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

Are we actually machines?


Displaying posts 331 - 360 of 551 in total
Sat, 15 Apr 2017 #331
Thumb_a1056283319_2 Tom Paine United States 49 posts in this forum Offline

Jan Kasol wrote:
There is just perception, without a single reaction. Perception is silence, in emptiness. There is no perceiver, no center which is just a bundle of memories.

So to Peter's question, you're saying that it's emptiness that sees. The word emptiness points to a 'no-thing'....which can't be known....become dead knowledge. K said it best, I think..."the observer is the observed". Undivided oneness or wholeness. Ah...didn't see your post when writing mine, John. Observer not divided from observing....from observed.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Sat, 15 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 15 Apr 2017 #332
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 78 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Ah...didn't see your post when writing mine, John.

Lol... We're all writing on top of each other. Hey ho! It's better than no interest. :)

Que Sera, Sera.

This post was last updated by John Perkins. Sat, 15 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 15 Apr 2017 #333
Thumb_hot-sale-font-b-cool-b-font-cat-animal-poster-custom-font-b-wallpaper-b-font Jan Kasol Czech Republic 101 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
So to Peter's question, you're saying that it's emptiness that sees. The word emptiness points to a 'no-thing'....which can't be known....become dead knowledge. K said it best, I think..."the observer is the observed". Undivided oneness or wholeness. Ah...didn't see your post when writing mine, John. Observer not divided from observing....from observed.

He was asking what observes if there is no observer. "The observer is the observed" relates to the field of the known. But when the field of the known is wiped out, there is just observing in silence, without any movement of the mind, without any reaction. There is no subject and no object, there is no division, there is just observing in silence. This state cannot be captured by thought and brought into the field of the known. Let me quote K:

"So to observe there must be freedom from the imposition of civilizations, personal desires, personal hopes, prejudices, longings, fears. You can only observe when the mind is completely still. Can the mind be completely without movement? Because if there is movement there is distortion. One finds it terribly difficult, because thought comes in immediately, so one says, “I must control thought.” But the controller is the controlled. When you see that, that the thinker is the thought, the controller is the controlled, the observer is the observed, then there is no movement.
One realizes anger is part of the observer who says, “I am angry,” so anger and the observer are the same. That is clear, that is simple. In the same way, the thinker who wants to control thought is still thought. When one realizes that, the movement of thought stops.
When there is no movement of any kind in the mind, then naturally the mind is still, without effort, without compulsion, without will. It is naturally still; it is not cultivated stillness because that is mechanical, which is not stillness but just an illusion of stillness. So there is freedom. Freedom implies all that we have talked about, and in that freedom there is silence, which means no movement.
Then you can observe—then there is observation, then there is only observation, not the observer observing. So there is only observation out of total silence, complete stillness of mind. Then what takes place?
If you have gone that far—which is freedom from one’s conditioning, and therefore no movement, and complete silence, quietness—then there is the operation of intelligence, isn’t there? To see the nature of attachment and all its implications, to have an insight into it, is intelligence. Only when you come to that point, which is to be free, with the operation of intelligence going with it, do you have a quiet, healthy, sane mind. And in that quietness you will find out if there is something really sacred, or nothing at all."

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 15 Apr 2017 #334
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 159 posts in this forum Offline

Jan Kasol wrote:
K.: One finds it terribly difficult, because thought comes in immediately, so one says, “I must control thought.” But the controller is the controlled. When you see that, that the thinker is the thought, the controller is the controlled, the observer is the observed, then there is no movement.

My experience at this point is that thought may still "move' but not the way that it does when there is the duality of 'thinker/thought... with the duality absent, the thought then has a totally different quality, (more 'mechanical'?). And I agree with K. that thought will (always?) come in with... 'thoughts'. As in his example, "I must control thought" but also many others more subtle perhaps like "why is thought always chattering? "Why can't it be silent"? (which I posted earlier saying that the answer is there in its 'question':). Also, " why is my thought still moving, I must not be doing something right?"etc.,etc.'Psychological' thought is cunning, perception of its workings, reveals its 'nature'.

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 Sat, 15 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 15 Apr 2017 #335
Thumb_hot-sale-font-b-cool-b-font-cat-animal-poster-custom-font-b-wallpaper-b-font Jan Kasol Czech Republic 101 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
"I must control thought"

Hi Dan, thought is very tricky and deceptive.


  • who is the entity that says that it must control thought?

