Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
Discussion Forums

max greene's Forum Activity | 7809 posts in 13 forums


Forum: Insights Sat, 20 Jun 2009
Topic: Is there an ending to search?

Thomas

Seems to me that "truth" is now, and all we have to do is to be aware (that is, sense without some interference) what is going on around us--NOW. The rest is memory and illusion.

Forum: Question authority Sat, 20 Jun 2009
Topic: reaction

How's this for starters, Randal: Thought is memory of the past (there can't be memory of what's happening now or of what might happen in the future). The only thing you can do with something "now" is to be aware of it--you can't think about it. So being aware gets you into the loop in the first place. Thinking is recalling an image that you maybe want to massage.

What does it mean to be aware? In spite of all the profound discussions concerning awareness, it seems to me it's just the act of sensing something--you know, the five senses and all that. Nothing more! You don't sense it, Mac, you damn well aren't going to be aware of it.

Forum: Insights Sat, 20 Jun 2009
Topic: Is there an ending to search?

Thomas,

Yes, "search" is useless in this situation. What is needed is inquiry--an entirely different thing from search. Inquiry--questioning, asking--is possible without search, isn't it?

"Search" implies a goal already visualized. No good, in consideration of truth. As you say, "truth simply is." And I would add, because of this, truth has to be now.

But what do we mean by "now"? When is now? If you can pinpoint "when," the "now" is already gone. So what's the action needed?

(When I said, "all you have to do is to be aware," more correct would have been, "all you can do is to be aware.")

Forum: Awareness in our world today Sat, 20 Jun 2009
Topic: What does it mean to be "Aware"?

Krishnan,

All we know that exists is this body. It is my view that the body, through thought, has created the Self, or in more modern terminology, the psychological "I." But the the Self and the "I" are exactly the same.

When I say this is my view, that means this is the way I see it. My view may be distorted, and to that extent it will be in error. But it is important to say that it is "my view" so that it will be different from "my opinion." Opinion is thought and belief; viewing, even when distorted, is seeing--an entirely different act from opinion.

Looking forward to more on this.

Forum: Insights Sat, 20 Jun 2009
Topic: Is there an ending to search?

Thomas,

Good comments all. We do have to be careful with words and their meanings. If "inquiry" means "search," then by all means let us drop it. One comment more, in general, before we move on: The questions you are asking--they are what I would classify as inquiry.

"Can you find the Now? Can you produce the Now? Can you come into contact with the Now? Or does the Now comes into contact with "you"? Is there really action needed?"

Here's the way I look at the "now." There is a now, the present, and then there is the ultimate now--the "Now." Scientists have divided the second down to nano-seconds, but the smallest division of a second is not the Now. So long as there is a fraction of time, however tiny, this time is not the Now--the fraction is something that already exists and is being measured. The Now is beyond time, but we know there must be this Now simply because we are, we exist! Obviously creation can take place only in the Now, since otherwise "creation" would have to take place already in time. Action can take place only in the Now, obviously.

As an aside, we can see that the Now must be that same Now at the same moment over the entire Universe.

The physical organism is a living thing, and only a living thing can be creative or take action on its own--that is, can be operative in the Now. If there is any "you," it has to be the physical organism with its brain/mind. It appears that the organism itself doesn't identify an "I." It just is.

Forum: K, psychology and the physical brain Sat, 20 Jun 2009
Topic: science, the I and ego,

Mike,

A good use of the term "mind" would be as a catch-all for anything that might have to do with the brain--for instance, is thought material, or is there some yet undiscovered sixth "sense" for "seeing" into subjects with the brain.

To cover my own a. . .ankles, I like to use the term brain/mind.

Forum: K, psychology and the physical brain Sat, 20 Jun 2009
Topic: science, the I and ego,

Phil,

I have a couple of comments here.

You say, "The other [the Ego] is nearly impossible to see and in my observation is the reason K said no one had changed . . ." I would ask, what makes the Ego so difficult to see? It would appear that following up on this question is the key to that "freedom" everyone talks about, while incidentally it is the key to saving the world. Once humanity is free from the "I" or "I's," he will be seeing and thinking without personal motive.

