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

What does it mean, "to understand"?


Displaying posts 31 - 60 of 69 in total
Tue, 15 Jan 2019 #31
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 633 posts in this forum Offline

Just exploring:

It seems There are two seperate aspects, two fields, Two dimensions? One is everything that is in time, and a second, which is nowness. This other includes:

Tom said: insight...intelligence...love...beauty...compassion...truth?

Also qualia, and meaning, this inner light which is all of this, and perhaps non locality.

But even Naming these is already of in/of time/the past. And it is division.
Even to say there are two fields, is division.

Wim said: .Can 'having insight into myself ' taking place in the past ?

Wim said: .It doesn't matter how one might call this!
Are those titles 'self-knowledge or self-knowing or whatever one will name it ' not only for the sake of communication but factual, actual wasted words as long as 'having insight' not is taking place.?

I want to repeat: "actual wasted words as long as 'having insight' not is taking place."?

Tom: I don’t know. K often spoke of self knowledge in order to communicate the importance of understanding oneself...not have knowledge of oneself. There’s a difference.

My sense in all of this (and I think one can prove this) is that everything that is of time only goes to disorder... if it is not already there.

Also the action of the other, of this light that is empty, that is not a me or a you, but is what we really are cannot be accessed in time. Its action originates from the other.

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Tue, 15 Jan 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 15 Jan 2019 #32
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 808 posts in this forum Offline

Peter Kesting wrote:
My sense in all of this (and I think one can prove this) is that everything that is of time only goes to disorder... if it is not already there.

Hi Peter,

Could we also say that because it is out of order, it falls into demolition ?
That it has entered the dying phase, something we do not understand, do not accept and want to hold on to by knowledge?

It also reminds me of the enfolding and infolding idea of ??David Bohm.

Truth will unfold itself to those who enquire their own actions.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 15 Jan 2019 #33
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 633 posts in this forum Offline

A little over one hundred years ago we thought that time and space were separate things. And we functioned in that quite well. And we still do, but Einstein discovered that these two were actually one.

So could it be that these seeming two "things", the things in time, and this absolute now, these two which are seemingly seperate and in conflict, are actually one. And we have yet to discover just how they fit together. How they are actually a oneness, not exclusive, and not in conflict at all.

So to know oneself seen here, means to see that one is at once the material person with its past, all of that which is matter, the long time evolution of it and of all of eighty years of wear and memories, to learn about that, to have knowledge of that, "to read "the book of life"" but to also see that there is a deeper being, perfect in its innocence, to have this "self knowledge". of what we actually are which is not person same one here as there, sentience.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 15 Jan 2019 #34
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 633 posts in this forum Offline

Hello Wim,

It may be, we don't know, that this other, which can act on the material, which we see in that these brains can discuss what is this light, meaning, qualia, and
more, might be able to go beyond what is inevitable for matter only.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 16 Jan 2019 #35
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 808 posts in this forum Offline

Peter Kesting wrote:
So could it be that these seeming two "things", the things in time, and this absolute now, these two which are seemingly seperate and in conflict, are actually one. And we have yet to discover just how they fit together. How they are actually a oneness, not exclusive, and not in conflict at all.

Realizing that any whole is always more than the sum of its parts and every part - including the psychological me - has different living space/time, density and speed.

Now i feel there is something what cannot find words to express itself,
may be during the day it become clear ..........or not.....

Truth will unfold itself to those who enquire their own actions.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 16 Jan 2019 #36
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2582 posts in this forum Offline

Peter Kesting wrote:
So to know oneself seen here, means to see that one is at once the material person with its past, all of that which is matter, the long time evolution of it and of all of eighty years of wear and memories, to learn about that, to have knowledge of that, "to read "the book of life"" but to also see that there is a deeper being, perfect in its innocence, to have this "self knowledge". of what we actually are which is not person same one here as there, sentience.

Here's the QOTD which touches on what is being discussed here. I want to note that K spent countless hours over the years in his talks discussing these 'hindrances' to understanding. Without this 'self-knowledge', proclaiming that we are this 'light'...or striving to awaken to it... seems to me to be meaningless. It's possible that I may be mistaken in this.

