Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
Discussion Forums

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


Forum: Insights Wed, 16 Sep 2009
Topic: Can one's mind be totally empty of ideas?

The "self" is a thought. It is a construct of the human brain. It is a psychological phantom that has reality only to the extent the human gives it.

As a construct, a thought, a phantom, a non-entity, the "self" is totally powerless to take any direct action. It's only power over the individual is through its influence--just as any belief the individual has influences his actions.

There isn't any "self" other than the living being. The best that can be said of the "self is that it is an influential thought. Thought never "did" anything yet. Only the living can take action.

Forum: K, psychology and the physical brain Wed, 16 Sep 2009
Topic: Classic Conditioning

Patricia,

Your last is a good analysis (I don't like the word and what it indicates, but what else, here) of thought. Thought is necessary, technically. We use it psychologically apparently only for the "I." So the question comes up, if we didn't pre-suppose the "I," would psychological thought even exist? It seems to me it wouldn't. Without the "I," this kind of thought would be unnecessary.

There is still the question of emotion. Emotion would seem to apply only to the "I," since the machine-like physical body wouldn't need it. But as I said, are we willing to give up, with the "I," Beethoven, Van Gogh, et.al? Even K remarked more than once that we lack "passion." I would interpret this "passion" as deep feeling--and isn't this emotion? What is the place of emotion in all of this? I think Phil has the idea that emotion might be conditioning. I haven't read his last post so here I go.

Forum: Serious Debate Wed, 16 Sep 2009
Topic: Can justice be enforced from outside?

"The only thing one can do is see the fact of what is going on and allow that fact to act."

K said that observation itself is the action. If there is any delay, any gap, action will be based on memory and image, and except in the technical field, this action based on thought is disastrous. (the last sentence is mine.)

Forum: Question authority Wed, 16 Sep 2009
Topic: conflict

"So is there or is there not a thinking brain? Is thinking taking place in the brain?"

We have brains, and they can think--that is to say, they can remember and they can form images of what is remembered.

Thinking is the calling up of images of what has been observed in the past. It's the use of memory. Thought and thinking are important for technical and mechanical affairs, but are disastrous when used psychologically because action is based on an image, not on the actual.

Psychologically, only observation, and the action springing from observation, can avoid conflict. For the mechanical and the technical, observation and its action are creativity and insight.

Forum: K, psychology and the physical brain Thu, 17 Sep 2009
Topic: Classic Conditioning

I feel elation on looking at a Van Gogh or hearing Rhapsody in Blue. It is a deep feeling, and I am not aware of the "I" at all at the moment. I define that as strong emotion. You call it passion. But does the physical organism need either emotion or passion? Maybe it does. Passion would be the sudden burst of adrenaline that makes an Audie Murphy take on a platoon of Germans. The adrenaline is physical, but the sensation is psychological--and it's the same elation I feel looking at a Van Gogh.

Forum: K, psychology and the physical brain Thu, 17 Sep 2009
Topic: Classic Conditioning

Strong, powerful feeling without the "I"--that would be either joy or love according to K, who didn't classify these as emotions. It think he's right, since the "elation" I mentioned would be the same as joy, and I've always said that if you can define love, you don't know what it is.

So it would seem that the emotions are definitely associated with the "I." That leaves only joy and love in our appreciation of the arts. Maybe that's all we need anyway for anything else as well.

Forum: Serious Debate Thu, 17 Sep 2009
Topic: Can justice be enforced from outside?

"After it is imprinted and encoded and enterpreted and stored for future reference, it is not so clear anymore."

Exactly. When a present event is stored and imprinted to be recalled later, it can be brought back (thinking) only as an image. Action based on this image will always be distorted due to our prejudices, conditioning, etc. With time the image, recalled again and again, becomes more and more distorted.

We can get away with acting on images in the technical field, but even there action that springs from observation will lead to creativity and insight. Lesson: Use observation as much as possible and reserve thinking for the very routine.

Forum: K, psychology and the physical brain Thu, 17 Sep 2009
Topic: Classic Conditioning

Phil,

If there is observation and action, that action will be before thought, emotion and conditioning. It will be correct action.

