Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
Discussion Forums

Huguette . 's Forum Activity | 1443 posts in 3 forums


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?

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

dhirendra singh wrote: No, no! I don't know the other side;) But this side, the world of thought is familiar to me.

I don't understand. What is "the other side"?

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

dhirendra singh wrote: Where is logic? You mean it is possible to have some insight? Either it is or is not!

All I'm saying is it is not for you or anyone to judge or mock the validity of someone's questioning.

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

dhirendra singh wrote: I also don't understand "the other side", so how similar we are, you see, both don't know!

:-)

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

RICK LEIN wrote: well H, that's a ton of assuming is it not? Is referring to the author of the teachings for clarity,one admits to not having the ability to express,being coy,or merely a statement of honesty.

Rick, I too have trouble expressing what I see, what I feel. But I feel that it's important to try to express it, without any claim or assumption that it is expressed accurately, without any claim to seeing clearly. The expressing of it in itself may clarify what one sees, or what one seems to see.

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

Patricia Hemingway wrote: Ah Huguette - unfortunately logic has been, for the most part, dismissed on here. So of course there is only mockery and personal attack left, when debate and inquiry does not have its ground in pure - non-psychological - logic.

:-)

I see that Patricia. But change can happen. I'm not saying that it will, only that it can.

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

dhirendra singh wrote: I am only expressing my opinion. Do it disturb?;)

Obviously it does disturb. But that's ok. Disturbance is not to be avoided. Perhaps opinion is though.

:-)

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

RICK LEIN wrote: It is what it is,and seeing it for what it is,would you step in it,and if not,would that be because of being coy,or just common sense?

I understand what you're saying in terms of dog doo, but I don't see how it applies here. Sorry. We can leave it at that if you want to.

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

sunil jain wrote: If there is struggle involved in 'seeing' it is coming by interfering thoughts. I feel right 'seeing' means to see these thoughts also choicelessly and,as you say,not hold on to them. [...] That 'seeing' is not dependent on knowledge or memory but still it is intimately related to that, isn't this so ? Without the help of the two one will not be able to interact fruitfully with environment and not be able to foresee in to future for one's welfare. I feel time as past and future is not to be condemned always and effort has produced many important developments in our life. Can not 'seeing' take care of all that is wrong with psychological becoming ?

Of course time has its place. As I said above, it is essential. As I see it, without time, measure and knowledge, we could not live.

To my understanding as well, observation reveals when time, measure and knowledge are of a psychological nature, from which duality arises, and observation puts an end to it.

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

dhirendra singh wrote: Change has been happened, but there is need of insight to see it;)

Can you express that insight or is it to be blindly accepted?

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

RICK LEIN wrote: It may indeed,and if one feels the author's clarity on the issue at hand has the deepness,and fullness to meet the question in a complete manner,rather than confuse the issue?

Just to further clarify (or perhaps further confuse) I meant that expressing what one sees, putting it into words, may perhaps clarify what is seen for the one who is expressing, putting into words what he (or she) is seeing.

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

Patricia Hemingway wrote: Yes. In their place - in the technical - time, measure and knowledge are essential to life. As is memory. But out of place - in the psychological - memory, time, measure and knowledge creates comparison, competition, image-making, and general chaos. It really is that simple, as observation will reveal. Thank you Huguette. And welcome back.

It seems clear.

Thanks Patricia.

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

>>Huguette Milberg wrote: or is it to be blindly accepted? dhirendra singh wrote: But K sir said it, we all are discussing here on basis of K saying;)

According to what you have just said when I asked why you come here, you are here because of the addiction to intellectual entertainment and I'm here because I have imagined another reason for being here. Because your reason must be the only reason.

Now you say we are all here to discuss on the basis of what K said.

Are you trying to confuse me?

:-)

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

dhirendra singh wrote: But we only can talk about a common interest topic for intellectual entertainment. In K forum who will talk to me if I talk about mathematical formula, for talk a common topic is necessary

You're saying that a common interest is necessary for talking together yet you mocked someone who asked questions on "K topics" (not on mathematical formulas). Why?

And are you saying that talking about a common interest can only be a pastime for intellectual entertainment? Then why do you bring in insight and enlightenment? And, if it's only a matter of being entertained, why care if someone asks questions and why disapprove of the questions?

Forum: General Discussion Sat, 12 Jul 2014
Topic: The Observer Is The Observed (Another Look)

387

P Sylvan wrote: The illusion is that the observer is an entity independent of thought. As an entity independent of thought the observer does not exist and therefore does not act. What we assume to be the independent observer is in reality not different from thought. Thought as a material process can act. It is the seeing of the fact that the observer doesn’t exist as an independent reality apart from thought, that is the realization of the observer is the observed. The question that then arises is what sees all of this?

