Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
Discussion Forums

Huguette . 's Forum Activity | 617 posts in 3 forums


Forum: Question authority Mon, 07 Sep 2009
Topic: If we the present generation cannot fully live these "teachings" of what use is it to preserve "them" for future generations ???

We all know that K said (more or less) that conflict and time end once there is understanding --- it is "over" then.

One may interpret that to mean that pain ends instantly. But as "I still suffer" and cannot face the pain, one is still comparing one's current state with the desired state and trying to decide what to do about it. There has been no fundamental change in relationship. The very raging at our failure IS part of the separative, self-centered movement (desire, effort and time).

Isn't there a movement of a completely different nature than thought in perceiving the falseness of self? To say so is not to measure and compare thought and perception, but to understand the significance of each. Thought is "inadequate" (a word used by K) for remedying relationship, like using sewage water to clean wounds. Better not to use anything than to use sewage water, no? Observing what is false is not measuring the false.

If at the first sign of pain, one resorts to the "old ways" of thought (effort, fragmentation, escape and pretense), one is still using sewage water to clean the wound. The danger has not been understood.

Action as we have known it through time has been determined by "me". But what is action outside of time, measure and comparison; outside of personal preference or choice? That is completely uncharted, unknown territory where one acts without knowing what the outcome will or should be. (Of course, one still knows many things and knowledge is used where appropriate.)

There is an assumption or conclusion in that question of "why we can't stop dancing around and get to the crux of the matter": that "we" have NOT GOTTEN to the crux of the matter. But if it is true that "We would rather hide behind the ideal of freedom", then so be it. Does my interest in truth or freedom depend on others? Does the flame of discontent burn in me or not? And if it does not, why do I think it should?

The universe moves, life moves --- galaxies, atoms, organic matter, mineral matter, unknown substances and dimensions. Within that universal movement, one can observe the self-centered, separative movement of thought, judging, evaluating, believing, following, measuring, concluding, causing havoc.

Forum: Question authority Sun, 13 Sep 2009
Topic: If we the present generation cannot fully live these "teachings" of what use is it to preserve "them" for future generations ???

Thank you, Alistair. I have been pondering your original posts even though you removed them. I'm not presuming that you or anyone else are interested in my reflections about it but, if not, it can obviously be ignored, or challenged.

One may sit, choicelessly aware --- cars are passing, voices are heard, the air touches the skin, the tongue is felt in the mouth, thoughts appear, an itch comes upon the foot.... without effort or preference, not enumerating, not taking inventory. In the same way, thought is observed. The thought comes from memory, but the observation does not.

This observation is a normal function of the brain (and perhaps beyond the brain) which cannot help but be aware, just as the heart cannot help but beat (until it stops), the ears cannot help but hear. It is not an extraordinary achievement which requires practice or takes time.

Thought asks rationally "what is seeing then, if it is not "I" who sees?" It doesn't know. All it can do is seek within the storehouse of knowledge and there is no answer to be found there. Thought understands that observation is outside the field of its competence; that there is something beyond its borders, beyond memory, reasoning, abstraction, extrapolation, belief, comparison, fear, anger, desire, etc., beyond the whole field of the known. Thought does see that.... limited understanding but understanding nonetheless. No?

Forum: Question authority Sun, 13 Sep 2009
Topic: If we the present generation cannot fully live these "teachings" of what use is it to preserve "them" for future generations ???

Thank you, Nick.

Forum: Question authority Sun, 13 Sep 2009
Topic: If we the present generation cannot fully live these "teachings" of what use is it to preserve "them" for future generations ???

Randall,

I don't see it as the problem.

We accept the authority of our own conclusions. We "know" what's what and the certainty of knowing blinds us. When one is willing to question and fully examine the scope of thought (knowledge, reasoning, abstracting, extrapolating, believing, comparing, judging, etc.) and its full significance, self-learning can take place. No?

Forum: Question authority Sun, 13 Sep 2009
Topic: If we the present generation cannot fully live these "teachings" of what use is it to preserve "them" for future generations ???

Randall,

I don't see it as the problem.

We accept the authority of our own conclusions. We "know" what's what and the certainty of knowing blinds us. When one is willing to question and fully examine the scope of thought (knowledge, reasoning, abstracting, extrapolating, believing, comparing, judging, etc.) and its full significance, self-learning can take place. No?