Talks at Adyar, India 1932-33

What I have to say concerns the hindrances which prevent in you the instantaneous recognition of truth. I say that there is an ecstasy of life, and eternity, an immortality, which is in the completeness of your daily living and not in some distant future which is but a passing fantasy. I say that this everlasting reality can be understood only in the fullness of the present. But it cannot be imagined or fancied, and that which can be explained is not truth. That for which you struggle, which you conquer, is not reality. That ecstasy of truth comes spontaneously, naturally, sweetly, without the slightest effort, without self-discipline, without analysis, without introspection. It must come without toil, with ease, with quietness. I say that there is ever this living ecstasy of truth, and that I have realized it. I do not say this out of conceit, but to show you that this realization is in the present, not reserved for a distant future. It can be understood only when the mind is free of the past, which creates the future, and freedom form the past comes when there is the realization of the full significance, the completeness of the present.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Wed, 16 Jan 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 16 Jan 2019 #37
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1259 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Without this 'self-knowledge', proclaiming that we are this 'light'...or striving to awaken to it... seems to me to be meaningless. It's possible that I may be mistaken in this.

I think I see what you are getting at and I agree that the "proclamation", that one is this 'light' is questionable...anyone can claim to be anything and believe it. And "striving" brings in the question, "how you can you 'strive' toward something you don't know"? But in this quote put up in the other forum, isn't K. saying the same thing without naming it the "light":

K "You see, I am talking of the fact of a realisation that there is nothing. The psyche is a bundle of memories - right? - and those memories are dead. They operate, they function, but they are the outcome of past experience which has gone. I am a movement of memories. Right? Now if I have an insight into that, there is nothing. I don't exist."

Dialogue 2 Brockwood Park, England-25 June 1983

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 16 Jan 2019 #38
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 692 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
isn't K. saying the same thing without naming it the "light":

Dear Dan, I don’t understand what you mean. How does seeing that “the psyche is a bundle of memories” and that there is nothing left of self beyond that bundle, translate into “I am the light”? Understanding that “I” am nothing does not mean that “I am the light”, is it? As I see it.

In realizing that what “I am” (or “what ‘I’ IS”) is nothing but a “bundle of memories”, thought sees its limitations. Thought/memory itself understands - within its limitations - that it did not, does not, produce insight or intelligence. But the question which then follows - “so what is insight” - IS put together by thought/memory, isn’t it?

Thought itself realizes that intelligence and insight are not the product of memory/thought. It realizes that insight, intelligence, love, come uninvited, not through its own efforts. For generation after generation, thought has tried and failed - through cleverness, shrewdness, ambition, calculation, cunning - to overcome desire and fear, and no effort has borne fruit. The realization of its limitations is as far as thought can go in understanding itself. This realization is the dawning of intelligence, as I see it. Thought cannot “work out” the mechanism or process of the “dawning” or fullness of intelligence because, being limited, the intellect cannot look into or understand the workings of intelligence. K said many times that intelligence is not personal and in this realization of thought’s limitations, the meaning of that statement is revealed, as I see it.

THE AWAKENING OF INTELLIGENCE PART VIII CHAPTER 2, 2ND PUBLIC DIALOGUE SAANEN 5TH AUGUST 1971 'IS INTELLIGENCE AWAKE?':

“...intelligence is not personal, is not the outcome of argument, belief, opinion or reason. Intelligence comes into being when the brain discovers its fallibility, when it discovers what it is capable of, and what not. Now, what is the relationship of that intelligence with this new dimension? I would rather not use the word relationship.

The different dimension can operate only through intelligence; if there is not that intelligence it cannot operate.
[...]
When one discovers the limitation of the old, the very discovery of that is intelligence, and only when that intelligence is functioning can the new dimension operate through it.”

So what does thought do now that it understands its limitations, and the nature of self, desire, anger, effort and so on? Does it continue on its habitual path of effort? Can it? It’s no longer a question of thought taking the next step to a “new dimension” - there is no next step. All “steps” to a new dimension have been wiped out by intelligence. So the question of thought being able to reach a new dimension of enlightenment, of bliss or of life without suffering … has also been wiped out.

