What do you mean by the “negation” of the conditioned response?
I mean, who is negating what?
I ask this because, in meditation, one’s previous reactions would come up easily without any effort in real time in a situation. There was the seeing of the conditioning (the reaction) and the simple seeing of the reaction ended the reaction - just the simple seeing of it. One had one’s own mirror inside, so there just would be the seeing of oneself reacting, and would attend to the what was being seen and follow it through until it ended - to be more specific, there would be only seeing inside reacting, thinking, getting angry, gesticulating, pacing, or whatever. So, while the situation in real time unfolded, there was also the unfolding of the reaction until the reaction ended of itself, and it was gone, finished, ended. Therefore, that is why I am asking the above. There was no “I” to negate, the “I” is the conditioning itself; so, do you mean a part of you suppressed/rejected or acted upon (is that the correct word?) a part of you that you didn’t like? My goodness, Dan, what on earth are you doing inside? Do you actually do an analysis of some kind of separation between you and your reaction, so that you can perform some kind of action on a conditioned response? Are you aware that what you may doing is an effort to control a part of yourself?
The ‘negation’ is a JK word, that’s why it’s in quotes. The awareness as I see it is the negation, the dissolving of the response. It is seen for what it is, a conditioned response to what is being perceived. There is no ‘negator’.
It was the and that made me wonder whether there were two stages in Dan’s awareness - an easy mistake for me to make, but it does highlight how men in their conditioned way of talking and writing would generally usually tend to ignore such an obvious conditioned way of thinking and speaking/writing, and those kind of interesting lapses, which - to me - shows a lack of due diligence. K never responded in any discussion or dialogue like that. He worked very diligently to be precise, to be correct, constantly correcting Bohm’s conditioned intellectual understanding. Now, as far as ‘awakening’ is concerned, I doubt that any true awakening was or is in any way as defined above, because if anything, it only sounds like some sort of intellectual understanding of what ‘awakening’ is.
Listening as an art? It’s certainly wonderful to observe a skilled listener in action. As an observation, I’d say that it goes like this - somebody, through careful observation, discovers something completely new. An example would be different trees having different “singing voices” produced by the wind blowing through their leaves/needles. Somebody discovered this for themself. The person who discovered this points it out to others. This opens up the possibility of others becoming aware of these different singing voices whilst walking in woodlands. Krishnamurti also seemed to discover things through close observation and spent years pointing things out. An example would be how conditioning distorts and narrows our experience of the present moment. This pointing out by Krishnamurti perhaps opens a door to others becoming more aware of their conditioning. Is this not so?
The conditioning doesn’t necessarily “limit and distort it”, it ‘adds’ to it. The senses, in this case hearing, detects different sounds or frequencies as the wind makes it way through the leafs…the poet or writer (self) anthropomorphizes the sensation and calls it “singing”. That has a shock value (trees don’t sing) and creates reactions in the reader…who then wants to be ‘sensitive’ enough to also hear this ‘singing’?
The senses perceive ‘what is’. The conditioned response is the liking or disliking of what is simply perceived based on one’s background. The past.
In some situations, practical and technological, taking what is read, and adding what you know, can be useful. But do we see reworking the words, and adding what we know, is a repetition of the known? This repetition and putting our case, reconstructing the content, is like we want to be in control, to be the master, to make it in our way, and there lies the basis for the damage to nature.
The river is very still this morning. The surface is like a mirror reflecting the trees on the opposite shore. As I become aware of the reflection, the slight blurriness of the image, the muted colors and shapes there is a realization that I have not really noticed this before, only fleetingly over all these years…The artist who wants to paint this scene has to be sensitive to the reflection equally as to what is being reflected. So even though the eyes have been seeing this aspect , which is a large part of the scene, it has been ignored. The brain has not been aware of it up till now.
One would think it is so, but after a lifetime of “this pointing out”, Krishnamurti felt that no one “got it”, and he died knowing his pointing could not awaken us to the error of our way during his lifetime.
