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

Tell it like it is


Displaying posts 31 - 35 of 35 in total
Sat, 11 Feb 2017 #31
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 536 posts in this forum Offline

Time...and again

Let's try to 'tell it like it is' in this most delicate question of 'psychological' and 'chronological' time. For the casual reader or listener, the problem is blatantly clear: the 'chronological' time - is something related to the movement of the planets, it goes by the watch and is constantly measured and displayed for practical convenience out there - on our wrist watch, cell phone, in order to synchronise our personal & social action.

Now, the wide spread idea that this 'chrono' time, is mechanically measured and displayed 'out there' is just a 'half truth', since from our brain's point of view the same chrono 'time' might be a very intricate way to 'organise' its own 'temporal', material survival: what I have done up to now, , what I am doing now and what I'm planning to do in the coming days, months, years. Now from here to putting a 'personal spin' on this sane logic of the brain in order to optimise this sequencing, it's just a small, often subliminal step, which the brain is taking quite freely. And again, from here to adding the 'psychological' touch, namely for the 'thinker' in control to vicariously obtain an improved sense of self-confidence, self-continuity, etc, this (psycho) step is just 'natural'- in fact, the brain is just 'doing it' without any after-thoughts since this subliminal 'psycho-extention' appears to support and optimise its own material suvival.

So, let's try to tell it like it is: in terms of the internal functionng of our brain and of our 'psychological' (inner) life , both the 'chrono' and the 'psycho' time are part of an unitary internal process and the demarcation line between one and another is practically non-existent. The brain is instinctively generating its own survivalistic sequence of actions; and so do all the other human brains, which is giving the 'objectivity' to the socially accepted chrono-time.

Therefore, has K's 'holistically correct' and apparently so obvious delimitation between "chrono" & "psycho" time ( the 'time to catch a train or a plane' ) any experiential value besides making his views more intellectually acceptable to the average viewer or listener ?
Well, yes and no: No, because it is giving a false image of glib 'facility' and yes, as its experiential validity consists in pointing our an often ignored 'check point' in the context of an authentic meditation- this subliminal point of inattention where our survivalistic (aka 'opportunistic' ?) brain is taking a 'wrong turn' and starts constructing its personal sequence of 'psycho-time'.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 19 Feb 2017 #32
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 536 posts in this forum Offline

What is the origin of thought ?

This is a rather common question used by K in order to 'engage experientially ' a psychologically inert audience and indeed, to any serious truth seeker this question sounds like the 'Door Opener' to knowing oneself. Unfortunately... K seems to 'close' this 'Door' almost as soon as he's opening it. How can this be ?

I would just offer a 'non-partizan' view:

By over-simplification - and here is one of K's 'standard' (handy ?) explanations : (a) You ask what is my name or where do I live: since I am very familiar with the answer, the answer comes up almost instantly from a readily available memory (b) you ask me a more complex question which requires some 'soul-searching', it may take a while, but the answer will be searched-found-processed and displayed and (c) if the requested info has not been previously recorded , no matter how long I would think a bout it, the final answer will be an honest 'I don't know'
We can see the 'experiential' impact in terms of self-knowledge: if I realise that I really do not know anything 'first-hand' about myself, the brain may get 'silent'...in no time and without any effort.
Therefore this 'pre-recorded' K explanation would also 'prove' his point that the 'ending of thought' is efforless and can be done in no time. But in practice this seems to be a rather "iffy " solution since more often than not, the responses of our objective or subjective memory are controlled/processed/optimised by an all-present 'thinker'/censor/experiencer/ ( of which K gave once a rather accurate definition 'the 'self' is the reaction to the reaction' ).

So...if we are to tell it like it is...the origin of every thought is indeed the 'memory' but this is an 'identitarily active' memory- it is the 'thinker' memory which is responding in each case to the real or imaginary challenges of life , which can be probably described as a 'two-step' processing of the incoming challenge- ( along the pattern: am I safe ? ( or is the safety of my physical or mental integrity, property, images... challenged ?) If the quick answer is yes /or no/, then my thought of response is....)

However, to his greater educational merit, K gave a far better 'hint' about the ending of thought, namely of ending 'Now' the subliminal process of thought's temporal continuity from 'yesterday' bouncing throught 'today' towards 'tomorrow'. Which still requires a true feat of meditation from the earnest truth seeker.

