Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
Discussion Forums

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


Forum: The Sacred Fri, 26 Jun 2009
Topic: Consciousness

It appears to me that consciousness, as we know it, IS the Self, the psychological "I." I say this because it seems to me that every thought I have refers back to "me." I see this in my head. If consciousness is indeed the Self, why is consciousness necessary? Why don't we just have thought without consciousness?

Forum: The Sacred Sat, 27 Jun 2009
Topic: Consciousness

Knowledge is the body of facts already observed and placed into memory. The Now is always new, and being new, it has no taint or trace of the past. Knowledge can be brought into the Now only by a living being through the function of memory.

Forum: The Sacred Sat, 27 Jun 2009
Topic: Consciousness

Michael,

"These statements clearly and unambiguously demonstrate the (blood-thirsty) determination of the consciousness of the 'self'/'thinker' to preserve itself through the reflexive, instantaneous and categorical denial that there is any other dimension of consciousness at all."

Who is is the enitity referred to as the "consciousness of the 'self'/thinker'"? Is it a disembodied something, or is it a physical organism?

There may be another dimension to consciousness--there probably is, and K at least hinted of this if he didn't say it outright. But it seems a little strong to think that the "Self," in whatever guise, has such a vindictive attitude toward the super-consciousness. Or for that matter, has any attitude at all.

Forum: The Sacred Sat, 27 Jun 2009
Topic: Consciousness

So we have the duality of two kinds of knowledge. How can knowledge be observed, since knowledge is the memory of facts? Isn't this "observation" usually called "remembering"?

I find all the references to "annihilation" "evil" "vicious" etc. a little bizarre. Is there some sort of war going on?

The "consciousness of the 'self'/'thinker' " that turned out to be a "what" had better be alive, otherwise it will not be able to act in any wise.

Forum: The Sacred Sun, 28 Jun 2009
Topic: Consciousness

Michael,

So there is this duality in nature, the "selves" and the "not selves." I would like to know more about them. Are they both alive? Did they come from the same source? Is this "conflict" going on throughout nature--the universe?

As I said, K himself hinted, and perhaps explicity said, that a more profound level of consciousness than what we usually call "consciousness" exists. This consciousness comes when the Self, the psychological "I," is totally absent, and not before. Why is this? Because the brain is busy with the "I," protecting, enhancing, and is not free, empty, for true consciousness to be.

I see no duality in this--I see a continuum. I see the need to understand the psychological "I," to see the uselessness of it and the absolute danger of it, both to the individual and to his society. When one has this total understanding, then perhaps true selfless consciousness comes into being.

Forum: The Sacred Sun, 28 Jun 2009
Topic: Consciousness
Ramesh G wrote:

How do we know whether each of us speaks from silence or noise?

Ramesh,

We don't know. We can look only at ourselves. If we speak from the memory of our own experience, or from the memory of what we have read in a book or heard someone else say, then it is only "what I think," or it is our opinion, or it is our belief.

If one is observing as he is speaking about something, actually looking into a subject, not just repeating from his memory, then he can say, "I see," or "it appears to me," or some such phrasing. This way of expression is entirely different from reciting from memory, from saying, "this is what I think."

We can all do this. None of us will see absolutely clearly. We will make errors, and we should be glad to stand corrected. But what we speak will be the way we see it. It will be honest. There is something deceptive and dishonest about speaking from memory on these important topics.

Forum: The Sacred Sun, 28 Jun 2009
Topic: Consciousness

Michael,

"In fact, any assertion that the scientific method is fundamentally flawed because it is based upon the metaphysical duality--that is, the separation of consciousness from the physical reality--is rejected and ignored . . ."

Perhaps I don't understand here. I was not aware that scientists have any metaphysical basis for consciousness. I have a psychiatrist friend who would laugh at the assertion that consciousness can be separated from the working of the physical brain itself.

Forum: The Sacred Sun, 28 Jun 2009
Topic: Consciousness

Michael,

"The "consciousness of the 'self'/'thinker' " that turned out to be a "what" had better be alive, otherwise it will not be able to act in any wise."

I'm sorry to keep hammering on this, but this important question is still open. Who created this "What," and is it alive, or is it a construct?

Forum: The Sacred Sun, 28 Jun 2009
Topic: Consciousness

Ramesh,

"It may look odd, but theory and reality of daily life should merge somewhere, shouldn't they?"

Excuse the delay in replying to this. I've been in emergency mode here myself.

Offhand, I would say we can do very well without theories. Just daily life will do. We would probably do best to look at facts, the reality, observe and be aware to the best of our ability and thereby go step by step into the heart of a matter.

