Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
Experimenter's Corner | moderated by John Raica

Pages from the Book of Life


Displaying posts 61 - 90 of 366 in total
Fri, 19 Jun 2015 #61
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 322 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:

paul daniel wrote:

. what I have observed each time of crisis lived and not escaped, so again the sorrow of it must be left free without any search for anything..this is the immense difficulty of it, what I have observed is this..when the root problem related to the sorrow, the pain the awful state etc is found , not once the analyser had been able to find it, never...........

Just a small differentiating here, Dan: in the area of thought such a thing is looking really hard or even impossible. However, in the area of meditation it's looking much easier,

Yes John, said with your words and ways of saying "things". I think I understand your point.
Meditation as you know it, for me, being a word I do not use ,basically I do not like it at all, but more profoundly as it has lost its original real meaning, and the meaning is so different from one to another that it makes it impossible for a reader or listener to know what is meant by one word..it is just about here about our different ways to use words as symbols only, not a big deal ,yet it is important to talk about the same subject..

John Raica wrote:
since it's perceived in that inner space of innocence, it is very much like the mind of a child playing or imagining or whatever- everything seems possible there since he never heard of limitations.

I do not see it exactly that way....as, so far, what i perceive is ,precisely, that we as physical adults, are still childlike minded,because we never opened the door beyond the analyser...a child is pure analysing and not yet insane, well some already are actually, nevertheless it is sort of globally fine even though we already can see the future ugly society in formation in children's world, when it is growing up, it still have a lot to discover mainly in the outer world not aware of what it is, of desires, sorrow, etc etc,

so it is still OK to fine..but this does not last and the limits of the analyser are there in life quite soon when I want things to last, to have continuity so that death becomes something to absolutely negate to stick on the road of pleasure, continuity, dreams etc.

At this stage someone ,somehow awakened to that for himself could eventually be around and eventually go into such subject....., but in our world this is not possible , so many ways of escape are purposely given to us to keep on with the impossible mental negation of death, exactly like the one of sorrow by the way , ( for controlling reasons, the awakening of man to what it simply is signifying in the outer the end of competition-elimination,business so of the pyramidal society etc etc all being outcomes of the analytical program working in isolation and ignorance)....and this for me has a deadly consequence because this will prevent the whole brain to get a chance to function and will put the analyser as a god to its own eyes, as what it is using to compare is.....itself as an absolute reference, it is like living alone in a fish bowl...and what do life says then ? life says : next !!

John Raica wrote:
And indeed, I've noticed that many people take the K challenge very seriously in the realm of thought, where indeed it sounds paradoxical. But taken as a meditation 'theme du jour', free of the spatio-temporal context, it really sounds 'natural'. In fact we can easily see this in many K dialogues on video- very brainy, serious and even successful 'thinkers' looking rather puzzled by Mr K's 'desinvolture'. So, in my view, it's never too late for us to realise that it is in the inner space of meditation that the 'truth' or the 'falseness' of anything can be fully seen.

I have done that ( k challenge in the realm of thought) without knowing it AT ALL for years...as it was all what I had, apart from weird events which do not modify at all the analyser, yet it knows more than a few very deep things and much more to be true, real ,factual, but as memory, sadly that is not enough to radically change the all mental world of oneself..

the work is about the discovery of the analyser working system, for me by living sorrow, death , etc

sorrow and death are absolute, the analyser cannot do one single thing to change that..that is precisely the point...

sorrow and death, as catalyst, are meant to destroy the mental analytical dictatorship of our childhood when they are not escaped , but we permanently do escape one way or many others..,if not this will put the analytical process right back to where it belongs too: "cooking the omelette" , and the omelette can be found good, excellent ,awful etc...but the analytical omelette does not contain anything else but physical food for the body..when the analyser is expecting some absolute heaven beyond imagination....this is so childish to go back to the beginning of this post..

and why is it searching for an absolute ,haven, heaven?? because it is in pain for thousands of reasons and imagine some sort of binary yes/no opposite like I search for happiness, but the fact is that I find myself unhappy..happiness is an illusion...

What you call inner space of meditation , seems to be part of the state which is there where death, sorrow etc have played their catalyst role; so that the analyser is not leading, it is cooking the omelette but nothing more outside its fields for some time, which is giving birth to another process, which sees the root problems, the unconscious, knows about the analyser functioning, programming and I guess that from there there is enough mental food for a lifetime .

I find necessary to mention about meditation in the sense i think you use it as a word from time to time, as another reader may not necessarily get the meaning given behind...which is not today's conventional sense of focussing, concentrating on something ,forcing you to be silent, freezing your thoughts, let them free etc etc ....all this being analytical search only ...so the meaning being the absence of the analyser as a leader of our mental activities..implying that another process is .....

John Raica wrote:
The difference by the way, a 'regular' mind and Mr K's was that his mind seemed to be in a constant state of meditation- so for an outsider it sounded as any other 'thinking' (only better). In fact it may be of a 'seamless' quality of integration which is just appearing to think naturally, as anybody else.

I do not know.It could be though.
At least he is always referring to experiments ,whether right as he speaks or from what is left from the past for sure yes...when we usually globally refer to intellectual guesses...

I mainly do refer to experiment ...some part of that being watched afterwards..

I wonder how one does without properly living sorrow and death...and all the rest of it, because sorrow and death are just the 2 trees hiding the forest

meet the 2 trees, then walk in the forest of life...randomly is what I sense..

Dan ...........

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 21 Jun 2015 #62
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 322 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:

paul daniel wrote:

I wonder how one does without properly living sorrow and death...and all the rest of it, because sorrow and death are just the 2 trees hiding the forest

Or, Dan, as very clearly exposed in the K text just posted above...by starting all over again...from the very beginning, from where it all went astray. See the difference ? No more 'trees' and... no more 'forest either. Now, that's what I would call a fundamental insight

Hi John

k had many talks with many people about many subjects...Bohm, pupul jayakar, famous people, doctors, professors ,artist ,less anonymous , all of them only amazingly living in the western world apart from people of India, yet India would now be part of that somehow too; i find that strange..

talks were all of them obviously were still caught in dukkha like the entire planet, a word which in some Buddhist environment is now translated by imbalance,( mental) imbalance producing a painful sadness.......this is what Richard told me yesterday....( all my troubles seem so far away....)

