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

The brain is infinite


Displaying posts 31 - 60 of 107 in total
Wed, 26 Sep 2018 #31
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 597 posts in this forum Offline

Without it wouldn't there be "nobody home"

Just an automaton that looks like a human?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Sep 2018 #32
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 597 posts in this forum Offline

Isn't it what we really are?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Sep 2018 #33
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 597 posts in this forum Offline

It is beyond matter. That is something that can be seen. Awareness sees itself.

Memory is stored in matter...as matter. Is thought then material, residing wholly in the automaton?

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Wed, 26 Sep 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Sep 2018 #34
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 999 posts in this forum Offline

Peter Kesting wrote:
What is this awareness? Is it thought, or is it something that is beyond thought?

If thought is material, then 'awareness' is thought's perception of itself. If the cell is material then awareness is the cell's perception of itself. Everything in creation has a quality of awareness, call it 'life energy'. Awareness is not mine or its, it is 'everywhere' in everything. (?) That's the way it appears.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 27 Sep 2018 #35
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4648 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote &21 :
From time to time. But that is also what was so interesting about the post I mentioned above: getting to the threshold but never really going through...why? Not being able to 'perceive' in a new way?

Dan, this is what you wrote in &24:

Dan McDermott wrote:
That doesn't seem right Clive. Are you "frustrated" that each thought ends? It's an almost seamless process, isn't it? 'We' want to "continue". That seems like a fact. But the 'we' is really just an accumulation of memory, of the past and really all it does is keep one from contact with the present. So our 'problem' is as I see it, that there needs to be an awareness that we are in fact the 'past' and as such are limited. Without such an awareness we will continue to act from the 'center' (the past) because we don't see our conditioning for the totality that it is.

Are you here answering the question that you asked in &21?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 27 Sep 2018 #36
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4648 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
That doesn't seem right Clive. Are you "frustrated" that each thought ends? It's an almost seamless process, isn't it? 'We' want to "continue". That seems like a fact. But the 'we' is really just an accumulation of memory, of the past and really all it does is keep one from contact with the present. So our 'problem' is as I see it, that there needs to be an awareness that we are in fact the 'past' and as such are limited. Without such an awareness we will continue to act from the 'center' (the past) because we don't see our conditioning for the totality that it is.

It's rather difficult to answer this question in terms of "me", to ask am "I" frustrated. Is there an "I" separate from, independent of, the frustration? But is there not a fundamental contradicton between the thinker and thought? Can this contradiction not be called "frustration"?

The thinker considers himself permanent, or at least semi-permanent, having continuity, but thought itself, of which the thinker is composed, has no such quality. By its very nature - a movement in the brain cells - it is transient, is it not?

So is there not frustration in the thinker's on-going discovery of this fact, this contradiction? Is the thinker not continually frustrated in its search for permanence/security?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 27 Sep 2018 #37
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4648 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote #28:
Well unless it's a 'jumble' there has to be a spacing between each word of the thought and a space or gap between each thought. What is the significance Clive that you find in this gap or space?

Thanks for this question, Dan. Rather than putting down the first thing that comes to thought, I would like to live with it, a while. I am not trying to escape the question, I hope!

Can we first inquire together into “what is a thought”? Is it put together by individual words; are you suggesting that above? This is how we compose when writing, isn’t it, at least sometimes. But is this how thought is stored in the brain as memory, as individual words? Is it not whole sentences that are stored, carrying “a unit of meaning”, if I can put it that way?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 27 Sep 2018 #38
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 999 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
But is this how thought is stored in the brain as memory, as individual words? Is it not whole sentences that are stored, carrying “a unit of meaning”, if I can put it that way?

This doesn't sound right Clive: Sentences lined up like battalions ready to march? What is your idea?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 27 Sep 2018 #39
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4648 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
This doesn't sound right Clive: Sentences lined up like battalions ready to march? What is your idea?

That's exactly how thought appears at times, the enemy endlessly charging against the thinker! :-)

Ok, over to you Dan - what is "a thought" to you? Obviously thought is verbal, I imagine that we agree on that. Without language there is, and was, no thought.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 27 Sep 2018 #40
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 999 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Ok, over to you Dan - what is "a thought" to you? Obviously thought is verbal, I imagine that we agree on that. Without language there is, and was, no thought.