But do we need theories, thought, in our path as something to mull and stumble over? What is necessary is to look and to listen to everything that comes our way, to inquire and to question. When you are looking, seeing, you are not theorizing.

Forum: The Sacred Sun, 28 Jun 2009
Topic: Consciousness

Michael,

The self and the not-self come from the same source: the 'movement' of self-reflection. (That is the way I understand what you are saying.)

Is this 'movement' in the brain? If it is, the self and not-self are constructs of the brain. As constructs, they are passive and lifeless--as are bricks and automobiles. The selves are incapable of taking action on their own. They must be guided, manipulated, molded, modified, etc. by the brain itself. As an alive thing, the brain can act and create Now.

Thought, either as the self or in any other mode, is powerless. The 'selves' actually do not exist. They are mere images thrown out by our brains. It is the physical organism that is the actor on the stage. The physical organism with its distorted thinking is responsible for the chaos within itself and in society. I don't see that we need complicated theories to explain this.

Forum: The Sacred Sun, 28 Jun 2009
Topic: Consciousness

Ramesh,

But why do people speak from knowledge and not from their actual condition?

There appear to be a lot of reasons. One wants to impress others and thereby make a name for himself--he's playing big-shot. Perhaps the man is deliberately trying to "muddy the waters." Possibly everyone around him is speaking quickly and superficially and he simply goes along with them. Maybe he just doesn't know any better. This last reason is understandable. The others are merely pathetic.

Forum: The Sacred Mon, 29 Jun 2009
Topic: Consciousness

Michael,

"My statement would be: the conflicts within the consciousness of the 'self' and the 'thinker', as well as the conflicts between the consciousness of the 'self'/'thinker' and the "observing consciousness" are extrapolated/projected upon the space-time reality."

For the life of me, this is completely undecipherable. Would you please explain just what this sentence means? I'm especially thrown by "space/time reality," since time doesn't exist at all, isn't real, except as a measuring device. (It's a little harder to visualize, but the existence of space just might suspect as well.)

Forum: The Sacred Mon, 29 Jun 2009
Topic: Consciousness
Michael Cecil wrote:

max greene wrote: For the life of me, this is completely undecipherable. Would you please explain just what this sentence means? I'm especially thrown by "space/time reality," since time doesn't exist at all, isn't real, except as a measuring device. (It's a little harder to visualize, but the existence of space just might suspect as well.)

This is an example of what I am talking about.

You want me to "explain" that comment; in other words, to translate it into thought in order that you can 'understand' it.

I can't.

It is something that is observed. It is on its face obvious.

It is either seen or it is not seen.

Space can be observed. So can time.

But, if you are trapped in thought, you will say that they are nothing more than an illusion.

And, if you could see that they are an illusion, rather than merely 'think' that they are an illusion, what I say about consciousness would be glaringly obvious to you.

Michael,

In other words, to put it shortly, you can't explain what you wrote.

Forum: The Sacred Mon, 29 Jun 2009
Topic: Consciousness

Folks, let's look at it this way: The Self, the psychological "I," is at it heart a thought, a construction of the brain. It is a thought that has been protected and enhanced and has become so powerful that most of us look upon this thought construct as real, as--ourselves! (Isn't it always "our" body?)

As a construct, this "I" is passive, lifeless, powerless. It exists only because the brain allows it to and can function only as the brain demands--just as an automobile will do only what the driver commands.

Because we look at this construct as ourselves, we are protective of it. We want to keep it from harm, and from dying. We can see where all this leads by observing the world around us.

So, can the physical brain, which created the construct in the first place, understand that this "I" is merely a thought? Can it see that the "I," or Self, does not exist except as this thought? Can it understand this thought and put this thought aside? If this can be done, the brain's every thought is no longer weighed and judged for its effect on the "I," but instead the brain's thinking is straight and direct, no longer distorted.

Forum: The Sacred Mon, 29 Jun 2009
Topic: Consciousness

Michael,

"Now, the reason why this perspective is typically rejected is because it consists of a time-reversal which is intensely offensive to the consciousness of the 'self'/'thinker' which depends upon time going only in a forward direction."

I have yet to hear of anyone, anyone at all in the long history of mankind, who has been able to reverse a single second of "time." Sequence is sequence, period.

Are we postulating, theorizing, web-spinning here? Have you directly experienced this time reversal, Michael?

The record of all events, all sequences, may be Now, but I don't know. Even if it were, it seems to me that the rule of sequence would still apply. If it did not, there would be chaos in the universe. Most civilized societies gave up believing in magic centuries ago.

