Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
Discussion Forums

Jan Kasol's Forum Activity | 101 posts in 1 forum


Forum: Experimenter's Corner Fri, 25 Nov 2016
Topic: What are actually the K-Teachings ?

This what K says in your last post is analogous to what I have been saying with the mirror. Mind can be compared to a mirror, thinking process and the observer stain the mirror. Or mind can be compared to a pond. Thought and the observer create ripples in the pond. The silence or quiteness means that the pond is not disturbed by the self-centred thought process anymore .

The observer is a resistance, is an effort, is past reacting to the present, making choice based on conditioning and projectiong to the future. The observer exists withing the field of choice, within the field of dualities. Every duality carries within itself the seed of its own opposite. Your very thinking creates everything, creates opposites, creates choice, creates suffering, creates loneliness, creates pleasure. Every thought is a cage of conditining based on choice. Thought is not free, every thought is limited, thought is based on duality, on comparisons, on contrasts - comparing this and that, making choice, measuring this and that. Only when the whole observer is understood, can there be silence, can the process of choice, comparison and measurement be silenced. And in this silence, there is nothingness. But it is a miraculous nothingness, because that nothingness is alive, is timeless, is limitless, out of it everything is borne and to it everything returns, life and death united in eternal creation. This miraculous nothingness is the only permanent thing in life, is the only eternity, is the root of all existence. It is perfect, nothing can be taken from it and nothing can be added to it. This nothingness is the pond, is the mirror. This nothingness is Life. When the scar, the resistance in the form of the observer, is disolved, there is only creation of Life in nothingness.

The observer is very tricky to understand. His very effort to grasp the K teachings is a process of envy, of comparing myself (the unenlightened) to K (the enlightened), thus the process of opposites, of comparison, of choice, of envy is borne. I want this (what K had) and I do not want that.(what I have). The K teachings has very little value. There is no partial understanding or partial insight, such things are self-delusions of pride. Either there is light or there is darkness. The observer is the darkness. There is no way to practice K teachings, because every kind of practicing is the cultivation of envy. The very reading of K teachings conditions the mind in a particular pattern and starts the process of comparison, of choice, of envy. The only thing that matters is: understand yourself, understand the observer, understand the process of thought, the process of choice, of desire. Only by learning how the mind deceives itself, how it creates its own prison tiled by opposites, how the ego is created by thought identifying itself. The ego is prison and its walls are decorated by what it has accumulated, by what it has identified itself with. Only by understanding acquisitiveness, desire, every motive that drives us, can we be free. Freedom is not a choice. Freedom is the spontaneity of living in the active present. Freedom is freedom from thought, thought creates choice, thought creates opposites, thought measures, compares, thought creates the observer, thought is the acquisitiveness, thought is the limitation. Pleasure and suffering exists withing the realms of duality, the realm of thought. Everything is in us, it cannot be found anywhere external to us. The very searching is running away from it, creating ripples on the pond...

That was my meditation :-)

Forum: Experimenter's Corner Sat, 03 Dec 2016
Topic: What are actually the K-Teachings ?

These are clear and insightful discussions with K. I would emphasize the relative nature of thought compared to the Absolute, the nothingness. The Absolute is not the opposite of the relative. Thought is always relative, which means trapped in a corridor of opposites. I am unhappy, I want to be happy. I am lonely, I want to be loved. I am in conflict, I want peace. I am in darkness, I want to be enlightened. All the opposites carry within themselves their own opposites. And any "absolute" or "god" or "nothingness" that you conceive as being opposed to something else is a creation of thought. Thought always measures, compares, creates opposites, creates choices such as the better and the worse, the dumb and the wise, the bound and the free, the enlightened and the unenlightened. Thought moves in this corridor of the opposites, always moving from one opposite to the other, always chosing one opposite over another, all its effort is within this corridor. But the Absolute, or the silence, or the nothingness is not an opposite of anything. Every choice, every effort, every thought, every movement is still within this corridor and is limited. Only when the mind understands its total movement and sees its limitation, can it crumble upon itself and enter into silence, can it become Nothing. This Nothingness is not negative at all, it is the source of everything. The observer is a cloud of darkness. All his effort is the darkness. The darkness is the corridor of the opposites created by thought. It is the prison in which we are trapped. And freedom is not the opposite of the prison.

http://www.jiddu-krishnamurti.net/en/1945-1948-...

Forum: Experimenter's Corner Sat, 03 Dec 2016
Topic: What are actually the K-Teachings ?

