Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
Insights | moderated by Dappling Light (account deleted)

Is insight only for selected few?

Closed_forum

Displaying posts 61 - 90 of 96 in total
Sun, 12 Jul 2009 #61
Thumb_avatar alan haynes United Kingdom 3 posts in this forum Offline

Is there anyone here for whom experiencing is not just conjecture?

Back to Top
Sun, 12 Jul 2009 #62
Thumb_avatar rajaratnam retnajothy Canada 95 posts in this forum Offline

So what is isight?We see any action from thought is not insight.Will we be aware when there is insight?.If "I' is there then it cannot be an insight.Then is insight unknown?

jothi

Back to Top
Mon, 13 Jul 2009 #63
Thumb_stringio nick carter United States 211 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

alan haynes wrote:

Is there anyone here for whom experiencing is not just conjecture?


I could pretend to be someone "for whom experiencing is not just conjecture" and I might be able to fool you for quite a while. I could be fooling myself and doing such a good job of it that others believe I'm the real McCoy, so what are you really looking for? Ostensibly, K was the real thing, but since the real thing is not real for you, who can say what's real? How're you gonna find out?

Back to Top
Mon, 13 Jul 2009 #64
Thumb_avatar Manoj SachDeva India 24 posts in this forum Offline

max greene wrote:
The brain can remember (think) and it can see something (observe). Almost all of our time is spent thinking--remembering and repeating. Even our "observation," even as we look, is shaded and distorted by the images of the observed that we bring up as thought.

Exactly. The brain can perceive the present... and... it can bring in the past data from memory...

When I attend to the reality of present as it is, uncolored by memory - the action is intelligent. Considering the example of driving, perception of the reality of the path happens to be intelligent maneuvering. When the thoughts of yesterday occupy you - there is more likelyhood of unpleasant consequences and accidents.

So, obviously, perception is the tool to attend the present and intrusion of memory corrupts the perception.

Seeing the mis-placed operation of thoughts as habitual, mechanical and inappropriate in dealing with the present challenge is the function of impersonal field of awareness that is not separate from awareness itself. In the same field there is awareness of "self" in pursuit of liberation from itself. It is seen for what it is -- movement of becoming, the illusion that gives life to 'self'.

Thought is important because we have created the Self, the psychological "I." Most of our thinking is centered around this "I," on its preservation and enhancement. After all, we think of this construct as a reality--it is ourself. If the psychological "I" is fully understood for what it is, thought and the process of thinking take their rightful place in the brain's functioning. Then, when we see something, come across something, we have no axe to grind and we can truly see it, understand it, when we observe.>

Why is this? Why does thought seem to crowd out everything? It is because thought is important to us. If we didn't feel that thought was necessary and important, we wouldn't spend most of our time thinking--that's the natural way we operate.>

As this question appears in the mind, there is a wordless sense of wonderment as to who is trying to analyze this? Is the analyzer has any separate existence other than the process of analysis? Is this ''psychological I'' chasing and acquiring "self knowledge''?

What difference will it make once it knows that it is the creation of the insecurity that is built into the thinking function of the brain? What if it comes to know that there was no "üs" to create this center? That "I" and "this center" are synonymous and are in business due to the psychological time, that is built into its clinging to the past as memories and soaring into the future as fear and hope?

I Am Not This!

Back to Top
Mon, 13 Jul 2009 #65
Thumb_avatar Manoj SachDeva India 24 posts in this forum Offline

mike christani wrote:

Do you feel that, Manoj? Just asking...


Does it make a difference, Mike?

I Am Not This!

Back to Top
Mon, 13 Jul 2009 #66
Thumb_copy_of_image0065 Ramesh G India 40 posts in this forum Offline

Manoj SachDeva wrote:

mike christani wrote:

Do you feel that, Manoj? Just asking...

Does it make a difference, Mike?

A brilliant challenge and a brilliant response.

Manoj, Mike, Is it difficult to build a relationship based on affection and trust? Please don't consider this as a challenge. I'm just asking because it can resolve a lot of our issues.

