Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
Awareness in our world today | moderated by Krishnan Srinivasan

Is it impossible to live with nonattachment in LIFE?

Closed_forum

Displaying posts 31 - 48 of 48 in total
Wed, 17 Jun 2009 #31
Thumb_deleted_user_med Dappling Light India 31 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

max greene wrote:
Keshni Sahni wrote:
When you are alone, totally alone, not belonging to any family, any nation, any culture, any particular continent, there is that sense of being an outsider.

Max,

That was a Krishnamurti quote, verbatim, not my words.

There is a certain beauty associated with conditioning.

Back to Top
Wed, 17 Jun 2009 #32
Thumb_deleted_user_med Dappling Light India 31 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Sorry for the confusion, but I do see your important point.

Krishnamurti said there is a sense of being outsider. Observation happens without any observer.

There is a certain beauty associated with conditioning.

Back to Top
Wed, 17 Jun 2009 #33
Thumb_readytoloadup_correction Krishnan Srinivasan Denmark 322 posts in this forum Offline

max greene wrote:
The organism has created a psychological "I," which the organism then thinks of as itself. It is out of consideration for this image in the mind, this construct, that the thought of being an outsider aris

Life is like the tamarind fruit bound in its shell

Back to Top
Wed, 17 Jun 2009 #34
Thumb_readytoloadup_correction Krishnan Srinivasan Denmark 322 posts in this forum Offline

As Max Greene put it above, it is an illusion, this construct "I". All phantsmagoria of the thought-processes constantly flowing like a river.

Life is like the tamarind fruit bound in its shell

Back to Top
Wed, 17 Jun 2009 #35
Thumb_deleted_user_med Dappling Light India 31 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Krishnan Srinivasan wrote:
All phantsmagoria of the thought-processes constantly flowing like a river.

Haha. I find it funny now but I have been there, seen it done it.

There is a certain beauty associated with conditioning.

Back to Top
Thu, 18 Jun 2009 #36
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 23 posts in this forum Offline

I think we know who constructs the psychological "I," the Self. It is the living physical organism, with its brain/mind acting in the now. But why does the physical organism construct this phantom "I"? What purpose does this construct serve? Perhaps K and the Buddha and a few others have gotten to the bottom of this, but not the rest of us.

max

Back to Top
Fri, 19 Jun 2009 #37
Thumb_readytoloadup_correction Krishnan Srinivasan Denmark 322 posts in this forum Offline

max greene wrote:
But why does the physical organism construct this phantom "I"? What purpose does this construct serve? Perhaps K and the Buddha and a few others have gotten to the

Life is like the tamarind fruit bound in its shell

Back to Top
Fri, 19 Jun 2009 #38
Thumb_readytoloadup_correction Krishnan Srinivasan Denmark 322 posts in this forum Offline

Dear Max,
It is a question of "Security", inner security for the organism. Since leaving the mothers womb, the individual is looking for "external support", "re-assurance" to anchor oneself in LIFE. That identity of the "I" is shaped by the tribe, culture,parents, language,religion etc, the whole flow of "outer Consiousness" impinging upon the "inner consciousness" and thereby creating this phantom construct"I". Buddha inquired for the end of all misery in the world, or rather SORROW/"DUKKA" and he found the source to be "DESIRE". JK on the other hand, points the finger at"FRAGMENTATION" . "I" cannot unlearn or wean away from my"I" but I acn observe my "I" how it became. I can quiten it by being AWARE of it all the TIME.

Life is like the tamarind fruit bound in its shell

Back to Top
Fri, 19 Jun 2009 #39
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 23 posts in this forum Offline

Krishnan,

Strange, but in creating the "I" for security, exactly the opposite has happened:
It is the psychological "I" itself that has brought about uncertainty and chaos in the world--at tremendous cost to the physical organism it was created to "protect"!

Seems to me that if we really saw (became aware of) the terrible damage that the "I" has done to humanity, and became aware of just how useless this illusion is, it would dissipate or disappear like the phantom it is.

max

Back to Top
Sat, 20 Jun 2009 #40
Thumb_readytoloadup_correction Krishnan Srinivasan Denmark 322 posts in this forum Offline

Yes.On the political front we have seen how fear of the "other/s" has created SEATO, NATO, COMMUNIST alliances etc. Even today there is enormous human energy invested in grouping one group against another.That is very obvious to us. they fail and they reshape and give different names&forms-endless human war-mongering, conflict-infested activity.Huge sums are spent in defence of one against another.So this "I" is not playing havoc not only on"Me" but the "COLLECTIVE I" is causing immense suffering to humanity at large. Do you think this all would dissipate into thin air- this entrenched buildings of "I"?

