Other than for practical purposes why do we seek to define experience? Do we have a vested interest in the end result?Krishnamurti points out the word is not the thing..yet we tend to take it as if it is..why?

Most likely to feel secure? In the olden days many cultures "felt" that in naming something it gave you power...over it? You know magical incantations and other rites of tradition.It seems like an attempt to keep fear in check? If I name it ..it is no longer the unknown..I "Believe" I know it because I named it?:)

Thanks Paul! Maybe it has to do with Krishnamurti's statement that the mind is caught up in what it is occupied with..rather than the fact of it's occupation?

Yes Max..as a security net..against the unknown of tomorrow?:)

Mina Martini wrote: Without defining psychologically what is lived, does it ever turn to experience?

Yes Mina..thank you for the welcome:) That is what I am driving at!:)

Another aspect of this naming process other than for practical purposes would be assigning value judgments such as good..or bad..right..or ..wrong and so on.Which again seems to perpetuate fragmentation ?:)

no!:)But that is the point isn't it? Conditioned human being is merely a set of words used to point to my state of consciousness! Divided?:)

Bingo..Thanks Katy!:)

Yes Mina..which brings us back to Rick's use of the words conditioned human being..that is what I am!:)

So to Rick the question is ..do I see it..or do I attempt to explain it,,by way of naming it?

well..The only thing I have got are questions..not answers.On any level at any time in any place..and that my friend is "Why" I post.:)

Well Paul my friend assume what you wish!Comparisons serve no useful purpose here..do they? Conditioning is me..nothing new age about that it just is! Nice attempt though..and please enjoy your bottle!:)

Thank you!:)

Glibness notwithstanding please do tell us what we can and can not do..it goes perfectly well with glibness,and the "idea" that one is in a position to give such conclusive advice! 10 minutes or ten years some things always remain the same i guess? :)

Mina Martini wrote: It is when you realise that you ARE conditioning yourself, that conditioning is being transformed into Being, into freedom.

Well Mina,I would like to go back to my original post..in which the question was raised.."Why do we name things?"and I have a feeling that aside from practical applications...naming perpetuates conditioning through duality of me/other?:)

dhirendra singh wrote: What to do to realise?

Yes a good question my friend! If time is brought into it..as in when you realise!:)

Mina Martini wrote: Note, once you have any idea of having seen something, you have already 'done something'

O.K. then in naming it,,we kill it?:)

Hi Katy.Perhaps we find comfort in conformity..in the known..we feel our security is threatened by that which we do not understand..by that which we can not explain..name..label?:) Good question!:)

Katy 9 wrote: It is interesting how scared we seem to be, generally, of the 'unknown'...

well..it seems to be subjective in nature? Some will self induce a state as in some tribal rituals..while others seem to have the experience against their will..so to speak.Science seems to point to chemical disturbance's of the brain function.In the 60's people took all kinds of things to alter their consciousness!It is interesting that those who say they have had alien encounters seem to have different feeling..some saying it brought them peace..others felt violated?:)

dhirendra singh wrote: Right Katy, can this centre end? how?

By Death? Certainly not by more thought..thought chasing after thought..producing yet more confusion. If one supposes a method..a system..a how it is still the center expanding it's self through yet more tangents?:)

Maybe another reason we name things is for the simple benefit of communication as well..to pass along knowledge of the known to others and to gather information as well? The problem being..interpretation of language according to our conditioning? An example of this would be..the inability to discuss an issue without the projections of personal opinion clouding the issue at hand! One can easily see this in politics..and religion..and philosophy?In other words we project the "Meaning" we believe,rather than look at what is?So naming becomes not a communication tool..but a self protective device?:)

One of the inherent problems with naming is..definition. Example..take a group of people give them a word and ask them what the word means. More that likely you will get quite different understandings of it's meaning from each participant? One thinks this is why Krishnamurti attempted to use common words to convey the teachings..knowing full well the tendency of the conditioned mind to distort through interpretation?:)

dhirendra singh wrote: s there a relation among thoughts. self and naming?

Well.. D..it seems as though naming is an attempt of thought/self to create the illusion of security of it's existence..through naming we seek to make the unknown known? Apparently another escape from fear and isolation..non-being? Dogs don't name things do they?:)

dhirendra singh wrote: So as K asked, is it possible to not record at all?

Let it be? Perhaps we all have experienced a gap..where there is no subject/object? Walks in nature are an example..the birth of a new life?Yet with our thinking being so mechanical..so deeply ingrained in us for practical purposes..we always attempt to do something about it..instead of letting it be as it is?:)

Elan J. wrote: The problem is loosing track that is it always an approximation.

Yes Elan..words are symbols which represent experience.approximation..Which is why Krishnamurti pointed out often.."The word is not the thing"! Thank you:)

what is the nature of isolation? what is the nature of aloneness?:)

Katy 9 wrote: We seem to not only be lost for words/names at times but lost by words too.

Yes that's it..lost in words..Sometimes..maybe often no words are needed,and in fact put a artificial barrier between what is and perception unclouded by interpretation!Which leads me to another question..why does the mind always seek to be occupied? It is not so much the what it is occupied with...but the fact of it's occupation! :)

Paul Davidson wrote: How can there be perception without accumulation of data?

Good question Paul..any thoughts on that?

Paul Davidson wrote: Is mind mental occupation? If there is no occupation, is there mind?

If the mind is occupied is it attentive?:)

Paul Davidson wrote: Or, what else could there be that is being described by this word?

What is no word needed?:)