If thought, emotion or conditioning intervene between the observation and the action, the action will be changed to fit memory and image. In this case what one is "observing" will not be observed at all--what one observes will be the memory and the image.

All of this has a bearing on the "action" resulting from listening to music, looking at a painting, etc.

The question might be, Can one observe without emotion and conditioning? The answer is a simple yes. If you are busy with emotion and conditioning, you just aren't observing in the first place. You're busy.

Forum: K, psychology and the physical brain Fri, 18 Sep 2009
Topic: Classic Conditioning

Hello, James - Good to have another person in on this.

Laying things out as you did was an excellent way to start. I don't have much to say at this point except that, with regard to consciousness, I would choose "any kind of awareness or feeling or perception. . . "

With regard to the Self, I would define it as the assemblage of all the organisms thoughts and psychological fragments. The "I" I consider as a fragment, a single thought, included in the Self.

The Self makes up the total consciousness, and the "I" is the uppermost thought, a "controller," responsible for what we erroneously call "awareness."

This is probably naive and I'm sticking my neck out, but I'm flexible on all of this.

Forum: K, psychology and the physical brain Sat, 19 Sep 2009
Topic: Classic Conditioning

Peter,

You write, "My ability to figure anything out is limited. That limit is the conditioning. Whether mental, physical, chemical, DNA, thought, I have conditioning."

We think we are limited. Our consciousness tells us we are limited, or our consciousness tells itself it is limited, or however you want to put it. But are we in fact limited? What happens if you look at something before conditioning takes effect, or before consciousness comes into play?

We say this is impossible. But we are living, and living is before all else. It is before the build-up of conditioning and before the development of the memory, image, and thought that make up consciousness. As living beings we are able to see and to understand without conditioning and consciousness.

Forum: K, psychology and the physical brain Sat, 19 Sep 2009
Topic: Classic Conditioning

I would say that conditioning is an important consideration when you are either trying to improve yourself or else are happy with what you already are. Do you want to "understand," and your conditioning is in the way, and you are trying to get rid of it somehow? Do you want to condition yourself with some "good" conditioning so that you will be a better person? Is your conditioning such that you are happy that you are already someone who knows, or is at least "on the right track to understanding"?

I'm wondering if it isn't possible to leave conditioning behind entirely. Conditioning is like a tar baby. We go through life eliminating one conditioning for another, but always stuck with conditioning. But we are living beings. We live now, and act in the present, whereas conditioning is always developed in time and doesn't exist now except as recalled memory or emotion. And conditioning always refers to the entity that has already been created and is therefore already caught in conditioning.

Is it possible, as living beings, to act now, without reference to any developed conditioning distorting our action.

Forum: K, psychology and the physical brain Sat, 19 Sep 2009
Topic: Krishnamurti and Bohm on the Physical Brain.....

All right. Wait 'til I climb up here.

Friends: Mr. Loucks says, "The chance that enough people will change their consciousness anytime soon seems dismally small."

I'm saying, what good does it do to change consciousness? Whatever we change to will be the same old same old, the substitution of one set of mores, one frame of conditioning, for another. Isn't it time we looked at the big picture--what is this consciousness? It seems to be mostly the Self--and if it is, no wonder we're having so much trouble. There's no point in just changing the Self.

Next.

Forum: Question authority Sun, 20 Sep 2009
Topic: conflict

Peter,

You write, "What is the capacity to make a distinction between the technical and the psychological?"

We know technical and mechanical thought when we remember words, remember numbers, remember the way home, remember music, and so on. Remembering like this is thought, and this kind of thought is necessary and important.

When we have relationships with others, and in these relationships allow our memories of what has happened before to interfere, this is psychological memory. Opinions and beliefs are psychological memory.

Psychological memory is not necessary, and it is harmful. For example, it is harmful when this memory prevents us from seeing a person we meet right now, in the present, as we meet him. By recalling the memory of him, we are looking at the past and seeing him as he was. And the past is gone! I would say that any memory that is not of a factual nature is psychological memory, but you probably have to look into this matter for yourself.

