Jump to content
IndiaDivine.org
Sign in to follow this  
Guest guest

Krishnamurti: Consciousness is the Past

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

Raj: Sir, is it possible for a non-mechanistic silence to come?

K: No, no. I am not interested in that. I am asking something entirely

different: this momentum, this conditioning, the whole o consciousness is the

past. It is moving. There is no future consciousness. The whole consciousness is

the past, registered, remembered, stored up as experience, knowledge, fear,

pleasure. That is the whole momentum of the past. And somebody comes along and

says: Listen to what I have to say, can you end that momentum? Otherwise this

momentum, with its fragmentary activity, will go on endlessly.

(Exploration of Insight, 1976)

 

 

Your mind, your consciousness is the past, is it not? The `what you should be'

is the outcome of what you have not done. The future is the projection of the

past, is it not? So our minds are occupied with the past. Our mind is the past,

and you ask, `How am I to be free from the past'? But I who ask that question am

still the past, the I is not different from the mind which is the past. That is

my mind which says, `I want to be free from the past'. That I is part of the

mind - is it not? It is part of thought, is it not? And that thought is the

result of the past.

(Bombay, 1953)

 

 

So we are actually examining, looking at our consciousness, the content of

it - because the content makes up consciousness. You understand? Without the

content there is a totally different thing. The content is our consciousness.

Right? That must be very clear. The content makes up our consciousness. When you

are angry, that's your consciousness. When you are jealous, petty, narrow, all

the rest of it, that makes the total content. So we are looking at the

consciousness of a human being, which is yourself, actually as it is. Right? Now

I said it becomes difficult because to observe for most people implies

observation through the knowledge which you have acquired - right? Is that

clear? I observe you because I know you. That is, I have met you yesterday, and

I have talked to you so there is a memory, and that memory observes you. Right?

That is, there is the observer, who is the past, observing the actual, which is

the present. Right? Do you see this? Am I making it terribly difficult? No?

Good.

(Saanen, 1970)

 

 

K: By asking that question, is that possible? Is it possible to empty, or to

wipe away the whole of the past? The past is the time, the whole of my past, the

whole of the content of my consciousness is the past, which may project the

future, but it still has it roots in the past. Right? Now is it possible to

empty? Really this is a tremendous question, not just an ideological or

intellectual question. Is it psychologically possible not to have the burden of

a thousand yesterdays? The ending of that is the beginning of the new, is the

new.

(Brockwood, 1982)

 

 

What does it mean, the present? Have you ever tried to live in the present, to

deny the past, deny the future and live completely in the present? How can you

deny the past? You cannot scrub it away! The past is of time, your memories,

your experiences, your conditioning, your tendencies, your urges, your

animalistic instincts, intuitions, demands, pursuits - all that is the past. The

whole of the consciousness is the past, the whole of it. And to say, " I will

deny all that and try to live in the present " has no meaning; but if you

understand the process of time, which is the past, all the conditioning, all the

background which flows through the present and forms the future - if you

understand this whole movement of time, then when there is no observer as one

who says, " I must be " or " I must not be " , then only is it possible to live not

in the past, not in the future, not in the " now " . Then you are living in a

totally different dimension which has no relationship to time.

 

(Saanen, 1966)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr wrote:

>

> Raj: Sir, is it possible for a non-mechanistic silence to come?

> K: No, no. I am not interested in that. I am asking something entirely

> different: this momentum, this conditioning, the whole o consciousness is the

> past. It is moving. There is no future consciousness. The whole consciousness

is

> the past, registered, remembered, stored up as experience, knowledge, fear,

> pleasure. That is the whole momentum of the past. And somebody comes along and

> says: Listen to what I have to say, can you end that momentum? Otherwise this

> momentum, with its fragmentary activity, will go on endlessly.

> (Exploration of Insight, 1976)

>

>

> Your mind, your consciousness is the past, is it not? The `what you should be'

> is the outcome of what you have not done. The future is the projection of the

> past, is it not? So our minds are occupied with the past. Our mind is the

past,

> and you ask, `How am I to be free from the past'? But I who ask that question

am

> still the past, the I is not different from the mind which is the past. That

is

> my mind which says, `I want to be free from the past'. That I is part of the

> mind - is it not? It is part of thought, is it not? And that thought is the

> result of the past.

> (Bombay, 1953)

>

>

> So we are actually examining, looking at our consciousness, the content of

> it - because the content makes up consciousness. You understand? Without the

> content there is a totally different thing. The content is our consciousness.

> Right? That must be very clear. The content makes up our consciousness. When

you

> are angry, that's your consciousness. When you are jealous, petty, narrow, all

> the rest of it, that makes the total content. So we are looking at the

> consciousness of a human being, which is yourself, actually as it is. Right?

Now

> I said it becomes difficult because to observe for most people implies

> observation through the knowledge which you have acquired - right? Is that

> clear? I observe you because I know you. That is, I have met you yesterday,

and

> I have talked to you so there is a memory, and that memory observes you.

Right?

> That is, there is the observer, who is the past, observing the actual, which

is

> the present. Right? Do you see this? Am I making it terribly difficult? No?

> Good.

> (Saanen, 1970)

>

>

> K: By asking that question, is that possible? Is it possible to empty, or to

> wipe away the whole of the past? The past is the time, the whole of my past,

the

> whole of the content of my consciousness is the past, which may project the

> future, but it still has it roots in the past. Right? Now is it possible to

> empty? Really this is a tremendous question, not just an ideological or

> intellectual question. Is it psychologically possible not to have the burden

of

> a thousand yesterdays? The ending of that is the beginning of the new, is the

> new.