When thought is faced with the immovable fact that its efforts can’t “take it” where it desires to go, can it or does it still make up fantasies or theories about what self “really” is? It doesn’t know. It sees its own limitations, it sees the nature of self, the mental process that produces self, fear, desire, suffering, effort. Beyond that, it doesn't know what there is, it can’t understand. So it can’t move, it can’t make any effort in any direction. This stillness is not the result of a decision or an effort to stop moving. Understanding effort, it stops effort. Fear, anger, self-pity, conceit, judgment still arise because these are the movements of habit, of conditioning, not the result of deliberate effort. So fear, anger, etc., are observed and no effort is made to overcome these habits or reactions, as I see it.

This post was last updated by Huguette . Wed, 16 Jan 2019.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Wed, 16 Jan 2019 #39
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1259 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
How does seeing that “the psyche is a bundle of memories” and that there is nothing left of self beyond that bundle, translate into “I am the light”? Understanding that “I” am nothing does not mean that “I am the light”, is it?

It doesn't translate into that as I read it. If there is a "realization", that 'all I am' is this "movement of memory", then 'I' no longer "exist". That 'process' that has been understood by me to be me is not me at all but a movement of the past. Then... there is no 'me'. Whether or not there is 'something' beyond me can't be known because there is no me to know it.. Words like love, intelligence, wisdom, compassion have been used to point at this 'dimension' beyond the reach of thought, beyond the reach of the illusory 'me'. K says 'we' are "nothing". Nothing is nothing, pronouns like 'you' and 'me' don't apply. These physical bodies are 'things' and continue to be so but psychologically there is no-thing to separate us from the rest of the world. No 'you', no 'me'. In that realization he says lies "ecstasy", the ecstasy of the "completeness" of the present moment.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 16 Jan 2019 #40
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5024 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
That for which you struggle, which you conquer, is not reality. That ecstasy of truth comes spontaneously, naturally, sweetly, without the slightest effort, without self-discipline, without analysis, without introspection. It must come without toil, with ease, with quietness.

Yes, I was contemplating yesterday, such a thing can only arise spontaneously. There is no other 'way'.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 16 Jan 2019 #41
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5024 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
. It can be understood only when the mind is free of the past, which creates the future, and freedom form the past comes when there is the realization of the full significance, the completeness of the present

Now here is a very interesting issue, one I have been looking at for some days. The mind PREFERS the past and the future, doesn't it, over the present? The self PREFERS its own creations, its own projections, rather the nowness that the senses reveal.

If one - I am speaking for myself, naturally - is sitting quietly with nature, or taking a walk, rather than just observing, listening to what is around one, the mind is drawn into its own ideas, is it not? Drawn to its remembrances and it hopes and fears for the future. This is what I mean by the word "prefers", it may not be the best word. But the things created by the mind do seem to displace the senses, do they not?

If this is the case, it might seem that the mind can never be free of the past.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 16 Jan 2019 #42
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1259 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
But the things created by the mind do seem to displace the senses, do they not?

If this is the case, it might seem that the mind can never be free of the past.

But the "things created by the mind" don't really satisfy, do they? They bring 'pleasure' but also conflict, unease, worry, fear, insecurity, division, etc....but when the mind/brain realizes (if it does) that this is all just as K. is saying, the 'movement of memory' , that the 'I' is an illusion, a trick, and that the 'ecstasy' of living is being 'shut out' by this habitual 'movement', then it 'may' question the path it has been on and cease. It seems to all depend on that realization, don't you think?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Wed, 16 Jan 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 16 Jan 2019 #43
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 692 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
In that realization he says lies "ecstasy", the ecstasy of the "completeness" of the present moment.

But so what? I’m not doubting or challenging what K said about ecstasy and in fact I understand that he talked about it. There’s no reason for K to hide it or keep it secret.

