Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
General Discussion | moderated by Dev Singh

Is everybody totally conditioned?


Displaying posts 31 - 55 of 55 in total
Fri, 23 May 2014 #31
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

Jean Gatti wrote:
Awareness can perfectly be without memory . . . but memory needs awareness to even exist.

Exactly. As you say, memory needs awareness for it to come into being, for it to exist. All of existence comes into being with awareness. No awareness, no existence. (What we call "existence" is nothing but memory. There is only the present, but our memories, and the comparison, sequence and flow of these memories, result in a sense of continuation, of accumulation, of disintegration, etc. We call this flow and comparison of memory "existence.")

Which doesn't mean that awareness exists: awareness is timeless and does not accumulate whereas sequence (time) and accumulation are the hallmarks of our definition of "existence."

max

This post was last updated by max greene Fri, 23 May 2014.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 23 May 2014 #32
Thumb_1507053_1_ Jayaraj Kapila Kulasinghe Sri Lanka 1208 posts in this forum Offline

Joe Loveys wrote:
I suppose we can ask what conditioning is.

Joe Loveys wrote:
It seems to me the entirety of mind is learned or gathered from others.

Would you say that conditioning is acceptance of something without understanding the full implications of facts related to that which we accept? Is blind acceptance the cause of conditioning?

For example the belief in God. Do we know of a God if we have not read the Bible or heard something? Is it conditioning then when we do not know something on our own?So is it acceptance.

Yesterday I was at the K Study Center here & watched a tape by K.(What is a Religious Mind-5th public talk in Madras on 13th January 1979) He says there we have to be free to investigate! Freedom is needed in the first place to investigate our sorrow or fear or whatever.This is relevant to what we discuss on this thread I thought, isn't it?-unless we discard all what we have accepted & look, we just make a modification in our condition!

This post was last updated by Jayaraj Kapila Kulasinghe Fri, 23 May 2014.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 23 May 2014 #33
Thumb_1507053_1_ Jayaraj Kapila Kulasinghe Sri Lanka 1208 posts in this forum Offline

Jean Gatti wrote:
As seen here, awareness does NOT create memory ... awareness 'does' nothing, awareness only SEES ... what creates memory can only be thought ...

Jean,

I think Max said awareness creates factual memory.That is, everything we see with the optical eye, or hear with the ear, an impinge or a mark is made in the brain which is memory of the physical. The famous example that if we don't remember the road we came from we can't get back.

Are you not referring to psychological memory which cannot take place in a state of attention & is only created by past which is thought meeting the present?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 24 May 2014 #34
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

Kapila Kulasinghe wrote:
I think Max said awareness creates factual memory.That is, everything we see with the optical eye, or hear with the ear, an impinge or a mark is made in the brain which is memory of the physical. The famous example that if we don't remember the road we came from we can't get back.

During a normal day we see millions of things most of which we do NOT memorize ... so some factor is needed to memorize what we see or sense ... the fact is that we memorize only what 'interests' us ... and what interests us depends on thought (it is well known that we only see what we 'want' to see) ... without thought there would be no creation of memory at all ... this is also why we can't remember our deep sleep state ... there is no thought operating there and no 'object' to catch ...

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 24 May 2014 #35
Thumb_stringio Joe Loveys Canada 280 posts in this forum Offline

Kapila Kulasinghe wrote:
Would you say that conditioning is acceptance of something without understanding the full implications of facts related to that which we accept? Is blind acceptance the cause of conditioning?

For example the belief in God. Do we know of a God if we have not read the Bible or heard something? Is it conditioning then when we do not know something on our own?So is it acceptance.

I don't know. I started with the idea that we are fully conditioned. I believe this is true, but I don't really feel it. I can point out, as many people have done, that your ideas come from others. That does seem obvious. I don't see how anyone would believe in God without the idea existing in the first place. Who knows who came up with that idea first? And does it matter now? Most people believe in a god, apparently.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 24 May 2014 #36
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

Jean Gatti wrote:
... the fact is that we memorize only what 'interests' us ... and what interests us depends on thought (it is well known that we only see what we 'want' to see). . .

Memorization is not simply a conscious effort such as memorizing the multiplication table. The infant begins to remember as soon as he becomes aware of his surroundings. Some say the fetus begins remembering while still in the womb.

