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

QOTD


Displaying all 15 posts
Page 1 of 1
Sat, 16 Jun 2018 #1
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2256 posts in this forum Offline

Been looking into this one today...any comments?

Group Discussion 25th November, 1947 | Madras, India

Continuity is memory. All our life is a challenge and a response. There is the response to a condition and that condition is modified or altered according to circumstances, but it is always conditioned; and any experience which comes along is met through a screen of conditioned response. The conditioned response is memory. We experience and we translate our experience according to our belief. Therefore, that experience is not fully completed. It is always broken down to constitute a particular condition and therefore, there is never a complete action.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Sat, 16 Jun 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 16 Jun 2018 #2
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2256 posts in this forum Offline

It's not clear to me what K means by that last phrase in bold. Can anyone help here?

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 17 Jun 2018 #3
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 889 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
K.: It (experience) is always broken down to constitute a particular condition and therefore, there is never a complete action.

I'd say that what he is proposing is that we meet the world in a 'limited' way, through the 'interface' of the self. "Constitute" means to to make up or form something. We make something of whatever we experience based on our memory. A kind of 'pollution' of the sensory experience by thought. We 'individualise' the world, and experience based on the complex of our memories (consciousness) which is limited. So "complete action" is where there would not be this interference.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sun, 17 Jun 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 17 Jun 2018 #4
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2256 posts in this forum Offline

Dan: We make something of whatever we experience based on our memory.

T: Yes. But without memory we’d be like the new born child. So we probably shouldn’t leave memory out of the equation. But there’s practical and useful memory and memory that’s used by the ‘me’ ...to benefit the self.

Dan: A kind of 'pollution' of the sensory experience by thought

T: Again, this can serve a very necessary and useful purpose. We see the tree, but we think of using the wood to build a shelter.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Sun, 17 Jun 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 17 Jun 2018 #5
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2256 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
We 'individualise' the world, and experience based on the complex of our memories (consciousness) which is limited. So "complete action" is where there would not be this interference.

So the problem arises in our relationships. We can use memory in taking care of our physical survival...cooking meals, etc, but when memory acts in relationship between man and his fellow man, the problems arise. Action is not complete. Is that it? How are you understanding K's phrase 'complete action'? Anyone...

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Sun, 17 Jun 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 17 Jun 2018 #6
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 593 posts in this forum Offline

Incomplete action is the action which is engendered by division - “something has happened” (the "particular condition") and "I" embark in a process of "analysis" to try to figure out a "solution" to fix it, which requires "time" and "effort".That’s a whole bunch of fragmentation.

In this process of fragmentation, effort and analysis, only "the event" is considered. There is no awareness of the inner state. The inner state is not seen as relevant. It is considered as irrelevant. The “thing which has happened”, the “particular condition” has been immediately isolated, judged, measured, evaluated, in accordance with conditioning, in accordance with the stream’s dictates. And it is compared to "what should have happened". This process is rooted in the residue of previous experiences.

Complete action does not involve fragmentation or fragments. It does not involve self and time. It is what takes place in awareness, which is not a fragment, which is not within the stream. Incomplete action leaves a “residue” in that the problem is never completely solved or ended because it is approached through time and self, which are themselves the root of the problem. The problem and its “solution” are memorialized and referenced in future “particular conditions”.

Time and self are the residue which make action incomplete, as I see it. Time and self are the links to the past and future, the residue which remain to stir things up in the future. Time and self are the stream. In the stream, no action is complete.

What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas - which is seen as a good thing, in that it will supposedly not not seep into life outside of Vegas to cause problems. No residue there, supposedly.

But what happens in the stream stays in the stream, self, conditioning, consciousness, causing conflict and suffering. Whatever action takes place within the field of the stream leaves a residue, a mark, a psychological scar, which does not end, and so action is not complete.

