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

What are the 'facts'?


Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 59 in total
Thu, 07 Apr 2016 #1
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 545 posts in this forum Offline

I was thinking lately that this straight forward topic might be useful for those of us who are exploring the practical aspects of the K Teachings, especially since due to our rather sophisticated minds, even the obvious 'facts' may hide anothers. Just an 'elementary' example: the 'ego' or our 'self-identified consciousness' is a real fact in our very 'real' material world, and few would endeavour to question its 'reality' . However, behind it's 'face value' there may be a multi-layered 'work in progress' of a collective, individual and even universal thought. So, the eventual attempt of garbaging the 'ego' would be rather presumptious, since there's a quite intricate 'psychological' thought network at work behind it. So, all suggestions are welcome.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 06 Nov 2016 #2
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 545 posts in this forum Offline

FACT # 1 : THOUGHT

In fact, it is actually the 'self-centred' thinking process, but K called it 'thought' probably to emphasise the 'past participle' aspect, as contrasted with the active-present form 'thinking'

Now, K's 'holistic insight' into this rather sophisticated mental process is that it 'the ( predominantly mechanical ?) response of memory' . And that definition would also include the 'thinker' entity. His 'analysis' is that in order to achieve a higher degree of security in dealing with the ever changing challenges of reality, the process of thought divided itself into a 'controlling/supervising' entity (which established its own 'identity'- both mentally and psycho-somatically) and the other specialised sub-processes, including one's technical knowledge, one's memory, one's feelings etc - which K is generically calling 'thought' ( as in the 'thinker' and his 'thought'- or thoughts ?)

Now, for any beginner 'psy-experimentalist', this would certainly represent a very clear starting point -although the first impression is that ...it cannot be that - if it were how comes that so many brainy people seem seriously stuck in this very process ?

So this is just opening up the 'thought-files' and hopefully we'll add or delete some...as we're going along

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 06 Nov 2016 #3
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 120 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
..it cannot be that - if it were how comes that so many brainy people seem seriously stuck in this very process ?

Well yes it can be that and it is going to be those 'brainy ones' with their 'witticisms, turn of phrase, prodigious knowledge, clever analogies and 'apt' metaphors...the 'bon mot', that will have the most trouble, that will have the most to 'lose', should the whole 'illusion' be seen through and the whole 'bundle' go 'up in smoke'.

So the ' beginner 'psy-experimentalist', may go forward.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sun, 06 Nov 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 07 Nov 2016 #4
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 120 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
On the other hand, if there is an insight that a different - universally open - 'foundation' is available, namely the proverbial 'emptiness' suggested by K, the same brain will try also instinctively to adapt to this new option - question, inquire, study, experiment and so on.

Yes, to me it's like a hypnotized person getting a glimpse of the reason they are doing what they are doing. The 'opacity' of the thinking process gives way a bit and throws the whole thing into question. Thought needs a kind of 'belief' behind it to back it up, when that breaks down, or comes into question...I think that you are right about the brain, 'welcoming' the space finally around this previous 'wall to wall' process of thought. In every other field, the brain has unlimited potential to experiment, question, invent etc. but here it is caught in its "self-created bondage", where it has given up its proverbial birthright for a mess of potage,but mostly fear, false security, false identity, division,violence, greed,etc. Clutching to the 'past' because it didn't 'know any better'.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 07 Nov 2016 #5
Thumb_hot-sale-font-b-cool-b-font-cat-animal-poster-custom-font-b-wallpaper-b-font Jan Kasol Czech Republic 14 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
I would be just happy to think with a semi-transparent mind - in the sense of being as 'trans-personal' as possible in dealing with my everyday chores

There is no "trans" to be found anywhere. The best thing which you can do (in my opinion) is to welcome every experience that comes to you, wheather pleasant or unpleasant, hope, fear, loss, joy, pain. We constantly try to gather the positive and avoid the negative, not realizing that we are all of it. K teachings could potentially be even bad for some people. If they are unreal to you, then you try to achieve that unreality, to become that unreality, and this leads to frustration. Judging from the question posed to K, it was so with many people. They were trying to achieve some "trans" state, break through to the other side, find truth etc. But truth is to be found only within your own life, not away from it. Truth is in the suffering, in joy, in fear, in pain. And if you are using K teachings to escape from your own life, they are doing you more harm than use.

