Krishnamurti's statements on consciousness and its contents have touched me deeply. I'm tempted to say his is the last word on consciousness, but I won't for fear that I will be called a K fanatic. To me consciousness manifests as desire, fear, envy etc , and also as the person who experiences these emotions -- that is, the 'me'. I see that I haven't earned the right to call myself an 'I' because everything that I ascribe to that 'I' is second hand and unoriginal. Coming back to the main issue, if some of us feel that only the stream of consciousness runs through us, lives and dies and that we don't really exist, maybe we can talk about overcoming the fear of death. We can create a wonderful humanity.I mean it seriously, my friends.

Freedom from the known is Attention in the Unknown: Krishnamurti J

"maybe we can talk about overcoming the fear of death. We can create a wonderful humanity.I mean it seriously, my friends."

Maybe we should say, "understanding the fear of death."

Consciousness appears to be the totality of thought. But thought is memory. Is that all our consciousness is--just memories of the past?

Somewhere K said, "This world could be a paradise." Hah. Not in our lifetime.

max

max greene wrote:
Consciousness appears to be the totality of thought.

Yes sir. Without the content, what is consciousness? This is a question on my mind lately.

Ramesh G wrote:
...if some of us feel that only the stream of consciousness runs through us, lives and dies and that we don't really exist, maybe we can talk about overcoming the fear of death.

What are we then, that the stream of consciousness runs through, if we are not it? Is there no material substance to our existence, save the transitory? Can we measure for a fact if there is a substance to our existence, I mean psychologically? Is this measurement of the finite what Krishnamurti called meditation? Through the measuring of the existence, you can see it's limitation and therefore you are not bound to it? Therefore you are not limited to the transitory? And this is what gives meditation it's transcendence of time?

Without consciousness, what am I? If the content of consciousness is consciousness, and I am the content of consciousness, then I am consciousness, yes? What is there without me?

Stephen Smalley wrote:
What is there without me?

How would I ever know?

Without me, consciousness as fear, desire, ambition and all other emotions and thoughts will go on just as we go on when someone we know dies, after feeling sad for a couple of days for that person. So instead of focusing on the particular me, if we shift our focus to consciousness as a whole we will feel connected to others and have a sense of being alive for the first time. Here others become vitally important at least when we are not tormented by personal problems and personal concerns. My challenge to myself is this: to listen to you all keeping the personality in abeyance.

Freedom from the known is Attention in the Unknown: Krishnamurti J

Stephen Smalley wrote:

Stephen Smalley wrote:
What is there without me?

How would I ever know?

Life is relationship

Is the inquiry about what is there if the ME is not there? Is there an existance that is totaly outside of human existance as experienced by humanity? and would there be awareness of that existance without KNOWING it?

Life is relationship

Ramesh G wrote:
Coming back to the main issue, if some of us feel that only the stream of consciousness runs through us, lives and dies and that we don't really exist, maybe we can talk about overcoming the fear of death.

What is the death of consciousness? What is meant by that?

Eve Goodmon wrote:

Is the inquiry about what is there if the ME is not there? Is there an existance that is totaly outside of human existance as experienced by humanity? and would there be awareness of that existance without KNOWING it?

I question the existence of something without an awareness of it. I do not think you can presuppose there is an existence of which you are not aware.

Ramesh G wrote:
My challenge to myself is this: to listen to you all keeping the personality in abeyance.

What if the personality is allowed to flower, without interference? Is there an issue of controlling the personality? The problem of control perpetuates the personality, doesn't it? How does one listen while one is occupied with this problem of the personality? Is one listening when one is focused on oneself?

(krishnamurti's statements on consciousness and its contents)

Yes you are talking about ( the consciousness is the resulted of the content )
Yes, this also hit me, the first time I red it. For some raison I thought
That my consciousness was greater the me, and it can not be. They have to be the same.

( To me consciousness manifests as desire, fear, envy etc)

Consciousness does not manifest as desire, fear, envy?..
Consciousness is the knowing of you, in a desire consciousness
will see it desire, if we have a fear, the consciousness will
know it has a fear, consciousness mean to see, to see your self
in fear, in joy, in every aspect of your being.

