Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
Question authority | moderated by Randal Shacklett (account deleted)

psychological authority

Closed_forum

Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 44 in total
Sun, 25 Oct 2009 #1
Thumb_deleted_user_med Randal Shacklett United States 263 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

I read in the newsletter that Prof. this, and/or Dr. that, are going to lead a class in what they believe K might have meant about this or that. Complete insanity. This kind of non-sense is why the foundations and information networks exist? No wonder K felt like he wasted his life talking, if this is how his followers understand what he said.

Back to Top
Sun, 25 Oct 2009 #2
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 51 posts in this forum Offline

Randal,

You've picked up an important subject here. Why do we have psychological and religious authorities? We build up authority out of weakness, fear, and ignorance.

Most likely there needs to be someone in charge when we're working. Under strictly mechanical and physical circumstances the need for authority is legitimate, but psychologically, the dependence on authority goes right along with belief and faith-- and the ignorance that both of these imply.

(Nothing new here. K harped on this subject for years. He added one thing to the above: Our leaning upon and dependence on our own inward authority.)

max

This post was last updated by max greene Sun, 25 Oct 2009.

Back to Top
Tue, 27 Oct 2009 #3
Thumb_deleted_user_med Randal Shacklett United States 263 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

I say that you have hit on the heart of the matter. The reliance on our own belief/hope/imagination/opinion/logic mechanism, as ultimate authority. "choice", as it were. Choosing to "like" or "dis-like" a piece of information. Which is the acceptance-rejection lable we give to the same mechanism. Thanks for pointing this out.

Back to Top
Tue, 27 Oct 2009 #4
Thumb_tampura ganesan balachandran India 63 posts in this forum Offline

If any thing exist which is beyond the mind , and not of our self and belief is that an authority?
gb

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

This post was last updated by ganesan balachandran Tue, 27 Oct 2009.

Back to Top
Tue, 27 Oct 2009 #5
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 51 posts in this forum Offline

Ganesan,

Here's a cute answer to your question. Maybe it's a little too flippant: That which is beyond the mind, beyond the Self, beyond beliefs, is . . . you.

You--all of us--are living; we are alive now, in the moment. It cannot be otherwise. Our authority is awareness and intelligence in the moment.

max

Back to Top
Wed, 28 Oct 2009 #6
Thumb_deleted_user_med Randal Shacklett United States 263 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

ganesan balachandran wrote:
is that an authority?

Again, the problem of our reliance on authority, is not the objects we identify. It is our reliance on a faulty fallible mechanism to tell us what is true.

Back to Top
Sat, 31 Oct 2009 #7
Thumb_img001 Sudhir Sharma India 32 posts in this forum Offline

max greene wrote:
That which is beyond the mind, beyond the Self, beyond beliefs, is . . . you.
You--all of us--are living; we are alive now, in the moment. It cannot be otherwise. Our authority is awareness and intelligence in the moment.

Hi Max

What all this'You' include, Sir? The body, our action, desires,pleasures and pain,the self, compassion,love,intelligence etc. are included in this 'You' or not? If yes, then what is this 'beyond' concept of 'You'?

Regards!

FLOW WITH LIFE!

Back to Top
Sat, 31 Oct 2009 #8
Thumb_img001 Sudhir Sharma India 32 posts in this forum Offline

Randal Sir, can one criticise the behaviour of someone without the authority of some pre-fixed standards or concepts or knowledge? Won't such standards, concepts and knowledge become the authority of the one who is criticising the other? How can one communicate one's criticism to other without psychologically making anything one's authority?

Please reply to this with a smile on your face.

Regards !

FLOW WITH LIFE!

Back to Top
Sat, 31 Oct 2009 #9
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 51 posts in this forum Offline

Dr. Sharma,

You wrote, "What all this'You' include, Sir? The body, our action, desires,pleasures and pain,the self, compassion, love, intelligence etc. are included in this 'You' or not? If yes, then what is this 'beyond' concept of 'You'?"