Forum: Question authority Mon, 14 Sep 2009
Topic: What factors prevent people from understanding JK?

Randal Shacklett wrote: But it is common to all humanity, this pain/sorrow, you speak about. When we speculate about yours and my pain and whether what we feel his hers mine or ours, we lose touch with the reality of it, don't we? It then becomes something at arms leangth to be objectified, right?

What then is compassion?

Forum: General Discussion Fri, 12 Feb 2010
Topic: Have I changed

dhirendra singh wrote: Our all attempts are based on thinking process, and K proved all thinking process, all knowledge is dead. He proved that thoght can't achieve any thing new. Then most of us feels a dead end. Our all doings depends on thought. Then it seems very hard to understand that just observe but don't think. We live every moment in thinking, and here he says thinking can't do it, then it is very hard to know, that what to do? But on the otherhand it is very easy in the sense there is nothing to do, there is ending of all doing.

Still, understanding the fact that "there is nothing to do" does not automatically result in "doing nothing". With the momentum of thousands of years of conditioning, it is not easy at all for thought to "do nothing".

But if the fact that "there is nothing to do" is clearly understood, then whatever movement thought still makes to control or overcome is simply observed. In the light of that understanding, thought has lost its authority to dictate action. Then if there is still habitual division into me and not-me, such as "Thought continues to operate, what should I do?", thought is simply observed. That is the action of observation, not thought.

Forum: General Discussion Sat, 13 Feb 2010
Topic: Have I changed

dhirendra singh wrote: You are talking about "doing" which is not action of thought, but till now I don't experienced such kind of beyond the thought doing, so I am unable to talk about that

Awareness is something man experiences naturally (not "experience" the noun, meaning knowledge, "experience" the verb, meaning actual action in the moment). If the common mortal did not experience awareness, if awareness was not a living fact, there would not be the word to point to the fact.

Although thought may say, "I" am aware, logically and within its limits, thought can see that where there is awareness, it is not thought directing awareness or choosing to be aware. Thought sees this in the same way that it can see that it is typing, remembering, choosing, comparing, measuring, reasoning.

Logically, I (thought) can see that I (thought) CANNOT experience anything beyond thought and awareness is beyond thought. With that self-understanding, thought can relax and "do nothing", or not "do".

Forum: General Discussion Wed, 31 Mar 2010
Topic: DISCONTENTED

John Anderson wrote: Paul....hasn't anger a role to play. If I see an old man being beaten up across the street, I will among other things feel anger. I can't see me starting to suppress that anger. It is part of what will move me to action.

If anger is a factor in action, then anger keeps spreading in the world .... not to say anger should be repressed. Repressed anger is still anger. Just seeing the role anger plays.

Is anger needed to spur someone to action? If anger is part of what moves me to action, what is the other part? And, if there is another part, is anger "needed" at all? Will I not act without anger?

What if one sees an old man injured by an earthquake or trapped in a burning building? What is it that makes one act then?

Forum: General Discussion Thu, 01 Apr 2010
Topic: DISCONTENTED

daniel moru wrote: mentioning anger , i find it can be a great thing...the conditioning of societies and so called religion tells you, no anger...really practical for someone willing to get power on you! i have been using my anger often, in fact each time someone is willing to threatened me, anger is an energy which gives you the capacity to stand, it doesn't need to reach the physical violent stage...in work no one threatened me ever without having to face my deep anger,in such a state of mind you don't think, and you don't care about a result..when dealing with someone much stronger than me i may put myself in danger which i did..this is a way to respond to the original violence made to you, but again ,we are just repeating what we were told for people control consideration..."control your anger "....then you agree to be threatened, then you agree to follow a chief, to be controlled, to accept authority , etc.. etc..

It is not a question of accepting or not accepting anger. Not accepting anger can only mean repressing it and, as I said, repressed anger is still anger.

The question was asked whether there could be right action, WITHOUT anger and, conversely included in that, can there be right action WITH anger. If you find anger to be a great thing, if anger gives you security, so be it. There's no problem in that.

But if someone is interested in the question of action, it is necessary to understand the workings of the mind, observing the mind "clinically" without attempting to interfere or control it. There is no question of giving or receiving advice in this, of trying this or trying that. One is neither embracing, rejoicing, exploiting, reveling in anger nor rejecting, suppressing, denying, condemning or being attached to it.

