I know what we mean by “awareness”, what we mean by “thought”, but we rarely ever mention consciousness because K didn’t use the word much, and I don’t know if he redefined it as he did for religious, observation, seeing, intelligence, seeing,
etc.
Is consciousness awareness informed by thought?
I don’t know. Sounds good though : “Consciousness is awareness informed by thought”.
Where are all the K scholars these days?
Anyway, what does this statement imply? That consciousness is the word we use for conditioned awareness? ie. awareness filled with things, with the known?
Yes. What we call “awareness” I always thought of as consciousness. But the more mindful I am of what I’m aware of, it seems that awareness is fundamental, and consciousness is awareness informed by memory, knowledge, thought,etc., or as you say, “filled with things, with the known”.
It may be that awareness is always pristine, unconditioned, but immediately informed by knowledge, and thereby distorted when psychological thought is operating. Without psychological thought (I’m speculating) there’s no distortion when awareness is informed by knowledge that may be relevant.
Yes, our brain projects knowledge, ie interprets what is seen/knows the things. Thats part of its job, as perfected over millions of years of successful mutations, and actualised in genes and grey matter.
Is that “Psychological thought”? In what way is that a distortion, any more than say light waves are distorted by a lens (such as in eyes), or by photosynthesis? Is mathematics a “distortion” of the world?
Surely by “psychological” we are pointing at a “harm”?
Isn’t ‘psychological thought’ that thinking that assumes a ‘thinker’ is ‘doing’ the thinking and that that thinker (me) is a continuous actual individual?
The “harm” in this we can see playing out in the world. Different religions, cultures, philosophies, traditions, countries, customs, etc. The Human history of war and brutality.
No. What I said was that awareness is, “distorted when psychological thought is operating” (which for the conditioned brain is always),
Without the operation of psychological thought (we can assume), there’s no problem because thought is in its place, doing its job. But because in actuality, thought is not in its place and is operating disfunctionally (because practical thought is fused with psychological thought), .
Surely by “psychological” we are pointing at a “harm”?
Yes. I failed to make that clear, so I went back and italicized the part about psychological thought. Does that help?
Yes.
As I understand it, because the unenlightened brain can’t discern the difference between the reality it creates with thought, and what is actual, it is confused because it is not in contact with actuality, but has only thought (and awareness) as its guide to what actually is. This confusion manifests as incoherent thought.
If that isn’t clear, look at it this way: I can’t perceive what actually is because I depend more on thought to tell me what-is than the naked facts. My depending more on thought makes me a more-on.
K talks about the content of consciousness. In my understanding, consciousness is the totality of what the psychological mind puts into the human brain, throughout time.
Awareness is independent from consciousness, so it is not informed by consciousness (by the human brain/mind). Awareness is free of any content/time.
K takes a very deep dive into consciousness in the 9th Saanen talk in 1967. The word consciousness is used 24 times. "So one discovers that all consciousness, both the hidden and the obvious, the secret and the surface, is part of this process of thinking. One can only be aware of the beginning of thought when there is silence, when there is no frontier to consciousness. All this demands a great deal of discipline in itself, not discipline for something, and if we have gone that far, we can then ask, what is love? You understand, it is necessary to enquire if love is within the field of consciousness, which is thought? "
What is the “frontier” to consciousness?
This may be correct. If it is, K radically redefined “consciousness” as all the rubbish the brain must purge itself of to be free, empty.
To purge, or to be empty, are not synonyms for : to be free.
If we are hoping for, or dependant upon the achievement or existence of certain conditions, we are obviously not free.
Does this mean that if a thought arises I must react to it? If I have a sense of self we are no longer free to care for others? If I have a world view I must defend it at all costs, believe that it is true?
I think you touch on the “harm” that is “psy thought” here. It is our relationship to thought that determines whether there is conflict, harm, suffering - If I cannot easily let go of useless, impractical, harmful ideas immediately, this is a sign that I identify with them, they are a part of who I am (communist, intelligent fellow, muslim whatever).
Thats what differentiates Psy thought from mere Practical (or impractical) thought.
The frontier is that which separates, that which confines, that which tethers.
Examples of this would be Knowledge/images (especially knowledge which is confused to be Truth) and Self (as in a self that is separate from the world).
I wrote “purge” because it’s the word/concept K spoke of early in his teachings about the brain’s transformation and subsequent emptiness.
If we are hoping for, or dependant upon the achievement or existence of certain conditions, we are obviously not free.
I assume that anyone spending their time talking about K’s teaching knows they’re not free or thinks they are because a free human would be addressing a much larger audience.
Does this mean that if a thought arises I must react to it?
I’m not sure what you mean by this.
If I have a sense of self we are no longer free to care for others?
By “sense of self” do you mean a very specific identity, a self-image that can be hurt, take offense, feel proud or ashamed, etc., or just being a sentient individual?
If I have a world view I must defend it at all costs, believe that it is true?
I don’t know what you’re getting at with these questions.
Where are these people? Can you give an example? Or just what makes you assume such a thing?
As usual I am proposing that we explore what people (you in this case) are saying.
ie. that our brains need to be purged/emptied for any chance of freedom.
I’m speculating that if someone’s brain had transformed and they wanted to transmit their new understanding to others, they would not be limiting their efforts to K-people.
I am proposing that we explore what people (you in this case) are saying, ie. that our brains need to be purged/emptied for any chance of freedom.
I’m putting in my words what I think Krishnamurti was saying. If I’ve got it wrong, please enlighten me.
We are not living in a Japanese comic book. (as far as I can tell, though this is difficult to demonstrate)
But if I was a magical super-Buddha guru, sure I would be talking through a microphone connected to everyone’s TV and speaker system.
And if I was an omniscient Super Buddha I would know that the best way for you to know what you were saying would be if you were willing to examine it.
But being just a normal human, I don’t have the authority or the magical powers to know what you’re saying (or should be saying), so I’m just proposing we inquire into what you’re saying.
And even if I was a mindless bot, the protocol of asking the speaker about what they are saying is an effective protocol (if the speaker is interested in looking)
PS. Re Buddhas not limiting themselves to Kinfonet - the same logic works for psychopaths or idiots (why would they limit themselves to Kinfonet?) And who is limiting themselves to Kinfonet?
I think K said something about that a small group of people who actually ‘broke through’ could have a transformative effect on society? Something like that.
Consciousness is that all the information that gathered through experience throughtout the day ( wakeup to sleep, plus any content played during sleep) which is stored in the brains memory, called as knowledge by which thought originates.
One derives and process “Consciousness” from out side to inside then insite to out side and out to in and in to out. It is continuos cycle of psycological knowledge in human relationships.
Similarly that “Consciousness” also gathers knowledge via activities purely performed for living like carpentry, skills for living etc.
What is it you think I’m not “willing to examine”?
even if I was a mindless bot, the protocol of asking the speaker about what they are saying is an effective protocol (if the speaker is interested in looking)
This “speaker is interested in looking”, so speak your mind.