> (Brockwood, 1982)

>

>

> What does it mean, the present? Have you ever tried to live in the present, to

> deny the past, deny the future and live completely in the present? How can you

> deny the past? You cannot scrub it away! The past is of time, your memories,

> your experiences, your conditioning, your tendencies, your urges, your

> animalistic instincts, intuitions, demands, pursuits - all that is the past.

The

> whole of the consciousness is the past, the whole of it. And to say, " I will

> deny all that and try to live in the present " has no meaning; but if you

> understand the process of time, which is the past, all the conditioning, all

the

> background which flows through the present and forms the future - if you

> understand this whole movement of time, then when there is no observer as one

> who says, " I must be " or " I must not be " , then only is it possible to live

not

> in the past, not in the future, not in the " now " . Then you are living in a

> totally different dimension which has no relationship to time.

>

> (Saanen, 1966)

>

This totally different dimension is the eternal, which is timeless, hence NOW.

NOW knows no time. NOW is the eternal present. All happens in the NOW,

including the past. When thinking of the past... the content of consciousness

as K would say...that thinking is happening in the NOW. NOW is not the past,

rather the thinking of the past happens in the NOW. This is basic Advaita as i

understand it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

So we are actually examining, looking at our consciousness, the content ofit - because the content makes up consciousness. You understand? Without thecontent there is a totally different thing. The content is our consciousness.Right? That must be very clear. The content makes up our consciousness. When youare angry, that's your consciousness. When you are jealous, petty, narrow, allthe rest of it, that makes the total content. So we are looking at theconsciousness of a human being, which is yourself, actually as it is. Right? NowI said it becomes difficult because to observe for most people impliesobservation through the knowledge which you have acquired - right? Is thatclear? I observe you because I know you. That is, I have met you yesterday, andI have talked to you so there is a memory, and that memory observes you. Right?That is, there is the observer, who is the past, observing the actual, which isthe present. Right? Do you see this? Am I making it terribly difficult? No?Good.K - Saanen, 1970)

 

So...what is the nature of the observation that is not from the past, not timebound, not accumulated...that is able to aknowledge change?

-geo-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " <douglasmitch1963

wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr@> wrote:

> >

> >

> > What does it mean, the present? Have you ever tried to live in the present,

to

> > deny the past, deny the future and live completely in the present? How can

you

> > deny the past? You cannot scrub it away! The past is of time, your memories,

> > your experiences, your conditioning, your tendencies, your urges, your

> > animalistic instincts, intuitions, demands, pursuits - all that is the past.

The

> > whole of the consciousness is the past, the whole of it. And to say, " I

will

> > deny all that and try to live in the present " has no meaning; but if you

> > understand the process of time, which is the past, all the conditioning, all

the

> > background which flows through the present and forms the future - if you

> > understand this whole movement of time, then when there is no observer as

one

> > who says, " I must be " or " I must not be " , then only is it possible to live

not

> > in the past, not in the future, not in the " now " . Then you are living in a

> > totally different dimension which has no relationship to time.

> >

> > (Saanen, 1966)

> >

 

 

> This totally different dimension is the eternal, which is timeless, hence NOW.

NOW knows no time. NOW is the eternal present. All happens in the NOW,

including the past. When thinking of the past... the content of consciousness

as K would say...that thinking is happening in the NOW. NOW is not the past,

rather the thinking of the past happens in the NOW. This is basic Advaita as i

understand it.

>

 

 

Douglas,

 

Neuroscience has proven that the brain needs for the creation of consciousness

between 200msecs and 500msecs. Which means when you seem to hear a bang 'now'

then in reality it already has passed and was gone.

 

Therefore the NOW is an illusion we cannot solve or catch with the instrument of

consciousness. Consciousness always is to late and is in any case the past.

 

Therefore also this lovely idea of an erternal now remains just an idea and

nothing else. It is an idea we cannot make true.

 

Werner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

-

wwoehr

Nisargadatta

Wednesday, September 09, 2009 10:27 AM

Re: Krishnamurti: Consciousness is the Past

 

 

Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 "

<douglasmitch1963 wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr@> wrote:

> >

> >

> > What does it mean, the present? Have you ever tried to live in the

> > present, to

> > deny the past, deny the future and live completely in the present? How

> > can you

> > deny the past? You cannot scrub it away! The past is of time, your

> > memories,

> > your experiences, your conditioning, your tendencies, your urges, your

> > animalistic instincts, intuitions, demands, pursuits - all that is the

> > past. The

> > whole of the consciousness is the past, the whole of it. And to say, " I

> > will

> > deny all that and try to live in the present " has no meaning; but if you

> > understand the process of time, which is the past, all the conditioning,

> > all the

> > background which flows through the present and forms the future - if you

> > understand this whole movement of time, then when there is no observer

> > as one

> > who says, " I must be " or " I must not be " , then only is it possible to

> > live not

> > in the past, not in the future, not in the " now " . Then you are living

> > in a

> > totally different dimension which has no relationship to time.

> >

> > (Saanen, 1966)

> >

 

> This totally different dimension is the eternal, which is timeless, hence

> NOW. NOW knows no time. NOW is the eternal present. All happens in the

> NOW, including the past. When thinking of the past... the content of

> consciousness as K would say...that thinking is happening in the NOW. NOW

> is not the past, rather the thinking of the past happens in the NOW. This

> is basic Advaita as i understand it.

>

 

Douglas,

 

Neuroscience has proven that the brain needs for the creation of

consciousness between 200msecs and 500msecs. Which means when you seem to

hear a bang 'now' then in reality it already has passed and was gone.

 

Therefore the NOW is an illusion we cannot solve or catch with the

instrument of consciousness. Consciousness always is to late and is in any

case the past.