Right, subject-verb-predicate usually. "The cat is hungry." "The fields need watering". "The enemy needs to be vanquished." etc.

Also its interesting that all thinking no matter the language has 'syntax' as its base: subject, verb, object. That all human brains express this process called 'thinking' in this same way. And underlying that structure of syntax is 'association'. This is the 'track' that our thinking goes down.

Thought's biggest failing in the psychological world, it seems to me, is that it can not see that it can't match the 'movement' of life. That it will always 'lag behind'. Thought is the 'describer' and the 'concluder' but the movement of life is neither, it has no conclusion, no end...and it can't be 'described'. It can't be arrested and 'put into words'. It is 'indescribable'.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Thu, 27 Sep 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 27 Sep 2018 #41
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4648 posts in this forum Offline

Peter Kesting wrote:
Without it wouldn't there be "nobody home"?
Just an automaton that looks like a human?

Hi Peter
I came across a snippet that might interest you, in the discussion I have referred to above. I don’t have time to transcribe much of it, but here are the two lines that grabbed my attention:

Q: When you come to the question “I am alive”, what is it that is alive in me? Obviously ……

K: (interrupting) Energy!

Start around 1.35 on:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4zQY65XrGQ

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 27 Sep 2018 #42
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4648 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Also its interesting that all thinking no matter the language has 'syntax' as its base: subject, verb, object. That all human brains express this process called 'thinking' in this same way.

So you are saying, Dan, that all cultures, groups, have developed basically the same sort of structure of language, without exception? (This is not to imply that all languages have developed separately, obviously, when one looks at the etyymology of a word, they have not. But I am no expert in this field, exccept to feel its fascination).

Dan McDermott wrote:
And underlying that structure of syntax is 'association'. This is the 'track' that our thinking goes down.

This is undoubedly so.

Dan McDermott wrote:
Thought's biggest failing in the psychological world, it seems to me, is that it can not see that it can't match the 'movement' of life. That it will always 'lag behind'. Thought is the 'describer' and the 'concluder' but the movement of life is neither, it has no conclusion, no end...and it can't be 'described'. It can't be arrested and 'put into words'. It is 'indescribable'.

Yes, well put, Dan. Life is immeasurable, but thought can only measure. So it MUST fail to match, to catch the movement of life. This is mankind's tragedy, that it keeps trying. It keeps acting on the assumption that thought can solve our human problems. Which is odd, given that these problems have only increased despite all the attempts of thought to arrest them.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 27 Sep 2018 #43
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4648 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:

Clive:But is this how thought is stored in the brain as memory, as individual words? Is it not whole sentences that are stored, carrying “a unit of meaning”, if I can put it that way?
Dan:This doesn't sound right Clive:

What exactly do you find wrong about it, Dan?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 28 Sep 2018 #44
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4648 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote *28:
What is the significance Clive that you find in this gap or space?

This just came, 'out of the blue':

That space is where all perception/seeing/insight takes place.

What do you say, Dan?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 28 Sep 2018 #45
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 999 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
This just came, 'out of the blue':

That space is where all perception/seeing/insight takes place.

Sure. Space (where ever it occurs) is what is necessary?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 28 Sep 2018 #46
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 597 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Peter Kesting wrote:

Without it wouldn't there be "nobody home"?
Just an automaton that looks like a human?

Hi Peter
I came across a snippet that might interest you, in the discussion I have referred to above. I don’t have time to transcribe much of it, but here are the two lines that grabbed my attention:

Q: When you come to the question “I am alive”, what is it that is alive in me? Obviously ……

K: (interrupting) Energy!

Start around 1.35 on:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4zQY65XrGQ

Hello Clive,

Do you see that there is a field that is beyond matter?

Just to let you know, I listened to the whole talk.

K talks about the mind (the brain) being completely still. As I see it that stillness is simply the absence of the self.

