If a tree falls in the forest and I don't hear it, does it make a sound? Most of us would assume it does, but why assume? If I have no direct experience of something, to assume it's real is to operate blindly, indirectly, rather than directly. If I'm not acting from direct perception, I'm acting out of belief, history, predilection, desire-fear, attraction-repulsion, etc. I don't trust direct perception, immediate experience, as much as knowledge and belief, so I put the past ahead of the present. It's my conditioning.

It is also my conditioning to believe I can do something about my conditioning. I'm conditioned to believe I can do things, but do "I" actually exist? Conditioning says I do and that I can act in such a way as to be free of conditioning. But direct experience demonstrates that unless there's thought, the stream of consciousness, there's no I. Direct experience shows that I am what the conditioned brain does; I am the condition re-conditioning itself every moment. So there's nothing to be done because there's no one to do it. There's just the sound and movement of conditioned consciousness within the field of awareness, a tree falling in the forest.

Excellent. thank you. but when i told you thoughts( thoughts or thoughts on, that arise due to the residual conditioning) are not necessary you said you didn't understand?
gb

We are watching, not waiting, not expecting anything to happen but watching without end. JK

This post was last updated by ganesan balachandran Wed, 15 Dec 2010.

nick carter wrote:
It is also my conditioning to believe I can do something about my conditioning. I'm conditioned to believe I can do things, but do "I" actually exist? Conditioning says I do and that I can act in such a way as to be free of conditioning. But direct experience demonstrates that unless there's thought, the stream of consciousness, there's no I. Direct experience shows that I am what the conditioned brain does; I am the condition re-conditioning itself every moment. So there's nothing to be done because there's no one to do it. There's just the sound and movement of conditioned consciousness within the field of awareness, a tree falling in the forest.

Hi Nick,

I think K deals with it very well by saying that as long s consciousness acts on itself, conditioning on conditioning, you are endlessly trapped. I think what is called for here is non-action, which is the element that acts on the conditioning. Non action is attention, which is the most appropriate action?

Life is relationship

Eve Goodmon wrote:
Non action is attention, which is the most appropriate action?

But elsewhere you told that it is not practical. Nick puts as part of the awareness that nothing much can be done with that residual conditioning and he says just that what K says with better explanation i feel.gb

We are watching, not waiting, not expecting anything to happen but watching without end. JK

Eve Goodmon wrote:
I think K deals with it very well by saying that as long s consciousness acts on itself, conditioning on conditioning, you are endlessly trapped. I think what is called for here is non-action, which is the element that acts on the conditioning. Non action is attention, which is the most appropriate action?

But there's no actor, so who or what is responsible for "non-action"?

Eve Goodmon wrote:
I think what is called for here is non-action, which is the element that acts on the conditioning. Non action is attention, which is the most appropriate action?

Won't an appropriate action (attention) become inappropriate if perfomed on the basis of past knowledge or experience (thinking)?

Conditioning is not going anywhere if one thinks that paying attention to conditioning is going to end it. Can attention be used as a tool to serve a purpose?

FLOW WITH LIFE!

Welcome back Dr.Sudhir.I am really happy to see you back.

Dr.sudhir sharma wrote:
Conditioning is not going anywhere if one thinks that paying attention to conditioning is going to end it.

I also see it that way.If we think this then there is a division & thus it's not attention as I see it.

Dr.sudhir sharma wrote:
Can attention be used as a tool to serve a purpose?

Is it then attention anymore? Or is it concentration then?

Kapila Kulasinghe wrote:
Welcome back Dr.Sudhir.

Thankyou, dear Kapila

Kapila Kulasinghe wrote:
Dr.sudhir sharma wrote:
Conditioning is not going anywhere if one thinks that paying attention to conditioning is going to end it.

Kapila - I also see it that way.If we think this then there is a division & thus it's not attention as I see it.

