Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
Discussion Forums

Jack Pine's Forum Posts

Forum: General Discussion

Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 5755 in total
Topic: Jealousy Sun, 10 Nov 2019

So really, what happened to make you such a man-hater? Did you get jilted, dumped? Why do you hate so much? Why are you so bitter toward everything and everyone?

One Self wrote: Studying K's teachings has to be done everyday of one's life . Otherwise it evaporates .

What do you think you have to do everyday to keep "K's teachings" from evaporating? And which is more important; K's teachings or your own understanding of yourself?

Topic: Can fear actually, really, end in me? From Quiet Space Sun, 10 Nov 2019

One Self wrote: Jack,your illness cannot be cured by Krishnamurti as it hasn't for the past fifty years. Go and see a psychologist . He may be able to help you with medications. Words have become poisonous to you. Give it up.

What a strange way to reply to a quote by K regarding thought that I posted in post #3. And you talk about others needing mental help? Oh and by the way, another thing you are ignorant about is that psychologists are not medical doctors and, therefore, cannot prescribe medicines. Psychiatrists are medical doctors and they can prescribe medicines.

You are the most ignorant person I think that has ever been on this forum. Almost everything you write is confused, erroneous drivel.

Your bitterness, anger and hatred are probably dissolving what brain you may have left.

Topic: Jealousy Sat, 09 Nov 2019

One Self wrote: What is love according to K? Love according to me doesn't exist at all.

Oh yeah, you've been dumped. You really need to come to terms with that. It appears to be eating you up, making you an angry, hateful person. Let it go.

Topic: Jealousy Sat, 09 Nov 2019

One Self wrote: We know that criticism according to k is a negative thing. I always thought that we escape from our utter loneliness through criticism of others in so many fields and so on and on

But all you ever do on here is criticize. Why can't you see that you are consistently doing what you see as false and evil in others?

Topic: Family and marage are the beginning of division and conflict in the society . Sat, 09 Nov 2019

Is this the real reason behind your anger and often hateful comments to others? You have been jilted by someone, you are alone and you need to rationalize that aloneness as something K wanted you to do?

Instead of being falsely concerned with other's imagined mental illness look at your own. Look at the hateful diatribes that you post on here and of how others avoid getting pulled into them.

As I have already pointed out you have pretty much destroyed the General Forum with your confused, illiterate, angry posts that show a rather deep misunderstanding of what K pointed out.

Topic: Suggestion for One Self Sat, 09 Nov 2019

I have an idea. Why don't you stick to your usual rambling, confused diatribes that have nothing to do with what K pointed out and not critique what others write on here? You're no good at it to begin with. And by the way "marage" is spelled marriage. Your spelling is a fairly accurate gauge for your general understanding: Grossly incorrect.

You've pretty much destroyed this forum with your ridiculous posts that no one replies to. Isn't that enough?

Topic: Can fear actually, really, end in me? From Quiet Space Sat, 09 Nov 2019

This quote from K was taken from the above referenced quote: This is for those you are either too lazy or are otherwise unable to simply drop their beliefs and read what K says in the above long quote.

K: Thought moves from the past through the present to the future. Thought modifies itself through the present to the future, so thought is still the past. It may modify itself, it may change itself, it may put on different coating, different clothing, whatever it is, coloring - it is still the past movement. Fear is not separate from thinking just as the "me" is not separate from thinking.

Topic: Can fear actually, really, end in me? From Quiet Space Fri, 08 Nov 2019

Thought is the past. Thought is based on knowledge and experience. The past. Fear is psychological and there is physical fear. You're walking in the mountains and you round the corner and there is a mountain lion in the middle of the path. Physical fear. The present. Fear of loosing someone you love. Psychological fear. The present. The person you love may die in the future before you do but the fear is now, present based on thought which is the past. That's clear right? Fear is thought, consciousness is thought. The "me" and "fear" are both part of consciousness which is the accumulation of the past. This is by Jack Pine who admits he doesn't know too much but this much is clear anyway, right? Now if you care to read the following long post it is a very interesting and clear discussion of fear by K and some people at one of the Saanen Talks.

