Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
A Quiet Space | moderated by Clive Elwell

Cause and Effect


Displaying posts 181 - 210 of 210 in total
Thu, 10 Aug 2017 #181
Thumb_rodin_de_denker Olive B Netherlands 238 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
What puzzles me is that you/I/brain/mind

Re#172

Hi Huguette,

What puzzles me is that say “you/I/brain/mind”.

Is I and the mind the same to you?
You are your mind, you are your thoughts?

Experience alone must be the test of reality.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 10 Aug 2017 #182
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 414 posts in this forum Offline

re 181:

Olive,

To me, mind means different things in different contexts. In the present context, “I” is part of the mind which is put together, or constituted, by memory, knowledge, emotion (which is related to memory), time (which is also based on memory/knowledge). “Consciousness” is another way of expressing “you/I/brain/mind”. So yes, “I” IS this mind, for what else is “I” but those same elements of memory, knowledge, emotion, time? “I” is a construct of the brain, the thinking organ, isn’t it?

And to me, there is nothing wrong with this mind or consciousness as such. Nothing at all. The problems with it arise when it is isolated or cut off from the totality which includes the unknown. There is a problem with it only when it believes that it is the centre from which or through which all human action must necessarily originate. There is a problem with it when it believes that IT is the source of intelligence. Then its action is necessarily out of self-ignorance.

But when it understands its processes and limitations, and when it understands its conditioning, then it doesn’t try to overstep its limitations, it doesn’t try to inflate its abilities. This self-understanding is still a limited understanding. When it understands its limitations, it leaves the door open (perhaps) to understanding of a different kind, understanding which is not dependent on the known. It leaves the door open for non-personal intelligence to act.

In other contexts, “mind” means something else altogether.

You say you are puzzled. Who or what is this “you” that is puzzled? Without using the words “I” or “me”, is there another way for “you”, the brain or mind, to express that you are puzzled? Where is this puzzlement situated, where does it come from?

This post was last updated by Huguette . Thu, 10 Aug 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 10 Aug 2017 #183
Thumb_rodin_de_denker Olive B Netherlands 238 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Who or what is this “you”

Re#183

The expression is not the point, it is the way you see/know your self.

By saying you/I/brain/mind, you see/know yourself as the brain/thought who/what is expressing itself.

Is brain/thought/mind that what you think you are?

Is that what expressing itself, what you think you are?

Experience alone must be the test of reality.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 10 Aug 2017 #184
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 414 posts in this forum Offline

Olive,

Forgive me for saying so, but I see no point in talking things over with you. I don't see that we are looking into anything together. So I must leave it at that, at least for now.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 10 Aug 2017 #185
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2045 posts in this forum Offline

Does intelligence have an 'I' Olive? Does it have a self....or a Self with a capital 's'?

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 11 Aug 2017 #186
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3847 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote: #179
What can make it possible NOT to name anything?

Clive: This is a good question, Huguette. I do not know that K ever explored further, after asking his question.

Can it be made possible through choice, effort, repression, will, desire, practice? I think it can’t be. Can it?

Clive: The naming, like all thought, rises unbidden to the mind, doesn't it? So how can it be acted upon anyway, since it has already happened? When any action is applied, the naming is already in the past. As you say, it is already too late. What it is reacting too has finished, is inaccessible.

The self is always a reaction, isn't it, and so always too late.

If I say to myself, “Stop naming it”, it is already too late. It is named, it has been named. No? So I get angry and I say, “I’m angry” - perhaps not using the word “anger”, but immediately recognizing the feeling. I can’t help it, I can’t stop myself from knowing it as “anger” (or jealousy, depression, pleasure, etc.)The very naming and recognition of it does necessarily bring time into it. But the chain of events - the stimulus, the response of the past (as anger), the recognition from the past, the naming from the past - all happens instantly, doesn’t it? If it ended there, would it be a problem? I would say "I'm angry" and move on. But this is not what happens.

*To me, the naming that matters is the "expanded" naming as blame, analysis, mentally connecting the past to the present and the future, making an image I hold onto, holding a grudge, wanting payback. This process involves effort, doesn't it? Doesn't self-understanding deny or negate that effort? The effort to dig up dirt from the past and review it, explain it, analyze it, the seeking of direction from the past, the choice of action made out of anger, replaying it over and over mentally, is negated by understanding the process of self, isn't it?**

Clive: One sees that such movements have no real meaning.