This is not to say that one should not bring attention to what is being ignored, denied, or dismissed, but that doing so may do little more than stimulate interest and inquiry.
Reading Peter’s last post in ‘Relationship’ points up the complexity of our conditioned state, as I read it. The brain has formed an image of a more or less permanent entity to deal with what it perceives as its own intolerable impermanence. The almost constant activity or movement of this entity (thought and feeling) blocks the discovery of the truth? Every approach it takes toward change strengthens itself. If that is so the only approach is no approach?
As you’ll recall, when asked what his secret was, K said that he “didn’t mind what happened”. So even if he had been baffled by what little resulted from his life-long mission to “set men free”, the implication is that he wasn’t upset or disappointed that “no one got it”. He may have realized decades before his death that he wasn’t getting through to his audience, and that he probably never would while alive.
As we can see from this discussion forum and others like it, Krishnamurti’s message is still not getting through. Students of his teaching are still talking about his words and what they mean, demonstrating that it’s possible to grasp the meaning without getting the significance.
How often do we see things as if for the first time? Is being in natural surroundings more conducive to this than being in a big city? Or is this a possibility always, wherever we are?
Many years ago, when I first came to Spain, everything around me seemed new, fresh and exciting. Many sounds, sights and smells were new to me. Just walking along the street was quite an experience - hearing a new language, smelling garlic cooking and black tobacco wafting through the air, seeing people drinking strange coffees on pavement terraces of bars which served tasty looking tapas. Of course, all this newness is there every day if we have the eyes to see it.
We don’t know. We can speculate that it may be possible. Looking into it. I had these fresh experiences and now for whatever reason, through familiarity, etc.,I don’t. The question arises, can I see things as if for the first, not only the external but myself, can I see myself with new eyes as if for the first time? Be free of myself, of the known, of the past…? The desire to do so is born out of my memory of the past, how it was then, and comparing that to my situation now…creates the conflict. I am this way and I want to be that way. The ‘ideal’ is not to see my surroundings and myself in this ‘dull’ way but in a new and more ‘vibrant’ way. If any of that is so, isn’t it the conflict of wanting to change ‘what is’ to something else that is misunderstanding the creation of division and conflict? I am the impediment to seeing ‘as if for the first time’ because I am the past. When that is seen: the past (I) in action, the impediment is no more.
I share your reflections about Spain. I too, years ago was enchanted by the strangeness and beauty and exoticness of the place, the customs and the people.
Thanks for the reply Dan. My questions weren’t an invitation to speculate though. I don’t think it’s a question of “it may be possible”. Surely we have all observed moments when we do see things freshly with a sense of newness. I think it would be interesting to explore this based on our observations. Why does this happen sometimes? Why don’t we have this sense of newness and discovery all the time?
When I ask “why” does such and such happen or not happen, I’m looking for a cause or reason that it is or is not so, right?..Isn’t the motive in this case, that it would be ‘better’, more enjoyable, etc, to see things afresh rather than in the dull way I see? Which if so, the desire for this fresher way of seeing arises from comparing my memories of how I saw in the past and how I generally see now? And “all the time” brings in another factor. How do you understand “exploring”?
Hi Dan. Well, the question here seems to relate to conditioning. Past conditioning seems to be at the root of why we don’t see things with new eyes. Am I happy to live with my conditioning, even after having realised all the problems it brings? I don’t think it’s a question of being more enjoyable or not. We have experienced clarity. We do not experience clarity all the time. I don’t think it’s a case of “I want to have clarity all the time”, but rather one realises that clarity is important if one is to live with a certain psychological freedom. If one is content to live trapped by a seies of behavioural and psychological patterns, then there is no reason at all to explore these. For me, exploring is looking at something together and who knows - maybe our fixed positions and preconceptions might be challenged if we approach the topic with an open mind. Of course, I could be wrong about this.
