hell9 fellas
i like to speak about investigation into thinking and awareness
we as human beeings are able to receive impulses .
we are able to store and remember of what comes to this aware somthing .
to remember is also impulse
commong from brainside ?
So, do we have two different IMPULSES whith different Qualitys .
the actual and the memoria impuls .
no . yess .
One stream is about what is and the other tells again what was when it was stored .
the stored one got adds like judgements and ends because the situation ended and the storage also .
The other stream is new and continuous and has no judgement because it just happens .
what do you here in the words
what can you see from this process
what you want to share
In my brain what is actual are the sights and sounds and the sensations of the moment…that is what is actually happening. Then I am present in the ‘Presence’. The rest is all memory. That accumulation of experience/memory is my false reality or just ‘my reality’. Actuality is always ever now. I slip back and forth without realizing.
Suffering is the past, in the moment there is no ‘time’ to suffer. But I live mostly in the past with thought. So I suffer probably in the same way everyone else does. Suffering may be the brain’s way of alerting us that something is wrong, something is unfinished, something needs to change.
Pain is like an alarm system for the body, suffering for the mind.
Feel the burn of a stovetop and your body has the intelligence/instinct to move away. Feel the burn of a thought and your mind is taken hostage. Wrong brain turn?
If the source of it is the presence in the brain of a ‘me and mine’ and that that was somehow a misstep by thought, then that has to come to an end…as it will with the death of the body but that isn’t the point. The point is as I see it is that this ‘self’ entity is at least causing us all to suffer and at worst; going mad…having a total lack of compassion, killing, destroying, polluting, hatred, etc. so it has to end somehow and we are beginning to understand that thought is not the means.
As long as there is a ‘center’, compassion will be limited by it.
Thought can’t misstep because it has no agency. It’s only a tool. It does only what necessity requires or what psychological content compels.
The problem is not thought. The problem is how the brain is using thought to create and sustain a false sense of actuality.
The brain needs security to be sane, and its security is its communion with intelligence. But that communion isn’t possible when the brain is unaware of how it is creating and maintaining its false sense of security.
The brain can never have ‘security’, it’s just an organ that will harden with age and die. Where is the ‘security’ in that. It’s thought that’s coming up with all the afterlives and that kind of nonsense. It’s thought that created the ‘me’. The body and all its ills is just a great annoyance.
That’s what I thought when first heard Krishnamurti say, in a talk with a small group in Malibu, that the brain must have complete security. I brought up the subject here and a couple of people commented, but no one found it interesting.
I did further research and he mentioned the brain’s need for security on other occasions. You can look those up if you want to find out what he meant when he said the brain must have complete security.
My guess is that when the brain is in communion with intelligence, it is secure because it is no longer depending on the known, its content, which can only create a false sense of security.
Once, about a year ago, sitting alone in the wood-panelled room, watching the others talking outside in the bright sunshine, there was a moment when there was absolutely no brain, only infinite space and silence. One would call this total security. The brain remembers this moment but cannot do anything with it other than offer up a pale description. But from that moment, the brain was different in nature; and this difference continues into daily life now.
Attachment provides a sense of security but it can only ever be partial. @Anon ‘s description of an experience seems to be free of attachment to any thing. Seeing that, even for an instant would reorient the brain away from the futile search for complete security through attachment and ‘becoming’.
There are similarities between the Copernican revolution (from Earth is center to Earth is integral part) and the self-identity revolution (from I am center to ‘I’ am integral part). We seem to be stuck in the pre-Copernican pov. Not necessarily intellectually, the feeling of I am center is way deeper than that.
Without memory, attachment is quite impossible. And the desire for attachment is at the root of all human insecurity. So when one looks into it, one starts to see that attachment is only ever to an idea, a principle, an image, all of which reside in memory. Therefore, at some very deep and meaningful level, memory itself is attachment. They are not two separate movements. One can become attached to the memory of some divine experience, but the memory of the experience is not the experience itself, which has already faded away. For experience is a forever living movement; it cannot be something captured and revisited. Experience is eternal freshness and in every experience through life there is tremendous freedom. Whereas the memory of an experience and the attachment to that memory is what keeps the brain tethered and limited. The brain may look for security through its own attachment to a host of memories; yet it is only when there is complete detachment from memory that any sense of security can manifest itself. The brain must play with this for itself; it cannot just be told about it or talk itself into it.
Thought as memory cannot deliver the freshness that is in each moment, though the brain has tasted it, it has tried to retrieve it through effort, but the past cannot call forth the present. The very effort to do so is the process of becoming: creating an image of what was and chasing it into an imaginary future. Attachment to ‘time’ which is apropos in the ‘practical’, is misplaced in the psyche. Analyses as with thought with memory cannot break the ‘spell’…as was said, the brain must play with it.
Attachment is a false sense of security - it is not a partial insight.
Anon‘s description of an experience seems to be free of attachment to anything.
A moment of silence and emptiness is better than none, but if it doesn’t turn the brain’s attention to awareness of its activity, i.e., self-knowledge, it’s just adding to its psychological content.
“For experience is a forever living movement; it cannot be something captured and revisited. Experience is eternal freshness and in every experience through life there is tremendous freedom.”
In order for the brain to detach from memory, it would have to discern when it had ‘left’ the impressions of the fresh living moment and had become ‘attached’ to memory?
It has to see, perceive memory as a different movement than the movement of life?
There is no security whatsoever within the confines of our psychological memory. This is the first and last thing to see. But a question naturally and inevitably arises about the nature of this seeing and of its own relationship to memory. This question, however, arises solely out of a lack of seeing, a lack of perception. The statement itself is very clear: that there is no security in memory. But if the statement itself is merely the product of memory, the result of a second-hand amount of research, of listening to the words of others, including the present speaker, then the statement actually has no value at all; and therefore any question about it only serves to prolong the absence of perception. This may be a bitter pill to swallow. However, a little common-sense can surely work out the logic and the reason in this. In the same way, one suggests, it takes only a little common-sense to be aware of the presence of memory, which is of much greater importance than the absence of perception. Then one is dealing only with ‘what is’ and not attempting to get beyond it into a more refined or acceptable state of being. Where memory is at work in any psychological encounter, there can never be security in that relationship, even though it may bring with it enormous pleasures. So we can see insecurity at work at any time and in any situation. It is our immediate responsibility each time we meet.
And what-is, is the constant stream of memory content that is the consciousness of the conditioned brain. So how does the brain “deal” with this ongoing condition?
Methinks not knowing may be a useful exercise for some folk - especially folk who need to know who is speaking in order to know what is correct. (ie. fallacy from authority)
Yes for me it was not who was quoted: @Anon or K but what was said.
I’m at the point in my life that I don’t need to know the origin of the words. Just whether they make sense or not.
have a nice day