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

Back to Basics


Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 49 in total
Tue, 16 May 2017 #1
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 553 posts in this forum Offline

It may be the right moment to have a fresh look at the basic terms used by K when refering to the everyday functioning of the human brain : thought, time, consciousness, the 'observer', conflict, sorrow, intelligence, etc.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 16 May 2017 #2
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 553 posts in this forum Offline

I would begin with a widely used term used by K: 'thought' -not to mention that we are also 'thinking' practically all the time.
K's most common definition for 'thought' was 'the response of memory' and he's sometimes suplying the example of someone asking you a question : if you are very familiar with the subject, the answer comes almost instantly. If the question implies a more elaborate memory search, it takes a longer time to answer and if no data regarding that specific 'fact' has been previosly recorded, your honest answer is 'I don't know'. As simple as that !

However, the actual 'thinking' process is far more sophisticated, so the 'simple' exemple given above, which even the proverbial 'poor peasant' or 'simple mind' could easily grasp, can often be 'misleading' since there are a lot of missing parts of this 'Thought Puzzle' which are implicitly left for us to find out for... homework. So, while the simplicity of our enquiry is definitely a 'must' we should perhaps consider the aphorism of the last century mathematician, Von Neuman who said "In Mathematics everything should be expressed in the simplest form possible. But...not 'simpler'"

This post was last updated by John Raica Tue, 16 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 16 May 2017 #3
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 165 posts in this forum Offline

It's a puzzle, this 'thought' thing. Not least because there are two types. There is the benign practical variety and there is the problematic psychological variety. Since all thought corresponds to brain movement and vice versa I can't imagine that they look different in a brain scanner. They may well have different patterns of movement of course but in order to discern that we would need to have the patterns mapped. If anybody knows any friendly buddhas who might be willing to undergo extensive scanning so that we might have something to compare with the generality, that would be extremely useful. Short of that I think all we will see is movement; benign or otherwise. Perhaps (hopefully) Jan might have something to say to correct me on that. If not, where do we go from there?

The thought that equates to 'self', being the activity of the same brain as the practical thought, must surely have equal potential (ie. be equally as 'clever'), so neither is placed to thwart the other. The harmless and the malign are in perfectly equal balance. So how might one be used to overcome the other?

Que Sera, Sera.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 16 May 2017 #4
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 553 posts in this forum Offline

John Perkins. wrote:
where do we go from there?

Well, John, as you have just noticed, our daily thinking is functioning in a 'dualistic' mode, with a (self-identified) 'thinker' safely operating behind its 'thinking' machinery. Perhaps this was the best 'fool proof' choice adopted by the human species, ages ago. So, we could safely say that - at least for the time being - this 'split' between the 'thinker' and its 'thought' is a 'given', the 'what is'. And as long as this psychological split is projecting itself in time we could hardly have a significantly different relationship with our own psyche, with the surrounding world or with the universe.

Somehow, this Krishnamurtian concept of 'thought' looks pretty much like those traditional 'Russian Puppets', all of different sizes, the smaller ones being invisibly contained within the larger one - which to the unsuspecting newcommer looks like the only one really existing. Odd as it may seem, it may be a very practical 'experiential' approach to self-knowledge ...except that as of now, we're not very familiar with it.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 16 May 2017 #5
Thumb_a1056283319_2 Tom Paine United States 82 posts in this forum Offline

John Perkins. wrote:
So how might one be used to overcome the other?

As soon as you try, it brings in the self. Only a self asks about 'overcoming'...and "how...". Or am I mistaken? Your question invites in division...time.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Tue, 16 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 16 May 2017 #6
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 165 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
Well, John, as you have just noticed, our daily thinking is functioning in a 'dualistic' mode,...

I'm not entirely happy with this analysis, John. For me, all and any 'duality' sits within the camp of the benign element, period. It isn't that the duality consists in on the one hand the benign element and on the other hand the problematic element. The WHOLE problem is the benign element. The main point being that the twain (malign and benign) can't co-exist. In other words the benign and the malign are mutually exclusive. The former is motivated by perception and the latter by time.