Thanks for your words, John. It is interesting that you always add to Krishnamurti. When I have been doing some editing in the past (for my personal purposes), I always subtracted, i.e. I tried to delete all those sentences that I either did not consider essential, or that were self-obvious or were endlessly repeated by K so that they became somewhat "Krishnamurti clichés" (such as "you are the world"). In the past (when I had more time), I did some translating of K into Czech language. Now I lack the time and also motivation.

The language barrier is always a problem, especially when describing things like "nothingness" or "absolute". Nothingness is an especially nice word. You cannot become nothing, because if you became that, you would be something. Likewise, you cannot understand nothing, you cannot grasp nothing. You cannot know nothing, because if you knew anything, you would know something. Silence is also a nice word. If you try to do anything about it, you are disturbing the silence. But these words are only pointers, only analogies. It is up to each of one us to discover their meaning for himself. The discovering of their meaning is meditation.

Forum: Experimenter's Corner Wed, 07 Dec 2016
Topic: What are actually the K-Teachings ?

Daniel Paul. wrote: Yes it is of transformational nature, I would add as a side effect so not as a goal, for me. Again "for me", thought has not the ability to find out the real causes of any suffering-sorrow, this is what my 40 years experience on it says with a 100% ratio

self-understanding is not of transformational nature. There is nothing to transform. All (seeming) change is only superficial exchange of garments of conditioning. It is still within the same old pattern of thought. Truth lies in a completely different direction, if you break away from the pattern of thought. And suffering is within the pattern, it is created by thought. Suffering is the other side of the coin of acquisitiveness. They both are the threads by which the pattern is woven. Any search by thought for the cause of suffering is escaping from suffering and does not solve the cause, rather it strengtens the suffering. You need to see that thought is creating suffering. By you very thinking that you suffer you suffer, by your very thinking of being lonely you are lonely. Suffering is only you self-image of you suffering, observer creating the illusion of being different from suffering. You need to see it in the now, not in the past, not in the future, a not create another escape from the "seeing" Remember K when he says "no accepting, no condemning". This attitude is the key and is very difficult to understand. Why should you accept anything, why should you condemn anything? Accepting and condemning are based on choice, on conditioning, they are the observer which is past...

Forum: Experimenter's Corner Fri, 03 Feb 2017
Topic: Tell it like it is

I have no problem with the statement, that "truth" cannot be experienced. Only the ego, the experiencer, can experience something. To experience something means to recognize it, to bring it to your frame of reference (of memory). The truth is, when the ego is not, when it dies, when there is silence, when there is peace. Truth cannot be understood, grasped, experienced, possessed, accumulated etc. Every experience is conditioned by the past. And truth is the unconditioning of the mind. You constantly want to experience enlightenment. But how do you know that it is enlightenment, that you are experiencing, if not by comparing it with past experience? And if you compare it, you are certainly out of it. The center of comparison, of accumulation, of desire, of greed, of fear has to be done with first. Only this center experiences, gathers, recognizes. Truth is always new, never old. What you recognize, experience, is already old.

Forum: Experimenter's Corner Mon, 27 Feb 2017
Topic: J. K. & T. Metzinger: upcoming KFA "Reflections on the Self"

Hi, awesome! Thanks a lot for posting this and thanks John Raica for letting me know about it. I like these early talks because they are fresh and K was not yet afraid to talk about the more mystical parts of his teachings (later he avoided that for fear of being misunderstood)

I've known Life & Individuality for years and I always wondered where it could be possible to obtain the whole talks, ie. not just the thematic excerpts. Now I have some reading to do. The only pity is that those are pdf files and I cannot easily upload them to my Kindle. Thanks again,

best Jan

Forum: Experimenter's Corner Mon, 27 Feb 2017
Topic: J. K. & T. Metzinger: upcoming KFA "Reflections on the Self"

Thanks Dennis, I tried it and it somewhat worked but the output was another pdf file (rescaled for Kindle). This website did a superior job http://pdf2mobi.com/

Forum: Experimenter's Corner Tue, 28 Feb 2017
Topic: What are actually the K-Teachings ?

This discussion about AI is interesting. Memory and thought are mechanical. But the prediction that machine AI will overcome human intelligence in 20 years (that was 1980's) was overly optimistic and frankly ridiculous. Even now there are some scientists who claim that in 20-30 years we will have a human-level machine AI. They mostly have a computer science background and know little about human brain or psychology. It will probably take hundreds of years till the machines approach human intelligence, maybe never. While the computer AI may perform at some narrow tasks better than human intelligence (like playing chess), it is not flexible at all. It is a rigid program and does not come even close to the plasticity and flexibility of human brain.