But is ecstasy something that can be pursued and attained? Is ecstasy the reward, the fulfillment of desire I am seeking? Why does the mind come to the edge of understanding and then think it has to add something to it, expand on it? --- the edge of understanding being understanding the nature of self and consciousness, the psychological process of fear, desire, anger, and so on, the futility of psychological effort.

Why can’t the mind “stay" with its realization silently and not ask “what am I really” or speculate about what happens next (ecstasy, bliss, love, etc.), and so on? I don’t mean to sound flippant. I’m really asking.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 16 Jan 2019 #44
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 633 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
K "You see, I am talking of the fact of a realisation that there is nothing. The psyche is a bundle of memories - right? - and those memories are dead. They operate, they function, but they are the outcome of past experience which has gone. I am a movement of memories. Right? Now if I have an insight into that, there is nothing. I don't exist."

Dialogue 2 Brockwood Park, England-25 June 1983

Can thought, which is matter, which is memory, which is in the material structure of the brain and in the movement in that structure,
can that have an insight? What is the "I" that has the insight in "If I have an insight into that". Isn't this question the same kind of question as the question, "what is the redness of red"... the actual experiencing of redness.

There is a name for this experiencing: qualia. As seen here, nothing can explain qualia, yet something (not a thing) is experiencing. Suppose we could remove this other, what this poster calls "light", what it is that is experiencing. If we could remove what it is, this that is always only in the present, that on its own has no memory, no history, these being only of the field of matter. If that removal were to be accomplished what would be left would be a robot. A computer can have sensors and detect light of the frequency that is the color red. It might be able to carry out what seems to be a conversation. But there would nothing that actually sees redness. There would be nobody experiencing anything. No "I" to have an insight. Everything in it would be black.

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Wed, 16 Jan 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 17 Jan 2019 #45
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2582 posts in this forum Offline

Peter: What is the "I" that has the insight in "If I have an insight into that".

There is disorder...anger...fear...addiction. Is there an 'I' who has fear or addictions? If there is insight into fear, need there be an 'I' attached to this insight or understanding ?

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 17 Jan 2019 #46
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1259 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Why can’t the mind “stay" with its realization silently and not ask “what am I really” or speculate about what happens next (ecstasy, bliss, love, etc.), and so on? I don’t mean to sound flippant. I’m really asking.

It has to. If it asks the questions you put, it is no longer silent, it is still searching. These are 'words' that have been said by others about 'the beyond'. They may be just so many myths or hallucinations.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Thu, 17 Jan 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 17 Jan 2019 #47
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 692 posts in this forum Offline

Peter Kesting wrote:
Suppose we could remove this other, what this poster calls "light", what it is that is experiencing. If we could remove what it is, this that is always only in the present, that on its own has no memory, no history, these being only of the field of matter. If that removal were to be accomplished what would be left would be a robot. A computer can have sensors and detect light of the frequency that is the color red. It might be able to carry out what seems to be a conversation. But there would nothing that actually sees redness. There would be nobody experiencing anything. No "I" to have an insight. Everything in it would be black.

It’s interesting what you say. But with regard to qualia and colour (for example), is it so that if “we could remove this other, [...] this that is always only in the present, that on its own has no memory, no history, [...] what would be left would be a robot [...] Everything in it would be black”?

If, as you asked us to suppose, “this other”, as you called it, were removed so that only the material structure of memory and sensory perception remained, that WOULD be a robot, but I don't see that it would be black. The material structure cannot have insight. But it is the material structure - not “the other” - which senses or perceives colour. The “light”, as you also called it, still cannot answer the question “what is the redness of red”, can it? Only a sensor or robot can precisely measure and name degrees and shades of redness - I don’t know the science of how it works. I might be wrong. But with mere sensory perception - that is, without “the other” - the beauty of the rainbow, the sunrise, the flowers, a face, and so on, would be lost, wouldn’t it? And is beauty determined merely by qualia? No matter how each one of us may subjectively experience colour, beauty CAN be seen. Beauty also is not a product of thought.

