Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
Discussion Forums

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


Forum: Insights Sun, 15 Nov 2009
Topic: Seriousness

"[The] mind of superficial people is very complicated."

This is because the mind of someone who thinks superficially, coming upon a subject, is satisfied with a moment or two of attention and a quick answer. This is the definition of superficial. Satisfied, the mind flits on to the next thought. The mind becomes a muddle of incomplete, contradictory thoughts and misleading "answers." This turmoil is a complicated mind.

To work with thinking and thought in a straight and simple manner the mind must be quiet. This quietness of the mind comes with no effort when the mind realizes its limit--that is, when it realizes that consciousness will never know and never can know or experience now, the present.

Forum: Insights Sun, 15 Nov 2009
Topic: Seriousness

Nick,

You wrote, "The mind, thought, cannot realize anything."

Thought can't realize anything, agreed, but why can't the mind realize--the mind being a part of the organism? Of course, the mind itself may be just part of the machinery, and maybe this is what you are getting at, but the living being running the mind ought to be able to realize things. Either way, it has to be realized that consciousness cannot know or experience the present, now, no matter how intelligent or holy the individual may be.

Forum: K, psychology and the physical brain Sun, 15 Nov 2009
Topic: What is the function of consciousness?

We all have a consciousness, and we take this obvious fact for granted. But what is the function of this consciousness? Is it simply "us," in which case we don't have a consciousness, we are consciousness. Or is consciousness nothing more than memory, the record of all that has affected us in life? What is the relation of consciousness to the present, now?

Forum: K, psychology and the physical brain Mon, 16 Nov 2009
Topic: What is the function of consciousness?

Nick,

Consciousness has to be 100% concerned with the past. It's not possible to be conscious of something unless it has already happened. In effect, to be conscious is to remember.

Awareness and observation are the present--the immediate present. Both awareness and observation appear to have very little need for consciousness and memory. Is it possible to be aware and observing while one is conscious (remembering), or does consciousness "come back" afterward?

Forum: K, psychology and the physical brain Mon, 16 Nov 2009
Topic: What is the function of consciousness?

Phil,

". . . so what then would be the purpose of consciousness?"

That's it exactly. That's what the topic is: what is the function of consciousness?

Consciousness deals totally with the past. It has absolutely nothing to do with awareness and observation, and as a matter of fact hinders observation. Consciousness appears to be mostly memory and the "I" (and it has been pretty well established that the "I" is illusionary). So is consciousness just another name for memory?

Forum: K, psychology and the physical brain Mon, 16 Nov 2009
Topic: What is the function of consciousness?

Dr. Sharma,

"I am conscious of my thoughts and they are coming from memory."

Are you conscious of your thoughts, or are you those thoughts? At the moment of thinking, in the act of thinking, you are the act. Consciousness and the illusionary "I" come after.

All that we know has been created and is therefore already the past. In this sense, all that we know is memory.

It would appear that we, as living beings, mostly observe and think. We observe to bring our surroundings in to us, and we store these observations as memories. We think in order to recall these memories and "re-member," or reconstruct (only as an image, of course), the past. These are the two basic things we do. What part does consciousness, a third thing, have in this? Is it only to support and propagate an individual "I"?

Forum: K, psychology and the physical brain Mon, 16 Nov 2009
Topic: What is the function of consciousness?

Phil,

" So that kind of consciousness has to be observation before the memory identifies and says "I hurt." Now we must be somewhat careful because there is no such thing as being alive without some kind of memory."

Consciousness is always of that which exists or is past, and observation is now. It doesn't appear possible to "consciously observe" anything.

Memory certainly seems to be an attribute of being alive, just as awareness, observation, and all other actions are exclusively attributes of living. But what is consciousness? It is very difficult to separate consciousness from identification and individuality.

Consciousness seems to be part and parcel of individuality. Actually, however, the "individual" may be totally a myth. To illustrate: When we observe, at the moment of observation, now, there is only the act of observation. There is no consciousness of an individual--and if there is, it is not clear observation. When we think, at the moment of thinking, now, there is only the act of thinking--and once more, if there is consciousness of an individual, thinking is distorted.

