If true or not, I am still very caught up in all my senses. I am very caught up with my psyche as well.
Hello @Peter,
The brain seems to be operating during sleeping state as well and we label them as a dream. And since everyone has them, they seem to have no value. Do you see any similarities in your dream state and wake state? When I imagine or think of a past memory it seems very similar to a dream state.
Yes, that is an old question. But, it has never been my question to explore. We can speculate or read what others have said, we can hear others speak of this and experiment with their findings but that would not be my whole (beginning to end) exploration. James, do you accept that learning or understanding something can be transferred? (about the psyche) If so, then reading about others’ exploration and findings would be of tremendous value. (This would be an endless journey too.) A good question would be how deep into our minds it would reach and what would be the effects of others findings to our brain?
Yes, speculation is a problem for a brain that seems to be seeking conclusions, knowledge, and answers. This functionality of the brain seems to get in the way of our exploration. This is a great and interesting abridgement. When you read this for the first time, what arose in your brain? Was anything transferred?
What do you see are issues with “metaphysical pursuits”. I see that they may be too abstract or not testable for self-discovery.
No, quite the contrary, we are not trying to begin or arrive with theories, opinion or conclusion. Yes, I agree, the findings of others may interfere with our exploration. And I agree, if we approach our exploration as a self discovery movement. Perhaps an approach that would be testable and experimental may be valuable.
In your own words what kind of inquiry did K propose? As we “pay attention to the nature of psychological thought” can we use K’s method to explore this? We I can try to move in the way K proposed. If you are interested, I am open to however you would like to move. And if that does not work, we try another method.
The “I” complex is the content of consciousness. If the brain can set it aside, consciousness is all there is. And it is not “my” consciousness, but what the brain makes of consciousness, which is fundamental.
This is a loaded statement. I will try to unpack it, then ask questions as I go along. We can go slowly and I’ll try to be simple without using abstract ideas. We have a body with senses and the brain (memory in the brain). We set those aside.
Then we have the mind, consciousness, perception, etc. What is exactly is consciousness? Why do we say it has a content? If I have never heard or have no concept of the word consciousness, self, or thought, how would you transfer this information to me?
When awake, we have awareness of what-is, i.e., air temperature, presence or absence of light, ambient sounds, smells, physical sensations, and remembrance of who is aware and responding to it as good, bad, like, dislike, etc. This sorting that thought does is conditioned by experience and acquired beliefs about what-is, creating conflict between what actually is and what-should-and-should-not-be. This conflict is caused by the content of consciousness, better known as I, me, mine.
Can there be awareness of what-is without conditioned response, without the content of consciousness altering perception of what-is?
Krishnamurti: If you can’t, then live in confusion; don’t battle with it. Knowing the whole misery of it, live with it: that is “what is”. And to live with it without conflict frees us from it.
Questioner: Are you saying that our only fault is to be self-critical?
Krishnamurti: Not at all. You are not sufficiently critical. You go only so far in your self-criticism. The very entity that criticizes must be criticized, must be examined. If the examination is comparative, examination by yardstick, then that yardstick is the ideal. If there is no yardstick at all – in other words, if there is no mind that is always comparing and measuring – you can observe the “what is”, and then the “what is” is no longer the same.
Questioner: I observe myself without a yardstick, and I’m still ugly.
Krishnamurti: All examination means there is a yardstick. But is it possible to observe so that there is only observation, seeing, and nothing else – so that there is only perception without a perceiver?
Questioner: What do you mean?
Krishnamurti: There is looking. The assessment of the looking is interference, distortion in the looking: that is not looking; instead it is evaluation of looking – the two are as different as chalk and cheese. Is there a perception of yourself without distortion, only an absolute perception of yourself as you are?
