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

The brain is infinite


Displaying posts 61 - 90 of 107 in total
Mon, 01 Oct 2018 #61
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 999 posts in this forum Offline

Peter Kesting wrote:
Isn't seeing different from knowing?

But doesn't knowing have a place?

Hello Peter

Knowing has a place but it turns out not in the psychological world. (There only 'emptiness'?) But the 'known' is in the psychological realm and has created there what you are calling the "false self, the not you", correct? (The source of conflict.) Now can this "false self" be 'seen just as it is? Is the labeling what is seen as "false" a judgement made by the 'thinker'? Is it not sufficient to just see the 'I process' without any separation being made i.e. the 'real' you and the 'false' you. The observer is the observed, isn't it? It has occurred to me that any resistance of any kind to what is seen, is the activity of the 'self' and a form of escape. That is what is being seen isn't it, (when and if there is 'seeing') our self escaping through the 'movement' of thought?

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 01 Oct 2018 #62
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 597 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Knowing has a place but it turns out not in the psychological world. (There only 'emptiness'?) But the 'known' is in the psychological realm and has created there what you are calling the "false self, the not you", correct? (The source of conflict.) Now can this "false self" be 'seen just as it is?

PK: As I see it. The false self has attributes: age, sex, history, male or female, memories, even the being as person. there is identification in all of that. As long as there is any identification there will be resistance. The light in oneself is empty. In seeing what that is, that empty seer, one also sees that it is identical to that light anywhere, even in the least of sentient beings. Out of this seeing there is a different relationship. Identical here means the very same one sees thru these eyes as thru any and all other eyes... there being no way to distinguish one from any other, this light itself having no attributes.

PK: Everything that is material functions mechanically and as such can be seen as understandable, science is working at that. So we can relate to everything with sense of understanding. Whether it is a germ that kills us or the "enemy".The light in the other, in The "enemy", is this same light.

PK: This "light" is of a further dimension beyond anything that science can touch, beyond time. Not measurable. Still it affects things that are in the material world, at the very least in that there is our seeing that it is there.

DM: Is the labeling what is seen as "false" a judgement made by the 'thinker'? Is it not sufficient to just see the 'I process' without any separation being made i.e. the 'real' you and the 'false' you. The observer is the observed, isn't it? It has occurred to me that any resistance of any kind to what is seen, is the activity of the 'self' and a form of escape. That is what is being seen isn't it, (when and if there is 'seeing') our self escaping through the 'movement' of thought?

PK: It is necessary to observe the I process from the empty unidentified state, then the observer (the false self (the identified observer)) can be observed

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 01 Oct 2018 #63
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 999 posts in this forum Offline

Peter Kesting wrote:
. The light in oneself is empty. In seeing what that is, that empty seer, one also sees that it is identical to that light anywhere, even in the least of sentient beings.

This is the "light" of awareness, that is the same in every living thing. Depends on the structure of the life-form for its degree of manifestation. It has no 'owner' but in the human brain (and perhaps some others) its presence can be realized.

Peter Kesting wrote:
PK: It is necessary to observe the I process from the empty unidentified state, then the observer (the false self (the identified observer)) can be observed

If the 'observation' is not from this state of "emptiness" it will be the 'thinker' who has separated from thought.

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 01 Oct 2018 #64
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4648 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.

The idea that thought is always verbal seems contradicted by this comment from K:

"Thought began with the unitary cell"

Wondering just what this means. Is he referring to the start of life's evolution?

From "Tradition and Revolution" dialogue 14 "Conflict and Consciousness" page 115

This post was last updated by Clive Elwell Mon, 01 Oct 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 01 Oct 2018 #65
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4648 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote *55 :
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 ??

One very interesting thing that science has discovered about what used to be regarded as "empty space" is that it is the spontaneous source of energy (subject to the limits of the uncertainty principle of quantum theory). It is a constant interplay, dance, of energy/matter.

Was it the source of all energy in the "big bang"? But science say space (and time) was created BY the big bang; they did not exist before.

Does this have relevence to the understanding of ourselves/life? I do not know.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 01 Oct 2018 #66
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4648 posts in this forum Offline

Peter Kesting wrote *57 :
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.

Yes, I resonate with this, Peter.

Peter Kesting wrote:
We would have to explore what is meant by the word energy.