In a nutshell: Many exceedingly 'simple' examples offered by K (often sounding like 'no-brainers'), could be covering up a far more intricate background activity of our 'one million years old brain'. Certainly these experiential examples are pointing the right direction for our self-inquiry but...they do require quite a lot of meditative homework.

This post was last updated by John Raica Mon, 20 Feb 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 21 Mar 2017 #33
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 159 posts in this forum Offline

I DON'T KNOW.

But I 'think' that I do. I think about an upcoming appointment and begin to imagine how it will go. If I imagine it to be possibly unpleasant, I begin to dread it and I will 'suffer'. And vice-versa...But the 'fact' is that I do not know whether that appointment will ever take place let alone how it will go. I do not 'know' if I will be alive one moment from now but I 'think'(assume) that I will be. And in thinking/assuming that I will 'have' a future, I can be inattentive to the present moment and all that is surrounding me in this moment. My 'relationship' with the present is given over ,lost, to thinking about a future that may or may not ever materialize. Planning is necessary, but along with the plan, there needs to be this awareness that "I really don't know" if anything other than this moment here, now, will ever happen. K. has put it beautifully, (see A K DIALOGUE IN MADRAS, 1971) The prison is to "live within the knowing" To not 'know' is freedom.

When there is only fear without any hope of escape, in its darkest moments, in the utter solitude of fear, there comes from within itself, as it were, the light which shall dispel it."

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Fri, 24 Mar 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 22 Mar 2017 #34
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 202 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
'Thought' operates on the presumption that what it envisions as the future actually is 'real'.

I would question all of that Dan. Does thought operate (as a principal) on any particular presumption at all? To say so would be to say that without that presumption there would be no thought.

Thought may operate on any number of presumptions, of course. The particular thought may contain all sorts of inherent ideas. But personally I would move with extreme caution to making such a universal declaration as you have made.

But then you do something more serious. You move from the statement "on the presumption that what it envisions as the future actually is 'real'." to the following:

Dan McDermott wrote:
That the 'future' is real. That life will go on, that 'I' will go on, etc.

I don't know if thought always moves on the basis of that "presumption" but surely there is a great difference between the future thought envisions and the future itself? I think you would have to make that clear, before proceeding.

Certainly I envision that there is a future, that things do not suddenly cease, that night will follow day. That is a reasonable assumption and I can test it out day by day. And I can tell you . . . it's worked so far, though I've only had around 25,000 experiences of it and maybe I need to wait a while before coming to a "presumption."

But I do not know if it will rain or shine tomorrow. If I envision any kind of day in particular I may get that completely wrong. That is where thought makes mistakes, when it builds in expectation AND further, becomes emotionally bound to that expectation.

Another follow on from that: When thought fixes on something that changes and tries to make of it something that does not change, AND further, emotionally binds to that ill-constructed certainty, it sets itself a huge problem for the future.

Actually does not cleave to the images we make of it. That's the issue, surely?

This post was last updated by Paul David son Wed, 22 Mar 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 03 Apr 2017 #35
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 536 posts in this forum Offline

Talking about 'telling it like it is, just a quick 'bird's eye' glimpse on the perrenial issue of 'psychological time' Now, in terms of the actual inner experience , both the 'chronological' and 'psychological' time are an unitary...psychological process: our brain, as any other animal brain has to ensure for itself a (relatively ?) safe continuity in time: the squirell gather acorns, the beavers build their undeground shelter with 2 exits, and the list could go on indefinitely. Now obviously, since our species is more 'evolved'- thinking-wise, it does incorporate this same 'safe temporal planning' in its own thinking process . Not only that a 'thinker' entity assumes its perrenity and full control, but even the the tiny brain cells are working constantly at projecting and optimising a safe sequence of survival for all the challenges that the 'future' may bring. So, they are providing some sort of 'mechanical carpet' continuity ( what we know now, extended into the future) upon which the 'thinker' or the 'ego' is treading cautiously or boldly towards its 'chosen' future.

So my point is that this 'psycho-fact' K was giving in his late years- to distinguish between the 'chrono' and the 'psycho' time , could be misleading experientially since we may be giving objective reality to the 'chrono' time as indicated by our (Pathek Philippe ?) wrist watch while our brain is subliminally generating its own chronological continuity 'time' since countless millenia - a basic thinking background which became the 'given' of our spatio-temporal existence

This post was last updated by John Raica Tue, 04 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 31 - 35 of 35 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.)