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

Back to Basics


Displaying posts 31 - 49 of 49 in total
Thu, 18 May 2017 #31
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 165 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
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 ;)

If it were of the nature of an 'achievement', Tom, then it wouldn't be worth the metaphorical 'paper' it was written on.

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 #32
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 165 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.

.

Dan McDermott wrote:

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

Beg, Dan, I didn't mean to belittle. Your response was honest. And Jan may well indeed come up with something worthwhile. His observations and contributions are most often of value.

Que Sera, Sera.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 18 May 2017 #33
Thumb_a1056283319_2 Tom Paine United States 82 posts in this forum Offline

John Perkins. wrote:
If it were of the nature of an 'achievement', Tom, then it wouldn't be worth the metaphorical 'paper' it was written on.

What’s a self image worth anyway? Not trying to belittle your post, just wondering out loud.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 18 May 2017 #34
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 168 posts in this forum Offline

John Perkins. wrote:
Beg, Dan, I didn't mean to belittle. Your response was honest.

Yes John, I understand. There are a lot of things you don't "mean to", they just come across that way. And yes my response: "I don't know" was "honest". (Perhaps "blind" as you mentioned.)

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 18 May 2017 #35
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 165 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Yes John, I understand. There are a lot of things you don't "mean to", they just come across that way. And yes my response: "I don't know" was "honest". (Perhaps "blind" as you mentioned.)

Thank you. Heartfelt.

Que Sera, Sera.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 19 May 2017 #36
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 168 posts in this forum Offline

John Perkins. wrote:
Thank you. Heartfelt.

Very welcome.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 19 May 2017 #37
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 165 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
What’s a self image worth anyway? ...just wondering out loud.

Indeed Tom. In my view the whole 'self' issue boils down to the logical absurdity of an element of a totally unitary universe reflecting on itself and reacting to (ie. acting upon) such reflections.

Que Sera, Sera.

This post was last updated by John Perkins. Fri, 19 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 19 May 2017 #38
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 300 posts in this forum Offline

John Perkins. wrote:
In my view the whole 'self' issue boils down to the logical absurdity of an element of a totally unitary universe reflecting on itself and reacting to (ie. acting upon) such reflections.

And even more than that . . . the logical absurdity of an element of a totally unitary universe regarding that same totally unitary universe, which is logically itself, (being itself an element of the same totally unitary universe) as having elements within itself which are logical absurdities, namely itself.

Which only goes to prove, the road to hell is actually paved with logic.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 19 May 2017 #39
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 165 posts in this forum Offline

Paul David son wrote:
And even more than that . . . the logical absurdity of an element of a totally unitary universe regarding that same totally unitary universe, which is logically itself, (being itself an element of the same totally unitary universe) as having elements within itself which are logical absurdities, namely itself.

And you thought it wasn't turtles all the way down.

Que Sera, Sera.

This post was last updated by John Perkins. Fri, 19 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 20 May 2017 #40
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 553 posts in this forum Offline

Just a sensible proposition on the experiential aspect of the 'mind vs brain' issue:

According to K , our consciousness ('as we know it'...) 'is' (indissolubly related to) its 'content'. Which is implicitly meaning that in the absence of its 'ego-centric' content , this 'emptied' consciousness would be an (universally) intelligent 'mind', which then would act in the light of 'insight' ( academically the problem is ...solved) The major experiential issue involved is this 'emptying' of the psychological content, which appears to many as a highly unlikely 'psychological action' -something very similar to throwing away the 'baby' with the dirty bathing water. Same issue with the 'psychological ending' of the self - not only 'who' will end it, since it is a thought projected virtual entity, what is there to...terminate?
Just a mental 'illusion' ?

And here we're reaching one of Dr Bohm major conundrums in his 'Ending of Time' dialogues with K - if the 'self is just an 'illusion'...how come that it has such an enormous vitality & resilience ? And K's sybillinic answer that 'Illusions have an enormous vitality' didn't clarify the issue either...