Understanding/awareness/observation cannot retroactively prevent the immediate naming of my reaction as anger. But understanding/awareness/observation does put an end to the effort to blame or punish, doesn’t it?So if I do not "pursue" naming by expanding on it, if I'm aware of the significance of it, there is just the immediate naming of it as anger and awareness of it but there is no idenfication with the anger or the naming of it as "me" getting angry. Then anger does not become a problem, does it? And also breathing, living, dying, pleasure?
I dunno. I might be completely mistaken

Clive: If thought/the self, does not try to interfere, then all these movement fade immediately. Only the self can impart continuity to them, since the self IS continuity – or has the illusion of being so.

But still, K seemed to be suggesting that “not naming” has the power to transform. Does it have meaning to simply ask oneself (not direct oneself) “can naming/recognition cease?” One is not looking for an answer to such a question, since one knows that one does not know how to produce an answer. So the question is simply asked, and left “on the table”.

Is this an example of what K called “an impossible question”?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 11 Aug 2017 #187
Thumb_rodin_de_denker Olive B Netherlands 238 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Forgive me for saying so, but I see no point in talking things over with you. I don't see that we are looking into anything together. So I must leave it at that, at least for now.

Re#185

I am sorry Huguette, that you don’t see the value of my contribution which I am trying to give to this discussion/contemplation.

If/when you later on like to discuss this subject, please let me know.

Experience alone must be the test of reality.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 11 Aug 2017 #188
Thumb_rodin_de_denker Olive B Netherlands 238 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Does intelligence have an 'I'

Re#186

Intelligence –is-- I, Tom.

Experience alone must be the test of reality.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 11 Aug 2017 #189
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2045 posts in this forum Offline

Olive B wrote:
Intelligence –is-- I, Tom.

Do you rezlly feel that you, Olive, are that supreme intelligenc3? If so you have identified with it. Making it an identity, right? But does intelligence or understanding...insight...have an identity at all? Is it an act of intelligence to identify...to say/think that I am this or that....or the supreme...God...Self...Truth. That may be simply a hugely inflated self/ego....with a small 's'.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Fri, 11 Aug 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 11 Aug 2017 #190
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 414 posts in this forum Offline

187:

Clive Elwell wrote:
But still, K seemed to be suggesting that “not naming” has the power to transform. Does it have meaning to simply ask oneself (not direct oneself) “can naming/recognition cease?” One is not looking for an answer to such a question, since one knows that one does not know how to produce an answer. So the question is simply asked, and left “on the table”.

Yes, left on the table sounds good. Left hanging in the air to be breathed in and to act without inputting "my" effort.

I just noticed this from today's quote of the day: "Meditation is really very simple. We complicate it. We weave a web of ideas around it, what it is and what it is not." Can it be that the naming which is problematic is this weaving of a web of ideas, not just with regard to meditation but to everything we consider? Without this "weaving", the immediate naming which arises - "I'm angry, jealous, depressed, clever" and so on - simply fades away and it is not continued and complicated by our "weaving".

This post was last updated by Huguette . Fri, 11 Aug 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 11 Aug 2017 #191
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 551 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette wrote: Can it be that the naming which is problematic is this weaving of a web of ideas, not just with regard to meditation but to everything we consider? Without this "weaving", the immediate naming which arises 

Arn't we naming meditation?

Naming is naming.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 11 Aug 2017 #192
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 551 posts in this forum Offline

Every word makes a catagory. But every thing is actually different from all others. Itself alone. Everything is one off. If that then everything is new. Words are thought. Even recognition is thought.

Well then animals think.

Every moment is new. Is meditation (I would never use that word), is meditation the absence of recognition?

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Fri, 11 Aug 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 11 Aug 2017 #193
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 551 posts in this forum Offline

Is a newborn baby in a state of meditation? Is there an absence of self there? Is that baby crying, or is there just crying. Are we inquiring or is there just inquiring?

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Fri, 11 Aug 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 12 Aug 2017 #194
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 414 posts in this forum Offline

192:

Huguette wrote:

Can it be that the naming which is problematic is this weaving of a web of ideas, not just with regard to meditation but to everything we consider? Without this "weaving", the immediate naming which arises 

Peter Kesting wrote:

Arn't we naming meditation?

Naming is naming.

Peter,

As for me, I don’t think “naming is naming”. For example, when K said in the QOTD: "Meditation is really very simple. We complicate it. We weave a web of ideas around it, what it is and what it is not", his words are not weaving a web of ideas around “meditation” by this, are they? There’s no past or emotion - fear, anger, jealousy, conceit, pretense, and so on - attached to what he says. He's dispassionately pointing out something. He may be right, he may be wrong, I may understand it or I may not, but there's no division between K the speaker and me the listener, is there?

