Your consciousness is not "yours."

[Howard]

K: We are talking of human beings and their problems, not a particular human being, but humanity as a whole.

We are talking about the radical change of human behaviour so that he is not terribly self-centred as he is, which is causing such great destruction in the world. If one is aware - and one hopes that you are - aware of your conditioning, then we can begin to ask whether that conditioning can be totally changed so that a man is completely free.

First, your consciousness is not yours. Your consciousness is the consciousness of all humanity, because what you think, your beliefs, your sensations, your reactions, your pain, your sorrow, your insecurity, your gods and so on is shared by all humanity.

So your consciousness is not yours any more than your thinking is not individual thinking. Thinking is common, is general, from the poorest man, the most uneducated, unsophisticated man in a little tiny village to the most sophisticated brain, the great scientist, they all think. They may think differently. Their thinking may be more complex, but thinking is general, shared by all human beings. Therefore it is not your individual thinking. This is rather difficult to see and recognise the truth of it, because we are so conditioned as individuals.

This is a fact if you examine it very closely, but if you are frightened, if you are caught in the conditioning of being an individual, you will never understand the immensity and the extraordinary fact that you are the entire humanity.

So you are the world and the world is you; your consciousness is not yours; it is the ground on which all human beings share; all human beings think. So you are actually not an individual. - Calcutta Nov. 1982

**Is this thought, ‘I am separate’, “your” invention?

[Inquiry]

@Howard

if you are caught in the conditioning of being an individual, you will never understand the immensity and the extraordinary fact that you are the entire humanity.

How does K’s use of “individual” here accord with his previously stating that we are not individuals because we are divided, conflicted. An individual, he said, is undivided, whole.

[Howard]

@Inquiry

How does K’s use of “individual” here accord with his previously stating that we are not individuals because we are divided, conflicted. An individual, he said, is undivided, whole.

**He’s clearly using ‘individual’ in this quote in the opposite manner he did when he suggested that only when there’s freedom from the conditioning is one truly an individual. K used many words in unique ways, and if one doesn’t truly listen, it will falsely seem that he was contradicting himself.

[Inquiry]

@Howard

if one doesn’t truly listen, it will falsely seem that he was contradicting himself.

By “truly listen” you mean, make allowances for his idiosyncratic use of the language.

[Howard]

@Inquiry

By “truly listen” you mean, make allowances for his idiosyncratic use of the language.

**No, in listening there’s no one “making allowances.” That would be a story thought made, after the fact.

[Inquiry]

@Howard

in listening there’s no one “making allowances

How do you know when there’s “no one there”?

[Howard]

@Inquiry

How do you know when there’s “no one there”?

**This illustrates how the system of thought perpetuates the illusion of a separate observer. What is the ‘you’ that would ‘know’ this? In the observation of what’s occurring in relationship, including what thought is doing, it reveals that this ‘me’ that would “make allowances” is an illusion. And an illusion can’t “make allowances,” it’s a figment of the imagination, of thought.

[Inquiry]

@Howard

this ‘me’ that would “make allowances” is an illusion. And an illusion can’t “make allowances,” it’s a figment of the imagination, of thought.

Thought personifies itself. It’s “me”, it’s “I”, it’s just thought, and thought can make allowances.
,

[Howard]

@Inquiry

Thought personifies itself. It’s “me”, it’s “I”, it’s just thought, and thought can make allowances.

**The cultural conditioning contains the thought of “I am a separate chooser,” along with an assortment of psychological thoughts like, “Defend what you believe.” The brain that stores all of these abstract thoughts and images, in accordance to the programming that this ‘I’ is an entity “doing the thinking,” creates the thought that ‘I’ am making allowances. But that’s just a “made up story.” Just the conditioning in the brain telling fictional stories. The brain is simply responding to the conditioned patterns, as long as there’s no awareness of the limited nature of the thought, that the brain takes as reality or actuality. There’s no sane reason to take these “made up allowances” seriously.

[Inquiry]

We both know there is no “I” doing the thinking, no thinker, just thought, and we know that thought can do a lot of things that it doesn’t question or examine. Thought doesn’t always know or understand or acknowledge the implications or the effect of what it does or says, so it doesn’t always learn from mistakes, but makes them repeatedly.