  • why does the entity feel that it must control thought?

I think our attitude is very important. The attitute that is necessary for self-discovery, self-knowledge is that of learning, openness. When we try to achieve a goal (even unknowingly) we are not learning, we are merely looking for a way to reach it. We have to learn about ourselves, about all the cuningness of the mind, of acquisitiveness, of its illusions. If our attitude is that of learning, the we let each thought, each fear flower to its full potential, to complete itself. If the thought flowers to its end, it will fade away. But if our attitude is that of gaining, becoming, looking for a goal, than the flowering of thought is stopped. Then there is conflict between the thinker and the thought.

"A mind that is learning never says, "I know", because knowledge is always partial, whereas learning is complete all the time. Learning does not mean starting with a certain amount of knowledge, and adding to it further knowledge. That is not learning at all; it is a purely mechanistic process. To me, learning is something entirely different. I am learning about myself from moment to moment, and the myself is extraordinarily vital; it is living, moving; it has no beginning and no end. When I say, "I know myself", learning has come to an end in accumulated knowledge. Learning is never cumulative; it is a movement of knowing which has no beginning and no end."

"It is important to understand what this self-knowing is, just to be aware, without any choice, of the "me" which has its source in a bundle of memories - just to be conscious of it without interpretation, merely to observe the movement of the mind. But that observation is prevented when you are merely accumulating through observation - what to do, what not to do, what to achieve, what to achieve; if you do that, you put an end to the living process of the movement of the mind as the self. That is, I have to observe and see the fact, the actual, the what is.If I approach it with an idea, with an opinion - such as "I must not," or "I must," which are the responses of memory - then the movement of what is is hindered, is blocked; and therefore, there is no learning."

"Awareness is that state of mind which takes in everything -the crows flying across the sky, the flowers on the trees, the people sitting in front, the colors they are wearing- being extensively aware which needs watching, observing, taking in the shape of the leaf, the shape of the trunk, the shape of the head of another, what he is doing. To be extensively aware and from there acting, that is to be aware of the totality of one's own being. To have a mere sectional capacity, a fragmentation of capacity or capacity fragmented, and to pursue that capacity and derive experience through that capacity which is limited—that makes the quality of the mind mediocre, limited, narrow. But an awareness of the totality of one's own being, understood through the awareness of every thought and every feeling, and never limiting it, letting every thought and every feeling flower, and therefore being aware—that is entirely different from action or concentration that is merely capacity and therefore limited.
To let a thought flower or a feeling flower requires attention,not concentration. I mean by the flowering of a thought giving freedom to it to see what happens, what is taking place in your thought, in your feeling. Anything that flowers must have freedom, must have light; it cannot be restricted. You cannot put any value on it, you cannot say, "That is right, that is wrong; this should be, and that should not be", thereby, you limit the flowering of thought. And it can only flower in this awareness. Therefore, if you go into it very deeply, you will find that this flowering of thought is the ending of thought."

This post was last updated by Jan Kasol Sat, 15 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 15 Apr 2017 #336
Thumb_a1056283319_2 Tom Paine United States 49 posts in this forum Offline

Jan Kasol wrote:</cite>
>He was asking what observes if there is no observer. "The observer is the observed" relates to the field of the known. But when the field of the known is wiped out, there is just observing in silence, without any movement of the mind, without any reaction. There is no subject and no object, there is no division

Tom: No division between observer and observed can also be taken as observer is observed, as I see it. When you observe the flower, what is observing? I was taking Peter's question to be asking something along that line. Anyhow Bernadette Roberts expressed something similar to what I was trying to say in her book, "the Experience of No Self". When she had her 'awakening' she was observing a flower. Suddenly she saw that the one observing, the act of observing, and what is observed were one. She named it a 'Trinity'. There's no known in this observation. The known...the image or thought...is the dividing factor, dividing observer from observed.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Sat, 15 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 15 Apr 2017 #337
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 159 posts in this forum Offline

Jan Kasol wrote:
The attitute that is necessary for self-discovery, self-knowledge is that of learning, openness. When we try to achieve a goal (even unknowingly) we are not learning, we are merely looking for a way to reach it. We have to learn about ourselves, about all the cuningness of the mind, of acquisitiveness, of its illusions. If our attitude is that of learning, the we let each thought, each fear flower to its full potential, to complete itself. If the thought flowers to its end, it will fade away. But if our attitude is that of gaining, becoming, looking for a goal, than the flowering of thought is stopped. Then there is conflict between the thinker and the thought.