Forum: Experimenter's Corner Tue, 28 Feb 2017
Topic: What are actually the K-Teachings ?

if we wanted to create an artificial intelligence similar to humans, we would need to program it with similar instincts such as self-preservation, inquisitiveness, the drive to acquire information, some mechanism to cope with conflicting information, conflicting drives. Otherwise the machine would have no personality, no individuality. The personality is the ego, the memories, the fears, the possessions. The computer guys working on AI do not realize this and how difficult it would be to programm something like that. Unless the machine had no memories, no sense of identity, no personality, it could not be conscious of itself as separate from the world and others, it would not be conscious. As K says, this sense of individuality, of separateness, egotism, is the basis of counsciousness. This consciousness is limitation, separateness, resistance, conflict. But K says that this consiousness, this resistance, can be transcended, that peace is beyond that. When you have no resistance whatsoever, you are in peace. Freedom is the lack of resistance. Would the artificial intelligence have the capacity to enlightenment?

Forum: Experimenter's Corner Thu, 02 Mar 2017
Topic: Are we actually machines?

I understand under the word "mechanical" that a thing is functioning according to deterministic mechanisms. According to K, thought is mechanical, it is a reaction

psychological reaction = f(stimuli, conditioning through previous experience), where f is some complicated fuction

Yes, Descartes considered the whole universe as a deterministic machine, although he believed human soul to be exempt out of the mechanism, otherwise free will could not exist. Since the discovery of quantum mechanics, we know that things are not that simple, because uncertainty and randomness are fundamentally part of the physical reality. What quantum mechanics means for the human mind is an open question. Penrose believes that human brain is a huge quantum computer, other scientists are more skeptical.

There is even an interesting theorem linking quantum randomness to free will, proposed by the Brittish mathematician Conway https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will_theorem

this is the best diagram of the human souls that scientists have been able to come up so far http://i.imgur.com/5Flh68G.gif?noredirect

Forum: Experimenter's Corner Fri, 03 Mar 2017
Topic: Are we actually machines?

Paul David son wrote: The mind that predicts is also engaged in thought, which we are told is marked by mechanicism and is predictable. So we enter a circle. How to get out of the circle, which is itself a product of mind? If the mind is not quite predictable, then the circle is a temporary phenomenon which ends as the conditions for its arising cease.

Our minds are machines composed of the reactions of memory. We are our memory. Our whole identity (our "me") is memory. We exist only as a product of thought, of memory. The circle you are talking about is the circle of memory. Whatever effort you are making, whatever you are longing after, whatever you are fearing, is a product of your memory, of thought. Thought is a reaction of memory to a challange. We encounter a challenge, the memory as our thought is searching for an answer. This whole process is purely mechanical, is purely material, is a product of our brains which are biochemical machines. This brain can function only within the circle of its memory, of the "known". The brain is material, is a machine.

Ask youself what or who you are? You are a product of your biology + enviroment. Is there something in you which is not a product of environement? Your language comes from society, you notions of the world come from without, you were programmed, conditioned by society, by previous experience, by your inherited instincts. Various roles in life have been imposed upon you, you are a father, brother, you have your profession, your name, your opinions, your likes and dislikes, you have your beliefs, your religions, your political attitudes, your experiences, your education. All of that is your conditioning. All of that is the circle in which your thought is moving and which it cannot escape. Your whole identity is just a product of thought and memory. Your built your identity, your "I", as a bird builds its nest from small twigs, you built if from your memories.

And Krishnamurti is asking: can you break away from this circle? Obviously, you cannot do it by will, by effort, by premeditation, by speculation, because all of that is still within the circle, is still conditioned by memory. Your whole identity, you every effort, your every thought, your every attachment, every pleasure, every fear, is still within the circle. You cannot experience that state outside of the circle, because by bringing that state outside of the circle down to the circle, you would corrupt it, you would bind it. Than what is that state? Maybe it is your natural state. Maybe your very reaching for it is destroying it, your trying to come to it is running away from it, your trying to understand it is muddling it. You do not need to search for that which has always been with you. You are free. Freedom is your fundamental state. By being caught in the circle (of memory, maya, samsara) you lose that freedom. This state of pure being, pure energy, pure life, pure freedom, is immaterial. It is the heart, the inner self of everything and everyone. It is Life. It is indesctructible, it is immortal. But to come to it, you have to liberate it within yourself, you have to abandon the circle of ego, of selfishness, of ingorance, of memory. This circle is purely mechanical, composed of reactions of memory, which are old, conditioned, never free. What is it that holds us within the circle, what prevents us from escaping it? The prison is fully self-created. Once the mind understands that, it is free.

