Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
Discussion Forums

dave h's Forum Activity | 1167 posts in 2 forums


Forum: General Discussion Sun, 01 Jul 2012
Topic: Where is error?

I wonder if it's more important to ask why we want to know what is fundamentally wrong with us? Are we trying to become enlightened? Maybe we're depressed, angry, frustrated or confused and want a way out? Maybe we want to solve mankind's problems?

D

Forum: General Discussion Sun, 01 Jul 2012
Topic: The most dominant conditioning

I suppose it has to be something we can see/observe whether unconscious or conscious. Maybe we need to be clear about what the difference between conscious and unconscious is. I imagine unconscious conditioning is still something that leaks out and can be observed. Maybe start with the easy stuff? We have an issue with another person - how are we going to deal with it? I am asking this question too: how am I going to deal with problems I have with another?

Forum: General Discussion Sun, 01 Jul 2012
Topic: Where is error?

haha you might be right

do you think we're that different from animals though? maybe we're just animals with greater technical ability? I don't know the answer

we do have problems as a species though I think that's clear

you're asking if there is a single cause to our problems we have many conflicts in our lives, at work, at home, with ourselves, is there a fundamental cause?

Forum: General Discussion Sun, 01 Jul 2012
Topic: Where is error?

actually you can see gorillas fighting each other over objects, consoling each other and having feuds

and that doesn't help much with the topic question, but I'm not convinced we're completely different to animals

I'm not sure it's important though - whether animals are mad too or not, we still have this issue of how we will resolve our problems...

is this something we can do something about? is it something we can cut out like a cancer?

Forum: General Discussion Sun, 01 Jul 2012
Topic: Where is error?

I think you might be right about this

we do seem to have lesser expectations of animals

perhaps it's a more pressing issue for our species as we are capable of so much more destruction or construction even

Forum: General Discussion Sun, 01 Jul 2012
Topic: back on kinfonet

I think it might be almost 10 years since I last wrote on Kinfonet. It's funny to see the same bickering and issues today. Nothing much has changed. I used to participate in these battles as much as anyone. I actually got banned at one point. We had our own Paul back then (amongst others), quite possibly the same one, it doesn't really matter. The complaints about that sort of writing style were pretty much the same.

I'm wondering if the issue is more to do with ourselves than we think. Why do we continue to try to mold someone, or try to communicate with someone when it's clear there is no movement there? Do we hope that some special combination of words will get through? Is it really that important to be understood? If we don't feel there is an understanding with someone, don't we have other conversations to take part in? something else to get on with? What are we trying to achieve? Instead we dwell on hypothetical motives or try to injure someone verbally because we are irritated. Maybe you try with someone for a while but then move on.

Ultimately we are here to teach or to learn, and maybe have some fun even. I am in this as well by the way. I am quite capable of being drawn into a pointless scrap.

There is little danger here. The worst that can happen is that someone continually writes posts that you don't understand, someone continually fails to understand you, or someone is continually rude or patronizing or unhelpful. Is it really that bad? Don't we have other conversations to get on with?

dave

Forum: General Discussion Mon, 02 Jul 2012
Topic: back on kinfonet

Well, there were two Pauls back then, you remind me of one of them.

Forum: General Discussion Mon, 02 Jul 2012
Topic: Where is error?

Dr.sudhir sharma wrote: The main reason is that whole society is reinforcing this illusion of being a separate indiidual in a child right from the beginning. By the time he/she grows up, they are firmly entrenched in his/her separative individuality ready for confrontation with all.

I wonder if I can give an example from my own life. At work I would say there is real danger from others, unlike this forum for example. It's unlikely anyone here is a real and direct threat to our security or existence. We should feel relatively safe here I hope. Sure someone could try to pretend to be something they are not, or talk with us in a way that belittles us or confuses us. I really think we are all capable of moving on from that. It's not such a big problem right? So what if someone insists I am unenlightened, or going down the wrong path, or wastes a little of my time? Maybe I'll give it some thought or maybe it's just not that interesting. In the world of work, someone can lie, or attack our way of living, patronise us, find faults in our actions or thinking, so as to increase their security at the expense of our own. How are we to deal with this? How do we approach this problem?