Looking at conditioning can not be done with the intention of ending it, but it is difficult to avoid this trap as "I" will not do anything without getting something for its effort. Right ?

Theoretically we understand this divisive action of self. If only the 'self' could remain naturally quite while looking at conditioning! But this is wishful thinking. Could you throw some light on ending the conditioning in natural way ?

FLOW WITH LIFE!

Kapila Kulasinghe wrote:
Dr.sudhir sharma wrote:
Can attention be used as a tool to serve a purpose?

Kapila - Is it then attention anymore? Or is it concentration then?

I don't know. Are you saying that attention can not be focussed?

Another question I am asking is this _ Can one be the master of attention?

FLOW WITH LIFE!

Dr.sudhir sharma wrote:
Theoretically we understand this divisive action of self. If only the 'self' could remain naturally quite while looking at conditioning! But this is wishful thinking. Could you throw some light on ending the conditioning in natural way ?

Are you not the self, the conditioning? The conditioning wants light thrown upon itself? Don't you see the insanity of this? You are the condition and your function is to continue, not to end or be illuminated. That's just the K part of the conditioning talking. There is nothing but the condition. No you, no I, nobody to do anything about it.

nick carter wrote:
Don't you see the insanity of this?

Nick, is this not conditioning that is pointing towards the insanity (as it wants light thrown upon itself)? Or the "see" has different significance and dimension?

FLOW WITH LIFE!

Dr.sudhir sharma wrote:
Nick, is this not conditioning that is pointing towards the insanity (as it wants light thrown upon itself)? Or the "see" has different significance and dimension?

Psychological identity is insanity. Physically, I am somebody, but in my mind, psychologically, I am somebody else entirely, and this mental, psychological me is my madness. So I'm asking for light to reveal this madness, bring it to light, so to speak, but who or what do I beseech or petition for light? Some other imagined "higher" being? Or how, for that matter, can I be a light to myself? As a physical being, is there anything I can do to bring light enough to dispel my delusion of being a psychological entity?

This post was last updated by nick carter Thu, 16 Dec 2010.

"Are you not the self, the conditioning? . . . There is nothing but the condition."

No, we are not the self, if by "self" is meant the imaginary psychological "I." We constructed this Self, this "I," and our construction has no life other that what we suppose that it has. We might even say, pretend that it has.

So who are "We"? We are physical organisms and we are consciousness. (Consciousness, minus the psychological garbage, is memory, i.e, our record of the past.) In addition to the physical and consciousness we are also the present moment, now. All of our actions* - - observing, thinking, understanding, awareness, intelligence and all other actions - - must be, logically and of necessity, in the present moment.

This is who "we" are: (1) A physical organism, (2) a record of the past, and (3) action in the present moment.

*true actions, not inertial re-actions.

max

nick carter wrote:
But there's no actor, so who or what is responsible for "non-action"?

In this particular case the actor is the self or contagiousness itself acting on as a reactive response. The self as a cumulative memory exists as human consciousness. I don't think K is saying that human consciousness does not exist, is that what you are saying?

Life is relationship

Dr.sudhir sharma wrote:
Won't an appropriate action (attention) become inappropriate if perfomed on the basis of past knowledge or experience (thinking)?

Conditioning is not going anywhere if one thinks that paying attention to conditioning is going to end it. Can attention be used as a tool to serve a purpose?

It is my understanding that intelligence does interact with the brain and does affect one's thinking. When I say I think I am using thinking as a tool, I am also using language and words which is also a tool. Is attention a tool to be used? By definition attention can not be a tool because it is not a contract of words and time....It is simply a fact that attention as non-action acts on conditioning. Put it into action and see...

Life is relationship

nick carter wrote:
Psychological identity is insanity. Physically, I am somebody, but in my mind, psychologically, I am somebody else entirely, and this mental, psychological me is my madness. So I'm asking for light to reveal this madness, bring it to light, so to speak, but who or what do I beseech or petition for light? Some other imagined "higher" being? Or how, for that matter, can I be a light to myself? As a physical being, is there anything I can do to bring light enough to dispel my delusion of being a psychological entity?