Like it or not, once one is aware, one remembers. Some mechanical problem -- illness, trauma, age --may prevent or destroy memory, but otherwise memory follows awareness. Awareness and memory go together. Awareness is the Real; memory is Reality.

max

This post was last updated by max greene Sat, 24 May 2014.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Sat, 24 May 2014 #37
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3176 posts in this forum Offline

max greene wrote:
Like it or not, once one is aware, one remembers.

Interesting topic, max. You are saying the 'recording' done by the senses and the memory of that is neutral, while Jean says otherwise....that we memorize only what interests us. I just heard a train whistle outside my window. It seems that the recording by the brain, and the memory of that sound, when recalled now, is neutral. My thoughts and opinions about it....maybe I hate being disturbed by the noise....of course, are not neutral.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 24 May 2014 #38
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
. . . we memorize only what interests us.

Probably we memorize anything of which we become aware, whether it interests us or not.

Awareness does not depend on "interest," of course. "Interest" implies thinking and consideration.

max

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 24 May 2014 #39
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

max greene wrote:
Probably we memorize anything of which we become aware, whether it interests us or not.

Max, when we become aware, we are aware of what ?

??

We are aware of being, we are aware that we are present ... do we have to memorize this ? Do we have to remind that we are ?

When you say "we memorize anything of which we become aware" it is a way to speak, what is meant is that we 'focus' our attention on something specific, this is what K called 'concentration' ... and K showed that concentration is NOT attention ... concentration implies thought (and creates memory) ... while attention does not ... attention is presence, awareness ...

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 24 May 2014 #40
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

Jean,

For me, awareness is contact and sensing, contact and sensing in all and every one of its forms -- and non-forms.

To ask, "We are aware of what?" is to ask, "What do we come into contact with, and sense?"

max

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 24 May 2014 #41
Thumb_1507053_1_ Jayaraj Kapila Kulasinghe Sri Lanka 1208 posts in this forum Offline

Joe Loveys wrote:
I don't know. I started with the idea that we are fully conditioned. I believe this is true, but I don't really feel it. I can point out, as many people have done, that your ideas come from others. That does seem obvious. I don't see how anyone would believe in God without the idea existing in the first place. Who knows who came up with that idea first? And does it matter now? Most people believe in a god, apparently.

No, not God.That was just an example. Let's drop that.

How do we know whether something is merely an idea to us or a fact? If we see it as a fact then it is ours,our understanding-whether anybody said it or we read it somewhere is irrelevant then, right?

Do we not have doubt if something is merely an idea to us when we question it? If we are clear of something do we have doubt about it?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 25 May 2014 #42
Thumb_1507053_1_ Jayaraj Kapila Kulasinghe Sri Lanka 1208 posts in this forum Offline

Jean Gatti wrote:
without thought there would be no creation of memory at all ..

Jean,

What is the origin of thought then? Is not the brain together with the sensory organs simply operating as a camera? Recording only some,yes, but that is what comes within its purview,the sensitivity range of the machine?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 25 May 2014 #43
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3176 posts in this forum Offline

Jean Gatti wrote:
When you say "we memorize anything of which we become aware" it is a way to speak, what is meant is that we 'focus' our attention on something specific, this is what K called 'concentration'

But we remember that fire burns, and that poisonous snakes can kill you, Jean. No focusing is necessary....we feel the pain of the fire on our skin. It doesn't take concentration to recall that does it? Next time we see a fire we know...be careful, don't get burned! This memory is totally necessary for our physical survival. I don't see that memory is necessarily related to concentration and focusing of the .self/'me'.

Jean Gatti wrote:
the fact is that we memorize only what 'interests' us ... and what interests us depends on thought (it is well known that we only see what we 'want' to see) ... without thought there would be no creation of memory at all ...

My friend is bitten by a snake and dies. There is an image of that stored in my brain... that's necessary memory right?

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Sun, 25 May 2014.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 25 May 2014 #44
Thumb_stringio mike christani United States 2234 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

I think we're missing a component- 'experience'. One is aware, then there is an experience, something registered, then that becomes memory, from which arises thought, the film through which we see.

But are we totally conditioned? In K's last book of talks, The Future is Now, he says man has partial insight. Obviously not the whole, but partial.

By saying we are totally conditioned there seems to be the implication that therefore there is either total conditioning, or total unconditioning. Is this so?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 25 May 2014 #45
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:

Jean Gatti wrote:
When you say "we memorize anything of which we become aware" it is a way to speak, what is meant is that we 'focus' our attention on something specific, this is what K called 'concentration'

But we remember that fire burns, and that poisonous snakes can kill you, Jean. No focusing is necessary....we feel the pain of the fire on our skin. It doesn't take concentration to recall that does it?