I think we are clear that only a 'total perception' of psychological thought could bring about an end to it. Not a partial or fragmented perception through a 'perceiver', or 'observer. A 'total perception' has no goal, no 'aim' but only to see what is in the moment, to see the nature of thought and to 'let it flower'.

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 Sat, 15 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 15 Apr 2017 #338
Thumb_leaping_fire_frog_by_sirenofchaos natarajan shivan India 11 posts in this forum Offline

John Perkins. wrote:
'seeing' brings about choiceless change. Nothing can be done about it. When a matter is seen and understood, we cannot act in ways contrary to that comprehension. It works the same with any knowledge or understanding.

Would you object to removing the notion of an agency? Seeing IS the choice-less change, and action can't be separated from knowing or understanding.

contraria sunt complementa

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 15 Apr 2017 #339
Thumb_hot-sale-font-b-cool-b-font-cat-animal-poster-custom-font-b-wallpaper-b-font Jan Kasol Czech Republic 101 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
No division between observer and observed can also be taken as observer is observed, as I see it. When you observe the flower, what is observing? I was taking Peter's question to be asking something along that line. Anyhow Bernadette Roberts expressed something similar to what I was trying to say in her book, "the Experience of No Self". When she had her 'awakening' she was observing a flower. Suddenly she saw that the one observing, the act of observing, and what is observed were one. She named it a 'Trinity'. There's no known in this observation. The known...the image or thought...is the dividing factor, dividing observer from observed.

I do not understand it that way. "The observer is the observed" (in my opinion) means the fact that the observer is what he projects (out of conditioning) and he then separates himself from his projetion and tries to act upon it. Let me use the example from Dan. When the observer say "I must control my thought". The observer projects the image of thought (or uncontroled mind or whatever), and the image of silence, and the tries to reject the one and acquire the other, but both, the thought and the silence are projections of the observer. Or the observer tries to get rid of fear. The fear already exists in him, he projects the fear, and tries to escape from his own projection which is impossible. When the observer observes a flower, he projects his previous knowledge of the flower on the actual flower and perceives the flower through the projection.

While when you observe without the observer, something different takes place. I had a very intense experience of that yesterday. It that state the observer is not, so you cannot say that the observer is the observed. There is just pure observation, in which there is neither subject nor object. There is neither identification nor separation. But maybe it is just terminological difference. It is difficult or impossible to put it into words.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 15 Apr 2017 #340
Thumb_a1056283319_2 Tom Paine United States 49 posts in this forum Offline

Jan Kasol wrote:
I do not understand it that way. "The observer is the observed" (in my opinion) means the fact that the observer is what he projects (out of conditioning) and he then separates himself from his projetion and tries to act upon it

I see it both ways, Jan. I have an image of my wife. I observe her through the image. I'm not really seeing her as she is, but only my own image of her based upon my memories and experiences of her. Those memories are part of 'my' consciousness....the separate observer. Now if the observer is silent....if there's no movement in consciousness....then there's the observation you seek of. I used to fall into that observing on a daily basis when I took my walks in nature. I was unemployed at the time, and had over a year of such almost daily observing. ...getting lost in the observing.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Sat, 15 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 15 Apr 2017 #341
Thumb_hot-sale-font-b-cool-b-font-cat-animal-poster-custom-font-b-wallpaper-b-font Jan Kasol Czech Republic 101 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
I see it both ways, Jan. I have an image of my wife. I observe her through the image. I'm not really seeing her as she is, but only my own image of her based upon my memories and experiences of her. Those memories are part of 'my' consciousness....the separate observer.

flowers, trees and wifes are trivial examples. Would you then say, that when the image dissapears, you are you wife? Or would you say, that the image is your wife and if you get rid of that image, your wife stops to exist?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 15 Apr 2017 #342
Thumb_hot-sale-font-b-cool-b-font-cat-animal-poster-custom-font-b-wallpaper-b-font Jan Kasol Czech Republic 101 posts in this forum Offline

speaking of trinity, I have an idea for another trinity. There is the negative, the positive, and the observer. The observer tries to escape from the negative to the positive through time. But the observer creates (projects out of conditioning) both the positive and the negative (a pair of opposites), so the whole process is one gestalt. The observer project fear and escapes to non fear. The observer projects suffering and escapes to happiness. The observer projects death and escapes to permanency. This is the process of choice based on opposites, on duality. Isnt this the whole process of the observer which creates the "I"? This whole process is illusiory.

http://www.jiddu-krishnamurti.net/en/1933-the-a...