John Raica wrote:
K: That is it. Therefore, attention is ( insightful ?) perception in action and therefore in that there is no conflict. It is infinite. Action in attention is producing its own energy and it is endless. The human brain has functioned always in the field of conflict, belief, imitation, conformity, obedience, suppression and when the brain begins to realise that, then 'attention' begins to work. The brain cells themselves become 'attentive' (are 'awakening'?) .

then all of a sudden here we are with some "attention" ,arriving here out of the blue from nowhere...

John Raica wrote:
K: I would like to start approaching it from a different point. The brain cells have gone through wastage of energy- in various conflict, imitation and all the rest of it. They were 'accustomed' to that. The brain cells now have stopped that (ongoing conditioning?) . They are out of that field, and the brain is no longer the residues of all that. It may function technologically and so on, but the brain that sees life 'is' action and is (getting free of its own ?) conflicts, is in a state of 'attention'. When there is this 'complete attention', right inside, not imposed, then its whole structure is 'alive' ; not in the usual sense, but in a different sense. I think there is a 'physical' transformation. I think it is a direction of 'death' (of 'dying' to the past?) and death is that. So, there is an 'action' which is non-repetitive and therefore the freedom from the known is attention in the unknown.

I understand that attention is still there out of the blue..what is it, how is it there all of a sudden ??

John Raica wrote:
K: (Recap:) As long as the brain is functioning within the field of the known, it is functioning in a groove and the brain cells have been functioning ( for quite a while in biological and cultural?) grooves. Now when those 'grooves' are non-existent, the total brain acts, not in grooves, but in freedom, which is 'attention'.

Yes, we can say that k talks from experience, and try to convey what is happening, beyond the imbalance mental state brought by dukkha in his case,where is to be found another state of mind he calls attention; but is it the case of most of his listeners ? obviously not for me..Pupul would be for me the one who was the closest( in what I read) to k's feeling in all matters about his "teaching"

the way it is mentioned here for me can very well create he feeling that this attention is just a "better" functioning of the analytical process, when as far as I get something here, it is not a better analysing but a different "process" at work....the analysing can lie, the other process will not as it is only concerned with facts by set up ..the other process has no capacity with lies,exactly like the analyser has no capacity with attention , attention in the k's sense..

So what I say here and i insist, for my life, on that is that if the 2 trees and the forest are not met as one first step, there will be nothing else in the matter of attention(another process) as mentioned by k....we leave doubt playing its part here of course, but at some stage it is now necessary to know for oneself.

So now If I get you properly you seem to be implying that sorrow, dukkha and all that does not really matter , attention is what matters...attention as a different process from analysing..

is it what you are suggesting here..? How is it possible then to avoid all the traps and illusions built by the analyser when the link suffering-thinking is not lived so deeply seen? Am I missing something in what you are trying to say ?

thanks

Dan ...........

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 21 Jun 2015 #63
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 127 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
So if we start thinking about life from this illusory thinking platform, the actual feelings of insecurity may be temporarily aleviated but there are still a lot of disturbing facts of life- death, material insecurity, etc- which remind our 'unconscious' mind that things are not settled for good.

Yes and 'thought' about the world, about life, about 'time',about 'awareness', about the possible 'verticality' of time,i.e. that there is only 'Now' etc.That all life here are forms, patterns of energy feeding on each other (such a strange arrangement!) and what does it 'mean' to be a human here rather than a bush or tree or insect. Is there such a thing as 'karma' and as humans, is our birthright something other than these 'particular' patterns of energy that persist as 'myself'? Are we really 'the World' as K. says and not the 'individuals we feel that we are? etc.,etc. While these thoughts, wonderings, ponderings are very interesting,exciting even,it does seem a bit like a dog chasing its tail. Always the possibility of reaching it, but never quite getting there. Thought I guess can never reach the 'truth' for all those reasons that have been put forth...because there will always be MORE to think about, a new twist, and it can never accept that the 'truth' as has been suggested lies elsewhere (no-where); in silence?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 22 Jun 2015 #64
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 322 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
So 'insight' may be the new generation of 'intelligent' perceptive instrument.

Well John , for me it had been there from scratch in human being so millennium ago ,we can see remains of it in many cultures all around the world...yet I have not one proof for it, if so that would not be a new instrument but an old instrument...malfunctioning or not functioning at all in the occidental world..
which does not change the way all this functions....

cheers..

Dan ...........

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 22 Jun 2015 #65
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 322 posts in this forum Offline

richard villlar wrote:
Le conflit vient avant tout du fait que le mode de perception du cerveau fasse apparaître une réalité duelle, c'est à dire que le cerveau fait apparaître la réalité d'un sujet qui perçoit un objet. Il n'en est rien, il n'y a ni sujet ni objet. La seule chose que nous considérons comme la réalité n'est qu'une perception erronée et nous la saisissons comme réelle. Le conflit, le déséquilibre démarre ici et il est un support d'attention fondamental.

Salut Richard..
..
oui tout à fait, quand tu dis: le déséquilibre démarre ici et il est un support d'attention fondamental,veux tu dire par là que ce que provoque le déséquilibre et-ou le déséquilibre lui même est un moyen vital pour faire quelque chose, ici tu parles d'attention....si oui pourrais tu développer..si l'envie est là bien sur...je suis intéressé..;) pouet !!

Dan ...........

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 22 Jun 2015 #66
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 322 posts in this forum Offline

richard villlar wrote:

paul daniel wrote:

déséquilibre lui même est un moyen vital pour faire quelque chose, ici tu parles d'attention

un support d'attention fondamental dans la mesure où cette vision erronée, ce déséquilibre est là constamment donc il le support majeur pour s'éveiller, et puis de quoi s'éveillerait on? tout ce qui apparaît est un support pour l'éveil, l'insight... faut pas aller chercher ailleurs ce qui est là, juste là, maintenant.

le support se renversera tôt où tard.

merci c'est clair....

Dan ...........

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 23 Jun 2015 #67
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 127 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
Krishnamurti: That is the beauty of it. Silence is when the total quality of the brain is still; the total thing, not just part of it.

When there is this seeing of the limited process of thought, there arises a sensation (fear?) that the 'order' (disorder?) that thought has assembled will be threatened and may 'crumble' in the light of this 'awareness'...and the question of what will take its place (madness?) accompanied by negative images appears. But it is possible to see here that it is not the images that create the fear but that thought itself IS fear. Letting go here means that thought can see that no matter how it 'twists and turns' it will still be 'limited' and 'narrow'.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 24 Jun 2015 #68
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 127 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
K.:"...which you cannot possibly understand unless you leave the movement of time."

