Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
Discussion Forums

max greene's Forum Activity | 7809 posts in 13 forums


Forum: General Discussion Sun, 05 Sep 2010
Topic: Humanity Seperate From Nature

David,

There is no longer any salvation for mankind since the corruption of self and greed has too much poisoned the human race and its systems. Hard to believe, but homo sapiens is being brought down by a simple thought construct: the "I"; the "self"; the "me."

So long as there is separation there will be conflict - - Krishnamurti pointed this out again and again and again. The separative belief that each of us is an "I" (and it is nothing more than a belief) has been the source of all conflict, within ourselves and in the world. This belief has been universal for millennia - - but now, thanks to a huge world population, dangerous technological advancements and instant communications, the belief in the reality of this phantom has taken us beyond the point of no return.

Can we see any attempt by those in control - - the politicians, the religious leaders, the rich and the powerful - - to search out the primary cause of mankind's eternal, continuing, problems and conflicts? It isn't happening, and it won't happen. Our leaders themselves, leaders in all fields, are too involved in getting along, covering over, blaming the various conditions, coming up with "solutions." All so-called "leaders" are comfortable in their positions and proud to be big names in their fields, and they will resist change - - when necessary at the point of a gun or with the detonation of a bomb. The cancer of the "Self," the "I," remains and continues to spread, and the prognosis is terminal.

Forum: General Discussion Mon, 06 Sep 2010
Topic: An imagined sufferer, seeking imaginary solace

Jim,

I would say we're fearful and defensive because we're protective of a phantom self. We believe the self, a psychological "I," is actually us, but it isn't - - it's a totally imaginary thought construct, an idea. This mental construct exerts overwhelming power over us because we have an almost religious belief in its reality. I wonder if it's possible to see that this belief is a mistake. If it can, it seems reasonable that everything fearful and bad associated with the self disappears along with the self.

At its center the self, the "I," is a single thought. We make certain that all fact and experience in our life is filtered and evaluated in light of this fictional being, so obviously all of our thought is tied to the self, the "I." If we do away with the self, what happens to thought? It appears to me that thought disappears as well. Thought is something different from the formation and recall of memory and image. Thought is a motivated mulling over of memory to see what effect that memory has on the self. The undistorted formation and clear recall of memory and image is true thinking. For true thinking to take place, the "I" must be absent.

The self serves no purpose (actually, just the opposite), yet it thrives almost like a parasite in the human being, world-wide and home-grown in every culture. It's a curious fact that because of the universally held belief in the actual reality of the thought construct called "self," humanity is allowing constructs to control the world. Constructs. Billions of them. Truly, we are living in a WORLD OF THE WALKING DEAD.

Forum: General Discussion Tue, 07 Sep 2010
Topic: Humanity Seperate From Nature

Love the comments being posted here. They're tongue in cheek, aren't they? Hope they are. Tangling with each other, swiping back and forth. And funny, like the one above: "Let it go before a vein in your head pops." Quite obviously no one wishes anyone harm here. Everything we post is in good humor and actually with best wishes for all - - almost whether we admit it or not. Right?

I'd like to join in and post more but I have internet access only on a limited basis. (This might be for the best.)

Forum: General Discussion Tue, 07 Sep 2010
Topic: Unstoppable thought

Nick,

Pure perception might or might not be an illusion, but to categorically affirm that it is an illusion, to take a position one way or the other, is to stop inquiry into the truth of the matter. We are saying that we have arrived at a conclusion. No need to look further.

Forum: General Discussion Wed, 08 Sep 2010
Topic: My way or the highway

It can be done, the seeing of thought for what it is and the dissolution of the self, the psychological "I." But few of us have done this. So long as there is self and thought there will be hurt - - and hurting.

Forum: General Discussion Wed, 08 Sep 2010
Topic: My way or the highway

Rick,

It appears your initial posting was in response to a locked topic advocating better oversight of the forums.

I agree that outside oversight isn't the answer - - but then, neither is lack of outside oversight. As intelligent people we should be able to see what is right behavior, and that seeing should be our "oversight." But if intelligence is lacking, then the need for rules and parameters (oversight) arise to prevent chaos.