One thing for sure, psychological memory burdens the mind and slows reaction time.

Forum: K, psychology and the physical brain Sun, 20 Sep 2009
Topic: Classic Conditioning

Phil,

What I'm saying is that there is a state before conditioning, and that is the state of living. Consciousness prevents us from realizing this state.

We should not be satisfied by just being able to "do good things" by being conditioned. We should live without conditioning altogether. I think you said it yourself, "One acts now always but one only acts now correctly in "right action" when the conditionings have ended, but this takes ending of the selves first." (Italics are mine.)

Forum: K, psychology and the physical brain Sun, 20 Sep 2009
Topic: Classic Conditioning

Phil,

What I'm saying is that there is a state before conditioning, and that is the state of living. Consciousness prevents us from realizing this state.

We should not be satisfied by just being able to "do good things" by being conditioned. We should live without conditioning altogether. I think you said it yourself, "One acts now always but one only acts now correctly in "right action" when the conditionings have ended, but this takes ending of the selves first." (Italics are mine.)

Forum: K, psychology and the physical brain Sun, 20 Sep 2009
Topic: Classic Conditioning

"The problem as I see it is for mankind to understand that conditioning is not needed at all."

Very true. This is only one of the important and good things said above.

To be free of conditioning, a person must come to the full realization that no effort, no knowledge, no achievement either intellectually or religiously is going to free him from conditioning. To realize, one must see for oneself.

In this realization, the mind stops searching and is no longer full of thought and Self.

Forum: Question authority Mon, 21 Sep 2009
Topic: conflict

This might be a better name. The important thing is to realize that this kind of memory is opinion, belief, prejudice and conditioning.

Factual memory is based on just that--the facts--and action based on fact is correct action. Action based on emotional memory is always distorted (whether slightly or greatly) as it is based on the image of a past condition, or on the image of a projected ideal.

Forum: K, psychology and the physical brain Mon, 21 Sep 2009
Topic: Classic Conditioning

James,

You say, "The only state is the state one is in, the truth of what one is. Thinking of states we want means thinking of an idea of a better state. But the only real state is this, the one that I'm actually in."

Absolutely true--but what is our "real" state? I'm saying that we are living beings, we have life--no, we are life. And life and living are always Now; obviously life and living in the past are impossible.

But conditioning and thinking and reward and punishment and Christians and Muslims and so on are concepts and situations known and therefore already in the past. The past simply cannot be brought forward to Now except as image, and the image is never the real.

No, the past cannot be brought forward to Now, where we ourselves are alive. We are actually free of the past, but we don't realize it. If we want to ask questions, here's a good one: Why do we entangle ourselves with the past?

Forum: Question authority Tue, 22 Sep 2009
Topic: conflict

One way of looking at whether something is factual or psychological would be to say that a fact is that which exists, now. We have to be reasonable, but this looks like a good working definition.

2x2=4, it was the same yesterday as it is today--it's a fact; it exists. Beethoven's fifth symphony--it's still here today, it exists. WWII, it was a fact in 1943, but its gone--it doesn't exist. There may have been atrocities against people yesterday or 20 years ago, but it's over--it doesn't exist. And so on.

When action is taken based on something that doesn't exist it obviously leads to confusion, if nothing else more harmful.

Forum: K, psychology and the physical brain Tue, 22 Sep 2009
Topic: Classic Conditioning

Phil,

I had a couple of questions about the following sentence included in the above: "However, in a process one can just have knowledge of the conditioning but it will take awareness to break the connections between thought and emotion.

If we have "knowledge" of a conditioning, that knowledge is itself conditioning--the individual has been molded or shaped by his knowledge. I would say, rather, that one has to see or observe the conditioning; such action is always before any new conditioning.

What happens when the connection is broken between thought and emotion? What happens to the thought and what happens to the emotion?

Forum: K, psychology and the physical brain Tue, 22 Sep 2009
Topic: Classic Conditioning

Here's a general question that seems pertinent to this discussion. Maybe it has already been addressed, somewhere in our vast amount of verbiage:

What is it that is conditioned? Is it our physical selves or is it our psychological, imaginary selves? This should probably be resolved, just to clear the deck.