Unless there is this leaving, 'anti-entropic' energy will only be an idea, an abstraction, not a 'fact'. As I'm seeing it, the entropy begins with the form: The acorn, the child, the newborn, etc. As it grows overcoming the friction and resistance, it reaches its maturity and then it dies, disintegrates and disappears. For the oak,this may not be a problem but for us it is. (the energy of sorrow and conflict etc.) In the midst of this growing, we become aware that there will be this ending, and it is 'unacceptable'. Not being able to 'leave the movement of time' as K. puts it, we invent an 'anti-entropic' energy: God, a higher self, as a solace to the 'self' that refuses to believe that it can come to an end with the body. But while the search, hope, for an 'infinite energy' is born from the fear of thought, that does not mean that there is no such energy. It just is not in the field of the 'known' and cannot be 'found by the 'self'. Thought does not know its limitation. I think that 'passive awareness', 'total attention', 'total non-action' are terms referring to this 'other' energy that is outside the domain, and control of thought. Outside the "process of becoming"?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 24 Jun 2015 #69
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 17 posts in this forum Offline

Dan,

It might be that this "other energy" is in the understanding of the limitations and the errors inherent in thinking and thought (the "self.") There is then an abandonment of thinking -- which is the "time" of entropy and becoming.

max

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 24 Jun 2015 #70
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 127 posts in this forum Offline

max greene wrote:
It might be that this "other energy" is in the understanding of the limitations and the errors inherent in thinking and thought (the "self.") There is then an abandonment of thinking -- which is the "time" of entropy and becoming.

It would seem that what is necessary for thought to no longer 'move', control, in this sphere is, as K. said somewhere, for the brain to see its own limitation; that thought can never, being the past, the known, understand the 'unknown', i.e.. That its creation of the 'self', the 'I' for its own security and continuity ultimately gives neither... But how does this take place? "Passive awareness" of the "process of becoming", K. said is all that can be done. "Passive" (not active), because anything else would be the product of our motive and our desire, thought. Where does this awareness come from? How does it arise? It obviously can't be 'taught', 'practised',or even 'invited'.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 24 Jun 2015 #71
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 17 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
. . . as K. said somewhere, for the brain to see its own limitation ... But how does this take place? "Passive awareness" . . . is all that can be done. But where does this awareness come from? How does it arise? It obviously can't be 'taught', 'practised',or even 'invited.

It seems to me that (1) the brain seeing its own limitation and (2) passive awareness are two entirely different things.

I can't see the brain as able to do anything but coordinate the activities of the body and think. But on the other hand, awareness is the present, the very present moment, as is life -- indeed, they are one and the same. So although Krishnamurti says that the brain can see its own limitation, I rather doubt that it can: thought can't see itself.

It takes awareness, and awareness (life) is always present, but it is smothered, covered over, with the brain's mechanical process of thinking -- the self. To realize this is to be free of it. How is this possible? Because we always do what we understand,

max

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 25 Jun 2015 #72
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 322 posts in this forum Offline

max greene wrote:
Dan,

It might be that this "other energy" is in the understanding of the limitations and the errors inherent in thinking and thought (the "self.") There is then an abandonment of thinking -- which is the "time" of entropy and becoming.

max

Dan McDermott wrote:
It would seem that what is necessary for thought to no longer 'move', control, in this sphere is, as K. said somewhere, for the brain to see its own limitation; that thought can never, being the past, the known, understand the 'unknown', i.e.. That its creation of the 'self', the 'I' for its own security and continuity ultimately gives neither... But how does this take place?

Max and Dan, as far as I understand something, if there is no sorrow, pain, suffering, anxiety, frustration, discontentment and so on, I do not see one single reason why the thinking process is going to change anything at all...2500 years of man's insane history shows that alas, this is a fact..apart from a few exceptions in 2500 years..but look the four noble truth of the buddha, it is about dukkha , so suffering etc and what k said about suffering too...

the thing ,for me, is that in many talks, suffering and so what is unconscious for the analyser are out of the way as it could have been k's state of the brain, but as to other participant they have not solved those problems and the talk goes on as if they dit solve suffering and all that....

Lately , I am not even sure about security and even survival instinct, as you mention security the other dan, because based on the revealing of the analysing program it could well be instead , closer to the origin , the fact that the analyser can only analyse the known...when it meets something unknown, it just can't work, because it analyses the past only, including the 1 micro second past, so this movement when the analyser does to go back to something known instead of staying with the unknown unable to analyse is translated by the analyser as a search for security and survival instinct....well now I think that I have seen that this is false..
does this change much ?

Yes absolutely....if there is no security seeking and survival instinct...we are even more in the error than we may think....

instead of that there is just a proper functioning,and we human do not function properly with at least 80% of the brain gone...

Dan ...........

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 25 Jun 2015 #73
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 322 posts in this forum Offline

Hello John...

John Raica wrote:
Krishnamurti: ..... consciousness creates the mischief by saying, "I like", "I do not like". I am a witness to this "I like" and "I do not like" also, because that is part of this movement over which I have no control at all.

If I got it right, I think I have, what k means by consciousness is the field of the known,as well as desires,as well as the functioning of the analyser itself..

John Raica wrote:
Krishnamurti: Thought has a legitimate field of operation and if it impinges into other fields then it brings pain, suffering. That which operates in this area, is the consciousness as we know it with all the things we have put into it. The 'other' is not.

legitimate field as in practical aspects of life, food, shelter,walking, making vital things etc....at this stage has thought any idea that alone,without a collective life it won't survive at all ? It seems not...

Is thought both clever at making tools and really stupid ? it seems so..

John Raica wrote:
P: The other is not what?

Krishnamurti: It is not thought. A consciousness in which there is no conflict. There is no conflict at all there. Let us go slowly.

John Raica wrote:
Krishnamurti: *Is intelligence consciousness? Intelligence is not consciousness.

Dan: consciousness as in "the analysing of the known?"

P: Now we come to a stage where we just listen.