 

Therefore also this lovely idea of an erternal now remains just an idea and

nothing else. It is an idea we cannot make true.

 

Werner

 

True. So what is the nature of that which aknowledges change/time?

-geo-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean.

Virus Database (VPS): 090816-0, 17/08/2009

Tested on: 9/9/2009 10:29:35

avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

>

> True. So what is the nature of that which aknowledges change/time?

> -geo-

 

It's just memory, isn't it? There isn't anything separate from memory to

" acknowedge " anything... memory arises of the past, which seems different than

the present, and so it seems something has changed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

-

fewtch

Nisargadatta

Wednesday, September 09, 2009 10:34 AM

Re: Krishnamurti: Consciousness is the Past

 

 

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

>

> True. So what is the nature of that which aknowledges change/time?

> -geo-

 

It's just memory, isn't it? There isn't anything separate from memory to

" acknowedge " anything... memory arises of the past, which seems different

than the present, and so it seems something has changed.

-t-

 

Memory aknowledging memory? Time seeing time? Change looking at change? Is

it?

-geo-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean.

Virus Database (VPS): 090816-0, 17/08/2009

Tested on: 9/9/2009 10:36:10

avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Nisargadatta , " fewtch " <fewtch wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> >

> >

> > True. So what is the nature of that which aknowledges change/time?

> > -geo-

>

> It's just memory, isn't it? There isn't anything separate from memory to

" acknowedge " anything... memory arises of the past, which seems different than

the present, and so it seems something has changed.

>

 

 

Yes Tim,

 

The 'achkowledger' is memeory. Same as consciousness which too is memory.

 

The knower is the known and the known is the past and memory.

 

Werner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

>

> -

> fewtch

> Nisargadatta

> Wednesday, September 09, 2009 10:34 AM

> Re: Krishnamurti: Consciousness is the Past

>

>

> Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> >

> >

> > True. So what is the nature of that which aknowledges change/time?

> > -geo-

>

> It's just memory, isn't it? There isn't anything separate from memory to

> " acknowedge " anything... memory arises of the past, which seems different

> than the present, and so it seems something has changed.

> -t-

>

> Memory aknowledging memory? Time seeing time? Change looking at change? Is

> it?

> -geo-

 

You're trying to locate a " separate observer " that isn't there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

>

> -

> fewtch

> Nisargadatta

> Wednesday, September 09, 2009 10:34 AM

> Re: Krishnamurti: Consciousness is the Past

>

>

> Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> >

> >

> > True. So what is the nature of that which aknowledges change/time?

> > -geo-

>

> It's just memory, isn't it? There isn't anything separate from memory to

> " acknowedge " anything... memory arises of the past, which seems different

> than the present, and so it seems something has changed.

> -t-

>

> Memory aknowledging memory? Time seeing time? Change looking at change? Is

> it?

> -geo-

 

 

Geo,

 

Instead of constantly posting new little 'mental suprises' better stop for a

while your intellectual clowning and answer your questions yourself.

 

Werner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

-

fewtch

Nisargadatta

Wednesday, September 09, 2009 10:44 AM

Re: Krishnamurti: Consciousness is the Past

 

 

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

>

> -

> fewtch

> Nisargadatta

> Wednesday, September 09, 2009 10:34 AM

> Re: Krishnamurti: Consciousness is the Past

>

>

> Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> >

> >

> > True. So what is the nature of that which aknowledges change/time?

> > -geo-

>

> It's just memory, isn't it? There isn't anything separate from memory to

> " acknowedge " anything... memory arises of the past, which seems different

> than the present, and so it seems something has changed.

> -t-

>

> Memory aknowledging memory? Time seeing time? Change looking at change? Is

> it?

> -geo-

 

You're trying to locate a " separate observer " that isn't there.

-t-

 

No I am not. How would you describe the difference between gold and a golden

ring?

Consciousness is a set of golden things.

-geo-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean.

Virus Database (VPS): 090816-0, 17/08/2009

Tested on: 9/9/2009 10:46:16

avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> So we are actually examining, looking at our consciousness, the content of

> it - because the content makes up consciousness. You understand? Without the

> content there is a totally different thing. The content is our consciousness.

> Right? That must be very clear. The content makes up our consciousness. When

you

> are angry, that's your consciousness. When you are jealous, petty, narrow, all

> the rest of it, that makes the total content. So we are looking at the

> consciousness of a human being, which is yourself, actually as it is. Right?

Now

> I said it becomes difficult because to observe for most people implies

> observation through the knowledge which you have acquired - right? Is that

> clear? I observe you because I know you. That is, I have met you yesterday,

and

> I have talked to you so there is a memory, and that memory observes you.

Right?

> That is, there is the observer, who is the past, observing the actual, which

is

> the present. Right? Do you see this? Am I making it terribly difficult? No?

> Good.

> K - Saanen, 1970)

>

> So...what is the nature of the observation that is not from the past, not

timebound, not accumulated...that is able to aknowledge change?

> -geo-

>

 

 

consciousness is about past, future, present....means, it's timebound

 

past, present and future are timebound

 

.....

 

without the time factor....everything (concerning past and future) is done,

already

 

.....

 

the imaginary entity " who " is catched by time....by consciousness.....by

mind......can only see fractions of that whole.......fractions of

him/herself.....fractions of a world......

 

an imaginary entity is made of time...

time is made of an imaginary entity...

 

.......

 

the moment there is " consciousness at rest " ....or... " Now " ....or

" Awareness " ......or " Jesus " .....or " Brahman " .....or.... " timelessness " .....or

" .... " ....etc....etc......

