Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
Discussion Forums

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


Forum: K, psychology and the physical brain Mon, 15 Jun 2009
Topic: science, the I and ego,

Phil,

"And there is something that is going on between these two brains that causes conflict and that is a fact"

Could you expand on this a little? It's hard to imagine an organism fighting with itself.

Forum: Serious Debate Mon, 15 Jun 2009
Topic: You are the World

Drakanthus,

"I like to enquire into these beliefs and see where they originate, what purpose they serve (if any) and which beliefs are valid to hold and which are not valid."

What purpose is served by "belief"? A belief implies that the one believing doesn't know and isn't aware of the facts (if either of these were true, it wouldn't be a belief.) If one doesn't know, then his belief is his opinion.

Beliefs (opinions) and belief systems (organized opinions) are and have been responsible for a great deal of the misery in the world.

Forum: K, psychology and the physical brain Tue, 16 Jun 2009
Topic: science, the I and ego,

"I think our entire real problem is the fear the right brain has of its loss of self and self image. I am not worried at all about the left brain. And here goes...it may have something to do with sex."

Fear is created when the organism reacts to the "I" being threatened. Fear is an emotion tied to the "I"; it exists only because there is an "I"--as we have said, the organism itself senses and reacts, but in its nature it is not emotional and judgmental. The "I" is a construct, a thought only. Why should we have to feel fear because one of our thoughts is threatened?

Forum: Insights Tue, 16 Jun 2009
Topic: Is there an ending to search?
Keshni Sahni wrote:

What was your experience with truth-seeking?

If truth is sought, it won't be found. We can inquire after the truth, but that is quite different from seeking.

Forum: Insights Tue, 16 Jun 2009
Topic: Commentaries on living

Linda, "I?m thinking that maybe being aware of being aware is similar to dreaming that you?re dreaming. Maybe dreaming that you?re dreaming removes you from the immediacy of your dream in the same way that being aware of your awareness removes you from the immediacy of your awareness (then again, maybe not)."

Awareness is when you take away the "I." The "I" is a thought construct and is passive. It can't do anything. Awareness is simply sensing--if you don't sense something, you can't be aware of it. The only entity that can be aware of anything is the living physical organism with its brain/mind.

Once one is aware of something--senses something--is it necessary, then, to begin thinking? If one wants to continue exploring and finding out, it is essential that he continues to sense and to be aware. To think is merely to call forth memories and has nothing to do with being aware of what is before you.

Forum: Awareness in our world today Tue, 16 Jun 2009
Topic: Is it impossible to live with nonattachment in LIFE?
Keshni Sahni wrote:

When you are alone, totally alone, not belonging to any family, any nation, any culture, any particular continent, there is that sense of being an outsider.

Who is the entity that would have the "sense" of being an outsider? It would be the living physical organism, with its brain/mind. This is all we are, unless we want to start speculating. And yet, the physical organism, which is us, has no known sense to detect emotions and value judgments. The organism sees, hears, smells, tastes and feels--and with its brain it thinks, creates thoughts.

The organism has created a psychological "I," which the organism then thinks of as itself. It is out of consideration for this image in the mind, this construct, that the thought of being an outsider arises.

Forum: Insights Tue, 16 Jun 2009
Topic: Commentaries on living
nick carter wrote:

Awareness, for all of its totality and immediacy, is inarticulate and non-reflective. Without language, thought, you can't know that you're aware and therefore can't know anything about awareness.

Knowing is thought, and thought is always after the fact. You can't know that you are aware. You might know that you were aware. But if you want to see something instead of just remember it, you have to be aware of it. (The way we use language is to use interchangeably "I see" for "I understand." Nothing wrong with this, I would say.)

Forum: Insights Wed, 17 Jun 2009
Topic: Is there an ending to search?
Ramesh G wrote:

Randal Shacklett wrote: "can we be free....?". That is a very interesting question. Who is "we"?

By pondering over your question who is 'we' time and again, I think I may get answers to life's riddles or because of its inability to answer your question, the brain may come to a state of not knowing.