Forum: Experimenter's Corner Fri, 03 Mar 2017
Topic: Are we actually machines?

and we have such a fitting and beautiful quote today:

"What is the nature of the enclosing wall around you, which gives you psychological protection in relation to your neighbour, your wife and your society? The wall you build around yourself psychologically consists of the values you give to things made either by the hand or by the mind, i.e. of your ideation. These values are merely the outcome of the pleasure or the pain felt by you through your senses, i.e. the outcome of sensory values. They have no substance behind them except the significance or value you give them. In protecting yourself outwardly, you say you can use the outward things to protect you inwardly. You can use property as a means of psychological protection. Property in itself is just a piece of land which can give you food; you give that property a significance which it has not, and with that significance you protect yourself."

The enclosing wall around us is self-created. We create the wall by giving psychological value to things, people, theories. The values are merely the outcome of pleasure and pain. Once we understand this, we realize that only we have the key to our freedom. We build this wall and only we can tear it down. Once we master our own minds, we are free.

Forum: Experimenter's Corner Wed, 08 Mar 2017
Topic: Are we actually machines?

Paul David son wrote: Awareness seems to be a quality inherent in all life, Jess, from the early prokaryotes on. Every cell of your body has some degree of awareness.

That depends on how you define awareness. Microbes are certainly living organisms, they perceive environment, they react to environment. But are they self-aware? Most certainly not. Self-awaraness comes with higher animals - primates, maybe some birds. If you own a dog or cat, is it self-aware? I has some rudiments, some elements of human consciousness, but still primitive to be fully self-aware, as humans are. Here is a list of animals that show self-awareness http://www.animalcognition.org/2015/04/15/list-... Microbes (or cells) are miraculous self-replicating nano-machines.

Forum: Experimenter's Corner Wed, 08 Mar 2017
Topic: Are we actually machines?

Paul David son wrote: Is awareness material? Even in calling it an 'it' one has detracted from it. Awareness is an aspect of mind and mind is an activity of living matter, namely, the biological entity. One can name the aspect 'awareness' but the moment awareness is thought of as a thing-in-itself one has isolated it and killed it. It is something like taking a watch to pieces and looking for the movement, if you will excuse the rather lumpen analogy.

it is a good analogy. It reminds me of a short story by Franz Kafka:

A certain philosopher used to hang about wherever children were at play. And whenever he saw a boy with a top, he would lie in wait. As soon as the top began to spin the philosopher went in pursuit and tried to catch it. He was not perturbed when the children noisily protested and tried to keep him away from their toy; so long as he could catch the top while it was spinning, he was happy, but only for a moment; then he threw it to the ground and walked away. For he believed that the understanding of any detail, that of a spinning top, for instance, was sufficient for the understanding of all things. For this reason he did not busy himself with great problems, it seemed to him uneconomical. Once the smallest detail was understood, then everything was understood, which was why he busied himself only with the spinning top. And whenever preparations were being made for the spinning of the top, he hoped that this time it would succeed: as soon as the top began to spin and he was running breathlessly after it, the hope would turn to certainty, but when he held the silly piece of wood in his hand, he felt nauseated. The screaming of the children, which hitherto he had not heard, and which now suddenly pierced his ears, chased him away, and he tottered like a top under a clumsy whip.

I am a neuroscientist and I feel exactly like the poor philopher. The nature of consciousness, of awareness, of qualia is still one of the open unsolved problems of science. http://philosophyfaculty.ucsd.edu/faculty/rarne...

Concerning Krishnamurti, from what I gathered, I think he believed there is a transitory and a permanent part in the human consciousness. The transitory is thought, memory, ego - all of these process are material processes in the brain. But then there is an immaterial spark within the mind. This immaterial spark is immortal, free, unconditioned, god-like. Every living thing possesses this divine spark. In man it is clouded, obscured by the ego, by thought, by emotions etc. But by purifying your own mind, you can realize this spark within yourself (K would not word it this way for fear of creating a belief, a philosophy, but his early writings show that clearly). Our consciousness has various experinces of joy, fear, pleasure, loneliness, longing, is conditined by its environment, but during all its states one thing is constant - the spark, it is always present. So when you transcend all experiences, when you free yourself from all cages of thought, you realize this spark and you are free. And this spark is not your particular spark. This spark exists in everyone and everything and it is the same spark, it is impersonal. You can call it Life or God or Truth. This cannot be proved by science, it can only be experienced. So when Krishanmurti says that we are the world, or we are humankind, I believe he means, that we are all animated by the same spark. But in each one of us the spark is limited, conditioned by different circumstances.

Forum: Experimenter's Corner Wed, 08 Mar 2017
Topic: Are we actually machines?

Paul David son wrote: I don't know. I never heard him talk about realizing the spark, in any form or formulation. Can you point to one?

sure http://www.incoincident.com/selected1.pdf at page 18 he speaks about the transitory and permanent. The divine spark is not transitory and is not of the ego. Ego is transitory.

