Leave alone others, even K readers won't generally accept that they have conditioned minds. However, it is undeniable that there is a broad spectrum of variation in the levels of conditioning in people, according to the intellectual area. Let thoughts pour in and all of us shall study and respond.

Unless Advanced, K's Teachings May Remain As Ineffective As of Now

Prasanna P wrote:

Leave alone others, even K readers won't generally accept that they have conditioned minds. However, it is undeniable that there is a broad spectrum of variation in the levels of conditioning in people, according to the intellectual area. Let thoughts pour in and all of us shall study and respond.

.K said we are conditioned through and through and there is no part of us that is not conditioned?.want to tackle that? If that statement is true, how can some be more conditioned than others? Any one in this forum or anywhere who claims they are not conditioned?

Life is relationship

What is conditioning? What does it mean, to be conditioned?

Randal Shacklett wrote:

What is conditioning? What does it mean, to be conditioned?

Life is like the tamarind fruit bound in its shell

Psychologically speaking, conditioned response is an acquired response, elicited by a stimulus, object or situation other than the stimulus to which it is the natural or normal response.The famous Pavlovian reflex or the dog salivating on the bell sounding is an example.Conditioning is the only method available to us from childhood to learn about the world and ourselves.It is one-sided, inadequate conditioned activity.There can be no thought that may not be conditioned.
Gesel has observed: upto 18 months of age, the child is self-engrossed, but not self-aware, since he does not clearly recognize the "not-self".From 2 years onwards, uses words like" mine"," me", you, and" I".By 3 years of age, the idea of persons become .At 5 or 6, child is likely to find differences in individual qualities.
"This shoddy little thing called "me", my tears,my family, my nation, my belief, my religion,- all the ugliness, it is all inside you.When you see it with your heart, not with your mind,when you see it from the very bottom of of your heart, then you have the key that will end sorrow"Lutyens Mary,(ed) Freedom from the Known,Delhi.1987.BJPublications.-a quote from JK.

Life is like the tamarind fruit bound in its shell

Krishnan Srinivasan wrote:

Psychologically speaking, conditioned response is an acquired response, elicited by a stimulus, object or situation other than the stimulus to which it is the natural or normal response.The famous Pavlovian reflex or the dog salivating on the bell sounding is an example.Conditioning is the only method available to us from childhood to learn about the world and ourselves.It is one-sided, inadequate conditioned activity.There can be no thought that may not be conditioned.
Gesel has observed: upto 18 months of age, the child is self-engrossed, but not self-aware, since he does not clearly recognize the "not-self".From 2 years onwards, uses words like" mine"," me", you, and" I".By 3 years of age, the idea of persons become .At 5 or 6, child is likely to find differences in individual qualities.
"This shoddy little thing called "me", my tears,my family, my nation, my belief, my religion,- all the ugliness, it is all inside you.When you see it with your heart, not with your mind,when you see it from the very bottom of of your heart, then you have the key that will end sorrow"Lutyens Mary,(ed) Freedom from the Known,Delhi.1987.BJPublications.-a quote from JK.

.So I do I know that I am conditioned? Or how am I to understand my conditioning? Or be aware of where the conditioning is?

Life is relationship

Who am I to say? - but I'll say anyway: Conditioned is the present human condition. We are all conditioned, surely. Upbringing by reward and punishment is universal, surely. Our job is to de-condition ourselves. You can't de-condition another. But as you de-condition yourself, that will help the whole of mankind because your mind, your consciousness, is part of the totality of human consciousness. Quote from K (from memory), in answer to the question, what is your aim (in giving talks etc): "To decondition the totality of human consciousness". That is the universal "aim".

But one begins and ends with oneself. One begins to de-condition oneself. One has to take oneself as one finds oneself. One observes, enquires, goes deeply, deeper, into oneself as one actually is, not through the vehicle of thought, but by looking, by registering what is going on, however confused and painful and "wrong" that "going on" may seem. One does it without condemning what one finds, without approval or disapproval, just looking and seeing what's there, examining the structure and one's reactions, which may be fleeting, whoosh, gone, but one sees them as they pass, and next time one may see them better, or differently, one does it with a sort of love, a care, an openess, a receptivity, and when one REALLY sees, then there is a spontaneous change - "seeing is action" (another K. quote). That is de-conditioning. It may all happen at once, it may happen in little chunks, it may take for ever. Time is not a factor. There's no hurry, no pressure. And yet it has to happen now. Strange business! It is life.