Indeed. I remember from my schoolday's physics energy was defined as:

"The capacity to do work"

More generally, one might say "the capacity to exert effect"

But in "The Ending of Time" K says that energy is not the basic root of everything. It still has a source.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 01 Oct 2018 #67
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4648 posts in this forum Offline

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

Seems to me it is nothing fancy. Just the past, memory, resulting from experience, stored in the brain cells. This reacts, either to some present perception, or some other memory. This reaction is the MOVEMENT of the past - ie the self is not an entity.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 01 Oct 2018 #68
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4648 posts in this forum Offline

Peter Kesting wrote:
That is the only certainty.

What about death? Is that not a certainty?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 01 Oct 2018 #69
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 999 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
"Thought began with the unitary cell"

As you quoted K. that every thought has an intention...so here is the beginning at the cellular level as it moves to multiply and divide on its particular creative journey?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 02 Oct 2018 #70
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 597 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Peter Kesting wrote:

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

Indeed. I remember from my schoolday's physics energy was defined as:

"The capacity to do work"

More generally, one might say "the capacity to exert effect"

But in "The Ending of Time" K says that energy is not the basic root of everything. It still has a source.

In Physics matter can be transformed into energy, and energy can be transformed into matter. So it seems these are different forms of the same thing.

K seems at times to talk about energy as something of another field.
Perhaps an energy that is 'psychic', a mental energy, not material at all. K:"I have plenty of energy". Is this something that is beyond the material?

About the self you wrote:

Clive Elwell wrote:
Seems to me it is nothing fancy. Just the past, memory, resulting from experience, stored in the brain cells. This reacts, either to some present perception, or some other memory. This reaction is the MOVEMENT of the past - ie the self is not an entity.

Yes, not an entity

But a presence

Matter can only be seen from the outside. This presence can only be seen from within

(Perception can also be seen as only a material process. Signals travel along nerves.).

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Tue, 02 Oct 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 02 Oct 2018 #71
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 597 posts in this forum Offline

About death, We really don't know.

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Tue, 02 Oct 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 02 Oct 2018 #72
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4648 posts in this forum Offline

Peter Kesting wrote:
About death, We really don't know.

Don't we know that every living creature is going to die?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 02 Oct 2018 #73
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4648 posts in this forum Offline

Peter Kesting wrote:
In Physics matter can be transformed into energy, and energy can be transformed into matter. So it seems these are different forms of the same thing.

Yes, I know that matter is “concentrated energy”. Highly concentrated. But the more I ponder this thing called “energy”, the more puzzled I become. Although it is a term, a concept absolutely fundamental to science, in a way there is no such thing as energy per se, is there Peter? I mean it is not a substance, not a fluid. Am I right in saying all one can say is that matter can be in higher or lower “states of energy”, and so do different things? Matter can gain or loose energy.

Peter Kesting wrote:
K seems at times to talk about energy as something of another field.

Peter, are you postulating that there might be "two sorts of energy"?

The following is an excerpt from the first discussion of the "Ending of Time" series:

K: Is it - wait a minute, wait a
minute - is it energy being so vast,
limitless, has been condensed or
narrowed down in the mind, and the
brain itself has become narrowed down
because it couldn't contain all this
enormous energy - you are following
what I am saying? DB: Yes. K: And
therefore gradually narrowed down to
me, to the 'I'. DB: I don't quite
follow that. I understand that that is
what happened but I don't quite see
all the steps. If you say energy was
very broad, very big, and the brain
you say can't handle it, or it decided
it couldn't handle it? K: It couldn't
handle it. DB: But if it can't handle
it, it seems as if there is no way out
them? K: No, no, Just a minute. Wait,
wait, wait. Slowly. I just want to
enquire, push into it a little bit.

And while we are on the subject, here is another quote from K which has always puzzled me:

"Energy has no order"

There is so much that I do not understand. In fact I am not sure that I understand anything - or I have a wrong concept of "understanding".

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 03 Oct 2018 #74
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 999 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
K. "Energy has no order"

But when it is "ordered" it becomes 'matter'?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 03 Oct 2018 #75
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 757 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
But when it is "ordered" it becomes 'matter'?

Hi Dan.

I've difficulty with becomes in the above, should not that be left out?

When ENERGY is "ordered" it IS 'matter' and that matters .

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
Wed, 03 Oct 2018 #76
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 999 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
When ENERGY is "ordered" it IS 'matter' and that matters.