Life is like the tamarind fruit bound in its shell

Back to Top
Sat, 20 Jun 2009 #41
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 23 posts in this forum Offline

When we talk of "freedom,' we are talking of freedom from the Self, or freedom from the "I," are we not? So what entity is it that wants to be free from the Self? What entity is it that sees and longs for freedom and says, "I want to be free"?

I'm saying it is the physical organism with its brain/mind. The physical organism is a living thing, and because it is a living thing, the organism is actually capable of acting and creating beyond time. Through the process of thinking the organism has created a thought construct that we call the Self. Of course, a construct can't do anything on its own--by its nature it is passive and lifeless. But the organism has given vast significance to the Self that it has created--such significance that the organism comes to think of the Self as itself. The organism becomes very protective of this Self that it has created. When threatened, the organism resorts to violence. We know the rest of the story.

What are we to do with this Self we have created? The Self is there, and if we look closely, it seems to be all that there is. It just might be! The Self might be all that we call "consciousness," because consciousness is of the known, and the known is already in time, old, and is neither creative or new. As I said, the physical organism is a living thing, capable of acting and creating outside of time. Freedom from the Self cannot be accomplished through effort. Freedom is accomplished through effortless seeing and understanding.

I may be all wet, but this is how the situation looks to me. What would you say in this regard?

max

Back to Top
Thu, 25 Jun 2009 #42
Thumb_readytoloadup_correction Krishnan Srinivasan Denmark 322 posts in this forum Offline

max greene wrote:
Freedom is accomplished through effortless seeing and understanding

Life is like the tamarind fruit bound in its shell

Back to Top
Thu, 25 Jun 2009 #43
Thumb_readytoloadup_correction Krishnan Srinivasan Denmark 322 posts in this forum Offline

Yes Max-.freedom is implied in effortless understanding.

Life is like the tamarind fruit bound in its shell

Back to Top
Sat, 27 Jun 2009 #44
Thumb_me-rembrandt2 Pankaj Sapkal India 3 posts in this forum Offline

it is a fact that everything is attached to everything. why then is there any issue of non-attachment?
a plant is attached to soil, and clings to it in heavy winds.

but what is the attachment of a mind and how is it different from the attachment of a tree to soil?

consider the mind as a simulation engine. from birth to death, it continually forms models of reality within itself - models of infinite variety, infinite interpretations. (it swaps models with other minds, too).

the importance of a neural network, of the brain, is that it is capable of instantaneous reorganization, while still retaining its essential nature. (this essential nature may be the ego or the self, the models/simulations that form cognition may be what maya is).

there is no (known) form of order which reorganizes itself so fluidly and instantaneously, without losing its own nature. consider the gestalt theory, where you can see a curve emerge from a certain layout of dots. This illusory curve is the mind - the dots are reality.
what would happen if the mind became static? it would lose its capacity of reorganization, of modeling a more con-current reality.

it would stay locked in a pattern which is of the past. very naturally, the same is true of the projections of the future - as far as the mind is concerned, it can only extrapolate its own simulations on a time curve into an anticipated future.
hence, as k often seems to imply, for most minds the future is merely the past redux, reprocessed and extrapolated. i see five dots in a straight line and i infer the position of the next dot. reality may be so, but then reality may also not be so. when reality is not so, the mind may object or try to understand why it is not as per its simulation. the mind that merely objects and refuses to understand is attached to its own model of reality - it insists that order behave as per its simulation, instead of instantly modeling itself as per the new view of reality, or allowing for the incompleteness of its model. sadly (or fortunately), reality is not beholden to the models that we make on the basis of limited information.

it is possible that we cannot avoid building models - it may be the very nature of cognition. it may also be that because it is so central to cognition that we are attached to our models of reality - when reality suddenly reveals itself to be divorced from our puny models, we might feel a powerlessness or worthlessness or a sense of insanity. if this sense becomes widespread within the neural network, where core models suffer an insult, the mind may simply go under, desperately trying to cling to what it knows, in fear of dissolution of what it imagines to be reality.
perhaps it is at this point of widespread insult-to-the-model, that humans often turn to faith, archetyping the larger order as god - again on the basis of what they already know. alternately, the mind may also turn isolated at this insult-to-the-model, and attempt live within the crevices of its own prior, comforting models - which would be varying levels/types of insanity.