By that I am not mentoring you. I do not know you. I am describing my own experiments with K teachings. And your talking about "dealing with everyday chores" started this association within me. Truth is in the everyday chores. We should not escape from those, but we should stay with them. And if you stay with them, do not try to escape them, they will undergo a mutation. The danger of K teachings is, that they are offering an escape.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 07 Nov 2016 #6
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 120 posts in this forum Offline

Jan Kasol wrote:
But truth is to be found only within your own life, not away from it. Truth is in the suffering, in joy, in fear, in pain.

I think this is obviously right but I would add to the last that,'truth' is found in the falseness of suffering, the falseness in 'joy', and in pain and in fear. When the 'causes' are seen through as false, that would be the the 'truth'.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 07 Nov 2016 #7
Thumb_hot-sale-font-b-cool-b-font-cat-animal-poster-custom-font-b-wallpaper-b-font Jan Kasol Czech Republic 14 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
I think this is obviously right but I would add to the last that,'truth' is found in the falseness of suffering, the falseness in 'joy', and in pain and in fear. When the 'causes' are seen through as false, that would be the the 'truth'.

From the point of view of K's state of mind, you are right. But if one is not in that state of mind, I see a danger in calling suffering "false". You are the suffering (observer is the observed). And one part of you is calling another part of you "false" or is trying to find "causes" of suffering. All these are subtle escapes. Suffering is real (the "what is"), the escapes are unreal. When you see the escapes as false and you stay with the suffering, the suffering undergoes a change.
http://www.jiddu-krishnamurti.net/en/1936-1944-...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 07 Nov 2016 #8
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 120 posts in this forum Offline

Jan Kasol wrote:
From the point of view of K's state of mind, you are right. But if one is not in that state of mind, I see a danger in calling suffering "false"

Agreed, but the big 'cause' that we are 'investigating' here is the role that 'thought' has taken on in our lives. Yes we 'suffer' psychologically, some to the point of needing treatment, but if the 'cause' of 'normal' human suffering has as its origin that which Bohm and K. discussed as the 'wrong direction' taken by the brain/mind somewhere back in time, then that is what we can consider, ponder, look into etc.. Is that true? Is 'individuality' an 'illusion' created by thought? Am I living in a kind of illusion? Is that a reasonable hypothesis for man's bloody, tortured past? As K. put it: "Can the brain/mind free itself from its self-created bondage"? If not, so be it, but if so...

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Mon, 07 Nov 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 13 Nov 2016 #9
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 545 posts in this forum Offline

Talking about the actuality of our 'thought' we should necessarily talk about who is the "thinker" behind the thinking.
Of course, we could ( cheat and ?) 'by-pass' all the talking by using the 'staple' K statement 'the thinker 'is' the thought'

Game over ? But ...is it really ?
Of course, in the real world the 'thinker' is still leading in all the polls by a fair advantage which no democratic 'election' would deny. It is, therefore a psychological 'fact'.
But whether it is an authentic entity or just a 'virtual reality' projection , the problem is still debatable.

Just for starters I would say that the 'thinker-thinking' mode is indeed a very safe way to function for a human brain confronted daily with a competitive and ( not only psychologically ?) violent world of reality. Your thoughts or 'ideas' can be contradicted , not listened to, or even...silenced, but 'you' the thinker behind them can still feel safe, free to express yourself in many other ways.
In short, the brain - and therefore its sense of identity and freedom - is safely protected. The earnest inquirer may even find that the 'thinker' is surrounded and energetically supported by a pretty dense buffer zone - made of mental, emotional and psycho-somatic attachments.

So, when K ...or perhaps a major existential crisis is challenging our doubly-safeguarded sense of identity (I 'am' and therefore...I 'think') , what follows is often a major psychic disturbance with its temporal tail of insecurity and sadness. From here to questioning the 'reality' of the "thinker", we would have to cross a very 'touchy' zone of personal comfort...which very few are sincerely willing to do - given the high probability of some inner destabilisation. ( not-protected once the 'warranty' seal opened !)