Krishnamurti: The whole content of consciousness as the past Indian tradition, the whole human heritage, and my consciousness is all that. And that consciousness as we know it, is conflict. My chief concern is to end that conflict, conflict being sorrow, pain. In examining that, there is a discovery that 'my' consciousness is a process of thought. There is pain and pleasure and from that the mind says thought must operate in the field of knowledge and not here. Legitimately it operates in one, but not here. What has happened to this ( awakening?) mind? It has become pliable, soft, alive. It 'sees', it 'hears'. It does not have the quality of conflict in it, and that is Intelligence. Intelligence is not ( the result of any cultural) heritage whereas ( self-) consciousness is heritage. Do not translate this Intelligence as 'God'. Now this intelligence can use knowledge, it can use thought to operate in the field of knowledge but its operation is never dualistic.

Dan: if conflict was not producing sorrow and pain, would I have as a chief concern to end conflict ? I say no for myself...is it a wider proposition for all or just an incident for one or a few ?

K mentions what I call the other process, the non analytical process..the name does not matter , yet non analytical so not in conflict seems vital to be conveyed..

John Raica wrote:

B: What is the nature of the 'unconscious'?

Krishnamurti: It is still the same. Only it is the deeper layer.

B: Why are we unconscious of the deeper layers?

Krishnamurti: Because superficially we are (keeping ourselves busy?) all the time.

B: So the density of the superficial layer prevents our being conscious of the deeper layers.

Krishnamurti: I am making ( a lot of?) noises on the surface. It is like swimming on the surface. So what is my next question?

B: Is it possible to integrate these layers?

Krishnamurti: Not when the superficial consciousness is making a lot of noise.

Dan: it is not that often that it is mentioned about what is unconscious..yet here it is not a subject brought by k but by the questioner..sometimes with k it seems to be a subject of no matter, of not much importance and yet ,sometimes like here:

K: it is very important to understand not only the conscious, but also the unconscious mind. The unconscious mind is much more powerful, much more insistent much more directive and conservative than the conscious mind; because the conscious is merely the educated mind which adjusts itself to the environment. He is adjusting himself, as you do, to the environment, to the pressure from outside, but inwardly he is the same - that is, the unconscious is still the residue of the past.

Dan: this is this aspect of the unconscious being more powerful, more insistent, more directive that I find being a huge problem.

What I know about that is that because since the superficial mind thinks that it leads the all game, it is in fact so easy for what is not conscious but totally alive and kicking to hide so well behind the curtain that in fact , it is the intimations of this unconscious which really prevail on my overall state of mind...

I feel awful, the superficial mind will always find some explanation outside of its responsibility of course, and I have observed for myself that when I found ways for the real root problem of the related awfulness to reveal itself , that not once it was what the superficial had found..

sorrow and the all shebang like that , the revealing of the unconscious are two main vital steps to meet, or met in the way towards ...............?????

Dan ...........

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 25 Jun 2015 #74
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 17 posts in this forum Offline

paul daniel wrote (post 117):
. . . as far as I understand something, if there is no sorrow, pain, suffering, anxiety, frustration, discontentment and so on, I do not see one single reason why the thinking process is going to change anything at all. . .

The thinking process has never changed anything and is not going to change anything, because thinking does not address the truth of the matter.

Must we act out of the motivation of pain and suffering before there can be change? If we act out of motivation, then the pain and suffering trail right along in the motive.

Struggle infers and realizes that with which there is struggle. It is action free of motivation that brings about freedom from struggle. Action without motivation is the action of awareness and understanding

max

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 25 Jun 2015 #75
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 17 posts in this forum Offline

Can you explain a bit more? It's not clear to me what you are saying.

max

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 25 Jun 2015 #76
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 17 posts in this forum Offline

John,

Thinking and thought (the self) suffers, as suffering is purely psychological. Pain, however, is physical. The physical is reality, whereas the psychological (thinking/self) is a fabrication by the physical brain. The psychological has only the reality that belief and ignorance give to it.

max

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 26 Jun 2015 #77
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 322 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:

paul daniel wrote:

sorrow and the all shebang like that , the revealing of the unconscious are two main vital steps to meet, or met in the way towards ...............?????

Agreed, Dan, but after 'meeting' them, there is still a necessary point of action - and no matter how large our 'sorrow' experience or dealing with the unconscious, there has to be an insightful clarity of inner action, which, you may perhaps agree, is not based on our past experience but rather on the awakening of a more universal quality of intelligence, put to sleep during the 'dark ages' of our natural 'evolution'

well John, excuse me to say that but I see here that you have not been through the door of sorrow , because first sorrow is gone, secondly some of the unconscious is revealed, third some problems are solved just by the deep unusual and uncontrolled by thought seeing of them , fourth there is insight, unexpected revealing about subject I do not chose, there is clarity and action , some strength , some energy , not the strength and energy of will of course , an action which is there by itself is the feeling, the clarity of insight is what k calls action, an action which can be to do nothing by the way but in all cases all this has an impact on the state of the brain mind...

the direction has changed, things get clearer, this has brought when young this so called kundalini which is absolutely not possible to describe with any words and much more, all this being a connection with the universe .....

this connection with the universe, where fear is not,where I is remote but there of course otherwise I am finished, where all questions are gone, where there is no sorrow and the feeding of one by this sort of amazing "energy is a fact etc etc this has no deep impact at all on the functioning of thought, so that it remains unchanged..meaning that when this weird energy in total bliss is not present, all problems are still there so are back.....

this is my experience I tell here, not guesses...It may speak to some who are too lost in their own suffering, usually it does not speak to others who still have somehow a balance between sorrow and achieving, because they do not listen,why would they listen to what I have to say anyway...I am no one, not known etc then the guru slave game can start.

All this is of no interest...

OK I may be delusional, so it can be said of anyone ,k included too.

I think that k has solved sorrow somehow and so had gone through that door as he mentioned some times, it is obvious, yet just before he dies he said something about sorrow : sorrow I thought I lost you....

When the all brain is turned on so the weird energy is present, this by itself put the past experiences where they belong too. Not one though even clever is going to solve that as again it would be for profit..and this other process is not there to make profit but is our connection with life itself...thought and the other process are two separates movement and possible even energy.

thought is not alive it is only a machine, a process like any of our dear new religion that science is, all this is tool, only tools...

so yes I totally agree with you when you say this:there has to be an insightful clarity of inner action, which, you may perhaps agree, is not based on our past experience but rather on the awakening of a more universal quality of intelligence, ....