Forum: General Discussion Mon, 02 Jul 2012
Topic: Where is error?

lidlo lady wrote: Work-place politics are, almost invariably, pernicious. Find a way to make a living without having to submit to an untenable situation.

You're suggesting to try to isolate myself from these relationships. It's everywhere though. Sure in some jobs it's worse than others. Is the answer really to walk away?

And I agree it's pretty pernicious.

Forum: General Discussion Tue, 03 Jul 2012
Topic: Where is error?

RICK LEIN wrote: Why ask someone else? What is the fear/danger telling you?

I ask someone else because maybe I can learn something from them. As long as I am also looking into too, and not just waiting for answers I think that's OK. There's the other extreme which is never to ask and only to tell, which is another problem. How we find the right balance I don't know. I think it's a case of experimentation. Maybe someone is more knowledgeable or clearer about something and you learn something from them, or maybe you are clearer in which case you might teach more than you learn.

Fear is telling me that simply walking away is not the answer. It's a little more complex than that. One could live in a cave out of fear of being challenged by others. That doesn't feel right somehow.

Forum: General Discussion Tue, 03 Jul 2012
Topic: Where is error?

Dr.sudhir sharma wrote: Will you say that an approach based on discovering the truth/fact of 'the other is me' will be right?

OK so I understand the other person is insecure and afraid. Their reaction to their fears might be different in extent and in its complexity and trickery perhaps. Some people will lie and deceive to reduce their insecurity, others will kill. Others won't react in this way. There is still the problem of how one reacts to this challenge, and how one reacts to one's own reactions.

Perhaps you're talking about something deeper than simply realising that others have issues just like ourselves.

Forum: General Discussion Tue, 03 Jul 2012
Topic: Where is error?

dave humphrey wrote: OK so I understand the other person is insecure and afraid. Their reaction to their fears might be different in extent and in its complexity and trickery perhaps. Some people will lie and deceive to reduce their insecurity, others will kill. Others won't react in this way. There is still the problem of how one reacts to this challenge, and how one reacts to one's own reactions.

Actually let me ask another question about this. Are the problems we have we people any different to the practical problems we face daily? So how to fix a car, or solve a mathematical problem, or write a song?

Forum: General Discussion Tue, 03 Jul 2012
Topic: Where is error?

Sun Hand wrote: Whilst it is true that thought can be said to be mechanical, material, physical etc, thought is part of a living human being. It is not the fixing of mechanical thought that is our problem, but the lack of coherence in the human being. I know what it takes to disassemble and reassemble an engine. I have done it. But a human mind is of infinite complexity, it is a living and lythe form.

That's interesting.

Let me elaborate a little.

I'm thinking that the challenges we face are always specific. The next challenge will be different of course, so there is no single formula to deal with every challenge - I think that's clear. So I'm not looking for a formula to fix our relationships. But there is a specific problem we encounter and maybe it can be approached like a broken car. What's the problem? What can I try? Where should I look? OK that didn't work, what else can I try? Maybe it's too much effort and I should sell the car off as scrap metal. Who knows.

Forum: General Discussion Tue, 03 Jul 2012
Topic: Where is error?

dave humphrey wrote: But a human mind is of infinite complexity, it is a living and lythe form.

Another thing. Is the brain really infinitely complex? It might be beyond our ability to comprehend it. Maybe we can only understand it approximately, but maybe it is simply a highly complex machine. Sometimes parts of it which break down, parts which we understand, can be repaired, by medicine for example. Is it that different from a machine?

Forum: General Discussion Wed, 04 Jul 2012
Topic: Where is error?

Dr.sudhir sharma wrote: This realization would be intellectual if it is not arising from the depth of the source that makes the knowing of 'the other is me' as real as any other thing in nature.