Forum: Experimenter's Corner Thu, 09 Mar 2017
Topic: Are we actually machines?

Paul David son wrote: Right. That was in 1929. He never spoke of the permanent and transitory I after that

he spoke about it all the time, only he was more careful with the wording. Here a randomly picked talk from the 1950's. http://www.jiddu-krishnamurti.net/en/1952/1952-... he speaks about that, which is of time (= transitory) and then about that which is timeless (permanent). And he repeated that till his death. There is the process of time (=transitory) and the there is the timeless, eternal, free (=permanent). K's teaching is the same from 1927 through to 1985

Forum: Experimenter's Corner Thu, 09 Mar 2017
Topic: Are we actually machines?

Paul, there is no contradiction. The (seeming) contradiction comes through the limitations of language and words. The nature of that state (spark) is nothingness. When you yourself become nothing (tear down the self-protective walls around you), you will experince freedom, because if you are nothing, you cannot be bound by anything. There is no spark within the ego (which is just a product of memory), the ego cannot identify with a spark (that would be just an illusion of thought), but when the clouds of he ego disperse, there is a spark, which is not a spark (that is just a word). You cannot put it into words, hence such difficult concepts as Truth, Nothingness, Timelessness, Eternity, Freedom. These are all just names which are inadequate. Read Tao Te Ching how full of paradoxical statements it is in its attempt to describe the Absolute.

Really, this speculation has no meaning. Understanding oneself and puting one's own life into order are the things that matter. You cannot build a house from the rooftop, you need to start from the grounds. If you build these grouds sound, then the spark may reveal itself, but if you speculate first without having build the grounds, you are creating illusion.

Forum: Experimenter's Corner Sun, 12 Mar 2017
Topic: What are actually the K-Teachings ?

Concerning the topic of this thread, I was thinking what to me is the most important message of Krishnamurti and it would probably be this: We are fundamentally free and we alone are fully responsible for how we perceive, how we think, how we feel and how we act. We lose the freedom by being entangled in our dependecies, fears, wishes, beliefs, thoughts. And because we are fully responsible, only we can free ourself from these falsehoods. We are generally slaves to our mental states, we are driven by fears, by greed, by attachments, by our possessions. What we do not realize is that we do not have to be slaves of our mind, but we can become free in the now. For example if we (mentally) suffer, we are trapped in the suffering, we are slaves to it. But why do we suffer? Who forces us to suffer? Do we have to suffer? Or can we be free of it instantly, in the now? This message of the fundamental freedom of man and self-responsiblity for the states of our minds is for me the most important message of Krishnamurti. Buddha said something similar with his 4 noble truths: there is suffering and there is a way out of suffering. I was brought to this by reading the early talks

Krishnamurti in 1929 (same year as the dissolution of the order): "Every individual in the world, whatever his circumstances may be, is absolutely and entirely responsible to himself. In the self alone, therefore, lies the possibility, the power of freeing himself entirely, wholly, unconditionally from the entanglements, the corruption of imperfect love. He is the only person who can conquer his own weakness, who can master his own passions, who can control his own desires, and who is entirely responsible for his own ambitions. ....Knowing therefore the purpose of life, and knowing that the individual is entirely and absolutely responsible to himself, you overcome fear of any kind. It is fear that throttles, suffocates every human being. It is the phantom which follows every human being as a shadow, because he does not realise that for every action, and the result of that action, for every desire, and the fulfilment of that desire, he is wholly responsible. With that realisation fear of every kind disappears, because the individual is absolutely master of himself. When you have no fear you really begin to live. You live, not in the future nor in the past, neither hoping for salvation in the future nor looking to the dead past for your strength, but — because you have no fear — in that moment of eternity, which is NOW. It is NOW that matters, not the future nor the past. It is what you do, what you think, how you live and how you act NOW that has value. Truth is neither in the future nor in the past. The man who is not bound by fear lives entirely responsible to himself, concentrated in that moment which is NOW, which is eternity. For such a man there is neither birth nor death. Most people are afraid of death because they are afraid to live. They are more concerned about death than about how to live in the immediate moment, which is eternity, which is NOW"

Forum: Experimenter's Corner Sat, 01 Apr 2017
Topic: Are we actually machines?

Paul, I think that K differentiated between the mechanical (reaction of memory manifesting as will = the known) and the spontaneous, creative, unpremeditated (= the unknown). Se here http://www.jiddu-krishnamurti.net/en/1936-1944-...

the goal is to die to the known and experience the new, unpremeditated, creative.

Forum: Experimenter's Corner Tue, 04 Apr 2017
Topic: Are we actually machines?

