Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
Discussion Forums

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


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.

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

"Can one's mind be totally empty of ideas?"

Ideas are plans and projections and solutions, and we are obviously conscious of them. Consciousness is always the known, and therefore the past. For the mind to be totally empty of ideas, it must be free of consciousness.

We say this is impossible, but we are alive, now, and in this respect we are already free of consciousness. What do we have to do to be totally free? We have to reaize that nothing we can know or do will take consciousness out of the past. Ideas out of consciousness perpetuate the past.

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

I guess these two posts got mixed up, Nicks' and Rajaratnam's:

"And we know logically, that if there is another mode of perception, its distinguishing characteristic has to be that the past doesn't figure into it at all; that it has to be immediate, total, and content-free."

This is it. The past is gone. Consciousness is out of the picture, and perception is now. But we can take no action to perceive. The action will be the perception itself.

"I think if there is a way then it is a thought saying it.I think there is no way.Only what one could do is to watch this thought and in that watching ( if the watching is intense ) there is a possibility for the I who is watching to disappear along with the watching."

The italics are mine. I don't think we can even take this action. Everything has to go. We can't think or do anything that isn't consciousness. But we have to realize. Is this "doing something?" I don't know.

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

"Is not the clear seeing/perception of time...timeless? Is not the clear seeing of limitation...unlimited? Is not the clear sensing of thoughts..transcedence of the limitations of thinking? -geo-"

This is necessary and good in order to lead a good and thoughtful life. But if it all takes place within the individual's consciousness, it is still imagery and illusion--the imagery and illusion of the past as reality.

Forum: Serious Debate Mon, 07 Sep 2009
Topic: wonder what Krishnamurti would think

Psychologically, if you're involved in effort, if you are "trying," in other words, you're never going to get there.

Forum: Insights Tue, 08 Sep 2009
Topic: Can one's mind be totally empty of ideas?

Geo,

All I'm saying is that consciousness is the past, and its reflection NOW, in the living moment, is not reality. It is illusion. Action rising from consciousness--this illusion--will be wrong action because it will be based on the image of what was, not on the reality of what is. Correct action springs from observation and perception.

The Now is to be observed and perceived. It cannot be drawn up from consciousness (memory).

Forum: Insights Tue, 08 Sep 2009
Topic: Can one's mind be totally empty of ideas?

If I might butt in here on this question (hope you don't mind), I would suggest that the consciousness is the self.

Forum: K, psychology and the physical brain Wed, 09 Sep 2009
Topic: Classic Conditioning

Phil,

The Self seems to be a pretty slippery thing. You say, "I think here I would like to propose that maybe the "self" or "selves", may just be conditionings. In other words, it may just be a part of consciousness . . . "

At the moment of "contact," the Self is whatever is uppermost in consciousness. The old "thinker is the thought" game. In total, the consciousness is the Self.

Consciousness is the past. The past can't move forward into now except as a recalled image--the process of thinking. But we are living beings, and to be alive in the past is impossible. We are alive now. So I am saying that we--the actual moving and breathing us, capable of acting and creating (which can only take place in the immediate now)--have this suitcase full of images and memories with us, and we call this baggage consciousness. I'm calling it the Self, because it isn't at all the alive and breathing us, but we think that to be conscious is to be alive.

Forum: K, psychology and the physical brain Wed, 09 Sep 2009
Topic: Classic Conditioning

Phil,

You wrote, " I do not take the self to be the sum total of memory or that it is acting at all times when memory is operating."

When I said that consciousness is the Self, I meant, in my view, exactly that. The Self, for me, is anything and everything that attaches to one's existence. To exist, is to be--and that which "is," is in the past at the instant of creation.

Memory and thinking are not "killed off" by living in the present--the now--nor need they be. We live in the now constantly, inescapably, no choice! and yet we have memory and thinking. We can use these whenever the need arises. The problem comes in when we think this memory and thinking is us, and don't recognize it as just part of our--for lack of a better word--equipment.

And you write also, "So I may ask, couldnt one live in the now using memory correctly and when necessary and between the thoughts there is the silence and lack of conditioned emotion, which is the impetus that keeps a conditioned consciousness operating until the emotion is ended?"

I'd say this is exactly the question to ask. We do live in the now, and that silence between thoughts is most likely it.