Now that I have gone that far I must say something more here so that you get my picture...

for some reasons I clearly see insightfully and I exactly mean that ,reasons I am going to say, I will not go much more deep but just a little, here and generally speaking in any writing on the net ,beyond the subject of sorrow, unconscious, fear, the functioning of the thought program as it reveals itself to me and a few other subjects, because as long as this weird energy is not fully back and so meaning that the all brain is not fully turned on again , I will refrain myself to develop more because I know that it would not be right to mention this weird energy only based on past moments which happened 40 years ago, yet for me are still valuable because they still speak as I still have not seen everything which was in them...so dense and concentrate it is...

and to finish up with this, I had this weird vision that it had to be that way as a complementary necessary interest of insisting, emphasising on sorrow, unconscious that k had not developed enough or did not insisted enough on them ..I cannot be more precise but it has to see with all my deep mistakes I went through when reading k , as my reading of k has been one of my major disaster in life... this is when i lost touch with what I discovered for myself about sorrow when very young...I totally trusted k words ....this is when I lost touch with myself , and drowned into the deepest suffering possible....

there is a great danger in reading k too, I see it here on this web site and any other k websites full of specialist mostly and obviously not talking from experience which is fine too if they wish but I am not interested , so talking from intellect guesses ,...plus the fact that by reading his words did not "help" for the discovery which were made and saved me from hell...up to back to life , but not as part of this insane world as a society , of course I am part of it as such otherwise I am dead, but because some side effects like end of competition so business so money so hierarchy etc are just there as absolute necessity for me...
I feel just as a part of nothing organised to cheat others but ready to cooperate for no profit on any survival necessity etc etc

I stop here, the writing is not my cup of tea...Hope you got the picture,at this stage I thought that it was necessary to mention more of some conscious motive to do what I do..with this focusing on sorrow mainly but not only ..to sum this up I want to stick to experience...

cheers

Dan ...........

This post was last updated by Daniel Paul. Fri, 26 Jun 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 26 Jun 2015 #78
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 322 posts in this forum Offline

Then this has brought many deep vision about my personal own roots disorder and some global vision which I do not really know about their validity; nevertheless they are in my brain..like there had been somehow unknown creation and movement within the limited even if huge perimeter of matter, creation and movement so no big bang with expansion, like the root of "me" could originally simply be the vital need to differentiate each one so each me as not obviously you, to physically differentiate one with the environment, as well as metaphysically separate each me from the environment in order to factually create the analyser ,which is a vital survival tool..like there is no evolution of species but changes and possibly was included from the very beginning the global intention behind, what the Universe would have a motive? this is not krishnamurtian by the way ..but I know that when k mention motive he only mentions analytical ones..by the way ,change, was the real meaning of the word evolution long ago..then "we" ( leaders of the actual empire) included long into that word a movement from the worse to the better.., behind was an evil plan to intellectually justify all colonisation so wars,killing,staling etc ,because of this argument: look at the universe and our evolution, there is no alternative but to fight each other, to be in competition etc etc

As well as now there is for me this involuntary questioning of security and survival instinct as roots, I am not sure any more that this is so the root...I see something behind that, so as such security and survival instinct are not root subjects...I see the simple functioning of the analyser which cannot analyse the unknown so it cannot live it at all...and instead of understanding all that it does not even try out of laziness and decides that there is a quest for security and a quest for survival at any cost...for me this is not true,but again this argument is so welcome for any power...it cut us from deep truth

Well what is fact is simply always passionate....and amazingly brings some peace with itself....like real history and not the false one we are told is in fact interesting...and a real threat to the gangsters leading the world, the real and factual history of the past 120 years still have to be written...

like I don't see how our possible ancestors, some big apes with so many missing links that it sounds much like a joke of our dear scientist slaves of the powers for money and fame ,so how our alleged ancestors would have anything to see with our insanity, not is it the alleged past where we are supposed to have spend all our time fighting each other which for someone having a bit of clue about food searching, hunting, and producing is just impossible ..cooperation and sharing was necessary the basement of societies long ago..then something got wrong and still is up to now..

when all this insanity for me is just the absence of the other process(es) not turned on which drives us mad insane as we are..

So there are at least in us two totally different processes , one analyses to create means to physically live, this process has a polarity, a duality base, which is extracting the analyser from the present in order for itself to be able to analyse; its field of competences are the means , the tools etc,

the other one is not separated from the present this on is for anything else but tools, practicality ....it does not function on memories...

both are vital and must function together which they do when both are turned on...

Dan ...........

This post was last updated by Daniel Paul. Fri, 26 Jun 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 26 Jun 2015 #79
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 322 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
and that's where freely speaking forums such as this are showing their utility. At least the deeper issues are 'exposed'. But this is just half of the job since our ages old longing for pleasure and safety is still driving the world. Collaterally it does also generate sorrow, but that's...'tomorrow' and people got quite accustomed with a 'tomorrow' that (hopefully ?) never comes...

Agreed..

there is nothing to be done by one about the world and k may even be much more right than we may think when saying: changing yourself changing the world ....the personal is vital so, but not where and how we have placed it , it is vital only within the global which is above as a force, when today we are conditioned to think that we think that only the personal exists and this personal is what creates the global.."they" have created an inversion of the real ...

A fundamental mistake being that me the self centred one thinks global in the sense the world must be me, when it should never do that at all and stay within its field of competencies by thinking tools for survival and how to do that and nothing else..

etc

Dan ...........

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 26 Jun 2015 #80
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 127 posts in this forum Offline

This morning, upon waking, the perception right or wrong that I had was that a source of our 'sorrow' was that we have lost our connection with Nature. Somewhere back in time this connection was there and over centuries it dissipated. The 'fresh' energy that the birds and animals start each new day with seems missing. They seem to be truly "of the world", not in some romantic, sentimental way but in the way K. suggested that 'we are the world'. Perhaps it's the weight of our memories, of the past, whatever is responsible, we are like strangers here trying through other means to compensate for this loss. (of innocence?,of belonging?). With this perception,of our alienation, it seemed what is taking place within us and around us is inevitable. I guess, if this is true, that it is the result of the 'old brain' K. speaks of above. It is certainly not a matter of going back...but to have this 'connection' seems vital.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Fri, 26 Jun 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 27 Jun 2015 #81
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 322 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:

paul daniel wrote:

well John, excuse me to say that but I see here that you have not been through the door of sorrow

Well, Dan, perhaps I've managed to 'dodge' it in my meditations - at least in the recent years; it may be an unavoidable starting point, but I don't see any special merit in going through it all the way.