So the individual comes into existence only when consciousness itself exists. There is observation and thinking apparently totally free of the individual. "Living" probably doesn't need consciousness--but to exist as individuals consciousness appears necessary. Consciousness seems to be the raison d'etre for the individual.

Forum: K, psychology and the physical brain Mon, 16 Nov 2009
Topic: What is the function of consciousness?

Dr. Sharma,

Thinking, observing--all action, no matter what it is--if "done properly," that means with the full involvement of the living being, will have no element of individual consciousness in it. All energy has gone into the act. In this sense, the individual simply doesn't exist.

Why did consciousness come into being? This is a question none of us may be able to answer. It's like asking, why is their life or existence in the first place. All that can be said is that consciousness appears to have a lot to do with individuality.

Forum: K, psychology and the physical brain Tue, 17 Nov 2009
Topic: What is the function of consciousness?

Dr. Sharma,

"At any moment (Now) man can be in two states.One, observing, acting and thinking( As a living being)."

Seems to me living has only one state, and that is the state of action. Living is action, energy. Observing and thinking are actions. (How does consciousness fit in here? Is it just thinking in another guise?)

It's true that the past cannot touch the living moment. However, the past can always be recalled into the living moment, but only as an image, by thinking. We do this all the time--and the present gets distorted by images from the past.

"If a man could live only in the active present, then what would be his life like? He may be a gainer on some fronts but a loser on others.Then whatever important is deficient in his life, not allowing that deficiency to occure could be the functions consciousness is performing in us."

These are important points. Consciousness might be something necessary, from the standpoint of evolution, as a survival tool.

"If a man could live only in the active present. . . " The active present is the only condition under which life and living is possible--wouldn't you say that this has to be true? What makes us believe that we are not living in the active present? Why are our minds closed to this obvious fact?

You brought up the question of love. I don't know what to say about it. Maybe it's another thing that is there but our minds are closed to it.

Why are our minds closed to these things? Is it that we are so tied up with consciousness that we simply aren't free to be aware?

Forum: K, psychology and the physical brain Wed, 18 Nov 2009
Topic: What is the function of consciousness?

Krishnan,

What do you yourself see here? We're hoping for original observation and thought on the subject. Maybe we can all learn something.

Forum: K, psychology and the physical brain Wed, 18 Nov 2009
Topic: What is the function of consciousness?

Phil,

I wonder if there is that which we call an "individual" at all. In the moment there is living, which is action, and these are not differentiated. The individual, if we are determined to have one, can be said to be the action.

Is it possible, in the moment, for there to be two actions, so far as the individual is concerned? In other words, can the individual think and observe in the same moment? I can answer only for myself, and in my case I don't seem to be able to do this.

It appears that when we speak of the "individual" we are picturing a conscious being--a consciousness. But consciousness is far down the road from the action of living. The illusion of "I" might extend to include all of consciousness. The real individual (as I say, if we are determined to have one) is the action, the living, that is in the moment, that is now.

Forum: K, psychology and the physical brain Wed, 18 Nov 2009
Topic: What is the function of consciousness?

Dr. Sharma,

Your A and B parts look to be what I'm saying. As for C, the moment, now, is not in increments. It is not a series of points. It can't be. It is a flowing constant present. Action takes place only now, obviously, but there can be, is, and must be sequence to action in the flow of now. For example, we observe something for a few minutes. This is sequential action within now.

I wouldn't say the energy of living is split into two channels. I can't see now as being anything but a shoreless sea or a borderless field. Anytime we talk about a split we are talking about a gap. If there is a gap in now, what is it?

Forum: K, psychology and the physical brain Wed, 18 Nov 2009
Topic: What is the function of consciousness?

But Krishnan, wouldn't you say that now is real? We are living now. That's all I'm saying.

Then the very reasonable question arises, can we define this now. Is it something like your Universal Consciousness, or is it something else.

Forum: K, psychology and the physical brain Thu, 19 Nov 2009
Topic: What is the function of consciousness?

Krishnan,

Yes, "now" includes all that exists--as you put it, "all universes." And all that exists includes living organisms such as you and I and all that is non-living, such as the minerals and everything that has been constructed by man.

