"Reality" is founded on Thought and Consciousness, not Matter.

Originally posted by NorEaster What it indicates is that conscious thought (consciousness) is the result of the brain's activity, and that suggests that matter creates consciousness.

Or, even more accurately, "matter creates consciousness which creates matter in order that matter can create a consciousness which is aware that consciousness creates matter creates consciousness creates matter". In other words, time goes backwards and forwards at the same time. (These words are merely following the neurological template of the 'movement' of self-reflection.)

In other words, what you are providing here is an explanation of the issue from the perspective of the consciousness of the 'thinker'; a consciousness which depends upon the continuity of time only in a forward direction and perpetuates duality and dualistic concepts such as cause and effect (or results). In other words, simply eliminating the concept of time altogether, it can also be said that there is no "creation" of consciousness by the brain; rather these things exist within the same 'space' and at the same 'time'.

This aligns with the notion that consciousness is a form of information,

Agreed.

with information as the result of activity (something occurs and the fact emerges that it is occurring, occurred, once occurred), the brain's thinking, reacting, emoting being the activity that's being represented by the heavily textured information that we call consciousness.

ONLY from the frame of reference of the consciousness of the 'thinker'. In other words, there is no "result of activity" and there is no "thinking". There is only thought. Thought and time being simultaneous. Observation being prior and outside of thought.

The researcher sees one indication from this test result, but it also indicates other possibilities that have nothing to do with "free will" or whatever they were focusing on.

The researcher is a 'scientist of consciousness'. He or she is attempting to validate the reality of, exclusively, the consciousness of the 'thinker' as the 'inertial frame of reference' for the description of all of human consciousness. (But poetry and the lyrics of songs are not written by the 'thinker'; neither is music written, nor art created, nor choreography created, nor sports performed by any 'thinker'. Neither is it possible for the 'thinker' to ever 'fall in love' or become psychotic; all of these things being experienced by a consciousness of a "self" rather than a 'thinker'.) But that description is based upon both the concept of time and the assumption that the consciousness of the 'thinker' is, in fact, the ONLY dimension of consciousness.

This is simply incorrect.

Mi cha el

Originally posted by RRokkyy Ramana was saying J.Krishnamurti was not Realized.

I see a number of problems with this statement:

1) It consists of a thought of a "self" more than a thought of a 'thinker'; and, as such, it deals directly with the duality. In other words, a person is either "Realized" or "not Realized". And, if they are "not Realized", the implication is that their teaching should be ignored, that they have nothing of value to say, or that they do not have any knowledge at all. And, on the other hand, if they are "Realized", their words should be accepted even if not understood; and, if a student does not understand that person, they must be given the 'benefit of the doubt' because, of course, they are "Realized" and the student is "not Realized". This is the simple-minded approach of the "self"; or what Genesis refers to as the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil".

2) Why would a person who is "Realized"--not saying that there IS any such thing as "Realization"--deal in such dualities in the first place? If there is a disagreement in terms of the teaching, why not specify what those disagreements are--with respect to the consciousness of either the 'thinker' or the "observing consciousness" or the "self"--rather than simply standing back and, in effect, saying something equivalent to "crazy" or "deluded" or whatever? Or why any attempt at all to divert attention from the teaching to any particular teacher; unless, of course, the intention is to acquire followers for the teacher rather than an understanding of consciousness?

In other words, the Eastern perspective--which, to a large extent, focuses on WHO is "Realized" or not--in effect, resulting in the worship of the "self" as the source of Absolute Truth, rather than whether there is any such thing as "Realization" in the first place; is not all that better than the Western perspective which focuses on the preservation of the scientific PARADIGM in the description of consciousness--in effect, resulting in the worship of the 'thinker' as the source of Absolute Truth.