"To most of us the idea of evolution implies a series of achievements, that is, achievements born of continual choice between what we call the unessential and the essential. It implies leaving the unessential and moving towards the essential. This series of continual achievements resulting from choice we call evolution. Our whole structure of thought is based on this idea of advancement and spiritual attainment, on the idea of growing more and more into the essential, as the result of continual choice. So then, we think of action as merely a series of achievements, don't we?
Now when we consider growth or evolution as a series of achievements, naturally our actions are never complete; they are always growing from the lower to the higher, always climbing, advancing. Therefore, if we live under that conception, our action enslaves us; our action is a constant, ceaseless, infinite effort, and that effort is always turned toward a security. Naturally, when there is this search for security, there is fear, and this fear creates the continual consciousness of what we call the "I". Isn't that so? The minds of most of us are caught up in this idea of achievement, attainment, climbing higher and higher, that is, in the idea of choosing between the essential and the unessential. And since this choice, this advancement which we call action, is but a ceaseless struggle, a continual effort, our lives are also a ceaseless effort and not a free, spontaneous flow of action."

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 16 Apr 2017 #343
Thumb_a1056283319_2 Tom Paine United States 49 posts in this forum Offline

Jan Kasol wrote:
flowers, trees and wifes are trivial examples.

How is the image of my wife or friend trivial? Not sure what you're getting at. I mean, really....images divide 'me' from 'you' and this is the cause of most, if not all, of society's ills. Also when observing even the simple tree, arent we normally burdened with our images? Do we see the tree or flower or wife as they really are?

Jan Kasol wrote:
Would you then say, that when the image dissapears, you are you wife?

No, I'd say we are one. The observer and observed are not divided at all.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Sun, 16 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 16 Apr 2017 #344
Thumb_hot-sale-font-b-cool-b-font-cat-animal-poster-custom-font-b-wallpaper-b-font Jan Kasol Czech Republic 101 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
How is the image of my wife or friend trivial?

Hi, I meant trivial, easy in comparison to images of the mind about itself, within itself. Images about suffering, fear, craving, peace, silence, me, mine. For example when K speaks about perceiving fear without the image of fear, without the word. That is much more difficult to understand than images about your wife. Does fear exist without the image of fear? That was the question posed by Dan, how can we observe the movement of our own mind without the observer, without the image?

yesterday, I had an insight (I do not know if right or wrong) that I described in #342. The observer is in essence a reaction of choice and escape through time. Some challenge (external or internal) triggers a reaction. This reaction has 3 parts - the negative, the positive and the observer. The negative the observer rejects, to the positive he escapes, reaches in the future throuth time, this is the process of choice. All three things, the whole reaction, are conditioning, the conditioning creates the negative, creates the positive and creates the observer. This links several of K talks into one theory (I am reluctant to use the word theory). It explains the following 1) the observer is the observed 2) thought is reaction 3) thought is time 4) choice in the corridor of duality 5) effort that constantly reaches from the lower to the higher, creating emptiness. All of these things are different aspects of the same process of thought, that K was describing in his talks. I have been observing myself and so far I believe the theory is right. Of course I do not want to accumulate it as dead knowledge or create a security out of it. I will forget it and discover it tomorrow anew :-) Oh wait, that was just a reaction of someone conditioned by K, he rejects accumulation and flees to non-accumulation :-)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 16 Apr 2017 #345
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 78 posts in this forum Offline

Jan Kasol wrote:
yesterday, I had an insight ... that I described in #342. The observer is in essence a reaction of choice and escape through time. Some challenge (external or internal) triggers a reaction. This reaction has 3 parts - the negative, the positive and the observer. The negative the observer rejects, to the positive he escapes, reaches in the future through time, this is the process of choice. All three things, the whole reaction, are conditioning, the conditioning creates the negative, creates the positive and creates the observer.

But Jan, pain is real and pleasure is real. It is not just the human brain that inclines away from one towards the other, all life does it. But yet not all life creates an observer (the 'I'). It isn't necessary. Is it really a choice that we make when we move away from a forest fire towards safety or are we just doing the same as everything else? I suspect the psychological product, the separated 'observer', might have its roots deeper than just in pain and pleasure. We have a capacity over and above that of other life forms, which is to consciously be aware of our own existence, and I think it is this that is the 'game changer'. Being consciously aware of our own existence we become naturally (or naturally become) proactive in its continuity, hoping for eternity. We seek nothing more avidly, therefore, than security. And on that chimera we try to pile every conceivable material need in such abundance as to 'secure' us through any eventuality.