But there is a tremendous difference between the living and the non-living. That which is alive is capable of acting, of taking action, whereas a non-living thing is totally incapable of taking action on its own.

You and I are living and able to act, and any action we take will always be now since it is impossible to act in the past or in the future.

As living beings, it appears that we are directly connected to now. We are not "little 'I's' but only as we limit ourselves. What do you say to this?

Forum: K, psychology and the physical brain Thu, 19 Nov 2009
Topic: What is the function of consciousness?

Krishnan,

As living beings we act all the time. Anything alive acts--and that includes the lowest members of the vegetable kingdom. To be alive means to act. Can't be avoided. Are we talking specifically about the psychological? Observing, thinking, consciousness (whatever that is) are all actions of the mind or the psychological, and only the alive are capable of them.

But what's all this have to do with samaritans? Of course do-gooders are a tiresome bunch, so mostly we keep away from them. And why would one say that action is banned for him? It doesn't seem to be banned for anyone else.

This strays a bit from the subject of consciousness, but maybe it's background.

Forum: K, psychology and the physical brain Thu, 19 Nov 2009
Topic: What is the function of consciousness?

Dr Sharma,

To tell the truth, the questions in your last post are very hard questions to address. How can there be individuality, is what the questions seem to boil down to.

Can there be differentiation without separation? We may have reached the point where one simply has to look into a question like this for himself. Is it possible to be aware now, in a state of intelligence and love, as an individual? Now means the total abandonment of the past, which is memory and consciousness. When we cling to the past, that past is us.

Forum: K, psychology and the physical brain Thu, 19 Nov 2009
Topic: What is the function of consciousness?

Nick,

I'll post what I said again, since it appears to be the sticking point: "Is it possible to be aware and observing while one is conscious (remembering), or does consciousness "come back" afterward?"

What I'm asking is that at the moment, at the very moment we are aware and observing, is it possible to be doing something else with the mind, like remembering? In other words, can one do both at once? I'm saying that it's impossible if one is giving 100% of his attention to awareness and observation. So when one shifts over and starts to remember, then he becomes engaged in remembering and is no longer fully aware and observing.

No one these days can argue that knowledge isn't useful and necessary, but it's obvious that ". . . clear perception, observation, must be untouched by knowledge . . ." First we perceive, observe, then we bring in knowledge to see how or if it fits in with what we've observed. If we do it the other way around and start with knowledge, then we will distort what we observe to fit the knowledge. Unfortunately, this seems to be the way we operate most of the time.

Forum: K, psychology and the physical brain Thu, 19 Nov 2009
Topic: What is the function of consciousness?

Nick,

"The function of conciousness is to inform awareness without altering or distorting it."

Can you expand on this?

Forum: K, psychology and the physical brain Fri, 20 Nov 2009
Topic: Classic Conditioning

My god, Phil. Have you no mercy?

Forum: K, psychology and the physical brain Fri, 20 Nov 2009
Topic: Love

My god, Phil, have you no mercy?

Forum: K, psychology and the physical brain Fri, 20 Nov 2009
Topic: What is the function of consciousness?

Phil,

Sounds good to me, and is probably about what Nick would have said.

I do question that consciousness (memory) can "operate during the state of awareness." (The italics are mine.) I just can't see two different actions taking place in the same moment of time. In the moment of awareness, there is no memory being recalled, and vice-versa.

Forum: K, psychology and the physical brain Sat, 21 Nov 2009
Topic: What is the function of consciousness?

Phil & Nick,

Try to think two thoughts at the same instant. If you can do this, I concede the point. I would go further and say that it is not possible to observe something and think about it also, at the same instant. Are you observing or thinking? It has to be one or the other, in the instant, which obviously is "now."

To get all mystical and far out, now, the instant moment, always recedes before us. We never reach it, consciously (can't reach it consciously) and yet, there has to be a now. It's there, real, otherwise--we don't exist!

Forum: K, psychology and the physical brain Sat, 21 Nov 2009
Topic: What is the function of consciousness?

Dr. Sharma,

I believe you are saying that consciousness can be defined as containing all the capabilities the individual has--the ability to act, including the abilities to observe and think, the emotions [feelings] and all else. This consciousness is then the individual's awareness.