Although I think there is no parallel or equivalence between qualia and insight, I still find what you say about insight helpful in understanding that the material structure of thought/memory cannot have insight. Clearly, insight cannot depend on the material structure of the brain. That is, insight cannot be produced by a movement of thought/memory. If insight WERE a movement of thought/memory, then thought would have the capacity for insight. If thought HAD the capacity for insight, then thought COULD be trained or conditioned to produce, accumulate and recall insight. If thought could produce insight, then insight - like thought - would be conditioned. And then, what would be the difference between insight and thought? Then insight would BE thought.

Thought itself can see the fallacy in this. Thought itself can see the limitation. No?

This post was last updated by Huguette . Thu, 17 Jan 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 17 Jan 2019 #48
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 692 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
If it asks the questions you put, it is no longer silent...

That's it.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 17 Jan 2019 #49
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5024 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote #42:
But the "things created by the mind" don't really satisfy, do they? They bring 'pleasure' but also conflict, unease, worry, fear, insecurity, division, etc...

The things created by the mind, although attractive (when they are not fearful) , don’t really satisfy, as you say, Dan. But it seems that mankind has been caught in this trap since time immemorial. A prime example of the blindness of the self? I get the impression that when the perils of being attracted (to images of the mind) have been ‘seen’, the effect has been to change the OBJECT of attraction, not to negate the whole business.

As long as the mind is attracted (or fearful), it is in the web of time, isn’t it, and so not in the present moment? Images of future frustration, of lack of satisfaction, are also in the web of time, no?

Dan McDermott wrote:
.but when the mind/brain realizes (if it does) that this is all just as K. is saying, the 'movement of memory' , that the 'I' is an illusion, a trick, and that the 'ecstasy' of living is being 'shut out' by this habitual 'movement', then it 'may' question the path it has been on and cease. It seems to all depend on that realization, don't you think?

How can the mind/brain “realise that the ecstasy of living is being shut out by this habitual movement? The mind/brain has no direct experience of ecstasy, does it? Anything it thinks about it is just that, thought, no? An image of ecstasy only, which in its ignorance it may chase.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 17 Jan 2019 #50
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5024 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Understanding effort, it stops effort. Fear, anger, self-pity, conceit, judgment still arise because these are the movements of habit, of conditioning, not the result of deliberate effort. So fear, anger, etc., are observed and no effort is made to overcome these habits or reactions, as I see it.

Yes, after seeing that "thought cannot move in any direction" …… there is still a momentum which operates, it seems to me. Still a certain momentum, inertia, of the movements of thought, of the self, arise. They don’t get very far, but they still arise, and in the arising there is a certain amount of conflict.

You wrote: “and no effort is made to overcome these habits or reactions, as I see it.”, but does not effort itself also have a certain amount of momentum/inertia? After all, effort is perhaps one of the most fundamental elements of the self, a very basic conditioning of the mind. By effort I am meaning any attempt to change ‘what is’.

I emphasise again, effort as a movement does not get very far. It arises, and it fades. It sees its own limitations (or something sees its limitations) and quickly fades. But a new effort arises to take its place, which in turn fades. So it is questionable if I can truly write “it sees its limitations”. Is it that this seeing is incomplete, partial?

I would appreciate going into this issue. We have touched upon it before.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 17 Jan 2019 #51
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 692 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
does not effort itself also have a certain amount of momentum/inertia?

Reading your post, the memory of a "lucid dream" spontaneously came up, which I mentioned long ago. In the middle of a nightmare in which I was making great efforts to escape danger, there was the realization that everything was ok, that it was only a dream. The momentum (as you say) of the effort continued for a very short while, but the fear immediately started to dissipate. So it is in the waking hours too, isn't it? The understanding of the process - the seeing of the limitations of thought - does end the effort, doesn't it?

Clive Elwell wrote:
I emphasise again, effort as a movement does not get very far. It arises, and it fades. It sees its own limitations (or something sees its limitations) and quickly fades. But a new effort arises to take its place, which in turn fades.

But isn't this time interfering? Thought looking back and ahead? "It's happened before, it will happen again, it's hopeless".