Que Sera, Sera.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 16 Apr 2017 #346
Thumb_hot-sale-font-b-cool-b-font-cat-animal-poster-custom-font-b-wallpaper-b-font Jan Kasol Czech Republic 101 posts in this forum Offline

John Perkins. wrote:
But Jan, pain is real and pleasure is real. It is not just the human brain that inclines away from one towards the other, all life does it. But yet not all life creates an observer (the 'I'). It isn't necessary. Is it really a choice that we make when we move away from a forest fire towards safety or are we just doing the same as everything else? I suspect the psychological product, the separated 'observer', might have its roots deeper than just in pain and pleasure.

Hi John, physical pain is a reality, K himself suffered some pain condition. But the psychological structure is different from that, it creates imagined pains (images of pain) and then flees to future pleasures which are also created, imagined. I really feel that the "observer" is nothing but a result of pleasure and pain, the reaction of choice, that flees from the negative (past) to the positive (future). This constant movement in time (thought fleeing into future) creates incompleteness, chaos, suffering.

There are several talks of K that I consider extremely lucid, clear, ingenious, for example the 1933 talks, now I was reading 1948 Bombay talks and I think these are also of this kind.

"So, can I, who am a result of the past, whose being is founded on the past, I who am the outcome of yesterday - can I step out of time, not chronologically but psychologically? Surely, you do step out of time when you are vitally interested - you take a stride in that timeless existence, which is not an illusion a self-induced hallucination. When that happens, you are completely without a problem, for then the self is not worried about itself; and then you are beyond the wave of destruction."

So the revolution, the insight, that we are all longing after, is to perceive the movement of thought - the past reacting to challenge and escaping to future, creating the observer in the process - and dropping it all. Not moving vertically in time as thought, but stepping out horizontally in the timeless. That is the death of the known, complete silence of thought. And in complete silence, when there is not a single reaction, there is truth.

"the real is near, you do not have to seek it; and a man who seeks truth will never find it. Truth is in what is - and that is the beauty of it. But the moment you conceive it, the moment you seek it, you begin to struggle; and a man who struggles cannot understand. That is why we have to be still, observant, passively aware"

For example I am conditioned by K, I read his talks. Based on pleasure, I want to have this wonderful "silence" that he describes. There is a reaction in me, escaping the present conflict, into the future to the "silence", creating the observer in the process. This is a process of choice based on duality, on incompleteness. Only when I drop this whole process of reaction, time, observer, duality, choice, effort, can I really be silent. The only freedom is, when thought stays silent, that is the death of the known, which projects itself to future. There is no "how". The mind perceives the truth of the fact, and then it is done. The perceiving is the doing. What prevents us from perceiving that is the unawareness of ourselves. We are really unawere of the movement of the observer, a lot of our reactions are unconscious. Only when we become aware of the totality of our consciousness, totality of our reactions, can we have that perception that can free us. And the self-knowledge, the process of becoming aware of ourselves is very arduous. That is why so few reach it.

This post was last updated by Jan Kasol Sun, 16 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 16 Apr 2017 #347
Thumb_hot-sale-font-b-cool-b-font-cat-animal-poster-custom-font-b-wallpaper-b-font Jan Kasol Czech Republic 101 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
Hi, Jan. Your observation above is just one side of the coin. The other side is the emphasis that K places on 'is' which is indicating the experiential possibility of having a non-dualistic 'insight'.

Hi John. The observer projects fear, then separates himself from the fear and tries to act on the fear. But because the observer projected the fear out of himself, he is the fear, which means that he cannot act on the fear. When he realized that, then the source of conflict is removed. The observer is the observed.