Freedom from the known is Attention in the Unknown: Krishnamurti J

Back to Top
Mon, 13 Jul 2009 #67
Thumb_avatar Manoj SachDeva India 24 posts in this forum Offline

Ramesh G wrote:
Manoj, Mike, Is it difficult to build a relationship based on affection and trust? Please don't consider this as a challenge. I'm just asking because it can resolve a lot of our issues.

Yes, Ramesh... it is the resolution or the conflict inside that reflects in our issues. Isn't it?

I Am Not This!

Back to Top
Mon, 13 Jul 2009 #68
Thumb_copy_of_image0065 Ramesh G India 40 posts in this forum Offline

Manoj SachDeva wrote:
Yes, Ramesh... it is the resolution or the conflict inside that reflects in our issues. Isn't it?

Yes, Manoj. K talks so much about relationship. The paradox, it seems to me, is K readers lack the art of basic relationship. Maybe it's how a new generation will evolve... signs of birth pangs? So how can we come together retaining our freedom? Part of the teachings will interest the rebel within us and can even give us the feeling we have understood. But the other part which deals with relationship is difficult as it involves staying with what is in the real sense, and expressing consideration, sympathy, being slow to anger etc...

Can we tell Rajaratnam that Insight is not an isolated issue but tied deeply to our relationships?

Freedom from the known is Attention in the Unknown: Krishnamurti J

Back to Top
Mon, 13 Jul 2009 #69
Thumb_avatar Manoj SachDeva India 24 posts in this forum Offline

Of course, Ramesh..

insight is not the subject to be probed... when we are struggling to relate even with our most intimate ones...

Life is.. relationship... and these are the problems of relationship... the probing into that... without any hangovers/presumptions... not knowing, tentatively will open the doors for unknown insight to show us the way..

I Am Not This!

Back to Top
Thu, 03 Sep 2009 #70
Thumb_stringio nick carter United States 211 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

We interrupt this dialogue to bring you the following message:

The mind as we know it is a mechanical maw. It must know, it must find out, it must gather the information that concerns it and arrive at something that leads to the next thing. This is the way it works and there's nothing wrong with it. What is wrong is that it is everything; that there is no other mode of conciousness, no other state of existence, no other. What is wrong is that the brain has been conditioned to give total authority to the mechanical maw and short shrift to anything that can't be explained away. The mechanical maw is in charge and we are its charges.

This post was last updated by nick carter (account deleted) Thu, 03 Sep 2009.

Back to Top
Thu, 03 Sep 2009 #71
Thumb_avatar Hermann Janzen Canada 120 posts in this forum Offline

"that there is no other mode of conciousness"

Hi Nick, you're probablly right about this, unless one were to consider the possibility of not reacting. Then presumably consciousness wouldn't be operating. Out of this state a different form of energy might emerge, not subject to our conditioning, but still capable of incorporating factual knowledge.

Back to Top
Thu, 03 Sep 2009 #72
Thumb_stringio nick carter United States 211 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Sure, but why wouldn't you react? The fact is that we do react, that we are reactive mechanisms, and talking about not reacting is idle speculation. Not that we shouldn't speculate...

Back to Top
Thu, 03 Sep 2009 #73
Thumb_avatar Hermann Janzen Canada 120 posts in this forum Offline

But consider that k never tires of telling us that any response from the ego is the wrong response because it only strengthens the ego, so he must have considered non-reaction possible, even though he also expressed doubt that anyone had really got it.

Back to Top
Thu, 03 Sep 2009 #74
Thumb_stringio nick carter United States 211 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

What exactly is "the ego"?

This post was last updated by nick carter (account deleted) Thu, 03 Sep 2009.

Back to Top
Thu, 03 Sep 2009 #75
Thumb_avatar Hermann Janzen Canada 120 posts in this forum Offline

The easiest definition may be that it is my portion of human consciousness. Our egos may differ in many particulars, but its function in our lives is probably very similar. The aspect that interests us here is the question whether the ego can repair itself, and k's answer seems to be negative. But he does seem to allow that he ego has the power to monitor its reactions including the possibility of not reacting. That also seems to imply that the ego is capable of being serious and rejecting the frivolous. A negative capability perhaps.