Also, I seem to know something about not knowing :-)

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Fri, 28 Sep 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 28 Sep 2018 #47
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 999 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Clive:But is this how thought is stored in the brain as memory, as individual words? Is it not whole sentences that are stored, carrying “a unit of meaning”, if I can put it that way?

Dan:This doesn't sound right Clive

Clive:What exactly do you find wrong about it, Dan?

Dan: The thought seems to assemble itself as it unfolds, not appear 'ready-made'. Each thought has the feeling of being 'new'. That it is being thought for the first time. It has no feeling of being the 'past'. Is it our 'experiencing' of each thought which gives the illusion of it being a new creation? Is it that the thoughts already 'exist' in the 'stream'? Complete unknown here.

Is it that when 'one' is watching ones thoughts, that it is always the case that it is another thought that is doing this watching? That the 'thinker' is always doing this under the illusion that it is separate from the thoughts, spaces, gaps etc. that are being investigated or followed...? In other words, it is a 'closed' system? Completely conditioned. So the search, interest in, desire, for freedom is always just thought's looking for a better, more secure, more interesting, more enjoyable place?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sat, 29 Sep 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 29 Sep 2018 #48
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4648 posts in this forum Offline

Peter Kesting wrote:
Do you see that there is a field that is beyond matter?

Hello Peter,

I presume that thought is included in the category of matter? And I assume that feelings, emotions, are also in that category, that field, as we are told they are produced by various chemicals affecting the brain cells. So your question is really:
“Do you see that there is something beyond thought/feeling?”. Is that right?

And what about joy, intelligence, beauty, love? Would you say they are in the field of matter? And what about energy? Free energy, unlimited, energy – Energy that is not bound into matter? I don’t think I am avoiding your question; just clearing the ground before looking at it.

Peter Kesting wrote:
K talks about the mind (the brain) being completely still. As I see it that stillness is simply the absence of the self.

It certainly appears that the self is always associated with a state of agitation. Is it ever at peace – and can it ever be?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 29 Sep 2018 #49
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4648 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Dan: The thought seems to assemble itself as it unfolds, not appear 'ready-made'. Each thought has the feeling of being 'new'. That it is being thought for the first time. It has no feeling of being the 'past'. Is it our 'experiencing' of each thought which gives the illusion of it being a new creation? Is it that the thoughts already 'exist' in the 'stream'? Complete unknown here

Often my feeling, my impression, is that thought just ‘emerges’ from the depth. And I feel – I could be wrong, but it is a strong impression – that this depth IS ‘The Stream’. And along with that is the impression that such thoughts ARE‘ready-made’, to use your phrase, Dan – it is a good one. Such thoughts do not have the feeling of newness. They may get subject to some process in the brain and get modified – then the modification goes back into the stream.

However, it doesn’t always seem this way. Sometimes there is a feeling of newness, and that something is being seen for the first time. I associate this state with the word ‘insight’. It may not actually BE new – quite likely K has already described it, but there is a FEELING of newness. Perhaps this stems from the state of non-duality, when the thinker is not censoring, condemning his thoughts.

Why there are such discrepant states of being at different times I cannot explain. Perhaps the insightful state arises from nothing, as has been mentioned, when all suggestion of searching has ceased.

Do you distinguish between ‘thought’ and memory’, Dan? Sometimes K seems to use the terms interchangeably, and sometimes he says thought is a ‘reaction’ to memory.

Dan McDermott wrote:
Is it that when 'one' is watching ones thoughts, that it is always the case that it is another thought that is doing this watching? That the 'thinker' is always doing this under the illusion that it is separate from the thoughts, spaces, gaps etc. that are being investigated or followed...? In other words, it is a 'closed' system? Completely conditioned. So the search, interest in, desire, for freedom is always just thought's looking for a better, more secure, more interesting, more enjoyable place?

