Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
Discussion Forums

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


Forum: Insights Mon, 31 Aug 2009
Topic: Future is Now

Phillip & Peter,

But what is "now"? There is now, the present, and then there is Now, this very instant, an instant which is gone as soon as you speak of it. It is this Now that is critical. I would say that it is the only real "now."

That which exists and all that we see around us we can call reality. But this reality cannot touch Now. Thought, and all that exists, is already in the known, caught in time. Only Now, before time, is the real present.

As living beings, our life is Now--it has to be, since to live in the past is impossible. Life is only Now, and action and creation must be Now--have to be.

What would you say to this?

Forum: Serious Debate Mon, 31 Aug 2009
Topic: June 30th, 2008

Stephen,

You say, "I think a state of pure observation exists, but I don't know that it can be proved existentially in that as soon as one posits it's existence it is within the realm of thought."

I think this is true. (Pardon my saying, "I think" here. Its one of the awkward vagaries of the language. There's hardly a reasonable alternative to this stupid expression.)

Where was I? Oh, yes. As soon as one observes something, the observation goes into the memory bank and can only appear again as a recalled image through the process of thinking. So I would say that if you want to prove that a state of pure observation exists, you have to do it, do it yourself, and not think about it.

Forum: Insights Mon, 31 Aug 2009
Topic: Future is Now

Although we are alive, Now, we will never know this Now by thought and thinking. This is reasonable, since thinking, although an action and therefore of the Now, is nevertheless the act of recalling an image already created.

But can the Now be approached through observation? Observation is an action and is the act of looking at what is. Can the Now be identified as "what is"? It would seem the answer to be "No." Both identification and "what is" imply existence, and existence is caught in time.

So although we are alive, and therefore of necessity of the Now, there is no way we can approach the Now. Doesn't seem reasonable.

I hope this isn't just a lot of theory. Again, got anything to say here? I think this is important, because all action starts, creation starts, Now, and it would be nice to enter into "the unknowable." (Notice the choice of words, "enter into." Couldn't think of anything else.) It may be just simply impossible. But we are alive!

Forum: K, psychology and the physical brain Mon, 31 Aug 2009
Topic: the image process...

Phil,

Interesting post. You say, "obviously since the left brain memory cant even tell us why we like someone or dislike someone in this case, there must be a process going on outside of normal consciousness and that is what I call the image process."

I believe you are saying that the left-brain "thinking" is not hooking up with the right-brain emotions in considering the same subject. That would be why the left-brain can't tell the "reason" for not liking someone. Is this wrong?

The process outside of consciousness will still have to be something inside the brain, perhaps some other location in the brain than would be expected.

Maybe you've already described the image process you refer to, but if you haven't, can you do so? Or refer back to it.

Forum: Insights Mon, 31 Aug 2009
Topic: Future is Now

The Now seems to be the action itself. It is not that which has been created through the action of creation. It is not the living being (animal or vegetable) itself that takes action. The Now is not the subject of action. Is the Now action itself? Or maybe the word "energy" is a better word. Is the Now pure energy?

So it flies off into speculation. But the question arises, as living beings, is it possible to be conscious in the Now? To put it baldly and bluntly.

Since our present consciousness is thought and memory--the past--it would have to be a different consciousness. (Probably just kidding myself with this, and it's the old "grabbing at the more and better" reflex still at work.)

Forum: Insights Tue, 01 Sep 2009
Topic: Future is Now

Peter & Phillip,

I would say that thought is reality, and we and the world around us are reality. Now is the real, out of which reality has been created.

That's a good observation, that questions, and the answers to questions, are generated by thought. Both are reality, caught in time.

Questioning is effort--the effort to find out, or to discover, or to achieve. We are living beings, already Now, and questioning and effort (except, of course, for the physical day-to-day existence process) would appear to be a distraction of attention from the living to the world of reality.

But consider this. If we are living, if we are Now, and if we continue to be living, it is impossible for us to be in a state of distraction. Therefore, that which is, or has been distracted, must be, in reality, only an image of ourselves! My God, the implications of this!

Reality is that which has already been created. It is the past. It is an image of what was once real.

Forum: Insights Tue, 01 Sep 2009
Topic: Future is Now

"Standing in water you are wet, that is real."

"Real"? or "reality"? Both "you" and the water have already been created; both are mired in time. The "real" is now, which is not of time.

We are images looking at images. This is as much as we can understand, then we go back to our various pursuits.

Forum: Insights Tue, 01 Sep 2009
Topic: Future is Now

I guess we still aren't on the same page. The way I see it, it is impossible for anything to be Now, since there aren't enough nano-seconds in the Universe to reach Now (I realize that time is a man-made measurement). But nevertheless, everything is Reality. There is the Real (Now) and Reality (that which has been created.) Life is now; creation and action are possible only Now. These are not "things," and are not of the past.