John Raica wrote:
implies to look at these qualities differently ( as you would look at a young child- you cannot condemn him for what he is) : if these 'negative & positive' qualities are...what you are there is the possibility of having a non-dualistic experiential approach in integrating these fragmentary espects of yourself

Who is looking at what? When you think that there is some entity who is observing a child, then there is division between the observer and the obsered. As long as you objectify fear, you create a division, a subject (observer) who observes the object (fear) and thinks that he is separate. When you realize that there is no division between the observer and the observed, there is no fear, just observation. And that is the process of integration.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 16 Apr 2017 #348
Thumb_a1056283319_2 Tom Paine United States 49 posts in this forum Offline

Jan Kasol wrote:
The observer is in essence a reaction of choice and escape through time. Some challenge (external or internal) triggers a reaction. This reaction has 3 parts - the negative, the positive and the observer. The negative the observer rejects, to the positive he escapes, reaches in the future throuth time, this is the process of choice. All three things, the whole reaction, are conditioning, the conditioning creates the negative, creates the positive and creates the observer.

You explain this well in post 344...thanks. Going to look into this further as I think it's a very significant point. I was observing inwardly this point yesterday when looking into what you wrote about 'Trinity'. In regards to the images of the wife or the friend or the enemy, I feel they're basically coming from the same conditioning as the images I hold of myself. If I feel it's wrong to be angry, I'll condemn my child when he/she gets angry. I wouldn't say either image is more or less 'trivial'...the 'me' image or the 'you' image...or the image of 'fear' or anger. I don't know....perhaps it's more difficult to look at the inner emotional reactions, not totally clear on this point. Yet, how many of us look at our loved ones free of all the positive ...and maybe negative, too....images? It's impossible to disgard all that, as I think we all have been seeing, since it makes up 'me' and 'my' consciousness. One part of me attempting to disgard another is in essence, the 'inner' conflict we all suffer from, with perhaps a very few exceptions. I feel anger at my spouse when he/she does't conform to my expectations (based upon imagery). I also feel anger at myself when I dont conform to my expectations ...when I get angry, for instance. I get angry at 'me' when 'me' gets angry because I feel I'm not living up to the standard of behavior...the image of 'perfection'...of enlightenment...non-violence...inner peace... I long to emulate...very bizarre, me getting angry at me!

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Sun, 16 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 16 Apr 2017 #349
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 78 posts in this forum Offline

Jan Kasol wrote:
For example I am conditioned by K, I read his talks. Based on pleasure, I want to have this wonderful "silence" that he describes. There is a reaction in me, escaping the present conflict, into the future to the "silence", creating the observer in the process. This is a process of choice based on duality, on incompleteness. Only when I drop this whole process of reaction, time, observer, duality, choice, effort, can I really be silent. The only freedom is, when thought stays silent, that is the death of the known, which projects itself to future. There is no "how". The mind perceives the truth of the fact, and then it is done. The perceiving is the doing. What prevents us from perceiving that is the unawareness of ourselves. We are really unaware of the movement of the observer, a lot of our reactions are unconscious. Only when we become aware of the totality of our consciousness, totality of our reactions, can we have that perception that can free us. And the self-knowledge, the process of becoming aware of ourselves is very arduous. That is why so few reach it.

That is very clear and well put, Jan. But let's go into one or two particulars. Reading on from the fifth line and with particular emphasis on what I highlight:

Only when I drop this whole process of reaction, time, observer, duality, choice, effort, can I really be silent. The only freedom is, when thought stays silent, that is the death of the known, which projects itself to future.

The problem as I see it is the separation of technical from psychological thought. Both of them are material and constitute brain movement, but the former is harmless and even requisite whilst the latter is the 'fly in the ointment'. The former must persist, being necessary to our continuity, whilst the latter must 'die'. But I'm not at all sure the two are separable or even sensibly distinguishable one from the other. What do you think about that?

Que Sera, Sera.

This post was last updated by John Perkins. Sun, 16 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 16 Apr 2017 #350
Thumb_a1056283319_2 Tom Paine United States 49 posts in this forum Offline

John Perkins. wrote:
The problem as I see it is the separation of technical from psychological thought. Both of them are material and constitute brain movement, but the former is harmless and even requisite whilst the latter is the 'fly in the ointment'. The former must persist, being necessary to our continuity, whilst the latter must 'die'. But I'm not at all sure the two are separable or even sensibly distinguishable one from the other. What do you think about that?

You don't see that 'psychological thought' creates inner and outer conflict, John? The 'psychological' images create division/conflict between man and his fellow man. This is basic K 101, and I'm sure you're well aware of this. Now how does my image of the egg that I want to turn into an omelette for my breakfast cause conflict between me and the egg? How does my image of automobile that I take to get me to the supermarket cause conflict between me and the car? You see the difference?

