Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
Discussion Forums

Huguette . 's Forum Activity | 1266 posts in 3 forums


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.

Forum: General Discussion Tue, 26 Aug 2014
Topic: QOTD 08-24-14

Tom Paine #1 "...would we be willing to give up all this high tech world we live in?"

I’ve been asking myself the same question with respect to pollution. We protest against the oil pipeline and the pollution of manufacturing and toxic products, but who is willing to forego the benefits of oil and gas, of manufacturing and technology?

And when we do have the high-paying, soul-sucking jobs, do we live a simple life? Do we enquire? Or do we squander our hard-earned earnings on large risky homes, expensive furnishings, rv’s and cars, gambling, cruises and travel, steaks and alcohol, smart phones and 50” tv’s, baseball games, plastic surgery, designer clothes, and so on? Do we then ever pause and consider the meaning of life and enquire whether there is another way for humanity to live?

When we again find another high-paying job, does that restore our spirits completely? Do we now pause and consider life? Are we now filled with joy, peace, tranquility, or are we always still wanting more and more?

Wherever I have the energy to bemoan my situation - which certainly can’t bring about change - that energy can be used to face life as it is, to enquire calmly. The facts that are faced must be the actual facts of my life, not hypothetical. If I lose my job, that is the fact I am faced with. If my neighbour loses his job, that is not what I am directly faced with. That doesn’t mean that I’m insensitive to my neighbour’s plight. I give him a hand. But do I invite him and his family to move into my home, extend my own family? I do what I can for my neighbour, next door or faraway.

I know that life can be cruel, brutal. When my children are hungry or sick, I give my whole being, all my energy to caring for them. In that, there is no hesitation, no choice, no bemoaning, no conflict. In this context, I joyfully do brutal work to care for them. And caring for my children doesn't mean squandering my earnings on silly desires.

In the end, when we are no longer driven by fear, comparison and desire, when there is self-understanding, society "fixes" itself. So that we/I don't have to figure out "how" to do it. That "fixing" can be seen in one-on-one relationship and, by extension, in the network of relationships that is society. That is the action of love, intelligence, insight. So it seems to me.

Forum: General Discussion Tue, 26 Aug 2014
Topic: QOTD 08-24-14

I’m not justifying the company owners and capitalists and their underlings who brutalize others to satisfy their own greed. What makes me a brute is not doing back-breaking work but treating others brutally.

Certainly the body is weakened and damaged by doing brutal work but, to me, I still say you can do it joyfully to keep your children fed. Many have also given up their lives on the spot to save loved ones, even strangers.

My question was, do we only begin to question the meaning of life when we find ourselves in dire circumstances. And when we do find ourselves in dire circumstances, can we not preserve energy by not bemoaning our fate?

Forum: General Discussion Wed, 27 Aug 2014
Topic: QOTD 08-24-14

There’s no question that, given the chance to earn a decent living through gentle means, that’s what people gravitate to. I know what it’s like to work through physical and mental exhaustion because I could see no other way. My kids never went hungry thank God. They always had clean clothes, medical attention and a roof over their head. There’s joy in that. It could have turned out much worse in spite of my hard work, as it does for millions of human beings who must endure seeing their kids hungry, thirsty, sick, ragged, homeless, bullied, mistreated, dying. For sure, there’s no joy in that.

Do we know, are we aware, whether we are working for essentials or to acquire desired pleasures? Are we aware whether we’re interested in self-understanding or whether we just want someone to tell us how to be happy in 6 easy steps?

Again, my question is this: If one gravitates to the bar after work, or some other such energy-sapping activity, can one still not observe oneself, learn about oneself, see the contradictions and conflicts one habitually closes one’s eyes to? On the assembly line or working the oil rigs, workers do have vacations, days off, unlike those working below minimum wage, without any benefits, in toxic environments without protective gear, and without earning enough even to buy enough food, etc.

Extremely hard work might kill you but I think that it is bemoaning itself, psychological resistance, that leads to psychological imbalance.

I’m not trying to convince you of anything. Maybe I’m wrong.

Forum: General Discussion Wed, 27 Aug 2014
Topic: QOTD 08-24-14

Tom Paine wrote (#35): Since most of us are 'psychologically unbalanced' in one way or another...or in many ways... there are obviously many contributing factors, conditioning being the predominant one that's at the root. Even those who work at well paid jobs which they enjoy and do not 'bemoan' may be heavily conditioned and quite 'unbalanced'. It may not be obvious to the casual observer. They may seem happy on the surface, but may be still full of inner conflict and contradiction and may be suffering a lot without even being conscious of it, since stress and conflict is often taken as the norm.

Yes, I also see it that we are all psychologically unbalanced to some degree and that conditioning is the root of psychological imbalance. Conditioning engenders the expectations of what life should be, feelings of entitlement or unworthiness, of self-importance and self-denigration, and so on, which leads to a sense of separation and isolation, duality, conflict. I also see it that those who seem to be happy may be full of inner conflict; and it is not the professed happiness but the inner conflict which permeates relationship. So self-observation is crucial.