If this reading is correct, how can consciousness affect the active present, this active present being before, beyond, outside of (however we wish to describe it) that which has already been created--in this case, consciousness? I note your analogy with the pool and the surface of the pool, but does this analogy hold for sequence, a stream of events?

Forum: K, psychology and the physical brain Sat, 21 Nov 2009
Topic: What is the function of consciousness?

I may be, as has been said, intransigent, but all that I have said on the subject of consciousness has been based not so much on the definition of consciousness as on the definition of "now."

If "now" can be defined as incapable of being measured, as being a state beyond time--which is how I would define it--then consciousness, which has been created and whose time is measurable (it is, as K might have said, "caught in time") is totally incapable of "now" except as memory.

Consciousness, as memory, is a construct. It is therefore not alive. Since it is not alive, it is incapable of taking action now, which is the only condition under which action can take place.

We are living beings, and as such are capable of taking action. Is the action we take "through" our consciousness, or is our consciousness inoperative when we act?

Forum: K, psychology and the physical brain Sat, 21 Nov 2009
Topic: Love

Phil,

"If we take evolution instead of intelligent design, then we have to look at the evolution of love too."

So we are defining love as something that has evolved. What was love, before it reached the high level we enjoy at present? I wonder what love was at the very beginning. Was it hate?

Forum: K, psychology and the physical brain Sun, 22 Nov 2009
Topic: Love

Phil,

"Lets talk about this after that happens."

I agree, for one. There's no use talking about something that obviously we know nothing about.

Forum: K, psychology and the physical brain Sun, 22 Nov 2009
Topic: Love

"This, in nut shell, is the journey of 'love' in all of us starting from the body and going to the highest level of 'love' a man can attain at the level of the mind. Needless to say that 'self' is operating in all these different kind of 'love'."

I question that there has been a journey of love, and that there have been different kinds of love encountered on this journey. What has taken place has been a journey down the path of pleasure and desire.

Love is not pleasure and desire. Perhaps we will come on love (and intelligence, which, if not the same, is very close) when we totally abandon the known.

Forum: K, psychology and the physical brain Mon, 23 Nov 2009
Topic: Classic Conditioning

" . . . in order for peace and true brotherhood to ever come upon this earth universally, a great portion of humanity will have to be destroyed."

Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin . . . oh, yes, and Hitler, had this same conviction. See you in hell, Bob.

Forum: K, psychology and the physical brain Tue, 24 Nov 2009
Topic: Classic Conditioning

my dear fellow, we are talking about the conviction that millions must die. The men in question had that conviction. You stated a similar conviction. Hide not behind the cloak of obfuscation.

Forum: K, psychology and the physical brain Tue, 24 Nov 2009
Topic: Classic Conditioning

Phil,

Kinfonet as it is does seem to be a free-for-all format. One person posts, the second person responds with something entirely different, the next person wanders into another subject, and the "discussion" goes on.

But I've got a subject here still more or less on the subject of this topic, as follows:

I read recently that the "otherness" and "oneness" phenomenon experienced by "seers" and by K has been identified by neurologists as likely caused by a lack of oxygen to the brain.

This brings into question the validity of what K said on the subject. When he mentioned or described the "other" and "otherness"--were these merely the fantastical words of an oxygen-starved brain? Was his "process" the physical discomfort associated with pinched blood vessels in the head?

Neurologists have shown that marijuana, opium, alocohol, peyote, and all such drugs can cause hallucinations. They've demonstrated that brain lesions can do the same.

In other words, the brain can be mechanically manipulated. It's an interesting fact that a frog's leg moves if its nerves are proded with an electrode. It's nice to know that with the D.T.'s one can see non-existent spiders. It might be a fact that K was oxygen-deprived and hallucinating when he talked of the "other." All of this is interesting information, but an important question remains unanswered: Beyond the fantasy and hallucination that may be mechanically induced in the brain, is there or isn't there an "other"? Logically, there must be, for there is now that our consciousness does not and never can reach. It will be a pity if we find that we can never approach this now, this "other," except through logic.