No. Only this ‘I’ reacts with all its memories,etc… If we are aware - there will be no ‘I’. But are we being aware actually?, that means - when the senses hear “You are worst”, this information is sent to the brain. After hearing that, the ‘thought’ i.e. the "I’ arises and says “I’m good. How dare you say me worse?”. Here, the ‘I’ has an ‘Image’ that ‘I am good’ as a belief. If we aware of the ‘I’, then it wont arises i.e. ‘thought’ won’t arises.
It means - brain doesn’t react. Only the ‘I’ in the form of ‘thought’ reacts.
I can show you an example too. You know about dopamine right?. There are many thing in this world, which gives motivation and increase our productivity. If only the Brain does all these things, it should always produce dopamine inside it whenever the senses sees everything. But do the brain produce dopamine all the time?. No. Only when the ‘I’ arises and says “Yes. This is nice”, only then there is productivity of Dopamine. We can’t say only brain does this all. And there is no Scientific proof too.
The Scientists researching till now, to find the physical form of consciousness. Till date , there is the debate between Physical and mental i.e. non-dual and dual, Elementive materialists vs dualists. Whether consciousness is only in brain? - they don’t have proof. They just physically trace the connecting neuron between the brain and consciousness. Had you heard about Microbial Intelligence?. Basically, Microorganisms have no brains. But they memorize where to go and where not to go. Without brain how do they live, how do they move, how they memorize, how they have a colony, how they emit chemical signals, how they hunt? - It’s an unsolved mystery.
**Yes. But I was pointing out that the ‘Image’ isn’t the ‘actual past’. It wasn’t “the past”, it was merely an Image of the past, that is commonly confused for the actual.
**Yes, that’s a good example of the poisonous nature of judgmental psychological thought, as well as an illustration of the possibility of listening to each other. But when you say, “we have to,” that ‘can’ become another psychological thought that leads to conflict when someone doesn’t conform to “my thoughts” of right behavior.
**Yes. But it’s this we, I, you, me, is what continually creates the sense of separation in the body, if there’s no awareness of the abstract nature of identity.
**No, the ‘I’ is just a word. Words don’t react. The brain reacts according to it’s conditioning. “Unless” you mean, as K meant, the “centre” when referring to the ‘I’. And the “centre” is the conditioning in the brain. An ‘I’ doesn’t have memories. Again, unless you mean by ‘I’, the bundle of memories - associated with - the I-image. An ‘I’ is just a letter, not an entity that reacts.
The brain is the storage of memory, all of the thoughts about an I or me, called the centre or ego-structure. Thoughts like: What you did to me or didn’t do to me. The brain “re-cognizes” you via the sensory input. It re-connects the present sensory input with a previously stored image of you. The brain is the processor of imagery. And it responds according to the imagery of a me and a you. But it’s the brain that sends the information to the body to react. The thought is just information. Without a processor there’s no reaction.
Our language was forged with the belief of the division of the duality observer observed and thinker thought. So it’s constantly reinforcing that belief in separation. And ‘ending’. When ‘things’ fulfill there function (whatever it is) and break down and break apart, is calling that moment ‘death’ anything other than another moment in Now? Something to be dreaded as if it were something out of the ordinary?
Psychologically on a par with, “the gods are angry!”?
Yes - if ‘have’ - it becomes a ‘thought’ or ‘order’ But the sense - I had used it to quote - ‘Awareness’. Awareness does not involves thoughts. If you come to beat me, the senses automatically reacts by blocking with the Hand. There is no thought to say - “I have to block”. It’s immediate reaction. Likewise - when we are aware of what happens - there will be Immediate response which does not involves the ‘I’.
‘Image’ may be a 'wrong assumption and also may be an ‘actual past’ too. I can show you with the same above example. You had beat me. Then the next time when i see you, my ‘Image’ of ‘you’ gets into as thoughts and says “He is the one last time beat me and now he will beat you to death”. And you may also have an ‘Image’ that “Here comes the unworthy,shameless guy”. Then these ‘Images’ blocks us to see what we are ‘now’ - and be a barrier for an actual relationship between us. Here the ‘Image’ about ‘me’ and ‘you’ is the ‘past’. we can’t say it isn’t.
Right?. I doesn’t say that Image must be only the ‘actual past’, it can be a ‘wrong assumption’ of a person too.