It seems evident that there can be no understanding without observation. Observation is action. It is life expressing itself in the organism. Observation is the action of the undivided mind, meaning it is not split into "me" and "not-me", it is not "me" which acts and controls. The undivided mind excludes no part of the mind - it is not the observing part without the thinking part, without the motor part, without the sensory part, without any part. It is not one part of the mind acting while another part remains dormant. It is the total brain, acting as one.

The action of the inwardly divided mind promotes division outwardly.

The undivided mind as it observes and acts is not following anyone or anything. Out of anger, one may rebel against external authority or bullying, and still be compliant to inner compulsions. Now we are observing fear.

Forum: General Discussion Thu, 01 Apr 2010
Topic: DISCONTENTED

daniel moru wrote:

Huguette Milberg wrote: The question was asked whether there could be right action, WITHOUT anger a

Daniel: sorry huguette, this is too intellectual for me..i won't so reply.. regards..

Huguette: No problem, Daniel.

Forum: General Discussion Mon, 05 Apr 2010
Topic: DISCONTENTED

Dr.sudhir sharma wrote:How does this total brain acting as one, responds to the activity of the self ( psychologically significant thoughts ) that causes division as "me" and "not me" ?

The total brain acting without division IS awareness, observation or attention. Observation, attention or awareness IS the action of the total brain.

If psychologically significant thoughts and emotions do arise from the field of thought, the total brain does not give continuity to them. It is the psychological continuum, images conceived of by thought, which create the self. The total brain does not give continuity. Observation is a movement without continuity - without past, present or future. The action of the undivided brain is observation, awareness or attention and there is no image and therefore no continuity in that.

Psychologically significant thoughts and emotions may arise, and naturally they must come under the light of observation. Observation, the movement of the total brain, does not create images and does not attach itself to anything. Thus, there is no self-centre acting.

Forum: General Discussion Mon, 05 Apr 2010
Topic: DISCONTENTED

Dr.sudhir sharma wrote:>You think that by watching, by being aware, you will be more loving, you will suffer less, be less irritable, get something beyond; so your watching is a process of buying./////This was the quote of the day on 03/4/10. In what ways 'movement of observation' that you mention in your post differs from the 'watching, by being aware' that is mentioned in the quote ? What is of significance to understand here ?

As long as one is chasing the promise of a richer, more joyful life, one is leaving the door open for self-delusion. It is part of watching, of being aware, to see what is the nature of that observation or awareness.

Forum: General Discussion Mon, 05 Apr 2010
Topic: DISCONTENTED

Paul Davidson wrote: There is no total brain. The brain is two hemispheres. One is like a parallel computer (the right side) and the other is like a linear computer (the left side.) As well as this, our brains are called triurnal, meaning they have three parts, the old reptilian brain, the lymbic system which is the emotional part and the frontal cortex, which conceptualizes in time.////Apart from that the whole nervous system is part of the brain function. The stomach has 1000,000,000 neurons. And so on.////Then you have the senses which have their own brains.////Now, what exactly are you proposing to bring all that together?////Let us try our hardest to begin from where we actually are and from what is actually real to us./////I can say that neither my observation, my attention nor my awareness come from this supposed totality. Even the awareness of that is not total./////Not only can the parts not see the whole but, even if they could, there would have be a whole for them to see. Otherwise it is all imagination and conjecture.

Not only the gut has its own neurons. It turns out that the heart also has its own neurons, as you may have read recently. What is known about the brain is obviously still incomplete. And the brain itself is part of the universal, infinite totality, bathed in it as all the particles IN the ocean are bathed in the ocean and inseparable from the whole of the ocean, the brain is inseparable from the whole. Logically, the brain cannot be unrelated to the intelligence of the whole, the source of all creation.... whatever that relationship is, however it operates.

You can break anything down into its components and there is a usefulness in that. However, the parts of a living organism, put together, do not constitute the totality, nor do they negate the totality as a whole. The brain may be divided into physical components but when I talk about division and fragmentation, I'm not talking about the physical organism. I mean psychologically.

