If consciousness is its contents (as K defined the word), then we have to forget about what everyone else is calling “consciousness” and go with the K-definition, which is turning everything upside down, because in common use, “consciousness” is fundamental for everyone, and awareness is individual.
I’m not opposed to this re-definition of the word because it clears up some confusion. If consciousness is one’s contents, consciousness is the problem, the solution of which is the dissolution of consciousness. Then, one is no longer conscious, but aware. Is that correct?
Among K folk, yes. As you know, K gave his own meanings to different words, so one has to be aware of that.
I don’t think this is correct. If one looks at the discussion among those people involved in philosophy of mind (for instance), consciousness and awareness mean roughly the same. Consciousness or awareness simply mean sentience, the capacity of the mind to experience the world in qualitative terms (as opposed to formal computation, which is where AI is so proficient).
The dissolution - according to K - is not separable from the direct awareness of the content. It is only by becoming fully transparent to awareness that the content is liberated.
No. One would still be conscious, but it would then be a different kind of consciousness (i.e. no longer limited by its content). One might then call it pure awareness, total attention, intelligence, love, etc (all words K has used over the years).
The point however is not to seek definitions and labels, but to experiment with being aware - aware of the world outwardly (of nature, trees, birds, clouds, etc), and inwardly (of the contents of consciousness). Without exploring the actual daily awareness one has access to, all this is just a futile walk in abstraction. For me at least.
Since Krishnamurti used his own “definitions and labels”, one has to know how they differ from common usage if one is going to grasp what he was saying.
One would still be conscious, but it would then be a different kind of consciousness (i.e. no longer limited by its content)
So there’s consciousness with and without content…you see how confusing this is?
Yes, but the contents of consciousness are common to all of us, so we don’t need to worry about definitions too much. All of us have fear, hurt, pleasure, sorrow etc - the point is to be aware of it as it is happening.
And not just to be aware of inward content (fear, pleasure, sadness, etc), but also outwardly - of nature, of trees, flowers, birds, animals, people, clouds, etc.
I feel it is really crucial to experiment with our own ordinary awareness - of feelings, thoughts, sensations, people, animals and nature. This is the real thing - not our intellectual definitions (although the intellect has its place).
Yes, I’m more interested in “ordinary awareness” than with the words we use, but since this forum is just words, shouldn’t we be precise in our use of them? “Consciousness” is one of those words that is bandied about as much as “love” and “compassion”, so we have to be clear about what we mean by it.
If consciousness is one’s content, one’s psychological thinking, and transformation is the end of that content, that kind of thinking, yet one is still conscious…
If I may, I´m not saying anything K didn´t say and he not only said that consciousness is its content but also that it is self-conscious which is to say, and he too uses this word, aware of itself. To me, this is the correct definition of consciousness given by K. Claiming that K defined consciousness only as its content is a biased and wrong claiming. That this content is constituted not only by the observed but also by the observer being both thought, is a very significant contribution on the part of K but if we take away the most significant part of the definition, i.e., that thought is or appears to be self-conscious or aware of itself (and this is question), would there be room for confusion, wrong turn and all the rest K spoke of or even for K himself? Obviously no, in fact and at least by now, to me this is crux of the matter and the reason why I´m investigating what is this self-consciousness or self-awareness. Sorry about my comments on the subject to be turning your own convictions upside down. I was said the first day that this is a public forum, if you know what it means.
Bohm’s comment as to why did we take a “wrong turn “ was “because we could”. Thought perhaps could not foresee what ‘taking charge’ and creating a ‘thinker’ might lead to. How could it, it had never been tried!
“Another fine mess you’ve gotten us into Stanley” (Laurel and Hardy)
Quite. It is difficult to say what´s the main obstacle for rectifying, whether attachment to the status it has arrogated to itself or plain unawareness. K´s teachings do a great job on both at a very deep level, the more you go into it, the more cohesiveness you find out in the them, like a seamless suit in spite of all the contradictions, but maybe even these have their own role to play. It´s fascinating.
You say this Inquiry, but then you go back to your issue with the word consciousness that we have already looked at several times. If your problem is with K’s use of the word consciousness, then blame K, but his meaning is clear enough.
As has been said already, consciousness - as we are using the word - is its content, and that content is fear, boredom, pleasure, hurt, envy, belief, hope, suffering, etc.
The question for us is, can there be a direct acquaintance with this content, through ordinary awareness? Just simple, direct awareness of the content in ourselves as it manifests, moment by moment. Surely this is something to be done, not just endlessly discussed, tossed around like some verbal game?
So when you write
you are still approaching it - if you will forgive me for pointing this out - at the level of words, ideas, intellectual confusion; and ideas, words are just more content at this point.
As was said on another thread, if there is confusion, the first thing to do is to stop, and then look.
Stopping is simply stopping the verbal, intellectual knot of questions that just goes round and round and round and round for ever and ever and ever and ever (it really does - most people will die in their confused elaborations of thought, and not even know that they are doing this!). One stops by just admitting the fact that one is doing this, that one is actually confused. That’s all.
And then looking is even more simple. It is just seeing that one is confused, and watching (choicelessly) what is going on to make one confused. What is going on is useless thought, pride, habit, boredom, fear, and lack of awareness. One can see all of this happening in real time, as it is taking place.
Then one is not interested in verbal games, in intellectual superiority or in reaching somewhere special, in being transformed. One is simply willing, voluntarily, to stop in one’s tracks and see the mess one is in; and remain with that mess with complete humility, without any pretence. A serious person does this, and doesn’t demand anything further than this. One doesn’t argue with reality.
Then, if there is anything more to be discovered than one’s confusion and mess, it is one’s own awareness that will disclose it. One doesn’t need to have complete intellectual clarity about every word or sentence that someone may use; one doesn’t need to be intellectually superior or inferior; one doesn’t need to establish bragging rights or win endless arguments. One just stops and looks.
And if one doesn’t do this, daily, with joy, with goodwill, then one is a fool.
I didn’t call you a fool Inquiry; I pointed out what seems to be obviously foolish behaviour - behaviour we are all susceptible to (which makes us all foolish much of the time!).
You are someone who seems to be willing to call it as you see it. So I’m just calling it as it seems to me. It’s not just you - it is a culture on kinfonet that people just recycle the same old intellectual knots and over-complications and issues with words, and never ever seem to arrive at any actual action.
I won’t mention names, but almost everyone here is guilty of this - including myself. At some point, it just needs to be called out for what it is: it is an avoidance of direct action; which is just to be aware, to actually experiment with awareness - and, if necessary, to disengage from kinfonet and the million abstract complications that people create here, and just see if one can stop and look at oneself directly. To be confused and not run away from it, not pretend to be clear and logical.
This is not a sermon, is it? - it is just obvious. Everyone knows this.