How does it get from "Energy has no order" to 'Ordered energy is matter' if
at some point, there isn't a 'becoming' of this ordering? Energy in its primordial 'unordered' state becomes (manifests as) matter, no?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 03 Oct 2018 #77
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 597 posts in this forum Offline

Clive wrote: Peter, are you postulating that there might be "two sorts of energy"?

There is so much that I do not understand. In fact I am not sure that >I understand anything - or I have a wrong concept of "understanding".

As I see it, and I may be wrong:

There are dimensions to space. Superficially we think about space as being three dimensional, but there is also one-dimensional space and two-dimensional space and it seems that time and three space are bound together as a four-dimensional space. There are relationships that hold in each dimensional space. As I see it, for example, Euclidean geometry in two space, in the plane. In three space, topology. Discoveries about light indicate that time and our commonly experienced separate sense of space are really another a oneness, a four-dimensional space. The relationship between things in Time/space is cause and effect, determinism. Each next higher dimension contains each lower dimension. With each next higher dimension there is something completely beyond anything that is there in each lesser dimension. The emergence of time is an example. Science is the study of relationships in time/space, the four-dimensional. Time and space and energy and matter can be understood within this field of cause and effect.

I want to suggest that there might be a five-dimensional field. That next larger field would bring with it things that cannot be discovered in the space of cause and effect. What seems to fit the bill is sentience. With it comes meaning, intelligence, nowness and qualia. Qualia is a word for everything that is perceivable. We can follow what happens when we see the color red. Photons strike sensors in the eye and a signal travels along a neuron. into the brain. This is purely a material phenomenon. It can be explained. But how that becomes the seeing of redness is, it seems, unknowable. As also sentience is not understandable.

Science deals with matter and energy, causes and effects. But in that way, in that field, Sentience is not explainable. So you cannot understand Sentience. But sentience has an effect on matter. It may or it must have energy, but that "energy" is something very different from energy.

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Fri, 05 Oct 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 03 Oct 2018 #78
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 597 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
"Energy has no order"

K may be talking here about the energy of the physicist and the order of this field beyond matter, the order of nowness, of the timeless.

"Love is where the self is not"

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Fri, 05 Oct 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 03 Oct 2018 #79
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 597 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Peter Kesting wrote:

About death, We really don't know.

Clive: "Don't we know that every living creature is going to die?"

Peter: That death is of matter.

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Fri, 05 Oct 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 03 Oct 2018 #80
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 999 posts in this forum Offline

Peter Kesting wrote:
Peter: That death is of mater.

I recall reading recently K. saying that with Love, there is no death. As was said above, the death we know is the coming and going in the manifest, material world or order. Perhaps he was also referring to this 'higher' order when he said there were no endings, only beginnings?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 03 Oct 2018 #81
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 757 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
How does it get from "Energy has no order" to 'Ordered energy is matter'
if at some point, there isn't a 'becoming' of this ordering?
Energy in its primordial 'unordered' state becomes (manifests as) matter, no?

But becoming means time, there must be another factor what's doing it !
If one turns it around and disturbing matter in chaos a lot of energy comes free, like in the atomic bomb, but I am not a scietist maybe Peter can put some light on this matter ?

Writing this, another idea came in sight; 'INSIGHT' is completely transform the working of the braincells/the mind -according to K.- and that is the ordening of matter , isn't it ?

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
Wed, 03 Oct 2018 #82
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4648 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
But when it is "ordered" it becomes 'matter'?

Yes! That sounds right, Dan. But immediately the question arises, where does, or where did, that order come from?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 03 Oct 2018 #83
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4648 posts in this forum Offline

Peter Kesting wrote:
But sentience has an effect on matter. It may or it must have energy, but that "energy" is something very different from energy.

There was a "coincidence" yesterday that I can only describe as astounding. I had never previously given any thought to the "two sorts of energy" that came up between us. But in the afternoon I continued reading in "Tradition and Revolution", opening it randomly at the chapter called "Energy, Entropy and Life". It is precisely this issue that is discussed.

An unidentified questioner states "biologists have proved that life is anti-entropic, which means that while material energy dissipates itself, life energy does not. So this movement of anti-entropy is against the material flow of energy which dissipates and ends in dead uniformity. The human being generally moves with entropic energy and, therefore, decays. Scientists have measured even the time span of this energy. The problem is therefore: How can man, being aware of this, be part of the movement of energy that is anti-entropic?