When I grasp something, it is a total action. If I were to try to grasp by using knowledge of each part of the hand and putting it together to act --- which is psychological division --- I think grasping would be a very clumsy affair. What governs the total action?

Awareness IS. It can't be pointed to or analyzed and it can't be denied. Where thought is directing action, awareness reveals the presence of thought. Can't thought realize that it does not have the capacity of awareness, of love, of beauty? And realizing that, what happens to thought?

Thought certainly can't bring all those functions together but something can and does. What is it? We can't say because saying and reasoning is a function of thought and thought can't do it. Thought stops trying to interfere with that something or get to the bottom of it because it realizes it can't. Then you're left with the undivided brain acting.

Forum: General Discussion Mon, 05 Apr 2010
Topic: DISCONTENTED

Paul Davidson wrote: Then leave the door open and expect all guests to drop in. As long as one understands fully that all thought is duality, one can work with thought without illusion. What if I do hope for something? What if I try to achieve something? If I have no conception of the other side of this duality, of a second force called resistance, then I will be surely surprised and shocked when my desire is not automatically realized. It is so pathetic to see these books written such as 'Ask And It Will Be Given.' They never calculate on second force, resistance. Every positive creates its own negative.//////But if I see this clearly I can reckon with second force and be flexible with regard to outcomes, which are always the result of an interplay between the desire and the reality. The third force I bring to bear is my flexibilty and intelligence. The outcome of hope is never exactly what one has hoped for . . . but then I never believed in Santa Claws.//////Don't be afraid to leave the door open. Don't shrink from hope due to the fear of disappointment. There is a fulcrum between hope and reality that one can act from, which is a timeless place. Nothing is fixed there and no outcome is predictable. Then, act.

All thought is not duality. Duality means taking images as fact, me and not-me, me separate from my thoughts, me separate from you.

Of course, leave the door open to hope for a richer life if you want to, delude yourself if you want to. No one asks anyone else's permission to do that anyway. What is positive about hoping for a richer more meaningful life?

The timeless place, the fulcrum between hope and reality that you mention, is that what "where we actually are and what is actually real to us"?

Forum: General Discussion Mon, 05 Apr 2010
Topic: DISCONTENTED

Huguette Milberg wrote: The timeless place, the fulcrum between hope and reality that you mention, is that what "where we actually are and what is actually real to us"? Dr.sudhir sharma wrote:Isn't that timeless place or space or moment an eternal movement and what can be observed as 'what' and 'where' is the content of/on this movement ? Isn't this creative movement free to create what it will ?

A fulcrum between hope and reality, a timeless place are not actualities to me. They were not my phrases.

Life is a creative movement, timeless ..... which is not to deny that life does contain thought and time. What is denied is the thought that right action in relationship can be determined by thought and time.

Forum: General Discussion Sat, 24 Jul 2010
Topic: What is Meditation?

sunil jain wrote: I feel the first step is to clearly understand I am living in deception. And next not to search/seek the transformation intellectually as that open the way for imagination to bring in deception. And then what ? Continue to observe 'what is' ? You please say more about this.

To see that I'm living in self-deception, in contradiction, in turmoil, in an endless cycle of conflict broken by the occasional pleasure or even joy - that's not even a "step" that's taken is it? That spontaneous, deep realization in my whole being is what makes me question in the first place - what's going on, what's it all about, what's the sense of it, how can I be happy, what can I do. No one is telling me, no one has told me that my life is sorrow. I see this first hand. That's why I look for a solution.

There's no shortage of advice from high and low. I may try various advice, follow so-called "new" paths, go from one attempt, one method, one solution to another for years but in the end, I am faced with the fact that nothing fundamental has changed.

But in all these years, I have never questioned what the root of sorrow is because it has never occurred to me that there is a "root". I have been blinded by conditioning to accept that the very "I" - who suffers, who questions, who tries this and that - is a fact. That it may not be so is completely new to me. Is it so or isn't? I don't know, but can I look into it? That's what observation can perhaps reveal - the nature of self, the fact about this self which suffers, the self I have always taken for granted as being a fact of life.

If I'm interested in understanding this, now I'm not looking for a solution, just observing.

Forum: General Discussion Sat, 24 Jul 2010
Topic: What is Meditation?

