Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
General Discussion | moderated by Dev Singh

QOTD 08-19-15


Displaying posts 91 - 120 of 120 in total
Mon, 24 Aug 2015 #91
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

Yes, this can be asserted. But these are words and opinions. What points are wrong, and why are they wrong?

I'm from Missouri. I've got to be shown.

.

max

This post was last updated by max greene Mon, 24 Aug 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 24 Aug 2015 #92
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
As I see it, all that’s needed for awareness to act is for the illusory thinker (thought divided) to cease his movements and efforts. . . . When the thinker ceases "his" movements and efforts, where is the thinker? There is no thinker.

Right. The thinker is imaginary. There is no thinker. Likewise, all of thinking and the psychological is imaginary -- it is given reality through ignorance and belief. We must admit that we give more importance to the psychological than we do to the physical. We kill and die for the psychological. But the reality is the physical.

max

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 24 Aug 2015 #93
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 545 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:

Isn’t the question more pressing and meaningful when I ask “Why do I feel separate from thought? I understand the reasoning, the logic of the thinker’s makeup or nature, so why do I still "feel" there is a division between thinker and thought?"

Tom Paine wrote: (#83) Yes, I understand. However on a discussion forum we are all looking at the problems man faces together, so it seems appropriate to ask 'why do 'we' feel separate?' This is something we all experience, or have experienced many times in the past. Why? Max will say it's just 'noise' asking, I suppose, but if there were no noise we'd not be discussing or asking questions at all. Will return to the rest of your message later, which concerns the subject of meditation...observing oneself...rather than discussing together.

Sorry, Tom, probably I'm too fussy. I know it's not easy to express what one means.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 24 Aug 2015 #94
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 545 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:

As I see it, all that’s needed for awareness to act is for the illusory thinker (thought divided) to cease his movements and efforts. . . . When the thinker ceases "his" movements and efforts, where is the thinker? There is no thinker.

max greene wrote: Right. The thinker is imaginary. There is no thinker. Likewise, all of thinking and the psychological is imaginary -- it is given reality through ignorance and belief. We must admit that we give more importance to the psychological than we do to the physical. We kill and die for the psychological. But the reality is the physical.

The physical includes mentation, thinking, reasoning and other mental faculties - physical, material movements and processes.

Not all mental images are illusory. The thinker is illusory. If someone gives me directions and says, “You will see a large red neon sign on your right”, I can imagine it. This is not illusion.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 24 Aug 2015 #95
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1488 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
What I meant by asking if I can actually observe “myself” in the living moment is that self cannot be observed because there is no self to be observed. What can be observed is the emotions and thoughts which divided thought associates with the thinker, the emotions and thoughts out of which the thinking mind fabricates self.

You pull it all apart and dissect it...and then you, the 'self' concludes; "there is no self!" That's what Max does...conclusions that have no impact on our situation. Thought can never get us out of this actual situation we're in. (but it keeps on trying because we're conditioned to believe that thought can solve all.)

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Mon, 24 Aug 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 24 Aug 2015 #96
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
“You will see a large red neon sign on your right”, I can imagine it. This is not illusion.

True that it is not illusion. It is a fact that the sign is there. But you have created an image in your brain of the sign. This image is imaginary, it isn't the sign itself. It has no reality except as image.

Yes, the thinking process is a movement of cells in the brain, and this movement is a physical reality. The thought that results from thinking -- is it a physical reality? If it is, then the so-called "psychological" is also physical. The thinker, the self, is a physical reality.

max

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 24 Aug 2015 #97
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3181 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Sorry, Tom, probably I'm too fussy. I know it's not easy to express what one means.

Not at all Huguette. You're point was understood. I ask myself similar questions quite a lot, but on the forum I thought it appropriate to address the question to 'man'. "Why does man...?" And your posts in this thread have been much appreciated....really appreciate your input....very helpful! :)

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 24 Aug 2015 #98
Thumb_3203 Anonymous . Reunion 71 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
What I meant by asking if I can actually observe “myself” in the living moment is that self cannot be observed because there is no self to be observed.

What do you mean by self? When there is observation, it is total, including the self, which means observation of all your actions, and the doer is the self, who else it is?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 24 Aug 2015 #99
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 545 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
You pull it all apart and dissect it...and then you, the 'self' concludes; "there is no self!" That's what Max does...conclusions that have no impact on our situation. Thought can never get us out of this actual situation we're in. (but it keeps on trying because we're conditioned to believe that thought can solve all.)

re: #95

Understanding that there is no thinker separate from thought and that thought itself is limited, thought (not the thinker) abstains from doing anything. This cannot help but have an impact on relationship, without any effort being made. I don’t want to convince you. You might be right that there is no such understanding and I might be mistaken.

Are you saying that there IS a thinker separate from thought? It seems to me that you have come to your own conclusion - that the duality of self and thought is actually a fact, or that thought is inevitably doomed to remain divided into self separate from thought, or that there cannot be self-understanding, or that self-understanding has no impact.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Mon, 24 Aug 2015 #100
Thumb_stringio aub b France 112 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Huguette . wrote:
If someone gives me directions and says, “You will see a large red neon sign on your right”, I can imagine it. This is not illusion.