True experimenting consists in understanding through our own alert watchfulness,

Stephen,

I think there's no death to consciousness, but the individual can step out of it.

Freedom from the known is Attention in the Unknown: Krishnamurti J

Stephen Smalley wrote: What if the personality is allowed to flower, without interference? Is there an issue of controlling the personality? The problem of control perpetuates the personality, doesn't it? How does one listen while one is occupied with this problem of the personality? Is one listening when one is focused on oneself?

Stephen I don't know anything about allowing the personality to flower.All I can say is that I and my personality are one and the same. Of course the issue of controlling the personality is a fundamental and an age-old issue. That issue is the root of all other issues, isn't it? I'm a fearful personality, but I don't want to be that; I'm a jealous and violent personality, but I want to be something different -- is this not the cry of all humans?

When one is occupied with something one can't listen. How is the listening to happen?

Freedom from the known is Attention in the Unknown: Krishnamurti J

jean-m girard wrote:
Consciousness does not manifest as desire, fear, envy?.. Consciousness is the knowing of you, in a desire consciousness will see it desire, if we have a fear, the consciousness will know it has a fear, consciousness mean to see, to see your self in fear, in joy, in every aspect of your being.

Jean, I'm sorry you can't separate consciousness from any of the above emotions.Traditional philosophies may give higer place to consciousness. I don't deny that. When you come to K all will be turned upside down, mercilessly. But at the end healing does take place.

Freedom from the known is Attention in the Unknown: Krishnamurti J

Jean, I'm sorry you can't separate consciousness from any
of the above emotions. Traditional philosophies may give higer place
to consciousness. I don't deny that. When you come to K all will be turned
upside down, mercilessly. But at the end healing does take place.

I am conscious that we are talking about one being with many different
element, I am not saying that one is better than the other, for the pursuit
of communication we need to agree on term. To say that consciousness
is not separate from desire, ok we are one. But if we are going to have a
discussion about it, in my mind if I have a desire for xyz, I can also be
conscious of it, so we are dealing with two different element.
From what I can understand from your post the difference mention
between consciousness and desire is not so important to mention we are one anyway.
I may have a different approach to K writing , and I had very limited interaction
with people that have study K, I see great importance in understanding the meaning
of word for a better communication.

(Jean, I'm sorry you can't separate consciousness from any
of the above emotions.)
Could you explain to me the meaning of this sentence ?
I can see that our consciousness is the results of the content.
So it would be difficult for me to be conscious of something that I am not aware of.
Are you saying that consciousness does not exits by it self
and is a by product of our emotion. It seem to me that in my state
of quietness from my emotion I am still very conscious.

True experimenting consists in understanding through our own alert watchfulness,

Stephen Smalley wrote:
Yes sir. Without the content, what is consciousness? This is a question on my mind lately.

Yes very good question is consciousness only the result of the accumulation of the content, or as also faculty to see. Ex: my eye have recorded every thing I have seen so I
have an accumulation of all those experience. But if a come across something I have never seen before I will be able to see it, so it has a faculty to see.

If my consciousness is the accumulation of all that I am, does it have the faculty to see something it never seen? is it the understanding
of a new experience that will give me the consciousness of it?

True experimenting consists in understanding through our own alert watchfulness,

Jean & Stephen,

Our discussion is becoming lively. Desire and consciousness are one as long as the one who's conscious of desire operates on it to get a desired result. So the question is: how do I approach desire when I become conscious of it? Do I feel bad about it, do I want to overcome it or fulfill it? The moment I'm conscious of desire and label the feeling as desire, I, the consciousness, am part of that desire which is the content.

If we can look at this whole process without becoming cynical and without burdening the already heavy consciousness, devoid of even the little trace of this world ideas, we become Truly Aware. That Awareness, however momentary it is, is beyond all consciousness. Someone may say that this Awarness is also a word, a creation of consciousness. It maybe so, but there's no end to such questions. If the word comes from the heart, it's no more a word; it is the thing itself.

Hope I'm with you two.