That which is living is you, sir. To be alive, one must be alive now, obviously. But what is now? It is gone before one can say the word. There is nothing in existence except life itself that can be now. All else is passive substance, unable to act on its own in any manner. I say unable to act for the simple reason that action can take place only now, and only that which is alive now can take that action.

The now is always before all else in existence, including the physical organisms. There is obviously a "now" part of us, and I would call this living part "you," and "me." It is the only true definition of "you" and "me." I don't think we want to identify ourselves with the passive physical body!

max

Back to Top
Sun, 01 Nov 2009 #10
Thumb_img001 Sudhir Sharma India 32 posts in this forum Offline

Sir, I will share my understanding with you and would appreciate your comments on that.

there is nothing in existence except life itself that can be now.Next in sequence is the emergence of consciousness of being alive and this can happen only if I have a body. So, I become conscious of having a body.The body has sense organs with which I gather information.The body also has a motor system to perform action.There are deep seated instincts like survival, maternal and sexual instincts that come with the body.

Next the mind comes in the picture with thoughts and feelings.It can feel the needs of the body. Action is performed to fulfill these needs.In addition to these needs, the various desires arise in the mind and we have the functions (thoughts ) of the right and the left brain.The mind has the power to observe(present),power to recall(past) and power to imagine (future).At next higher level will come silence, emptiness, love, intelligence etc.Next,they say, is 'ground' from which everything arise and finally falls in to it.

Sir, are 'life','ground' and 'now' the same entities?
Consciousness of being alive will come after 'now' or is 'in' it?
Can "I" ever become conscious of "You" being alive as a separate entity? Or "I" and"You" are the divisions created by thought?Why do you call body passive?
At what point in the chain, the active life energy becomes passive?

I hope you won't mind clarifying the above queries of mine.

Regards!

FLOW WITH LIFE!

Back to Top
Sun, 01 Nov 2009 #11
Thumb_deleted_user_med Randal Shacklett United States 263 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Dr.sudhir sharma wrote:
Please reply to this with a smile on your face.

But Doc, I always reply to you, with a smile on my face! ;o)

But apparently, you did not read anything I have ever posted here. If your concern, is my words being a form of authority, you have missed the point of our relaince on and slavery to, authority.
The problem with authority, is in you formulating, and then acting on, your opinion.

This post was last updated by Randal Shacklett (account deleted) Mon, 02 Nov 2009.

Back to Top
Mon, 02 Nov 2009 #12
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 51 posts in this forum Offline

Dr. Sharma,

If you don't mind I won't answer in any order. We can always continue if something is still open.

You ask, "Why do you call the body passive?" I say anything is passive that is not alive now and, being alive, is therefore able to act. Is the body alive? It has been created. It is a collection of atoms and molecules just as a stone is formed of atoms and molecules. Anything that has been created is already in the stream of time. Now is before time. To be alive is possible only now. Is this caught-in-time collection of atoms and molecules that we call a body able to act? It appears to me that its seeming ability to act is actually the work of the living being that inhabits, or animates, the body.

You say, "There is nothing in existence except life itself that can be now." All of existence, that which is living and all else observable and presently sensible, is now. If something is, it's going to be here now! But only the living can act and create. All else other than the living is a carry-over from the past. (The pyramids of Egypt are here today, now, but they are from the past.)

Perhaps you are saying that life is actually everything. I'd say the test is whether something can act on its own or create. If it can't, it's not animated or inhabited by living. We would say, "it's not alive."

You pose the question, "Are 'life,' 'ground,' and 'now' the same entities? Now is unknowable and cannot be experienced. We can try it ourselves and quickly find out! But life may be a different matter. We are alive. This is a fact. Can we see and realize this fact? Living is always and only now, and we may not be able to experience now but can we realize what it is to be alive and to live in the now? Not just say, "Oh, of course I'm alive," and then move on to something else.

I don't know about the 'ground.' I've heard the term used, but I'm not familiar with it.

max

This post was last updated by max greene Mon, 02 Nov 2009.