I would say that the image is an illusion, because the image is not the thing itself that is pointed out. The information may be correct, but the image is still illusory. Once one sees the large red neon, there one can verify the information and have the correct image which will then be a fact, and may be recorded into memory as such.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 24 Aug 2015 #101
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 545 posts in this forum Offline

Anonymous . wrote:
What do you mean by self? When there is observation, it is total, including the self, which means observation of all your actions, and the doer is the self, who else it is?

re: #98

Anonymous,

Self is the one who says “a terrible thing happened to me when I was little and I’ll never get over it”, who says “how dare you insult me”, “I’m smarter (or stupider) than you”, “I’ll think about it”, “I know (or don’t know) what to do about my problem”, who fears, who desires, who retaliates, who decides what to do about conflict. As I see it, all of these are thoughts based on memories of the past or projections of the future - there is not an actual self thinking, remembering, projecting.

Observation itself is outside of time, it is not thought based on memory or projection. There is no actual self observing, there is only observation. The self which “is observing”, is put together by thought from its own memories and projections. In observation - observing one’s hand, for example - there is no past or future, no thought, no effort or choice.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 24 Aug 2015 #102
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 545 posts in this forum Offline

aub b wrote:
I would say that the image is an illusion, because the image is not the thing itself that is pointed out. The information may be correct, but the image is still illusory. Once one sees the large red neon, there one can verify the information and have the correct image which will then be a fact, and may be recorded into memory as such.

re: #100

Of course, you might be right, aub b, but I don’t see it that way. When I have an image of something, I understand its nature, its makeup or composition. It is very clear that it is merely an image, not fact.

Illusion, to me, is when I mistake the image for fact, I believe it to be fact - self, for example, or visions of Jesus.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 24 Aug 2015 #103
Thumb_3203 Anonymous . Reunion 71 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Self is the one who says “a terrible thing happened to me when I was little and I’ll never get over it”, who says “how dare you insult me”, “I’m smarter (or stupider) than you”, “I’ll think about it”, “I know (or don’t know) what to do about my problem”, who fears, who desires, who retaliates, who decides what to do about conflict. As I see it, all of these are thoughts based on memories of the past or projections of the future - there is not an actual self thinking, remembering, projecting.

Yes, but that is psychological self, not physical, it is a pattern of behavior which is based on one's memory and actions, there is in fact no psychological self as a separate entity.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 24 Aug 2015 #104
Thumb_stringio mike c United States 941 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Huguette . wrote:
When I have an image of something, I understand its nature, its makeup or composition. It is very clear that it is merely an image, not fact.

I think even looking at nature, there is a clear difference between an image and seeing without an image. Or, one can begin to see how one sees everything through images, not only nature- living, actual nature- but people too, of course. And images of the future, or the past, which you pointed out.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 24 Aug 2015 #105
Thumb_stringio mike c United States 941 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Anonymous . wrote:
Yes, but that is psychological self, not physical, it is a pattern of behavior which is based on one's memory and actions, there is in fact no psychological self as a separate entity.

What do you mean by this?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 24 Aug 2015 #106
Thumb_3203 Anonymous . Reunion 71 posts in this forum Offline

mike c wrote:
What do you mean by this?

I mean that there is no autonomous psychological self, there is you with all the memory and experience, there is no such thing as an ego living it's own life.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 24 Aug 2015 #107
Thumb_stringio aub b France 112 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Huguette . wrote:
re: #100

Of course, you might be right, aub b, but I don’t see it that way. When I have an image of something, I understand its nature, its makeup or composition. It is very clear that it is merely an image, not fact.

Illusion, to me, is when I mistake the image for fact, I believe it to be fact - self, for example, or visions of Jesus.

Yes, of course, Huguette, I get what you mean here by illusion. By the way, reality, facts and illusions are a wide topic which could deserve its own discussion.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 24 Aug 2015 #108
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

Anonymous . wrote:
. . . there is no autonomous psychological self, there is you with all the memory and experience, there is no such thing as an ego living it's own life.

Very true. The psychological-- all of thought -- is image, imaginary. It is a result of the brain's process of thinking.

The reality is simply the physical body and memory encoded in the cells of the brain. Th,Th,Th,That's all, folks.

But we believe, through ignorance and millenia of tradition, that the psychological is "us," so we give tremendous importance to the psychological. We routinely sacrifice the physical for our belief in the self, the psychological. All wars are psychological -- the physical doesn't want to die or to kill. The physical doesn't want anything. It senses, it does not desire.

max

This post was last updated by max greene Mon, 24 Aug 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 24 Aug 2015 #109
Thumb_stringio Bobby D United States 589 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

aub b wrote:
Yes, of course, Huguette, I get what you mean here by illusion. By the way, reality, facts and illusions are a wide topic which could deserve its own discussion.

Have you had visions of jesus, john?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 24 Aug 2015 #110
Thumb_stringio aub b France 112 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Bobby D wrote:
Have you had visions of jesus, john?