Mi cha el

reply to post by Michael Cecil


Hi, thanks for your replies. I tried to respond to them yesterday but after two attempts, put it off as they somehow didn’t say want I wanted to say, or rather, became too long winded and unsatisfactory. Anyway this post is getting posted, satisfactory or not.
I see that you disagree with Krishnamurti, well at least with regard to his contention that thought gives rise to duality. And of course you are correct in this, it cannot be other than you have stated. I know this because I have had the direct experience of detachment. This detachment or observation of thought preceded or facilitated the movement of consciousness from thought to self. although this movement or ‘shift’ seemed more like an approach from self to consciousness, if you know what I mean. This happened almost two years ago and it took me a week to get over it. In the sense that the immersion in self for me was so overpowering and overwhelming that I couldn’t think about it without breaking out in tears. I posted an account of this on ATS, and yet I missed out the important precursor of detachment. I was too concerned I think with the profoundness and power of this immersion in self. I could expand on this experience i.e. the detachment from thought but if you too have experienced this then it may not be required. Let me ask you this, how can one avoid the total immersion in self? I also think that the subject matter, that is, what it is that thought is thinking about is relevant perhaps. To give you an idea of this and it may be ‘wrong’ I can’t say. I later I got to thinking about the idea of a ‘koan’ and how it, by its very nature can enable detachment to take place. It is an incongruous statement or question that thought cannot answer and thought ends up going round in a circle and being ‘caught’ or ‘trapped’ in a sense…those words aren’t quite right, but maybe they will suffice for the moment. I once asked Buddhist about this but he seemed to think it was really a metaphor rather than a device. Anyway I’m wandering here…
Also, I have only ever spoken about this, out here in the real world, i.e. not online, to one other person and that was a year later. It was only then that I realised that I had missed out the most important part. I did attempt to speak of this to a relative the following morning but my eyes welled up, and I had to sit down. All I could say was ''something has happened to me. I'm sure everyone thought I was having some sort of breakdown.
So my questions are…how does one avoid the immersion in self once detachment from thought has taken place? And can one live like this in a detached state? Also the idea that the two become one, what does this mean in the real sense? That is in day to day living.
Lastly, I have no interests in ‘koans’ or suchlike, it just got me thinking that it could go some way towards explaining what had happened to me.

Regards Midicon.

This is one of the most beautifully crafted, well articulated posts involving the universal consciousness, self consciousness, and how they all mend together as what you explain as "The Consciousness of One / Universe of One".

Honestly, I cannot thank you enough for writing this post. S&F + bookmarked. You have a beautiful gift, and what you wrote hit home with me, and I'm sure many others among this forum. I really, really understood it.

Thank you, OP.

Originally posted by midicon I see that you disagree with Krishnamurti, well at least with regard to his contention that thought gives rise to duality. And of course you are correct in this, it cannot be other than you have stated. I know this because I have had the direct experience of detachment.

Well, as I see it, there are two different detachments here: 1) a detachment from the thoughts and the thought of the 'thinker'; and, 2) a detachment from the seductive, but necessarily self-reflective experiences of the "self".

In the Revelation of John there is reference to the "self" emerging (or being observed by the "observing consciousness") 'like a beast out of the sea'; whereas the 'thinker' emerges like a 'beast out of the land'.

This detachment or observation of thought preceded or facilitated the movement of consciousness from thought to self. although this movement or ‘shift’ seemed more like an approach from self to consciousness, if you know what I mean. This happened almost two years ago and it took me a week to get over it. In the sense that the immersion in self for me was so overpowering and overwhelming that I couldn’t think about it without breaking out in tears.

All of this is, of course, a quite seductive experience. And the bliss of that experience is taken as evidence that it is some Absolute Truth. But, nevertheless, that experience is a self-reflective experience which is then reflected UPON.

I posted an account of this on ATS, and yet I missed out the important precursor of detachment. I was too concerned I think with the profoundness and power of this immersion in self. I could expand on this experience i.e. the detachment from thought but if you too have experienced this then it may not be required. Let me ask you this, how can one avoid the total immersion in self?

Well, this, of course, is the issue. And that can come about only with the knowledge that, no matter how intense is that immersion into the "bliss" of that kind of consciousness--and, on the very edge of that "bliss", there is a stark and horrifying terror--that is still a consequence of the duality originating in self-reflection.