Back to Top
Mon, 02 Nov 2009 #13
Thumb_img001 Sudhir Sharma India 32 posts in this forum Offline

max greene wrote:
You pose the question, "Are 'life,' 'ground,' and 'now' the same entities? Now is unknowable and cannot be experienced. We can try it ourselves and quickly find out! But life may be a different matter. We are alive. This is a fact. Can we see and realize this fact? Living is always and only now, and we may not be able to experience now but can we realize what it is to be alive and to live in the now? Not just say, "Oh, of course I'm alive," and then move on to something else.

Sir, there is something in what you say that I am not able to understand. My understanding so far has been that Now is a dynamic, creative movement with which (or in which) you flow when you are totally alive, totally attentive.This state exists and is not dependant on explanation (words) for showing its existence.

You say that Now is unknowable, it is before anything else and living is always and only Now. Sir, my question is this-Where is the need or what is the reason behind bringing in an unknowable entity Now in to picture?The joy of being alive, of living in the present moment can be tasted.Up to that point all of us have travelled, but what you refer to as Now is dependent on words to show its existence.Why can't we make living movement and Now synonym? Why make this statement that Now is unknowable and before everything else? Or is there any factual basis that will justify the way you are using it?

Regards!

FLOW WITH LIFE!

Back to Top
Mon, 02 Nov 2009 #14
Thumb_img001 Sudhir Sharma India 32 posts in this forum Offline

Randal Shacklett wrote:
you have missed the point of our relaince on and slavery to, authority. The problem with authority, is in you formulating, and then acting on, your opinion.

Randal Sir, we communicate with each other with the help of words and our left brain analyses whatever we read.It is an expert in playing with words and is capable of criticising any and every statement.It can speak for or against any statement that is made or written in psychological field.

What I want to say is that the left brain is only a part of my full brain.It can understand only one aspect of the problem.It is always first to answer verbally about any and everything.My submission is that its initial responses should not be considered the only way to reply to a post or else there will remain only the criticism of each other.In this forum the participants are neither right nor wrong but have different degrees of understanding.Compassion in our replies will go a long way in improving our understanding in matters of life and relationships and add to friendliness and respect .

My sincere regards!

FLOW WITH LIFE!

Back to Top
Mon, 02 Nov 2009 #15
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 51 posts in this forum Offline

Dr. Sharma,

Yes, there is a factual basis for now. It's this: There is living (present tense), and can living be, other than now? Living can "be" neither in the past nor in the future. This is the proof that there is a now.

But what is this "now"? What last nano-second is now? There is always one more. Computers make a trillion computations in a second. I wonder how long it takes light to travel across the diameter of an electron. I've read that scientists consider distances smaller than Planck's constant to be irrelevant--not non-existent, just irrelevant.

Scientists have speculated that the beginning of the universe was a singularity, which they define as an infinitesimal point where the laws of physics do not apply. So here we have a "now" that is also a singularity, defined as a condition before time and sequence apply.

Explanations such as this are always unsatisfactory. They are rationalizing and logic where a far better approach would be insight and understanding. We shouldn't be bogged down in stuff like this, as you say, but here it is.

max

Back to Top
Tue, 03 Nov 2009 #16
Thumb_stringio nick carter United States 2 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

max greene wrote:
There is living (present tense), and can living be, other than now? Living can "be" neither in the past nor in the future. This is the proof that there is a now.

This seems to be the foundation and cornerstone of everything you have to say, but I don't think emphasizing "now" has any meaning. One is alive, living, however one experiences it, and the experience is always now, so it goes without saying. We know what the past is and we know what the future is. What we don't know is whether life has any meaning beyond feeding and breeding and attempting to communicate. Some in this discussion forum speak as if they have found the meaning of life, that they are beyond time, desire, identity, and all the rest of it,
but I find them rather tiresome, don't you?