Forum: Awareness in our world today Wed, 09 Sep 2009
Topic: Is vegetarianism a must for saving the world and ourselves?

Krishnan,

There are many reasons why meat eating is undesirable. Here are a few:

  1. It's an uneconomical use of productive land.

  2. It's a cruelty to living things.

  3. It's dirty and messy in the raising and slaughtering.

  4. It's use tends to coarsen one.

  5. It's not necessary in view of today's nutritional knowledge.

Forum: Question authority Thu, 10 Sep 2009
Topic: Questioning authority

Clive,

"So what is one to do, discerning that whatever action, whatever effort one makes only strengthens ignorance?"

This seems to be forgotten by a lot of the participants in these forums. Psychologically, all effort is a waste of energy.

Forum: K, psychology and the physical brain Thu, 10 Sep 2009
Topic: Krishnamurti and Bohm on the Physical Brain.....

Mr. Padmanabhan,

Thanks for replying to my post. You write, "Why is it that only few like Buddha, K among billions could see that "I' is an illusion and not others."

Maybe we should look at the question from the other way around. Instead of trying to see the "I" as an illusion, why don't we first look at ourselves to see our reality.

And we are real. We are alive, and life can only be now. It is impossible to be alive in the past. A minute ago we were alive, but we are alive now. NOW. So we ourselves are real.

Our consciousness is of the past. It is impossible to be conscious of some thing or some condition that hasn't existed or doesn't exist. The instant anything is created, brought into existence, it is already in the past. So all of consciousness is of the past, and can be brought forward to Now only as image, or as some would call it--but not quite accurately--illusion.

Our consciousness is the "I." Every man thinks his consciousness is himself, but consciousness is only the past that the man who is alive carries with him.

Forum: K, psychology and the physical brain Thu, 10 Sep 2009
Topic: Classic Conditioning

Phil,

You write, ". . . the self is just a thought which makes it no different than any other thought except it is a mistaken thought."

I was thinking (here's that misleading word, again) that there is, after all, a difference between the psychological "I" and the Self. The psychological "I" is what you say, above. The Self is the whole ball of wax, the individual's entire consciousness. The Self is a reality because it exists as memory and image, but not, as we could say, "in real time." The "real" is the living individual.

Once we realize what the Self is, that it is entirely memory and image, that it is not alive, the rest should be easy. (!!)

I think we use the "I" as a proxy for consciousness. When we say "I," we think of our conscious selves. Does this start us down the discussion path for conditioning at all? Why are we all caught up in this basic error? It all seems so simple, if we had only been told in childhood.

Forum: K, psychology and the physical brain Fri, 11 Sep 2009
Topic: Classic Conditioning

Phil,

You write, "A conditioning is the creating of an emotional response in man and attaching it to something that is not necessarily the thing. The ?self? both left and right brain is quite an emotional experience for man."

For Pavlov's dogs, was it determined that the conditioned response was emotional? Is human conditioning, in all cases, an emotional response? Lastly, is the Self only emotion? It would appear not, since factual memory is not emotion.

It would seem to me that without the surrogate "I" the emotions have no valid reference. The body doesn't need them, and the Self is, in its "pure" state, memory, which also has no need for emotion. Emotion is included in the Self, but it seems to be "pulled up" only for the "I."

And you write, "I think the genetic, biological emotions of fear and pleasure as used for conditioning the body and mind are very real and very powerful . . . "

Couple of things, here. First, are the two emotions, fear and pleasure, biological and (referring back to the above) not a result of conditioning? Second, I wonder whether emotions--the sensations--have any useful biological purpose. The chemical reactions that give rise to the feelings may well have a biological purpose, but the sensations themselves appear on the scene only with the phony "I." Take away the "I" and the emotion (sensation, or feeling) goes with it.

Forum: Question authority Fri, 11 Sep 2009
Topic: Questioning authority

Randal,

"No one is serious, even though everyone claims to be."

Unfortunately, I think you're right. We don't understand things easily because we're not serious about them. Our attention wanders because, truthfully, we aren't vitally interested in the things we claim are "important." With a wandering, floating attention that at most spans three or four posts, we tackle subjects like, "Is Observation Necessary in the Search for Inner Peace?"