Forum: The Sacred Mon, 29 Jun 2009
Topic: Consciousness

Michael,

"It seems that there is one fundamental experience which very effectively prevents people from understanding the meaning of the words that I use: the direct observation of the absolute and irreversible annihilation of the consciousness of the 'self'/'thinker', and the emergence of "psychosis" (and the archetypes of the 'unconscious') as a completely separate dimension of consciousness altogether . . ."

The above implies that you have this direct observation, and the psychosis. I believe you have said elsewhere that no one seems to understand you, which means that you are the only one with this observation and psychosis. The only one.

I'm beginning to understand. You are a person who perhaps had an insight at one time or other and, using that insight, has built a system of logic around it. Having invested heavily in this insight and your system, you cannot bring yourself to see outside of the structure you have built. You cannot tolerate a question as to the legitimacy, the reasonableness, of what you have so carefully put together. Anyone who does not agree with your conclusions simply does not understand the 'movement' of self-reflection--and you are very quick to point out his stupidity to him. (Incidentally, this "self-reflection" may have been your original insight. I'm curious: was it?)

Forum: The Sacred Mon, 29 Jun 2009
Topic: Consciousness
jean-m girard wrote:

jean-m girard wrote: .> What is communication? Do you feel we are communicating?

I would suggest first of all that we are on JK forum, we should use JK vocabulary as much as we can if we wand to be understood. This why I am not whiting French here, because I would be talking to myself.

Jean,

We are not communicating in this forum. The forum has become mired in bickering over whether or not "someone understands me," whether words are adequate, the meaning of self-realization,whether there are two types of self, two types of knowledge, two types of observation, etc, etc. Probably we should give up on all of this. I have a feeling that's what K might have done--long before this point-- because the forum is going no place, serving no purpose. There is no comradeship, no communion, here. Can we change what we are doing, and go on? I doubt that we can. Perhaps you should pull the plug, Ramesh, so that there is no "last man standing," no "I really got those guys" big man remaining to claim victory.

Forum: The Sacred Mon, 29 Jun 2009
Topic: Consciousness

"(Seriously doubt that any of this will be helpful; but at least I tried.)"

You're right. You tried and it wasn't the slightest bit helpful. Thanks. Would like to know about what happened in your previous lives, if you can give us a few more words on this.

Forum: The Sacred Tue, 30 Jun 2009
Topic: Consciousness
Michael Cecil wrote:

max greene wrote: Probably we should give up on all of this.

To no one in particular:

The consciousness of the 'self'/'thinker' completely loses interest in a question when it encounters an answer which threatens its own existence. (You may want to watch this same mechanism in action on the Krishnamurti Forum under the thread "What is consciousness?" by pauld.)

The only answer desired by such a consciousness is an answer based upon thought, an answer by which it can preserve itself.

That consciousness claims that it desires the 'truth', not realizing that it must sacrifice its own existence to attain the truth. And that is something that it absolutely refuses to do. It is too much of a coward to do that. To the 'thinker', not even the Truth itself is worth the sacrifice of the 'self'/'thinker'.

That is why the world is in the sorry state that it is.

Michael

Please explain what you consider as "the consciousness of the self/thinker". Let us go real slow on this. First, what is consciousness--you know, all three of them--one by one. Then please describe the self/thinker--where he/it came from and why he is here, and what is he doing these days.

This is necessary because this is the who/what that loses interest in questions. I am supposedly either one of them/it or harboring one of them/it. I've got to know.

Forum: The Sacred Tue, 30 Jun 2009
Topic: Consciousness

Michael,

"I have been quite fortunate to have received very direct and overwhelming evidence of the reality of the dimension of consciousness that I am talking about through the experience of the memories of previous lives"

My God. Are you actually serious?

Forum: The Sacred Tue, 30 Jun 2009
Topic: Consciousness
Michael Cecil wrote:

max greene wrote: Would like to know about what happened in your previous lives, if you can give us a few more words on this.

I suppose you would; but that would merely be more information to distract from the immediate observation of the reality of the situation (and in no way helpful to you); which is that memories of previous lives clearly demonstrate both the reality of another dimension of consciousness altogether...

And the very real possibility of actually escaping the Matrix and the prison of the consciousness of the 'self'/'thinker'.

Not good enough, Michael. Let's here about what I asked. Stop ducking and weaving--out with it.

Forum: Awareness in our world today Tue, 30 Jun 2009
Topic: What does it mean to be "Aware"?
Toni Lorenzo wrote:

max greene wrote: What is it to be aware?

To be aware means to be choiceless in all of your senses.

I would say that's right. You sense something--no screen, no interfeence, no blocking thought, no preference--and that sensing is awareness.

It seems to me that this awareness is also observation, and intelligence. If something is observed fully, that observation is the understanding of it.