Eve Goodmon wrote:
So I do I know that I am conditioned? Or how am I to understand my conditioning? Or be aware of where the conditioning is?

Life is like the tamarind fruit bound in its shell

"Knowing that one is conditioned is itself part of awareness.Awareness is without condemnation.We need not condemn the"the conditioned-state" as evil.We need to look at it factually and impartially.We are not to escape from it but we must live with it so that it is operated upon by awareness.Conditioned mind is unreal because it is no more than our psychological memories.Divisions are unreal because we made them .They turn our total mind into a partial mind.Comparison is unreal, because Reality contains unique individuals.seeking or becoming is unreal, because it creates conflict between what we are and what we wish to be.Time is unreal because it stems from conditioning to the past.
Awareness has affinity to the unconditioned mind.Awareness operates as the whole mind- conditioned plus the communion with the unconditioned.Then, psychological memories seem to lapse into the background.a passive alertness settles in-conscious as well as unconscious, conditioned as well as unconditioned-it keeps the wild activities of the conditioned mind in check.Being alert, it opens up new vistas for us."
I wrote the above after re-reading and extracting what I seem to understand from DHOPESWARKARS work. He and I may be wrong. Please give your own thoughts on this.
Passive alertness is awareness.

Life is like the tamarind fruit bound in its shell

Yes, we are conditioned. This can be perceived, depending on ones state of consciousness, in the reaction of the individual. The degree of an individual's conditioning is based upon the individual's position on the evolutionary ladder, biologically and psycholoigcally.

the superficiality of existence is thriving

but but WHY?

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.

Krishnan Srinivasan wrote:

"Knowing that one is conditioned is itself part of awareness.Awareness is without condemnation.We need not condemn the"the conditioned-state" as evil.We need to look at it factually and impartially.We are not to escape from it but we must live with it so that it is operated upon by awareness.Conditioned mind is unreal because it is no more than our psychological memories.Divisions are unreal because we made them .They turn our total mind into a partial mind.Comparison is unreal, because Reality contains unique individuals.seeking or becoming is unreal, because it creates conflict between what we are and what we wish to be.Time is unreal because it stems from conditioning to the past.
Awareness has affinity to the unconditioned mind.Awareness operates as the whole mind- conditioned plus the communion with the unconditioned.Then, psychological memories seem to lapse into the background.a passive alertness settles in-conscious as well as unconscious, conditioned as well as unconditioned-it keeps the wild activities of the conditioned mind in check.Being alert, it opens up new vistas for us."
I wrote the above after re-reading and extracting what I seem to understand from DHOPESWARKARS work. He and I may be wrong. Please give your own thoughts on this.
Passive alertness is awareness.

.K said there is NO part of us that is not conditioned. How does one know that awareness is not part of conditioned response?

Life is relationship

James Turner wrote:
But one begins and ends with oneself. One begins to de-condition oneself.

.Forgive me I passionately object to the term de-condition. We are conditioned that is a fact. Once one is aware of that conditioning in ones actions the conditioning ends is what K is saying. Except does it? I am aware that I am racist?for example?.does it mean I am not longer racist? I read K and I understand that the I is comprised of time and experience there is not intelligence there, ?awareness? of this fact does it lead me into a complete transformation of the self? I question this.

Life is relationship

Krishnan Srinivasan wrote:

Psychologically speaking, conditioned response is an acquired response, elicited by a stimulus, object or situation other than the stimulus to which it is the natural or normal response.The famous Pavlovian reflex or the dog salivating on the bell sounding is an example.Conditioning is the only method available to us from childhood to learn about the world and ourselves.It is one-sided, inadequate conditioned activity.There can be no thought that may not be conditioned.
Gesel has observed: upto 18 months of age, the child is self-engrossed, but not self-aware, since he does not clearly recognize the "not-self".From 2 years onwards, uses words like" mine"," me", you, and" I".By 3 years of age, the idea of persons become .At 5 or 6, child is likely to find differences in individual qualities.
"This shoddy little thing called "me", my tears,my family, my nation, my belief, my religion,- all the ugliness, it is all inside you.When you see it with your heart, not with your mind,when you see it from the very bottom of of your heart, then you have the key that will end sorrow"Lutyens Mary,(ed) Freedom from the Known,Delhi.1987.BJPublications.-a quote from JK.

Therese Okamoto wrote:

but but WHY?