...with a (self-identified) 'thinker' safely operating behind its 'thinking' machinery.

I think that what I've already said rocks that boat a tad, my friend. It's very easy to miss that the nature of the thought IS, ie. determines, the entity.

Que Sera, Sera.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 16 May 2017 #7
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 165 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
As soon as you try, it brings in the self. Only a self asks about 'overcoming'...and "how...". Or am I mistaken? Your question invites in division...time.

I'd say you're right with the above, Tom, except that what you took as a posited question, wasn't. I simply meant to point out its impossibility.

Que Sera, Sera.

This post was last updated by John Perkins. Tue, 16 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 16 May 2017 #8
Thumb_a1056283319_2 Tom Paine United States 82 posts in this forum Offline

Ah, I see that now. But I've re-read post #3 a couple of times now, and I'm still not clear about what you're trying to say.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 16 May 2017 #9
Thumb_hot-sale-font-b-cool-b-font-cat-animal-poster-custom-font-b-wallpaper-b-font Jan Kasol Czech Republic 173 posts in this forum Offline

IMHO, the only difficult term of the above is intelligence. It is notoriously difficult to define even in the ordinary sense (are octopi intelligent?), but K uses it to describe the intelligence, that comes into being after you fully comprehend and thus transcend the self. K's definition of thought as a reaction of memory to some external or internal challenge is good. I would only add two remarks: there are different levels of thought and emotional reactions are thought too. The more general term (used in science) is cognition

Brain is build hiearchically - spine, brainstem, middle brain, hemispheres. The more primitive parts of the brain we share with other mammals/animals - brainstem or limbic system. The neocortex is most developed in humans and is responsible for higher thought such as abstract thinking. I guess (I may be projecting this onto you, so appology if I do) that many of you understand thought as the higher abstract thinking, which is responsible for verbal thought, theories, beliefs etc., but you are unaware or insufficiently aware of the deeper thought. This deeper thought is more emotional, possibly even non-verbal. Animals think in this nonverbal manner. And so it happens, that you feel anxiety or inner tension and you are unaware where it comes from, so you search with your intellect. This anxiety is the deeper thought, a deeper emotional reaction to some unconscious thought. What K says is that you first have to silence the intellect to be able to listen to these deeper levels of thought. What happens here on the forum and elswhere is that people are living in the intellect, so they just scratch the surface and thus will never get anywhere. You can explain, and explain, and explain, but until you become aware of the deeper layers of your mind, of your unconscious fears, reactions, desires, feelings of insufficiency, guilt, shame, inferiority, you will not move forward. Then you can endlessly argue about duality, God, effort, thought, but if you are unaware of yourself, of your deeper motives, emotions, reactions, all your activity will be just beating a dead horse.

So, to emphasize it again, thought is not just the intellect, that is just the surface. There are deeper layers of thought (cognition). Thought needs not to be just verbal. You can watch this fascinating documentary to convince yourself what the human brain is capable of.

To quote Krishnamurti

"We must begin to be self-conscious, which most of us are not; in bringing the hidden into the open, into the light, we discover the various causes of disharmony, of suffering. This alone will help to bring about a life of fulfilment and intelligent happiness. Without this liberation from the hidden, the concealed, our efforts must lead us to delusions. Until we discover, through experiment, our subtle and deep limitations, with their reactions, and so free ourselves from them, we shall lead a life of confusion and strife. For these limitations prevent the pliability of mind-emotion, making it incapable of true adjustment to the movement of life. This lack of pliability is the source of our egotistic competition, fear and the pursuit of security, leading to many comforting illusions. Though we may think we have found truth, bliss, and objectify the abstract idea of God, yet, while we remain unconscious of the hidden springs of our whole being, there cannot be the realization of truth. The mouthing of such words as truth, God, perfection, can have no deep significance and import."