But ( looking at the positive side of it ) let's say that in the experiential context of a sincere 'meditation' the brain could learn to keep it within affordable limits. Then a process of non-acumulative learning is almost naturally triggered (since self-energising) and the brain could eventually decide to shift its 'safety' priorities from 'static' to some more flexible and 'dynamic' ones; meaning that in the very dynamic of self-learning a higher quality of inner stability and integration is achieved.

From here, we all know the story - just randomly opening any K book (or, for a change your own Book of Life ?) at any page and read the first line in sight...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 14 Nov 2016 #10
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 545 posts in this forum Offline

THE FUSION OF THE THINKER AND HIS THOUGHTS

He had spent many years, he said, in search of truth. He had been the round of many teachers, and being still on his pilgrimage, he had stopped here to inquire. Bronzed by the sun and made lean by his wanderings, he was an ascetic who had renounced the world and left his own faraway country. Through the practice of certain disciplines he had with great difficulty learned to concentrate, and had subjugated the appetites. A scholar, with ready quotations, he was good
at argument and swift in his conclusions. He had learned Sanskrit, and its resonant phrases were easy for him. All this had given a certain sharpness to his mind; but a mind that is made sharp is not pliable, free.

K: To understand, to discover, must not the mind be free (from the known ?) at the very beginning? Freedom is not an ultimate goal; it must be at the very beginning, must it not? A mind that is ( culturally standardised ?) disciplined, controlled, is free within its own patterns; but that is not freedom. The end of such (self-) discipline is conformity; its path leads to the known, and the known is never the free. Such discipline with its ( subliminal ?) fears is the ( result of our) greed of achievement.

Q: I am beginning to realize that there is something fundamentally wrong with all these disciplines. Though I have spent many years in trying to shape my thoughts to the desired pattern, I find that I am not getting anywhere.

K: If the "means" is imitation, the "end" must be a copy. If the mind is shaped in the beginning, it must also be conditioned at the end; and how can a conditioned mind ever be free? It is an illusion to think that through wrong means the true can be achieved. When the means is suppression, the end also must be a product of fear.

Q: I have a vague feeling of the inadequacy of (these spiritual) disciplines, even when I practice them, as I still do; they are now all but an unconscious habit. From childhood my education has been a process of conformity, and discipline has been almost instinctive with me ever since I first put on this robe. Most of the books I have read, and all the gurus I have been to, prescribe (self-) control in one form or another, and you have no idea how I went at it. So what you say seems almost a blasphemy; it is
really a shock to me, but it is obviously true. Have my years been wasted?

K: They would have been wasted if your practices now prevented understanding, the receptivity to
truth, that is, if these impediments were not wisely observed and deeply understood. The very urge
to understand is the beginning of freedom. So what is our problem?

Q: I am seeking Truth, and I have made disciplines and practices of various kinds the means to that
end. My deepest instinct urges me to seek and find, and I am not interested in anything else.

K: Let us begin near to go far. Can Truth be found by seeking? Search implies a fore knowledge,
something already felt or known, and is Truth something to be known, gathered and held? Must not the mind be still for Reality to be (perceived ?) ? Search is a negative or positive form of acquisitiveness; and as long as our mind is the focus of effort, of conflict, can it ever be still?

Q: But is not effort of some kind essential?

K: Let us inquire into the truth of search. To seek, there must be a 'seeker' ( a self-conscious ?)
entity separate from that which he seeks. But is there such a separate entity? Is the "thinker" separate from his thoughts and experiences? Without inquiring into this whole problem, ( an insightful ?) meditation has no meaning. So we must understand what is ( the nature of ?) thought?
Thought (the mental activity of the brain ?) is ( the result of ?) sensation, is it not? Through perception and contact there is sensation; from this arises desire and desire is the beginning of (self-) identification, the 'mine' and the 'not-mine'. Thought is verbalized sensation - the naming , the image. This (process of sensate) thinking is transient, changing, impermanent, and it is seeking ( to build for itself a temporal ?) permanency. So it (spontaneously creates ?) the 'thinker' ( self-identification) , who then becomes the permanent guide, the controller, the moulder of thought. This 'illusorily permanent' entity is the product of the transient thought. This entity 'is' ( the product of the self-centred ?) thought; without thought it is not. The ( thought-) controller is the ( thoughts ?) controlled, he is merely playing a (subliminally ?) deceptive game with himself. Till this fallacy is seen as 'false', truth is not (in the neighbourhood)

Q: Then who is the 'seer', the entity that says, "I understand"?

