The whole point of K's teaching, it seems to me, is to point to the fact that the human brain must operate differently if we are to avoid the self-centered and ultimately destructive behavior that characterizes our species. He said this transformation of the brain could take place, but not until the brain could see for itself the error of its way, and that "the seeing is the doing". I take this to mean that we are currently operating with the left-brain dominating; that the brain is not operating wholly, intelligently, and that there is no immediate perception of this condition.

K: " There is no mutation possible as long as I am functioning within the field of the positive, which is of time, which is covered by the distance between the fact and the image. There is no mutation possible as long as there is this reaching out, this searching and finding - all of which are forms of greed and pleasure, breeding pain, suffering, anxiety, and fear."

So what, altered consciousness meets the timeless, physical brain mutates??

I'm not sure what it is you're saying, but does it really require two question marks?

It seems to me that it is not the distance between a fact and the image, but rather that there is an image in the first place.

A fact is always Now, immediate. The image of that fact is our memory of it, created in our brain. We can recall this image, the memory, but obviously we can never recall the original fact itself. If we want to work with originals, we have to live Now and see Now. If we want to work with images--our memories--we will be forever recalling the past into the present.

max

Okay, but what does this have to do with the subject?

Human brain is the product of time being evolved in time and is still evolving, acts and live in time, all its functions are in time, like thought. Mutation is also in time as it takes time for cells to mutate to new order to change.consciousnesses is, all that is known, also in time, time can not solve human problems, time is the problem, can this movement end? When the brain is in the mode of not knowing, is always learning mode that is the state of being.

The whole point of K's teaching, it seems to me, is to point to the fact that the human brain must operate differently if we are to avoid the self-centered and ultimately destructive behavior that characterizes our species. He said this transformation of the brain could take place, but not until the brain could see for itself the error of its way, and that "the seeing is the doing". I take this to mean that we are currently operating with the left-brain dominating; that the brain is not operating wholly, intelligently, and that there is no immediate perception of this condition.

What, for you, is meant by "the seeing is the doing"?

max

The seeing is the understanding that dispels ignorance or misunderstanding.

Yes. Seeing is the action itself.

But when we see that the left brain dominates, and when we see that the brain is not operating wholly, I have a feeling that this mechanical information will still not be enough to transform our lives--stop our wars, stop our destruction of the earth, etc.

max

max greene wrote:

Yes. Seeing is the action itself.

But when we see that the left brain dominates, and when we see that the brain is not operating wholly, I have a feeling that this mechanical information will still not be enough to transform our lives--stop our wars, stop our destruction of the earth, etc.

You're speculating. You either see it or you don't. Don't project or imagine what would or would not happen if you could see. I don't see it, I just have my suspicion. And never mind about "our wars" and "our destruction". It's about your brain and your brain only.

nick carter wrote:
And never mind about "our wars" and "our destruction". It's about your brain and your brain only.

Perhaps Max is not still stuck in the personal - his inquiry may have genuinely moved into the general - it happens. Your harsh words are only about yourself.

nick carter wrote:

The whole point of K's teaching, it seems to me, is to point to the fact that the human brain must operate differently if we are to avoid the self-centered and ultimately destructive behavior that characterizes our species. He said this transformation of the brain could take place, but not until the brain could see for itself the error of its way, and that "the seeing is the doing". Max wrote, I take this to mean that we are currently operating with the left-brain dominating; that the brain is not operating wholly, intelligently, and that there is no immediate perception of this condition.

Max and Nick,

The left brain, the right brain and the old brain are all caught in time it cannot be otherwise as it is all a product of evolution.Can "the mind die to thought"?

The Question and following paragraph which precedes the quote of Krishnamurti "Look. There is no mutation possible as long as I am functioning within the field of the positive ..." is worth reading to get an understanding of what K is saying so I will quote it.

Question: shouldn't we move from the positive to the negative?

Krishnamurti: You're quite right. But I want us to understand completely the nature and the structure of the positive before we go into the other because I feel there is a distance of a different kind, which is not this distance. I didn't want to start with that.
Look. There is no mutation possible as long as I am functioning within the field of the positive, which is of time, which is covered by the distance between the fact and the image. There is no mutation possible as long as there is a reaching out, this searching and finding - all of which are forms of greed and pleasure, breeding pain, suffering, anxiety, and fear. When there is an understanding of that, which we call the positive, there is a moving away from it to something else. The moving away does not involve distance. The negative is not an idea to which you are moving, away from the positive."

Is'nt staying with the fact more important than the image?
We asking what is possible and the possible is the contents of conciousness; the positive.

Averil

"Can the mind die to thought?"

I don't see why it would want to. You need thought, otherwise you won't find your way out to your car tomorrow morning. It's the wrong use of thought that is the problem. And I don't think we need a mutation of the brain. I think we just have to figure out the right place of thought in our lives.

max

I think we do need a mutation of the brain. Why would you argue against it? To say "we just have to figure out the right place of thought in our lives" is like saying, "Just give us more time".