"What I am investigating is how the mechanics of the brain have been taken over by thought and misused to create illusions . . . " The mechanics can't have been taken over by thought, as thought is a passive construct. The brain itself has to take the action to create the illusions. The brain has either been damaged or conditioned and so it is not seeing and thinking straight. (This is a little picky, I'll admit.)

Forum: Question authority Sat, 20 Jun 2009
Topic: reaction

Yes. If there is a distorting factor, let's out it.

Forum: Awareness in our world today Sat, 20 Jun 2009
Topic: Is it impossible to live with nonattachment in LIFE?

When we talk of "freedom,' we are talking of freedom from the Self, or freedom from the "I," are we not? So what entity is it that wants to be free from the Self? What entity is it that sees and longs for freedom and says, "I want to be free"?

I'm saying it is the physical organism with its brain/mind. The physical organism is a living thing, and because it is a living thing, the organism is actually capable of acting and creating beyond time. Through the process of thinking the organism has created a thought construct that we call the Self. Of course, a construct can't do anything on its own--by its nature it is passive and lifeless. But the organism has given vast significance to the Self that it has created--such significance that the organism comes to think of the Self as itself. The organism becomes very protective of this Self that it has created. When threatened, the organism resorts to violence. We know the rest of the story.

What are we to do with this Self we have created? The Self is there, and if we look closely, it seems to be all that there is. It just might be! The Self might be all that we call "consciousness," because consciousness is of the known, and the known is already in time, old, and is neither creative or new. As I said, the physical organism is a living thing, capable of acting and creating outside of time. Freedom from the Self cannot be accomplished through effort. Freedom is accomplished through effortless seeing and understanding.

I may be all wet, but this is how the situation looks to me. What would you say in this regard?

Forum: Insights Sun, 21 Jun 2009
Topic: Is there an ending to search?

The Now is not speculation. It can't be--we are here, we exist, and we obviously don't exist in the past or in the future. We live Now. Now is all that there is.

Of course the Now is not an infinitesmal point. It is a measureless sea that contains time--past, present and future. Only a living thing can act and be creative in the present.

Forum: K, psychology and the physical brain Sun, 21 Jun 2009
Topic: science, the I and ego,

Mike,

(The intention here is not to interfere at all with the discussion of the 'contents' of consciousness, but merely to contextualize that discussion as not pertaining to the 'container' itself. That's all.)

The container is the physical organism with its brain/mind. Maybe we can put it like this: The brain creates thoughts, whether distorted or not by damage or conditioning, and these thoughts can be reinforced by other thoughts. But the actor behind it all is the brain.

The question is, can the brain free itself from thinking and thought? Thought and thinking are necessary, mechanically, but why must we be incessantly mucking about with the past? How are we to free ourselves of this? Is there a "way," or would that be just another thought system?

Forum: Question authority Sun, 21 Jun 2009
Topic: reaction

I'm going to say that "perception" means to sense, to be aware.
If this working definition is okay with you, then we could say that there are differences in perception, but not necessarily distortion in perception.

To illustrate: A dog looks at a beautiful day and he sees mostly gray (so I've been told.) We look at the same day and we see all sorts of colors. The perceptions are different, not distorted.

Is our perception ever distorted (guess that's what you asked in the first place) or do we just see what we see? I opt for the last.

Forum: Insights Sun, 21 Jun 2009
Topic: Is there an ending to search?

Mike,

The past is gone and the future is a projection. We live in the present. We can't get out of it! As living things, alive, we live in the Now because that is all that there is. To put it another way, there isn't any "time." Time is a measuring device we have devised. As K said someplace, there isn't any time, but there is sequence. An important distinction.

So assume we take a memory and we work on it and massage it. What we get is some sort of continuation of the memory into the Now but in a more or less different form. At its center the same old stuff. What happens Now when memory isn't operative--that is, when you are aware without memory? Is this condition possible?