Are you only the body and the madness? Is that a fact? Then perhaps that is the portal? The body and the madness?

Life is relationship

In that case, Nick, are you indicating that a mental disorder of the mind (insanity) produces a psychological identity? Isn't the psychological identity produced by the organism's brain, centered in an environment with sensory stimuli. Conditioning, memories, experiences have produced the psychological identity of the organism; each organism is physically divided from the other, yet unified, without boundaries, in an "expanded" sense. The psychological identity "organizes" and makes sense of the environment in which the organism functions. It's the absence of psychological identity which yields insanity and dysfunction. Yes, self-centered activity of that psychological identity may the the basis for society's ills and the world conditions may change, if that structure of identity changed. But, so far, it's only a K-hypothesis.

"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." J. Krishnamurti

Ruth Marie Bass wrote:
It's the absence of psychological identity which yields insanity and dysfunction. Yes, self-centered activity of that psychological identity may the the basis for society's ills and the world conditions may change, if that structure of identity changed. But, so far, it's only a K-hypothesis.

That is true. But you do have an experimental portal in which you can test this hypothesis don't you? If it works on one's own madness and if one is able to clear something up using this hypothesis, is it an hypothesis or is it a fact?

If we deal or clear up some of our own daily madness is it not a logical extension that it is not just a K hypothesis?

The problem here in this forum is that we display more madness than awareness of it....

Life is relationship

It's the absence of psychological identity which yields insanity and dysfunction.

It is psychological identity that separates man, separates religions, separates nations. It is the enhancement and protection of the imaginary Self and the individual's psychological world that is at the heart of disorder.

Our psychological structure, which includes the Self, is a fabrication. It is an imaginary world of thought, emotion and image - - all of which are reflections of the past. On the other hand, the individual is a physical organism, consciousness (which, minus the psychological, is memory) and life in the present moment. The individual lives in the present; his psychological world is a construction that he carries around with him. Why do we put up with the burden of the psychological? Do we need more than a body, memory, and life and action in the present moment?

max

This post was last updated by max greene Thu, 16 Dec 2010.

Eve Goodmon wrote:
I don't think K is saying that human consciousness does not exist, is that what you are saying?

No, that's not what I'm saying.

This post was last updated by nick carter Fri, 17 Dec 2010.

Eve Goodmon wrote:
When I say I think I am using thinking as a tool, I am also using language and words which is also a tool. Is attention a tool to be used? By definition attention can not be a tool because it is not a contract of words and time....It is simply a fact that attention as non-action acts on conditioning. Put it into action and see...

But do "I", the alleged tool user even exist? Am I real or imagined?
If I'm real, then it makes sense to talk about using tools, doing this and that. But if I'm just imagined, it's madness.

nick carter wrote:
But do "I", the alleged tool user even exist? Am I real or imagined? If I'm real, then it makes sense to talk about using tools, doing this and that. But if I'm just imagined, it's madness.
Recommend

The collective self is the I and is human consciousness. If the I does not exist, neither does human consciousness. Unfortunately they both exist....that still does not contradict the fact that the self is man made. It is not real in terms of it is not the birds and nature, that is reality, the self as a collection of memory and experiences of the past is not a 'reality' it is of our own making. In that terms it does not exist. One cant say human consciousness exists but the self does not, they are both the same.

Life is relationship

nick carter wrote:
But do "I", the alleged tool user even exist? Am I real or imagined? If I'm real, then it makes sense to talk about using tools, doing this and that. But if I'm just imagined, it's madness.

very deep observing.
gb

We are watching, not waiting, not expecting anything to happen but watching without end. JK

nick carter wrote:
But do "I", the alleged tool user even exist? Am I real or imagined? If I'm real, then it makes sense to talk about using tools, doing this and that. But if I'm just imagined, it's madness.

