To see that, is to be on the other side.
1 Like
I have to ask whether this kind of question will help us to understand the suffering in the world…and the suffering in us. Or the violence, the hate, the despair, loneliness, greed, exploitation, and so on? Most of us come to the ‘teaching’ in order to understand why man lives with such misery…with the Hiroshima’s , the Auschwitz’s, the depression and alcoholism and despair. Can we understand ourselves as we are and not escape to speculation about the nature of consciousness. Not saying we shouldn’t ask the question you ask…only that it won’t likely help us to understand and possibly transcend our insane way of living. Or do you feel that it will?
1 Like
Does the structure of the ego require perpetual continuity? Is this so? I find that it is not so. How will you demonstrate the veracity of your statement to me?
You say there is no ‘software’ in our brain to envisage our own ends. Lets us put the word ‘software’ to one side and ask ourselves whether or not we can envisage our own ends. The fact that I can envisage my own end refutes your statement that I cannot.
When you start from the wrong premise, no matter how logical your investigation may be, you will arrive at erroneous conclusions.
1 Like
So now you have invented another “consciousness”? Consciousness as K spoke of it is everything thought is or consciousness is it’s content. Thought is based on memory. Memory is stored in the brain. So guess what happens when the brain dies? By dying I mean that the brain no longer gets oxygen and flowing blood to bring that oxygen to it. The brain is an organ and it dies when the body dies. No brain, no memory, no thought, no center or “person” and no consciousness.
1 Like
Exactly. Therefore Sree’s notion that there is a ‘person’ that is ‘tied to the body’ falls. The person (or whatever word may be appropriate) is the whole thing.
A horse may be yoked to a cart. They are two things. Mind and body are not two things tied together. They are integral to the whole. Neither exists without the other.
Of course, it will and it must; otherwise, the teaching has no value and is spiritual escapism. This inquiry must illuminate the cause of suffering. Seeing the cause does not end that suffering “out there” roiling the world. It does liberate one from it so that one cannot be drawn into it – either as a concerned social activist or a patriotic/reluctant soldier of war - to become a party to and contributor of that misery. This freedom cuts off the wastage of energy and conserves it for dealing with things at hand, those present problems of living in one’s own life. As Krishnamurti said, “to go far, we must begin very near”.
The nature of the turmoil “out there in the world” is the same as that in one’s personal life - the conflicts between one and the people in one’s midst. In this case, it is possible to end the suffering because one ceases to be a party to actual ongoing conflicts. In this way, one cleans up one’s act first. Is this possible? I say it is possible; at least, for those of us in this forum. If we can spend time reflecting for hours, then we are not dumpster-diving for our daily bread and fighting others for dear life. We have the opportunity to untangle personal misery. It takes honesty to admit that one is a mess and fix that mess now, not later.
People often consider that the teaching is about understanding our psychological suffering in order be free of it - Although K also alludes to an appreciation of reality free of conflict and comparison.
I think Toms question is pointing at the parts of your discourse that seem to be trying to ascertain whether some part of the person survives when the body ceases to function.
also,
what do you think can be gained from our reflections? Where can it lead?
1 Like
Can the living body, that is in a vegetative or sleep state, exist without the person? And when it is not in a vegetative or sleep state, is it not tied to you?
I have already stated my view on this and you seem to have missed the point. For two things to be “tied” they have to be separate, like the horse and the cart.
Why bring in vegetative states? It adds nothing. A person is not a vegetable. The phrase “vegetative state” is based on a metaphor. It stands for a state in which the consciousness is not able to control movement. It does not even mean the consciousness is absent. Just that it lacks the power to act.
But enervation continues. The heart beats, the breathing continues, the blood flows. That is all consciousness. That is all the person. That is all mind, but not at the level of gross movement. Thought may even continue but communication is impossible.
You suggest there is a you and a body that is tied to it. This cannot be demonstrated by reference to vegetative states. So, is that all you’ve got?
2 Likes
@Sree might have put it crudely, let’s see whether there is a middle ground, it’s true that body and mind are a single continuum, however when observation or awareness is set up without a notion of separation (no separate observer in observation) from the observed, there is a distance maintained from aspects of oneself ( aspects associated with movement such as thoughts/feelings/action), then there is a sense of those things as a part of yourself (yours but not you) yet not identified to the extent of claiming it as ‘you’. Maybe such a state, when crudely explained appears as you and a body being tied to it.
If I understand you correctly Natarajan, you are saying that in a state of what K calls ‘total awareness’ there is distance between aspects such as thought,feeling and movement that makes those aspects appear as ‘not you.’
Now, as I do not have this ‘total awareness’ I cannot say if this is correct, but it appears the opposite of what K was saying. Just pointing this out. K said the appearance of separation ended.