Well John , why not indeed .
I see no merit or some merit to go or not into it I think.

you never hide it anyway, when you talked about the hard way and all that, it was clear..there was no intention to bring a good/bad opinion..

John Raica wrote:
For me the essential point is to transcend it as well as its main cause- the duality created by our self-isolating process of thought- and eventually to recycle its energy content. But that's just me; we're all here to 'learn' something or other about the inwardness of human existence...and fortunately, there's more to it than sorrow...

There is more to it than sorrow yes..otherwise to be alive to suffer wouldn’t make any sense, unless suffering is the meaning, and so ""hurray"", as next big destructive war can be on its way !!

what interest me as a matter of ongoing experiment at the moment is that before to reach a possible unbearable state,because our attention is not driven to such question of sorrow but only the avoidance of it at any cost so it has to increase itself as part of a natural process, what we call sorrow is possibly always there embedded in the thinking process and always will be then, but at a very different scale which goes from one to 100 of pain when lived somehow and understood for what it is..let us say instead of 100% on the sorrow scale it would be at 1% on the same scale, but now that I have learnt about it I am now able to feel it when it is at it lowest level so only as a light signal so is not painful anymore and still keep a function of symptom warning of error....a sort of guidance so.

It is a serious possibility I see....

cheers

Dan ...........

This post was last updated by Daniel Paul. Sat, 27 Jun 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 27 Jun 2015 #82
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 322 posts in this forum Offline

richard villlar wrote:
Je voudrais juste rajouter ceci.

Si nous considérons que la cause du conflit est séparée, différente de celui ci, c'est une erreur.

Salut rirrou...

D'accord avec cela oui.....

Dan ...........

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 27 Jun 2015 #83
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 322 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
Now, is there an end to sorrow or is it an everlasting thing? Is there an end to any sorrow at all? Before we can discuss that question, could we ask what is love?

John Raica wrote:
K:Perhaps it may solve the problem and answer this question.

?

John Raica wrote:
I am trying to prevent myself from being reduced to narrow activity. I want to find out whether love exists at all apart from the sensory, apart from desire, attachment, jealousy and resentment.

K is not straight here as it seems that for himself he has found something "transcendental" that he may call love or whatever, yet not mentioning here..

John Raica wrote:
R.B.: I think the ( critical) point is that when there are warring elements within oneself, there can't be love. We started with the question of what is sorrow and followed it up with the question of what is love. Could you say what is the actual relationship between the two questions?

John Raica wrote:
A.P.: Is that not the crux of the problem of inner regeneration?

K: Yes, sir. If you haven't got love, how can you regenerate anything? If you don't look after the plant that you have just put in the earth, if you don't give it water, air, proper nourishment, affection, see that there is plenty of light, the plant won't grow. Let us leave love for the moment. Shall we go into what is 'meditation'?

John Raica wrote:
K: Yes, I accept it. But I must be very clear that no element creates an illusion. Illusion comes into being when I want ( expect?) something. The mind in meditation must be tremendously aware that it is not caught in any kind of self-hypnosis, self-created illusion. So part of meditation is to wipe away the 'illusion making' machine. And, if there is an entity 'in control', it is already directed. Therefore, it means, can I live a daily ( meditative?) life in which there is absolutely no censor, saying 'do this, do that'. All our life, from childhood, we are educated to control, to suppress, to follow. So can I live ( a meditative?) 'daily life', without any 'control', without 'direction', without (mental?) 'movement'? That is the (right ?) beginning of Meditation.

then sorrow as a subject is ignored.....this may have been k's life,yet the sorrow of earth is getting even more predominant and not at all solved...

I know that when by experience,deep ones when what k calls love a word I never used at all I would rather use weird energy or whatever but surely not love ,so when this energy is there and the brain is fully functioning ,when the senses are so amplified, when people around you feel that energy too and some are irresistibly attracted to that, especially the children more than the adults actually, etc that as k says you are intoxicated etc ..yes there is no sorrow, no fear, no poor life as we know it , but something entirely different, huge and yet so ..natural it seems...so k is clearly for me trying to bring the listener to this side that he is living when he is possibly the only one to live that at the time on the planet and this conveying did not really worked, well I do not know everyone on earth so may be ?? ...no one got it was he meant to have said ??? and even saying that the talks were not the main part of his job..

all this is rather mysterious.

On another hand for my "miserable" ordinary life I have succeeded somehow to bring down sorrow by living it to some more than reasonable proportions but I still have work to do with that ,yet I have no real plan nor goals with it..

If I go back into such talk as above as a piece of advice, again I am going to be totally lost again, when i am not that much, usually in a much better mental state than most people I meet,...because it is nowhere really question of dealing with sorrow in a straight manner but somehow to by pass it, I would buy that yes indeed ! but it is more question of achieving some mysterious state called love which would miraculously come by negating the false and going into k's sort of meditation .

K was surely living what he is talking about but he may not have found the right way to convey to others.

I can remember talking to some friends when the bliss was there, of course sorrow would not have been a subject as it was not active....but still there within the analytical process as I discovered when the miracle was over...not right away as this weird energy gives one some good energy for some good time..but bit by bit it all comes back because in fact sorrow had never been solved but just cover up..

so this is the way k is telling to others in that talk..I have nothing at all against that, but fact is that it did not work for me ....

K possibly or probably was practically constantly within this weird energy presence, so that sorrow was not a concern of course, this may explain why sorrow was back to him in his last moment when he said: sorrow , I thought I lost you.

So here we have a man who is living on a totally different plan of existence, (la tête connectée avec l'univers), than us and may not have simple clues for us to start with, so lost are we....

yet, he says too

Sorrow
--by J. Krishnamurti (Dec 10, 2001)

Sorrow has to be understood and not ignored. To ignore it is to give continuity to suffering; to ignore it is to escape from suffering. To understand suffering needs an operational, experimental approach. To experiment is not to seek a definite result. If you seek a definite result, experiment is not possible. If you know what you want, the going after is not experimentation. If you seek to get over suffering, which is to condemn it, then you do not understand its whole process; when you try to overcome your suffering, your only concern is to avoid it. To understand suffering, there must be not positive action of the mind to justify or to overcome it: the mind must be entirely passive, silently watchful, so that it can follow without hesitation the unfolding of sorrow. Mind cannot follow the story of sorrow if it is tethered to any hope, conclusion or remembrance. To follow the swift movement of "what is," the mind must be free; freedom is not to be had at the end, it must be there at the very beginning*.