Back to Top
Tue, 03 Nov 2009 #17
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 51 posts in this forum Offline

Nick,

Of course. But is it possible to be aware while in that "singularity" of now? That's the question.

max

Back to Top
Tue, 03 Nov 2009 #18
Thumb_deleted_user_med Randal Shacklett United States 263 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Dr.sudhir sharma wrote:
have different degrees of understanding.Compassion

I am sorry Doc, but if understanding, comes in degrees, it is an intellectual/personal/individual/understanding, therefore, no understanding at all.
As for compassion, see the above explanation.
Please reply to my post with a smile, Doc. ;o)

Back to Top
Tue, 03 Nov 2009 #19
Thumb_deleted_user_med David Loucks United States 3 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Randal Shacklett wrote:
No wonder K felt like he wasted his life talking, if this is how his followers understand what he said.

Where did you get the impression the K was a failure? Show me where K thought he was a failure. I have read where a couple of others on this forum think that K "failed". (At least one of these people thinks himself to be Jesus or god and appears to be deeply disturbed). You have to have a goal to fail and K, by his own unique existence, had no goals. Goals are only set by those who don't live in the present but are always chasing the future.

Is the sun a failure if barren, waterless soil doesn't grow plants? The sun did it's part. And K did his. He pointed to the door and whether anyone walks throught it is up to the individual. It is too soon to say whether K's words have taken hold. He planted many seeds let's see if they germinate and flourish.

The other I point I would like to make is that K has no followers. Anyone who thinks he is following K hasn't read much and understood less of what K was talking about. In the last eight years of K's life I was lucky enough to have been able to attend dozens of his talks both public and private. He made it clear over and over again that he was not and had no interest in being a leader, a guru, a teacher or any kind of authority. K pointed out that people who follow destroy both themselves and the leader they are following.

K was not given to false modesty so unless someone is willing to call K a liar I take the man at his word. Wouldn't it be great if we could stick to discussing what K pointed out instead of going off on all these tangents?

Here is something that recently appeared on the Krishnamurti.org site which succinctly expresses K and in his own words.

Just be aware; that is all you have to do, without condemning, without forcing, without trying to change what you are aware of. Then you will see that it is like a tide that is coming in. You cannot prevent the tide from coming in; build a wall, or do what you will, it will come with tremendous energy. In the same way, if you are aware choicelessly, the whole field of consciousness begins to unfold. And as it unfolds, you have to follow; and the following becomes extraordinarily difficult?following in the sense to follow the movement of every thought, of every feeling, of every secret desire. It becomes difficult the moment you resist, the moment you say, ?That is ugly?, ?This is good?, ?That is bad?, ?This I will keep?, ?That I will not keep.?


  1. The Collected Works vol XV, p 85

Back to Top
Tue, 03 Nov 2009 #20
Thumb_img001 Sudhir Sharma India 32 posts in this forum Offline

max greene wrote:
is it possible to be aware while in that "singularity" of now? That's the question.

sir, some wrist watches have the second showing needle that goes round and round continuosely. Isn't this moving needle all the time present on top of that "singularity" of now?

Sir, the awareness in us is also a movement that is always existing on top of that singularity that you name Now.This movement will show different contents(like the current of river carrying all sort of things with it) like thoughts, feelings,information coming from different sense organs etc.

Total attention can catch the contents when it is directed outwards.It will merge with the movement when directed inwards.In this state the contents will be present but no recognition and naming is possible.What do you say to considering Awareness in terms of movement rather than in terms of singularity of time?

Regards!

FLOW WITH LIFE!

Back to Top
Tue, 03 Nov 2009 #21
Thumb_img001 Sudhir Sharma India 32 posts in this forum Offline

Sir, by nature I am a person who is always full of positive energy.More important then smile, I reply to your posts with great ammount of respect.You are the only moderator who fits in to the father figure image that advises, criticises,encourages and is always a wellwisher.

Randal Shacklett wrote:
if understanding, comes in degrees, it is an intellectual/personal/individual/understanding, therefore, no understanding at all.