This post was last updated by Huguette . Thu, 17 Jan 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 17 Jan 2019 #52
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2582 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Tom Paine, quoting K:

.” It can be understood only when the mind is free of the past, which creates the future, and freedom form the past comes when there is the realization of the full significance, the completeness of the present”

Clive: Now here is a very interesting issue, one I have been looking at for some days. The mind PREFERS the past and the future, doesn't it, over the present? The self PREFERS its own creations, its own projections, rather the nowness that the senses reveal.

If one is sitting quietly with nature, or taking a walk, rather than just observing, listening to what is around one, the mind is drawn into its own ideas,

Yes, this is the momentum of the self. I don’t think ‘preference’ is the right term for what goes on in this self centered movement in consciousness. The momentum of consciousness/me is due to fear and insecurity isn’t it? Fear created by its own movement. And due to this insecurity it seeks security in ideas and in its own projected future. its pleasures and entertainments are a movement to escape the pain of its fear and insecurity. And when the escapes fail...fear and confusion returns. These two aspects of consciousness....fear and attachment....are mutually reinforcing. Just exploring...

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Thu, 17 Jan 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 17 Jan 2019 #53
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1259 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
How can the mind/brain “realise that the ecstasy of living is being shut out by this habitual movement? The mind/brain has no direct experience of ecstasy, does it? Anything it thinks about it is just that, thought, no? An image of ecstasy only, which in its ignorance it may chase.

It can't of course, but that is what has been said. It may or may not be true so it must be left as a possibility only and the 'focus' on this 'self' or 'I' or 'me' as being 'possibly', only the "movement of memory"...We have never taken ourselves to be a "movement of memory", have we truly? We have always thought that we "exist", haven't we? But that is all now in question. The 'I Process' is not 'existence', is not 'living' is what I hear K. saying...it's a destructive mistake that has gone on for millennia and needs to be addressed if there is to be change. We have mistakenly taken the past as what 'life' is, as what 'I am'.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 17 Jan 2019 #54
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2582 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
The 'I Process' is not 'existence', is not 'living' is what I hear K. saying...it's a destructive mistake that has gone on for millennia and needs to be addressed if there is to be change.

Yet if we conclude it’s a mistake we wind up condemning it....condemning what we are....this mistake which is in me....which IS me...don’t we? And as long as I condemn what is, this condemnation is making it impossible to understand it, the action/s of ‘me’.

The 'I Process' is not 'existence', is not 'living' is what I hear K. saying.

Yes, but for most of us it IS living....how we live our lives. Yes, K holds out the promise that there’s another way of living. Something ‘I’ cannot reach out to....grasp.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Thu, 17 Jan 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 17 Jan 2019 #55
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1259 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Yet if we conclude it’s a mistake we wind up condemning it....condemning what we are....this mistake which is in me....which IS me...don’t we?

It's a 'mistake' in the sense that what has been taken to be 'myself', 'I', 'me', is just a "movement" of past memory, a "bundle" of past experiences. There is no real 'I' that "exists" at all...it is just this movement of the past! There is no "condemnation" in this realization. In the same way I suppose, that there there is no "condemnation" in understanding that the 'snake' can kill you... you just don't go near it, once you realize what it is. You keep your 'eye' on it.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 17 Jan 2019 #56
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2582 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
There is no real 'I' that "exists" at all...it is just this movement of the past! There is no "condemnation" in this realization.

Right. If we actually see...have insight...understand....that the movement of ‘me’ is a mistake and that it’s destructive...there’s no condemnation. We’re simply stating a fact. If we’re just repeating what K or someone else has said, then we’re using the statement to go beyond the self....to get rid of it. Or am I off base here?

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Thu, 17 Jan 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 17 Jan 2019 #57
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1259 posts in this forum Offline

Right the truth of the statement that the self is just a movement of memory and doesn't actually "exist", is either seen as true, as a fact, or it is theoretical.

Tom: . If we actually see...have insight...understand....that the movement of ‘me’ is a mistake and that it’s destructive...there’s no condemnation.