You are stuck up in a belief that - Brain does everything. It wasn’t proven yet. Had you seen any brain works after we die? Till date there is difference between Brain and Mind (Consciousness) i.e. Physical and Mental. I had said that - Microbes doesn’t have Brain. But they have memories, etc…? - Had you inquired about this. I herewith attached the research about this.
**The point I’m making is, “The word is not the thing.” The image is not the actual ‘past event.’ It’s an image of a past event. It may be a useful image with information. But it’s only an image of the past.
**All I said was the brain is the processor of information (thought). I didn’t say it does everything. And that’s a false assumption, imagining I’m stuck in a belief. Apparently scientists have shown that when they stimulate parts of the brain it triggers certain memories. But I don’t care if we say the brain stores the memories, we could say, "The ‘body’ stores the memories. The point is the body or brain “processes” the thought. Without something processing the thoughts, the words, the concepts, they don’t do anything. They’re just letter’s on a page unless something interprets the words.
DB: But it seems to me the brain is running on its own, from its own program.
JK: Yes, like a computer. - The Ending of Time Revised & Expanded
**No one needs to “prove it,” it’s observable. The body is responding according to the thoughts. The body takes the thoughts literally as truth, even the psychological fictional thoughts, unless there’s an awareness of what thought is doing, when it is coherent or incoherent. And when the limited nature of all thought is revealed in an insight, the psychological thought, the “centre,” the ego-structure, loses it’s significance. It no longer draws attention or reaction.
Of course. Of course. It is the ‘image’ of the past.
See. I can see that brain is the processor of machine. But, It cannot operate itself. If it can process itself the thoughts - then why thoughts appears and disappears?. It should go on as a continues process. But it not happens like that. In my view - there may be one - who chooses to look something and not to look something from the memories. I may be right/wrong.
Thanks a lot. So what is this awareness is? If there is ‘thoughts’ - where does the awareness ‘hides’?. Does the brains hide this awareness?.
**Why should it go on as a continuous process? Where did that idea come from? One thought occurs, and then the next thought occurs. And sometimes no thought. The thoughts that recede are still in the brains recorded thoughts. We can remember what we just said, for example. But the brain can only project one thought at a time. The brain responds to stimulus. Something is sensed, and the brain re-cog-nizes it, if it’s a familiar object. Like seeing a friend suddenly appear. We immediately, effortlessly, recognize them. Or sometimes one thought will simply trigger another thought. This is all observable.
The “one who chooses” is just a thought projection. That’s a pattern in the cultural conditioning. There’s no “chooser” inside the head. That’s the false division in thought of an observer separate from the observed. Both are thought projections.
Bohm: Thought runs you. Thought, however, gives the false information that you are running it, that you are the one that controls thought, whereas actually thought is the one that controls each of us.
Bohm: We have this picture of someone inside us who is given all this information and then decides to have the intention to do something based on that. I’m suggesting however, that that is not so. (Thought As A System)
**Awareness doesn’t hide. It appears to be always there. I don’t know ‘what’ it is, other than everything appears in it. It appears to be what we actually are. Sometimes human attention is on thinking, so there’s an awareness of that. And sometimes humans are just looking, and there’s an awareness of that. It doesn’t go away or hide. Humans just say they weren’t aware when they’re day dreaming, or “actively imagining in thought.” So they aren’t attentive to what is happening around them when day dreaming. But there’s no ‘I’ doing that. That’s just what the body or brain is doing.
If there are no thoughts, then there’s a choiceless awareness of what is.
Thought runs you. I don’t question that. But what is you. You are not the body. But when there is awareness - thought does not arises itself. And the awareness chooses thoughts when it is required.
See you aware. Right?
Now, I ask a question in this dialogue that ‘Could you say - in which continent the country India is?’ . You are aware of this question. right? But you don’t know answer immediately. Then you start to scrutinize the memory which you studied in your childhood days - that is you start to think - ‘thought’ arises. Right? - Now who lets the thought springs in. Not the brain itself does. It is the awareness that chooses to find in the memory - because of the question put front. If the question is not put front - there will be no thought at all - as you are the full awareness. The awareness chooses what to do and what not to do. It is the ‘one’ i was meant before. It is not body. It is not material. It is there always.