Randal Shacklett wrote:
Gesel, Pavalov, Krishnamurti, Can they tell me what conditioning is? Or are they making educated

Life is like the tamarind fruit bound in its shell

So what? Poor Randal, are you uneducated but clever and cunning?Are you the LABEL-maker?Do you suffer inferiority?You think that you think laterally/differently?Why are you annoyed? what ticks you man?I can see your problem(s).

Life is like the tamarind fruit bound in its shell

Nobody dares to tell you anything, all-knowing, ever-glorious RANDALL ! That is your conditioning.

Life is like the tamarind fruit bound in its shell

Krishnan Srinivasan wrote:

So what? Poor Randal, are you uneducated but clever and cunning?Are you the LABEL-maker?Do you suffer inferiority?You think that you think laterally/differently?Why are you annoyed? what ticks you man?I can see your problem(s).

.Don't even waste your energy must don't reply....

Life is relationship

Eve Goodmon wrote:
.Forgive me I passionately object to the term de-condition. We are conditioned that is a fact. Once one is aware of that conditioning in ones actions the conditioning ends is what K is saying. Except does it? I am aware that I am racist?for example?.does it mean I am not longer racist? I read K and I understand that the I is comprised of time and experience there is not intelligence there, ?awareness? of this fact does it lead me into a complete transformation of the self? I question this.

Hi Eve, I'm a new member and trying to pick up on this topic.

Regarding the word "decondition" a reporter once asked K if his main aim was to decondition people. K answered "Yes". I don't know in which book I read this, I have so many. But I could try to find it.

But I don't think that is the main thrust of your posts. I think you are casting doubt on choice less awareness as a satisfactory tool for removing conditioning. Would that be right?

Your example of racism is a good one. One can become aware of racist feelings and, because of a desire to be politically correct, or out of a sense of humanity, suppress them. There is a certain hypocrisy in this, even though the intention is a 'correct' one for a proper democratic humane society. Because, suppression doesn't seem to b e the answer, though it may avoid the ugliness of confrontation it may still leave this feeling of racism intact. So we are looking to choiceless awareness as a way of rooting out the feeling of racism, yes? And it doesn't seem to be effective. Is that what you really mean?

I would agree that from my own experience (not of racism, I wouldn't myself have much residual feelings here) but in other areas choiceless awareness is not an instant answer. K often gives the impression that immediately on 'seeing' that one is conditioned that conditioning disappears. I think if choiceless awareness is going to be effective it is probably a gradual thing, a "withering away" as K put it in another place when he wasn't focusing on "immediate" uprooting:-)

Apart from this gradual erosion of conditioned feelings, there is the notion suggested by K, that this is a moment by moment thing. Time doesn't enter the picture. Being aware of the feelings rather than suppressing them seems to be a different ball game. There is no self deception involved. Which gives a space in every situation to see and listen to what is. The thought may be persistent, but so is the awareness. It is arduous. When it becomes effortless I would say the conditioning is no longer important, whether technically is is gone or not.

There is a divinity that shapes our ends, rough-hew them as we will

Environment is the conditioner, personal preference is the adhesive. I am conditioned to drive in five lanes of traffic, but my preference is to live where I will never have to do it; so I "stick with" rural living. I am conditioned to be dependent upon a man for my sense of well-being as a woman in a man's world, but my preference is to be independent in the man's world; so I adhere to independence. I am conditioned to blame "the other" for all world's troubles, but after discovering JK's teachings, my preference is to look within myself for that which I accuse others and I clearly see. So when there is agitation in my life, I look for the conditioning that gives rise to my emotional responses. The conditioning begins to unravel with the looking at it.

Hi Prasanna,

Regarding the nature of conditioning, the 'I' and ending conditioning

Let's begin with the obvious: You can't decondition the 'I' because the 'I' is itself a construct of conditioning. So what is conditioning and what is it that is deconditioned? Also, what constitutes the 'I'?

I would say that conditioning first becomes a factor when humans became reflectively aware. Not to go into that too deeply, reflective awareness was made possible when language enabled human to move from animal awareness to 'knowing that they know', which is what I mean by 'reflective awareness'.

Reflective awareness, at its earliest stage, I would say is not at a full blown 'I' consciousness; maybe not an 'I' at all. It is simply the brain 'knowing that it knows'. The brain becoming aware of the process of thought. The 'I' is a hybrid constructed from reflective awareness and conditioning. They work synergistically together to form the 'I' or self.. How does this work?