Forum: K, psychology and the physical brain Sun, 21 Jun 2009
Topic: science, the I and ego,

Mike,

"It is possible to separate oneself from this instantaneously by simply standing outside of the 'movement' of self-reflection altogether and observing how that 'movement' gives rise to the 'form' or 'container' of consciousness--that is, the 'self' or the 'mind'--in the first place."

Who is it that will be standing outside? If it is anyone other than the physical organism . . .

Forum: K, psychology and the physical brain Mon, 22 Jun 2009
Topic: science, the I and ego,

I'm sorry, Mike, but all I'm aware of is a me, a Self, inside a physical body. What you're talking about, somebody's got to show me.

Forum: Awareness in our world today Mon, 22 Jun 2009
Topic: What does it mean to be "Aware"?

Strong words, Krishnan! Silence (the absence of the noise of thinking) is absolutely necessary before one can do anything truly creative or new.

Thinking is the use of memory, and memory is of the past. When we act out of memory, we drag forth yesterday and continue on with yesterday as the root, the base. That has been the destruction of the Middle East. To be new and creative, the past must not--cannot--be carried forward. Action based on thinking can be the work of the very devil.

Can silence be brought about through effort, discipline, knowledge, ritual?

Forum: Insights Mon, 22 Jun 2009
Topic: Is there an ending to search?

Mike,

Tell me, how can you live in the past, or in the future?

It just appears that we "live in the past." Can't be done. A brick might have been made yesterday--and it's here today, too. But the brick isn't alive--it isn't creating new cells, growing. To be alive is to live Now, which we are all doing. Only that which is alive can truly act or be creative.

Forum: Insights Mon, 22 Jun 2009
Topic: Is there an ending to search?

Keshni says, ". . . today is going to become another yesterday. . ." and it certainly will if we recall the memory of yesterday into the living Now. Thought is memory, and is always of the past. Let the past die, and the Now will not be another yesterday.

Forum: K, psychology and the physical brain Mon, 22 Jun 2009
Topic: science, the I and ego,

Along with "What is emotion?" don't we ask, "What does emotion apply to?" Does it apply to the physical organism or to the psychological "I"? One or the other has to sense the emotion.

(A little correction here. The psychological "I," being a construct, can't "sense" anything. It would be the physical organism sensing, but applying the emotion to the psychological "I' that it thinks of as itself.)

Forum: The Sacred Mon, 22 Jun 2009
Topic: Consciousness
Michael Cecil wrote:
You then know about the 'what is' not because I have told you but because you have observed it for yourself. Then you are not dependent upon me as being your teacher . . .
This is my first post on this site for quite some time, so forgive me if I'm a little out of the loop. What do you mean, Michael, when you use the term, "what is"? I define "what is" as that which is true, the Now.
Forum: Awareness in our world today Mon, 22 Jun 2009
Topic: What does it mean to be "Aware"?

Krishnan,

It is interesting to examine why rituals, discipline, knowledge, beliefs, systems, methods, and all such approaches do not work. We say, "Some of the wisest men in the world have done all this, gurus and learned men, and now they are passing what they knew (or know) down to us. What's wrong with this? We should use it!"

Approaches fail because they use thought (memory)--which is of the past. If we, who are living, creative beings, carry the past into the Now, the Now will not be new but will be a deteriorating continuation of yesterday.

We must see the Ego for what it is. But who is it that sees the Ego?

Forum: Question authority Mon, 22 Jun 2009
Topic: reaction

Randal,

"I live in a world where people are constantly in competitive conflict on a subtle and most obvious level. Wanna trade places?"

It takes two for competition and conflict.

Forum: The Sacred Mon, 22 Jun 2009
Topic: Consciousness

Michael,

"The question, as I see it, is whether there is a consciousness--it would not be a specifically human consciousness--prior to the 'form', or the 'container' of the human consciousness or 'self' which originates in self-reflection."

If there is such a consciousness, it has to be Now, with no carry-over from the past. A carry-over from the past would create an entity. What we call "consciousness" is an entity, the Self, which at its center is a thought surrounded and protected by other thoughts that the brain/mind has applied thereto. To live with this non-entity consciousness, one must be free totally of the influence of the past; one must cease to be a "One." Is this possible?