 

.....there is Nothing at all.....there is emptyness.....there is peace.....there

isn't any illusion....any identities....any world......

 

....there is a picture of the whole.......

 

.....there is the door to/from anywhere....

 

.....

 

 

Marc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " <douglasmitch1963

wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr@> wrote:

> >

> > Raj: Sir, is it possible for a non-mechanistic silence to come?

> > K: No, no. I am not interested in that. I am asking something entirely

> > different: this momentum, this conditioning, the whole o consciousness is

the

> > past. It is moving. There is no future consciousness. The whole

consciousness is

> > the past, registered, remembered, stored up as experience, knowledge, fear,

> > pleasure. That is the whole momentum of the past. And somebody comes along

and

> > says: Listen to what I have to say, can you end that momentum? Otherwise

this

> > momentum, with its fragmentary activity, will go on endlessly.

> > (Exploration of Insight, 1976)

> >

> >

> > Your mind, your consciousness is the past, is it not? The `what you should

be'

> > is the outcome of what you have not done. The future is the projection of

the

> > past, is it not? So our minds are occupied with the past. Our mind is the

past,

> > and you ask, `How am I to be free from the past'? But I who ask that

question am

> > still the past, the I is not different from the mind which is the past. That

is

> > my mind which says, `I want to be free from the past'. That I is part of the

> > mind - is it not? It is part of thought, is it not? And that thought is the

> > result of the past.

> > (Bombay, 1953)

> >

> >

> > So we are actually examining, looking at our consciousness, the content of

> > it - because the content makes up consciousness. You understand? Without the

> > content there is a totally different thing. The content is our

consciousness.

> > Right? That must be very clear. The content makes up our consciousness. When

you

> > are angry, that's your consciousness. When you are jealous, petty, narrow,

all

> > the rest of it, that makes the total content. So we are looking at the

> > consciousness of a human being, which is yourself, actually as it is. Right?

Now

> > I said it becomes difficult because to observe for most people implies

> > observation through the knowledge which you have acquired - right? Is that

> > clear? I observe you because I know you. That is, I have met you yesterday,

and

> > I have talked to you so there is a memory, and that memory observes you.

Right?

> > That is, there is the observer, who is the past, observing the actual, which

is

> > the present. Right? Do you see this? Am I making it terribly difficult? No?

> > Good.

> > (Saanen, 1970)

> >

> >

> > K: By asking that question, is that possible? Is it possible to empty, or to

> > wipe away the whole of the past? The past is the time, the whole of my past,

the

> > whole of the content of my consciousness is the past, which may project the

> > future, but it still has it roots in the past. Right? Now is it possible to

> > empty? Really this is a tremendous question, not just an ideological or

> > intellectual question. Is it psychologically possible not to have the burden

of

> > a thousand yesterdays? The ending of that is the beginning of the new, is

the

> > new.

> > (Brockwood, 1982)

> >

> >

> > What does it mean, the present? Have you ever tried to live in the present,

to

> > deny the past, deny the future and live completely in the present? How can

you

> > deny the past? You cannot scrub it away! The past is of time, your memories,

> > your experiences, your conditioning, your tendencies, your urges, your

> > animalistic instincts, intuitions, demands, pursuits - all that is the past.

The

> > whole of the consciousness is the past, the whole of it. And to say, " I

will

> > deny all that and try to live in the present " has no meaning; but if you

> > understand the process of time, which is the past, all the conditioning, all

the

> > background which flows through the present and forms the future - if you

> > understand this whole movement of time, then when there is no observer as

one

> > who says, " I must be " or " I must not be " , then only is it possible to live

not

> > in the past, not in the future, not in the " now " . Then you are living in a

> > totally different dimension which has no relationship to time.

> >

> > (Saanen, 1966)

> >

> This totally different dimension is the eternal, which is timeless, hence NOW.

NOW knows no time. NOW is the eternal present. All happens in the NOW,

including the past. When thinking of the past... the content of consciousness

as K would say...that thinking is happening in the NOW. NOW is not the past,

rather the thinking of the past happens in the NOW. This is basic Advaita as i

understand it.

>

 

 

 

Now drop the now part.

 

 

 

 

toombaru

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " <douglasmitch1963

wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr@> wrote:

> >

> > Raj: Sir, is it possible for a non-mechanistic silence to come?

> > K: No, no. I am not interested in that. I am asking something entirely

> > different: this momentum, this conditioning, the whole o consciousness is

the

> > past. It is moving. There is no future consciousness. The whole

consciousness is

> > the past, registered, remembered, stored up as experience, knowledge, fear,

> > pleasure. That is the whole momentum of the past. And somebody comes along

and

> > says: Listen to what I have to say, can you end that momentum? Otherwise

this

> > momentum, with its fragmentary activity, will go on endlessly.

> > (Exploration of Insight, 1976)

> >

> >

> > Your mind, your consciousness is the past, is it not? The `what you should

be'

> > is the outcome of what you have not done. The future is the projection of

the

> > past, is it not? So our minds are occupied with the past. Our mind is the

past,

> > and you ask, `How am I to be free from the past'? But I who ask that

question am

> > still the past, the I is not different from the mind which is the past. That

is

> > my mind which says, `I want to be free from the past'. That I is part of the

> > mind - is it not? It is part of thought, is it not? And that thought is the

> > result of the past.

> > (Bombay, 1953)

> >

> >

> > So we are actually examining, looking at our consciousness, the content of

> > it - because the content makes up consciousness. You understand? Without the

> > content there is a totally different thing. The content is our

consciousness.

> > Right? That must be very clear. The content makes up our consciousness. When

you

> > are angry, that's your consciousness. When you are jealous, petty, narrow,

all

> > the rest of it, that makes the total content. So we are looking at the

> > consciousness of a human being, which is yourself, actually as it is. Right?