K: As long as there is the 'experiencer' ( recognising or ?) remembering the experience, truth is not. Truth is not something ( static ?) to be remembered, stored up, recorded, and then brought out. What is accumulated is not truth.The desire to experience creates the 'experiencer', who then accumulates and remembers. The ( dualistic process of ?) desire makes for the separation of the thinker from his thoughts; the desire to become, to experience, to be more or to be less, makes for division between the ex- periencer and the experience. ( However, a non-personal ?) awareness of the ways of desire is ( the very beginning of ?) self-knowledge. Which in its turn is the beginning of Meditation.

Q: How can there be a fusion ( integration ?) of the 'thinker' with his thoughts?

K: Not through the action of will, nor through discipline, nor through any form of effort, control or
concentration, nor through any other ( self-centred ?) means. The fusion takes place only when the mind is utterly (naturally ?) still without ( even ?) trying to be still. There is this stillness only when ( the temporal continuity of ?) thought itself has come to an end.

( In a nutshell:) There must be freedom from the response of ( the ages old self-centred ?) conditioning, which is thought. Your earnestness must be tempered with the swift play of spontaneity. You will find, if you have 'heard' all that has been said, that ( the perception of ?) Truth will come in moments when you are not expecting it. If I may say so, be open, sensitive, be fully aware of 'what is' from moment to moment. Don’t build around yourself a wall of impregnable thought. The bliss of Truth comes when the mind is not ( constantly) occupied with its self-centred activities and struggles.

This post was last updated by John Raica Mon, 14 Nov 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 14 Nov 2016 #11
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 545 posts in this forum Offline

The reader- friendly (?) edited text above, from the Commentaries on Living (second series) is a good example of K's experiential approach to the common, everyday process of self-centred 'thought' -its origins, its (thinker-thinking) duality and its holistic 'ending' in the context of a choiceless awareness. Then, if it is so simple, where is the experiential problem of transcending it ? What K did not seem to consider seriously is that the 'thinker' identification is playing a double role- one is to control a coherent and safe response to the endless challenges of the surrounding reality, and inwardly to create a sense of a safe continuity in time. So, it seems only natural that in performing these 2 very basic needs, this 'identitary' safety structure is...very well protected by the brain itself. Which means that no 'rational' or even 'holistic' arguments will be able to determine the brain to drop its pro-active 'firewall'.
In fact a lot of self-awareness is required just for the brain to have a glimpse into a dynamic quality of inner freedom that could provide the same inner safety through an integrated quality of direct attention

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 15 Nov 2016 #12
Thumb_hot-sale-font-b-cool-b-font-cat-animal-poster-custom-font-b-wallpaper-b-font Jan Kasol Czech Republic 14 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Similar in a way, would you say when one has a phobia. An irrational fear of this or that. When it is 'seen through', it dissipates

Not when the phobia is seen through, but when the observer is seen through. The phobia is a reaction. The observer is a reaction to the reaction. He thinks "I have a phobia, fear, it is unpleasant, I must get rid of it" (condemnation) or "I have a phobia, I cannot do anything about it, I must stay with it" (justification). There must be neither condemnation, nor justification, nor acceptance, nor denying. The observer is the conditioning. When the observer stops his self-defense reactions, his effort to change, to accept, to get rid off, the consciousness will be transformed. Your own dislike of the phobia, the effort to get rid of it, is the conditioning.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 15 Nov 2016 #13
Thumb_hot-sale-font-b-cool-b-font-cat-animal-poster-custom-font-b-wallpaper-b-font Jan Kasol Czech Republic 14 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
So until this point, K's teachings is quite consistent. However -and this is just a "(trans)personal" observation, the 'thinker' structure might well contain a 'spark' of something truly universal or 'spiritual' - our Consciousness (Mind's ?) link to something more fundamental. Which would thoroughly explain the vitality of common 'thinkers' such as ... (no need for specific examples !) And should we add that this very issue puzzled David Bohm who kept questioning K about it...without getting any 'positive' answer (at least not in the dialogues made public ?)