So thought is a movement from the past, the past being collected experience - innumerable experiences which have become knowledge; so knowledge is essentially the past. So thought is a movement from the past, modifies itself in the present and goes on to the future. Right? So, I have found out - you have found out, not me - you have found out for yourself that thought is a movement from the storehouse of the past. So thought is never free. Right? I wonder if you see this! Thought is a movement of the past, therefore of time, and as long as we operate - no, let me put it differently - we have to operate in thought - right? - where knowledge is necessary, we have to operate there - all the technological knowledge, riding a bicycle, this and that - where knowledge is essential, there thought operates. Is it possible for thought to remain there and not enter into other fields? You are following my question? That is, I realise I am afraid - fear; fear of not being, fear of loneliness, fear of not being loved, or fear of loving and losing, fear of death, fear of losing a job - you know, a dozen fears. But basically there is only one fear which expresses itself in multiple ways. So that fear is the movement of thought. Right? Now, in observing that movement, is the observer different from that, different from that which he observes? Are we meeting something together or not? My word! Because you see, please, if we can go into this one question completely and when you leave the tent, the marquee, you are free of fear - you understand? - it would be a marvellous thing. That will affect the whole consciousness of mankind if you are free. So, please share this thing together; don't let me talk about it but let us journey into the problem together. You're afraid of something, aren't you? Every human being is, apparently. Now is that fear different from you? Right? I am asking, is that fear different from you? Q: I hope so. K: You hope so. (Laughter) Oh lord! Or, that fear is you. Please do let us be a little serious, is that fear you? Of course. Like anger - is anger different from you or you are part of that? Obviously. So fear is part of you, but we have learnt or been educated to separate ourselves from fear, and therefore we say, I'll control it, I'll change it, I will run away from it, all the rest of it comes into being. But if the fear is you, what will you do? You understand the question now? Q: Yes Q: I feel that I have to tackle it. K: Yes, sir. Q: Are you saying that, or when I hear you say that I and fear is one... and this is my fear. Is that right? K: No sir, no. First, please, get this one thing clear, at least: as anger is not different from you - which is so obvious isn't it? - is not fear part of you? And if it is part of you, what will you do? We are used to separating fear from ourselves and therefore acting upon fear - suppress it, run away from it, all the rest of it. But when fear is you, action comes to an end. Right? This is very difficult for you to see, because we are so conditioned to this division - me different from fear, and therefore acting upon fear. But we are saying something entirely different - fear is you, therefore, you can't act. Then what happens? Q: Your talk in the morning is from the past. Q: We hear you... ought to be in the present? K: What ought to be implies that you are not looking at what is. Q: (Inaudible) K: Thought moves from the past through the present to the future. Thought modifies itself through the present to the future, so thought is still the past. It may modify itself, it may change itself, it may put on different coating, different clothing, whatever it is, colouring - it is still the past movement. Please, what is the time? Q: Twelve thirty. K: Half past twelve? Already? (Laughter) No, please, this is very important, I want to stick to this one thing this morning, if I may. As most human beings are afraid and they have accepted fear as part of their life, and therefore live in darkness, therefore live in a kind of paralytic state, and being afraid, all forms of neurotic habits, neurotic activities come, it's very important, if there is to be transformation in the human consciousness, that fear must be totally eliminated. And we say it is possible. It is only possible when conflict between the person who says, I am afraid and I will do something about fear, when that conflict comes to an end, that is when the division comes to an end. And that division is artificial, it's an illusion. What is actuality is, the fear is part of you, therefore you cannot do a thing about it - right? - psychologically. Therefore your whole attention undergoes a change. Before, attention was given to the conflict - suppressing, denying, running away. But now when your fear is you, your whole attention has undergone a change. That is, you have much greater energy to look at this fear. Before you ran away, you suppressed it, did all kinds of things to it; now, fear is part of you, therefore you observe it with a totally different attention. You get this? Please get this! Q: You can only look at fear if it is separate, surely. K: When you look at fear, the gentleman says, then it's apart from you. When fear is you what are you looking at? Do please watch it. Don't answer me. Do look at it. When fear is you what are you