Now this does certainly represent a 'dead end' for any earnest & sincere psy-inquirer since the very possibility of a practical solution seems to vaporize in thin air. I would therefore introduce ( just for exploratory purposes ) the action-verb 'dis-engaging' ( rather than the traditional term 'detachment'- the natural opposite of 'attachment')
So then the new proposition to be checked out experientially would be: the intelligent 'mind' ( the non-material support of human consciousness) can dis-engage (or disentangle) itself from its intricate temporal 'engagements'. There's no need for any knowledgeable 'rationale' in this - since it is either seen as absolute necessity for an authentic inner freedom or... not.

I believe that K did actually speak of this very issue in terms of 'non-action' (as the highest form of action) - but again this is putting even the most earnest thinking brain on a loop- since one can eventually agree on the idea of a silent 'non-action' , but then...what does one 'do' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 20 May 2017 #41
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:
So be it. Maybe Jan will elaborate on how he sees the "relationship".

I think that there is no relationship. The observer is the center of illusion and all he ever observes are the projections of his conditioning, after which he is constantly chasing. The observer (=will) is effort, resistance, which is driven by fear or desire. There is no observer without effort. And the observer can be ended by an integral insight of the mind into the process of will, fear, desire, effort and time. The observer is the will, fear, desire, effort and time. When the observer is not, there is freedom.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 20 May 2017 #42
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 165 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
...if the 'self is just an 'illusion'...how come ... it has such an enormous vitality & resilience? And K's sybillinic answer that 'Illusions have an enormous vitality' didn't clarify the issue either...

I think this is an instance in which K could have worked harder on his response. It is Sapiens that has 'enormous vitality'. It isn't that the illusion has vitality of itself, it obviously can't; it's an illusion. But the illusion is the motivation behind the vital potency which is Sapiens.

Que Sera, Sera.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 20 May 2017 #43
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 165 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
I believe that K did actually speak of this very issue in terms of 'non-action' (as the highest form of action) - but again this is putting even the most earnest thinking brain on a loop - since one can eventually agree on the idea of a silent 'non-action', but then...what does one 'do'?

Isn't it that the impartial (none judgemental) and none reactive watching is itself the requisite 'action in inaction'?

Que Sera, Sera.

This post was last updated by John Perkins. Sat, 20 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 20 May 2017 #44
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 168 posts in this forum Offline

Jan Kasol wrote:
. The observer is the will, fear, desire, effort and time.

Agreed and in that 1928 talk you posted, K breaks 'desire' into two: the desire for the non-essential and for the essential (the realization of our true being), an important distinction for me since I had thought of it, as it manifests in the 'psychological', as being a 'problem' and not the creative life force that it is with the potential to 'burn through' the non-essential, (sense of separateness, fear of death, self-centeredness, one's improper conduct, etc.)

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sat, 20 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 20 May 2017 #45
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 165 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
Well, John, physical survival was definitely not an illusion both for the 'sapiens' man as for the contemporary person.

Physical survival, as you suggest, isn't optional. What is apparently 'optional' however, is the very entity's determination or achievement of it for and of itself.

What I mean, John, is that life forms that didn't get allegorically removed from 'the garden' (or hence have any need to get back), never attempt to ensure for themselves their own continuity. They take food when they're hungry for example, as opposed to amassing surplus against contingency. In a sense they trust the universe always to provide whilst we don't, preferring 'self' reliance.

But since there was no actual 'inward outlet' all the psy energy went into projecting all the inner needs & aspirations in the outer dimension of reality...

But pre the arrival of self consciousness there were no 'inner needs'. You're projecting yourself onto realities that don't suffer your problems.

... - which put a certain illusory spin on things that otherwise would have been perceived as simply 'wrong'.

(i) 'Illusory spin' is a product of and belongs entirely to homo sapiens. (ii) Homo Sapiens is the only entity that has any actual concept of 'wrong'.

Que Sera, Sera.

This post was last updated by John Perkins. Sat, 20 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 20 May 2017 #46
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 300 posts in this forum Offline

John Perkins. wrote:
never attempt to ensure for themselves their own continuity. They take food when they're hungry for example, as opposed to amassing surplus against contingency.