It does contain this spark, your own mind is the spark, this energy. Only this energy is warped and limited by the conditioning. K did not want to talk about it, because in the minds of his listeners, it would evoke some mental concept. And this spark reveals itself only after all mental concepts, all conditioning are silenced. If K talked about atman, spark, God etc., his listeners would concentrate on that, and not on understanding their own minds, hence realizing the spark within themselves

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 16 Nov 2016 #14
Thumb_hot-sale-font-b-cool-b-font-cat-animal-poster-custom-font-b-wallpaper-b-font Jan Kasol Czech Republic 14 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
n fact, Jan, he spoke about 'the awakening of Intelligence' but then...he was ever so 'holistically vague' about it, being specific only about what it is not

Only in his later speeches. In his early speeches, he was more explicit. Read for example this
http://www.krishnamurtiaustralia.org/articles/1...

"That is why I said that to understand the ultimate reality, the end of life, life itself, you must come to it with a mind free of all these attributes, qualities. Life is creation, and Nature conceals life — that is, everything that is in manifestation conceals life in itself. When that life in Nature develops and becomes concentrated in the individual, then Nature has fulfilled itself. (This is not a theory; you can think it out and you will see.) The whole destiny and function of Nature is to create the individual who is self-conscious, who knows the pairs of opposites, who knows that he is an entity in himself, conscious and separate. So, life in Nature, through its development, becomes self-conscious in the awakened, concentrated individual. That is a separate being — an individual who is self-conscious, who knows that he is different from another, in whom there is a separation of the “you” and the “I”. When that self-conscious life in the individual, held in the bondage of limitations, knowing the separation of “you” and “I”, of object and subject, has liberated itself from that limitation, is has achieved the end, it has fulfilled itself. Therefore self-consciousness is effort. If you do not make an effort, if there is not this effort against limitation, there is no longer selfconsciousness and individuality. Individuality is imperfection; it is not an end. When individuality has fulfilled itself through ceaseless effort, destroying, tearing down the wall of separateness, it reaches that sense of effortless being; then the self-consciousness in the individual realises the pure knowledge in which there is neither subject nor object."

also, you can study other enlightened people and compare their descriptions of the Absolute with K. They are describing the same thing, only K is more psychologically oriented.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 16 Nov 2016 #15
Thumb_hot-sale-font-b-cool-b-font-cat-animal-poster-custom-font-b-wallpaper-b-font Jan Kasol Czech Republic 14 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Who or what was looking through these eyes that I call 'mine'?

Is there any observer without thought? Or is the observer created by thought? It is very interesting to see this in yourself in action in present. You think about yourself, that you are this or you are that, and you are not that, you experienced this or that. All those are identifications created by thought. When there is no thought, there is no me or mine. There is just pure timeless energy. But you cannot capture it, talk about it, describe it, because you would limit it, condition it, step it down. In his early speeches, K was talking about the lower self and the higher self (this energy), later he dropped all attempts to describe it in any way. You can come to it only negatively.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 16 Nov 2016 #16
Thumb_hot-sale-font-b-cool-b-font-cat-animal-poster-custom-font-b-wallpaper-b-font Jan Kasol Czech Republic 14 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
Pleasze feel free to post your own favourite excerpts

OK, here you go - the Chan (Zen) master Hui Hai

Q: What are the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha? What are the Three Jewels in One Substance? We beg you, Master, to explain.

A: Mind is the Buddha, and it is needless to use this Buddha to seek the Buddha. Mind is the Dharma, and it is needless to use this Dharma to seek the Dharma. Buddha and Dharma are not separate entities, and their togetherness forms the Sangha. Such is the meaning of the Three Jewels in One Substance.... Our Nature, which is intrinsically pure, does not rely on any practice in order to achieve its own state. Only the arrogant claim that there are practice and realization. The real world is without obstruction and its function is, under all circumstances, inexhaustible. It is without beginning or end. A man of high spirituality is capable of sudden Illumination....

Buddha = enlightenment, Dharma = teachings, Sangha = buddhist enlightened community
You own mind is the truth, enlightenment. And it is needless to use the mind to seek the mind. In fact, your very seeking is pushing you away from truth. I chose this quote, because it clearly shows someone else than K claim that truth is a pathless land (ie no practice, no path leads to it)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 17 Nov 2016 #17
Thumb_hot-sale-font-b-cool-b-font-cat-animal-poster-custom-font-b-wallpaper-b-font Jan Kasol Czech Republic 14 posts in this forum Offline

I found one more interesting quote of K where he comments on the relationship of the mind, ego and the spark

http://www.jiddu-krishnamurti.net/en/1955/1955-...