[Inquiry]

@Howard

What is the ‘you’ that would ‘know’ this?

No you is required for acknowledgment of a fact. If the fact is that “you” are not present or active when there’s observation, seeing what actually is, thought takes note of its absence.

[Howard]

@Inquiry

We both know there is no “I” doing the thinking, no thinker, just thought, and we know that thought can do a lot of things that it doesn’t question or examine. Thought doesn’t always know or understand or acknowledge the implications or the effect ofwhat it does or says, so it doesn’t always learn from mistakes, but makes them repeatedly.

**But “knowing” that an ‘I’ doesn’t do the thinking isn’t the same as an insight into the whole movement of thought. Nor is it a seeing that the “ego-structure” includes all of the psychological beliefs that have been registered and “identified as mine.” The belief that “we know” there is no ‘I’ doing the thinking is one of these psychological thoughts, that “I” supposedly know. The “we” that thought says “knows” this is just another thought-projection.
Humans can observe facts, but they don’t leave it at the seeing. The habitual pattern is to form opinions, about the facts, like, “We both know.” That’s no longer the fact, that’s a fictional story about a fact.
K: So I listen to discover and observe. I observe that is a fact: parts of me are confused, parts of me are not confused. That’s a fact. And he says to me, look further. That is, is that a fact or an idea that you are confused, part of you and part of you not, just an idea and not ‘what is’? You are following all this? So I have translated - please do listen - I have translated what he has said into an idea, and the idea says to me, ‘Yes I am confused, that is so’, the idea tells me but not the fact. You see the difference? I have drawn a conclusion, an idea from what he has said, and the idea says, ‘Yes, you are right’. Therefore that idea has no validity in action. What has validity in action is not to draw a conclusion from what he has said, but to observe. Right? Now can my mind observe that statement, listen to that statement without drawing a conclusion, or making an idea out of it. I say, ‘I can do it’, therefore I will watch. And when I watch I see how absolutely true it is, absolutely, there is no doubt about it. It is so. - Saanen Aug.1973

[presence]

@Howard

**But “knowing” that an ‘I’ doesn’t do the thinking isn’t the same as an insight into the whole movement of thought.

What’s the difference?

[Howard]

@presence

What’s the difference?

Hello presence - Let’s look and see. Can you describe what this ‘I’ is that “appears in presence,” as best you can? In order to illustrate the difference it would help to see what you see as the nature of this ‘I’. What tells you it doesn’t do the thinking? What IS this ‘I’?

[presence]

Hi, In the comments above I see a sequence of questions and answers but do not see a proviso that you need to see what the other contributor sees in order to clarify your own assertion. Maybe I missed the proviso; can you show me?

[Howard]

**As a person who’s had the good fortune to live close to the Krishnamurti Foundation in Ojai, it’s presented the opportunity to participate in literally hundreds of dialogues. I only mention this as ‘a context’ to making this statement: I’ve heard many people over the years say or suggest that they “know the I is false,” and yet, still get defensive when one of the beliefs, that’s associated with this “false I,” is questioned. So that looks to be a rather limited “idea” about this ‘I’. So I asked what you think this ‘I’ is that led you to ask, “What’s the difference?” I’ll be glad to share what I see, but I’m wondering what you see?

[presence]

Yes thank you. I am waiting for you to share the difference you have asserted above.

[Viswa]

@Howard

**Is this thought, ‘I am separate’, “your” invention?

Hello Howard.
In my (not ‘my’) observation,
this thought ‘I am separate’ is felt by our ancestors and taught by our parents/society to us - when we were child - and it is nature (we can call it as invention/creation).

Like mountains,trees,planets,etc…, thought of ‘I am separate’ is also natural - due to our experience of physical/biological separation. It’s nature to assume this physical separation in consciousness too (i.e. we separate consciousness into yours/mine - because of ignorance)

@Howard

So I asked what you think this ‘I’

I (not ‘I’) ‘observe’ that ‘I’ (not partly but whole) is ‘memory,knowledge,experience,pleasure,pain,anxiety,sufferings,image,beliefs,idea,conclusions,etc…’ i.e. conditioned - and this ‘I’ is only past.