It is an intensely pleasurable duality; but it is STILL a duality: the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil".

All I could say was ''something has happened to me. I'm sure everyone thought I was having some sort of breakdown.

The experience is prolly absolutely incommensurable to someone who has not had it.

But you were having a breakdown of the consciousness of the 'thinker'. What you experienced was another dimension of consciousness; but still a dualistic dimension of consciousness.

So my questions are…how does one avoid the immersion in self once detachment from thought has taken place?

Detachment from the "self" occurs with the understanding that it is still a duality; although a seductive duality.

And can one live like this in a detached state?

Of course not.

And that has to be said:

OF COURSE NOT.

For human relationships, I have a consciousness of a "self". I do not want to be detached from that consciousness. That is the consciousness with which I love other people. This is also the consciousness for enjoying music and poetry, and watching the dances choreographed by Michael Flatley, and for jogging; which I also enjoy.

With regards to the performance of my responsibilities in a technologically advanced society, I have a consciousness of a 'thinker' which I also do not want to be detached from.

And, for writing on this thread, I use words and observations from another dimension of consciousness beyond the "self" and the 'thinker' altogether.

All three dimensions of consciousness are necessary for life, as I see it.

Also the idea that the two become one, what does this mean in the real sense?

Can any words ever cover this at all?

Not to my knowledge.

And what would be the point?

Can two people exist simultaneously within a 2-dimensional 'flat' space?

Yes and no. In other words, "Words don't go there".

it could go some way towards explaining what had happened to me.

Words merely help in further dualizing an experience, which is why, as a general rule, I avoid explaining or describing those experiences in any detail; but concentrate, instead, on the Knowledge conveyed by such experiences.

Mi cha el

Originally posted by Michael Cecil

Originally posted by RRokkyy Ramana was saying J.Krishnamurti was not Realized.

In other words, the Eastern perspective--which, to a large extent, focuses on WHO is "Realized" or not--in effect, resulting in the worship of the "self" as the source of Absolute Truth, rather than whether there is any such thing as "Realization" in the first place; is not all that better than the Western perspective which focuses on the preservation of the scientific PARADIGM in the description of consciousness--in effect, resulting in the worship of the 'thinker' as the source of Absolute Truth.

Mi cha el

You have your paradigm which you are comfortable with your
egoic self.
The purpose of worship is to become One with Object of Worship.
So it does make a difference what level your Teacher is at. You cant worship a Non Fully Realized Being and gain any benefit.
Furthermore you dont actually believe in a permanent state of nonduality or Enlightenment.

Life is Energy:
The problem I see with the Guru/Disciple relationship is that the disciple can become dependent on the Guru's wisdom, constantly asking for the Guru's opinion of whether he/she is pointed in the "right" direction, never being able to move beyond and actualize that wisdom for him/herself.

The Guru/Disciple relationship once past the beginner stage or total ignorance stage is not about Wisdom in the Form of Words. It takes place on a Level Of SuperPhysics. It is about transmission of spiritual energy. And it is about the Guru Meditating the Disciple. The Guru does the Disciples Meditation for Him. The Guru is to be Worshiped as the Divine Person. It is a Love Relationship.
It is certainly one of the Great Enjoyments of Existence.
Women find the Love aspect easily understandable. Men have difficulty with this and turn the spiritual process into one of concepts and the ascent of subtler states of consciousness.
The Guru is a great advantage to the Devotee. Narcissus the Ego Self rejects the Guru and flees from him. (They refused Jesus),

You still havent provided us with what your practice is. Do you enquire? Do you just sit in silence?
Adi Da has given the world the practice in two words. These two words release the consciousness from the self binding constant seeking it is always engaged in. This makes Adi Das' Teaching Unique.
Yet no one is interested.
Da
Michael:
Well, this, of course, is the issue. And that can come about only with the knowledge that, no matter how intense is that immersion into the "bliss" of that kind of consciousness--and, on the very edge of that "bliss", there is a stark and horrifying terror--that is still a consequence of the duality originating in self-reflection.