I do not know if there is a middle ground Natarajan. I took it that Sree is saying there are two things, body and person, that are ‘tied together.’ Whereas, I am saying that there is one continuum that can appear, under certain conditions, to be two things tied together. Sree is calling them ‘body and person’ but elsewhere they are commonly referred to as ‘body and soul.’ Soul, it is proposed, continues after the body dies. It is that which I am in contention with. If it is not what Sree means then s/he has the opportunity to correct my wrong impression.
If one says the sun goes around the earth while the other says the earth goes around the sun, is there a middle ground? One can imagine that they go around each other, of course.
In a similar way, one is saying there are two forms tied together and another is saying there is one form that is living an illusion. The mid-point here would be that there is one and a half forms. Does anyone dare suggest this? No, for it would be clear nonsense. So, rather than seeking middle ground let us examine the actual ground, the one we mutually stand upon.
2 Likes
I have a question for you. Can the “person” exist without the function of thought operating? If a person is in a coma without brain waves being registered is there a “person” a center, self, ego? Or is all this an illusion of thought? A construct of thought that has no real, tangible existence?
Am I misunderstanding something here? It’s possible. But have you somehow missed the basis of what K pointed out about the “center” as not existing outside of thought? Outside of a collection of experience, knowledge, conditioning? Something that doesn’t exist when thought is not operating? Surely, I have missed something. There has to be more to your question than a gross misunderstand of something so basic in K’s explanation of thought and the self. If so, I apologize.
1 Like
But nevertheless there will be appearances and therefore there will be distance (as in non-identification), yes in total awareness, total in the sense it’s past the turning around in direction of one’s life path.
It’s the view of metaphysics which I would say K has not entirely refuted unless such conceptions directly interferes with observation. The same goes with his stand on Karma (Cause/Effect). In short these things can go hand in hand and not generally in opposition to K’s stand, in case one proceeds to derive a philosophy of life.
Yes ,the very dying to the moment is living.
I return to the analogy of the earth and the sun. ‘Appearance’ is a mischievous word. Let’s change it for something more worthy of what we are referring to. Perception. We perceive the sun as moving when it is actually the earth that is rotating. This is because we cannot perceive the earth rotating due to the fact that we are of the earth and we are rotating with it. So, our perception is biased. There is no perception without a perceiver, right?
Perception is constructed in the brain, according to previous understandings which have become dominant. The brain is receiving sensory data and constructing meaning from it according to its previous understandings. This is an activity.
The same thing with separation. The brain constructs a perception of it. So long as the brain is constructing the perception of separation it will ‘see’ separation. Separation will ‘appear.’
When one fully understands the nature of the earth’s rotation one stops constructing the appearance of the sun circling the earth. And so with separation. When one fully understands that the body and mind are one thing, not too, separation falls. It is no longer being actively constructed and it no longer is perceived.
This is not theoretical. It is factual for me.
If you cross your eyes you ‘see’ two of everything. If you maintain that pose for long enough the two images become one. Your brain adjusts to the new understanding.
Unfortunately you are working with the concept of an appearance being immutable. In fact it is constructed and the construction can change as experience necessitates.
1 Like
If that is your understanding of K’s teaching then we are at odds about it. What was K’s “stand on karma?” And for that matter, what is your understanding? Cause and effect stand perfectly adequately without karma. In a moment I will press ‘send’ and this post will be sent. That is cause and effect and karma has nothing to do with it. Karma is a metaphysical notion and K rejected it.
3 Likes
The analogy doesn’t capture the intent of the use of the word ‘appearances’, Appearances as associated with the movement of thought/feeling/action complex. So long as that is there, there is always the inevitable distance (not separation) set up in the process of observation.
Yes, there is that possibility but still there could be discussion.
So long as that turning in the path of life is not taken voluntarily (and usually accompanied with suffering), we are still a part of the stream where most of the world is caught in. This observation not only validates Karma (as in assuring the continuity along cause-effect paradigm) but true to it’s original essence open up the way to break that as well.
He didn’t accept or reject it which is typical of philosophers, but rather he found such questions and conceptions as distractions.
He did reject it as superstitious garbage like all other religious beliefs, dogma and so on. K was not a philosopher. That is not a minor point but something significant.
We’ll have to disagree on that. 
1 Like
Karma is the past, a tradition that binds a person to the past. It’s a belief that has no validity. Yes we disagree on a lot of things. That’s because you are trapped by belief, tradition, what other people have told you. What have you found out for yourself. That’s what K asks people to do.
How long has Hinduism been around and how has it changed anything? Is India doing better because of it? Obviously not. Why not take a chance and let go of your beliefs that others have thought up for you. Look into things for yourself and don’t be a slave to belief, tradition and all the other rot that goes with organized religion.