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Tue, 16 May 2017 #10
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 165 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Ah, I see that now. But I've re-read post #3 a couple of times now, and I'm still not clear about what you're trying to say.

I'm guessing that this is the bit that's giving you bother:

"The thought that equates to 'self', being the activity of the same brain as the practical thought, must surely have equal potential (ie. be equally as 'clever'), so neither is placed to thwart the other. The harmless and the malign are in perfectly equal balance. So how might one be used to overcome the other?"

All I'm trying to point out, Tom, is that it is the same brain (in each of us) that is manifesting the pseudo identity we call the 'I', that is also carrying out the practical (ie. the benign) thinking. Sometimes the brain is doing the one type and sometimes it's doing the other. It can never be doing both at once because the two types are mutually exclusive. (Ie. you can't have something that is at once both harmful and harmless). But my further point is that in each of our several cases, the brain power that is being used, whether negatively or positively, is the same. It has to be so because it is the same brain in operation.

Thus no matter how intellectually astute a person might be, if he is not 'lit', then he himself brings his own intellectual efforts (in the K stuff) to nothing. In other words the 'I' cancels out any effort by the person concerned to get past it(self). It's why effort is pointless and only watching (what the Bhagvad Gita terms 'action in inaction') is any use.

Do you see what I mean? I'll try again if it's still not clear.

Que Sera, Sera.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 16 May 2017 #11
Thumb_a1056283319_2 Tom Paine United States 82 posts in this forum Offline

John Perkins. wrote:
Thus no matter how intellectually astute a person might be, if he is not 'lit', then he himself brings his own intellectual efforts (in the K stuff) to nothing. In other words the 'I' cancels out any effort by the person concerned to get past it(self)

Sure...this...actually the whole paragraph ...is clear as a bell...thanks.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 16 May 2017 #12
Thumb_3740 richard head United States 13 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
the actual 'thinking' process is far more sophisticated,

Is it so? Why are we suggesting a more complicated phenomenon? Have we figured it all out, from beginning to end? What could be more beautiful and simple than "record-play"?

The human imagination, swimming around in the unknowable, can suggest any comforting ideal or other.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Tue, 16 May 2017 #13
Thumb_3740 richard head United States 13 posts in this forum Offline

John Perkins. wrote:
Not least because there are two types

I will suggest that this is an imagined division. There is only one "play-record" mechanism creating one "thoughtthinking". This division (you suggest) comes up for speculation when (play-record) applied in a manner not in accordancecompatible with it's function.

This post was last updated by richard head Wed, 17 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 17 May 2017 #14
Thumb_3740 richard head United States 13 posts in this forum Offline

John Perkins. wrote:
The harmless and the malign are in perfectly equal balance.

Imagined problem requires imagined solution. Balance?? Where in history is the individual andor the collective in balance?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 17 May 2017 #15
Thumb_3740 richard head United States 13 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
Perhaps this was the best 'fool proof' choice adopted by the human species, ages ago.

Are you saying that a few prehistoric persons, sitting around a campfire decided to approach life in a dualchoicelikedislike manner? :)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 17 May 2017 #16
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 300 posts in this forum Offline

richard head wrote:
I will suggest that this is an imagined division. There is only one "play-record" mechanism creating one "thoughtthinking". This division (you suggest) comes up for speculation when (play-record) applied in a manner not in accordancecompatible with it's function.

This post was last updated by richard head 17 minutes ago.

The best gibberish I've read here all week . . . and updated too!

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 17 May 2017 #17
Thumb_3740 richard head United States 13 posts in this forum Offline

Paul David son wrote:
The best gibberish I've read here all week .