Huguette Milberg wrote: I have been blinded by conditioning to accept that the very "I" - who suffers, who questions, who tries this and that - is a fact.

sunil jain wrote: This conditioning is inevitable,isn't that so, Madam ?

As I see it, conditioning in many other respects is not only unavoidable but essential. Conditioning allows one to go about one's daily activities. Life would be impossible if one had to learn everything from scratch every day - one could not walk, cook, shop, go anywhere, work and so on.

But psychologically, conditioning is harmful. It takes root in the malleable growing brain just as the essential conditioning does. The brain is conditioned through repetition, isn't it? And we all have been conditioned to be separate individuals so that, like reading and walking, "self" is second nature, automatic, taken for granted. But with right education, it seems to me that it's not inevitable.

Forum: General Discussion Sun, 25 Jul 2010
Topic: What is Meditation?

sunil jain wrote: When someone tell me that self may not be fact, I can not understand it. It is new knowledge but not a fact for me.

I apologize for what follows (I have already written it). It's very long but that's just how it is. Please don't take it as being definitive. It's not intended that way at all. I'm just looking into these questions myself.

---- If someone says to me, "Tell me all about yourself", "I" can give my particular name, particular history, particular inclinations and compulsions, preferences, conclusions, foibles, talents, knowledge, beliefs, etc., I like this; I don't like that; I think this; I'm a failure, I'm successful, I'm afraid, I'm angry, I'm happy, I don't believe in that; I want this; I reject that; I have experienced such and such; I want to achieve such and such, I'm this kind of person... and on and on.

This mental image is put together from the vast storehouse of knowledge, experience and memory which is the past (and the projected future), and which is constantly expanding and fluctuating.

Looking at the self-image, "I" may feel that "I", sitting here in flesh and blood, am qualitatively different, factually separate, from this self-image which I'm looking at, which is made up of memories, ideas, beliefs, experiences, likes and dislikes, etc.... There seems to be the living "me" looking, separate from the image which is "not the living me".

But is there a living me looking at a non-living image? Am I, looking at the image, really of a different nature or quality than the image?

Obviously, "looking" at the past is not done through the physical eyes of the flesh and blood organism. The very looking (at the past, at the image) is done through the "eyes" of the very same past --- that vast reservoir of knowledge, experience, memories, judgments, interpretations, fears, reminiscences, comparisons, extrapolations, etc. stored in the brain --- which puts together the image of “me” which is being looked at ..... the past IS the observer as well as the observed.

When I cross the street, I must evaluate the oncoming traffic, measure the speed and distance of the vehicles, to know whether I can safely cross. This is essential use of knowledge, measure and memory. Without memory, I wouldn't know where I am or where I'm going. Without measure, I couldn't do much.

The same brain function of measure is also used to psychologically measure and evaluate myself and others. Without reference to the past, the physical eyes see only a physical person. But the "eyes" of the past see a person who is this, that and the other, good, bad, clever, stupid, inferior, superior, etc. "I" cannot measure (which is an essential function) psychologically if the measuring part of the brain is not working. This seems logical to me.

"I" could not see stupidity if "I" were not part of the past. I can't see what is outside the boundaries of the past. I can put together the self-image, I can access all my memories. But I can't see, access or put together love because love is outside of the past. As the eyes of the past (me) look at the the known (me), I see that love, awareness, attention, compassion are beyond this restricted field, unreachable by me. I cannot put together love, only the memory of love.

Does the seeing of my limits, seeing the nature of self, the seeing that love is beyond the field of the known, untouched by thought, does that seeing require a struggle or is it very clear without effort or time? Is that seeing a question of memory, dependent on knowledge and the past?

Forum: General Discussion Sun, 25 Jul 2010
Topic: What is Meditation?

sunil jain wrote: And I can not ask how to look because all say that there is no how.:-)

Tough, isn't it?

Perhaps the question is not how to look, but what to look at. One may think one is looking the "wrong" way because there are no results. That is something to look at - I want results, I hope to change, I'm afraid of living in sorrow all my life. Am I attentive to this desire, this hope and this fear?

One may think that one is sensitive, without ambition, without ulterior motive, so why is there no change, poor me. That too is something to look at.

I'm not saying this applies to you. I don't know. These are random examples.