[Howard]

@Viswa

Hello Howard.
In my (not ‘my’) observation,
this thought ‘I am separate’ is felt by our ancestors and taught by our parents/society to us - when we were child - and it is nature (we can call it as invention/creation).

Like mountains,trees,planets,etc…, thought of ‘I am separate’ is also natural - due to our experience of physical/biological separation. It’s nature to assume this physical separation in consciousness too (i.e. we separate consciousness into yours/mine - because of ignorance)

**Hello Viswa - Well, whether it’s “natural” or not, it’s still incoherent thought. Using this “logic,” or “conditioned analysis,” we could also say “killing is natural,” as this also began with our ancestors. Does being “natural” make it sane or intelligent?
We can imagine our consciousness is separate, but that ‘idea’ doesn’t actually separate anything. We all get the similar conditioning patterns that include the belief in a divisive identity. The general structure of the conditioning is basically the same, “me and other.”

@Viswa

I (not ‘I’) ‘observe’ that ‘I’ (not partly but whole) is ‘memory,knowledge,experience,pleasure,pain,anxiety,sufferings,image,beliefs,idea,conclusions,etc…’ i.e. conditioned - and this ‘I’ is only past.

**I (not ‘I’) see it a bit differently, but similar. I don’t see pain, pleasure, anxiety, and sufferings, that are felt in the body, as being the ‘I’. Those feelings appear to be the biological “responses” of the human body. And of course, these bodily reactions can be triggered by thought involving a self-image, or ‘I’. And it’s not fundamentally separate. But the I-image, and the response of the body are different. But I do see that all psychological thought stored in the brain in the form of “my” thought as making up the ‘I’. Like: “my memory, my experience, my beliefs, my ideas, my conclusions, etc., etc.” The self/world image includes all of these psychological assumptions.

DB: What do you mean by psychological knowledge? Knowledge about the mind, knowledge about myself?

K: Yes. Knowledge about myself, and living in that knowledge, and accumulating that knowledge. - The Ending of Time

[Viswa]

@Howard

**I (not ‘I’) see it a bit differently, but similar. I don’t see pain, pleasure, anxiety, and sufferings, that are felt in the body, as being the ‘I’. Those feelings appear to be the biological “responses” of the human body. And of course, these bodily reactions can be triggered by thought involving a self-image, or ‘I’. And it’s not fundamentally separate. But the I-image, and the response of the body are different. But I do see that all psychological thought stored in the brain in the form of “my” thought as making up the ‘I’. Like: “my memory, my experience, my beliefs, my ideas, my conclusions, etc., etc.” The self/world image includes all of these psychological assumptions.

Yup. Pain,sufferings are all feelings and also felt by physical causes. And also this memory,knowledge and experience is analysed in form of thought and label it as ‘my’ and forms a belief,idea,etc… But what do you mean by psychological thought? Is there any other thought is there? - If you say ‘awareness/consciousness/intelligence’, it can’t be - because it is not limited.

@Howard

**Hello Viswa - Well, whether it’s “natural” or not, it’s still incoherent thought. Using this “logic,” or “conditioned analysis,” we could also say “killing is natural,” as this also began with our ancestors. Does being “natural” make it sane or intelligent?

‘Natural’ is sane psychologically. Only we humans can see it.

@Howard

We can imagine our consciousness is separate, but that ‘idea’ doesn’t actually separate anything. We all get the similar conditioning patterns that include the belief in a divisive identity. The general structure of the conditioning is basically the same, “me and other.”

Yes - if we make an ‘idea of oneness’, then we are out from ‘observation’.

So, we can see this ‘I’ and all it’s effects right? - But in this very ‘observation’ are we actually,practically,absolutely free from ‘I’ in our daily life? Are we choice-lessly aware every moment? Because ‘ending’ is not ‘in time’ but ‘instant’ right?

If we are not free - whether our ‘seeing’ is not clear/fresh ?