Question: Is there a duality between the mind and the self. If there is not, how is one to free the mind from the self?

Krishnamurti: Is there a duality between the 'me', the self, the ego, and the mind? Surely not. The mind is the self, the ego. The ego, the self, is this urge of envy, of brutality, of violence, this lack of love, this everlasting seeking of prestige, position, power, trying to be something - which is what the mind is also doing, is it not? The mind is thinking all the time how to advance itself, how to have more security, how to have a better position, more comfort, greater wealth, increased power, all of which is the self. So the mind is the self; the self is not a separate thing, though we like to think it is, because then the mind can control the self, it can play this game of back and forth, subjugating, trying to do something about the self - which is the immature play of an educated mind, educated in the wrong sense of that word. So, the mind is the self, it is this whole structure of acquisitiveness; and the problem is, how is the mind to be free of itself? Please follow this. If it makes any movement to free itself, it is still the self, is it not? Look. I and my mind are the same, there is no division between myself and my mind. The self that is envious, ambitious, is exactly the same as the mind that says, `I must not be envious, I must be noble', only the mind has divided itself. Now, when I see that, what am I to do? If the mind is the product of environment, of envy, greed, conditioning, then what is it to do? Surely, any movement it makes to free itself is still part of that conditioning. All right? Do you understand? Any movement on the part of the mind to free itself from conditioning is an action of the self which wants to be free in order to be more happy, more at peace, nearer the right hand of God. So I see the whole of this, the ways and trickeries of the mind. Therefore the mind is quiet, it is completely still, there is no movement; and it is in that silence, in that stillness, that there is freedom from the self, from the mind itself. Surely, the self exists only in the movement of the mind to gain something or to avoid something. If there is no movement of gaining or avoiding, the mind is completely quiet. Then only is there a possibility of being free from the totality of consciousness as the collective and as opposed to the collective.

Mind = ego, ego exists only when the mind is making effort. When the mind is not making an effort, what is there? That is the question, that K was reluctant to answer. In fact, he answered it many times. There is God, Truth, Freedom, Bliss. Thoughts like "me" and "not me" and hence sense of separateness disappear. There is God, but he cannot be described. He is the created as well as the uncreated.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 17 Nov 2016 #18
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 120 posts in this forum Offline

And elsewhere in a talk with Bohm, he separated 'Mind' from the brain.This Mind (Intelligence?) is 'Universal' and can only be in relation to the brain when there is this "utter" (unforced) silence. And does this 'silence' he refers to often, mean that the animal viciousness in us 'lurking' just beneath the surface has now somehow 'disappeared' and will not reappear as it has done throughout our history? Is it a 'silence' that includes and is not affected by the (say, Freud's?) 'unconscious'?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Thu, 17 Nov 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 18 Nov 2016 #19
Thumb_hot-sale-font-b-cool-b-font-cat-animal-poster-custom-font-b-wallpaper-b-font Jan Kasol Czech Republic 14 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
And does this 'silence' he refers to often, mean that the animal viciousness in us 'lurking' just beneath the surface has now somehow 'disappeared' and will not reappear as it has done throughout our history? Is it a 'silence' that includes and is not affected by the (say, Freud's?) 'unconscious'?

There is no sharp distinction between animal and culture and between conscious and unconscious mind. All such divisions are artificial. The conditioning consists of the the animal reactions ("brain has evolved over milions and milions of years" as K says) and instincts and of cultural conditioning such as religions etc.
And the silence or freedom is from the totality of consciousness, conscious as well as unconscious, animal as well as society. It is relatively easy to be aware of the superficial conditioning such as political ideologies and religions, it is considerably more difficult to be conscious of your unconscious conditioning - acquisitiveness, the search for security, unhealed emotional wounds, deep fears, conditioning by past experiences etc. This is the real problem, not superficial ideologies.