To me, it seems that both are conditioned. There will probably be chemical and mechanical changes in the brain due to conditioning factors, and we will reflect these changes in the psychological self. (But we should keep in mind that we are alive, and "alive" is a state of being before any such changes take place.)

Forum: K, psychology and the physical brain Wed, 23 Sep 2009
Topic: Krishnamurti and Bohm on the Physical Brain.....

If there is total and complete freedom from the past, all knowledge, everything, there is only now, the living, the alive.

Forum: K, psychology and the physical brain Wed, 23 Sep 2009
Topic: Krishnamurti and Bohm on the Physical Brain.....

Please allow me to interupt with a comment or two. Think of technology the next time you have an abscessed tooth; consider the medicines and equipment available when you are perhaps going blind with cataracts or glaucoma; thank whatever technology may be when you need an appendix operation or a brain tumor removed.

The very language we are using to discuss this matter in so intricate a manner is knowledge accumulated over centuries.

Forum: K, psychology and the physical brain Wed, 23 Sep 2009
Topic: Krishnamurti and Bohm on the Physical Brain.....

One last comment, Bob. You say, "Everyone who's still sucking air can be said to be alive in the now Max."

The physical organism "sucking air" has already been created. Is that which has been created, now?

Forum: K, psychology and the physical brain Wed, 23 Sep 2009
Topic: Classic Conditioning

James,

Thanks for the information about Pavlov and his dogs. There ought to be a statue erected in honor of his "feedom dog."

Forum: K, psychology and the physical brain Wed, 23 Sep 2009
Topic: Krishnamurti and Bohm on the Physical Brain.....

"My children are already receiving this deep nurturing and will continue to be protected from all that de-sensitizes. Their parents have stepped out of the vast pool of knowledge entirely. This stepping out is permanent, and is the birth of a new spieces altogether?a species entirely ruled by healthy impulse springing from a healthy body free from the stranglehold and contamination of thought and knowledge."

For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind.

Forum: Question authority Thu, 24 Sep 2009
Topic: conflict

"A fact is where thought is not" says it perfectly. A fact doesn't require support and argument. A fact just is, like it or not.

For me, understanding is the same as observation. If you see something clearly, you understand it. (In our language, we even use the expression, "I see" to mean "I understand.")

If something is complex and deep, it's necessary to go step by step, slowly, understanding (seeing) as one goes along. An example is mathematics. One can't start out with calculus. He has to start with understanding arithmatic and algebra and then move up to calculus, understanding (seeing) as he goes along. But it is observation all the way. Memory comes in, of course, and memory is necessary, but there has to be observation before there can be memory.

Forum: Question authority Fri, 25 Sep 2009
Topic: conflict

Randal,

You write, " . . . we don't understand. . . . We only believe that we do."

Then our first observation needs to be to see this mistake.

Understanding is a natural and almost inevitable thing. I would say that it's entirely feasible that if one has an average intelligence he can become a nuclear physicist. All he has to do is start far enough back with his understanding--first grade arithmetic, if necessary. Step by step up the ladder of understanding, and at the end, with a complete understanding at each step, he is a nuclear physicist. Might take him a while.

Forum: K, psychology and the physical brain Fri, 25 Sep 2009
Topic: Classic Conditioning

Phil,

You brought out some good points in the above. Most people think we have to get rid of the Self for clear thinking to take place. You're saying in effect that if we get rid of emotion that will do the same thing. Is this correct?

I've had the suspicion for some time that the emotions themselves are the "I." I've thought this because, for me, it seems impossible to be aware of an "I" without noticing also some emotional entanglement.

Do we "get rid of" emotion (the right brain "Self") or do we bring it out as needed?

Forum: Question authority Sat, 26 Sep 2009
Topic: conflict

I would say that it is. Observation and understanding are just that. There isn't any technique to be learned for observation--you just do it, externally with your senses or inwardly with--what? Observation is always instantly, but it may proceed step by step or layer by layer, if there is great complexity.

How and where observation and understanding are applied depends on the circumstances. The clarity of it depends on the individual's sensitivity.