But if I would I say, “You make me so angry. You always know how to push my buttons. It’s your fault we always argue,” that naming is weaving a web of ideas and images, isn’t it? That naming is divisive, isn't it?

Or if I say to you, “Look at that rose” and you see it for yourself, experience the beauty for yourself, does that weave a web of ideas? But if I say to you, “Look at that beautiful rose. It reminds of the roses you gave me for my birthday, they were just like that, you don’t give me roses any more”, that naming is weaving a web of ideas and images, isn’t it?

There is naming which is based only on idea, image, belief, desire, fear, etc. And there is naming which is pointing to perception. No?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 12 Aug 2017 #195
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 414 posts in this forum Offline

193:

Peter Kesting wrote:
Every moment is new. Is meditation (I would never use that word), is meditation the absence of recognition?

Every moment is new, I see it that way too. But when we use the past to explain or understand the present, the newness of it is not experienced, isn't it?

We (K, you, I) are using the word meditation. And is there anything wrong with using it, looking into it, being curious about what it really is, finding out if there is such a thing? As long as we don’t weave a web of ideas about it...?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 12 Aug 2017 #196
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3847 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
I just noticed this from today's quote of the day: "Meditation is really very simple. We complicate it. We weave a web of ideas around it, what it is and what it is not." Can it be that the naming which is problematic is this weaving of a web of ideas, not just with regard to meditation but to everything we consider? Without this "weaving", the immediate naming which arises - "I'm angry, jealous, depressed, clever" and so on - simply fades away and it is not continued and complicated by our "weaving".

“Naming” seems such a simple thing, doesn't it, almost natural. And of course it is essential for the mind to recognise in the technical/practical sphere of living. And yet it seems the very core of our human psychological problem – that of interpreting the present, the new, in terms of the past, the known.

And you are suggesting, Huguette, that there can be a simple naming which does not set into motion a whole chain of associations, and associations upon association,; a process that not only weaves a prison around us (we are not separate from that prison) but inevitably evokes a state of conflict. Such conflict not only turning living into a miserable thing, but representing a waste of energy – energy, which K says, is necessary for transformation.

I don't know. Somehow, at some point, a link in the chain of cause and effect, action and reaction, thought and thinker, must be utterly severed, no? I mean if a fundamental change is to come about. I am not saying, of course, that this is a matter of effort, that “I can do it”. I have a sense that ALL the possible reactions to anger – the condemnation, approval, justification, analysis, determination to overcome, fear of it getting out of control, fear of repercussion,contradiction with our ideals, etc etc, is somehow contained in that single word “anger”. Somehow enfolded in the word. What do you say?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 12 Aug 2017 #197
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3847 posts in this forum Offline

Peter Kesting wrote:
Every word makes a catagory. But every thing is actually different from all others. Itself alone. Everything is one off. If that then everything is new. Words are thought. Even recognition is thought.

What you write, Peter, reminds me of words of T S Eliot, which I was sharing with a friend only yesterday:

Because I know that time is always time
And place is always and only place
And what is actual is actual only for one time
And only for one place …

So when one tries to displace one actuality into another time/space zone, it has no meaning whatsoever. I suppose the assumption behind all language is that such displacement IS possible and meaningful.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 12 Aug 2017 #198
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2045 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
We (K, you, I) are using the word meditation. And is there anything wrong with using it, looking into it, being curious about what it really is,

Huguette and Peter,

K talked a lot about meditation, and the naming I don't see as problematic. It's like the finger pointing to the moon, isn't it? For him meditation was a reality. He also discussed anger and fear....almost endlessly. Was the naming the problem? Or rather, all our associations to the names? Fear and anger and violence are actualities after all. What's wrong with pointing to those? Or the actuality of meditation?

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Sat, 12 Aug 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 12 Aug 2017 #199
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 551 posts in this forum Offline

So then what is meditation?

From what K has said i take it that what almost everyone is doing when they 'meditate' is completely contrary to meditation. So that word is like the word love. From K's talks almost everyone has no idea what that is.

My guess is that these are perhaps the same thing. And there might be an experiencing of these but when these are not present, when they exist as memory they dont exist at all. The words then have no referent. They don't talk about themselves. These 'things' are silent.

Are these not actually just being awake in the absence of self

You cannot invite either of these.

Maybe there is a lesser love, a partial love maybe there is a lesser meditation, a somewhat meditation.

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Sat, 12 Aug 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 12 Aug 2017 #200
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 551 posts in this forum Offline

Here is something similar. Well, maybe not so similar.