Hi Dan, the "goal" is just a figure of speech. Everyone who has studied K knows (at least at the intellectual level) that you cannot make it a goal in time and then follow a path to that goal because "truth is a pathless land". The "method" how to find freedom is choiceless awareness of the known, of your own mind in operation. Choiceless awareness means awareness without a censor, without an observer who would be accepting, denying or making any effort. Censor, observer is fragmentation, one part of the consciousness trying to supress, change another part of the consciousness. The mind is an instrument of self-protection, it constantly tries to secure itself, defend itself, acquire certain qualities and discard other qualities. If you can choicelessly observe the whole movement of the mind, of the known (that is without escaping, without trying to alter or change it, deny it, supress it) then it will start break up from within, you will become free, but not by the effort of the will, by your own choice, by your acquisitiveness. This choiceless awareness comes only through self-knowledge, becoming aware of all your motives, of all the movements of your mind. And that is the difficult part. We are used to making an effort to achieve something. But freedom cannot be reached this way.

Forum: Experimenter's Corner Wed, 05 Apr 2017
Topic: Are we actually machines?

Paul David son wrote: It is interesting how many versions of 'mind' we can come up with. But please take care. If the mind is "an instrument of self-protection' this would seem to suggest that there is a separate self whose instrument is the mind. That is rather different from saying that the self arises as a protective measure within the mind. The latter would mean the 'self' is the issue while the former would suggest, as Jan goes on to say, that the mind itself has to break up in order that "you will become free."

as I see it (based on observation of my own mind), the mind is self-centred, always protecting something, some center, some me or mine, making plans for the me or mine, avoiding harm for the me or mine. Let us call it self-centered activity. This activity is composed of self-protective mechanisms (automatisms, reactions). For example someone criticizes me, the mind automatically jumps at the criticism and starts producing justifications, becomes angry at the critic or depressed etc. Or I imagine that I might lose my job, the mind produces fear, then searches for solutions. Or the mind sees someone successful, produces envy etc. It is always protecting the me, the mine.

Freedom is a state mind when the mind is not reacting, just choicelessly observing what is. Choiceless observation = total attention = observation without the observer. The observer (censor) is the self-protective reaction (he is the fear, the worry, the craving, the escape). The observer is always a fragment of consciousness that has separated itself from the rest of counsciousness, separated himself from the fear, from the craving etc, not realizing that he is the fear, the craving etc. Total attention = choiceless observation = observation without the observer is possible only when the observer ceases, i.e. when there is no fragment of counsciousness that tries to alter, supress, change other parts of consciousness. Then all conflict ceases.

All these self-centred, self-protective mechanisms, reactions which constitute our "self" are purely mechanical, based on previous conditioning. Freedom is freedom from self-protective reactions, then there is no me, no mine, because the me and the mine are these self-protective reactions. And it is not a negative state at all, it is freedom and it that freedom there is joy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05buQAWFab8

Forum: Experimenter's Corner Wed, 05 Apr 2017
Topic: Are we actually machines?

Paul David son wrote: Can you not give even one example of a non-self-centred movement of mind? Have you never shared a piece of bread with the hungry or given water to a quench someone's thirst?

maybe occasionally, people might not be self-centered, but most of the time they are. Read what Krishnamurti said about love. What is usually hidden behind the word love is search for security, grafitication https://www.scienceandnonduality.com/krishnamur...

"If you still want to find out, you will see that fear is not love, dependence is not love, jealousy is not love, possessiveness and domination are not love, responsibility and duty are not love, self-pity is not love, the agony of not being loved is not love, love is not the opposite of hate any more than humility is the opposite of vanity. If you can eliminate all these, not by forcing them but by washing them away as the rain washes the dust of many days from a leaf, then perhaps you will come upon this strange flower which man always hungers after."

Forum: Experimenter's Corner Sat, 08 Apr 2017
Topic: Are we actually machines?

Paul David son wrote: Does the word "mechanically" add anything to this observation?

No, it probably does not add much. What I think K was trying to convey with the word mechanical is something like this. If you hit your knee with a reflex hammer, it kicks, produces a reflex contraction of musles (just like a neurologist does). There is input, that is transmitted to the spine, and from the spine back to musles as output. It is a reflex bow, purely automatic, mechanical. The same reflexes exist in the brain. There is a challenge, then some reaction of memory to the challenge, and answer of the memory. This is also reflexive, automatic, mechanical. We are a set of reactions of memory to challenges.

Forum: Experimenter's Corner Tue, 11 Apr 2017
Topic: Are we actually machines?

Paul David son wrote: It raises the question, how can a mechanical process have any belief at all? Surely, only something that is actually alive can entertain any belief whatsoever?