**In this Bohm statement, the you means the body. The cultural thought patterns that have conditioned the brain, are running the organism. And part of the programming is the false idea that the self-image is “using the knowledge.” But that’s just more thought saying that, not a self-image. The actions stemming from the conditioned brain aren’t being chosen by awareness. It reflects a lack of choiceless awareness. The brain is caught in analysis. It’s the observer ‘thought structure’ evaluating or analyzing, it’s not an open awareness informing the behavior.
**There are two common ways to use the word awareness. One is that which reveals what is occurring. The other is used in this manner: Are you aware of a country called India? That means “Do you know” there is a country called India. So, yes, I “know” what your question means.
There’s no one “letting the thought spring.” There’s no “you” in control of thought. And it springs from the “memory” stored in the brain, which means it does spring from the brain. The awareness is simply the awareness of the arising of thought. It’s the brain that’s projecting the thought that appears in awareness.
The problem arising now in talking about this using dualistic language is that the aspects of what appear to occur aren’t actually separate. Awareness is generally defined as seeing or observation. And seeing and choosing point to different aspects of the whole. Making ‘connections’ depends on intelligence. And awareness, intelligence, love, and meditation may be words that all point to the same thing. I’m saying ‘awareness’ as in ‘seeing’ is not “choosing.” It’s intelligence, operating in the brain, that connects to the appropriate memory. If you’re defining awareness as intelligence, then sure, it’s awareness/intelligence that ‘discerns’ the right action. It’s not “choice,” it’s discernment. When the brain is free of the conditioning, then it’s awareness informing the actions. When the brain is caught in the conditioning, it’s the conditioning determining the action, most of the time.
So - you say that - in awareness there is no thought arises. And when it needs to scrutinize the memory - there no thought - only intelligence acts. Right?
**No, I didn’t say that in my response. We’re talking about two different states, to my understanding. The state most humans appear to be in, which is the state of having a conditioned brain that is ‘controlling’ the behavior. The brain conditioned to imagine it is American, Russian, Israeli, Indian, Muslim, Catholic, etc., and which leads to behaving in accordance to this conditioned programming. The person is “aware of the thoughts,” like “I’m an American,” and despite being “aware” of the belief, the person continues to act divisively and unintelligently. But this “awareness of the thoughts” is actually “analyzing according to the stored knowledge” or “thinking.” It’s not an awareness that these thoughts are the imagination, and not the actuality. We’re humanity, not the made up thought labels. The other state, that Krishnamurti pointed to is freedom from the known, choiceless awareness, or meditation.
Everything arises in awareness, including thought. If there was no awareness of thought, we wouldn’t know there was such a thing as thought. In choiceless awareness, or observation without the ‘me’, there’s no interference of thought trying to control what is, it’s a choiceless awareness. If there was no awareness of thought, there would be no possibility of seeing it’s limited nature, or to observe when thought is coherent or incoherent.
What you say all is absolutely right in my view. It is the brain /body does everything. It goes on with thoughts - it does thought appears/disappears. There is no ‘I’ which chooses this thought and that thought. Because the ‘I’ itself springs from memories,beliefs,etc… which is stored up in body/brain - for thousands of years of evolution. The brain is programmed as such.You are right.
But what i intended to show is, when there is ‘I’ which is the state of choiceless awareness, then in that state someone asks,
Here i had wrongly conveyed the ‘I’ chooses to answer the question with ‘thought’. But what happens in the state of choiceless awareness is, the choiceless awareness and not the body/brain, scrutinizes the memory - to answer the question. I feel i convey this correctly now. So, whether the choiceless awareness arises from the body/brain or not? - and in my view i say it can’t - because body/brain is conditioned/limited - so that choiceless awareness cannot arise from brain/body.
And,
Now i also ask that - whether we are actually seeing thought’s limitations - and to enquire why is it so? - or we are having a verbal communication of K’s teachings that - there is intelligence,choiceless awareness,this,that,etc… - in which there is no interference of thought, and we move on with our personal life living with thoughts/desires/pain/sufferings/etc… and restricted ourself with body/brain that which is limited (here we are psychologically one - and so i say in my view - we are not limited to body - that body does everything).
