I think you nailed it, amala-vijnana and mind are pointing to the same(ish) (non-)thing. I didn’t know about the amala-vijnana, thanks for bringing it to my attention.
1 Like
In thinking about this substratum consciousness and what happens when it ends, I remembered this 57 second clip where Bohm asks Krishnamurti what happens to consciousness - which is made up of its content - when there is no more content:
Krishnamurti says there is a “totally different kind of consciousness”. This, I take it, is ‘mind’ (which I take to be synonymous with immaculate consciousness, amala-vijnana)
@macdougdoug @danmcderm @rickScott
There is an important point where people feels okay to be polluted by thought.
It is Freedom of action.
People feel that, if I have Intelligence, I may live a Compassionate life and even have impact on others and can show true Love. But, what about the freedom of action in a selfish way? I can’t go for something what I need now - like Power, Wealth, Recognition, etc., Though thought pollutes, it gives a push for that freedom to act whatever one wants (as don’t have to consider “others”). But Action out of Love is not that way, as it always consider the Well Being of others.
So, Love and Intelligence blocks many action which born out of selfish freedom. Even that Love, not just blocks one’s own selfish free action, but also blocks of those who are around them. Though it is purely Good, what pleasure is there in curbing the freedom of selfish acts?
So, considering this point, what’s one observation and inquiry leads to?
Hi. I have a doubt here.
Is this ‘mind’ (totally different kind of consciousness) present as a source/basis for the Brain according to K?
Does the Mind know/allow these activities of Brain or contents of Consciousness?
Freedom is over rated.
Both by those that imagine and want libertarian freedom of action; and by those that imagine freedom from form/content/suffering.
Although insight into our relationship to form/content is preferable.
Because delusion leads to conflict and confusion (eg. harm)
Because freeedom (to see the bigger picture) increases the potential for wellbeing.
Empty spaciousness is only precious because of suffering.
Perhaps you can explain this a little further Douglas? 
Libertarian freedom is overrated, obviously. Elon Musk thinks he is free because he is rich and has a loud mouth, so he thinks he can do anything he likes. But that kind of freedom is not very deep.
However, when you say that the emptying of the contents of consciousness is overrated, first of all how do you know this? (as I doubt you know what that freedom even is); and second of all, what is prompting you to say this (i.e. what is your reasoning process here)?
Or have I misunderstood your question/intention completely?
You added
But are you sure you know what true empty spaciousness is? If it is truly empty of the contents of consciousness then there can be no memory of suffering with which to compare it.
This is about the relationships in our minds - about our attitude towards the images - it is about desire.
This is about how clarity is preferable to delusion - and I’ll add that there is a natural drive towards fulfilling potential
This seems to me like an obvious statement of logic from the human perspective. (I can try to make the syllogism if necessary)
All simple stuff really.
So what you are actually saying Douglas is that our IMAGE of what it means to empty the contents of consciousness, our IMAGE of empty spaciousness, etc, is just an IMAGE.
Correct?
Your original comment did not explicitly make this point.
1 Like
I’m insisting on the importance of relationship.
Seen from our perspective (human? dualist?) its actually a bit of a paradox in my mind :
Relationship appears fundamental - more so than the “things” in the relation.
Emptiness, on its own is meaningless - sorry, this is getting tricky (confused?)
It’s difficult to grasp what you are wanting to say without a clear context.
The thread question is about our relationship with the world. Are we only related to other people whose contents of consciousness are similar to our own? Or is human consciousness one inseparable whole, right from the beginning (as they go onto discuss after the 57 second YouTube clip shared above)?
Is this what you are talking about?
Or are you referring to what we were saying above may take place when the contents of consciousness are emptied? - Meaning that the word ‘relationship’ being used here refers to the IMAGE we may have of this emptying/emptiness?
Which context fits best what you are wanting to say?
Being is a form of relationship - talking of the things themselves as if they have some intrinsic existence/meaning/importance of themselves, may actually be moving away from clarity.
What do you mean by “Being” Douglas? This is a word-concept with a great many associations and potential distortions.
Do you mean ‘being alive’, living, existing in the present moment?
In my understanding what @macdougdoug shares is,
When we are feeling more joyful/pleasure in any action, there is no feeling/necessity of this “empty spaciousness”, but only when there is sufferings/frustration, the “freedom” and “emptiness” are given importance.
Here, he points out,
If you see carefully, he says "Electricity cannot actually exist without the proximity of the dirt and the sky … ".
He is of the view that, we give much importance for “emptiness” in relationship as if it is necessary, but what if it might not, and the Relationship itself is Being even in the presence of those Contents (like Electricity in the presence of Dirt - the thing he pointed out), by not giving importance/value to it instead of emptying it.
The desire for Emptying only felt at times of sufferings, and so felt to be overrated, and might not necessary and one could have true relationship just in the presence of those contents without giving value to it.
Are you indirectly referring here to the Madhyamaka doctrine of dependent-origination? Namely that whatever exists (or apparently exists) exists only in the context of relations between entities that themselves lack any true essence?
Yes that sounds right (this is same thing by Nagarjuna that Rick mentioned yesterday?)
In terms of human experience, the World would be the relationship between the images projected by our brains. (and we presume some unknown input from the actual world we suppose must exist absent those images)
Yes, Rick was talking about the MMK on another thread. This could be interesting, but is it directly related to what we have been discussing on this thread?
From the sound of it you are suggesting something along the lines of: the world we feel we experience is merely a projection of our collective images, so all that exists is the web of images and image-making.
This is quite different from what we have been talking about so far. Maybe you could propose it as a new thread?
Related to this, I was going to ask people what questions they have to discuss - by which I mean, what are the areas of K’s teachings that people are still vague or doubtful about, or do not understand at all?
What would be your questions?
“License” is the word for “that kind of freedom”.
I’m still wondering why, if the content of consciousness for all humans is similar (desire, fear, greed, lust, anger, envy, etc.), why isn’t it all the same thing? Why doesn’t the brain see its content for what it is?
I think it must be a matter of perception Inquiry.
Later on in the video (a clip of which I shared above) Krishnamurti says to Bohm that to understand or have a feeling for the wholeness of humanity, the wholeness of human consciousness, meditation is necessary.
By mentioning meditation 
I understand Krishnamurti to be saying that it requires a shift in perception, a non-ordinary expansion of one’s usual awareness of the world.
Maybe it is a shift in perception comparative to that which takes place for some astronauts when they view the earth 
from outer space 
for the first time.
The below questions. All are identical but I quoted to express in different ways to clearly catch the question I have.