Mutation means some thing not there before. Mutation in brain means new pathways in the brain. Not the old changing to new, but a new way to think.

Mutate from what to what? And how? On the other hand, how much time does it take to understand this: Thought is memory. Unless it is something mechanical and routine, you don't use thought on something that is a fact now. You use awareness.

David, I would say that we don't need a new way to think. What we need is to realize the place that thinking (memory) has in our lives, and then to use thinking rightly. It is totally wrong to dredge up memories (images) of the past and apply these memories to the living present. Why? For the simple reason that the image is not the thing itself. When we work with images we work with ghosts, and we work out of context.
And, probably the worst consequence of working with memories, we drag yesterday into today, on and on and on.

max

This post was last updated by max greene Mon, 10 Aug 2009.

You are right we need to think holistic. Therefore holy

sorry ..guys..i have been lax in reading this excellent exchange and I have eliminated the posts that david has had problems with....i would like to see this continue with the idea of the whole brain...nick is right on with his analysis of the left brain control I think....but you have to realize that the right brain is the primitive brain that the left brain has come around to try to control...I think it is the cause of all religions and religious beliefs...I sure wish some one else besides me had researched this based on the brain...I have been doing it for 35 years and truly guys there is something to it....you can see it in yourself if you look at thought as in words and in images as in the secretative self or unconsious self they talk about...it aint subconscious...it is as real as thought and it controls you and directs you...it is the state that K talks about when he says can you observe the tree without thought...and he says..yes that is easy but can you observe it without the "image" the "observer"...think about what the difference K meant by thinker and observer! That to me with years of reseach is the difference between the left brain thinker and the right brain observer....of course I could be wrong because that is a theory but there is a difference and that is true and not a theory....

The old brain we inherited from animals is that carries out most of the functions, it drives man. It acts in self mode, the thinker. There is thinking that is free form thinker.

I wouldn't say that there isn't any thinking that is free from the thinker. But no doubt there is thought in the deep consciousness of which the person is not aware. So it's a question of awareness.

Phil, all of this left/brain/right/brain information is good to know, but of what real consequence is it? Behind it all is the psychological "I," whether we label and analyze causes and effects forever. Does it matter whether we say the Self is the right or left brain, whether we say there are multiple Selfs, whether we prove this or that side of the brain dominates? The psychological "I" remains.

It seems to me that there is no end to the psychological "I" (Self) until one sees absolutely that it has no existence other than as a thought--actually a useless and dangerous thought.

max

Hi, I have been having trouble login in and that turned out to be my own ignorance.

Max said,
Mutate from what to what? And how? On the other hand, how much time does it take to understand this: Thought is memory. Unless it is something mechanical and routine, you don't use thought on something that is a fact now. You use awareness.

There is no 'how' in mutation as that would require a system etc. An animal with language i.e. a human that uses the left brain, right brain, old brain as seperate functions in relationship to the world may not have completed its evolutionary purpose. Science has explained, I think, quite reasonably how the self has arisen through the ability of memory and language to reflect on itself, creating paradoxes within the duality that is the mind. This originally was gone into by Krishnamurti and science I think verifies everything that he said in the relationship of the self to time/thought and content of consciousness as we know it. What science hasn't done as far as I am aware is questioned whether we actually have "taken a wrong turn" and that thought/time has intefered with what could have been an holistic brain that was not responding instinctally or as a reaction from memory.

Max,
"What we need is to realize the place that thinking (memory) has in our lives, and then to use thinking rightly.

and

Max
On the other hand, how much time does it take to understand this: Thought is memory. Unless it is something mechanical and routine, you don't use thought on something that is a fact now. You use awareness.

Seeing a fact of the psyche does not involve time/thought, actually the problem that occurs is that the self makes a problem of thought and wants it in its right place. Awareness maybe used as tool of thinking -I am aware and silent (thought is silent ) and one maybe peaceful in that space but the whole thing starts up again.

Thought does not arise in the mind that has died to self. And to ask what observes and if that is for always is the duality again. The fact that the "mind dies to thought " is seen and thought is then in its right place.

Averil

max greene wrote:
It seems to me that there is no end to the psychological "I" (Self) until one sees absolutely that it has no existence other than as a thought--actually a useless and dangerous thought.

Absolutely, this is it. I agree wholeheartedly.

The reason I do the left and right brain stuff is after all these years, I have seen the existence of different selves. You can end the self you are talking about but the self image still exists and may be the more dangerous self because it is harder to understand and more primitive. I have not invented the words I use but they are K words like self, self image, ego, and conditioning. It is just that K words as I was proposing in my original purpose of this forum, I think are supportable in the real world of science. Let's not forget that K said this is so simple and yet no one got it that he had met. Could K need a little interpretation in modern terms?