This post was last updated by Huguette . Sun, 17 Jun 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 17 Jun 2018 #7
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 889 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
when memory acts in relationship between man and his fellow man, the problems arise. Action is not complete. Is that it?

I think so. His use of the word 'complete' is interesting in relation to action. But in relationship, the constructed 'image' formed of you comes between me and you. I don't see you, I see this image. My actions toward you are a result of this false, limited picture that has been formed of you based on your appearance, speech, dress, demeanor, our history etc. We have learned to 'size up' others very quickly which is probably a holdover from when people were much more physically violent towards each other (now we have drones)...

A question that arises: why does the brain form images at all? Are they a self protective mechanism? ("you hurt me once and you'll not get another chance...") Is it a subconscious fear of being vulnerable? Of my 'attachments' being threatened? Of being 'psychologically' deflated?...being 'reduced' to nothing?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sun, 17 Jun 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 17 Jun 2018 #8
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2256 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
In this process of fragmentation, effort and analysis, only "the event" is considered. There is no awareness of the inner state. The inner state is not seen as relevant. It is considered as irrelevant. The “thing which has happened”, the “particular condition” has been immediately isolated, judged, measured, evaluated, in accordance with conditioning,

Good points about the ‘inner state’ not even taken into consideration. There’s a total lack of self knowledge. All the focus is on the outer as separate from me. ‘I’ am all important. This is the narcissist personality disorder as exhibited by our president here....Mr Trump....and most of us others as well, though, in most cases, to a lesser degree. Will come back to the rest later. Interesting post, Huguette. A lot to consider in what you wrote, and I’m in the middle of making dinner.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Sun, 17 Jun 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 18 Jun 2018 #9
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4362 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote, citing K:
Continuity is memory. All our life is a challenge and a response. There is the response to a condition and that condition is modified or altered according to circumstances, but it is always conditioned; and any experience which comes along is met through a screen of conditioned response. The conditioned response is memory. We experience and we translate our experience according to our belief. Therefore, that experience is not fully completed. It is always broken down to constitute a particular condition and therefore, there is never a complete action.

Interestingly Tom, I meant to ask exactly the same question!

K often made the point that to “experience” really means “to go through” with something – meaning to emerge at the other side, having completed the experience, finished with it. In this way there is no detritus, no unfinished business to chew over. But we rarely do that, in fact the mind is a reservoir of unfinished business, incomplete actions, all clamouring, at different levels, to be completed.

This seems to me very important. In fact the self, the me, as it acts, IS an experience that has been carried over from the past. It is memory. And it is that self that does the translating of new experiences that is mentioned in the quote.

“Therefore, that experience is not fully completed. It is always broken down to constitute a particular condition”

I think he is saying what I said in my second paragraph. But I could be wrong, I could be missing something. As we tend to live, we are always in a “particular condition”, and that condition can always be traced back to some (incomplete) experience. Or perhaps combinations of them. We live in the shadow of the past.

Sorry if I am just repeating what others have already expressed.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 18 Jun 2018 #10
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2256 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Time and self are the residue which make action incomplete, as I see it. Time and self are the links to the past and future, the residue which remain to stir things up in the future. Time and self are the stream. In the stream, no action is complete.

And all action based upon idea...obviously that’s based in time. Is all such action aimed at achieving a goal incomplete action...based upon the self....based upon the fragment....A fragment in me? I think that this is only so when the goal is psychological in nature. If I have the goal to plant a vegetable garden this is not to fulfill the ‘me’, but to ensure the survival of the physical body. If I have the goal to be the world’s best golfer(musician, writer, actor, etc), then that’s psychological....seeking fulfillment for me. Or the goal to own a new Mercedes because it gives status to the self...to ‘me’.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Mon, 18 Jun 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 18 Jun 2018 #11
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2256 posts in this forum Offline

Clive: In fact the self, the me, as it acts, IS an experience that has been carried over from the past. It is memory. And it is that self that does the translating of new experiences that is mentioned in the quote.