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 16 Apr 2017 #351
Thumb_hot-sale-font-b-cool-b-font-cat-animal-poster-custom-font-b-wallpaper-b-font Jan Kasol Czech Republic 101 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
A 'total perception' has no goal, no 'aim' but only to see what is in the moment, to see the nature of thought and to 'let it flower'.

yes. Control and suppression is the most harmful thing that you can do to your mind, i.e. trying to control thought. See the first question here
http://www.jiddu-krishnamurti.net/en/1934-1935-...
When you try to control thought, it means that you have subconsciously adopted some Krishnamurti pattern through which you try mould your mind. If we really want some spiritual practice, than we should rather concentrate on not controling or suppressing anything but welcoming every thought. Let every thought flower and see where it leads.

Bombay 1948
"So, how can there be the new? Only when there is no residue of memory can there be newness, and there is residue when experience is not finished, concluded, ended, that is, when the understanding of experience is incomplete. When experience is complete, there is no residue - that is the beauty of life. Love is not residue, love is not experience, it is a state of being. Love is eternally new. So, our problem is: Can one meet the new constantly, even at home? Surely, one can. To do that, one must bring about a revolution in thought, in feeling; and you can be free only when every incident is thought out from moment to moment, when every response is fully understood, not merely casually looked at and thrown aside. There is freedom from accumulating memory only when every thought, every feeling is completed, thought out to the end. That is, when each thought and each feeling is thought out, concluded, there is an ending; and there is a space between that ending and the next thought. In that space of silence, there is renewal, the new creativeness takes place. Now, this is not theoretical, this is not impractical. If you will try to think out every thought and every feeling, you will discover that it is extraordinarily practical in your daily life; for then you are new, and what is new is eternal, enduring. To be new is creative, and to be creative is to be happy; and a happy man is not concerned whether he is rich or poor, he does not care to what caste he belongs, or to what country. He has no leaders, no gods, no temples, and therefore no quarrels, no enmity. Surely, that is the most practical way of solving our difficulties in this present world chaos. It is because we are not creative, in the sense in which I am using that word, that we are so antisocial at all the different levels of our consciousness, To be very practical and effective in our social relationship, in our relationship with everything, one must be happy; and there cannot be happiness if there is no ending, there cannot be happiness if there is a becoming. In ending there is renewal, rebirth, a newness, a freshness, a joy"

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 16 Apr 2017 #352
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 78 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
You don't see that 'psychological thought' creates inner and outer conflict, John? The 'psychological' images create division/conflict between man and his fellow man. This is basic K 101, and I'm sure you're well aware of this.

Yes I am, as you rightly suppose Tom, well aware of this. I think you missed the point I was making. Let me try to clarify it a bit.

Jan had written: "Only when I drop this whole process of reaction, time, observer, duality, choice, effort, can I really be silent. The only freedom is, when thought stays silent, that is the death of the known, which projects itself to future."

I responded: "The problem as I see it is the separation of technical from psychological thought. Both of them are material and constitute brain movement, but the former is harmless and even requisite whilst the latter is the 'fly in the ointment'. The former must persist, being necessary to our continuity, whilst the latter must 'die'. But I'm not at all sure the two are separable or even sensibly distinguishable one from the other."

The question I'm asking is, since Jan says we need to drop the one type of thought (and yet we need to retain the other) how are we to differentiate between the two types of thought when both of them are of the same material nature, ie. both of them manifesting as brain movement? Does that make my question more clear?

Que Sera, Sera.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 16 Apr 2017 #353
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 78 posts in this forum Offline

You see, Jan says: "The only freedom is, when thought stays silent, that is the death of the known,..."

Now if what he means by 'thought staying silent' is no brain movement, then the brain movement required for technical thought, which shares precisely the same physical nature, has also gone walkabouts. But the technical variety is necessary to life.

See what I mean?

I agree with Jan in so far as I'd say that 'seeing' seems to have a mystical quality that removes the psych thought whilst leaving the other in place, I think it's just his wording (particularly with regard to 'silence') that I'm taking issue with. The brain cannot be silent while it is still literally working, but I do see that a certain quieting might be in prospect when the psych babble goes away on account of 'seeing'.

Que Sera, Sera.

This post was last updated by John Perkins. Sun, 16 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 16 Apr 2017 #354
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 78 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
..very bizarre, me getting angry at me!

I think we tend (perhaps somewhat arbitrarily) to substitute the word 'frustrated' then. :)

Que Sera, Sera.