Forum: General Discussion Fri, 10 Sep 2010
Topic: My Daily Dialogue With Krishnamurti

Dr. Sharma,

What does searching, craving, seeking have to do with being shallow and superficial? Here's one consideration: searching, craving, seeking implies someone, some entity, some individual, involved in this activity. When you set up the individual, you bring separation into the picture, and separation is always combative, always closed to that which does not fit the separateness.

I guess this is reason enough to call such activity shallow and superficial. But other words do come to mind - - like in the long run, chaotic, destructive, stupid.

Forum: General Discussion Fri, 24 Sep 2010
Topic: Stop ownership

Paul,

You wrote, "If consciousness become free of its images then the result is a dynamic life, lived in the now."

Our consciousness is the past; it is memory and image. Consciousness cannot free itself from itself. To be now, to live and to sense now, one must act free of his consciousness. It is not that his consciousness must or can become free.

Forum: General Discussion Sat, 25 Sep 2010
Topic: Stop ownership

Soham,

You wrote in your post #46, "Right. How one can act, free of his consciousness? It is a very typical situation. All we know is consciousness. Then how can we act, without it? I don't say it is not possible. But how?"

That's exactly right, "all we know is consciousness." And consciousness is memory, the past, the old. Consciousness is the known - - it is everything we think or know, for as soon as we observe (or otherwise sense) something unfamiliar and new, it becomes the known.

The known cannot become the unknown, obviously, but the unknown can - - and does - - become the known. The unknown becomes the known through sensing. When we sense something, or come into contact with something, the impression of it goes into our memory, into our consciousness.

It is quite obvious that sensing must take place before the memory and consciousness of what is sensed can come into the picture. Because of this, it is again quite obvious that we can never "know" the act of sensing! But sensing does take place, otherwise we would never learn (i.e., place in our storehouse of knowledge) anything entirely new to us.

Can we be aware of true observing, sensing at the very moment of contact? It would appear that we cannot, for the "individual" who might be aware of that which is before consciousness is, himself, already of the past, enmeshed in consciousness. What happens is that on contact there is the immediate identification and classifying of what is sensed that precludes and obscures any further sensing.

Forum: General Discussion Sat, 25 Sep 2010
Topic: Mr.Rick's account deleted.

Is this true? What in the world did Rick do to get banned? Maybe it's something we don't know about. His postings always seemed rather innocuous to me.

Forum: General Discussion Mon, 11 Oct 2010
Topic: How has Krishnamurti's writings improved your life?

Kapila,

In your post #54 you wrote, "We can consider action here. Action-acting can only be in the now."

And in your post #55 you wrote, "To know what to do means related to the past. So any practice, whatever it may be, however widely it may be accepted, cannot bring about a change - - impossible. Observation is not a practice. It is not a time process as it is from moment to moment and nothing is gathered."

Glad I am to see postings such as these.

Very true that no practice, formula or procedure can bring about change. As a matter of fact, is "change" ever at all possible? The past cannot be brought back for anything at all to be done either with it or to it. It's gone. Even the memory of the past cannot be brought forward into the moment and changed. What we think of as "change" is a new creation in the moment based on memory.

As you are saying, all action must take place in the immediate moment, now. Observation and thinking are actions. Creation is an action. Living is in the moment, obviously. In the moment there can be no distinction between any of these, as any gap or separation brings in time and distance. In the moment we, as living beings, are the action being taken. Not an actor, not an entity either physical or psychological, but the action itself.

One last comment: That which is living cannot die, obviously, because living is moment to moment and was never created in the first place - - the moment is before that which is created. Only that which has been created disintegrates and dies.

Forum: General Discussion Tue, 12 Oct 2010
Topic: How has Krishnamurti's writings improved your life?