Flattery will get you everywhere.....and really, hardly the best.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Wed, 17 May 2017 #18
Thumb_open-uri20170516-19255-aou65m-0 Jason B United States 1 post in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
Von Neumann:"In Mathematics everything should be expressed in the simplest form possible. But...not 'simpler'"

Hello John

Thank you for for your work on this forum...I don't understand what he is saying here, can you explain how you understand it?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 17 May 2017 #19
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 165 posts in this forum Offline

John Perkins wrote:

...The harmless and the malign are in perfectly equal balance.

.

richard head wrote:

Imagined problem requires imagined solution. Balance?? Where in history is the individual andor the collective in balance?

Hi Richard

What I said at #3 (repeated at #10 for purposes of explication) isn't reflected by your above comment on it. Firstly I'd point out (with K incidentally) that the problem isn't 'imagined'; it's a very real potentially world destroying reality. It is both the start point and the raison d'ĂȘtre of the teachings, viz. 'We are here and we are suffering'.

Secondly the 'balance' I spoke of, and the context of its mention, was simply to point out that no brain can outwit itself. Where or on what grounds you might be bringing in the 'collective' I don't know.

Thirdly I'd say that if you want examples of individuals 'in balance' then probably any of the 'great teachers' will serve. Plus, if you're inclined at all to swing with James Lovelock's widely appreciated Gaia Theory, then the whole is 'in balance' (at least possibly sans sapiens).

Perhaps a slightly more tight reading of what people write might reap some reward.

Que Sera, Sera.

This post was last updated by John Perkins. Thu, 18 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 17 May 2017 #20
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 165 posts in this forum Offline

John Perkins wrote:

...Not least because there are two types...

.

richard head wrote:

I will suggest that this is an imagined division.

Yes, that is something of what I was saying; not observable even in brain scan (at least not without the help of some co-operative buddhas).

There is only one "play-record" mechanism creating one "thoughtthinking".

I think we're basically in agreement here. Ie. thought per se has corresponding brain movement and vice versa.

This division (you suggest) comes up for speculation when (play-record) [is] applied in a manner not in accordancecompatible with it's function.

I'd say that the speculation you speak of is a natural reaction to the suffering induced by the (strictly) pseudo division.

As for your "not in accordancecompatible with it's function", I'm inclined to think it prejudges the universe a tad. Can we be sure that anything under the sun happens that is actually out of 'accordance/compatibility' with its operative? How could any such occurrence happen?

Que Sera, Sera.

This post was last updated by John Perkins. Thu, 18 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 18 May 2017 #21
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 553 posts in this forum Offline

MIND- The New Perceptive Instrument

It is probably the most vaguely described term (or...'the best kept secret' ?) ever raised by Krishnamurti. And 'experientally' it makes a lot of sense: only after the self-centred consciousness is being emptied of its all ' psycho-residual content' one may be able to describe its qualities and/or to trace a notoriously 'pathless' trail to it. And the reciprocal statement is also true: as long as the egotistic process of thought is in command , the 'mind' is just the faithful display of the psychological content. The latest post in the What are the Teachings ?' thread does offer a few 'negative' clues to its experiential aproach

This post was last updated by John Raica Thu, 18 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 18 May 2017 #22
Thumb_hot-sale-font-b-cool-b-font-cat-animal-poster-custom-font-b-wallpaper-b-font Jan Kasol Czech Republic 173 posts in this forum Offline

I think K differentiated 2 kinds of mind: the individual mind and universal mind (his words from early talks) or the progressive self and the eternal self (his words from the early talks). The individual/progressive mind is created by thought, by conditioning, by material process in the brain - it is the mind we are all too familiar with. For the universal mind, K used many synonyms - intelligence, pure being, emptiness, nothingness, silence.
I have told here several times the analogy with the mirror. Is is not my analogy, exactly the same analogy was used by Rumi, by K, by Meister Eckhart, by zen. If the mirror is stained by the ego process and its attachments, its egotism, it is not pure and there is distortion. If you clean the mirror (= purify your mind, heart, = silence your mind, = empty your mind etc), then the mirror is clean and it is the pure being, the universal mind, the intelligence. From the discussions with Bohm, you can clearly see, that K believed that this universal mind is no more material, is no more a product of thought. This universal mind is the mind of everyone and everything. I described it in #2 as pure being. Either study Krishnamurtis early talks, where he is much more open about these things, or study his dialogues with Bohm, where he is again more open, for example here they talk about 2 kinds of mind.
http://jkrishnamurti.org/krishnamurti-teachings...