Yes, sounds right. I asked myself too. First there is contact or stimuli to the senses. Then signals are automatically sent to the brain to process. I am not sure but at this point there seems to be two paths: looking from memory or just looking. Then I ask what exactly is memory? And your answer says remembrance. It seems to be a functionality of the brain that stores events and can be retrieved by thinking. It seems that the brain is able to record everything that is happening regardless if you are looking from memory or just looking. (For instance, people that are hypnotized or types of drugs, they are able to recollect details of past events with precision detail.).
Then we can ask about the role of thought?
This is a big question. I’ll try to pick at it in two ways one by question and another by example.
Are we capable of being aware, at this moment, of anything that arises in our senses or brain whether it is conditioned or not?
Say you are walking in the forest and you see a snake; action seems to be automatic and it seems to be coming from just looking.
Sorry, I don’t know. It seems a way to inquire into things. I was asking the person the question:
Yes, I agree it may sound contradicting. But we are talking about ways to explore or investigate. It’s different than when we are talking about exploring other peoples’ findings.
This is an interesting quote. May I ask you what “truth” K is talking about here?
Surely you may ask me, but is it possible to answere this truthfully if ‘me’ is/was not present?
Any answer can only come from a recollection of the past, isn’t it?
If the brain can be aware of the content of consciousness, it can see what effect the content has on its perception. That seeing (theoretically) would enlighten the brain by showing the distinction between what actually, immediately, is, and what experience - what was - has imprinted and retained, i.e., its conditioning.
When K said that “truth is a pathless land” he was saying that there is no method or means by which to find out the whole truth because one’s altered perception and misunderstanding of what-is is methodical. Thought is mechanical and life is not. One simply has to see things as they actually are, and this is not a skill that can be developed or a technique to be mastered. It is what the brain does when its content is not interfering with its healthy (whole) operation.
It’s obvious that you derived that quote and this response from your brain. (You read what we are writing, thought about, responded, etc.) I don’t think that makes it dishonest; we are exploring. I don’t know what he meant by “truth” in this quote and since you used it in our dialogue, I thought we could question it. Or not question it and that’s fine too.
Our brain/senses is all we got to explore our brain and senses. Searching, seeking, etc., for an answer or placing value in an answer could be the inner workings of the brain that may need to be explored.
If you like, lets try to look at truth first and then we can look at pathless later. Let’s try to move slow. What is the truth? And what is the “whole truth”. Is a fact the same as the truth? What is a fact?
As stated by the dictionary, truth is in accordance with fact or reality. Truth is a fact as you say, it is “self-evident and demonstrable”. The first time I heard this word, I was very young. We were asked to tell the truth about some past event. In the West, we have a saying “Honesty is the best policy.” Speaking the truth pleases God and speaking lies upsets God. I heard many times that the holy bible is the truth, “the word of God”. Science is trying to find the truth of how the natural world works. The Buddha discovered the four noble truths, in Hinduism you have the Universal Truth, and etc. A tremendous amount of value has been placed on truth. Who placed a tremendous amount of value in the truth? Then we can question why our brain seeks truth?
The truth about many material things and processes can be found and demonstrated repeatedly, but the truth about what-is, this moment, this situation, isn’t always clear because perception is altered by one’s conditioning. Altered perception is the truth. There is my truth, your truth, etc., and this is an untenable situation.
Unless somehow, the mind can be free of its illusions and conclusions, there’s no hope for our species…not to mention all the species we extinguish in our heedless, reckless way.
You seems to already close the door by stating that it is obvious from my brain, why could it not appeared through the brain without a distortion from the brain?
I apologize that it seems that I have closed the door. I assure you my intention was quite the opposite, I want to explore with you but only if you want. Or we can explore perhaps another time or occasion.
If you would like to explore distortion. What do you mean when you say “distortion from the brain”?
If so than make no statements that leave no room for other possibilities !
Could it be that If some energy, which doesn’t belong to you, such as intelligence, makes use of your brain and intellect, which is in your brain, doesn’t interfere, the message stays clear and then there is no distortion? Isn’t that a logical way?