It is written in the Upanishads that as soon as an other is noticed there is Fear. The Ego is fear as you describe above.

And that is why human civilization is in the state it is in.

Originally posted by RRokkyy You have your paradigm which you are comfortable with your
egoic self.

It is not any "paradigm" that there are three different states of water: ice, water and steam.

That is not any paradigm.

That is not something that must be believed or adhered to through thought.

I can actually observe ice, water and steam.

Similarly for the three dimensions of consciousness; each of which can be observed.

The purpose of worship is to become One with Object of Worship. So it does make a difference what level your Teacher is at. You cant worship a Non Fully Realized Being and gain any benefit.

None of this will EVER escape the duality. It is nothing more than the worship of a projected "self"; which, in and of itself, is inescapably dualistic.

The Guru/Disciple relationship once past the beginner stage or total ignorance stage is not about Wisdom in the Form of Words. It takes place on a Level Of SuperPhysics. It is about transmission of spiritual energy. And it is about the Guru Meditating the Disciple. The Guru does the Disciples Meditation for Him. The Guru is to be Worshiped as the Divine Person.

Well, as I see it, you are, in reality, circling the drain when it comes to duality. As I said, the Eastern perspective, ultimately, worships the "self" as 'God'.

It is a Love Relationship. It is certainly one of the Great Enjoyments of Existence.

Then it exists at the level of the duality of the "self".

This makes Adi Das' Teaching Unique.

I have lost count of the number of times I have heard this and read this.

Each and every one of these gurus attempting to market their "self" as the only "Realized" "self" on the face of the earth and that all the others are wrong and 'unenlightened'.

I prefer Krishnamurti's take on this. And I don't worship Krishnamurti. Sometimes I agree with him and some times I don't. Or sometimes I observe things that he has not observed.

Yet no one is interested.

No one is interested in learning how to worship the "self" as 'God'???

I beg to differ.

There are millions, tens of millions or hundreds of millions of people who worship the "self" as 'God'.

That is part of the reason why the world is the way that it is.

Michael:
Well, this, of course, is the issue. And that can come about only with the knowledge that, no matter how intense is that immersion into the "bliss" of that kind of consciousness--and, on the very edge of that "bliss", there is a stark and horrifying terror--that is still a consequence of the duality originating in self-reflection.

It is written in the Upanishads that as soon as an other is noticed there is Fear. The Ego is fear as you describe above.

Don't know what you mean by "ego".

There is a "self" and there is a 'thinker'.

And the origin of both the "self" and the 'thinker' is fear and desire.

Mi cha el

reply to post by Revolution-2012


Thanks Revolution. There is quite a lot of excellent dialog and debate going on. I've been busy with work so haven't had the time to engage some of the comments. However, it seems many people support the premise that reality has it's foundations built upon consciousness.

Reality is a very fascinating study, we really should have entire courses on just trying to establish the most accurate model of what that word really means and our relationship with it. Above and beyond just the human lifeform perspective.

Seems like there is just so much more under the hood.

Originally posted by RRokkyy The Guru/Disciple relationship once past the beginner stage or total ignorance stage is not about Wisdom in the Form of Words. It takes place on a Level Of SuperPhysics. It is about transmission of spiritual energy. And it is about the Guru Meditating the Disciple. The Guru does the Disciples Meditation for Him. The Guru is to be Worshiped as the Divine Person. It is a Love Relationship. It is certainly one of the Great Enjoyments of Existence. Women find the Love aspect easily understandable. Men have difficulty with this and turn the spiritual process into one of concepts and the ascent of subtler states of consciousness.The Guru is a great advantage to the Devotee. Narcissus the Ego Self rejects the Guru and flees from him. (They refused Jesus),

Well, with the mention of Jesus, you are now talking about things of which you have no knowledge at all.