The "we" ("I") is the physical organism, which includes the brain/mind. It is a living entity and the only entity capable of taking action. The physical organism, by way of thought, has created a psychological entity, the "I." All tangled up in its own thinking, it believes this "I" is itself!

Forum: K, psychology and the physical brain Wed, 17 Jun 2009
Topic: science, the I and ego,

Avril,

"I am questioning whether the 'Ego' 'I' 'Right' or 'Left' brain problem is the question that needs to be addressed?"

This is the point. The question before us, I would say, is this: what is this psychological "I" that each of us has created--why have we created it and what purpose does it serve.

Forum: Insights Wed, 17 Jun 2009
Topic: Commentaries on living
nick carter wrote:

So, you can't know that you are aware, but only that you were aware, which is to say we know nothing about awareness.

To know about something is to have knowledge of it, and knowledge is thought and memory. Certainly we can have thought and memory about being aware, but that thought and memory of awareness is not awareness itself. Awareness is now; it is not the memory of now.

Forum: K, psychology and the physical brain Wed, 17 Jun 2009
Topic: science, the I and ego,

"The truth is that you do not exist at all. Existence is an illusion of thought and only important to thought. When someone tells you that they exist outside of thought or memory please introduce them to an alzheimers patient who has lost varying amounts of brain function. Psychological time is just the illusion that left brain thought creates as yesterday, today, and tomorrow."

If we do not exist as physical organisms with brain/minds, there is not the slightest point to any of this discussion.

". . . K has had so much problems in getting people to understand change . . ."

Change, creativity has to be now--it can't be in the past. All of our thinking is of the past--it is memory. Change cannot involve thought--possibly it cannot involve the working of the brain, I don't know. Change is now--and what is this "now"? This is what humanity has not come to grips with, and what K didn't get across.

Forum: Insights Thu, 18 Jun 2009
Topic: Commentaries on living
rachMiel ... wrote:

i think you can be aware that you are aware. but this is different from thought-based knowing.

It would be different from thought-based knowing--which is not awareness at all. Awareness can only be now--like Now now. Total awareness--aware of being aware--is probably a God-like state in which awareness merges with awareness! (It might be best to drop it, about here.)

Forum: Insights Thu, 18 Jun 2009
Topic: Is there an ending to search?

I think it is important to keep in mind that only a living organism can act. The "Self," which at its center is a thought, is merely a construct and it cannot act on its own. It is passive. All thoughts are passive memories, just constructs.

So it is an error to say the Self does this or that, or that the "I"--another word for the Self--does this or that. It's us, the physical organisms, taking the action.

Forum: Awareness in our world today Thu, 18 Jun 2009
Topic: What does it mean to be "Aware"?

What is it to be aware? Obviously, one can be aware only in the present, which can be refined down to now--not ten minutes ago or even one minute ago, but now. But what is this "now," the only condition in which we can be aware. And what is it that is aware.

Forum: K, psychology and the physical brain Thu, 18 Jun 2009
Topic: science, the I and ego,

Here is an excerpt from previous correspondence of mine. I thought it might be pertinent to our discussion here:

"Is it possible that there is a mechanism that merges the two into a single concept of an "I"? For my part, I invariably see myself, psychologically, as a single "I." It is always "me" thinking, or "me" seeing. I never think of a "we" thinking or of a "we" seeing. How about you? Psychologically, isn't there only one of you? It doesn't matter, mechanically, how the brain is split up into various functions: the organism has set up a single controlling psychological "I."

I might add that now that I am aware that there are two "I's" attending my physical organism, and supposedly I am now aware of this, why am I still aware of only one psychological "I" when I look at myself? Is the left brain simply refusing to accept the right brain? Are they arguing?

If there are indeed two, one will eventually dominate, come to the fore, and take over. That will be the psychological "I."

Forum: Awareness in our world today Thu, 18 Jun 2009
Topic: What does it mean to be "Aware"?

You say, "that means understanding without any fragmentation introduced by ever-interfering thought." This is certainly a first consideration. Thought has absolutely nothing to do with awareness. Awareness cannot be approached by thought.