"What is the meaning of all this sorrow?"

Is not sorrow the indication of conflict, the conflict of pain and pleasure? Is not sorrow the intimation of ignorance? Ignorance is not lack of information about facts; ignorance is unawareness of the total process of oneself. There must be suffering as long as there is not understanding of the ways of the self; and the ways of the self are to be discovered only in the action of relationship.

"But my relationship has come to and end."

There is no end to relationship. There may be and end to a particular relationship; but relationship can never end. To be is to be related, and nothing can live in isolation. Though we try to isolate ourselves through a particular relationship, such isolation will inevitably breed sorrow. Sorrow is the process of isolation.

"Can life ever be what it has been?"

can the joy of yesterday ever be repeated today? The desire for repetition arises only when there is no joy today; when today is empty we look to the past or the future. The desire for repetition is desire for continuity, and in continuity there is never the new. There is happiness, not in the past or the future, but only in the movement of the present.

-- J. Krishnamurti
- See more at: http://www.awakin.org/read/view.php?tid=207#sth...

Dan: So he clearly have two different approaches with sorrow...

one is to take it as it is,to understand it, the other one is related with the presence of the mysterious energy of life in goodness and more which does not allow sorrow to be...

Dan ...........

This post was last updated by Daniel Paul. Sat, 27 Jun 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 27 Jun 2015 #84
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 127 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
if this is all examined with a learning attitude, not only there is always some new aspect to be seen, but the very dynamic of learning is bringing its own balance and freedom from whatever we 'thought we knew' before

Hi

I had just posted elsewhere about this situation that K. has spoken of at length and I'll repeat it to see what you all think about it. It is that we are not actually 'authors' of our 'own' thinking. The thinking process goes on (endlessly it seems) but there is 'actually' no 'thinker', no 'me' apart from the process as it rolls along. That is a rather frightening notion in the sense that there is 'no-one' in charge of this outpouring from the brain. But if this is the actual state of affairs and the 'illusion' of me being in control is seen through, it doesn't mean, one will be 'out of control', just that the ordinary perception of 'me at the helm' is false and the 'steering' is actually being directly handled by the brain itself with the powerful illusion of my participation in the process 'added on'? Does that make sense?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 28 Jun 2015 #85
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 322 posts in this forum Offline

richard villlar wrote:

Dan McDermott wrote:

It is that we are not actually 'authors' of our 'own' thinking. The thinking process goes on (endlessly it seems) but there is 'actually' no 'thinker', no 'me' apart from the process as it rolls along. That is a rather frightening notion in the sense that there is 'no-one' in charge of this outpouring from the brain. But if this is the actual state of affairs and the 'illusion' of me being in control is seen through, it doesn't mean, one will be 'out of control', just that the ordinary perception of 'me at the helm' is false and the 'steering' is actually being directly handled by the brain itself with the powerful illusion of my participation in the process 'added on'?

Yes!

I am translating Richard post for Dan McDermott, he asked me for that.

Hi Dan(the other Dan), good morning, I am sorry but my English is not good enough , then I can't express thing as I would like to, so I keep it in French.

Yes that is exactly what it is about...according to me this is where attention has to be. Perception everything which appears to us, does not appear to anyone in fact.But the brain is organising "what is" ( as it appears to itself) into a subject which perceives an object, a thinker who thinks, an observer who observes( thoughts, sensations etc..)

this is "crystallized" by the mental and is turned into absolute reality..nevertheless this is not a fact, it is only a perception.

This is where "deep understanding" ( insight?meditation?awareness?) is vitally needed in order to realise that anything can be of matter for deep non analytical attention.
Like anything which is perceived is subject to a like/dislike conflict,( as it becomes duality for the brain) sorrow which comes from an imbalance generated by the functioning of the brain itself , sorrow inevitably is a mean and a matter for deep attention, because this imbalance of sorrow will be constant as long as it is not perceived as such...as long as this is not deeply realised

Dan ...........

This post was last updated by Daniel Paul. Sun, 28 Jun 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 28 Jun 2015 #86
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 322 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
The thinking process goes on (endlessly it seems) but there is 'actually' no 'thinker', no 'me' apart from the process as it rolls along.

hello the other Dan..

well that seems factual to me.The process itself and its consequences in producing ideas, concepts, and lies as well seems to be all this ,as a sort of one item . This is where i find the understanding of how analysing-thought work , it is about its programming, very.....handy, for me such understanding through revealing in flashes has started involuntarily when I started again to let sorrow be itself so not interfering somehow differently each time..

Dan McDermott wrote:
That is a rather frightening notion in the sense that there is 'no-one' in charge of this outpouring from the brain. But if this is the actual state of affairs and the 'illusion' of me being in control is seen through, it doesn't mean, one will be 'out of control', just that the ordinary perception of 'me at the helm' is false and the 'steering' is actually being directly handled by the brain itself with the powerful illusion of my participation in the process 'added on'? Does that make sense?

well there is a program which does that and yes even though I may know that, I still appear to my own eyes to be a me, with his history ,success ,pain and the all shebang .

Myself so far have no problem with that "illusion" of I, because I understand that the personal is a reality too, but only when it is embedded in the global yes.

In other terms the thinking process is fine when beside it and as an intelligent global non analytical process, the missing capacities and process we have is turned on..

When this other process is turned off, well this is what we are living so know about the effects days after days..

the problem I see here is when the personal negates the global so itself without knowing it in fact...then it is war within me and in the world..because I have seen deeply that the global , unity , etc is what prevail as an energy on the personal.

In the outer world in the present fight , the neocons and all friends all over the world, intellectually deny the global so the collective as vitally being the prime energy behind all what is , which is linking and above everything . In doing so they negate the other process to be a reality,and just keep thought as the only supreme tool mankind has....it is then the negation of the right to everything to be what it is and the submission to a sort of superior violent order, the problem is here that seen that way most people on earth are then some sort of neocons too without being aware of it.. Our global state of the brain mind gas created such insanity...me me me dos not cooperate it uses things so people for gaining anything...again this is where the knowledge of how the analyser works is huge...because all becomes clear...why this ,why that is understood ...

