Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
Discussion Forums

Aseem Kumar's Forum Activity | 2106 posts in 3 forums


Forum: General Discussion Tue, 28 Jan 2014
Topic: The Simplicity of Awareness

Tom Paine wrote: And it must be an outside factor...otherwise it's more action/thought from within the conditioned contents of consciousness.

The outside factor must have some kind of relationship with what is factual...which is the conditioned contents of consciousness as it would be impossible to bring it (outside factor) into operation from nowhere. If we understand that relationship, we may have that 'outside factor'.

Forum: General Discussion Tue, 28 Jan 2014
Topic: The Simplicity of Awareness

Tom Paine wrote: The relationship may be the understanding that 'I' can't do anything about the conditioning, as all my thinking and acting(reacting) is totally conditioned....that I am totally OF it as the separate observer of it...iow, the separate observer/thinker is the conditioning observing itself.

So, how does the above understanding brings into existence the outside factor...and what is this factor?

Forum: General Discussion Wed, 29 Jan 2014
Topic: The Simplicity of Awareness

max greene wrote: As I see it, the understanding that there is absolutely no action that can be taken means that there will be a stop to all search and effort. There is then quietness.

Yes.

max greene wrote: In this quietness there is awareness.

From quietness of the conscious mind to total awareness that dissolves self, lots of more energy is needed. The mind that has knowledge /experience of the awareness actually fragments energy responsible for 'quietness' and goes back to the level of making effort.

max greene wrote: Awareness is of the present, while the physical, existing body is the past. We are both the present and the past.

Change, and the creation of the new, are possible only with awareness.

All this knowledge about awareness may or may not be true.

Forum: General Discussion Wed, 29 Jan 2014
Topic: As the ship passes ...

mike christani wrote: In the same way, he is giving me a gift and he says, "Take it, don't ask me why you are being given it, who is giving it; just take it.' So I am telling you, insight is not dependent on the intellect, it is not dependent on knowledge, it is not dependent on any form of remembrance, and it is not dependent on time. Enlightenment is not dependent on time. Time, memory, remembrance, cause - they don't exist; then you have insight, complete insight. Sir, like two ships passing each other at night, one says to the other,"This is it,' and passes on. What will you do?

mike christani wrote: He has left with me a tremendous jewel and I am watching the beauty of it. I am not saying, why did he give it to me, who is he, and so on. He has given it to me and he said, "Take it, my friend, live with it, and if you don't want it, throw it away.'

What is the gift or jewel that has been given?

Forum: General Discussion Wed, 29 Jan 2014
Topic: Alternate Experience.

randall merryman wrote: Sorry Max, but it's quite clear that what "I think" and "I believe" is what passes for seeing. You are suggesting you are seeing in the manner Krishnamurti spoke of?? I will just respectfully suggest otherwise.

All measurements/judgement of the above kind are done in the psychological field...easy to recognise in others...and usually attribute to 'seeing' in oneself.

Forum: General Discussion Wed, 29 Jan 2014
Topic: Mysticism: Enlighten me, please.

Jean Gatti wrote: When there is full attention, there can be no thought ... so no self

Why is there no thought in full attention?

Why is there no self in full attention?

Where do thought and self go when there is full attention? Do they go away or disappear temporarily or permanently?

Forum: General Discussion Wed, 29 Jan 2014
Topic: Mysticism: Enlighten me, please.

Jean Gatti wrote: Why is there no thought in full attention?..

Because thought IS inattention ...

So, how/why/where does this thought (which is inattention) disappear for full attention to come?

Forum: General Discussion Wed, 29 Jan 2014
Topic: Mysticism: Enlighten me, please.

Jean Gatti wrote: Thought, which is noise, just stops

It just stops to start again?...or stops forever?

Forum: General Discussion Wed, 29 Jan 2014
Topic: Mysticism: Enlighten me, please.

Jean Gatti wrote: Thought asks this question ...

so, thought reappears again and again?

Forum: General Discussion Thu, 30 Jan 2014
Topic: Seeing together..

mike christani wrote: Can we see, despite our many differences and backgrounds, that we all have in common the factor of thought? We all think. Mine is a little different than yours because I have a different background, conditioning, education and so on, but it's still thought...

One can see either the totality of thought/me dominated field now or else the "seeing" is just a state projected by thought.

Forum: General Discussion Thu, 30 Jan 2014
Topic: Seeing together..

randall merryman wrote: This is the question. Or is what goes on here and everywhere else, simply comparing/sharing knowledge/opinions/belief/imagery?

Before 'seeing' is 'right listening' and in such 'listening' the 'contents' lose their power to generate conflict or division.

So, how does a person/you/anyone blessed with this kind of "listening/seeing" recognise the belief, opinions, ideals etc in others?

Forum: General Discussion Thu, 30 Jan 2014
Topic: Alternate Experience.

randall merryman wrote: We sense see and observe our imagery.

Through

Forum: General Discussion Thu, 30 Jan 2014
Topic: Alternate Experience.

randall merryman wrote: Well I can only respond that it is not measurement, simply a clear observable fact.

What is responsible that makes 'observation' in one a 'measurement' and 'clearly observable fact' in another?

Forum: General Discussion Thu, 30 Jan 2014
Topic: Mysticism: Enlighten me, please.

Tom Paine wrote: In a moment of full awareness and attention it may dissolve, but does it return? Normally it does.