Kapila,

What you are saying is also the way I see it. You wrote, "Will not this seeing which is complete as this seeing is in an undivided state of attention bring about a change - as this is something new. [emphasis is mine.]" I wrote, "What we think of as 'change' is a new creation in the moment based on memory." Both quotes appear to arrive at the same consideration, that is, that there was no "change," per se, but that a new condition was brought about.

Anyway, what I was getting at is that the past is not the present, and the past can't be brought forward into the present and changed. Even the image (memory) of the past cannot be brought forward to now, so it can't be changed either, since all action must be now. Whatever happens in the immediate moment has to be new.

Forum: General Discussion Tue, 12 Oct 2010
Topic: How has Krishnamurti's writings improved your life?

Dr. Sharma,

The memory is brought forward into consciousness, but memory, the past, can never be brought into the now. We bring the memory up in our consciousness, refer to this memory and then create a new image in the moment. It is the reference to the past that forms and warps the new creation.

Forum: General Discussion Wed, 13 Oct 2010
Topic: How has Krishnamurti's writings improved your life?

Dr. Sharma,

You wrote, "When memory is brought forward in the consciousness, then what is being registered/is happening in the 'now'? Isn't there anything like act of bringing this memory forward into consciousness?"

Bringing a memory into consciousness is the action of recall, thinking. The action must take place now. What is done with or accomplished by the action (in this case remembering something and creating a new image of it) is the created, the act itself. Acting, action, is always in the immediate moment, now, before the act or before that which is created.

Forum: General Discussion Wed, 13 Oct 2010
Topic: How has Krishnamurti's writings improved your life?

Paul,

You say, "EVERYTHING is in the now, including memory. This is simple to explain. The past is the present. The future is in the present."

The now is before time and it is outside of time. It is before the clock starts ticking. It is the moment of action and creation and living. It is the moment of being.

Existence, that which has been created, is, to use Krishnamurti's words, "caught in time." All of nature, the physical as well as the psychological, is the past - - it has already been created and is in existence. It is subject to deterioration, corruption, death. It cannot be brought forward into now - - the past in sequence cannot be brought once again into the immediate present, into the timelessness from which it came.

Living is obviously now, as is all action - - these cannot take place in the past. These are from moment to moment, before time. Existence and all that has been created, all that we know, is already old and cannot be made new.

Forum: General Discussion Wed, 13 Oct 2010
Topic: How has Krishnamurti's writings improved your life?

Kapila,

You wrote, post #71, "With attention there cannot be recognition thus there cannot be thought! So with this attention at that moment thought undergoes a change . . . "

It would seem to me that if thought cannot be, then thought cannot be said to change. No, it appears to me that every moment of now is entirely new. Every moment is the moment of creation.

In this moment-to-moment creation there may be reference to the past, and this is the evolution we see in nature. Is this act of reference made in the moment, simultaneous with the act of creation? I would say that it is. Action, acting, is not the act itself. The "act" is already caught, whereas "action," or "acting," is always now.

The past cannot be resurrected, in no manner, in no way. Copies can be created, DNA can be brought forward, but the exact past, the way it was, the entity that existed, is gone. It's gone and therefore cannot be changed. We have the new. It can be the new created from a referral to the past - - the past, with its problems and its baggage - - or it can be the new with the past entirely abandoned.

Forum: General Discussion Thu, 14 Oct 2010
Topic: How has Krishnamurti's writings improved your life?

Kapila,

" . . . thought takes place in the consciousness at an actual moment."

Do you mean now? If so, I wonder if it does. Thought is already created, in existence, and cannot reach forward into the moment, nor can it be retrieved into the moment. But the living, that which is in and of the moment, can look upon the past. (We, as living beings, do so all the time.) As living beings we look upon the past, refer to it, and create the new in the image of the past. Too bad! Psychologically, I would say there is never any need to refer to the past.

If we give complete attention to the process by which the past is re-created in the present, do we change what we are doing, or is it that we simply become aware of what we are doing? To change what we are doing or to give up what we are doing would seem to require understanding. Perhaps awareness, carried all the way through, is understanding?