For me my vision of all that says that without the collective as the basement there would be no personal at all .the neocons affirm that it is the personal fight multiplied by X billion who creates a form of global "what is", of course in that case this personal global what is is lead by them, that is the main point!!

....but one single brain for me works exactly that way too...on one hand it negates the global, me me me seems the only concern, then when it comes to practicalities of life , me me me is not capable to survive without the global as a collective and would not even be born anyway; and if allowed me me me is using the global it is negating to steal it, to profit of what is done together...this is where competition was invented, as it does not exist..again without knowing enough of the analyser program this cannot be understood deep enough in order to produce some awakening to what is factual and what is not...this is where I go along with what Richard is saying :

-this is "crystallized" by the mental and is turned into absolute reality..nevertheless this is not a fact, it is only a perception.

So yes it seems to make sense for me...

but is it a trigger of some sort or just more intellectual stuff ???

For me what has come first was living sorrow,so leaving sorrow alone...then things start to happen...
I just had no choice ..................

Dan ...........

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 28 Jun 2015 #87
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 127 posts in this forum Offline

richard villlar wrote:
Krishnamurti: First, why do you object if your mind chatters? If you want to 'end' chattering, then the problem starts. Duality is (introduced by?) the desire to end "what is". Why do you object to it? Noises are going on, buses are passing, crows are cawing. Let chattering go on. I am not going to resist it. I am not going to be interested in it. It is there. It means nothing.

This is so simple sounding and so clear. Sitting this morning taking in the sights and sounds around here, thought would arise, again and again. First reactions are "oh shut up and let me just be quiet!" But then the question arises: who is it that wants this 'shutting up'? What is the resistance to this thinking (interuption),i.e? And then it's seen that the resistance is simply more thought and motivated by the 'desire' to 'be quiet'(to be something other than what one is). It also seemed that without'thinking', 'I' don't exist! (the 'I' IS thought) just the sights and the sounds do. But with the 'sounds'; upon hearing the different birds,i.e, a name, and an image of that particular bird (even if it's not in view) arise immediately.etc., etc.
And then later walking in the woods here, which I try to do a couple of times a day to keep the blood going to where it's supposed to go, thoughts would of course arise, having to do with say some financial matter and some plan would be formed and as the Other Dan says:.. "Blah, blah, blah... so after reading the conversation you just posted, which I thank you for John as usual, it was interesting to read K.'s take on all this "chattering" as "meaning nothing" and certainly not to be resisted. (the resistor is the resisted.) And thanks to you, Dan and Richard for the comments.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sun, 28 Jun 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 29 Jun 2015 #88
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 322 posts in this forum Offline

richard villlar wrote:
Ce qu il faut comprendre derrière tout ça, c'est le fait que c'est au travers du mouvement des 5 sens et du mental qu'apparaît le sentiment d'un témoin, d'un pilote, d'un observateur... c'est à dire que la cognition de chaque informations/mouvements devient elle même l'objet du mental qui cristallisera une notion, la notion du témoin, agent etc...

C'est donc de ce fait que, comme tout ce qui apparaît, apparaît par le biais des 5 sens et du mental, que tout est support pour l'attention, la méditation... ce qui permet de faire surgir, d'apercevoir l'évidence du fait que tout est perception y compris le sentiment, la sensation de témoin, de pilote.

Salut rirrou!!

le témoin dans le programme est le moment de la décision finale oui/non me semble t' il. K appelle cela le censeur,celui qui dit oui/non..il est ainsi tout naturellement un élément du programme pensée...celui qui finalise toute l'analyse...finalement il semble donc logique que ce soit la partie du programme qui a le dernier rôle qui joue aussi le rôle de "je", qui quelque part confirme qui dirige l'analyse ..il y a en quelque sorte réellement une sorte de "je" décisionnaire final donc chef dans ce programme d'analyse ou pensée..

Et comme disait Saint Coluche, ce chef il veut donner son avis sur tout, mais il veut surtout donner son avis, tout le temps..

Pour la méditation je ne sais pas, je n' ai jamais pratiqué cela comme je l'ai dit à John....vous pourriez peut etre développer cela ,car si je ne saisis pas vraiment ce que c'est , ce qui est le cas, pour d'autres qui lisent cela va etre pareil et limiter le dialogue en fait..

bises.

Dan ...........

This post was last updated by Daniel Paul. Mon, 29 Jun 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 29 Jun 2015 #89
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 322 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
And thanks to you, Dan and Richard for the comments.

no worries..;-)

Dan McDermott wrote:
First reactions are "oh shut up and let me just be quiet!" But then the question arises: who is it that wants this 'shutting up'? What is the resistance to this thinking (interruption),i.e? And then it's seen that the resistance is simply more thought and motivated by the 'desire' to 'be quiet'(to be something other than what one is). It also seemed that without 'thinking', 'I' don't exist! (the 'I' IS thought) just the sights and the sounds do.

Well the other Dan, what I know by experiment, and how surprisingly ,again or one more time it is linked to properly living sorrow-pain-frustration etc and not analytically rejecting it (which is impossible anyway) but being defeated by it, smashed by it etc, well I discovered for myself that when living sorrow just because I am defeated, and so expect nothing for some time, then the the bla bla bla keeps going on but surprisingly something makes that it goes on but for once without doing anything about it , I do not listen to it...

Then here too something unusual may or will happen....but more words right there is no useful right now....

So if I am not imbalanced enough, only thinking will prevail, yet playing a non analyser...in what I know..John says that there is another way, not the hard way...with mediation, but this is something I do not know about for myself..

Dan ...........

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 29 Jun 2015 #90
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 322 posts in this forum Offline

richard villlar wrote:
Salut dan ',-)

En fait c'est avant la décision que le témoin apparaît, si je te touche, et que je te demande "comment sais tu que je te touche?", tu me répondras certainement que c'est parce que tu le sens... ou bien plus poussé encore, "comment sais tu que tu existes?"... et donc:

la cognition de chaque informations/mouvements devient elle même l'objet du mental qui cristallisera une notion, la notion du témoin, agent etc...

Possible oui..çà n'est pas clair pour moi, mais sans la conclusion finale j'aime ou je n'aime pas, tout semble différent, "tu me touches" est encore au début juste un fait qui seulement après avoir été mémorisé va etre évalué par l'analyseur a conclusion binaire oui/non ?? donc j'aime ou j'aime pas ???

Dan ...........

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 61 - 90 of 366 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.)