I don't see why a machine (for example artificial intelligence) couldn't have beliefs (as programming). It could be programmed to believe that it is alive, it could be programmed to have a sense of self, it could be programmed with self-protective subroutines. According to materialism, humans are basically biological machines. There is not sharp distinction between living and mechanical

Paul David son wrote: So, what, if any, is the relation Jan is getting to by drawing in reflexes?

because the human nervous system evolved from these primitive reflexes. At first living organisms had just these primitive reflexes, reactions. Later the nerve system evolved and the neural reflexes were getting more and more complicated and more and more interneurons were inserted between the afferent and efferent neurons. Later, these interneurons learned how to store memories and evolved into brains.

You cling to a distinction between conditioned and unconditioned reflexes, but it is no big deal. Some reflexes are innate, other reflexes are gained further in life. Language is a learned reflex. Somebody says the word "death" and your mind reacts with a conditioned response that it has acquired and associated with the word "death". And so it is with any other word, or many other stimuli.

Forum: Experimenter's Corner Tue, 11 Apr 2017
Topic: Are we actually machines?

Tom Paine wrote: Can you elaborate on the part in bold? Why is the label 'fear' producing conflict? Or 'anger' or 'greed'...whatever? Is the label a judgement...a condemnation of the fear? We know it's 'fear' that I'm feeling and that it's 'bad'? or the 'anger' is 'wrong'? Not sure how you see that the reflex of labeling/naming causes conflict.

as I understand it. During the act of being "angry" or "greedy" or "fearful" there is no labeling. The labeling comes always afterwards, when the anger, greed or fear lead to conflict and pain. Then the observer replays the past in his mind and labels it as fear, or the observer replays some future scenario and labels it as fear.

Forum: Experimenter's Corner Tue, 11 Apr 2017
Topic: Are we actually machines?

Paul David son wrote: I'm sorry? Which "reflexes" are gained in life?

Have you never heard of Pavlov and his dogs?

Paul David son wrote: I have no doubt that everything that we do has some relation to reflex, at some level, but the development of the human brain has raised things to a qualitatively new level where the reflex action plays a minor role and even that, as a mere trigger, not a behavior-determining essence. You are, basically, parading a reductionist view.

no, I am not. I claim the same thing that you claim here. You are producing a strawman for the sake of arguing. For example, I never claimed, that these higher reflexes always lead to the same response (which you seem to be attacking). No, the response can vary based on time, on personality, on mood, on context etc. But the principle is the same, as with the more primitive reflexes. There is some trigger (a situation, a word etc), memory reacts to the trigger and produces a response. Let me quote K

"Krishnamurti: What is actually taking place in our lives? There is constant challenge and response. That is existence, that is life, is it not? - a constant challenge and response. The challenge is always new and the response is always old. I met you yesterday and you come to me today. You are different, you are modified, you have changed, you are new; but I have the picture of you as you were yesterday. Therefore I absorb the new into the old. I do not meet you anew but I have yesterday's picture of you, so my response to the challenge is always conditioned"

BTW, maybe you know Humberto Maturana? (an Argentinian biologist). He has written some very interesting texts about living systems, cognition, mind etc. It takes some getting used to his idiosyncratic language but it is worth the time http://topologicalmedialab.net/xinwei/classes/r...

Forum: Experimenter's Corner Tue, 11 Apr 2017
Topic: Are we actually machines?

Dan McDermott wrote: Maybe it could be said this way, the brain needs to feel secure and it believes it can only be secure in the 'known': 'my' anger, 'my' fear, 'my' jealousy etc. What has been suggested is that there really is no psychological security,and the creation of the 'center' , the 'me' and the 'mine' to bring it about, does not. So rather than 'holding on' to this way of being which causes so much sorrow and violence etc., is to allow the 'unknown'. And instead of the perpetual creation and maintenance of a limited center, a 'self', around which everything revolves, and through which everything is translated...let it be replaced with unlimited 'perception', a 'choiceless awareness'.

isn't this whole discussion, this whole effort to try to understand Krishnamurti, to distill some "truth" out of it, a self-protective mechanism of an acquisitive mind? We are trying to "capture" some theory of the human mind, because we feel that such theory would give us a shield, power, security. Are we aware of this? Truth can never be captured, possessed, gained, it can only be discovered from moment to moment. Instead of developping intelectual theories, we should try to be aware of ourselves. Intelect is just the surface, there are deeper layers of the mind, unconscious motives, unconscious fears, emotional wounds, loneliness. And then there are escapes from these things. Intellectual theories are one form of these escapes. Choiceless observation means the "seeing" of the whole structure of our mind, of all the motives, all the fears, lonelines, escapes, acquisitiveness. But the problem is that we are unaware of ourselves, we live on the surface of our minds.