I'm a little suspicious of "consciousness." Isn't consciousness thought?

Forum: Awareness in our world today Thu, 18 Jun 2009
Topic: Is it impossible to live with nonattachment in LIFE?

I think we know who constructs the psychological "I," the Self. It is the living physical organism, with its brain/mind acting in the now. But why does the physical organism construct this phantom "I"? What purpose does this construct serve? Perhaps K and the Buddha and a few others have gotten to the bottom of this, but not the rest of us.

Forum: Insights Thu, 18 Jun 2009
Topic: Is there an ending to search?
Manfred Kritzler wrote:

Does that mean that you think that there is nothing else. no thought, no psych no wholeness, no implicate order or something else who or what is the cause of a movement?

I am not sure if the physical organism as a separate being is not the same imagination as the self?

Not to get picky, but if I (or anyone else, for that matter) "thinks" about a subject, I (we) are merely recalling memories of the subject. What is necessary in order to understand a subject is to look at it. One's understanding will be limited by the clarity with which he sees.

It appears to me that the only actor is the physical organism. The physical organism is a living entity, and only a living entity can take action or create. As a living entity the organism has created, as a thought, the Self. Why and for what purpose are real questions.

Forum: Awareness in our world today Thu, 18 Jun 2009
Topic: What does it mean to be "Aware"?
Krishnan Srinivasan wrote:

.So thought can watch itself, then it becomes aware of itself.

This is a very important point. Can thought "watch itself"? Can thought do anything, take any action at all? Thought is a construction of the brain. It is a passive construct. Thought is memory. One cannot possibly think of something of which he has not the slightest background or experience.

If one is watchful, that is the same as saying that he is seeing, looking. If one is looking at a subject through the screen of his memories, what he sees about the subject will be distorted by those memories. To the extent of this distortion, he will be unaware of what he is observing.

Forum: Serious Debate Fri, 19 Jun 2009
Topic: You are the World
Randal Shacklett wrote:
We exchange information/belief/opinion, feel good about our polite little circle of like minded seekers, and we're done. What are we left with, when all system/methodologies, are abandoned?

We are left with inquiry. We can inquire together into a subject. If there is any "help," as is being discussed, this is it.
Forum: Insights Fri, 19 Jun 2009
Topic: Is there an ending to search?
Ron Ziv wrote:

perhaps ultimate truth is the realization that it is beyond our brain's ability to capture it. Once this is known one may stop the futile search, and finally be at peace.

If we assume something is beyond us and we proceed on that assumption, that something most certainly will be exactly that--beyond us, just as we anticipated and expected. We have already set up failure in our mind.

Truth is now. Truth is accessible to all, but as you say, the search for truth is futile. Search is futile because "to search" implies that one already knows what he is searching for--and truth is always now, always new, and always unknown to thought. Truth is accessible through awareness.

One can inquire after truth. "To inquire" is entirely different from "to search."

Forum: K, psychology and the physical brain Fri, 19 Jun 2009
Topic: science, the I and ego,

I think we see that the psychological "I" (or "I's) is/are an illusion. The "I" is a construct. So since they are illusions anyway, it would seem to me that there is little point in discussing whether there are one or more of them. The imporant thing is that we fully realize, clearly see and understand, that these thought constructs are illusions and that there is no other "I" than the physical organism. We go on from there.

Are you saying, Phil, that that our problems, which are the problems of humanity, are caused not by the image of the "I" or "I's" but rather by the actual mechanics of the brain?

Forum: Awareness in our world today Fri, 19 Jun 2009
Topic: What does it mean to be "Aware"?

Krishnan,

A couple of things. Is effort needed to be free? If we are involved in becoming, in trying to reach a goal (we aren't talking about a physical goal)--in other words, if we are making an effort to attain--we will never be free. Why is that? Simply because when we are "trying," we aren't actually "doing"! We're too busy.

Awareness has to be now--awareness in the past or the future is impossible. "Trying" to be aware is not awareness. So how are we, as physical organisms, aware? We are aware through our senses. It might be said that awareness IS sensing. If we don't sense something, we certainly aren't aware of it.