Forum: Insights Mon, 22 Jun 2009
Topic: Is there an ending to search?
phillip philips wrote:

Mankind is the fact, he isn't able to be, or to do, anything out of the now . . .

The Now is all that there is. We are in the Now and we can act only in the Now. The past can be dragged forward into the Now through the process of thought (memory) and acted upon. It is action in the Now based upon the memory of yesterday that is the cause of most of mankind's misery. It is possible to see in the Now, and it is seeing, observation, without the distortion of thought and memory that is correct and from which correct action flows.

Forum: The Sacred Mon, 22 Jun 2009
Topic: Consciousness

Michael,

"Before the 'self' is a thought, it is a 'form' or a 'container' of consciousness in the niche in 'space' that has been created through self-reflection. Then, the thought of the 'self' or the 'thinker' or the 'mind' is postulated which maintains the temporal continuity of that conscious 'space', or 'form' or 'container'."

Could you explain this a bit more? It seems to me that the physical organism with its brain/mind is all that we have. There may be attributes of the brain/mind that we do not know of. Are these attributes what you are bringing out?

It would seem that the brain/mind, acting through thought, is all there is and, indeed, all that is needed. Of course, all action is in the Now. Am I way off base? In science they have a procedure using a method called Occam's Razor.

Forum: K, psychology and the physical brain Tue, 23 Jun 2009
Topic: science, the I and ego,

"The emotions though seem to have purposes in the self preservation or sexual processes or I guess in the general well being of the organism maybe as in happiness."

As I've said, I can't see why the physical organism would develop an emotional capacity. Emotions are not needed for self-preservation--they actually hinder the reflexive, instinctual responses. Emotions are not needed for food, security and--perhaps questionably--sex in the animal world.

That's what I meant by "apply," a poor word for the occasion, I guess. If emotions don't really apply to the physical--and it appears to me that they should not, logically--then they must apply to the phantom "I," and are therefore dispensable along with the "I" itself.

Forum: The Sacred Tue, 23 Jun 2009
Topic: Consciousness

Michael,

"What is" is the Now.

Forum: Insights Tue, 23 Jun 2009
Topic: Is there an ending to search?

Mike,

We let the past die psychologically. Mechanically, technically, we do need what has gone before. Why do we need it? We have brought ourselves into the postion where it is necessary for our daily lives.

That's right, with the "absolute nothingness." That would be the condition--and we are afraid of it. Probably this fear is the reason we can't get past where we are. We can't let go. But the Now is this "absolute nothingness" because we have nothing to describe it. It is beyond description. The best we can do is to fully realize that, psychologically, we will never be able to meet, reach, touch or experience the Now. The full realization of this is the highest intelligence.

Forum: The Sacred Tue, 23 Jun 2009
Topic: Consciousness

Michael,

"What is it that observes that the 'experiencer' is completely consumed in the 'experience'? And can that be referred to, technically, as an 'observation' at all?"

When the total physical organism senses, it is the observer. What it senses is the observed. Without "sensing," there obviously is no awareness, no contact, no observation. When the physical organism senses without a psychological interjection, there is no differentiation; there is a unity. In simple observation without psychological interference, there is no observer/observed relationship.

Forum: The Sacred Tue, 23 Jun 2009
Topic: Consciousness

Ramesh & Jean:

A few more words on the "Now," from above:

The past is gone and the future is a projection. There is only the present; only the "now" exists. That is a fact.

But what is the present, the "now?" Scientists have analyzed "now" into nano-seconds, and they are still going. So long as there is the slightest nano-nano-nano etc. second remaining, there is still another just beyond it. To this analysis there is no end.

And yet, there has to be an ultimate present, a NOW now. This is obvious, because we have been created, and creation has to take place Now--creation can't take place in the past, even if that past be only a nano-nano-nano second behind in sequence.

So this ultimate present, this Now, is beyond time. It is measureless. The "Now" at any given moment is the same "Now" throughout the universe. Action and creation can take place only Now.