Now

> > I said it becomes difficult because to observe for most people implies

> > observation through the knowledge which you have acquired - right? Is that

> > clear? I observe you because I know you. That is, I have met you yesterday,

and

> > I have talked to you so there is a memory, and that memory observes you.

Right?

> > That is, there is the observer, who is the past, observing the actual, which

is

> > the present. Right? Do you see this? Am I making it terribly difficult? No?

> > Good.

> > (Saanen, 1970)

> >

> >

> > K: By asking that question, is that possible? Is it possible to empty, or to

> > wipe away the whole of the past? The past is the time, the whole of my past,

the

> > whole of the content of my consciousness is the past, which may project the

> > future, but it still has it roots in the past. Right? Now is it possible to

> > empty? Really this is a tremendous question, not just an ideological or

> > intellectual question. Is it psychologically possible not to have the burden

of

> > a thousand yesterdays? The ending of that is the beginning of the new, is

the

> > new.

> > (Brockwood, 1982)

> >

> >

> > What does it mean, the present? Have you ever tried to live in the present,

to

> > deny the past, deny the future and live completely in the present? How can

you

> > deny the past? You cannot scrub it away! The past is of time, your memories,

> > your experiences, your conditioning, your tendencies, your urges, your

> > animalistic instincts, intuitions, demands, pursuits - all that is the past.

The

> > whole of the consciousness is the past, the whole of it. And to say, " I

will

> > deny all that and try to live in the present " has no meaning; but if you

> > understand the process of time, which is the past, all the conditioning, all

the

> > background which flows through the present and forms the future - if you

> > understand this whole movement of time, then when there is no observer as

one

> > who says, " I must be " or " I must not be " , then only is it possible to live

not

> > in the past, not in the future, not in the " now " . Then you are living in a

> > totally different dimension which has no relationship to time.

> >

> > (Saanen, 1966)

> >

> This totally different dimension is the eternal, which is timeless, hence NOW.

NOW knows no time. NOW is the eternal present. All happens in the NOW,

including the past. When thinking of the past... the content of consciousness

as K would say...that thinking is happening in the NOW. NOW is not the past,

rather the thinking of the past happens in the NOW. This is basic Advaita as i

understand it.

>

 

 

 

 

So you think that non-duality can be understood do ya?

 

 

 

 

 

toombaru

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " <douglasmitch1963@>

wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Raj: Sir, is it possible for a non-mechanistic silence to come?

> > > K: No, no. I am not interested in that. I am asking something entirely

> > > different: this momentum, this conditioning, the whole o consciousness is

the

> > > past. It is moving. There is no future consciousness. The whole

consciousness is

> > > the past, registered, remembered, stored up as experience, knowledge,

fear,

> > > pleasure. That is the whole momentum of the past. And somebody comes along

and

> > > says: Listen to what I have to say, can you end that momentum? Otherwise

this

> > > momentum, with its fragmentary activity, will go on endlessly.

> > > (Exploration of Insight, 1976)

> > >

> > >

> > > Your mind, your consciousness is the past, is it not? The `what you should

be'

> > > is the outcome of what you have not done. The future is the projection of

the

> > > past, is it not? So our minds are occupied with the past. Our mind is the

past,

> > > and you ask, `How am I to be free from the past'? But I who ask that

question am

> > > still the past, the I is not different from the mind which is the past.

That is

> > > my mind which says, `I want to be free from the past'. That I is part of

the

> > > mind - is it not? It is part of thought, is it not? And that thought is

the

> > > result of the past.

> > > (Bombay, 1953)

> > >

> > >

> > > So we are actually examining, looking at our consciousness, the content of

> > > it - because the content makes up consciousness. You understand? Without

the

> > > content there is a totally different thing. The content is our

consciousness.

> > > Right? That must be very clear. The content makes up our consciousness.

When you

> > > are angry, that's your consciousness. When you are jealous, petty, narrow,

all

> > > the rest of it, that makes the total content. So we are looking at the

> > > consciousness of a human being, which is yourself, actually as it is.

Right? Now

> > > I said it becomes difficult because to observe for most people implies

> > > observation through the knowledge which you have acquired - right? Is that

> > > clear? I observe you because I know you. That is, I have met you

yesterday, and

> > > I have talked to you so there is a memory, and that memory observes you.

Right?

> > > That is, there is the observer, who is the past, observing the actual,

which is

> > > the present. Right? Do you see this? Am I making it terribly difficult?

No?

> > > Good.

> > > (Saanen, 1970)

> > >

> > >

> > > K: By asking that question, is that possible? Is it possible to empty, or

to

> > > wipe away the whole of the past? The past is the time, the whole of my

past, the

> > > whole of the content of my consciousness is the past, which may project

the

> > > future, but it still has it roots in the past. Right? Now is it possible

to

> > > empty? Really this is a tremendous question, not just an ideological or

> > > intellectual question. Is it psychologically possible not to have the

burden of

> > > a thousand yesterdays? The ending of that is the beginning of the new, is

the

> > > new.

> > > (Brockwood, 1982)

> > >

> > >

> > > What does it mean, the present? Have you ever tried to live in the

present, to

> > > deny the past, deny the future and live completely in the present? How can

you

> > > deny the past? You cannot scrub it away! The past is of time, your

memories,

> > > your experiences, your conditioning, your tendencies, your urges, your

> > > animalistic instincts, intuitions, demands, pursuits - all that is the

past. The

> > > whole of the consciousness is the past, the whole of it. And to say, " I

will

> > > deny all that and try to live in the present " has no meaning; but if you

> > > understand the process of time, which is the past, all the conditioning,

all the

> > > background which flows through the present and forms the future - if you

> > > understand this whole movement of time, then when there is no observer as

one

> > > who says, " I must be " or " I must not be " , then only is it possible to

live not

> > > in the past, not in the future, not in the " now " . Then you are living in

a

> > > totally different dimension which has no relationship to time.

