Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
Discussion Forums

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


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

Phil,

I have a couple of comments here.

You say, "The other [the Ego] is nearly impossible to see and in my observation is the reason K said no one had changed . . ." I would ask, what makes the Ego so difficult to see? It would appear that following up on this question is the key to that "freedom" everyone talks about, while incidentally it is the key to saving the world. Once humanity is free from the "I" or "I's," he will be seeing and thinking without personal motive.

"What I am investigating is how the mechanics of the brain have been taken over by thought and misused to create illusions . . . " The mechanics can't have been taken over by thought, as thought is a passive construct. The brain itself has to take the action to create the illusions. The brain has either been damaged or conditioned and so it is not seeing and thinking straight. (This is a little picky, I'll admit.)

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

Yes. If there is a distorting factor, let's out it.

Forum: Awareness in our world today Sat, 20 Jun 2009
Topic: Is it impossible to live with nonattachment in LIFE?

When we talk of "freedom,' we are talking of freedom from the Self, or freedom from the "I," are we not? So what entity is it that wants to be free from the Self? What entity is it that sees and longs for freedom and says, "I want to be free"?

I'm saying it is the physical organism with its brain/mind. The physical organism is a living thing, and because it is a living thing, the organism is actually capable of acting and creating beyond time. Through the process of thinking the organism has created a thought construct that we call the Self. Of course, a construct can't do anything on its own--by its nature it is passive and lifeless. But the organism has given vast significance to the Self that it has created--such significance that the organism comes to think of the Self as itself. The organism becomes very protective of this Self that it has created. When threatened, the organism resorts to violence. We know the rest of the story.

What are we to do with this Self we have created? The Self is there, and if we look closely, it seems to be all that there is. It just might be! The Self might be all that we call "consciousness," because consciousness is of the known, and the known is already in time, old, and is neither creative or new. As I said, the physical organism is a living thing, capable of acting and creating outside of time. Freedom from the Self cannot be accomplished through effort. Freedom is accomplished through effortless seeing and understanding.

I may be all wet, but this is how the situation looks to me. What would you say in this regard?

Forum: Insights Sun, 21 Jun 2009
Topic: Is there an ending to search?

The Now is not speculation. It can't be--we are here, we exist, and we obviously don't exist in the past or in the future. We live Now. Now is all that there is.

Of course the Now is not an infinitesmal point. It is a measureless sea that contains time--past, present and future. Only a living thing can act and be creative in the present.

Forum: K, psychology and the physical brain Sun, 21 Jun 2009
Topic: science, the I and ego,

Mike,

(The intention here is not to interfere at all with the discussion of the 'contents' of consciousness, but merely to contextualize that discussion as not pertaining to the 'container' itself. That's all.)

The container is the physical organism with its brain/mind. Maybe we can put it like this: The brain creates thoughts, whether distorted or not by damage or conditioning, and these thoughts can be reinforced by other thoughts. But the actor behind it all is the brain.

The question is, can the brain free itself from thinking and thought? Thought and thinking are necessary, mechanically, but why must we be incessantly mucking about with the past? How are we to free ourselves of this? Is there a "way," or would that be just another thought system?

Forum: Question authority Sun, 21 Jun 2009
Topic: reaction

I'm going to say that "perception" means to sense, to be aware.
If this working definition is okay with you, then we could say that there are differences in perception, but not necessarily distortion in perception.

To illustrate: A dog looks at a beautiful day and he sees mostly gray (so I've been told.) We look at the same day and we see all sorts of colors. The perceptions are different, not distorted.

Is our perception ever distorted (guess that's what you asked in the first place) or do we just see what we see? I opt for the last.

Forum: Insights Sun, 21 Jun 2009
Topic: Is there an ending to search?

Mike,

The past is gone and the future is a projection. We live in the present. We can't get out of it! As living things, alive, we live in the Now because that is all that there is. To put it another way, there isn't any "time." Time is a measuring device we have devised. As K said someplace, there isn't any time, but there is sequence. An important distinction.

So assume we take a memory and we work on it and massage it. What we get is some sort of continuation of the memory into the Now but in a more or less different form. At its center the same old stuff. What happens Now when memory isn't operative--that is, when you are aware without memory? Is this condition possible?

Forum: K, psychology and the physical brain Sun, 21 Jun 2009
Topic: science, the I and ego,

Mike,

"It is possible to separate oneself from this instantaneously by simply standing outside of the 'movement' of self-reflection altogether and observing how that 'movement' gives rise to the 'form' or 'container' of consciousness--that is, the 'self' or the 'mind'--in the first place."

Who is it that will be standing outside? If it is anyone other than the physical organism . . .

Forum: K, psychology and the physical brain Mon, 22 Jun 2009
Topic: science, the I and ego,

I'm sorry, Mike, but all I'm aware of is a me, a Self, inside a physical body. What you're talking about, somebody's got to show me.

Forum: Awareness in our world today Mon, 22 Jun 2009
Topic: What does it mean to be "Aware"?