Yes, there is just the 'fact' that the self which has been taken as 'real' is seen now as only an illusion created by the "movement of memory"...when that illusion of a permanent self is pierced, it is seen that there actually is no such self that 'exists', then there is no-one to do the 'condemning' or acceptance or any of the judgements that were part of the false 'self'...But as you say this has to be realized in 'oneself' (would it be of any use to speculate 'how' that comes about?) or it is only an intellectual understanding that the 'self' uses to try to go beyond itself.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Thu, 17 Jan 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 17 Jan 2019 #58
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 633 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
But with mere sensory perception - that is, without “the other” - the beauty of the rainbow, the sunrise, the flowers, a face, and so on, would be lost, wouldn’t it? And is beauty determined merely by qualia? No matter how each one of us may subjectively experience colour, beauty CAN be seen. Beauty also is not a product of thought.

Hello Huguette,

Qualia the... redness of red...the experiencing of it... but also any other experiencing of anything, is not a product of thought. Even the experiencing of thought is not a product of thought. All of experiencing is beyond the material, all of it could be called qualia.

There is no color in the brain just as there is no color in the robot. Its all just circuitry. The program that beat the champion chess player was aware of nothing. To be aware is beyond anything that is only matter.

We have no idea how awareness, how seeing, how pleasure, how pain, how attention, how anything experienced, as an experiencing , the experiencing of it, in the presentness of that experiencing, How any of that arrises.

A simpler way to put it. There is no red in the brain. Just nerves and junctions... material structure, and chemistry.

As seen here.

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Fri, 18 Jan 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 18 Jan 2019 #59
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5024 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
The understanding of the process - the seeing of the limitations of thought - does end the effort, doesn't it?

Hmm, I see that I did not express myself clearly when I referred to the momentum or inertia of effort. I meant the whole movement of effort, not some particular effort, in some particular direction. The fact that the movement of effort repeats day after day.

I am aware that I have tried to go into this issue several times previously, and perhaps there is not point in taking it up again, especially if my mind just follows old groves – ie is carried along by momentum/inertia, by old patterns. The usual response to seeing one is caught in a pattern is to make an effort to get out of it. In this way one might succeed tn replacing one effort by another, but what we are concerned with here is asking if all effort can end, psychologically, is it not? This question arises when one “sees” that psychological effort – the attempt to change ‘what is’ - is futile, does it not? Not only futile, but perhaps destructive, in that it prevents that which needs to flower in the mind, from flowering.

ALONGSIDE the knowledge that effort is futile and destructive, effort continues to arise, as I described. Why is this? It is such a deep conditioning, one might say that society is based on effort-making, and people’s faith in it does not seem to fade, despite the fact we are what we are. Effort can have many objects, including the attempt to end effort! Perhaps effort is the very essence of the self, it is the mechanism the self tries to use to become, to attain, to overcome.

What is this mechanism? Is it, fundamentally, the creation in the mind of an imaginary opposite to ‘what is’, an ideal, and the pursuit of this ideal? How is an imaginary thing to be pursued? It seems to me now that in reality in CANNOT be pursued, and this is why effort always fails. I emphasise I am talking psychologically, of course.

But perhaps all attempts to analyse the problem of effort, to describe it, are futile. Perhaps all that “can be done” (and of course that very phrase carries the implication of effort making) is a choiceless awareness of the process. But is such choiceless awareness only possible when one is no longer making an effort?

Huguette . wrote:
But isn't this time interfering? Thought looking back and ahead?

Effort relies on the existence of psychological time, yes - or rather on the mind's capacity to "create time". This is a very interesting point.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 18 Jan 2019 #60
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5024 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
I don’t think ‘preference’ is the right term for what goes on in this self centered movement in consciousness. The momentum of consciousness/me is due to fear and insecurity isn’t it?

Perhaps "prefers" is not the best term, but for whatever reason the mind is drawn to its own creations. The mind IS its own creations. Just why the self keeps going, keeps moving forward, keeps creating itself, is a very basic question. I know in some earlier talks K said it was "ignorance and desire". I take "ignorance" to mean lack of self-understanding. Of course the desire for security is included in that self-perpetuating movement

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