Not quite so, as with squirrels, for example. Then again, you don;t see many billionaire squirrels. But look at it more roundly, when a cat secures its territory it is precisely doing what you say animals don't do, amassing, but in this case it is land which holds its bounty, not the bounty itself. These tendencies exist strongly in many animals but are contained by the natural order of things, as they are. In humankind, they have the capacity to run rampant for two reasons, man's physical capacity to harness nature and his mental capacity to do so. Put simply, nature never evolved the stop button to its processes.

John Perkins. wrote:
But pre the arrival of self consciousness there were no 'inner needs'.

Again, I get the point but it is only partly right in its expression. Animals do have inner needs, for the feelings of security and so on, but they tend to lessen with maturity. You must know that elephants cry when they lose their laved ones, birds pine, dogs wail and so on. The emotional template was established before humankind evolved its current brain. When animals physical needs are not met they experience a psychic or psychological disturbance which propels them to try to meet their needs. For every outer need there is the essential inner disturbance which leads towards its satisfaction.

It's not intelligence that leads the horse to water (though that is involved) but thirst, which is a subjective state of inner need. What seems to be different in humankind is that its needs become displaced, the objects of their satisfaction can be changed, exalted by thought, abstracted beyond recognition and in short, made totally neurotic. The key factor in this is the emergence of complex thought.

I think I'm not differing with you on this, John, just making some additional and relevant observations. Self-consciousness is an accelerator of the processes but the key factor is thought itself, the larger part of which is not generally self-conscious.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 20 May 2017 #47
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 300 posts in this forum Offline

Sorry, that last paragraph is not exactly right. We can discuss it further.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 21 May 2017 #48
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:
Agreed and in that 1928 talk you posted, K breaks 'desire' into two: the desire for the non-essential and for the essential (the realization of our true being), an important distinction for me since I had thought of it, as it manifests in the 'psychological', as being a 'problem' and not the creative life force that it is with the potential to 'burn through' the non-essential

K's attributed different meanings to the words essential and non-essential at different times. Here he (probably) means essential is the effort which leads to liberation and non-essential everything else. At other times, he uses it in the context of opposites and choice. Thought creates opposites, measures, and then chooses the essential and avoids the non-essential and this is the process of ignorance.

Pure being cannot be arrived at by any effort, because every effort is becoming. But I believe that effort is necessary for liberation nevertheless - effort to understand yourself, effort to pierce through the many layers of ignorance, effort to know yourself, effort to reveal all the tricks of the mind to yourself. But in the final stage, all effort has to cease, when there is an integral perception of the whole process of ignorance. How to arrive at this integral perception is the real question. K thought that he would server as a mirror to the people and they would know themselves through him, he advised that relationships should serve as our mirror in which we would know ourselves. The "essential" thing is: we should know ourselves.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 21 May 2017 #49
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 165 posts in this forum Offline

John Perkins wrote:

But pre the arrival of self consciousness there were no 'inner needs'.

.

Paul David son wrote:

...Animals do have inner needs, for the feelings of security and so on,... When animals physical needs are not met they experience a psychic or psychological disturbance which propels them to try to meet their needs. For every outer need there is the essential inner disturbance which leads towards its satisfaction.

It's not intelligence that leads the horse to water (though that is involved) but thirst, which is a subjective state of inner need.

I don't think you're considering the term 'inner needs' in the same way John R was intending it in the post of his that I was addressing; nor either in the way the term tends naturally to be understood in these places.

...Self-consciousness is an accelerator of the processes but the key factor is thought itself, the larger part of which is not generally self-conscious.

I suspect this last statement simply highlights our (ie. yours and mine) difference of opinion as to the ultimate answer to your thread question. In my view, the evolutionary step-change responsible for switching the genus homo from animal to spiritual being (viz. 'self consciousness), has no material cause just as neither does the step-change to enlightenment at which the 'spiritual being' eventually arrives.

Que Sera, Sera.

This post was last updated by John Perkins. Sun, 21 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 31 - 49 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.)