I think that fundamentally the conflict arises from wanting things. I want other people to act in a certain way. I don't want them to say or think things that are not factual. I don't want them to try to belittle me or overestimate my contributions. I want a certain kind of life, to have certain comforts, to have a certain type of woman... The list goes on.

I don't see how I will let go of these things. I'm not sure I'm even free to explore how to let go, because I don't want to let go, as then I have no hope of achieving these things. Perhaps this is a road-block, but I am curious about the mind and it's workings, and that curiosity is not born of wanting a way out. I am simply curious. These things interest me.

Forum: General Discussion Wed, 04 Jul 2012
Topic: back on kinfonet

Sun Hand wrote: Steeped in the past, you remember the images you built back then and you miss the vibe.

hehehe I never said I remembered any images or past issues if that's what you mean by images it's like recognizing an orange and a lemon are similar in some ways but yes who cares whether someone has changed their name or not

Forum: General Discussion Thu, 05 Jul 2012
Topic: Was there or is there anyone changed?

I wonder if there isn't a terminology confusion here. By thought I would tend to mean words and images. By consciousness I mean the whole which contains direct sense perceptions as well. I don't see them as separate either. But I would tend to say that thought is merely part of that whole. It can only generate approximations to it. Perhaps you're saying something different to that.

Another way to put it is that the past is part of the present. Memory is happening now. It's interesting that you're saying the past and the present are the same thing.

Forum: General Discussion Fri, 06 Jul 2012
Topic: Was there or is there anyone changed?

lidlo lady wrote: I think of consciousness as informed awareness, the information being the response of memory to raw sense data.

I was thinking a little about this today.

I don't think "direct perception" as I put it makes any sense. Thought puts together various ideas about what is perceived. It postulates that there is something real beyond perception. For example the idea that objects have permanence, or the idea that perception is filtered in some way, and what we perceive is only an approximation to some kind of intrinsic reality. That so called intrinsic reality is something put together by thought. These thoughts may well be useful to us in a practical sense - I'm not trying to criticise these ideas as such.

I don't think there is anything other than perception. Thought is just one form of it.

Forum: General Discussion Fri, 06 Jul 2012
Topic: Was there or is there anyone changed?

lidlo lady wrote: All you have is perception and what thought has to say about it.

haha isn't "what thought has to say about it" something that it also perceived? I mean thought can be "watched" like anything else. I'm not convinced thought has some sort existence outside of perception.

maybe we'll end up going round in circles with this stuff. but I do think there is something left to clear up there, that's worth pursuing.

Forum: General Discussion Sat, 07 Jul 2012
Topic: Was there or is there anyone changed?

lidlo lady wrote: There's voluntary and involuntary thought; thoughts that spontaneously arise and thoughts that are intentionally generated, but none of it is "outside of perception". Everything in the field of conscious awareness is perceptible, if not perceived, and thought is involved in the process.

I perceive that some thoughts are operating more or less in the background as if on auto-pilot. There are moments when thought is being watched, but they are fleeting.

Forum: General Discussion Sun, 08 Jul 2012
Topic: What it means to observe, to understand?

Dr.sudhir sharma wrote: Then there is 'seeing' with interest/concern where mind is quiet for the time being. As soon as mind thinks it has understood, the thinking has returned.

As I see it, thinking and seeing aren't exclusive. You can be more or less attentive to your thoughts. Thinking doesn't necessarily come to an end even if you're attentive to it. It might or might not. The idea that the mind must not be thinking to see clearly creates struggle.

Forum: General Discussion Sun, 08 Jul 2012
Topic: What it means to observe, to understand?

dhirendra singh wrote: Do it mean that without this idea, there is no struggle? Is not true that thought like computer always work in binary mode, 0 and 1, which is continuous struggle.

well I guess there are various kinds of struggle - believing the mind should be quiet is one of them

does a computer struggle?

Forum: General Discussion Sun, 08 Jul 2012
Topic: What it means to observe, to understand?