If you go through a mathematical proof. For example the proof that the area of square on the longest side of a right triangle is exactly equal to the sum of the areas of the squares on the two other sides. When you see it, it is true, but later you only remember it is true. These are really two different things. This applies to everything that K talks about.

Does all of it become something only remembered?

But the present, nowness is beyond all, any words. Allways there no matter what is going on.

i seem to want to delete this but i wont.

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Sat, 12 Aug 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 12 Aug 2017 #201
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2045 posts in this forum Offline

Peter Kesting wrote:
My guess is that these are perhaps the same thing. And there might be an experiencing of these but when these are not present, when they exist as memory they dont exist at all.

Yet K talked about meditation and love. And anger and fear. It's the same with anything that we name...even your 'nowness'. My memory of my wife is not my wife. My memory of the tree is not the tree. The word...memory of....anger is not anger. Yet we talk of our wife or child or neighbor. Maybe I'm missing your point. Very tired today.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Sun, 13 Aug 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 13 Aug 2017 #202
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 551 posts in this forum Offline

Tom: "Maybe I'm missing your point" 

I don't know if i'm trying to make a point. I'm only exploring (at least right now that is what i think).

As i see it K was not always in the state where there is the absence of the self. As i see it his using the word meditation was a mistake. One might substitute the term putting aside the self the state is absence of the self. He did use the word silence but again who actually understood what he was refering to. No on really knows what another persons inner experience is..(as i see it).

i might be mistaken but i think the whole of his teaching was about the self... ego and its dissolution. What observes when the observer (identification) is the observed, is the self free state. What is there when intelligence is acting is absence of the self. But what is there when there is an intent to meditate is the self.

So how can the absence of self come about? Intelligence (no self) must awaken. How is that to happen? The first step is the last step.

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Sun, 13 Aug 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 13 Aug 2017 #203
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 551 posts in this forum Offline

The self free state is the most desirable thing. Over everything else. A great joy.

Almost no one is really deeply aware of that truth. One can have what is only a partial awareness.

The memory it makes can be an impediment. Touch it once at its fullest and you become a full out addict. Wanting. But let go of it for years and you can recover.

Still exploring.

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Sun, 13 Aug 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 13 Aug 2017 #204
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 551 posts in this forum Offline

Tom,

Now is beyond time/space. Science reveals the relationships of things in time space. All of our thinking is in that field. But nowness is of a dimension beyond all of that. Ask any scientist what now is, she/he has no idea. She/he will tell you what happens at T1 and T2 and T3 but all of that has no where in it, nowness, the now.

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Sun, 13 Aug 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 13 Aug 2017 #205
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 551 posts in this forum Offline

She/he will also, just like the rest of us, be unable to tell you any thing about sentience. Also of that dimension beyond time/space/matter/energy.

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Sun, 13 Aug 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 14 Aug 2017 #206
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3847 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
. Yet we talk of our wife or child or neighbor.

In some ways it has meaning to talk of people - my child has started University, My wife died, etc - but so often we are not talking of events, we are talking of our images of another person, aren't we? And an image of love or meditation is not love or meditation.

I think the difference becomes clear when we are actually doing it.

This post was last updated by Clive Elwell Mon, 14 Aug 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 14 Aug 2017 #207
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2045 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
but so often we are not talking of events, we are talking of our images of another person, aren't we? And an image of love or meditation is not love or meditation.

That's exactly what I meant. An image of my wife is not my wife, though many of us don't make that distinction. But should K have not talked of meditation as Peter was suggesting?

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 15 Aug 2017 #208
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 3847 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
But should K have not talked of meditation as Peter was suggesting?

I am not prepared to say what K should or should not have done. Or also any one else. I do not claim to have the perception, the knowledge, or whatever it is, that sees the whole picture, and sees the ulimate end result of any action. As Dan said, Life is truly a voyage on an uncharted sea.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 15 Aug 2017 #209
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2045 posts in this forum Offline

Peter Kesting wrote:
i might be mistaken but i think the whole of his teaching was about the self... ego and its dissolution. What observes when the observer (identification) is the observed, is the self free state. What is there when intelligence is acting is absence of the self.

Yes...understanding oneself....not reaching out to some imagined beyond.

But what is there when there is an intent to meditate is the self.

True enough.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 15 Aug 2017 #210
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2045 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Tom Paine wrote:

But should K have not talked of meditation as Peter was suggesting?
I am not prepared to say what K should or should not have done

Understood. I will pose the question to peter, time permitting. Or he can reply here.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 181 - 210 of 210 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.)