This post was last updated by John Perkins. Sun, 16 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 16 Apr 2017 #355
Thumb_hot-sale-font-b-cool-b-font-cat-animal-poster-custom-font-b-wallpaper-b-font Jan Kasol Czech Republic 101 posts in this forum Offline

John Perkins. wrote:
The question I'm asking is, since Jan says we need to drop the one type of thought (and yet we need to retain the other) how are we to differentiate between the two types of thought when both of them are of the same material nature, ie. both of them manifesting as brain movement? Does that make my question more clear?

the psychological thoughts are self-centred, the constant chattering of the mind, effort to discard that and acquire that quality, concerned about its self-image, self-affirmation, about its psychological future, security, happiness. When this center disappears, there is still knowledge, memory and the mind is able to use it. But the mind is no more self-centered.

John Perkins. wrote:
The brain cannot be silent while it is still literally working, but I do see that a certain quieting might be in prospect when the psych babble goes away on account of 'seeing'.

the brain cannot be made quiet. Rather, remove the source of conflict in yourself, ie stop controling and suppresing thought and feeling and feel and live every thought and emotion to its fullest. Then the silence will come spontaneously.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 16 Apr 2017 #356
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 41 posts in this forum Offline

I need to find out what the self is.

Here is a thought experiment:

First let me say i am aware of the impossibilities involved.

I imagine a chamber which can insulate everything in it from everything outside of it. I am inside this chamber. There is a second chamber constructed with everything in it down to whatever are the most fundimental particles the ultimate entities, even in the air and the walls, everything moving precisely in parallel with its duplicate in the original chamber. That is there will be a perfect copy of me in this second chamber, each ultimate particle moveing perfectly in parallel with its duplicate particle in the original me. Every electron, every quark, every cell, every nerve impulse, moveing in perfect synchrony in each chamber.

would there be anyone in the duplicate?

As i see it the material correlates of all of my memories and the material correlates of what i would be thinking in each moment would be present and active in both chambers at once, identically.

I really don't know if there would be "someone" in the second or if there would be blackness (my way of putting it) only in tbe second "me"

Probably you will reject this whole thing. Perfect all right. But there is much further one can go with this. Should there be interest. But you can also work it out on your own.

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Sun, 16 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 16 Apr 2017 #357
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 78 posts in this forum Offline

Peter Kesting wrote:
I imagine a chamber which can insulate everything in it from everything outside of it. I am inside this chamber.

Is there anything other than you in this first chamber? Or is it just (and only) the physical Peter Kesting?

There is a second chamber constructed with everything in it down to whatever are the most fundamental particles the ultimate entities, even in the air and the walls, everything moving precisely in parallel with its duplicate in the original chamber. That is there will be a perfect copy of me in this second chamber, each ultimate particle moving perfectly in parallel with its duplicate particle in the original me. Every electron, every quark, every cell, every nerve impulse, moving in perfect synchrony in each chamber.

I understand that in the second chamber also there is a (identical) physical Peter Kesting. Are you saying then, that in the first chamber there is you, essentially without an environment, and in the second chamber there is you replete with environment?

Que Sera, Sera.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 16 Apr 2017 #358
Thumb_hot-sale-font-b-cool-b-font-cat-animal-poster-custom-font-b-wallpaper-b-font Jan Kasol Czech Republic 101 posts in this forum Offline

Peter, the scientist in me wants to answer, that only questions decidable by experiment are meaningful. But I will indulge my speculation. Since I do believe that our ego, self, identity, memories is a material process of the brain. I do believe that if you replicated your exact copy quark by quark, the other Peter would be conscious just like you are. The timeless intelligence or energy manifesting behind the material process (that K is carefully and avoidingly talking about) is no more Peter. In this energy there is no more division, no more subject or object, no more matter or form. This energy is an intangible nothingness, yet out of this nothingness the whole universe is borne. We all are contained in this nothingness.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 16 Apr 2017 #359
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 41 posts in this forum Offline

John,

There would be everything in both to make one comfortable the same in each. In the second chamber every molecule of air and everything else ...a chair, a book, water to drink....would be duplicated and every quark, atom, electron... moveing in parallel.

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Sun, 16 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 16 Apr 2017 #360
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 41 posts in this forum Offline

Jan: "The timeless intelligence or energy manifesting behind the material process (that K is carefully and avoidingly talking about) is no more Peter"

I don't understand this, can you explain a bit.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 331 - 360 of 551 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.)