RICK LEIN wrote: Why complicate it?

What do you think I am complicating Rick?

Forum: General Discussion Sun, 08 Jul 2012
Topic: What it means to observe, to understand?

RICK LEIN wrote: What is.:)

What is what is? :)

Forum: General Discussion Sun, 08 Jul 2012
Topic: What it means to observe, to understand?

RICK LEIN wrote: Please see post #46:)

but I am a monkey :)

Forum: General Discussion Sun, 08 Jul 2012
Topic: The True Believer

lidlo lady wrote: So to speak knowingly, experientially, of perception without memory is nonsense.

I'm not sure what you mean by this Lidlo. It is good to question these things though. I'm not completely clear it seems, so the challenge is a good thing.

We reached a point where we saying there is perception and thought and that's it. Perception being the senses. You seem to be saying that sensation is impossible without thinking in operation? Maybe I'm misinterpreting what you're saying...

Forum: General Discussion Tue, 10 Jul 2012
Topic: The True Believer

Sun Hand wrote: K said the very brain cells can mutate. What do they then become? Does a neuron, which is the brain cell, become another thing?

I doubt he meant that individual brain cells mutate into other kinds of cells :) Probably he meant that there is a mutation in the group structure. Why he uses the word mutation, what kind of mutation was he talking about and whether it is possible are other questions.

I don't think we need to understand the brain's structure for these discussions anyway. Unless you're a brain surgeon about to perform an operation or interested in the structure for it's own sake because it's fascinating, who cares? We're here to discuss conflict, division, the illusion of self and so on. Do we need to open someone's head and examine their neurons to understand these things?

Forum: General Discussion Tue, 10 Jul 2012
Topic: The True Believer

B Teulada wrote: but this is sort of a core question with K. The fact that the brain has immense potential but has for thousands of years limited itself to one activity, which is thought, which is by nature technological. It has always focused on that, thus preventing all of its energy to be released and be whole.

Maybe K spoke or went into these things - I'm not claiming to know why. The question is do you need to analyse the physical structure of the brain to understand conflict? Do you need to know the physical locations of different parts of the brain and how they interact to be free of belief? Maybe there's a belief gland in people's heads we can cut out I don't know :) Maybe science will provide a cure some day and we'll be able to rewire people's neurons so that they're free of belief. Seriously though I don't think the answer lies in the brain constructing an approximation (maps, theories, ideas, analysis) of it's own function.

Forum: General Discussion Tue, 10 Jul 2012
Topic: The True Believer

Sun Hand wrote: So, we can leave the physical side entirely alone, but . . . we are talking of thought as a material process. How can we talk about any material process whatsoever without knowing something of the material background to it?

Well there's understanding thought as a material process, in that it isn't separate from other material processes - it isn't something different to matter and can be observed as such, and there's understanding the brain as a material process.

I'm not saying the brain and thought aren't related of course, just that the relationships between senses, our thoughts, thoughts in succession can be examined without an understanding of biology.

Sun Hand wrote: It seems that people think it necessary to talk about the material process of thought and make all sorts of sweeping statements about it without attempting to understand the material process itself. Science has fallen into the division between neurology and psychology as philosophy has fallen into the division between idealism and materialism as humanity has fallen into the division between sensory life and so-called spiritual life. Is it not time to try to tie the ends of ourselves together, the spiritual and the material?

I don't doubt that's a valuable endeavour. Western medicine typically shows a poor understanding of mind-brain-body for example. But I don't see that understanding belief requires knowledge of the brain's structure. I might be wrong of course. Perhaps absorbing as many text-books on brain structure is the answer to ending belief. That doesn't feel right to me, though I don't claim to have a proof or to be certain of it.

Forum: General Discussion Wed, 11 Jul 2012
Topic: The True Believer

lidlo lady wrote: Well, look into it, will you? If stupidity can be surgically removed, there's hope for humanity...and people who use emoticons.

:D