That sounds right. I read something in K that struck me as very interesting recently. He said there is an intention behind every thought. Every thought is trying to achieve something.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 29 Sep 2018 #50
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 999 posts in this forum Offline

I just wanted to jot this down. I had a melody that has been with me for a day or so repeating itself (not unusual for me ) and as I became aware of it again just now, my thought started up thinking about it: about how it was helpless in stopping it by will and remembering that people had different mental tricks they did to stop it, etc, but along with these two activities, the song and the thoughts about it, there was something else present and it was what is called 'awareness'. There was awareness of both these mental activities as well as the awareness necessarily involved with driving a car...The question arose: Is this what we are in essence? Not the body driving the car, not the song playing in the brain, not the thoughts about what was going on but that in essence we are this 'thing' we have labeled 'awareness'...not 'my' awareness or 'your' awareness but this indescribable quality that is in every living thing? Does that sound right? That 'awareness' is what we are and always have been? Is that what is meant by being "no-thing" (not-a-thing)? Just 'pure being'? Not a thing that can be grasped by 'self' or 'thought' and brought into the 'known'?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sat, 29 Sep 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 29 Sep 2018 #51
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4648 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Sure. Space (where ever it occurs) is what is necessary.

*Dan had written: What is the significance Clive that you find in this gap or space?

And Clive replied: “That space is where all perception/seeing/insight takes place.

*And Dan replied: “Sure. Space (where ever it occurs) is what is necessary?”**

So, have we found an answer, or at least a pointer, to the original question of this thread: “What does it mean, that the brain is infinite?”

Is it infinite precisely because it ‘creates’, or has the capacity to access, this space? Is that its true nature? Is that what it is all about? To maintain a door into this space?

If it is, then clearly thought is getting in the way of this function.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 29 Sep 2018 #52
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4648 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
The question arose: Is this what we are in essence? Not the body driving the car, not the song playing in the brain, not the thoughts about what was going on but that in essence we are this 'thing' we have labeled 'awareness'...not 'my' awareness or 'your' awareness but this indescribable quality that is in every living thing? Does that sound right? That 'awareness' is what we are and always have been? Is that what is meant by being "no-thing" (not-a-thing)? Just 'pure being'? Not a thing that can be grasped by 'self' or 'thought' and brought into the 'known'?

On reading your post, the first response that arose – and I hope it is not off at a tangent – was what does it mean, the question “What am I?”. Does it mean anything? Is there an assumption behind the question (irrespective of what answers might appear) that such a thing as the I, the me, actually exists? Is that a necessary assumption for living?

Does the word “am” in the question suggest something static? Something enduring? And does the word “I” suggest something separate from the rest of life/the universe? Of course “awareness” does not imply separation, does it?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 30 Sep 2018 #53
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 757 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
So, have we found an answer, or at least a pointer, to the original question of this thread: “What does it mean, that the brain is infinite?”

Is it infinite precisely because it ‘creates’, or has the capacity to access, this space? Is that its true nature? Is that what it is all about? To maintain a door into this space?

Hi Clive and Dan,

I've doubts on the formulation "the brain is infinite" to me it seems It's the brains capacity that is infinite.

Everything existing is existing in space and is a part of space itself and not apart from space.
If seen as apart there is need of a door and is the blockage from the rest of space and the creation of duality, so is it not that not the brain has access to space but space has access to the brain if it is not busy with unnecessary activities ?

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, 30 Sep 2018 #54
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4648 posts in this forum Offline

Hi Wim, thanks for joining in the discussion.

Wim Opdam wrote:
I've doubts on the formulation "the brain is infinite" to me it seems It's the brains capacity that is infinite.

Yes, I also assumed that this is meant.

Wim Opdam wrote:
so is it not that not the brain has access to space but space has access to the brain if it is not busy with unnecessary activities ?

Yes indeed, that seems a much better way of putting it.

But what is this “space”? I introduced the term earlier as the space that exists between thoughts. This is rather vague, and may be confused with physical space. Can we say/describe more precisely the nature of this “space”?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 01 Oct 2018 #55
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 757 posts in this forum Offline

Peter Kesting wrote:
K talks about the mind (the brain) being completely still. As I see it that stillness is simply the absence of the self.

Also, I seem to know something about not knowing :-)

Hi Peter,

Starting with your last remark:
And did this knowing something about not knowing brought silence to you ? ;-()

I had the time and opportunity to view the whole video and after that realized that two of the three possible answers are the closing of the door, so to speak, only the seeing, hearing and feeling of this state of not knowing is the tranquillity and vibrancy of stillness.