Strong words, Krishnan! Silence (the absence of the noise of thinking) is absolutely necessary before one can do anything truly creative or new.

Thinking is the use of memory, and memory is of the past. When we act out of memory, we drag forth yesterday and continue on with yesterday as the root, the base. That has been the destruction of the Middle East. To be new and creative, the past must not--cannot--be carried forward. Action based on thinking can be the work of the very devil.

Can silence be brought about through effort, discipline, knowledge, ritual?

Forum: Insights Mon, 22 Jun 2009
Topic: Is there an ending to search?

Mike,

Tell me, how can you live in the past, or in the future?

It just appears that we "live in the past." Can't be done. A brick might have been made yesterday--and it's here today, too. But the brick isn't alive--it isn't creating new cells, growing. To be alive is to live Now, which we are all doing. Only that which is alive can truly act or be creative.

Forum: Insights Mon, 22 Jun 2009
Topic: Is there an ending to search?

Keshni says, ". . . today is going to become another yesterday. . ." and it certainly will if we recall the memory of yesterday into the living Now. Thought is memory, and is always of the past. Let the past die, and the Now will not be another yesterday.

Forum: K, psychology and the physical brain Mon, 22 Jun 2009
Topic: science, the I and ego,

Along with "What is emotion?" don't we ask, "What does emotion apply to?" Does it apply to the physical organism or to the psychological "I"? One or the other has to sense the emotion.

(A little correction here. The psychological "I," being a construct, can't "sense" anything. It would be the physical organism sensing, but applying the emotion to the psychological "I' that it thinks of as itself.)

Forum: The Sacred Mon, 22 Jun 2009
Topic: Consciousness
Michael Cecil wrote:
You then know about the 'what is' not because I have told you but because you have observed it for yourself. Then you are not dependent upon me as being your teacher . . .
This is my first post on this site for quite some time, so forgive me if I'm a little out of the loop. What do you mean, Michael, when you use the term, "what is"? I define "what is" as that which is true, the Now.
Forum: Awareness in our world today Mon, 22 Jun 2009
Topic: What does it mean to be "Aware"?

Krishnan,

It is interesting to examine why rituals, discipline, knowledge, beliefs, systems, methods, and all such approaches do not work. We say, "Some of the wisest men in the world have done all this, gurus and learned men, and now they are passing what they knew (or know) down to us. What's wrong with this? We should use it!"

Approaches fail because they use thought (memory)--which is of the past. If we, who are living, creative beings, carry the past into the Now, the Now will not be new but will be a deteriorating continuation of yesterday.

We must see the Ego for what it is. But who is it that sees the Ego?

Forum: Question authority Mon, 22 Jun 2009
Topic: reaction

Randal,

"I live in a world where people are constantly in competitive conflict on a subtle and most obvious level. Wanna trade places?"

It takes two for competition and conflict.

Forum: The Sacred Mon, 22 Jun 2009
Topic: Consciousness

Michael,

"The question, as I see it, is whether there is a consciousness--it would not be a specifically human consciousness--prior to the 'form', or the 'container' of the human consciousness or 'self' which originates in self-reflection."

If there is such a consciousness, it has to be Now, with no carry-over from the past. A carry-over from the past would create an entity. What we call "consciousness" is an entity, the Self, which at its center is a thought surrounded and protected by other thoughts that the brain/mind has applied thereto. To live with this non-entity consciousness, one must be free totally of the influence of the past; one must cease to be a "One." Is this possible?

Forum: Insights Mon, 22 Jun 2009
Topic: Is there an ending to search?
phillip philips wrote:

Mankind is the fact, he isn't able to be, or to do, anything out of the now . . .

The Now is all that there is. We are in the Now and we can act only in the Now. The past can be dragged forward into the Now through the process of thought (memory) and acted upon. It is action in the Now based upon the memory of yesterday that is the cause of most of mankind's misery. It is possible to see in the Now, and it is seeing, observation, without the distortion of thought and memory that is correct and from which correct action flows.

Forum: The Sacred Mon, 22 Jun 2009
Topic: Consciousness

Michael,

"Before the 'self' is a thought, it is a 'form' or a 'container' of consciousness in the niche in 'space' that has been created through self-reflection. Then, the thought of the 'self' or the 'thinker' or the 'mind' is postulated which maintains the temporal continuity of that conscious 'space', or 'form' or 'container'."

Could you explain this a bit more? It seems to me that the physical organism with its brain/mind is all that we have. There may be attributes of the brain/mind that we do not know of. Are these attributes what you are bringing out?

It would seem that the brain/mind, acting through thought, is all there is and, indeed, all that is needed. Of course, all action is in the Now. Am I way off base? In science they have a procedure using a method called Occam's Razor.

Forum: K, psychology and the physical brain Tue, 23 Jun 2009
Topic: science, the I and ego,

"The emotions though seem to have purposes in the self preservation or sexual processes or I guess in the general well being of the organism maybe as in happiness."