Hi Tom,

Yes this is still concentration, nobody said thought was a slow process, thought can go very fast ... when you see a snake, you immediately recognize it (memory needed), you concentrate all your attention on this and thought reacts at light speed to it ... you couldn't be afraid of a snake if there wasn't some kind of memory on the danger of this snake ...

But it really is concentration getting all your attention, when seeing this snake there could happen an explosion near you, you wouldn't hear it ... you give attention only to what 'interests' you ... and what interests 'you' is related to a 'you' hence ego ...

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 25 May 2014 #46
Thumb_1507053_1_ Jayaraj Kapila Kulasinghe Sri Lanka 1208 posts in this forum Offline

To Yogi.(I cannot post there again!)

Oh, no, no,Yogi Irushad, wait a second, my original post(#28) may be the correct explanation.

You are right those are not states. These are 3 types of awareness(I'll check up with a Buddhist scholar & confirm).

Then if these are listed as 3 types;

1) manasikaraya- this would be awareness of thought. That is, say we are angry. We use words, bad words or whatever.We are aware of the words we use etc. Like a thief is aware while breaking in to a house.This is awareness of thought.Of.That is we are in the train.Immersed in the thinking.In it.Then concentration falls under this category.

2)yonisomanasikaraya-this is then awareness at the inception of thought. If a thought is pursued then it becomes 'awareness of thought' thus falls in to the first category.Therefore here pursuance is not possible.Then it is choiceless awareness because picking one thought makes it in to thinking.Here you are not in the train.So this is choiceless awareness which Krishnamurti generally called 'observation'.

3)sati samprajanna- this is awareness with comprehension which is awareness with insight.This is then a state of attention with insight with insight having abolished thought.

So(if these are supposed to mean 3 types of awareness)then any so called meditation involving activity of thought, sustaining thought,pursuing thought, falls under the first category & since it is the functioning of the consciousness cannot have anything to do with the ending the consciousness(content)!!Thus completely meaningless & a wastage of time in the context of meditation that empties the consciousness of its content which is ending of the self.!!
I believe Buddhism states that the first category is not meditation.(I will check on that)Then all this, anapanasati, metta meditation, walking & concentrating,pilikul meditation, mantra,all that, all, fall under the first category!!

You know, since you are saying you are Buddhist, the Buddha is supposed to have said, 'ekayana maggo' to describe his teachings. That is(means) one & only way!!(I'll check on that too)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 25 May 2014 #47
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3176 posts in this forum Offline

Jean Gatti wrote:
Yes this is still concentration, nobody said thought was a slow process, thought can go very fast ... when you see a snake, you immediately recognize it (memory needed), you concentrate all your attention on this and thought reacts at light speed to it ... you couldn't be afraid of a snake if there wasn't some kind of memory on the danger of this snake ...

I'm not totally clear on this point Jean. Memory of where the poisonous snake lives...this makes one cautious....alert, yes. Do you call this kind of memory ego? Isn't there practical thought/memory not related to ego? Such as recalling the location of the supermarket in town so you can go purchase some food for dinner. I'm speaking of memory that serves our physical survival....not the survival of the psychological...the 'me'. Without that we'd be as helpless as a newborn child...unable to even feed ourselves.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Sun, 25 May 2014.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 25 May 2014 #48
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
I'm not totally clear on this point Jean. Memory of where the poisonous snake lives...this makes one cautious....alert, yes. Do you call this kind of memory ego?

No, memory is not ego ... ego is the sense of being separated from the world ... a 'me' separated from a 'non-me' ... an observer separated from the observed ... so ego is a thought creating the thinker as a separate entity ... and there is no thinker outside of thought ...

As K said there is a distinction between 'psychological' thought (where a self/ego is implied) and 'practical' or 'functional' thought, where no ego implied ...

btw 'psychological thought' should rather be called 'conditioned thought', because all thought is 'psychological', by definition, a thought can only happen in the mind, the 'psyche' ...

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 25 May 2014 #49
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

Jean Gatti wrote:
As K said there is a distinction between 'psychological' thought (where a self/ego is implied) and 'practical' or 'functional' thought, where no ego implied.

Let's look into this for ourselves.