I think you may have misunderstood me in some respects, perhaps skimmed over certain parts of what I wrote. I definitely don’t say that one should or must accept brutal work conditions joyfully but that there are instances where it can be done joyfully, without resentment. And I don’t feel that the capitalists and their underlings are justified in creating brutal work conditions.

Forum: General Discussion Wed, 27 Aug 2014
Topic: QOTD 08-24-14

pavani rao wrote: Well if some one do not know what do they want and why do they act the way they do , and if not they are searching for tips for happiness , they are building walls of tremendous resistance and waging a war against themselves ( one fragment fighting with another )

Hi Pavani,

Yes, I see what you mean. To me, this lack of self-understanding is the meaning of "the word is not the thing" ("the word" being a single word or any cohesive combination of words - any thought). I may believe that I am a relaxed, calm person but in fact am merely ignoring or masking the fact of my agitation; I may believe that I'm not angry, jealous, greedy, envious, afraid, and so on, while ignoring or masking the fact of the inner conflict that contradicts this. As Tom Paine also said, one may appear happy on the surface and still be in turmoil inwardly. This inner turmoil is what acts in relationship, not my self-image. So the need for vigilant self-observation is clear.

Forum: General Discussion Thu, 28 Aug 2014
Topic: The thinker is the thought

mike christani wrote: #7 ...the quote was: "Watching the thoughts that arise and then fade away, thought after thought, thought itself is becoming aware of itself. There is no thinker watching the thought, the thinker is the thought." It struck me as a profound statement, and I thought deeply on it, and suddenly saw it for an instant. Then it left me. Perhaps, if it struck deep enough, I might see it again, but I hesitate to force things mentally. I'm 'spooked' about trying to force an insight.

What does it mean that “I hesitate to force things mentally”? Is it that “I” am afraid to do the wrong thing? Is it that “I” think that I should make an effort to repress the spontaneous impulse to understand something? Is it that I am lost?

It seems to me that there’s value in “watching a thought to the end”, not because I should but because there’s a flame burning to find something out, a flame that thought has not put together, a flame that nothing it seems can extinguish.

On the other hand, when there is insight, can it be “released” immediately and not stored in memory? The living flame of discontent still burns.

Then do I find myself damned if I do and damned if I don’t, can’t move forward, can’t move back, and can the thinking mind do anything but simply observe its own movements - confusion, depression, conflict, fear, etc.? And life unfolds, the sun does come out from the clouds, and storms do come.

Forum: General Discussion Thu, 28 Aug 2014
Topic: The thinker is the thought

mike christani wrote: #7 ...the quote was: "Watching the thoughts that arise and then fade away, thought after thought, thought itself is becoming aware of itself. There is no thinker watching the thought, the thinker is the thought." It struck me as a profound statement, and I thought deeply on it, and suddenly saw it for an instant. Then it left me. Perhaps, if it struck deep enough, I might see it again, but I hesitate to force things mentally. I'm 'spooked' about trying to force an insight.

What does it mean that “I hesitate to force things mentally”? Is it that “I” am afraid to do the wrong thing? Is it that “I” think that I should make an effort to repress the spontaneous impulse to understand something? Is it that I am lost?

It seems to me that there’s value in “watching a thought to the end”, not because I should but because there’s a flame burning to find something out, a flame that thought has not put together, a flame that nothing it seems can extinguish.

On the other hand, when there is insight, can it be “released” immediately and not stored in memory? The living flame of discontent still burns.

Then do I find myself damned if I do and damned if I don’t, can’t move forward, can’t move back, and can the thinking mind do anything but simply observe its own movements - confusion, depression, conflict, fear, etc.? And life unfolds, the sun does come out from the clouds, and storms do come.

Forum: General Discussion Sun, 14 Sep 2014
Topic: Many meanings of "awareness"

max greene wrote: #127 awareness creates memory

Max, K said, "It is the function of the brain to record", which makes sense to me.

I'm not sure of anything but it seems to me that to say that awareness "creates" memory is to imply that awareness itself thinks, evaluates, chooses, decides. As I see it, memory/thought functions mechanistically. Awareness does not. For example, when a motion sensor detects motion, the light turns on. It is the mechanism operating. There is no awareness in such movement. There is no possible relationship to love and intelligence in a mechanism.

It seems to me that awareness is the open door which allows love/intelligence to come in; and self, in its quest for security, is the door which blocks love and intelligence.

Forum: General Discussion Tue, 16 Sep 2014
Topic: Many meanings of "awareness"

max greene wrote (#136): But as Falco points out in quoting Krishnamurti, "Even facts are not remembered unless there is a basis of avoidance or gain."