You can see all of the conditioning in the present, as it is manifesting in you - you, the observer, is the conditioning. You should not analyze your past actions, past behaviors to learn about yourself, because then you are only accumulating and you are not aware, there is division. To be aware in the present means understanding all conditioning in the present. If you are trying to be aware, then the right question is not "to be aware of what?", but "who is trying to be aware?". Is it not the observer who has been conditioned by K teachings?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 02 Dec 2016 #20
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 545 posts in this forum Offline

FACT # 2 CONFLICT

This is another 'holistico- generical ' term which K used quite often- probably because it is a fact widely spread end easyily observable in the outer world. Pretty much the most visible 'common factor' of our modern civilisation. And of course, some people 'thrive' on such conflicts - see the media people, the politicians and their instrumental helpers, while many others ...are just paying for it

So for the casual 'K reader' the term is sufficiently self-explanatory to require any further 'soul searching' . But I assume that K is using this outwardly obvious fact in order to point to the 'inner conflict' in ourselves - and it is quite surprising how few of his interviewers asked about the inward aspects of conflict. Why ? Because for better or for worse, our psychological 'self-centredness' is still fulfilling pretty well its 'heavy duty' function of protecting ( and isolating ?) us from the various challenges of a rather conflicted daily existence.

So, we're dealing here with a 'karmic wheel' ( life's 'circular logic'): the past generations in conjunction with the present ones have created a very conflictual environment - and our subliminal decision to 'play safe' is not only accepting the existing realities but perpetuating and consolidating the existing fragmentation it brought about- which in turn, etc, etc. And the overall result is that our everyday consciousness is settling itself down in a 'steady state' ( a constantly recreated staticity) which is just concerned with its own continuity in time 'as it is' and can not (and will not !) go deeper than the superficiality of its own survivalistic envelope. Which is pretty much how it has been always functioning and the last 2 industrially oriented centuries it has sustained itself by ever producing and consuming more ( of course, at the uncalculable price of detabilising the whole ecological balance of the planet)

So, who would really want to examine the inner causes and effects of our global attitude of conflict ? Is there any money in it ? No. Perhaps a realistic hope for a better quality of our inner life ? Again, 'no' -at least not in the first stages - if we were to take K to his words: our existing inner fragmentation has to be intelligently and holistically dealt with. Any method he would recommend ? Nope, except perhaps to silently abide with the 'fact'-uality of it.

Not exactly the 'Who wants to win a million $ ?' kind of situation so a lot of latent frustrations which are errupting cyclically even in 'quiet spaces' such as these.

So -at least in my personal view- the only realistic hope to get beyond this 'dead end' of our cultural and spiritual evolution is to start mapping out and/or acknowledging the inner 'facts' -and in this regard, K's countless talks & discussions can be instrumental in the sobering unfolding of our inner state of (dis-)union

This post was last updated by John Raica Fri, 02 Dec 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 02 Dec 2016 #21
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 120 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
the only realistic hope to get beyond this 'dead end' of our cultural and spiritual evolution is to start mapping out and/or acknowledging the inner 'facts'

Hi John

In this regard, I saw something this morning in me coming on the heels of a lot of thinking about K.'s seeing 'diligent observation' as being another form of 'becoming' etc. and his arriving at: that there just had to be 'simply ending' and all the questions about whether the brain at this point could be refreshed etc. What I saw was that upon awakening, I would again observe the movement of thought (K.'s definition of 'real meditation'). And in that moment It occurred to me that there was 'conflict' in that action of turning from the actual state I was in to this other (obviously preferable, more 'desirable' state.) That was the word that came to me: 'conflict'.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 02 Dec 2016 #22
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 120 posts in this forum Offline

K: Obviously because ( any self-motivated ?) 'movement' means a motion towards something. And such a movement, implies time. ( The self-centred mind ) going towards something, trying to find something, implies ( distance and ?) time—and that (mental movement ?) must stop.

This describes this whole subtle movement of 'becoming', doesn't it? And also similarly when the 'observer' tries to become one with the 'observed', it is that same 'misunderstanding': the 'attempt' to dissolve the duality isn't 'necessary' because the observer IS the observed (!)

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Fri, 02 Dec 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 02 Dec 2016 #23
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 120 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
Dan McDermott wrote:

similarly when the 'observer' tries to become one with the 'observed',

JR: well, yes, but the (self-conscious) 'observer' is living on the floor above so he may not be aware that the (becoming process) 'observed' is going on by itself on the lower level.