T: The self is directing our actions...past experience and memory of pleasure and pain responds to new challenges. Yes, I think we all see that. I want more pleasure and security for me....happiness. That comes first....you, second. I’m not totally clear about the first statement. The self is the sum total of experience that acts, perhaps? I am the sum total of all that has gone on before in man’s experience? Of the society and culture, which has been conditioned by previous societies and cultures. I think K said something like that. The whole history of mankind is in me, I think is how he put it.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Mon, 18 Jun 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 19 Jun 2018 #12
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4362 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
The self is the sum total of experience that acts, perhaps? I am the sum total of all that has gone on before in man’s experience? Of the society and culture, which has been conditioned by previous societies and cultures. I think K said something like that. The whole history of mankind is in me, I think is how he put it.

This is an interesting issue. What does it mean to be “the sum total” of all man’s experience? Have all those experiences somehow integrated into a single experience of self? Or do they remain fragmented, and each reaction of the me can be traced back to a single experience? I tend to think the latter, but I am by no means sure. At least sometimes I feel I can relate a particular reaction to a particular experience of my life, a particular incident, a particular piece of conditioning. This reinforces the notion of a separate self (I’m not saying that there is such a thing). But at other times a reaction may feel ‘alien’, unrelated. This would be consistent with the reaction coming from the Stream.

Are these details important? Or is the essential thing that the self is, in some way, the past acting? And do we actual see that? As I wrote in a post to Dan, it seems we are not aware of the fact as the self actually arises from memory.And in this lack of awareness, the self is experienced as a separate entity.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 19 Jun 2018 #13
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2256 posts in this forum Offline

This is an interesting issue. What does it mean to be “the sum total” of all man’s experience? Have all those experiences somehow integrated into a single experience of self?

All the past has been distilled down to create ‘me’, is how I see it. My parents were a product of their time. They conditioned me. They were conditioned by their parents who were a product of the early 20th century. And so on, going all the way back to the Jewish conditioning in the time of the Old Testament. Those early Jews were conditioned by their parents and grandparents and their ancestors etc. All the way back to Adam and Eve in the garden?

Sorry...the quoting function is refusing to work on my iPad again today. 1st paragraph was Clive, 2nd paragraph is my reply.

C: Are these details important? Or is the essential thing that the self is, in some way, the past acting?

T: yes, I would tend to agree with the 2nd sentence.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Tue, 19 Jun 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 19 Jun 2018 #14
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 889 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
As I wrote in a post to Dan, it seems we are not aware of the fact as the self actually arises from memory.And in this lack of awareness, the self is experienced as a separate entity.

Aren't you suggesting here Clive that there is a 'you' that is separate from the 'self', rather than that you are the self? It sounds from the way you put it is that there is something 'outside' or apart from 'self' that can 'be aware' of its 'arising...but is that true? K. has asked can thought be aware of itself? It seems to me that could be the only way...otherwise the 'thinker' is born and 'tries' to be aware of thought? Sorry if I have misunderstood. Maybe K. confused the issue when he spoke of "following every thought", etc. implying a duality between the 'thought' and the 'one' trying to follow it?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 20 Jun 2018 #15
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4362 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Aren't you suggesting here Clive that there is a 'you' that is separate from the 'self', rather than that you are the self?

Absolutely not! I was under the impression I was implying the opposite. Sorry if I was not clear.

Clive wrote:
and in this lack of awareness, the self is experienced as a separate entity.

i was saying that it is a lack of awareness that gives the IMPRESSION that the self is an entity separate from thought. And I would add, IN awareness, this illusion cannot sustain itself.

Dan McDermott wrote:
It seems to me that could be the only way...otherwise the 'thinker' is born and 'tries' to be aware of thought?

This is what tends to happen. The illusion of a separate thinker seems to make movements of the mind possible that are actually illusion - including the illusion that I can act upon this mess that is the mind.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying all 15 posts
Page 1 of 1
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.)