> > >

> > > (Saanen, 1966)

> > >

> > This totally different dimension is the eternal, which is timeless, hence

NOW. NOW knows no time. NOW is the eternal present. All happens in the NOW,

including the past. When thinking of the past... the content of consciousness

as K would say...that thinking is happening in the NOW. NOW is not the past,

rather the thinking of the past happens in the NOW. This is basic Advaita as i

understand it.

> >

>

>

>

> Now drop the now part.

>

>

>

>

> toombaru

 

Your aversion to the term " Now " is really quite bizarre, particularly

considering it's about the simplest and most realistic term around when it comes

to describing 'reality'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " <douglasmitch1963@>

wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr@> wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > > What does it mean, the present? Have you ever tried to live in the

present, to

> > > deny the past, deny the future and live completely in the present? How can

you

> > > deny the past? You cannot scrub it away! The past is of time, your

memories,

> > > your experiences, your conditioning, your tendencies, your urges, your

> > > animalistic instincts, intuitions, demands, pursuits - all that is the

past. The

> > > whole of the consciousness is the past, the whole of it. And to say, " I

will

> > > deny all that and try to live in the present " has no meaning; but if you

> > > understand the process of time, which is the past, all the conditioning,

all the

> > > background which flows through the present and forms the future - if you

> > > understand this whole movement of time, then when there is no observer as

one

> > > who says, " I must be " or " I must not be " , then only is it possible to

live not

> > > in the past, not in the future, not in the " now " . Then you are living in

a

> > > totally different dimension which has no relationship to time.

> > >

> > > (Saanen, 1966)

> > >

>

>

> > This totally different dimension is the eternal, which is timeless, hence

NOW. NOW knows no time. NOW is the eternal present. All happens in the NOW,

including the past. When thinking of the past... the content of consciousness

as K would say...that thinking is happening in the NOW. NOW is not the past,

rather the thinking of the past happens in the NOW. This is basic Advaita as i

understand it.

> >

>

>

> Douglas,

>

> Neuroscience has proven that the brain needs for the creation of consciousness

between 200msecs and 500msecs. Which means when you seem to hear a bang 'now'

then in reality it already has passed and was gone.

>

> Therefore the NOW is an illusion we cannot solve or catch with the instrument

of consciousness. Consciousness always is to late and is in any case the past.

>

> Therefore also this lovely idea of an erternal now remains just an idea and

nothing else. It is an idea we cannot make true.

>

> Werner

>

 

 

 

How about calling it the " eternal-almost-now " ?

 

 

 

:-0

 

 

 

toombaru

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Nisargadatta , " fewtch " <fewtch wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " <douglasmitch1963@>

wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Raj: Sir, is it possible for a non-mechanistic silence to come?

> > > > K: No, no. I am not interested in that. I am asking something entirely

> > > > different: this momentum, this conditioning, the whole o consciousness

is the

> > > > past. It is moving. There is no future consciousness. The whole

consciousness is

> > > > the past, registered, remembered, stored up as experience, knowledge,

fear,

> > > > pleasure. That is the whole momentum of the past. And somebody comes

along and

> > > > says: Listen to what I have to say, can you end that momentum? Otherwise

this

> > > > momentum, with its fragmentary activity, will go on endlessly.

> > > > (Exploration of Insight, 1976)

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Your mind, your consciousness is the past, is it not? The `what you

should be'

> > > > is the outcome of what you have not done. The future is the projection

of the

> > > > past, is it not? So our minds are occupied with the past. Our mind is

the past,

> > > > and you ask, `How am I to be free from the past'? But I who ask that

question am

> > > > still the past, the I is not different from the mind which is the past.

That is

> > > > my mind which says, `I want to be free from the past'. That I is part of

the

> > > > mind - is it not? It is part of thought, is it not? And that thought is

the

> > > > result of the past.

> > > > (Bombay, 1953)

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > So we are actually examining, looking at our consciousness, the content

of

> > > > it - because the content makes up consciousness. You understand? Without

the

> > > > content there is a totally different thing. The content is our

consciousness.

> > > > Right? That must be very clear. The content makes up our consciousness.

When you

> > > > are angry, that's your consciousness. When you are jealous, petty,

narrow, all

> > > > the rest of it, that makes the total content. So we are looking at the

> > > > consciousness of a human being, which is yourself, actually as it is.

Right? Now

> > > > I said it becomes difficult because to observe for most people implies

> > > > observation through the knowledge which you have acquired - right? Is

that

> > > > clear? I observe you because I know you. That is, I have met you

yesterday, and

> > > > I have talked to you so there is a memory, and that memory observes you.

Right?

> > > > That is, there is the observer, who is the past, observing the actual,

which is

> > > > the present. Right? Do you see this? Am I making it terribly difficult?

No?

> > > > Good.

> > > > (Saanen, 1970)

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > K: By asking that question, is that possible? Is it possible to empty,

or to

> > > > wipe away the whole of the past? The past is the time, the whole of my

past, the

> > > > whole of the content of my consciousness is the past, which may project

the

> > > > future, but it still has it roots in the past. Right? Now is it possible

to

> > > > empty? Really this is a tremendous question, not just an ideological or

> > > > intellectual question. Is it psychologically possible not to have the

burden of

> > > > a thousand yesterdays? The ending of that is the beginning of the new,

is the

> > > > new.