As I've said, I can't see why the physical organism would develop an emotional capacity. Emotions are not needed for self-preservation--they actually hinder the reflexive, instinctual responses. Emotions are not needed for food, security and--perhaps questionably--sex in the animal world.

That's what I meant by "apply," a poor word for the occasion, I guess. If emotions don't really apply to the physical--and it appears to me that they should not, logically--then they must apply to the phantom "I," and are therefore dispensable along with the "I" itself.

Forum: The Sacred Tue, 23 Jun 2009
Topic: Consciousness

Michael,

"What is" is the Now.

Forum: Insights Tue, 23 Jun 2009
Topic: Is there an ending to search?

Mike,

We let the past die psychologically. Mechanically, technically, we do need what has gone before. Why do we need it? We have brought ourselves into the postion where it is necessary for our daily lives.

That's right, with the "absolute nothingness." That would be the condition--and we are afraid of it. Probably this fear is the reason we can't get past where we are. We can't let go. But the Now is this "absolute nothingness" because we have nothing to describe it. It is beyond description. The best we can do is to fully realize that, psychologically, we will never be able to meet, reach, touch or experience the Now. The full realization of this is the highest intelligence.

Forum: The Sacred Tue, 23 Jun 2009
Topic: Consciousness

Michael,

"What is it that observes that the 'experiencer' is completely consumed in the 'experience'? And can that be referred to, technically, as an 'observation' at all?"

When the total physical organism senses, it is the observer. What it senses is the observed. Without "sensing," there obviously is no awareness, no contact, no observation. When the physical organism senses without a psychological interjection, there is no differentiation; there is a unity. In simple observation without psychological interference, there is no observer/observed relationship.

Forum: The Sacred Tue, 23 Jun 2009
Topic: Consciousness

Ramesh & Jean:

A few more words on the "Now," from above:

The past is gone and the future is a projection. There is only the present; only the "now" exists. That is a fact.

But what is the present, the "now?" Scientists have analyzed "now" into nano-seconds, and they are still going. So long as there is the slightest nano-nano-nano etc. second remaining, there is still another just beyond it. To this analysis there is no end.

And yet, there has to be an ultimate present, a NOW now. This is obvious, because we have been created, and creation has to take place Now--creation can't take place in the past, even if that past be only a nano-nano-nano second behind in sequence.

So this ultimate present, this Now, is beyond time. It is measureless. The "Now" at any given moment is the same "Now" throughout the universe. Action and creation can take place only Now.

Forum: K, psychology and the physical brain Tue, 23 Jun 2009
Topic: science, the I and ego,

Hey, Phil!

We're going to start losing people with this involved and long material. Maybe we should keep it down to just a little over Twitter size. "Brevity is the soul of wit."

So here's what I say: If you take the time to get emotional when a truck is coming at you head-on, you're a dead man. (estimate this at about 105 key strokes.)

Psychological conditioning is easy to get rid of: you just recognize it for what it is. (estimate this at about 85 key strokes.)

Forum: Awareness in our world today Tue, 23 Jun 2009
Topic: What does it mean to be "Aware"?

The entity able to see the Ego for what it is (or to see anything, for that matter) is the living physical organism with its wonderful brain. That's all a human is--a living physical organism. A man wants to believe that there is more, so he goes to an authoriy and accepts what he has to say on the subject. Or, if he has a little more energy, he speculates on his own. The man isn't satisfied that he is a living being. That's not good enough. He wants more.

Forum: The Sacred Tue, 23 Jun 2009
Topic: Consciousness

Jean

"Jk come back by saying that if we can accept with every fiber of our being that thought can not investigate into intelligence, will fall right into intelligence."

Exactly so, Jean. Exactly.

Forum: The Sacred Tue, 23 Jun 2009
Topic: Consciousness

Ramesh,

I'm about 5'3" 120 lbs. bald, old, and near-sighted. Please, no more of this "big guy" stuff. Bad for my heart.

Forum: The Sacred Wed, 24 Jun 2009
Topic: Consciousness

The living, physical organism "observes" through its senses. It is "aware" through its senses. The only other possible entity we might call an observer would be a psychological "I," or Self--a thought construct put together by the physical organism. As a construct, this "I," or Self, would not be a true observer at all--it is passive, lifeless--but only a go-between. The physical organism, "observing" through this go-between, invariably has a distorted view of what is being observed.

If the physical organism is acting in the Now (and it can, as a living being,) with no reference to the past through thought (memory), there is no "I" or Self. Then there is neither observer nor observed, and the organism is acting creatively.

Forum: Awareness in our world today Thu, 25 Jun 2009
Topic: What does it mean to be "Aware"?

A living physical organism with a brain/mind. That's all I see. I've heard a lot of things about a lot more, but a living thing with a wonderful brain, a brain able to inquire and to question, should be enough to keep us busy.

That's our problem: we always want more. And, we are afraid to die, so we want immortality in some way. We want something beyond the physical.