Sir, between black and white there are various shades of grey.The problem with grey shade is that it considers itself white in its ignorance. The white shade will know the truth and it is the compassion in white that will find a way to encourage grey to become white.Simply showing the grey a mirror is not a compassionate act on the part of white.We look towards you to also encourage us.

Regards!

FLOW WITH LIFE!

Back to Top
Tue, 03 Nov 2009 #22
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 51 posts in this forum Offline

Dr Sharma,

It's not my post, but I can't help jumping in here. It's an interesting point!

In reply to Randal's post you replied, "Sir, between black and white there are various shades of grey."

I'll bet my last dollar that if the analysis went far enough, there would be only black and white particles. The shade of grey is a mixture. One could almost say that there isn't any such "color" as grey. (Do I lose my dollar?)

max

Back to Top
Tue, 03 Nov 2009 #23
Thumb_img001 Sudhir Sharma India 32 posts in this forum Offline

Max Sir, technically you will win your bet, but...

Sir, the science devides food in to the categories of carbohydrate, fats,protiens etc but we dont relish the wide variety of food thinking of them according to these categories.

A man on a journey will pass through many stations.If the journey happens to be an unending one, then he will never be able to say that he has reached his destination (white).Once he has started the journey, he can not come back to the starting point also (black).He will always be in movement.Can we not say that he will now only know the shades of grey throughout his life-some nearer to white and some nearer to black?
What do you say to this, Sir?

Regards!

FLOW WITH LIFE!

Back to Top
Tue, 03 Nov 2009 #24
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 51 posts in this forum Offline

Dr. Sharma,

Maybe this is all off the point and maybe it isn't. Doesn't hurt to make one or two final comments.

Between the White and the Black is space. This space is his journey, his movement, and I assume the space if of no color.
The man should have joy in his journey, which will never end. He is free of the Black.

max

Back to Top
Wed, 04 Nov 2009 #25
Thumb_tampura ganesan balachandran India 63 posts in this forum Offline

It reminds me of an imaginary time. time moves from past to future through present. say an horizontal movement. Is there a vertical movement of time from the present? sorry if it is not relevent to this discussion.

gb

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

Back to Top
Wed, 04 Nov 2009 #26
Thumb_tampura ganesan balachandran India 63 posts in this forum Offline

max greene wrote:
Our authority is awareness and intelligence in the moment.

This is being preserved in the prestine form from time immemorial by persons(immortals) like you and me...we preserve (or don't preserve) it by living. Such people who preserve by living the moments are the authority, but not in the normal sense of the word, absolute..

thank you
gb

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

This post was last updated by ganesan balachandran Wed, 04 Nov 2009.

Back to Top
Wed, 04 Nov 2009 #27
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 51 posts in this forum Offline

Ganesan,

Is there a past and a future? there was a past and there might be a future.

What is past (no matter how short the time) is gone. The past can never be brought back or changed by one iota. What can be brought back, from memory, is an image of the past. We clutter the present with images of the past. We work with and are absorbed with these images, and in so doing we are blind to the present.

max

Back to Top
Wed, 04 Nov 2009 #28
Thumb_img001 Sudhir Sharma India 32 posts in this forum Offline

Very true,Sir.During his life time a man will know many kinds of joy but this unending variety has a different flavour, a different origin.I will appreciate it very much if you would consent to discuss this aspect of living. Please lead the discussion by throwing some light on the source or origin or the nature of this unending joy.

Regards!

FLOW WITH LIFE!

Back to Top
Wed, 04 Nov 2009 #29
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 51 posts in this forum Offline

Dr. Sharma,

There are plenty of important things to look into. Here's a possible start: Joy and understanding and love are not the goal of life.

max

Back to Top
Thu, 05 Nov 2009 #30
Thumb_deleted_user_med Randal Shacklett United States 263 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

David Loucks wrote:
Where did you get the impression the K was a failure?

K frequently stated that he felt as though people took him as another form of entertainment and that his message of 60 years, had failed to free anyone. I did not say that I personally thought K had failed. He freed me.

Back to Top
Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 44 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.)