> > > > (Brockwood, 1982)

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > What does it mean, the present? Have you ever tried to live in the

present, to

> > > > deny the past, deny the future and live completely in the present? How

can you

> > > > deny the past? You cannot scrub it away! The past is of time, your

memories,

> > > > your experiences, your conditioning, your tendencies, your urges, your

> > > > animalistic instincts, intuitions, demands, pursuits - all that is the

past. The

> > > > whole of the consciousness is the past, the whole of it. And to say, " I

will

> > > > deny all that and try to live in the present " has no meaning; but if you

> > > > understand the process of time, which is the past, all the conditioning,

all the

> > > > background which flows through the present and forms the future - if you

> > > > understand this whole movement of time, then when there is no observer

as one

> > > > who says, " I must be " or " I must not be " , then only is it possible to

live not

> > > > in the past, not in the future, not in the " now " . Then you are living

in a

> > > > totally different dimension which has no relationship to time.

> > > >

> > > > (Saanen, 1966)

> > > >

> > > This totally different dimension is the eternal, which is timeless, hence

NOW. NOW knows no time. NOW is the eternal present. All happens in the NOW,

including the past. When thinking of the past... the content of consciousness

as K would say...that thinking is happening in the NOW. NOW is not the past,

rather the thinking of the past happens in the NOW. This is basic Advaita as i

understand it.

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > Now drop the now part.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > toombaru

>

> Your aversion to the term " Now " is really quite bizarre, particularly

considering it's about the simplest and most realistic term around when it comes

to describing 'reality'.

>

 

 

 

 

 

Show me some now.

 

 

 

 

 

toombaru

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote:

>

>

> Show me some now.

>

>

>

>

>

> toombaru

 

Toom is reading this now. These words are arising in/as/through 'now'. They

are not arising " then " .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 " <douglasmitch1963@>

wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > What does it mean, the present? Have you ever tried to live in the

present, to

> > > > deny the past, deny the future and live completely in the present? How

can you

> > > > deny the past? You cannot scrub it away! The past is of time, your

memories,

> > > > your experiences, your conditioning, your tendencies, your urges, your

> > > > animalistic instincts, intuitions, demands, pursuits - all that is the

past. The

> > > > whole of the consciousness is the past, the whole of it. And to say, " I

will

> > > > deny all that and try to live in the present " has no meaning; but if you

> > > > understand the process of time, which is the past, all the conditioning,

all the

> > > > background which flows through the present and forms the future - if you

> > > > understand this whole movement of time, then when there is no observer

as one

> > > > who says, " I must be " or " I must not be " , then only is it possible to

live not

> > > > in the past, not in the future, not in the " now " . Then you are living

in a

> > > > totally different dimension which has no relationship to time.

> > > >

> > > > (Saanen, 1966)

> > > >

> >

> >

> > > This totally different dimension is the eternal, which is timeless, hence

NOW. NOW knows no time. NOW is the eternal present. All happens in the NOW,

including the past. When thinking of the past... the content of consciousness

as K would say...that thinking is happening in the NOW. NOW is not the past,

rather the thinking of the past happens in the NOW. This is basic Advaita as i

understand it.

> > >

> >

> >

> > Douglas,

> >

> > Neuroscience has proven that the brain needs for the creation of

consciousness between 200msecs and 500msecs. Which means when you seem to hear a

bang 'now' then in reality it already has passed and was gone.

> >

> > Therefore the NOW is an illusion we cannot solve or catch with the

instrument of consciousness. Consciousness always is to late and is in any case

the past.

> >

> > Therefore also this lovely idea of an erternal now remains just an idea and

nothing else. It is an idea we cannot make true.

> >

> > Werner

> >

>

>

>

> How about calling it the " eternal-almost-now " ?

>

>

>

> :-0

>

>

>

> toombaru

>

 

 

Haha, Toomb,

 

I hope I won't forget it again. But I must confess that I am a bit shy to use

that term you suggested.

 

:)

 

Werner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> No. I am asking how would you describe the difference between gold > and a

> golden ring. Are they different or the same?

> -geo-

 

Sorry Geo, I just don't care about gold and golden rings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Geo,Instead of constantly posting new little 'mental suprises' better stop for awhile your intellectual clowning and answer your questions yourself.Werner

 

Your request - as you say - is comming from consciousness, memory, the past, full of prejudices and pre-conceptions. I am not interested.

-geo-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> Geo,

>

> Instead of constantly posting new little 'mental suprises' better stop for a

> while your intellectual clowning and answer your questions yourself.

>

> Werner

>

> Your request - as you say - is comming from consciousness, memory, the past,

full of prejudices and pre-conceptions. I am not interested.

> -geo-

>

 

rejected!

 

lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " fewtch " <fewtch@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " douglasmitch1963 "

<douglasmitch1963@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Nisargadatta , " wwoehr " <wwoehr@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Raj: Sir, is it possible for a non-mechanistic silence to come?

> > > > > K: No, no. I am not interested in that. I am asking something entirely

> > > > > different: this momentum, this conditioning, the whole o consciousness

is the

> > > > > past. It is moving. There is no future consciousness. The whole

consciousness is

> > > > > the past, registered, remembered, stored up as experience, knowledge,

fear,

> > > > > pleasure. That is the whole momentum of the past. And somebody comes

along and

> > > > > says: Listen to what I have to say, can you end that momentum?

Otherwise this

> > > > > momentum, with its fragmentary activity, will go on endlessly.