Forum: The Sacred Wed, 01 Jul 2009
Topic: Consciousness

Eve,

You're coming back in at a bad juncture. We just blew the place up. But "Now" is an important subject. I'm a little worn out here, but if you want to start a topic on the Now, I'm game. I hear there's a waiting list.

Forum: Insights Thu, 02 Jul 2009
Topic: Is insight only for selected few?

Insight is possible when thought and thinking are absent--that is, when the brain/mind is quiet.

The brain/mind is not made quiet by saying, "I must be quiet," because that is just another thought--exactly what must be quieted! So what is one to do to bring about quietness? If one can do anything, he has to see, understand fully, that thought is memory, that thought is nothing more than memory and it can never be anything more.

Thought has its place in our lives, and it is as necessary as breathing, but thought is memory of the past; it is always a construct of what once was. As a construct, thought (memory) is not alive and it is not creative. The brain/mind cannot have insight so long as it is occupied, busy, with thinking. Thought must be put aside, then insight is possible.

Forum: Insights Thu, 02 Jul 2009
Topic: Future is Now

The past is gone, it is yesterday, and the future is a projection, a hope. There is only now--and more explicity, Now. This Now is the same moment throughout the Universe--it has to be, otherwise there is discontinuity.

The Now is like a measureless ocean. It contains so-called "time" and the sequence of events; they are enveloped in it.

"The future is now" is true when the Now is carried forward as an image by thought (memory.) Do we want the future to be free of the past? If we do, we must cease to carry the past forward, as an image, through thinking and memory.

Forum: Insights Fri, 03 Jul 2009
Topic: Is insight only for selected few?

That's exactly it. The entire organism must be engaged and sensing. And that is the case when the organism is not busy with the process of thinking, and thought. Both thinking and insight are natural to the brain/mind. (I like to add "mind" in this manner as there are aspects and functions of the brain still likely to be discovered.)

Forum: Insights Fri, 03 Jul 2009
Topic: Future is Now

Unless there is agreement that yesterday is gone and that the future is a projection, there is not much point in discussion. No one yet has ever been able to do anything, take action of any type, in the past. The past can be reconstructed only through memory--and that "reconstruction" is not the past itself. The future can be forecast as a projection of what is known, but that projected future is just that--a forecast of what might be.

So there is only the "now." The "now" is the only reality. At this moment, right now, there is neither a past nor a future; at this moment there was a past and there might be a future, but that is all you can say. But what is this "now?"

Even the second before is the past, and of course the future isn't here. The Now, the ultimate present, is not measurable in nano-seconds, or by any other division of "time." But the Now exists! It has to, otherwise we wouldn't be here--nothing can be created in the past or in the future. Action is possible only in the Now--you can't "act" in the past.

Thought is memory, and thought is important when it is necessary to recall the past. Insight, understanding, and observation are actions and, as such, belong to the Now. They are there when thought is totally absent.

Forum: Insights Fri, 03 Jul 2009
Topic: Is insight only for selected few?

Is it possible to "prepare" for insight? Preparation implies thought--which is memory, stored knowledge. Insight is observation and seeing--a different process from recall, or from reading out of a book written on the subject.

But take for example an aeronautical engineer who is having a problem with the design of a wing. The engineer has a background of knowledge with aircraft design. He mulls over his problem with the wing and suddenly the solution strikes him--an insight. Without his background knowledge he might not even have been aware of the problem, to say nothing of the search for a solution.

So can we say that insight requires a background, a past, as a springboard?

Forum: Insights Fri, 03 Jul 2009
Topic: Future is Now

"Insight, understanding, and observation are actions, and, as such, belong to the Now." It should be added that thinking is also an action, possible only Now. Thinking is the act of recalling an image; insight, understanding and observation act to create an image.

Forum: Insights Sat, 04 Jul 2009
Topic: Is insight only for selected few?

" . . . earlier in this thread I asked "Doesn't it depend on what we mean by insight?" Nobody yet has responded to that question. I suppose it may seem bland and uninteresting."

No, it isn't uninteresting. I think it's an important question. Here's what I would say on the subject:

Insight requires observation, and for clear insight the observation must not be distorted. Observation is distorted when we are busy thinking of something--anything--because we are being distracted by the act of thinking. We are not giving our full attention to what is being observed. So I would say that insight is observation without distraction. Insight is giving your full attention to the matter at hand.

Usually insight is fleeting because thinking comes into play almost immediately upon looking at a subject. Attention flags and observation becomes distorted and weak. A person reverts back to merely thinking about a subject, and insight is gone.

Can insight be prolonged and made continuous? This question can be re-framed as, "Can we live in a state of observation and insight?" Right now, most of us live in a state of thought and thinking, with observation and "insight" our secondary concern.