"With the complete ending of this power, with its confusion, conflict and sorrow, each one faces what he is, a bundle of memories and deepening loneliness. The desire for power and success are an escape from this loneliness and the ashes which are memories. To go beyond, one has to see them, face them, not avoid them in any way, by condemning or through fear of what is. Fear arises only in the very act of running away from the fact, the what is. One must completely and utterly, voluntarily and easily put aside power and success and then in facing, seeing, being passively aware, without choice, the ashes and loneliness have a wholly different significance. To live with something is to love it, not to be attached. To live with the ashes of loneliness there must be great energy and this energy comes when there is no longer fear. When you have gone through this loneliness, as you would go through a physical door, then you will realize that you and the loneliness are one, you are not the observer watching that feeling which is beyond the word. You are that. And you cannot get away from it as you did before in many subtle ways. You are that loneliness; there is no way to avoid it and nothing can cover it or fill it. Then only are you living with it; it is part of you, it is the whole of you. Neither despair nor hope can banish it nor any cynicism nor any intellectual cunning. You are that loneliness, the ashes that had once been fire. This is complete loneliness, irremediable, beyond all action. The brain can no longer devise ways and means of escape; it is the creator of this loneliness, through its incessant activities of self-isolation, of defence and aggression. When it is aware of this, negatively, without any choice, then it is willing to die, to be utterly still. Out of this loneliness, out of these ashes, a new movement is born. It is the movement of the alone. It is that state when all influences, all compulsion, every form of search and achievement have naturally and completely stopped. It is death of the known. Then only is there the neverending journey of the unknowable. Then is there power whose purity is creation. "

Forum: Experimenter's Corner Tue, 11 Apr 2017
Topic: Are we actually machines?

Paul David son wrote: See the action of repression at work there. It applies only when you have been particularly conditioned into the belief that the expression of anger is wrong or that fear is bad. One is focusing in not on the primary emotion, fear or anger, but on a secondary response to it, on the movement of repression. Some people do not do that at all

yes, that is basically right. K said the same. There are primitive people (closer to apes than to humans) who lack any self-reflection and they are always sure of what they are doing. The have no conflict within themselves. Their only conflicts are with the world, ie. their agression clashes with defense or agression of other people. They have no self-doubt, they pursue their desires and pleasure without thought about hurting others. But the more evolved and cultured people realize that agression or greed ultimately lead to pain, and so they try to get rid of those, and then conflict starts. One fragment of the personality is greedy or agressive, another fragment at another time tries to overcome greed or anger. But that never works. And the third stage of the evolution is a liberated man who has a total perception of greed, thought (a fragment) does not enter the total perception and there is no conflict.

and K repeated ad nauseam that we should watch without "condemnation or justification" (which is just another language for the secondary response)

Forum: Experimenter's Corner Tue, 11 Apr 2017
Topic: Are we actually machines?

Paul David son wrote: We are not discussing conditioned responses but reflexes

yes, but these are only words, labels, terminilogical differences. "Acquired reflex" is a used term http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... The same concerns words like "mechanical", "alive", "living". We would first need to meticulously define what we understand under these words. For example biologists have argued for a long time if viruses are living creatures or not. But it is not important. What K understood (according to me) by the word "mechanical" are these conditioned responses of memory, which manifests as thought. Also the word "thought" is problematic too. There is no clear distinction between emotions, cognition and language.

Forum: Experimenter's Corner Tue, 11 Apr 2017
Topic: Are we actually machines?

Paul David son wrote: Oh Jan, I said several times that you may benefit from a little self-reflection before you press 'post.' That statement was really too much. I can;t even bring myself to comment further.

and what is the problem? I just rephrased K: "Take a primitive; what does he do? In him there is no discipline, no control, no suppression. He does what he desires to do, this primitive. The intelligent man also does what he desires, but with intelligence. Intelligence is not born out of self-discipline or suppression. In the one instance it is wholly the pursuit of desire, the primitive man pursuing the object he desires. In the other instance, the intelligent man sees the significance of desire and sees the conflict; the primitive man does not, he pursues anything he desires and creates suffering and pain. So to me self-discipline and suppression are both alike - they both deny intelligence."

There are primitive animal-like people who just take what they want, who have no consideration for other people, their needs etc. People like Putin who ruthlessly kill to keep themselves in power, who have no conscience. Do you think that Putin has regrets that he organized terrorist attacks in Moscow in 1999, then blamed Chechens and bombed Grozny, invaded Ukraine, order shooting of civilians in Maidan etc? Putin has no conflict within himself. His only conflicts are with the others - his fights for power etc.