I was looking at this more in the way one might react to the statement the 'thinker IS the thought' not so much to do with 'becoming' but the general duality that exists. In (hearing about it and then) 'trying' to bridge the duality, (in whatever way,'meditation',i.e.) in effect to join thinker with thought, there is this "motion toward something". I was 'seeing' that this action was not 'needed' (since the thinker is already the thought!) So the whole exercise of 'trying' (which K. often objected to) in this realm does imply a 'tryer' (and therefore "movement, time" etc., so yes, 'becoming'). What seems to be 'called' for then and did come up in a past talk with PJ, is it possible for there to be total 'non-movement' in the face of 'what is'? (no 'anchors', no attachments, simply 'beginnings', simply 'dying' and not carrying over what has been 'died to'?)

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Fri, 02 Dec 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 23 Dec 2016 #24
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 545 posts in this forum Offline

SELF-CENTREDNESS

The more we look at what are the true inner facts of the human psyche, self-centredness seems to be the defining one. However, because it seems to be the only 'living guarantee' of our own survival on this rather 'dangerous' planet, it is often taken as a 'given' of our everyday existence and is rarely questioned seriously.

Now, if we naturally avoid to experientially tackle this primary 'fact', there follows are a whole lot of less or more 'personalised' secondary facts - self-centred thinking, self-centred feeling, loneliness, fear, desire, sorrow...and so on. Which if not considered seriously can and do degenerate down the line into a generalised inner fragmentation- with its associated sense of insuffiency, frustration and violence.
And it is indeed a real marvel that the human brain is managing to create for itself this stable inner plaform of self-consciousness (the 'me') from which it bounces back into the 'real life' and creates an infinity of useful and useless objects, buildings, technologies, ideas and divertissments that make the charm of any modern civilisation. So, everything is happening 'outwards' from this personalised 'me' interface- which is becoming an apparently very stable 'fact'.

Now, from the brain's point of view the "safety and stability" provided of this self-centred mental interface is of the uttmost importance, so it is clinging to it both consciously and un-consciously (no questions asked). Moreover, all these living 'me' interfaces are very versatile- they can be pre-programmed culturally and as the higher-end computers can 'learn' and upgrade themselves to higher levels of efficiency. The only downfall being that the more they succeed in upgrading and specialising themselves, the more mechanistic and standardised they become. So, there's not too much merit in creating top-of-the-line software of artificial intelligence for the new generations of computers and robots... when our 'modern' civilisation is achieving the same goals far cheaper and so much more 'naturally'- by simply ignoring or neglecting its own psychological 'facts' .

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 23 Dec 2016 #25
Thumb_avatar david sharma Ireland 25 posts in this forum Offline

Sir when you question very deeply both man and his machines, and their software is faulty, both lead to distruction

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 23 Dec 2016 #26
Thumb_avatar david sharma Ireland 25 posts in this forum Offline

For love is not from man and machine, , without love ?what good.?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 23 Dec 2016 #27
Thumb_avatar david sharma Ireland 25 posts in this forum Offline

Psychological, time is a fact,not the truth,

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 23 Dec 2016 #28
Thumb_avatar david sharma Ireland 25 posts in this forum Offline

A tv picture of Obama on the screen is a fact , but it is only play thing of elections, of which brain makes a picture, , Obama is in white house, having coffee

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 23 Dec 2016 #29
Thumb_avatar david sharma Ireland 25 posts in this forum Offline

Problem with brain is ,it is a fragment, that is limited , it thinks it has or it can get the answers , answers are limited too

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 23 Dec 2016 #30
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 545 posts in this forum Offline

david sharma wrote:
Problem with brain is ,it is a fragment, that is limited , it thinks it has or it can get the answers , answers are limited too

Agreed, David, but for better of for worse this same brain has been our principal instrument of survival until to now. So, after a long evolution full of fights with practically everything, from dynosaurs to germs - not to mention our own local conflicts, it may be high time to reconsider its role in our modern society. Useless to say there's not too much public enthusiasm for it. I do personally agree that 'Love Is the Answer' but it may be an 'universally intelligent' kind of love and unless we change our psychological ways...the Door to it is still closed.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 59 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.)