Nick, are the consequences of the I exist? War madness the earth being destroyed are these fact or not? If the consequences of this illusory self are real...and we have tremendous evidence of this fact. How can the self be only and illusion? It is a paradox because it is not part of reality we create this self and then with this self we kill and impact the 'real' world around us. If the self did not exist, K would not have come to wake humanity from its grip. It is because we are functioning with an ego based reality and consider it REAL that he came to wake us up. This does not contradict the fact that without men, the ego is not and without men there is no human consciousness.

Life is relationship

Dr.sudhir sharma wrote:
Looking at conditioning can not be done with the intention of ending it

Dr.sudhir sharma wrote:
If only the 'self' could remain naturally quite while looking at conditioning

Dr, What are we going to look at when we say we are looking at conditioning? How do we become aware of conditioning?Is it when we react? When there is thought?Can we say any response from the past is due to conditioning? So then can we look at our reactions?Which is our thinking & reactions in relationship from moment to moment.

Then do we look at these reactions with the intention of ending it?Who is going to end it?Is this still not part of the past,part of our consciousness which is the outcome of conditioning?So is there a 'me' or an entity apart from thinking?Can we see that point?Unless we see this there will be a separate entity attempting to end reaction?Can we see there is no 'me' apart from thinking?

Now will that not end an entity juggling with the consciousness?Because otherwise action will be akin to a cat chasing it's tail.Now then can we just observe our responses from moment to moment?Will this not be observing our conditioning which is observing the consciousness? If we so observe without any reaction,without any division which will be a reaction,without any movement whatsoever then we may begin to see the nature of our conditioning.I am afraid as I see we have no short cuts in this Dr.There is no way out unless we look at ourselves.

Dr.sudhir sharma wrote:
Are you saying that attention can not be focussed?

If there is focusing then there is direction,there is an object to which attention is given. Thus there is conflict. Therefore is this not concentration?Attention is to 'what is',to the present. Therefore it is without direction,thus without conflict.

max greene wrote:
(3) action in the present moment.

Which is attention.

Ruth Marie Bass wrote:
The psychological identity "organizes" and makes sense of the environment in which the organism functions.

Gosh Ruth, Just look at the world & ourselves!

Kapila Kulasinghe wrote:
Now then can we just observe our responses from moment to moment?

Yes, one can do so, Kapila.

Kapila Kulasinghe wrote:
Will this not be observing our conditioning which is observing the consciousness?

Yes, one is observing the reactions that come from past knowledge and experiences.

Kapila Kulasinghe wrote:
If we so observe without any reaction,without any division which will be a reaction,without any movement whatsoever then we may begin to see the nature of our conditioning.

Now you are asking for a pre-set condition to be fulfilled, aren't you? Can't we move further with reactions that come with/after observation (a natural activity of the mind)? which factor, if any, will/can nullify the 'reactive' element of the reaction?

Are you seeing the problem I am trying to highlight? Asking one to observe without reaction is already a division bringing in stress and effort. It is likely to become a system/formula. I feel the natural free rhythm of functioning of the mind must be maintained at all times to understand the nature of its functioning.

Kapila Kulasinghe wrote:
I am afraid as I see we have no short cuts in this Dr.There is no way out unless we look at ourselves.

Ys, there are no short cuts possible. Looking at the activities of one's own mind is important but the mind begins to struggle when it is making an effort to do this.

I am looking forwrd to your response on this.

FLOW WITH LIFE!

nick carter wrote:
As a physical being, is there anything I can do to bring light enough to dispel my delusion of being a psychological entity?

If I think and find a way to dispel this illusion, then nothing is going to change.

But as a physical organism I have ability to pay attention to whatever I am doing because of inbuilt quality of awareness in the mind. This may help me understand the relationship between awareness/attention and nature of psychological entity. I feel one can do no more and rest happens, if ever, on its own.

FLOW WITH LIFE!