Slightly related to the above discussion is this: It would seem that only that which is living is capable of acting, action. (And in the moment there is no differentiation.) That which is in existence and that which has been created is capable only of re-action, as a ball rolling down a hill. Re-action is passive and is the result, somewhere in the background, of action in the moment.

Forum: General Discussion Fri, 15 Oct 2010
Topic: How has Krishnamurti's writings improved your life?

Kapila,

"All the things in the universe take place at an actual moment.Otherwise it can't be there."

You're right. All of the universe is subject to time.

Forum: General Discussion Fri, 15 Oct 2010
Topic: How has Krishnamurti's writings improved your life?

Sunyata,

You're right. A very astute observation. Allow me to rephrase what I said: All of the universe is subject to sequence.

Forum: General Discussion Sat, 16 Oct 2010
Topic: How has Krishnamurti's writings improved your life?

Kapila,

"Your contention is that there cannot be change which is not based on the past."

This is not my contention. By referring to the past, (which we do most of the time, all day long) we create the new based on our memory of the old - - the past. The past itself can in no way be brought forward and changed. There is no such thing as 'change'- - there is only the new colored and shaped by the old.

However, if no reference is made to the past, then the immediate moment, now, is entirely free of the past. Action in this immediate moment then results in the entirely new.

Psychologically, there is no reason to ever refer to the past. (Unfortunately, we do this all the time, so the problems and baggage of yesterday are carried forward into today.) Physically and mentally it is necessary to refer to the past in order to construct and to build, whether it be a novel or a skyscraper.

"In your post #58 you said observation and thinking are actions. In your post #84 you agree that all the things in the universe take place at an actual moment."

What is your definition of 'actual moment'? If it is defined as just another tick of the clock, I agree. I said that all of the universe is subject to time. Observation and thinking are actions, and obviously must take place now - - which is outside of time - - and not while the clock is ticking.

Living and action are in and of the immediate moment, or now, and so are before time. All of the created universe, all of existence, comes after the immediate moment and so is already 'caught in time.' The past is always back down the road in sequence. It cannot be brought forward once again into the present.

The immediate moment is timeless. Timelessness is the condition of creation and action, but the universe, having been created, is irreversibly aging, deteriorating and dying - - the fate of all that has been created. Living is timeless, but the individual is not.

Forum: General Discussion Mon, 18 Oct 2010
Topic: How has Krishnamurti's writings improved your life?

Nick,

Can "now" be defined and captured? It cannot, and yet it is, and it is not in the least theoretical, otherwise nothing would exist. Before there is the past there must be the present - - and that present, at its most "extreme," is now.

And even this is not quite correct. There is no most "extreme." There is simply either now or the past.

Consciousness, of course, can never reach into this present, as consciousness is the past. But this "ultimate present," this now, is the only condition under which the actions of observation, thinking, and creation can take place. As living beings, our life is now.

Forum: General Discussion Mon, 18 Oct 2010
Topic: How has Krishnamurti's writings improved your life?

Kapila,

Observation is an action - -it is the action of seeing. Likewise, thinking is an action - - it is the action of image making and the recall of images. Both of these actions must take place now, of course, since action cannot take place in the past.

All action must take place in the immediate present, now, and only that which is living can take action - - in the immediate present there is no differentiation. Living is action. What often is confused with action is merely inertia. For example, a ball rolling down a hill is caused by something at the top of the hill, which is caused by something, which is caused by something, etc. etc. Behind it all, somewhere along the line, is living/action. I say this because it would appear to be impossible for that which is in the past (all of existence) to act in the present.

Forum: General Discussion Mon, 18 Oct 2010
Topic: How has Krishnamurti's writings improved your life?

Averil,

What difference do any of your questions make? What a person writes in these forums is of importance, but who the person writing is, what his background might be and whether or not he is enlightened makes not the slightest difference. These questions are of interest only to those distracted from the issues being discussed.

Forum: General Discussion Tue, 19 Oct 2010
Topic: How has Krishnamurti's writings improved your life?

Averil,

"For me to see that your explanation of 'Now' contains no time, how does one approach it?"

