To be truthful, what was said is not based on any direct perception but onlogical thinking. When K said that there is no individual mind, but only universal mind and beyond brain, it appears logical to me that it must be this mind that can perceive because rationally a completely conditioned brain can not see its own conditioning, an outside agency may be a necessity.
It might be worth looking at this again to see if we are not getting tricked by memory - a simple switch between the words âbrainâ and âmindâ would make a huge difference to the meaning.
For example here you are making assumptions based on what you think K said - small errors multiplied, makes for huge errors further down the line.
Lets see if we can find the original words of Kâs
PS. Iâm wondering if this is a simple teaching about the fact that my brain is the same human brain common to all humans, or that my brain is conditioned by a common culture and biology - or some tricky quasi esoteric discussion where K speculates about the ground of all consciousness
K, Madras, India - 1981
âSo that which is not of time, which is not the product of thought, which is not the material process, is the mind. Thought, as we pointed out the other day, is in itself disorder, and mind is entirely, absolutely order, like the cosmos, like the universe. But to enquire, to go into that, not to understand the nature of the mind unless you have understood deeply the nature of thought, all its activities, comprehend it not verbally, in yourself. Which means thought realises its own place. Thought realises its place in the technological world, when you drive a car, when you speak a language, when you go to the office, or to the factory, or anything, skill needs the operation of thought. But when thought realises its own limitation, and its place, then perhaps we can begin to see the nature of the mind.â
K often speaks of the mind and the brain interchangeably - he mentions this earlier in the same talk.
My mind is constrained by my conditioned brain, a mind that is no longer constrained by the authority of the known (because the processes and the implications of fear and selfishness have been seen) is able to function in a wider, clearer space.
To think in terms of outside and inner agencies, is to be confused by our own experience of separation (separate objects in space feels real and fundamental to us) and by the idea that actual reality is made up of separate, independant entities.
2 Likes
This was what I was trying to get at in my remark about thought needing to have an awareness, similar to the bodyâs awareness, but this says it better of course! Thought is confused when it projects a âme and mineâ and it is unaware that it has and is doing so. That it has wrongly created an observer separated from what is being observed. This is not its âplaceâ. It has limits that it has to ârealizeâ.
This is what not clear - thought is a process in brain, so how can a process realise its limitations.
Could it be that brain functions in two modes. In one mode it is chattering and acting as per itâs conditioning and in another mode it is in silence. And may be in this silence mode it precieves the limitation brought out by itâs conditioning - action of mind.
You and I can ârealizeâ when we have i.e., adopted a belief, are theorizing, speculating, opining, concluding, condemning, etc. We (thought) can be aware that it is engaging in those activities but our conditioning makes it seem as if âweâ are doing those things whereas it is only always, the movement of thought.
Iâm with you (and Inquiry) : I think its an unhelpful formulation. We are trying to convey an idea quickly, but imprecisely.
If we define âthoughtâ as the expression of knowledge in a narrative form; then of course thoughts are not aware, they do not realize anything.
Proprioception is the awareness of the body in space.
We donât really have a good word for the awareness of our own thoughts and feelings, the best we got is stuff like : meditation, self-awareness, introspection ( I think Bohm calls it âproprioception of thoughtâ)
I prefer to say that it is the brain liberated (which ends up being a form of conditioning) through insight into the process of self, that is aware of its own movement (just as it is aware of the body).
Rather than saying : âthought having awarenessâ, its probably better to say : âawareness of thoughtâ - of course, what exactly is âhavingâ the awareness is not defined. Iâm happy to say : âthe brainâ - because it definitely plays a big part in human cognition - but maybe its more precise to say âmainly the process we call the brainâ
1 Like
Can not see how thought can be aware. For example let me assume that now I am condemning you, this condemning is a movement of thought. The moment there is awareness of condemning,this movement of thought stops - there is only awareness/ silence. This thought movement may began again as it often happens, but it stops when there is awarness. Now question is who or what is aware. It cannot be âIâ because as K has said âIâ is nothing but different layers of conflicting thought. So it is brain that is aware in silence. Of course there can be awareness when thinking is going on but that is partial awarness like a drunkard is also aware but not fully. Thought can never be aware as it is a process of memory.
Now when brain is aware ,it continues to receive input from various sense organs as during process of thinking, but the difference is ,now it is in a state of complete silence,not reacting but just observing. This is what is my understanding based on perception and understanding of Kâs teaching but if I am wrong do correct me please.
I donât think K was saying that thought can realize anything, but that the brain realizes, sees, what thoughtâs place is when its psychological content is emptied. I say this because the brain, confused and conflicted by its incoherence caused by its psychological content, cannot see anything clearly until its psychological content is gone.
It was interesting to me to read David Bohmâs idea that the contents of our consciousness are like âreflexesâ that have formed in the brain. They function automatically⌠similar to the knee jerk reflex. There can be awareness of that physical reflex that it is happening but that will not stop it from happening.
From what you say it occurs to me that we may be thinking of awareness in the wrong way and that it is ALWAYS present and to a degree, IS in everything and everything IS in it!
That may be. Awareness is a mystery. We know that all living things are aware, and that many (perhaps most) living things donât have brains, so awareness is more than a function of the brain.
Krishnamurti referred to awareness as fundamentally âchoicelessâ, implying that the conditioned human brain chooses to react to it by distorting or denying it when triggered. This is insanity, of course, but we are too confused and conflicted to see it as such for as long as we are the content of our consciousness.
What do we mean by awareness? And is it even important? The important bit is that the human be free and aware of our own specific cruelty - we be responsible for the human self (if thats possible, seeing as we are the main movers on this planet.)
The stone is aware when I smash it to bits with a sledgehammer. This is evident in that it reacts to the information (being smashed)
The amoeba is aware of good and bad as it reacts to these stimuli - despite not being conscious of its own awareness, nor of the concepts.
I am aware when I take revenge on you for calling me an idiot. I am aware of (feel strongly) the need to take revenge, but not of the whole picture of self.
Thatâs not awareness.
The amoeba is aware of good and bad as it reacts to these stimuli - despite not being conscious of its own awareness, nor of the concepts.
First of all, an amoeba is aware of stimuli and responds to it, but it is not aware of good and bad because these are human concepts. Secondly, you donât know whether an amoeba is conscious of its awareness or not.
For all we know, when awareness isnât reacted to by the brainâs content, there may be no sense of âmyâ awareness, but only of being aware.
I am aware when I take revenge on you for calling me an idiot. I am aware of (feel strongly) the need to take revenge, but not of the whole picture of self.
Your awareness of your desire for revenge is choiceless awareness, and if your content (your belief that revenge is bad) didnât react to it, âthe whole picture of self would be revealedâ.
Those who believe revenge is good (because itâs justice), feel good about getting revenge. Those who believe revenge is bad (because itâs cruelty) feel good about resisting the desire for revenge.
Knowing good and bad is choosing, and being aware is not choosing.
1 Like
That is the question isnât it? As is âcan the rhythm of thought ever endâ? Can the âwhole picture of selfâ ever be seen?
David Foster Wallace said, âThere are no atheistsâ. We choose what to worship".
Or to put it another way, we worship our ability to choose what is true, in spite of what awareness tells us when we have no choice.
So whether we choose to believe in God, a moral/ethical system of behavior, pleasure or discipline, weâve chosen to worship ourselves as individuals instead of being merely human.
If, for no apparent reason, just out of the blue, one ceased to believe in oneself, wouldnât the ensuing silence reveal how unsubstantial and contrived oneself is?