Forum: Insights Wed, 02 Sep 2009
Topic: Future is Now

Peter,

You write, "There is the idea of empty, of nothing, of an unlimited consciousness. This is what we have now with our creative thought."

We can have the idea of an "unlimited consciousness" (which would certainly be nothing like the consciousness we now have), but this idea is a thought, an image. Is this "unlimited consciousness" real?

We do have to attend to thought, as you say. It is an important function in life. But we have to see thought for what it is: memory and image. It is never the actual--it is always a mental picture of that which was. Thought has its use in getting around, building structures, remembering formulas, and the like. Not much else. It is destructive if you are trying to understand something new and unfamiliar. It puts up a screen of memory, and you can't really see. For the new and unfamiliar, observation is what is needed.

Forum: Serious Debate Wed, 02 Sep 2009
Topic: June 30th, 2008

Stephen,

You have a lot of good questions in those two posts.

It's true, as you point out, that in observation thought is absent. They are two different things. Thought is memory and recall. Observation is seeing. You don't use thought to see something. And the other way around, you can't see something by thinking about it. So when you're using one, the other is out of the picture. Thought doesn't have to negate itself for there to be observation. It just isn't there if you are actually looking at something.

As a matter of fact, thought can't "do" anything. A thought is a mental construct, an image created by the brain. Thought is passive, lifeless, and can't take direct action in any way. It can act indirectly to influence, that's all.

So it is incorrect to say, " . . . thought - the activity of which man is captive . . . " because we are not captive to our thoughts. We are the creators of our thoughts. They are lifeless images totally within our control. (But of course, what we have done to the world by taking action based on these images is horrendous.)

Thought doesn't block observation except as we are busy with thought, i.e., remembering; recalling images. Stop doing this, and observation is just naturally there. And vice versa.

Your last post, you asked whether observation actually creates the images that are stored as thought and memory. I don't know, but I see nothing wrong if it does. There's nothing wrong with images, memory, thought, thinking. It's just that they have their place. It's the confusion of thinking and observation that causes our problems. Action based on thought is action based on image. Correct action springs from observation.

Forum: Insights Wed, 02 Sep 2009
Topic: Can one's mind be totally empty of ideas?

Peter,

You wrote, "Is there any action not using idea?"

Action can spring from observation. One can see, and take action. But action also can be based on thought, which is idea, memory and image.

When action is based on thought--that is, on memory and image--the action imposes the past on the present. In this way the present is distorted to be more in line with the image of the past.

Forum: Insights Wed, 02 Sep 2009
Topic: Future is Now

You wrote this, Phillip, "The world of my thoughts is illusion!"

And yet, as you say, everything is now. So your thoughts are now--and illusion is now.

And I think this is absolutely correct. But I make a distinction between Real and Reality. Real is now, and so is Reality. What distinguishes between them is that life, action, creation are Real. That which has been created and that is already in existence I call Reality.

Thought and illusion are a reality.

Forum: Insights Wed, 02 Sep 2009
Topic: Future is Now

We are an actuality, a reality. And yet we are at the same time alive and real. Because we are alive, we can act and we can create. These are things something merely actual is unable to do.

We can create a world that reflects our thinking or we can create a world that reflects what we see. The last part of the preceding sentence seems to be in error. When we observe, the world is just there--what's to create?

When we create a world that relects thinking, we are imposing thought--which is memory and image--on what is. We are bending "what is" to fit the past. This is somewhat necessary for physical building, construction, mechanics and daily life, but disastrous for relationships.

Forum: Insights Wed, 02 Sep 2009
Topic: Can one's mind be totally empty of ideas?

A businessman would say, "we don't have problems; we have opportunities."

But seriously, I think you're right in that we really don't have any problems other than what we make for ourselves. There are situations that come up in life, and always will be. Yes, fine, so be it. Just address them, and stop mixing the psychological with them and making problems out of them.

Forum: Insights Thu, 03 Sep 2009
Topic: Future is Now

Peter &Phillip,

I certainly agree, Phillip, that "Man isn't able to solve his problems through thought!" since thought is the past. The Middle East is a good example of what happens when you let the past, which is thought, influence today's actions. The people of the Middle East ought to just take a look around to see what's happening, how their land is ruined--ruined now, today--and forget about yesterday.

I don't want to just stop posting here, but I'll ask, do you think we've taken this about as far as we can go? Unless either of you wants to go on, I'm about ready to fold.

Forum: Insights Thu, 03 Sep 2009
Topic: Future is Now

One last question, then. Who is the author of "I Am That"?

Forum: Serious Debate Thu, 03 Sep 2009
Topic: June 30th, 2008

I'm sorry you took what I wrote as a personal attack on your ideas and thinking, and as an effort to change you over to my way of thinking. I guess it's the way I wrote it. There was no such intention meant. It was just the way I see things.

Forum: Insights Fri, 04 Sep 2009
Topic: Can one's mind be totally empty of ideas?