> > > > > (Exploration of Insight, 1976)

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Your mind, your consciousness is the past, is it not? The `what you

should be'

> > > > > is the outcome of what you have not done. The future is the projection

of the

> > > > > past, is it not? So our minds are occupied with the past. Our mind is

the past,

> > > > > and you ask, `How am I to be free from the past'? But I who ask that

question am

> > > > > still the past, the I is not different from the mind which is the

past. That is

> > > > > my mind which says, `I want to be free from the past'. That I is part

of the

> > > > > mind - is it not? It is part of thought, is it not? And that thought

is the

> > > > > result of the past.

> > > > > (Bombay, 1953)

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > So we are actually examining, looking at our consciousness, the

content of

> > > > > it - because the content makes up consciousness. You understand?

Without the

> > > > > content there is a totally different thing. The content is our

consciousness.

> > > > > Right? That must be very clear. The content makes up our

consciousness. When you

> > > > > are angry, that's your consciousness. When you are jealous, petty,

narrow, all

> > > > > the rest of it, that makes the total content. So we are looking at the

> > > > > consciousness of a human being, which is yourself, actually as it is.

Right? Now

> > > > > I said it becomes difficult because to observe for most people implies

> > > > > observation through the knowledge which you have acquired - right? Is

that

> > > > > clear? I observe you because I know you. That is, I have met you

yesterday, and

> > > > > I have talked to you so there is a memory, and that memory observes

you. Right?

> > > > > That is, there is the observer, who is the past, observing the actual,

which is

> > > > > the present. Right? Do you see this? Am I making it terribly

difficult? No?

> > > > > Good.

> > > > > (Saanen, 1970)

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > K: By asking that question, is that possible? Is it possible to empty,

or to

> > > > > wipe away the whole of the past? The past is the time, the whole of my

past, the

> > > > > whole of the content of my consciousness is the past, which may

project the

> > > > > future, but it still has it roots in the past. Right? Now is it

possible to

> > > > > empty? Really this is a tremendous question, not just an ideological

or

> > > > > intellectual question. Is it psychologically possible not to have the

burden of

> > > > > a thousand yesterdays? The ending of that is the beginning of the new,

is the

> > > > > new.

> > > > > (Brockwood, 1982)

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > What does it mean, the present? Have you ever tried to live in the

present, to

> > > > > deny the past, deny the future and live completely in the present? How

can you

> > > > > deny the past? You cannot scrub it away! The past is of time, your

memories,

> > > > > your experiences, your conditioning, your tendencies, your urges, your

> > > > > animalistic instincts, intuitions, demands, pursuits - all that is the

past. The

> > > > > whole of the consciousness is the past, the whole of it. And to say, "

I will

> > > > > deny all that and try to live in the present " has no meaning; but if

you

> > > > > understand the process of time, which is the past, all the

conditioning, all the

> > > > > background which flows through the present and forms the future - if

you

> > > > > understand this whole movement of time, then when there is no observer

as one

> > > > > who says, " I must be " or " I must not be " , then only is it possible

to live not

> > > > > in the past, not in the future, not in the " now " . Then you are living

in a

> > > > > totally different dimension which has no relationship to time.

> > > > >

> > > > > (Saanen, 1966)

> > > > >

> > > > This totally different dimension is the eternal, which is timeless,

hence NOW. NOW knows no time. NOW is the eternal present. All happens in the

NOW, including the past. When thinking of the past... the content of

consciousness as K would say...that thinking is happening in the NOW. NOW is

not the past, rather the thinking of the past happens in the NOW. This is basic

Advaita as i understand it.

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Now drop the now part.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > toombaru

> >

> > Your aversion to the term " Now " is really quite bizarre, particularly

considering it's about the simplest and most realistic term around when it comes

to describing 'reality'.

> Show me some now.

>

>

>

>

>

> toombaru

>

 

 

what time is it now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Nisargadatta , " fewtch " <fewtch wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote:

> >

> >

> > Show me some now.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > toombaru

>

> Toom is reading this now.

 

 

 

No I'm not....I'm writing this now.....no.....I'm writing something else

now..........hey.............wait a minute..........

 

 

 

 

These words are arising in/as/through 'now'. They are not arising " then " .

>

 

 

 

 

 

 

All time is then.

 

The " almost eternal then " .

 

 

toombaru

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

>

> -

> fewtch

> Nisargadatta

> Wednesday, September 09, 2009 11:45 AM

> Re: Krishnamurti: Consciousness is the Past

>

>

> Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> >

> >

> > -

> > fewtch

> > Nisargadatta

> > Wednesday, September 09, 2009 10:44 AM

> > Re: Krishnamurti: Consciousness is the Past

> >

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > > -

> > > fewtch

> > > Nisargadatta

> > > Wednesday, September 09, 2009 10:34 AM

> > > Re: Krishnamurti: Consciousness is the Past

> > >

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > True. So what is the nature of that which aknowledges change/time?

> > > > -geo-

> > >

> > > It's just memory, isn't it? There isn't anything separate from memory to

> > > " acknowedge " anything... memory arises of the past, which seems

> > > different

> > > than the present, and so it seems something has changed.

> > > -t-

> > >

> > > Memory aknowledging memory? Time seeing time? Change looking at change?

> > > Is

> > > it?

> > > -geo-

> >

> > You're trying to locate a " separate observer " that isn't there.

> > -t-

> >

> > No I am not. How would you describe the difference between gold and a

> > golden

> > ring?

> > Consciousness is a set of golden things.

> > -geo-

>

> Describe/define " consciousness " . I really haven't a clue what you're talking

> about.

> -t-

>

> No. I am asking how would you describe the difference between gold and a

> golden ring. Are they different or the same?

> -geo-

>

>

>

>

 

 

They are samifferent.

 

 

 

toombaru

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...