I can't remember to have had visions of Jesus, but what I see is that you have visions of John, because I'm not John.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 24 Aug 2015 #111
Thumb_stringio Bobby D United States 589 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

aub b wrote:
I can't remember to have had visions of Jesus, but what I see is that you have visions of John, because I'm not John.

My mistake. What names have you posted as in the past?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 24 Aug 2015 #112
Thumb_stringio mike c United States 941 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Just a thought about the Johns and Steves and so on of the past- why not let the proof be in the pudding? If someone is quarrelsome, etc, etc, why not ignore them? Or, if someone of dubious origin has a good point, why not take it at that? Better than all this paranoia. Besides, IF someone who's been bounced comes back, maybe they've grown, matured.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 2 readers
Back to Top
Mon, 24 Aug 2015 #113
Thumb_stringio Bobby D United States 589 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

We all know what ideals of enlightenment are.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 24 Aug 2015 #114
Thumb_stringio Pavil Davidov Poland 4402 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

mike c wrote:
IF someone who's been bounced comes back, maybe they've grown, matured . . .

. . . transformed . . . become . . .

But Mike, what we've been through with Steve and John is a campaign of deceit. It starts with a new member coming on saying it's his first post or "Hi guys, I'm new here" or "I've read a little K" etc etc. All lies. Then come the intriguing little questions with their little barbs, setting people up for the slam. It carries on like that. It's sneaky. They get you involved in a conversation in a similar way that someone who's grooming does. They pretend to be your friend and then start the attacks. This type of manipulation has no place here. It's not only insidious and time-wasting, it is disrupting and adds to the general conflict. True, it could be ignored, but only if we know what the game is from the start. Hence the deception, they don't want you to know who they are. Same with this "Anonymous." I mean, who is that? Zuka? Who knows? It's this exploitative aspect I take exception to. Even using other peoples names and avatars from other K sites. There's no growth or maturation there at all.

"Wherever you go, there you are." Insight from Mullah Nasruddin

This post was last updated by Pavil Davidov (account deleted) Mon, 24 Aug 2015.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Mon, 24 Aug 2015 #115
Thumb_stringio Bobby D United States 589 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

It's like a deeply rooted infection intertwined into the anatomy of the board. A cancer that can never be completely cut out once it has infected the board. One can take a positive attitude and work around it (which never lasts). One can attack it as it pops up and shows its ugly face, or one can just leave. Any "effort" to ignore it or pretend its not there, well...one has already lost if that's the case. The worst are the one's that enable it by trying to reason with it. The ultimate denial. It cannot be reasoned with.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Mon, 24 Aug 2015 #116
Thumb_stringio Bobby D United States 589 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

And as always...I fully understand if Pav finds it necessary to take away my privileges here for broaching this subject. I've made my point, in this thread anyway. Over and out.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 24 Aug 2015 #117
Thumb_stringio Pavil Davidov Poland 4402 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Bobby D wrote:
And as always...I fully understand if Pav finds it necessary to take away my privileges here for broaching this subject. I've made my point, in this thread anyway. Over and out.

Don't you mean "Dev?"

"Wherever you go, there you are." Insight from Mullah Nasruddin

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 24 Aug 2015 #118
Thumb_stringio Bobby D United States 589 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Ha!!! Yes. Must have been some kind of Freudian slip! And I (for what ever reason) don't have the ability to edit posts. I did mean "Dev". Sometimes I get to typing so fast between cases, I make errors. Oh well...I was 33.3333% correct in my typing of Dev's name.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 24 Aug 2015 #119
Thumb_dev Dev Singh United States 48 posts in this forum Offline

There is a conversation going on in earnest on this thread. Whether you agree with the arguments or not, please do not disrupt it.

I will remove anyone who derails it either out of blindness or because they are just plain rude.

Dev

Kinfonet Admin

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 4 readers
Back to Top
Tue, 25 Aug 2015 #120
Thumb_stringio aub b France 112 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Bobby D wrote:
My mistake. What names have you posted as in the past?

Bobby D, all that I can say, if you are interested about it, is that my profile information is accurate.

As Dev Singh pointed out (#119), threads derail when personalization begins. And with personalization come ruthlessness, brutality, violence, rage, envy, jealousy, hate.

Some people in the forum act a bit like psychological refugees. They come in and disturb the current process of thinking, of discussion. But let's not make of psychological refugees the problem.

Politicians, in Europe, have made of refugees the problem. But they are only the symptoms, the consequences of something else. The cause of the problem of refugees is war, physical, political, economical and so on. Politicians do not seem to be concerned to end war but to deal with the consequences of war. Let's not act as politicians.

So all of this is the result, isn't it, of the desire to escape, which calls the need for beliefs, and not the passion of understanding.

So there is to understand desire, because desire creates its own sorrows, conflicts, problems and illusions in daily life when not understood, right?

Beliefs are the result of conflictual desires.

Please tell me if you think that I am out of track with this an we'll put another diagnostic on the human brain.

This post was last updated by aub b (account deleted) Wed, 26 Aug 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 91 - 120 of 120 in total
To quote a portion of this post in your reply, first select the text and then click this "Quote" link.

(N.B. Be sure to insert an empty line between the quoted text and your reply.)