Forum: Awareness in our world today Fri, 19 Jun 2009
Topic: Is it impossible to live with nonattachment in LIFE?

Krishnan,

Strange, but in creating the "I" for security, exactly the opposite has happened: It is the psychological "I" itself that has brought about uncertainty and chaos in the world--at tremendous cost to the physical organism it was created to "protect"!

Seems to me that if we really saw (became aware of) the terrible damage that the "I" has done to humanity, and became aware of just how useless this illusion is, it would dissipate or disappear like the phantom it is.

Forum: Insights Sat, 20 Jun 2009
Topic: Is there an ending to search?

Thomas

Seems to me that "truth" is now, and all we have to do is to be aware (that is, sense without some interference) what is going on around us--NOW. The rest is memory and illusion.

Forum: Question authority Sat, 20 Jun 2009
Topic: reaction

How's this for starters, Randal: Thought is memory of the past (there can't be memory of what's happening now or of what might happen in the future). The only thing you can do with something "now" is to be aware of it--you can't think about it. So being aware gets you into the loop in the first place. Thinking is recalling an image that you maybe want to massage.

What does it mean to be aware? In spite of all the profound discussions concerning awareness, it seems to me it's just the act of sensing something--you know, the five senses and all that. Nothing more! You don't sense it, Mac, you damn well aren't going to be aware of it.

Forum: Insights Sat, 20 Jun 2009
Topic: Is there an ending to search?

Thomas,

Yes, "search" is useless in this situation. What is needed is inquiry--an entirely different thing from search. Inquiry--questioning, asking--is possible without search, isn't it?

"Search" implies a goal already visualized. No good, in consideration of truth. As you say, "truth simply is." And I would add, because of this, truth has to be now.

But what do we mean by "now"? When is now? If you can pinpoint "when," the "now" is already gone. So what's the action needed?

(When I said, "all you have to do is to be aware," more correct would have been, "all you can do is to be aware.")

Forum: Awareness in our world today Sat, 20 Jun 2009
Topic: What does it mean to be "Aware"?

Krishnan,

All we know that exists is this body. It is my view that the body, through thought, has created the Self, or in more modern terminology, the psychological "I." But the the Self and the "I" are exactly the same.

When I say this is my view, that means this is the way I see it. My view may be distorted, and to that extent it will be in error. But it is important to say that it is "my view" so that it will be different from "my opinion." Opinion is thought and belief; viewing, even when distorted, is seeing--an entirely different act from opinion.

Looking forward to more on this.

Forum: Insights Sat, 20 Jun 2009
Topic: Is there an ending to search?

Thomas,

Good comments all. We do have to be careful with words and their meanings. If "inquiry" means "search," then by all means let us drop it. One comment more, in general, before we move on: The questions you are asking--they are what I would classify as inquiry.

"Can you find the Now? Can you produce the Now? Can you come into contact with the Now? Or does the Now comes into contact with "you"? Is there really action needed?"

Here's the way I look at the "now." There is a now, the present, and then there is the ultimate now--the "Now." Scientists have divided the second down to nano-seconds, but the smallest division of a second is not the Now. So long as there is a fraction of time, however tiny, this time is not the Now--the fraction is something that already exists and is being measured. The Now is beyond time, but we know there must be this Now simply because we are, we exist! Obviously creation can take place only in the Now, since otherwise "creation" would have to take place already in time. Action can take place only in the Now, obviously.

As an aside, we can see that the Now must be that same Now at the same moment over the entire Universe.

The physical organism is a living thing, and only a living thing can be creative or take action on its own--that is, can be operative in the Now. If there is any "you," it has to be the physical organism with its brain/mind. It appears that the organism itself doesn't identify an "I." It just is.

Forum: K, psychology and the physical brain Sat, 20 Jun 2009
Topic: science, the I and ego,

Mike,

A good use of the term "mind" would be as a catch-all for anything that might have to do with the brain--for instance, is thought material, or is there some yet undiscovered sixth "sense" for "seeing" into subjects with the brain.

To cover my own a. . .ankles, I like to use the term brain/mind.