Many thoughts and emotions pass quickly through the mind which are "unacknowledged" but leave a residue. All these must be looked at with attention, but not held onto. Again, I don't intend to be authoritative. It's not easy putting these things into words, and I could be mistaken. You have to see if it makes sense to you.

Forum: General Discussion Sun, 25 Jul 2010
Topic: What is Meditation?

It seems to me.

Forum: General Discussion Sun, 25 Jul 2010
Topic: What is Meditation?

>>RICK LEIN wrote: I would rather refer you to the source,Krishnamurti himself,I by no means could do justice to your question!

>>dhirendra singh wrote:Exactly. If want to understand really, go for him, fully. Otherwise we are here to entertain you, continue to ask other, a good time pass. Do you not feel pity of this, that a K-reader is searching answer from others? This indicates that we are not serious!

Why would you try discourage anyone from enquiring here? If this is not a place to do so, what is anyone doing here then? Is this the place to come only when everything is understood? Why come here then? If someone doesn't understand something, what's pitiful about asking questions? That doesn't mean they're not serious and it doesn't mean that they will simply "follow directions" without pondering what is said. It also doesn't mean that whoever responds "knows" the answers. Answers are not answers and knowledge does not apply.

Forum: General Discussion Sun, 25 Jul 2010
Topic: What is Meditation?

RICK LEIN wrote: for some it is the place to come when one "Thinks" they have understood the fullness of the teachings,and in that case perhaps they come to establish a leadership role for themselves,to preach,or teach,or convince others or themselves that they have arrived,so to speak.

What you say might be so but why should that concern someone who is interested in self-understanding? Why should that determine whether or not one engages in dialogue?

You did give an answer at post #30 and then coyly backed off and said "read K if you want to go deeper". Do you not want to go deeper? As Patricia very well put it, "this forum is a chance to put oneself on the line and to meet any challenges that come from what one has said". K himself said not to accept what anyone, including (especially) himself, says. See it for yourself. Be your own light. And still, he encouraged dialogue.

Forum: General Discussion Sun, 25 Jul 2010
Topic: What is Meditation?

dhirendra singh wrote: When one oneself has not realised the truth, is not able to give right answers to other, he/she will only waste time of other.

You have written many things on this forum. Why?

Forum: General Discussion Sun, 25 Jul 2010
Topic: What is Meditation?

dhirendra singh wrote: LOL!! you are right, this is right place for intellectual exercise. When one person ask and another answer than it become a Master and follower kind relation. This harm to both!

A response is not an answer.

And again, why do you come here?

Forum: General Discussion Sun, 25 Jul 2010
Topic: What is Meditation?

RICK LEIN wrote: Your question was why would someone come here,and and a few examples were given,in observation,not in conclusion.For Rick being here is an opportunity to explore the assumptions of the unobserved mind

No, I don't see that examples were given, neither in observation nor in conclusion.

Where is the exploring of assumptions if at the first challenge, one refers someone to K's books?

One must dare to be wrong, dare to make a fool of oneself and go into the unknown. If the flame of discontent burns, one must follow that, without fearing criticism. One can't leave the known behind and still demand safety and security. One can't leave the known behind and still want to be in control.

Forum: General Discussion Sun, 25 Jul 2010
Topic: What is Meditation?

dhirendra singh wrote: But those dialog happened between an enlightened and others, But here...

K encouraged dialogue not just with himself but among those who are interested in questioning to the end.

You chose "I don't know" for your tagline but it seems that you do know what people should say and how they should say it.

Forum: General Discussion Sun, 25 Jul 2010
Topic: What is Meditation?

dhirendra singh wrote: Let me laugh, insight coming into installment, Alas!

Do you realize that you are responding not with logic and reason to what has actually been said but only with mockery and personal attack? Aren't you interested in understanding why? Is that serious?

Forum: General Discussion Sun, 25 Jul 2010
Topic: What is Meditation?

dhirendra singh wrote: For same reason for which you are here, an escape, because of an addiction to think

You can only answer for yourself, not for me. That's not why I'm here.

Forum: General Discussion Sun, 25 Jul 2010
Topic: What is Meditation?

RICK LEIN wrote: Is it being coy,if one see's a pile of dog doo,is it being coy to step over it,instead of in it?

What does the pile of dog doo represent? What are you stepping over or avoiding? Why did you respond at all in post #30?