One runs away if one can, but in a concentration camp where one is facing the threat of bodily harm, as an example, one cannot run. So the body suffers with great distress. In the same way, when a young child feels rejection or anger from the parent, there's a tremendous amount of physical distress in the body. When I had similar fears of abandonment as a very young child I would literally throw up. So the body suffers with pain and/or distress. It's this pain which we call suffering..as I see it.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Mon, 15 Jan 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 16 Jan 2018 #65
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3919 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:

M: So, the stream of sorrow flows only for the one who knows about it.

But Mina, hardly anyone "knows about" the stream of sorrow. They believe, or tacitly assume, that any sorrow they feel is personal, peculiar to themselves. Yet surely the stream of sorrow exists, flows, whether anyone is aware of it or not? Surely it does, people do actually suffer. One is witness to the terrible suffering and conflict in so many people, wherever one goes, as soon as there is a chance to look below surface appearances. It is quite incredible, actually, the amount of suffering there is in the human race.

I asked the question recently if The Stream actually exists. Or is it a figment of the human imagination? Seems to me that it does, and has existed for time immemorial. It is the same as asking "Does thought actually exist". The answer is, yes it does, because it is a material process. If one says that matter does not exist, there is no point in having the word "exist" at all!

But more basically, I say the stream actually exists because I see it, I feel it. It is the well-spring of thought/feeling, it is where thought COMES from.

I would agree that the thinker, the self does not actually exist, that is a figment, a phantom projected by thought. But that is a different issue. The Stream is a sort of collective memory, is it not?

This post was last updated by Clive Elwell Tue, 16 Jan 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 16 Jan 2018 #66
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3919 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
Mina: Yet it is not a TERRIBLE responsibility, since it is fully carried only in freedom from all terror, from all fear. (-I do not mean to pick on some´specific
wording when saying this, the meaning is profoundly serious.) I would say 'tremendous responsibility', as large (immeasurable) as life itself.

I do think you are misunderstanding my words here, Mina. Not just the word "terrible, which I was using in an idiomatic sense.

I was not using the word "responsibility" in the sense of "What is my responsibility?" I was saying I am responsible for the violence in the world whenever I am violent. I feed into the world's violence. Responsible in the sense I CAUSE IT.

Of course in a sense one could say The Stream is causing The Stream.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 16 Jan 2018 #67
Thumb_img-0590 Mina Martini Finland 194 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
M: So, the stream of sorrow flows only for the one who knows about it.

Clive>But Mina, hardly anyone "knows about" the stream of sorrow. They believe, or tacitly assume, that any sorrow they feel is personal, peculiar to themselves.

Mina: This is exactly what is meant by 'knowing about the stream'. It means the same as knowing about oneself, which again means the same as having an image of oneself, being personal. The collective is not separate from this, so it is 'enough' (everything) to understand the personal, radically. (radically means, through pure percpetion into its nature and not by more thinking about it) It is this image that suffers psychologically, and is both the cause and the effect of its own suffering and of all psychological reality.

I was about to continue, but suddenly it started feeling somehow meaningless..as shared perception into it all does not feel to be there.....and without it we are left with empty words and i do not want to be part of that..Hope that saying this will not be taken personally and thus misunderstood...

Hope we can be silence together, all of us,

Love to all

m

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 16 Jan 2018 #68
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2054 posts in this forum Offline

Mina Martini wrote:
I was about to continue, but suddenly it started feeling somehow meaningless..as shared perception into it all does not feel to be there.....and without it we are left with empty words and i do not want to be part of that..Hope that saying this will not be taken personally and thus misunderstood...

Hope we can be silence together, all of us,

And if we're 'noisy'...worried...lost...afraid....angry, there's no point in talking together? Jeeze, K would have stopped talking in 1935 if he expected instant shared understanding from those gathered for the talks, Mina. I recently had some deep, profound insight into what you've been saying here lately, but it didn't come out of silence. It came from insight into the noise....from facing what actually was happening in 'me'..the noise/confusion/conflict.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 16 Jan 2018 #69
Thumb_img-0590 Mina Martini Finland 194 posts in this forum Offline

Dear Clive and tom

Tom, and yet facing 'the noise of thought' fully IS an action in/of silence..

Not suggesting to stop talking, not at all, just needed some total silence for a while.

Already an insight came while sitting on the plane and wrote it down to be shared with Clive and all. It has to do with clive's replies to me. Writing this on my cellphone at an airport between flights..

To my beloved clive

Thought can never be fully aware of anything, its very existence is created and maintained by unawareness. 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. 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). 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. 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.

Love

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 16 Jan 2018 #70
Thumb_img-0590 Mina Martini Finland 194 posts in this forum Offline

Will not be able to participate for some time after this..

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 16 Jan 2018 #71
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3919 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 #72
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 565 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 #73
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 565 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
2 days ago #74
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3919 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
1 day ago #75
Thumb_img-0590 Mina Martini Finland 194 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
23 hours ago #76
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3919 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
Displaying posts 61 - 76 of 76 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.)