Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
Discussion Forums

Greg Van Tongeren's Forum Activity | 116 posts in 5 forums


8 posts  |  Page 1 of 1
Forum: General Discussion Sat, 08 May 2010
Topic: What is the Nature of Consciousness?

gv: K was inconsistent in his use of the term consciousness. He spoke of a need for a radical change in consciousness where consciousness is rooted not in the known but in the immeasurable. I don't find it to be a very clear pointing to hold that consciousness is only the content and then speak as K did of emptying the content. He spoke of a totally different dimension, a state where consciousness as we know it ceases. It is more comprehensible imo to state clearly as Nis and Tolle and many others have that they refer to a different dimension of consciousness.

K's meaning can be meaning can be discerned in the following:

K: "Consciousness is the totality of life. Not only my life, your life, but the life of the animal, the tree; the totality of all life,''

Q: "Do you mean consciousness is the whole phenomenon of life-of existence?"

K: ''What do you mean by phenomenon?" Krishnaji was still looking into the question.

Q: "That which can be perceived by the senses."

K: "That is only part of it," said Krishnaji.

Q: "What is the other part?" I asked.

K: All accumulated knowledge, experience, the psychological agonies of man which you cannot touch or taste. Psychological turmoil, anxiety can affect the organism of man and plant. That is the process of mankind. It is global. It is the common fate of man.''....

-dialogue between K and Pupul Jayakar, Summer 1978, Brockwood Park. (Pg 376-379 Biography of K by Pupul Jayakar)

==============

Q:...You seem to understand that to K consciousness is the "whole field of manifestation; the universal known". First I want to understand what that means. Please try to expound why do you consider "whole field of manifestation" as the "the universal known". From here, once the center has been understood and transcended I am all and all is me. But the field of manifestation is present as this non-fragmented world. So there is no center, no periphery, but there is still a manifested world. At this "stage" I think the "known" - as psychological knowledge - has also been done with. All is impersonal, thought is just some energetic movement that does not interfere with freedom and beauty. I think at this stage K would say that consciousness has been emptied - although I can walk on streets, recognize friends, type keyboards - but all becoming is gone, time is just chronological, and space just something to make "life" easier - so is knowledge.

gv: by the whole manifestation I mean all materiality -- the entire universe or cosmos of perceptible forms, structures, patterns, etc.

Q: I see. You are then using the expression "consciousness" similar to Nisargadatta. The problem I see is that if you use this definition, then "emptying of consciousness" would mean the ending of all form, patterns, materiality - seemingly the world would disappear. You would not be able to walk, write, talk or even live. While using K definition this emptying is of the contents is the imagined center and its consequences. The world is still here, fully, but there is no entity. Lets face it: the actual ending of all form, materiality, all patterns comes with the death of the organism or perhaps deep sleep, no?

gv: no, it is the ending of all identification with forms, patterns, materiality. Which is the same as saying that observation is from a different dimension. The field of the known is seen as a totality. On one level you can say it is not that you are inside the body but rather the body is inside you (emptiness). On the deeper level it is not you that is inside the world or universe but rather the universe is inside emptiness. You are that emptiness but not you as content or as the background of experience. I mean as perception without the perceiver.

Forum: General Discussion Sat, 08 May 2010
Topic: What is the Nature of Consciousness?

The questioner (Q) was 'geo' from an earlier discussion in this forum. Why do you ask?

Forum: General Discussion Sun, 09 May 2010
Topic: Keeping The Faith

nick carter wrote: we dread loss

Randal Shacklett wrote: Why?

gv: the more awareness there is of what can not be lost, the less there is dread of losing what can and ultimately will be lost.

see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5yhJ3dXOgY

Forum: General Discussion Sun, 09 May 2010
Topic: Keeping The Faith

gv: the more awareness there is of what can not be lost, the less there is dread of losing what can and ultimately will be lost.

nc: Oh, do tell, please, "what can not be lost"!

gv: as long as we are caught in an illusion of continuity, we are blind to the timeless presence of what is not of time. The other is when the self is not. The self is thought-derived, the other is not. To die to the known is not to lose anything actual although it sure seems to be. Do you follow?

Forum: General Discussion Mon, 10 May 2010
Topic: Keeping The Faith

nick carter wrote: Greg Van Tongeren wrote: as long as we are caught in an illusion of continuity, we are blind to the timeless presence of what is not of time.

As long as we persist in generating K-babble, we are doing parody. You follow

gv: Dread of loss implies belief in continuity and deep-rooted denial of the fact of impermanance. It is our human heritage to share in that. Are we going to die (and lose everything) someday or is there dying each moment? Where the old ends there is space for the new. Can we see this? Or do we really want a continuation of the old? In that lies the resistence, the defensiveness, and the antagonism.

Forum: General Discussion Thu, 13 May 2010
Topic: What is the Nature of Consciousness?

cite>geovani -geo- wrote: what happens when the content is emptied. All acquired knowledge, the inner separate entity and its personal struggles are gone. The ground of being is now tremendously intimate, the closest in fact - so close that it is myself. The world, the whole universe and its billions of years... and light years, are but these set of sense inputs, are not other but patterns of my own surface. I am introduced to this world through the perceptions of a man and not the opposite: a little man fighting its way amongst others in a physical cold ground that is far away.... Is it not indeed correct to say then that when consciousness is emptied something new, something totally different is born?

-geo-

gv: well if we say that consciousness is its contents and that is all that consciousness is, what does it mean to empty the contents? All acquired knowledge is not gone. There is not total amnesia and dysfunction. Rather knowledge and memory is available but it is not dominating or circumscribing consciousness, right? So there is freedom to observe without the interference of the conditioned mind. There can be total attention without choice or effort. And there is no sense of consciousness being inside or outside anything. It is as K once said, like a circle without a circumference. But has anything been added or born? Or has consciousness resumed its original or essential nature?

The ground in being as you say is what we are. How could there be any distance from the ground in being? Or what is the nature of the apparent distance?

The ground in being is the same for all-that-is, is it not? In experiencing this as a living fact, we can see that consciousness (in the sense of it not being the content) is the root of all phenomena and there is a sense of intimacy with and communion with the totality.

Forum: General Discussion Thu, 13 May 2010
Topic: Seeking clarification on today's quote

geovani -geo- wrote: Is not the awareness of the timebound, physical and thought-limited state already timeless and beyond the physical (although not separate)? What he is saying is that man knows about this truth in some instinctive level and then he goes off to search it. But the only obstacle in fact is the thought that there is some obstacle preventing the already ever present seeing.

gv: yes, awareness of the time-bound is timeless. Or it can be expressed -- the energy of insight is not of time and not from memory. There is at once the conditioned and the unconditioned. Insight is where the conditioned and unconditioned meet.

The search for something beyond the physical suggests a realm that is deathless, timeless or eternal. As Tolle points out, the timeless is 'found' not by moving away from the physical but rather by going more deeply or fully into the physical so that the underlying timeless dimension is directly realized.

Forum: General Discussion Sun, 11 Jul 2010
Topic: What is the Nature of Consciousness?

nick carter wrote: "There is not amnesia or dysfunction" because some content remains. What's emptied is the confusion-causing content. But how is it that the brain suddenly sees what it must do (purge itself), and how, after a lifetime of resistance?

gv: one intimation that helps here is that there is an intense feeling of gratitude when the conditioned aspect is in direct relationship with the unconditioned. Get out of the head and into the heart. The unconditioned does the work.

8 posts  |  Page 1 of 1