If you read the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Mary very carefully, what you will see is that the relationship of Jesus with those apostles was not in any way like what you describe as the relationship between the "guru" and the "disciple". Of course, love is the context in which that relationship occurs; but that love is conveyed by means of the sharing, heart to heart, of the Knowledge Revealed through Revelation. Jesus specifically did NOT allow anyone to worship him--even going so far as to deny that he was a "master" at all. (See Saying # 13 of the Gospel of Thomas.) The relationship is not at all founded on the "self"; but, rather, the knowledge of that third dimension of consciousness; although that relationship does consist of elements of the consciousness of the "self" within the context of that third dimension of consciousness.

But the way in which you describe this seems to indicate that what you are talking about here is what is fairly commonly referred to in Western psychiatry as the "positive transference". And, while something along these lines is helpful in the establishing of that relationship in its initial stages, it is ultimately the consciousness of the "self" which becomes the major stumbling block to the understanding of the knowledge Revealed through Revelation. In other words, even in his relationship with Mary, his favorite apostle, Jesus had a relationship of detachment and distance; as is suggested by the saying "He who is close to me is close to the fire; but he who is far from me is far from the kingdom."

Mi cha el

I'd say close enough but reality is founded on Divine Consciousness as opposed to our consciousness, since the system still encloses our consciousness's. The distinction is that transcendental awareness is unified and that includes all of our consciousness's.

Originally posted by filosophia I'd say close enough but reality is founded on Divine Consciousness as opposed to our consciousness, since the system still encloses our consciousness's. The distinction is that transcendental awareness is unified and that includes all of our consciousness's.

But what, specifically, do you mean by the term "Divine Consciousness"?

Is it a consciousness which can be experienced only by the Creator?

And what, specifically, do you mean by the term "our" consciousness, much less 'consciousnesses'?

My argument is that these things need to be described in detail and differentiated one from the other.

This has been the purpose of my responses on this thread.

Words are very crucial in all of this...

Until, that is, you get to precisely the point that words are no longer helpful at all.

Mi cha el

reply to post by Michael Cecil

Hi Michael,
Thanks again for your patience, I am a fool...and finally I get the point. Your analysis of what I experienced makes perfect sense. Of course I'll now wander off into some other misinterpretation of your observations. Can I ask you... this dimension of consciousnes that is not dual, i,e not of the self or of the thinker. How is observation, knowledge (I'm not sure which term to use here) of this accessed? How have you come to this?

Midicon.

Originally posted by midicon
reply to post by Michael Cecil

 

Hi Michael,
Thanks again for your patience, I am a fool...

Nononononononononono.

Do NOT say this.

The most difficult things to understand are the most obvious. The job description of the 'thinker' is to make things as complicated as it possibly can; and it does not want to be unemployed. Observation of reality fires the consciousness of the 'thinker' from a job which it is incompetent at. It can work on other tasks, but not in the direct observation of reality.

and finally I get the point. Your analysis of what I experienced makes perfect sense.

Let me explain something.

If you have any ability at all to understand what I am saying, you are already, for that period of time, operating in that dimension of consciousness beyond the "self" and the 'thinker'. (This is why the consciousness of the "self" or the 'thinker' typically becomes quite irritated or outraged merely at reading what I write.) The consciousness of the "self" and the 'thinker' have already receded into the background, and that other dimension of consciousness has come to the foreground.

But, secondly, "analysis" is a product of thought. I am not any 'thinker' and I did not "analyze" what you experienced. The knowledge of such things is more immediate, not including thought at all. It is in the realm of observation. It is like looking at a painting by the Dutch artist Vermeer; and focusing at one time on the colors that he uses for shading and light; and another time at the subject or the content of the painting. A 'thinker' cannot do any of that. Art appreciation and observing the reality of human consciousness are, in that regard, quite similar: beyond thought. Sometimes it is troubling to finally understand how utterly useless is the consciousness of the 'thinker' or the 'analyzer' in such situations; and that such a consciousness is not really needed at all to arrive at an understanding of the reality.

Of course I'll now wander off into some other misinterpretation of your observations. Can I ask you... this dimension of consciousnes that is not dual, i,e not of the self or of the thinker. How is observation, knowledge (I'm not sure which term to use here) of this accessed? How have you come to this?