(This post is also in response to the thread, The Contents of Consciousness)

The thinking mind is so prone to self-deception that I think the question of what sees all of this is crucial. It seems to me that it is thought itself, the thinking mind, the brain, itself which can (and must) see the nature of self, the facts about self and itself, about division, see its own limitations, how minute is the scope of its activities and capabilities in the context of the totality of life. It can see that bringing about love, attention, awareness, harmony, compassion and intelligence is beyond its capabilities, and that the limitless universe can never be encapsulated by knowledge, governed by thought. Thought itself can see what it actually can and cannot do (e.g. it can solve technical problems but not problems of relationship). It can see that anger, fear, jealousy, desire arise without choice and once arisen, it sees that it cannot resolve them.

It can understand all this clinically, scientifically, factually, as it understands that the floor is dirty and has to be cleaned, that it’s safe to cross the street, that there are bacteria on my hands unseen to the naked eye or that there’s no food in the house.

As I see it, in this self-understanding, there is no division, no duality or fragmentation of thought; there is no observer who is observing, no thinker, controller, chooser, decider, no knower and so on, no compulsion, no fear, no desire, no greed or ambition. To me, this self-understanding is the sane, appropriate, functioning of thought, which is psychological order.

For the mind to see the pickle it is (I am) in, is of course still the movement of thought, but - as it seems to me - it is undivided thought, non dual. There is no “me” seeing it. It is the brain observing itself, learning about itself, seeing the futility of all its efforts, the nature of its desires, anger, fear, etc., of “me”, self, the thinker, the observer, the measurer, comparer, etc.

It seems to me that the thinking mind not only can but it MUST understand that there is no “I” separate from thought, that “I” cannot prevent, end or act on anger, fear etc, that "I" cannot change the world - neither bend others to my will, nor teach what I myself do not see. As long as the thinking mind doesn’t understand itself, “it is doomed”. As long as there is no self-understanding, thought’s endless pursuits must continue, wasting vital energy. No outside force can come to its rescue. But where thought sees its nature and limitations, then thought functions only where appropriate. Unless thought itself understands itself, its futile efforts must continue, and as long as its efforts continue, attention or awareness cannot act and there is no intelligence in relationship. Still, moments of inattention come and go.

"K: Oh yes, I can listen in darkness. If I can't I am doomed!" [quoted by Bodhavrathan M in #386]

Forum: General Discussion Sat, 12 Jul 2014
Topic: The Observer Is The Observed (Another Look)

Bodhavrathan M wrote: I question whether thought and awareness are mutually exclusive; awareness operates all the time as I see it, with variation in its intensity or sensitivity. if thought understanding itself is a possibility, it can happen only in the light of awareness it seems.

Peter in a different thread wrote about action from non-physical, if awareness is non-physical and thought is physical (or material) why can't they both co-exist? K spoke about mind and brain being different, mind being 'awareness' and brain being 'thought/physical'

If I gave the impression that in my view thought and awareness are mutually exclusive, it is just my difficulty in expressing what I mean. When I said above that "...as long as its efforts continue, attention or awareness cannot act and there is no intelligence in relationship", I meant that the efforts of thought obscure awareness, just as noise obscures silence. In fact, I see it that both noise and silence exist simultaneously; that noise is limited and silence is not, that thougt is limited and awareness is not.

Let me clarify about "thinking mind". The thinking mind for me means the brain functions of thought, which includes memory, image-making, reasoning, extrapolating, comparing, etc. K himself used the word "mind" differently in different contexts. At the same time, the brain ultimately regulates ALL bodily functions so that I feel that using "brain" in our enquiries can be misleading.

Forum: General Discussion Sun, 13 Jul 2014
Topic: The Observer Is The Observed (Another Look)

P Sylvan wrote: The question though, of what differentiates undivided thought from psychological thought remains unclear for me,

I agree that the difference between undivided and psychological thought is not always clear. On the other hand, doesn't it at times seem crystal clear? Where motive, desire, fear, anger, jealousy, ambition, pride, etc. are attached to thought, it seems clear to me that this is duality, that the self, the thinker, the “me” is “acting”, separating itself from “its” emotions, separating itself from “the other”, etc, separating itself from thought, creating conflict.

At those times where it is not clear, can thought, the thinking mind, stay with the uncertainty, without seeking the certainty of a conclusion, and still observe attentively?

Also, it seems to me, without being adamant, that part of undivided thought is the joy of thinking, just as part of bodily movement is the joy of movement. As I see it, there is no duality in this. The joyful movement of thinking, to me, also arises out of silence. I bring it up because thought has often been divided into 2 parts - technical and psychological - and outside of the category of technical, thought is seen as the enemy. To me, the way you have put it - undivided thought and psychological thought - is more appropriate. Of course, in all that is said, the word is not the thing.