however, considering that no model can ever fully match realty (since we are all pathetically limited), then indeed, logically it is vital for this difference to emerge, so that our neural networks constantly modify our models, on the basis of continual feedback from reality.

the opposite of this real-time modiffication/growth/formation is probably attachment to one's simulations in preference over experiencing reality. which is a crystallization (the opposite of what is unique about the brain - fluid order).

in this light, there is an interesting saying in indian context - atithi devo bhava.
commonly, this is taken to mean that the guest is a god, thus being a heuristic on hospitality.
however, when we analyze the word for guest, we find that it actually means "that which comes/is without a pre-ordained appointment or time" (a = sans, tithi = preordained moment/time).
thus, the larger meaning of atithi devo bhava is "that which comes unexpectedly is divine".

this is a direct pointer to the fact that while we may build our images and models and simulations, it is important to be respectful to anything unexpected, which our models and simulations have not predicted - simply because this unforeseen event is the glimpse of the larger order, hitherto unaccounted for by our limited models. what you do with this glimpse is your call.

considering that the mind is formed of these models (maya), and the desire to cling to models (without paying heed to reality) is "moha"/attachment, we get the combination of moha-maya, which has been heralded as the root of all suffering.

hence, attachment to these simulations is the cause of suffering (not the simulations on their own, perhaps).

coming back to the question - is it possible/impossible to live with non-attachment, it would appear that non-attachment is the basis of plasticity of the brain.
without non-attachment/model-death, we would probably lose the intelligence of the brain to model reality anew, and thus become crystallized.
in which case, what's the point of having a brain that can model reality and which is capable of being aware of its own modeling?


  • pankaj sapkal

This post was last updated by Pankaj Sapkal Sat, 27 Jun 2009.

Back to Top
Sat, 27 Jun 2009 #45
Thumb_readytoloadup_correction Krishnan Srinivasan Denmark 322 posts in this forum Offline

Pankaj Sapkal wrote:
is it possible/impossible to live with non-attachment, it would appear that non-attachment is the basis of plasticity of the brain. without non-attachment/model-death, we would probably lose the intelligence of the brain to model reality anew, and thus become crystallized. in which case, what's the point of having a brain that can model reality and which is capable of being aware of its own modeling?
pankaj sapkal

Life is like the tamarind fruit bound in its shell

Back to Top
Sat, 27 Jun 2009 #46
Thumb_readytoloadup_correction Krishnan Srinivasan Denmark 322 posts in this forum Offline

Dear Pankaj Sapkal, I am indebted to your in-depth-analysis as well as your introduction to mind``s probable projections by simulating models&gestalt theory etc plus fantastic new interpretation of "athithi devo bhava"=that which comes unexpectedly is divine"(of course in the Indian tradition ,guests are divine beings)!
But why lose the intelligence of the brain? Rather it must be QUIET.Not cleverer by
"BECOMING".It is my view-may be I am wrong.

Life is like the tamarind fruit bound in its shell

Back to Top
Sat, 27 Jun 2009 #47
Thumb_me-rembrandt2 Pankaj Sapkal India 3 posts in this forum Offline

what i mean is that crystallization into a static pattern (due to attachment to that pattern for whatever reason) is a lowering of intelligence. thus, maya-moha will reduce holistic intelligence (even though great cleverness may be present in obsessively attempting to adhere to the static pattern).

of course, there is bound to be a world of a difference between the silence of a crystallized order, and the silence of an order which has great plasticity, but is still silent because of the absence of agitation. so it is the latter which is real silence, not the former.

sorry if i was being vague on this aspect.

for some reason i do not feel that forming models in itself is incorrect, or that this formation of models is a process of becoming. as all order changes and the patterns in the brain are in sync with reality, then this order/model will change as the world changes. there is no petty cleverness or becoming in this - there is integration. if an order-type ends in reality, it's corresponding model will end in the brain as well, without any desire to keep it alive.

hope this clarifies.
- pankaj sapkal

Back to Top
Sat, 27 Jun 2009 #48
Thumb_readytoloadup_correction Krishnan Srinivasan Denmark 322 posts in this forum Offline

Dear Pankaj Sapkal,
Very many thanks for your elucidation above. Plasticity and integartion and silence-very much in tune. thanks once again.
Regards
Krishnan

Life is like the tamarind fruit bound in its shell

Back to Top
Displaying posts 31 - 48 of 48 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.)