'How I have come to this' is probably the easier question.

I have received two very specific Revelations: The Vision of the "Son of man" (or the "Vision of Knowledge") and the Revelation of the "resurrection", which includes the Revelation of the Memory of Creation and the revelation of the memories of previous lives. So I try to write about at least some of this Knowledge on the forums having to do with conspiracies in religion and predictions and Prophecies. (Generally, the people who write there are not at all amused.)

Now, with regards to "how" it is accessed; you have already done that in what you have understood of my writings. You are standing at a place, in the train station, apart from the consciousness of the "self" and the 'thinker' (which are on the moving train), and observing from that perspective.

There is a 'knack' for doing this which you will have to learn on your own.

In the beginning it is fairly difficult. But it does get easier.

Mi cha el

reply to post by RRokkyy


I think Michael has done a good job in answering your Guru/disciple questions, so I will not add anything further.

As far as my 'practice' goes, there are many things that encompass it and yes one of them is meditation, which is what I think you were hinting at. So here is my meditation practice:

-- I begin with vipassana/mindfulness, focusing entirely on my breathing; this clears away any built up thoughts/stress/worries/emotions...

-- Then I move to kindness/compassion; which will further clear away any chaotic or negative distractions rushing into my mind, and enhance its stability and calmness.

-- From here I return to vipassana to use as a base point or foundation in case too many thoughts/emotions/sensations arise during enquiry, in which case I will clear them away and re-start.

-- Now I begin to enquire into any thought/emotion/sensation that arises, catagorizing it and contemplating on its root of origin, not holding on to it but rather watching it and allowing it to come and go as it pleases, moving from one thought/emotion/sensation to another. If they begin to arise too quickly or build up in bunches then I will return to vipassana and start over.

-- Once a fair amount of thoughts/emotions/sensations have been enquired upon, they usually begin to slow down and then eventually they cease to arise, one by one.

-- When no more thoughts/emotions/sensations are arising I enter into a state of simple awareness which offers insight into a state of mind void of desire and attachment. After experiencing this I can return to enquiry and do so in a more in depth, complex and clearer manner, allowing for a deeper sense of realization.

I am not always able to achieve this, and some days I do not even move passed the second stage of vipassana, but I have noticed that with more and more practice it becomes easier and easier to clear away the distractions and thus delve into deeper enquiry. Hope that helps.



PS.- Here are a few quotes that may help in understanding meditation:

Meditation is the understanding of the whole structure of the ‘me’, the self, the ego, and whether it is possible to be totally free of the self, not seek some super-self. The super-self is still the self. So meditation is something which is not a cultivated, determined, activity. – Jiddu Krishnamurti

Meditation is not mind, and mind cannot create meditation. Meditation is getting out of the mind, becoming a watcher of the mind, witnessing all the stuff that goes through the mind — the desires, imaginations, thoughts, dreams, all that goes on in the mind. You become simply a witness. Slowly slowly, this witnessing becomes stronger, becomes more centered, rooted. And suddenly you understand one thing: that you are one with the witnessing, not with the mind; that the mind is as much outside you as anything else. - Osho

Meditation demands an astonishingly alert mind; meditation is the understanding of the totality of life in which every form of fragmentation has ceased. Meditation is not control of thought, for when thought is controlled it breeds conflict in the mind, but when you understand the structure and origin of thought, which we have already been into, then thought will not interfere. That very understanding of the structure of thinking is its own discipline which is meditation. - Jiddu Krishnamurti

Meditation is to be aware of every thought and of every feeling, never to say it is right or wrong but just to watch it and move with it. In that watching you begin to understand the whole movement of thought and feeling. And out of this awareness comes silence. - Jiddu Krishnamurti

Meditation is one of the greatest arts in life - perhaps the greatest, and one cannot possibly learn it from anybody, that is the beauty of it. - Jiddu Krishnamurti

reply to post by LifeIsEnergy

I see that you have a number of quotations about meditation by J. Krishnamurti.