I’m asking whether we are observing thoughts - which is processed by our brain - and completely end it instantly as they are limited - which is the root of image/desire/fear/suffering/pleasure/pain/etc. or we are just come here to verbally discuss what K,a,b,c,etc… said but live on that - brain does everything - and live with thoughts - and move on living with conflict/pain/beliefs etc… personally?
K: One night in India I woke up; it was a quarter past twelve, I looked at the watch. And - I hesitate to say this because it sounds extravagant - the source of all energy had been reached. And that had an extraordinary effect on the brain. And also physically. I’m sorry to talk about myself but, you understand, literally, there was no division at all; no sense of the world, of ‘me’. You follow? Only this sense of a tremendous source of energy.
DB: So the brain was in contact with this source of energy?
K: Yes, and as I have been talking for sixty years, I would like others to reach this - no, not reach it. You understand what I am saying? All our problems are solved. Because it is pure energy from the very beginning of time. Now how am I - not ‘I’, you understand - how is one not to teach, not to help, or push - but how is one to say, This way leads to a complete sense of peace, of love'? I am sorry to use all these words. But suppose you have come to that point and your brain itself is throbbing with it - how would you help another? You understand? Help - not words. How would you help another to come to that? You understand what I am trying to say? DB: Yes. K: My brain - but not mine - has evolved. Evolution implies time, and it can only think, live in time. Now for the brain to deny time is a tremendous activity, for any problem that arises, any question is immediately solved. DB: Is this situation sustained or is it only for a period? K: It is sustained, obviously, otherwise there is no point in it. It is not sporadic or intermittent. Now how are you to open the door,how are you to help another to say,Look, we have been going in the wrong direction, there is only non-movement; and, if movement stops, everything will be correct’?
DB: Well, it is hard to know beforehand if everything is going to be correct. K: Let’s go back to what we began with. That is, has mankind taken a wrong turn, psychologically, not physically? Can that turn be completely reversed? Or stopped? My brain is so
accustomed to this evolutionary idea that I will become something, I will gain something, that I must have more knowledge and so on; can that brain suddenly realize that there is no such thing as time? You understand what I am trying to say?
DB: Yes.
K: I was listening the other day to a discussion on television about Darwin, his knowledge and what he achieved - his whole theory of evolution. It seems to me that this is totally untrue psychologically.
DB: It seems that he has given evidence that all species have changed in time. Why is that untrue?
K: Of course. It is obvious.
DB: It is true in one respect, although I think it would be untrue to say the mind evolved in time.
K: Of course.
DB: But physically it seems clear there has been a process of evolution, and that this has increased the capacity of the brain to do certain things. For example, we couldn’t be discussing this if the brain had not grown larger.
K: Of course.
DB: But I think you are implying that the mind is not originating in the brain. Is that so? The brain is perhaps an instrument of the mind?
K: And the mind is not time. Just see what that means.
DB: The mind does not evolve with the brain.
K: The mind not being of time, and the brain being of time - is that the origin of conflict?
DB: Well, we have to see why that produces conflict. It is not clear to say that the brain is of time, but rather that it has developed in such a way that time is in it.
K: Yes, that is what I meant.
DB: But not necessarily so.
K: It has evolved.
DB: It has evolved, so it has time within it.
K: Yes, it has evolved, time is part of it.
DB: It has become part of its very structure.
K: Yes.
DB: However, the mind operates without time, although the brain is not able to do so.
K: That means that God is in man, and God can only operate if the brain is quiet, if the brain is not caught in time.
DB: Well, I wasn’t meaning that. I see that the brain, having a structure of time, is not able to respond properly to mind. That’s really what seems to be involved here.
K: Can the brain itself see that it is caught in time, and that as long as it is moving in that direction, conflict is eternal, endless? You follow what I am saying?
DB: Yes. Does the brain see it?
K: Has the brain the capacity to see in what it is doing now - being caught in time - that in that process there is no end to conflict? That means, is there a part of the brain which is not of time?
DB: Not caught or functioning in time?
K: Can one say that?
DB: I don’t know.
K: That would mean - we come back to the same thing in different words - that the brain is not being completely conditioned
by time, so there is a part of the brain that is free of time.
DB: Not a part, but rather that the brain is mainly dominated by time, although that doesn’t necessarily mean it couldn’t shift.
K: Yes. That is, can the brain, dominated by time, not be subservient to it?