This post was last updated by Jan Kasol Thu, 18 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 18 May 2017 #23
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 168 posts in this forum Offline

Jan Kasol wrote:
If the mirror is stained by the ego process and its attachments, its egotism, it is not pure and there is distortion.

Regarding the 'mirror' analogy, I don't see it as being "stained by the ego" etc. Either 'what is' is reflected in the 'mirror' or it is not. The 'mirror', pure 'being', pure 'perception' is incorruptible, it simply sees what is there or it doesn't. So 'cleansing' the 'mirror'(purifying mind and heart etc.) brings in time, i.e."I am not this or that 'yet' but when I am then something will take place...." If the 'mirror is there, (attention?), it will 'reflect what is there: fear, confusion, 'confidence' laziness etc., the attempt to 'change' what is reflected to something other than what is 'seen', is where the "quickness" is needed to detect that conflict-causing process.

K.: So where there is a ( mentality of 'self-?) becoming' you must have psychological time. That 'becoming' is illusory. The 'fact' is what you are at the moment: your anger, your reactions, your fears, look at it. So ( thinking of oneself in terms of ?) time is a major factor of fear.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Thu, 18 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 18 May 2017 #24
Thumb_hot-sale-font-b-cool-b-font-cat-animal-poster-custom-font-b-wallpaper-b-font Jan Kasol Czech Republic 173 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
If the 'mirror is there, (attention?), it will 'reflect what is there: fear, confusion, 'confidence' laziness etc., the attempt to 'change' what is reflected to something other than what is 'seen', is where the "quickness" is needed to detect that conflict-causing process.

Either the mirror reflects your own projections, or when you become as nothing, it will reflect something else. The word "what is" is problematic. Because "what is" appears different to a selfless mind and to an egotistic mind. What is the relationship of the observer to "what is"?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 18 May 2017 #25
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 168 posts in this forum Offline

Jan Kasol wrote:
What is the relationship of the observer to "what is"?

I would say that the observer is 'what is'.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 18 May 2017 #26
Thumb_hot-sale-font-b-cool-b-font-cat-animal-poster-custom-font-b-wallpaper-b-font Jan Kasol Czech Republic 173 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
I would say that the observer is 'what is'.

and what is the relationship of this insight to freedom?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 18 May 2017 #27
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 168 posts in this forum Offline

Jan Kasol wrote:
and what is the relationship of this insight to freedom?

I don't know.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 18 May 2017 #28
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 165 posts in this forum Offline

Jan Kasol wrote:

and what is the relationship of this insight to freedom?

.

Dan McDermott wrote:

I don't know.

I think what you mean is - and I don't mean to be presumptuous - that you can't see. The likes of K wouldn't lack an answer to this question and neither, actually, do I. If one can see for themselves that 'the observer is what is' then the response 'I don't know' will be recognised for the response of the blind that it is.

Que Sera, Sera.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 18 May 2017 #29
Thumb_a1056283319_2 Tom Paine United States 82 posts in this forum Offline

John Perkins. wrote:
The likes of K wouldn't lack an answer to this question and neither, actually, do I.

We already know that you're one of the 'lit' John. You've told us more than a few times before. You must be very proud of your achievement ;)

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 18 May 2017 #30
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 168 posts in this forum Offline

John Perkins. wrote:
then the response 'I don't know' will be recognised for the response of the blind that it is.

So be it. Maybe Jan will elaborate on how he sees the "relationship".

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 49 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.)