Krishnamurti: One can see quite simply, that that which is mechanical wears itself out, given a certain time.

D: What is measurable can be manipulated by the mind, by man and that is the why of the atom bomb. This energy, this movement of entropy, dominates the world today. How do we get out of its grip?

P: This is a very important point. If there is a movement of energy which does not dissipate itself, which does not end, decay, then from the point of view of the scientist as well as man, it is probably the answer to all the problems of the world.

Krishnamurti: So what are you asking? How is man who is caught in the movement of this mechanical decay - it may take a million years or ten million years - how can that decay be put to an end? Or is there a contrary movement?

D: And the nature of that contrary movement?

Krishnamurti: Let us put that question again simply. Man is caught in material energy, in mechanical energy; he is caught by technology, by the movement of thought - you get the key to it?

D: No.

The rest of the discussion can be found at:

http://jiddu-krishnamurti.net/en/tradition-and-revolution/1971-02-11-jiddu-krishnamurti-tradition-and-revolution-energy-entropy-and-life

I want to read it again. If you have any comments, Peter, they would be welcome.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 03 Oct 2018 #84
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 999 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
where does, or where did, that order come from?

I think we have to say that we don't 'know'. But as Peter was talking about different dimensions, then your question is a rational one from this dimension, but if there is a higher one the question of 'where order comes from'?, How does energy become matter?, How did this all begin? etc, may just be a result of thought's limit due to the limits of the dimension we move in. Could we perhaps 'see' the higher dimension, those questions would cease to be. We simply don't have an answer. We can't 'know'. Here we see 'death' but Love has no death...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 03 Oct 2018 #85
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4648 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
But becoming means time, there must be another factor what's doing it !

Isn't it Mind, or Intelligence, that brings this order about?

I don't necessarily mean this happened as some instant in time, long ago (as with the "Big Bang", but that may be going on now, all the time. Seems to me Quantum Theory supports this notion, with its "collapsing waveform" - as I understand it matter only becomes manifest when it is "observed".

No time to go into this at the moment, unfortunately.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 04 Oct 2018 #86
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4648 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Isn't it Mind, or Intelligence, that brings this order about?

In this context, one is reminded of the words of Bohm, quoted recently:

"Mind is the interface between matter and energy"

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 04 Oct 2018 #87
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4648 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Isn't it Mind, or Intelligence, that brings this order about?

In this context, one is reminded of the words of Bohm, quoted recently:

"Mind is the interface between matter and energy"

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 04 Oct 2018 #88
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4648 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:

K said:
"Thought began with the unitary cell"

And Dan said: "As you quoted K. that every thought has an intention...so here is the beginning at the cellular level as it moves to multiply and divide on its particular creative journey?"

Unless I am misunderstanding (quite likely) this seems a very different concept of thought than the one K usually uses - that is, a response of memory in the brain cells, and fundamentally SYMBOLIC. Did the unitary cell deal in symbols?

Is it possible that "a basic drive of life" (this is best phrase I can come up with) evolved into thought as we now know it?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 05 Oct 2018 #89
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 999 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
K said:
"Thought began with the unitary cell"

And Dan said: "As you quoted K. that every thought has an intention...so here is the beginning at the cellular level as it moves to multiply and divide on its particular creative journey?"

Clive: Unless I am misunderstanding (quite likely) this seems a very different concept of thought than the one K usually uses - that is, a response of memory in the brain cells, and fundamentally SYMBOLIC. Did the unitary cell deal in symbols?

Is it possible that "a basic drive of life" (this is best phrase I can come up with) evolved into thought as we now know it?

Dan: Without 'intention' doesn't everything stop? Doesn't 'thought' always intend to come to a conclusion, to find an answer? Isn't that why it is relentless? Because it 'thinks' it can?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Fri, 05 Oct 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 05 Oct 2018 #90
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 757 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Without 'intention' doesn't everything stop? Doesn't 'thought' always intend to come to a conclusion, to find an answer? Isn't that why it is relentless? Because it 'thinks' it can?

Hi Dan,

If the thought process is seen through as an unnecessary dead end process it will only be activated under supervision from awareness and not longer out of order on its own.

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
Displaying posts 61 - 90 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.)