Freedom from the known is Attention in the Unknown: Krishnamurti J

Ramesh

Ok, I can see that what you are saying, consciousness will blend in if it can identify with it, by naming it or responding to it (it being the content).

Also, you are saying that observation will reveal the working of consciousness and this
vision may bring about awareness?

So we are saying that consciousness is product of the content?
I know this is all word, but I thought consciousness was bigger then the content,
because consciousness seem to be every where. This is not what you call also the I, is it?

True experimenting consists in understanding through our own alert watchfulness,

Ramesh G wrote:
everything that I ascribe to that 'I' is second hand and unoriginal.

When talking on such a forum attributed mainly to K, I am drawn to discuss, to explore, what K said. The language being used is my secondhand and unoriginal words trying to examine the primary original words. No wonder It gets problematic. Really the discussion should avoid what K said/wrote, and look at the issue firsthand. Is the question, what is consciousness that is not me? But why would I ask such a question?

This post was last updated by Peter Stephens Sat, 13 Jun 2009.

When the 'me' is not, there's no consciousness as we know it, but only a pure perception.

Freedom from the known is Attention in the Unknown: Krishnamurti J

Ramesh G wrote:

When the 'me' is not, there's no consciousness as we know it, but only a pure perception.

Is that a theory or a reality? That is the question I would ask myself in this instance.

I like the opening point about not really having an 'I' in the first place. So I wondering why do I ask a question about consciousness. It is to invent a consciousness. So let's say it is a false consciousness. And by that I mean all about I is false. The "falseness" is a matter of how I think, of organisation, of structure, of systems, and so forth. I don't need to replace it with anything, but I still need to watch my falseness attentively I think. Otherwise I become content with myself in some other fashion.

Patricia Hemingway: Is that a theory or a reality? That is the question I would ask myself in this instance.

Thanks Patricia for the question. This morning I remembered the statement I made yesterday, and asked the question myself: Do I know what pure perception is? There's no point in making such big statements without really living them in daily life. All this ruminations happened while I was taking a walk. At the very moment I started looking, looking and looking. Life looked very ordinary. Nothing special I could see. Same people, same action. There's nothing new under the sun. But out of the ordinariness of life, I've got a gem which I would like to share with you all; it's fresh discovery for me. The discovery is this: hidden in the ordinariness is the non-ordinary. Because we think Life is ordinary, we don't look, and because we never look, Life is always going to be ordinary. So we need newer sensations. Looking is the key, I feel. Thanks once again.

Freedom from the known is Attention in the Unknown: Krishnamurti J

Ramesh G wrote:
The discovery is this: hidden in the ordinariness is the non-ordinary. Because we think Life is ordinary, we don't look, and because we never look, Life is always going to be ordinary. So we need newer sensations. Looking is the key, I feel.

Dear Ramesh. Do I hear hope in what you say? Can one look without turning it into experience I wonder? And do we 'need newer sensations'? Or is it simply a matter of staying with what is?

Patricia Hemingway wrote:

Ramesh G wrote:

When the 'me' is not, there's no consciousness as we know it, but only a pure perception.

Is that a theory or a reality? That is the question I would ask myself in this instance.

Like most of you I have had those moment where the veil of my own understanding
about my self was raise, which allowed me to see some thing that I had never seen before. Up to that point my consciousness did not allow me to see it because of conditioning. But the simple fact of seeing something new is and expansion in perception isn?t it?

True experimenting consists in understanding through our own alert watchfulness,

jean-m girard wrote:
is consciousness only the result of the accumulation of the content

Is consciousness time?

Peter Stephens wrote:
Is the question, what is consciousness that is not me?

Is consciousness me?

Patricia Hemingway wrote:
Dear Ramesh. Do I hear hope in what you say? Can one look without turning it into experience I wonder? And do we 'need newer sensations'? Or is it simply a matter of staying with what is?

Dear Patricia, I put it wrongly. Instead of using the word need, I should have said 'seek'. We don't need extra sensations, if we know how to look simply at life or what is.

Yes, Looking is the great hope.

Freedom from the known is Attention in the Unknown: Krishnamurti J