First language and communication would be useless if we had no memory of 'past time'. So communication depends on memory. For technical purposes this seems to work fine. We remember how we'd agreed to farm our land. We plan for the seasons - which we understand from observing the changes in the weather and the attendant changes in plant growth. All that's fine. But when that memory starts to contain elements of social value, such as hunting prowess or successful farming enjoyed by an individual. Then the seeds of the self seem to be sown. The prestige - or disdain- accruing to the success/failure factor becomes a would-be notion in the human consciousness. Reflective awareness functions together with memories of social esteem etc to produce a state of imaginary 'becoming'. Or envy. Or anger. Conflict internally. 'Psychological conflict'. So the 'I' process is set in motion. It is a collaboration between memory and reflective awareness.

Can the conditioned part of the 'I' process be ended? First, I would say, the reflective aware part of the hybrid we call the 'self' needs to become aware of the process. The signal to this awareness may be triggered by the advent of suffering. A painful cognition of the causes of this suffering may be achieved. That awareness weakens the synergistic process. It is the "first step" towards freedom.

There is a divinity that shapes our ends, rough-hew them as we will

Krishnan Srinivasan wrote:

Randal Shacklett wrote:
Gesel, Pavalov, Krishnamurti, Can they tell me what conditioning is? Or are they making educated

Eve Goodmon wrote:

Krishnan Srinivasan wrote:

So what? Poor Randal, are you uneducated but clever and cunning?Are you the LABEL-maker?Do you suffer inferiority?You think that you think laterally/differently?Why are you annoyed? what ticks you man?I can see your problem(s).

.Don't even waste your energy must don't reply....

Krishnan Srinivasan wrote:

Nobody dares to tell you anything, all-knowing, ever-glorious RANDALL ! That is your conditioning.

All the above demonstrate how we are conditioned both you and the little"me". In responding to each other in a forum of dialogue like this, one is showing off ones knowledge, wit,freakishness,skills at manipulating language, exhibiting inner emotional chaos etc.. You have your own torch-light, Randall, that will, very soon, reveal to you what
you are. I am not wasting any more of precious time on this Earth telling an-lightened-man
like you.You may continue to bore others with your EXHIBITIONISM-I suggest you upload some of your things on to the forum.I quit conversing with you.

Life is like the tamarind fruit bound in its shell

OK Krishnan, it is a good way to deal with a post that is confrontational:: deny the oxygen of communication.

But now, you are free to reply to a post solicited from me by Prasanna:-). Prasanna seems to b e AWOl so I'm looking to you to respond to a post that comes from genuine inquiry. Don't let me down, now As you said earlier

There is a divinity that shapes our ends, rough-hew them as we will

Yes, good advice. But my reply to you had no such hooks. So I expect you to reply. If not, what the heck is going on on this forum? Is it that you all actually enjoy jousting with people who are not serious? I do hope not. cut off their oxygen of communication and b e done with it.

There is a divinity that shapes our ends, rough-hew them as we will

edward morrison wrote: >edward morrison
OK Krishnan, it is a good way to deal with a post that is confrontational:: deny the oxygen of communication. But now, you are free to reply to a post solicited from me by Prasanna:-). Prasanna seems to b e AWOl so I'm looking to you to respond to a post that comes from genuine inquiry. Don't let me down, now As you said earlier.

Hi Ed, sorry for I couldn't reply earlier than this. This time, I was flooded with all kinds of messages and emails. More over, most of your questions are already answered in my Theory of Fragmentation of Intelligence .

My solution to the universal problem of 'I' is clearly available therein. About the structure of 'I', I admit that there is some difference between all other teachers and this independent researcher in Psychology. However, this is perhaps going to end the confusion once and for all, because the meanings are specific and consistent. I look forward to seeing your response after you go through the TFI.

Unless Advanced, K's Teachings May Remain As Ineffective As of Now

Randal Shacklett wrote:
Gesel, Pavalov, Krishnamurti, Can they tell me what conditioning is? Or are they making educated guesses also?

Randal, as Krish said, I think conditioning was a fairly known fact much before K. However, your question about their guesses seems to refer only to their given part of the solution to the problem. Is it what you are saying ?

Be that as it may, how long do you think, it would take to de-condition oneself or to help others in this, when we become certain about the nature and structure of conditioning?

Unless Advanced, K's Teachings May Remain As Ineffective As of Now