Before making any assertion about the 'returning of the self', it would be worthwhile to inquire as to what is "full attention and awareness" in which self dissolve?

When do full attention and awareness come into being?

Forum: General Discussion Thu, 30 Jan 2014
Topic: Mysticism: Enlighten me, please.

max greene wrote: (Unless we want to say that the imaginary exists.)

If it were not existing, then awareness, attention, sensory input and actions would never get corrupted/distorted.

Who will deny (and on what basis) that this corruption/distortion is actual/factual in human race?

Forum: General Discussion Thu, 30 Jan 2014
Topic: Seeing together..

randall merryman wrote: This is you, accepting your own authority.

randall merryman wrote: Blessed or unblessed how do you recognize anything in anyone?

With or without authority?

Is authority from any source necessary for "listening"?

When one shares something directly perceived, does it necessarily become authority?

Forum: General Discussion Thu, 30 Jan 2014
Topic: Alternate Experience.

randall merryman wrote: Same thing.

Although appearing as one, still the colour is not the picture, is it?

Forum: General Discussion Thu, 30 Jan 2014
Topic: Alternate Experience.

randall merryman wrote: Aseem Kumar wrote:

What is responsible that makes 'observation' in one a 'measurement' and 'clearly observable fact' in another? have a clear undistorted perception, and you will have your answer.

"Clear undistorted perception" of what?

Forum: General Discussion Thu, 30 Jan 2014
Topic: Seeing together..

randall merryman wrote: What motivates you to ask?

I am simply responding to what you are posting.

randall merryman wrote: when one makes it authority/opinion/belief/information/knowledge, it does.

Can a person doing all this "directly perceive"?

Forum: General Discussion Thu, 30 Jan 2014
Topic: Seeing together..

randall merryman wrote: So, is the issue the passed along perception, or with the limitation of the mechanism/process involved?

Say it some other simpler way, please.

Forum: General Discussion Thu, 30 Jan 2014
Topic: Seeing together..

randall merryman wrote: I am simply responding to what you are posting. I will just respectfully suggest otherwise, but ok.

Just informing you that no response came to this. :)

Forum: General Discussion Thu, 30 Jan 2014
Topic: Seeing together..

randall merryman wrote: Is the issue/problem with the passed along information/perception, or with the limitation of human thinking?

The direct perception never meets limited human psyche.

Forum: General Discussion Thu, 30 Jan 2014
Topic: Alternate Experience.

randall merryman wrote: unimportant. Try not to focus on the object or objects.

"Try not to" is 'to try'...Leave aside the 'authority', a hint of simple 'help' will mar/k the innocence of direct undistorted perception.

Forum: General Discussion Thu, 30 Jan 2014
Topic: As the ship passes ...

mike christani wrote: The teachings.

The teachings are mere words unlikely to become "jewel or gift" unless something vitally important accompanies them. what could it be?

Forum: General Discussion Thu, 30 Jan 2014
Topic: Mysticism: Enlighten me, please.

Peter Kesting wrote: Nowness is outside this field which is illusion.

When 'illusion' refers to 'timeless', it inevitably posits it with reference to itself.

When timeless wants to find 'illusion', it finds nothing.

Peter Kesting wrote: The ending of self comes out of what is timeless.

The ending of self is an explosion as a results of tremendous amount of energy being held immovable and the perimeter explodes!

Forum: General Discussion Thu, 30 Jan 2014
Topic: Mysticism: Enlighten me, please.

Peter Kesting wrote: There is no death.

To what depth did the human mind travel or need to travel to make this statement with such complete certainty?

Forum: General Discussion Thu, 30 Jan 2014
Topic: Mysticism: Enlighten me, please.

max greene wrote: Life is of the present, and present does not mature or develop and does not accumulate. Life does not die. Only that which exists can -- will -- die.

Who can say with certainty that, like forms, the movements of energy will or can not disintegrate?

Forum: General Discussion Thu, 30 Jan 2014
Topic: Seeing together..

Dan McDermott wrote: So hearing this, reading about it, pondering it, why does thought persist in a direction, that it sees is the cause of such turmoil?

Thought is helpless in this matter. It may ponder all it wants, but it is not "intelligent" enough to understand that all its movement can occur only in the old direction.

Dan McDermott wrote: Is it because, it doesn't 'see'. Is it because it takes an energy to change its traditional direction, of fortifying the image and "decorating the prison"? Is it just laziness as he suggested? Is it even possible? Is it all just 'wishful thinking'?

All this is old accumulations moving in "old direction".

Forum: General Discussion Fri, 31 Jan 2014
Topic: Seeing together..

mike christani wrote: No, no! No. You can see, say, catch yourself in jealousy, or anxiety- that is seeing, the 'Awakening of intelligence' to use k's words. No, you block inquiry utterly with such a statement.

The partial seeing/partial insight are real, but the problem with them is that they are quickly absorbed by the limited consciousness/ego/self to become its contents. Moreover, they do not bring any fundamental transformation in all relationship...the partial transformation that they may bring in any selective field is always used by ego to bolster itself.

Forum: General Discussion Fri, 31 Jan 2014
Topic: Seeing together..

Dan McDermott wrote: But the shock of 'seeing' that this is so, momentarily stops the process.

The "seeing" of something grand, spectacular, strange or beautiful may be the "shock" (the attention gets instantaneously absorbed in the thing), but "seeing" of the fact that thought always move in fixed grooves is not that (shock) as this fact does not reveal itself because of 'absorbed attention'.