Back to Top
Fri, 04 Sep 2009 #76
Thumb_stringio nick carter United States 211 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Thanks for trying, but it still is not clear to me just what the ego is. If it was clear, if I could isolate this thing called "ego", then maybe something would happen. But I suspect that I am the ego and that nothing matters more to me than my continuity. So, I'm either totally corrupt (in that nothing matters more to me than me), or that I'm the heart and soul of humanity, fighting to the bitter end for its noble, self-sacrificing, principled, moral-ethical, continuity.

K would say the ego is the culprit, but the ego would say that since K didn't have an ego, he couldn't possibly know what a grand and noble thing it is.

Back to Top
Fri, 04 Sep 2009 #77
Thumb_avatar Hermann Janzen Canada 120 posts in this forum Offline

I can't see why the ego can't be both, obsessed with its continuity and also representative of the whole of humanity. And as for k getting rid of his ego, the only way he could have succeeded in doing so would be by allowing nothing to come between him and his self.

This post was last updated by Hermann Janzen Sat, 05 Sep 2009.

Back to Top
Fri, 04 Sep 2009 #78
Thumb_stringio nick carter United States 211 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Again, I can only imagine what the ego is. I can't see it because I am it, right? So what can I say about it that isn't just more, me, me, me?

Back to Top
Sat, 05 Sep 2009 #79
Thumb_avatar Hermann Janzen Canada 120 posts in this forum Offline

You can look at your thoughts, you can look at your behavior, you can look ar your reactions. The ego subsists - it seems to me - in the distance between the observer and the observed.

Back to Top
Sat, 05 Sep 2009 #80
Thumb_stringio nick carter United States 211 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

I'm not aware of any distance between the observer and the observed. I'm not even aware of any difference between the two. I'm not even sure what the words mean anymore.

This post was last updated by nick carter (account deleted) Thu, 24 Sep 2009.

Back to Top
Sat, 05 Sep 2009 #81
Thumb_avatar Hermann Janzen Canada 120 posts in this forum Offline

You say you're not aware of any difference, so then you're not aware of the ego. For the observer - or the ego - subsists in that assumed difference. If you see that there is no observer, there is then no ego.

Back to Top
Sat, 05 Sep 2009 #82
Thumb_stringio nick carter United States 211 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

All this "observer/observed" stuff is lost on me. The word "ego" draws a similar blank.

This post was last updated by nick carter (account deleted) Sun, 06 Sep 2009.

Back to Top
Thu, 24 Sep 2009 #83
Thumb_february_26-_birthday_pics_and_ebay_001 Greg Van Tongeren United States 47 posts in this forum Offline

You say you're not aware of any difference, so then you're not aware of the ego. For the observer - or the ego - subsists in that assumed difference. If you see that there is no observer, there is then no ego.

gv: where consciousness is identified with the object, there is no freedom to observe. In that identified state of absorption in the object, there is no sense of division between observer and observed. That identification is not what is pointed to in saying the observer is the observed.

Where consciousness is identified inwardly with content that is the background of experience so there is a division between what is in here looking at what is out there, there is a perception of a space between observer and observed. K at times called that dualistic consciousness.

In a moment of complete attention and stillness, the limited space between observer and observed is not present in perception. There is observation without the observer. This observation is from a dimension that has unlimited space. The known as memory is not "centering" as the observer. Rather it is quiet/still and therefore not interfering with perception.

The benediction is where you are

Back to Top
Thu, 08 Oct 2009 #84
Thumb_avatar Ben Dasher United States 4 posts in this forum Offline

"Does everyone has insight and only many do not understand it or only a few who see the truth have it?The other question is the insight is only for the egoless being?I feel there can be no answer to this and one has to see it for himself.Can we discuss about this?"

Well lets not start from any assumptions, like for instance that there is an egoless being or a state called "insight".

Now, if you look at human history, or the daily news, you could guess that if there were many people with any kind of intelligence that the world would be a hell of a lot different.

If you know what you are and how you work, then you will certainly be a lot better off. I am sure you are aware that your body is part of life, that biological thing. It crawls around looking for food and water and air, a mate, and it runs from temperature extremes and discomfort.