My understanding of this is that “remembered” here refers to the psychological recall of a past experience or fact. What makes it psychological is that it is attached to an emotion, and is not a factual, dispassionate remembrance. It is not remembered like a PIN to which there is no emotional attachment. It involves effort, desire, intention, will - in short, “self”. Self (thought) determines the avoidance or gain it desires and, being thwarted, unable to end the hurt or fear which forms the basis for avoidance or gain, it repeatedly gnaws on the memory. As I see it, such memory is related to a psychological wound (or mark) left by an unresolved issue; and it is this unresolved issue which causes a falsely perceived but doggedly pursued “basis of avoidance or gain” and keeps the memory in the forefront.

Clearly, memory which is factual, dispassionate, does not cause hurt, anxiety, conceit, conflict or division; it is recorded in the brain but causes no travail. Besides all the "neutral" memories, I can also now recall something which once caused much anxiety, pride or fear but which has been resolved so that there is now no emotion attached to the memory. Such memory does not actually "disappear" from the brain but there is now no avoidance or gain attached to it. It is unloaded, defused. Therefore, it does not come to the surface and cause hurt.

There is movement of memory-thought (self and not-self) and there is awareness of this, together with awareness of all sensory input as well as awareness that is the expression of life itself - which is the same awareness.

Forum: General Discussion Tue, 16 Sep 2014
Topic: Many meanings of "awareness"

max greene wrote (#162): Memory always has the rememberer, the one for whom the memory is held, the one who needs the memory.

Memory held for physical needs is essential to our existence, but memory held for psychological reasons is a dangerous waste. But there aren't two memories. It is all just memory.

When there is no rememberer involved, when there is no "I," either physical or psychological involved, then there is no memory formed. There is just the awareness of the moment and then awareness moves on, living always in the reality of the moment.

To me, “avoidance of hurt or gain of advantage” denotes emotion - desire, fear, ambition, anger, etc. - which is self. When I use my PIN, or do my laundry, memory usually functions without involving desire (emotion) or projecting time, i.e. without the rememberer. If, as we said, "It is the function of the brain to record", it follows that it is also a function of the brain to remember. So, as I see it, the rememberer is NOT there every time something is remembered. Also considering that it is a function of the brain to record, it seems a contradiction to me to say that no memory is formed when there is no “I”. Without self, the human being can live but he (she) can’t without memory.

Forum: General Discussion Sun, 21 Sep 2014
Topic: Many meanings of "awareness"

As I see it, "sensing" is a physical process and awareness is not. A mental process is also a physical, material, process. Through awareness, there is understanding, beauty, love, intelligence. This is complete action .... there is no scar, no mark, no residue, nothing to be carried or mulled over "later". "Complete action" also meaning there is no fragmentation - no effort, will, desire.

Forum: General Discussion Mon, 22 Sep 2014
Topic: Many meanings of "awareness"

max greene wrote (#276): Yes, sensing is a physical thing, but is it a process? Sensing is instantaneous, immediate. You either sense or you don't.

All sensing, whether of the five physical senses or through any other medium, is awareness, in my view. Sensing requires contact, in one form or another. Unless there is contact, one doesn't sense. And contact is unity: at the moment of sensing, there is one with what is sensed. Separation, identification, naming and description comes after.

I'm not a scientist and I'm not interested, for the sake of discussion, in studying the processes of sight, hearing, etc. Sensing seems like a process to me, and I also regard thought as a sensory perception.

The sensory mechanisms and processes are certainly very fast and seem immediate but I suspect there is a delay between contact and perception. Yes, you sense or you don't, but the quality or experiencing of a sensory perception, to me, seems determined by how well these mechanisms and processes function. I mean that one can see well or poorly or not at all, and having eyes is not sufficient for visual perception.

Awareness, to me,is not mechanical. It is unconditional, unrelated to time and is not attached to function; it does not interpret or have direction. Is life more than sensing, or not?

Forum: General Discussion Mon, 22 Sep 2014
Topic: Many meanings of "awareness"

Falco Peregrinus wrote: Huguette . wrote:

Is life more than sensing, or not? Huguette, I am afraid the answer is 'no', as I see. All life is meeting and relationship, there is no living as an 'isolated' entity and 'sensing' is that which connects us with the outer world so long as we are limited by physical boundaries.

The question is whether there is an awareness OF sensing? an understanding of what sensing (working in conjunction with consciousness) implies?

Are love, beauty, joy, understanding, intelligence a matter of sensing? Maybe to you they are. To me, they are not.

Forum: General Discussion Mon, 22 Sep 2014
Topic: Many meanings of "awareness"

Falco Peregrinus wrote: The question is whether there is an awareness OF sensing? an understanding of what sensing (working in conjunction with consciousness) implies?

Awareness is not just with respect to sensing. A motion detector senses motion. It has no awareness, no life. Take away all sensation, and there is still awareness.