He didn't say no mind in attention, he said no mind at work in attention. Conceivable.

Forum: Question authority Fri, 04 Sep 2009
Topic: Questioning authority

What is behind questioning? It appears to me that an entity is required to feel dissatisfaction and to question. Is this entity the psychological "I," the Self? It cannot be the physical organism itself, which is a machine.

I would say that dissatisfaction and questioning die when the Self dies. Then there is only the seeing of what is, from one instant to the next, nothing to question.

What is your view of the matter?

Forum: Question authority Fri, 04 Sep 2009
Topic: Questioning authority

Randal,

I said, "It cannot be the physical organism itself, which is a machine."

You say, "Implication being, that the mind, is NOT a machine/automatic. Why do you imply that?"

I see the physical organism with its brain/mind as a machine. It has been created, and is therefore caught in time. It will wear out, decay, and be destroyed in one way or another, just as any machine will be. But just as is true with any machine, it can't act on its own--it has to be set in motion. The physical organism is set in motion by life, and life is of the moment, is not a machine--and has no questions to ask! Questioning is of the Self.

Forum: Question authority Sat, 05 Sep 2009
Topic: Questioning authority

Randal,

Yes, it is. Everything that has been created is obviously not beyond time however defined, as it is in the process of ageing and disintegration from the moment it is created.

Forum: Question authority Sat, 05 Sep 2009
Topic: Questioning authority

Randal,

The illusions that you refer to--they, too, since they have been created, are caught in time. Only now is outside of time.

Forum: Insights Sat, 05 Sep 2009
Topic: Can one's mind be totally empty of ideas?

Randal,

You say, in reply to one of the above posts, " . . . aren't you confusing cronological time, for psychological time? Thought/thinking is psychological time. Has anyone here, ever read any Krishnamurti? He frequently pointed out the difference."

So then, what is psychological time? It is the sense of the past and the future. I think you've said this yourself, more or less, that thought is the past, and with thought one imagines the future. As there is only the present--even more accurately, there is only now--the past and the future exist only psychologically. I would say it's possible to see beyond this illusion, to abandon it or to jettison it, as it was stated.

Perception is not of the past or of the future. It doesn't take time. If something isn't seen in the present, now, it isn't seen. If perception is spread over time, what you think you see will be an image.

Forum: Insights Sun, 06 Sep 2009
Topic: Can one's mind be totally empty of ideas?

"Now if one considers the entity that says, 'I don't know. I am not sure. I am not certain. I don't see,' is that an entity at all?"

I would say that it is. It is the psychological "I," the Self, behind these questions. Certainly that which is living has no need to ask these questions.

Forum: Insights Sun, 06 Sep 2009
Topic: Can one's mind be totally empty of ideas?

An entity is defined in the dictionary, and I go by that.

Forum: Insights Sun, 06 Sep 2009
Topic: Can one's mind be totally empty of ideas?

". . . the self always knows something, no matter what it says, but it can't really know that it's limited without seeing from beyond itself just what its limitations are."

The self can't do or know anything, since it's a construct. It's a thought at it's center, surrounded by a bunch of other thoughts. We call it consciousness.

Forum: Insights Sun, 06 Sep 2009
Topic: Can one's mind be totally empty of ideas?

"Illusory psychological time. Everyone speaks from there, not the present."

Most of us agree that the idea of a past flowing into a present and on into a future is psychological time. There was a past and there might be a future, but there is actually only the present. We say the present is the only reality, and the matter is dropped.

But what is the "present"? Is it today? Because this morning and ten minutes ago are just as much gone, just as much in the past, as the Jurassic Period.

The present is now. It's not so much as a minute ago. I wonder if we realize the significance of this. For one thing, life can only be now. If something is living, it is living now, not in some vague "present."

Forum: Insights Mon, 07 Sep 2009
Topic: Can one's mind be totally empty of ideas?

I think the problem is with our computers. I have an Apple also. There simply isn't any "quote" link on my screen or anywhere else on the page. I post quotes as you do. Cut and paste.

Meanwhile, back at the posts, you ask, isn't the absence of the observer the "now." But the now is all around us, we're in it (the now is all there is) and we're observers. We're alive, and can only be alive now.

Forum: Insights Mon, 07 Sep 2009
Topic: Can one's mind be totally empty of ideas?

Hermann,

I said, "We're alive, and can only be alive now."

And you replied, ". . . the NOW is all around us, but we live in the past."

Logically, we do not, cannot live in the past. How can something actually be alive in the past?

What is in the past is our consciousness. But are we only that which makes up our consciousness? Obviously not, because we are alive, now. That which knows consciousness, but is not of it, is of the now. Consciousness can never arrive at now because it is the past. It is memory.

Forum: Insights Mon, 07 Sep 2009
Topic: Can one's mind be totally empty of ideas?

Hi, rajaratnam,

You can delete the extra posts by hitting the "delete reply" on the extreme lower right corner of your post.