That body is host to a mind too, It is host to you, they are one in the same. Your mind is thinking. It has to keep active to exist, it has to keep thinking, so it keeps searches and becomings going all the time. It is afraid that if it stops this it will dissapear and never come back!

So you have to start practicing knowing yourself, moving towards self-knowledge. The more you remember this, the more you practice this, the more you do it, the better you get at it.

One day you are so good at it that from waking to sleep you see why you have every thought that day. Even in your dreams at night you are aware of your silly mind and that it is just doing that because it can and it does not mean anything outside itself.

You may stop dreaming so much, but if you do dream, you know it means no more than a thought during the day, just that old mind treading water, and that is okay, because you know what it is doing and it does not interfere with your living.

Once you know yourself, and are comfortable, you might not think about so many things, you will probably just have one or two long thoughts in the time you used to have a hundred.

And those thoughts will be useful tools to help your body, and your family and friends bodies, to get what they need to be comfortable. When that thought has done it's job, it will be put away until it is needed again, and the next useful thought will be brought out.

So, thinking is not really bad if you do it that way. The ego is not bad for life as long as it is knows what it is for, used when it is useful and put on the side when it is not needed at the moment.

It feels good and natural to have your thinking helping life along instead of stalling it.

Maybe you can start by thinking how nothing you think exists outside your skull? The thought may be like something out there, but it is not it, and if you believe it is, then you will keep bumping your head on cupboards.....

Back to Top
Sat, 10 Oct 2009 #85
Thumb_tampura ganesan balachandran India 69 posts in this forum Offline

One who looked did not see speech, and another who listens does not hear it.It reveals itself to some one as a loving wife, beautifully dressed reveals her beauty to her husband..

gb

We are watching, not waiting, not expecting anything to happen but watching without end. JK

This post was last updated by ganesan balachandran Thu, 15 Oct 2009.

Back to Top
Mon, 12 Oct 2009 #86
Thumb_deleted_user_med Dappling Light India 99 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Insight is for everyone who is open to recieve it.

There is a certain beauty associated with conditioning.

Back to Top
Tue, 13 Oct 2009 #87
Thumb_henry Thérèse Doyle Okamoto United States 61 posts in this forum Offline

jdSalinger says that people hardly ever even use their egos and that if they were really acting out of ego then they would only be doing one or two things with their lives, and this sounds right to me, what passes for ego is usually something much less fulfilling

Health care is everyone's job, not just in treating illness but in promoting healthy living. We must take personal responsibility, engaging our minds and hands in meaningful work - all essential components of healthy, secure lifestyles and communities.

Back to Top
Thu, 15 Oct 2009 #88
Thumb_tampura ganesan balachandran India 69 posts in this forum Offline

Dappling Light wrote:
Insight is for everyone
who is open to recieve it.

Friends have eyes and ears, but their flashes of insight are not equal. Some are like ponds that reach only to the mouth or shoulder; others are like ponds that one could bathe in.
gb

We are watching, not waiting, not expecting anything to happen but watching without end. JK

This post was last updated by ganesan balachandran Thu, 15 Oct 2009.

Back to Top
Sat, 17 Oct 2009 #89
Thumb_avatar Gokul Gopisetti India 5 posts in this forum Offline

Doesn't insight involve asking the right question? The answer is in the question. If Newton had to ask, what fell? The answer is apple. Instead he asked why that which fell fall at all? And we know that he had an insight into gravitation. And Einstein had further insight into gravitation. So is the question the root of insight. The seed that holds all the energy required for observation. Observation doesn't guarantee discovery but there can be no discovery or insight without observation.

Back to Top
Sun, 25 Oct 2009 #90
Thumb_stringio RICK LEIN United States 36 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Patricia Hemingway wrote:
Seems to be that thought really believes that if only it can describe 'insight' it can control it, fake it and own it.

Whereas in fact - insight cannot even be invited.

Hi Pat, your statement is beautiful in it,s simplicity. Insight can not be cultivated.

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

Back to Top
Displaying posts 61 - 90 of 96 in total
To quote a portion of this post in your reply, first select the text and then click this "Quote" link.

(N.B. Be sure to insert an empty line between the quoted text and your reply.)