DB: That’s right. In that moment it comes out of time. I think I can see this - it is dominated only when you give it time. Thought which takes time is dominated, but anything fast enough is not dominated.
**This is a question that requires each person to observe directly for themselves. To observe whether an observation free of analysis is occurring, or whether the thinking mind is “trying to figure it out,” to find an “answer” a conclusion? Is it clear that the word (thought) is not the thing? No thought, projected in consciousness, is ever more than abstract imagery. It’s never the actuality, which is not capturable in a limited image.
When you say “we are not limited to the body,” that would depend on what this ‘we’ is. Division only exists in the imagination. “Separate things” is thought imagery, not the actuality. The “problem” is that thought co-opts ideas like, “I’m the unlimited” and creates an even more entrenched ‘ego-thought-structure’. It’s still thought-imagery, not a negation of the false. We are humanity, and humanity, generally speaking, is continually making the “wrong turn” of giving limited thought the false value of truth. We are not adversaries. If the brain is projecting the image of ‘me and other’, it reflects the false conditioning, not an observation free of the known, free of the thought conditioning.
**Great question. Again, this is a question that each person needs to see directly. Do we come here to propagate beliefs, or to observe together? To inquire into what’s happening in our relationships? Can the conflict and division end?
K: The purpose of our inquiry, into all of this, is to bring about a good society, in which we human beings can live happily, without fear, without conflict, without all of the striving, struggling, all the brutality, and all of the rest of it. That is the intention of inquiry - Saanen 1979
In the above excerpts starting this thread, basically Krishnamurti means to say that it’s a violence to compare two human beings and expect someone to be what he/ she is not. This is generally right, though we can question it, of course. But comparison is measure and we need it (as actually Krishnamurti admits it right in the beginning of the excerpt), and it doesn’t have to be a form of violence, it can instead be intelligence, it depends on the situation. For example, Krishnamurti speaks somewhere of the difference between ‘function’ and ‘status’. In order to perform an activity, a person must have the agility and all personal conditions that fit that activity. When one finds one is not fit, one is measuring his/her capacity to execute that activity with efficiency, so it is measuring himself/ herself according to the function and so in this case it is intelligence that is operating, there is no violence involved and there is no function/ status friction. There is no model, it’s the function that matters.
My god is low - Your god is high. My belief is high. Your belief is low. My work is better. Your work is worst. My economy is high. Your’s is low. etc… etc… etc… Then fight.
I’m low - he is high. I have to get to/above his position. Here violence arises - as one sees that higher person as enemy (like facebook/google sees amazon - and to reduce the amazon’s share - they invested in Jio - and brutal violence takes place- to rule out amazon’s share in India).
One also suffers due to this comparison. Here desire/goal arises to get close/go beyond the competitor. Because of this goal, he struggles hard in his life (i.e. suffers - in a form of pressurizing him), and at the end, he either gets temporary pleasure/pain. Why i quote temporary pleasure is - again another goal comes - and again he struggles/suffers. So most of his life - he is suffering, suffering & suffering. . At last in old life - he says “I hadn’t lived the life” or he feels pride “That he achieved”. Then he dies without feeling the beauty of the life.
Intelligence is Human Intelligence. No your’s or mine. It does not see - i’m low - he is high. It’s one for all. If it acts for ‘ego’/‘self satisfaction’ - then it is no intelligence at all.
I observe that - you may think - if there is no competition - the quality/efficiency reduces. But if we see humans as one - psychologically, how will one provide less efficiency/quality to others (it’s like a mother sees/takes care of her child) - because it is like killing yourself .
Caviswa,
If we’re looking for status, yes, it is as you say, it will all end up in either power or frustration. We all know that we are humanity, but as humanity we, each one of us, is endowed with different talents and aptitudes. Krishnamurti was very well aware of this and that’s why he started schools, so that children could be respected in their particular tendencies and helped to let them flower in an atmosphere of care and no sort of violence whatsoever. Yes, there should be no place for competition in people’s daily lives.
There can be competition like comparison, that has no self image involved. It’s the competition between the self images that becomes so destructive. And even though they are illusory the brain doesn’t seem to realize that and goes along with the madness.
Gather a number of models of world government possibilities that attempt to care for the most people, animals, environment, etc and compare them as to their practicality, equitableness, effectiveness.