This brings me to Clive's:

Clive Elwell wrote:
But what is this “space”? I introduced the term earlier as the space that exists between thoughts. This is rather vague, and may be confused with physical space. Can we say/describe more precisely the nature of this “space”?

Will this help us any further ? I doubt it.
Knowing the nature of alcohol is that any help to stay sober, not becoming an alcolist or get out of that state of being ?

Space is everywhere, between the notes of the music as well as between the organs or brain cells, between you and me, one thought and another thought, the planet's of our solar system as well as between solar systems etc., etc...

One could say things are partaking of space, or things are of another density or speed of space, but would that not be trying to answer ...., not being satisfied by... escaping not knowing and disturbing that state ??

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
Mon, 01 Oct 2018 #56
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 597 posts in this forum Offline

Hello Peter,

I presume that thought is included in the category of matter? And I assume that feelings, emotions, are also in that category, that field, as we are told they are produced by various chemicals affecting the brain cells. So your question is really:
“Do you see that there is something beyond thought/feeling?”. Is that right?

And what about joy, intelligence, beauty, love? Would you say they are in the field of matter? And what about energy? Free energy, unlimited, energy – Energy that is not bound into matter? I don’t think I am avoiding your question; just clearing the ground before looking at it.

Hello Clive,

As I see it, there is the absolute present...now...experiencing... which is completely different from remembrance or a projected future. This absolute present is timeless. It is of a different order. Seeing is of the present. We are easily confused by the fact that there is the experiencing, seeing, of thought. That happens in the present but the thought that is experienced, is the memory of things. So also what are feelings, as they are being experienced, are of the absolute present, not matter. But the memory of them, as is even the naming of them, consists of structure in matter. So also the things you list are either memory which is encoded in matter or they are the unnamed, in the present, experiencing.

The Automaton, which is matter only, can store information in memory but it experiences nothing.

We would have to explore what is meant by the word energy.

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Mon, 01 Oct 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 01 Oct 2018 #57
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 597 posts in this forum Offline

So what is the self? is it all of the stuff that is memory? Or is it the absolute present, nowness?

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Mon, 01 Oct 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 01 Oct 2018 #58
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 999 posts in this forum Offline

The 'self' is a pattern of "conformities" of one's past experiences, ideas, discoveries, insights, realizations, etc. The QOTD addresses it directly:

K."All conformity to the pattern or ideas of another destroys completely your own creative energy."

He says here the ideas of "another"... but the 'self' makes these ideas its 'own', it 'adopts' them and they become part of oneself. And no matter how 'brilliant' the pattern(s) may be, it is always 'second-hand' (of the past) and so "destroys" one's "creative energy" from possible manifestation. Could you say that it is only in the state of 'not-knowing' that one's creative energy can manifest?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Mon, 01 Oct 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 01 Oct 2018 #59
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 597 posts in this forum Offline

Hello Dan,

Dan McDermott wrote:
The 'self' is a pattern of "conformities" of one's past experiences, ideas, discoveries, insights, realizations, etc. The QOTD addresses it directly:

K."All conformity to the pattern or ideas of another destroys completely your own creative energy."

He says here the ideas of "another"... but the 'self' makes these ideas its 'own', it 'adopts' them and they become part of oneself. And no matter how 'brilliant' the pattern(s) may be, it is always 'second-hand' (of the past) and so "destroys" one's "creative energy" from possible manifestation.

But that is the false self, the not you. As seen here. What we are is the empty seer. That actuality can be discovered. From there there can be choiceless awareness, watching what is the thing that is programed and the programing without identification. And there can be change in that.

Dan: "Could you say that it is only in the state of 'not-knowing' that one's creative energy can manifest?"

Not "one's"

A question: Does knowing enter into any of the above?

Isn't seeing different from knowing?

But doesn't knowing have a place?

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Mon, 01 Oct 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 01 Oct 2018 #60
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 597 posts in this forum Offline

It is possible to come to see that the only known is:

It is not the case that there is nothing.

That is the only certainty.

Every thing else can be questioned.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 31 - 60 of 107 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.)