Now lets take your statement that "one sees" that the self is a thought. If I can show you that all thought has been proven to be a fragment and that there is no center to the language consciousness and one sees or accepts that as a fact, then what does one do to end living in the illusion that he is center of his consciousness. He must "see" that fact intellectually at first, in which case it becomes just another thought that the center has. Well, K said at least understand all this intellectually. Why would he say that. Would it possibly be because a person who understands that something is a truth in his consciousness at least has that as content and may not be as the person who lives in the total reality but is a "better" who is working on it. Now obviously, my left brain right brain information is intellectual by its very nature of being thought. So an intellectual understanding is probably better than nothing. Of course, none of this I say may be correct, but as of yet, I have not seen any disagreement from anyone who knows anything about the mind, and I am sure I dont have it all correct and welcome corrections or questions. What you see is people who throw out the premise entirely as not being K enough if I may word it that way.

Now le'ts say that one has this understanding of the mind about thought intellectually and carries it around with him for years whether it is just the fact about thought being not the center as K said or whether it is a person maybe who is a little more scientifically interested and he sees that Francis Crick has proven that there is no self and I have said that self that he is talking about is the language self, and then one day, he "sees" the "truth" of it all. Then suddenly there is no longer the intellectual understanding but there is a change in the person...radical change where the self dies as center to all thinking. What caused this type of "seeing?" Obviously, it can"t be thought seeing anything because thought cant see, can it? You teach me this all the time. So what sees? This is the Koan! There is no answer. Is there? So how does a mind that has all this information about itself whether it's K information or scientific information change. How about it overloads and blows up! Remember some go crazy trying to understand K or just get depressed. Blowing up is a much better alternative!

omg....i was writing my statement in this last post at the same time that averil was writing her statement..i cant believe it..the two posts are exactly the same.....please read both responses of averil and mine to max above......

Averil,

"Science has explained, I think, quite reasonably how the self has arisen through the ability of memory and language to reflect on itself. . . "

Let's hope they can carry this two steps farther: (1) Explain for all of us the purpose of this self, and (2) if they can't find a good purpose for it, tell us how to get rid of it.

max

Max
Let's hope they can carry this two steps farther: (1) Explain for all of us the purpose of this self, and (2) if they can't find a good purpose for it, tell us how to get rid of it.

I think you are having me on Max. The whole purpose of thought referring back to itself was to give thought/time/ self a meaning and science has the same purpose. As I said, science only explains how the self was created and Krishnamurti insight was into the whole of thought and realised the 'how' is the problem.

Averil

Averil,

You're probably right. It appears those two steps are outside the scope of science.

You say, "Thought does not arise in the mind that has died to self."

Thought must be able to arise in the mind. Thoughts are images produced by thinking of what has already been observed. We need thought to get along in this world, but using thought to observe that which is new is a mistake. All that will be observed will be the thought itself.

max

This post was last updated by max greene Wed, 12 Aug 2009.

Phil,

"Obviously, it can"t be thought seeing anything because thought cant see, can it?. . . . So what sees? This is the Koan! There is no answer. Is there?"

I would say there is just one "scientific" possibility as an answer: the physical organism with its brain. Who else is around?

If we want to add just a dash of K to the answer, we can say, "the physical organism with its brain/mind." Mind suggests a dimension that might include senses and abilities of which we are not yet aware. And then there is "the other," that would work through the brain/mind.

max

Does anyone else find this annoying? Is the Self capable of seeing its principles beyond its self interest? And if so, why are you oversimplifying everything?

Health care is everyone's job, not just in treating illness but in promoting healthy living. We must take personal responsibility, engaging our minds and hands in meaningful work - all essential components of healthy, secure lifestyles and communities.

Max and Therese...first..I think annoyment is a condtioning and needs to be addressed..personally....I dont get annoyed at what people say...as a teacher I just have to find a way to address it...

The self is just an accumulative process and is not done by the self...it is done when the self exists in a person and the memory as is accumulates appears to be something done by the mistaken "I" and this give the appearance of self interest. The selfless state would take all into to consideration as ones own memory would just be a collection based on experience of not only ones own accumulation but the accumulation of the whole which can be shared by story or observation in a state of projection of consciousness. Now in taking all in to consideration the person may decide that the person speaking may know something that another does not know and then make attempts to "get a point across" but not in opposition to listening to the other. In doing that the issue may seem simplistic to the person speaking as K always said this is so simple yet to those listening to him the ideas were quite obtuse. I think we can here on the internet only bring up our views that may seem simplistic to us and test them out until someone changes them with views that seem more correct. That comes from sharing and listening.

max greene wrote:
Phil,
"Obviously, it can"t be thought seeing anything because thought cant see, can it?. . . . So what sees? This is the Koan! There is no answer. Is there?"
I would say there is just one "scientific" possibility as an answer: the physical organism with its brain. Who else is around?

If the answer to my statement is what you just said here Max is as you say..... then so be it as "that is the truth" but by answering it here on the internet it becomes thought and that is what I mean by "there is no answer"...touchee....