We can look at it this way, which is mostly just logic: There is a past, and for there to be a past, there must have been a present. But what is the present? With any time at all (read "sequence," to be precise) no matter how small the increment, we still have only the past. There is no alternative but that the past is created the moment time (sequence) enters the picture. Now, a condition free and outside of time, is the only condition logically possible for this creation.

What makes this so difficult is that all of our thinking and activities are centered around time and distance and separation.

Forum: General Discussion Wed, 27 Oct 2010
Topic: What's Next?, contd.

Mike,

'Thought' is incapable of action. Thought is a passive and lifeless construct, the result of the action of thinking.

The action of thinking is recall from memory, image making and the creation of thought. Thinking deals exclusively with the past and thinking therefore cannot solve a present psychological problem. For this, awareness and observation are needed.

Forum: General Discussion Thu, 28 Oct 2010
Topic: What's Next?, contd.

Mike,

" . . . what is it that questions, doubts?"

At the very moment of action, any action - - at that very moment there is only the action. There is no separate actor or entity. The result of action, the act itself - - in this case the question - - becomes a part of consciousness. We mistakenly believe that consciousness is the questioner doing the questioning.

As Dr. Sharma points out, any attempt to identify the questioner will come from memory (consciousness).

Forum: General Discussion Sat, 30 Oct 2010
Topic: What is meditation?

Nick,

You wrote, "Yes, I second the motion. Put the motion in neutral and watch the gears grind."

Gears do not grind when an engine is in neutral. They grind only when they are engaged, or partially engaged. Do you want to correct your comment, based on this fact?

You wrote, "K talked about meditation to debunk all the usual ideas and beliefs about it. To think or talk about it in positive terms is to violate the spirit of it . . ."

How do you know Krishnamurti had this motive when he talked about meditation? Debunking may have been the effect, but you can't attribute the motive, "to debunk" to his talking about meditation.

On the contrary, Krishnmurti had a great number of positive things to say about meditation. There are quotations on the subject all over the place. For example, he said, " . . . right meditation gives perfume, depth, significance to life . . . "* I suggest that you look up Jiddu Krishnamurti quotes on the web to find any number of his positive references to meditation. Are you saying that by doing so he was thereby violating the spirit of emptiness, vacancy, no-thingness?

  • Jiddu Krishnamurti on Concentration and Meditation
Forum: General Discussion Sun, 31 Oct 2010
Topic: Living As If There's No Tomorrow

Nick,

Whenever Krishnamurti was speaking on this subject, I'm sure he was speaking psychologically. There would be no point in denying tomorrow physically. Sequence and time are simply facts of physical existence.

Psychologically, it's a different story. We make up psychological time ourselves. We invent it. If, psychologically, we want to drag forward all the horrors of the past, that's up to us.

One wonders why it so difficult to just drop the past. That doesn't mean to forget about it - - that implies loss of memory. But why can't we just see the past as the past, something that is gone and that is not coming back, something that in no manner can be changed (all we can do is massage the recalled image of it) and get on with the new day. To be able to drop the psychological past would be something almost like freedom.

Forum: General Discussion Thu, 04 Nov 2010
Topic: How has Krishnamurti's writings improved your life?

Soham,

I would say that there is either awareness or there is not. There is no "which" awareness. To be aware is to sense. We have five senses (maybe more not identified) but they all simply "sense," which means to come into contact with something.

The immediate moment, or now, is not a part of time, and this can be shown logically. The immediate moment is the moment of creation and action - - and living.

Forum: General Discussion Fri, 05 Nov 2010
Topic: How has Krishnamurti's writings improved your life?

Prasanna,

"By that do you mean, there is no partial awareness?"

Awareness is sensing, and either one senses something or he does not. It is like saying that someone is "half awake," or that he is "half asleep." There are moments of wakefulness and there are moments of sleep, but it is not possible to be awake and asleep at the same time. It is the same with being aware. It is not possible to be aware and unaware at the same time.

However, it is entirely possible to be aware of only some aspects of a subject, and not to be aware of the subject in its entirety.