I always understood those quotations as meaning that meditation can only occur when someone is not meditating.

"Meditation" is one of those words like "enlightenment".

I just can't quite believe in it.

And, from the way you describe it, I know for a fact that it is something utterly beyond my ability.

There is a correspondence within Islam: "Some people pray once a day, or three times a day or five times a day. And there are others who pray even more often. They pray once a day."

Mi cha el

reply to post by Michael Cecil


No, he just regularly stated he disliked the systematic approach to the practice of meditation. He said meditation is not only just sitting down and meditating, but a state of mind one should be in all day, in whatever activity they are doing. Do not say it is something "beyond" you, have you tried it? Without expectations?

The meditator is different from meditation. As long as there is a meditator, there is no meditation. You understand all this? Because the meditator is concerned about himself - how he is progressing, what he is doing, 'I hope I will be better tomorrow', anxiety, in meditation there is no meditator. Once you have seen this, sir, for yourself, the beauty, the depth, the subtleties of it. - Krishnamurti

Meditation is not something that you practise for an hour or ten minutes and the rest of the day do your mischief. Meditation is the whole of life and that is the beauty of meditation, it is not something set aside, it covers and enters into all our activities and to all our thoughts and feelings. So it is not something that you practise or give attention to once a day or three times a day or ten times a day and the rest of the day live a life that is shoddy, neurotic, mischievous, violent - Krishnamurti

If you observe your own mind in what you call meditation, you will see that there is always a division, a contradiction between the thinker and the thought. As long as there is a thinker apart from thought, meditation is merely a ceaseless effort to overcome this contradiction. - Krishnamurti

Meditation must enter into every corner of our life, otherwise don't meditate, it has no meaning. - Krishnamurti

I enjoy Krishnamurti very much, but some of what he says is not always explained in a way that others can understand very easily, thus it must be experienced to realize its full meaning. Do you ever laugh at how he frequently gets frustrated with others and says "Ah! Ah! No! No!...(closes his eyes).... Oh I wonder if they understand?' as if he is talking to himself out loud? He cracks me up sometimes even though he is dead serious.

Originally posted by LifeIsEnergy He said meditation is not only just sitting down and meditating, but a state of mind one should be in all day, in whatever activity they are doing.

Well, I got a problem with that inasmuch as I don't believe in any 'mind'.

And, last I checked, I don't have one of those.

And, as far as I know, you need one of those in order to meditate.

Similarly, I can't have a baby because I don't have one of 'those' either.

Do not say it is something "beyond" you, have you tried it? Without expectations?

Well, now the problem is one of logic.

Those two statements taken together I understand to be a formal contradiction.

In other words, I am stopped even before I start.

I enjoy Krishnamurti very much...

Me too.

He is so endearing he almost makes me forget the mistakes he makes.

Mistakes I consider to be quite serious.

Mi cha el

reply to post by Michael Cecil


It seems you do have a mind and you are using it to think too much, relying more on analytical and "logical" thinking versus actual experience and realization.

Buddhism calls these the Two Truths.

There is the Conventional Truth (Sammuti Sathya), which is an intellectual understanding; being told or reading about what a red ball is and looks like.

Then there is the Absolute Truth (Paramatha Sathya), which is actually experiencing it for yourself; observing the shape, texture, weight, color, size... of the ball as it is in your hands.

Originally posted by LifeIsEnergy
It seems you do have a mind and you are using it to think too much,

So it seems. But that is not the reality.

You, Sir, do not experience my experiences.

You are on the train and you can 'speculate' about my experiences. But you do not experience them.

I have no 'mind'. Trust me. I lost it more than 35 years ago. And I have fought like hell to prevent it from returning ever since.

I do not 'think'. That is my experience. I am aware of thoughts. But it is a matter of knowledge that I do not 'think' those thoughts. And you cannot say otherwise because you are not Omniscient.

relying more on analytical and "logical" thinking versus actual experience and realization.

No idea at all what "realization" is.

To me it is nothing more than another thought which is of no more use to me than the thought of the 'mind'.

Mi cha el