Isn't it true that all thinking is done for a purpose? Whether practical or psychological, thinking serves a purpose, and that purpose comes back to a psychological "I," since the physical body has only the five senses.

max

This post was last updated by max greene Sun, 25 May 2014.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 26 May 2014 #50
Thumb_1507053_1_ Jayaraj Kapila Kulasinghe Sri Lanka 1208 posts in this forum Offline

Jean Gatti wrote:
btw 'psychological thought' should rather be called 'conditioned thought', because all thought is 'psychological', by definition, a thought can only happen in the mind, the 'psyche' ...

I hope you don't mind my taking part.

Is it Jean? Or is psychological thought something that has an emotional component to it?

Consider this: Say, you, me & another are there. You say Kapila or Jay you are an idiot.Now I get hurt while the other does not.That is, in me your words are met by something other than the mere operation of the meaning of the words,right? It's met by an image while in the other it's not met by an image & no emotion is evoked.Otherwise there cannot be hurt.Computer doesn't get hurt-it just checks things up from the program & responds.I record a grudge or defensive or attacking attitude against you & the other non of that-the computer aspect in us.

Now is not what the image(me or the self) created & recorded only psychological thought?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 26 May 2014 #51
Thumb_1507053_1_ Jayaraj Kapila Kulasinghe Sri Lanka 1208 posts in this forum Offline

Jean,

Is interest needed to create memory or is it purely a physical function?

Now awareness means something is seen or heard or whatever.Is it? To see some physical contact must be there, isn't it? That is a ray touching the eye & an electrical impulse to the brain cells,etc,etc.Something must touch brain cells right?

Now when something touches some object then the impact is felt by that object, right?In that instant the impact is felt, isn't it? Now, how long does that impact last? It lasts for some time, right?- being the nature of physical matter? For a very short time a longer time. Now is not that impact lasting for sometime memory?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 26 May 2014 #52
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

Kapila Kulasinghe wrote:
Is interest needed to create memory or is it purely a physical function?

I see memory as created by awareness, but I don't see awareness as a physical function. I see awareness as outside the brain. Of course, one puts into the brain cells that of which he becomes aware.

max

This post was last updated by max greene Mon, 26 May 2014.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 26 May 2014 #53
Thumb_patricia_may_2014_reduced_ Patricia Hemingway Australia 1930 posts in this forum Offline

Yes - One is totally conditioned! :)

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Mon, 26 May 2014 #54
Thumb_1507053_1_ Jayaraj Kapila Kulasinghe Sri Lanka 1208 posts in this forum Offline

max greene wrote:
I see memory as created by awareness, but I don't see awareness as a physical function. I see awareness as outside the brain. Of course, one puts into the brain cells that of which he becomes aware.

I didn't mean to say that awareness is a physical function.That really becomes another question.

I said memory is created through a physical process due to the presence of awareness.

How would you described awareness? That just popped up!

This post was last updated by Jayaraj Kapila Kulasinghe Mon, 26 May 2014.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Mon, 26 May 2014 #55
Thumb_1507053_1_ Jayaraj Kapila Kulasinghe Sri Lanka 1208 posts in this forum Offline

Yogi Irushad wrote:
One achieves the Awareness(Sati), in the Jhaanic Samadi, but not before, hence one cannot be Aware(Sati) of thoughts or thinking, which is absent. One can only observe the thoughts or thinking.

If thoughts re not there it is attention.This is after a great deal of meditation.
Awareness to me is gazing at a tree & seeing it.A thought popping up makes awareness to get obscured.Something all living things have some extent or other.

Yogi Irushad wrote:
Insight is not related to Awareness(Sati). It is a separate thing to be cultivated.

I don't agree with this.If insight can be cultivated then it is already present,known,right? Then why is man in delusion & suffering?

Insight has to be awakened in careful watching which is through what I call awareness without the interference of the past accumulations.

You see this is another falsehood taught in so called meditation centers.Cultivating insight.Consider carefully-anything cultivated is of thought,right? You have to first be able to say what it is.So it is of thought.Anything of thought is incomplete because thought is material & any material manifestation is limited.Therefore anything that can be cultivated is not insight but something limited & therefore must essentially bring about conflict.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Displaying posts 31 - 55 of 55 in total
To quote a portion of this post in your reply, first select the text and then click this "Quote" link.

(N.B. Be sure to insert an empty line between the quoted text and your reply.)