looking at? You are not looking at fear, you are that. So, your attention has changed. Q: (Inaudible) K: We are coming to that. Attention has changed. Right? Please see that simple thing. Q: Who is looking at me? K: I am not looking at you, sir; I am looking at fear. (Laughter) Oh, Jesus - waste of time. Q: But wouldn't it be eliminating a part of me? K: Yes, you are eliminating part of you - which you are afraid of. Part of you is fear. Right? With all the complications of fear. Part of you is pleasure - with all the varieties of pleasure. Part of you is sorrow - different types of sorrow. So, all that is you; you are not different from all that, are you? Or you might think you are god. If you think you are not all that, then you are something different from all that, and being 'different' you are something super-human. This is the old Hindu philosophy that says, 'I am not that. We are the soul, we have something precious inside, we are part of the divine, we are part of the perfect, we are part of the archetype' - you know, all that. So, I personally refuse to accept all that. We must begin with doubt. Right? And when you begin with doubt, completely begin with that, then you end up with complete certainty. But we begin with certainties and end up in nothing. (Laughter) Please give your attention to this question. As long as there is division between you and fear, then there is conflict, there is wastage of energy - by suppressing it, running away from it, talking about it, going to the analysts and so on and on and on and on. But whereas, when you see the truth that you are that fear, your whole energy is gathered in this attention to look at that thing. Now what is that thing which we call fear? Is it a word which has brought fear, or is it independent of the word? You are following this? If it is the word, the word being the associations with the past - I recognise it because I have had fear before. You understand? I look at that fear though it is part of me because I name it, and I name it because I have known it to happen before. So, by naming it I have strengthened it. I wonder if you see this. So, is it possible to observe without naming it? If you name it, it's already in the past, right? If you don't name it, it's something entirely different, isn't it? So is it possible not to name that thing which you have called 'fear' , therefore free of the past so that you can look. You cannot look if you are prejudiced. If I am prejudiced against you, I can't look at you, I am looking at my prejudice. So is it possible not to name the thing at all? And then if you do not name it, is it fear? Or has it undergone a change, because you have given all your attention to it. You understand? I wonder if you get it. When you name it you are not giving attention to it, when you try to suppress it you are not giving your attention to it, when you try to run away from it you are not giving your attention to it - whereas when you observe that fear is you, and not name it - what takes place? What takes place? You are doing it now. What takes place? Q: It's an emotion. K: Wait, it is a sensation, isn't it? A feeling which is sensation. Please watch it, it's a sensation, isn't it? All feelings are sensations. I put a pin in there, and all the rest of it. So it's a sensation. What's wrong with sensation? Nothing is wrong with sensation, is it? But when sensation plus thought, which becomes desire with its images, then the trouble begins. I wonder if you understand all this! This is too much probably in the morning. (Laughter) You know, this is part of meditation. You understand? This is really part of meditation. Not to sit under a tree and just think about something or other, or try to concentrate, or try to repeat some mantra or some word - Coca Cola - or something or other (laughter) - but this is really meditation because you are enquiring very, very, very deeply into yourself. And you can enquire very deeply only when you are really without any motive, when you are free to look. And you cannot look if you separate yourself from that which you are looking at. Then you have complete energy to look. It is only when there is no attention that fear comes into being. You understand? When there is complete attention which is complete, total energy then there is no fear, is there? It's only the inattentive person that is afraid, not the person who is completely attentive at the moment when that feeling arises. That feeling is a part of sensation. Sensation is normal, natural. It's like looking at a tree, looking at people, you know - sensation. But when sensation plus thought, which is desire with its images, then begins all our problems. You understand? This is simple. Right? Now can you look at your fear - be serious for five minutes! Can you look at your fear, whatever it is; not separate yourself from that fear, but you are that fear, and therefore you give your total attention to that fear. Then is there fear? Q: No. K: Then walk out of this tent without fear. Don't say no and then go outside full of fears. Do you want to ask questions about this? Q: Sir, I did not grasp, in the beginning you said it is more our responsibility than yours. What did you mean by it? K: Sir, the word 'responsibility' - what does it mean to be responsible. To respond adequately, isn't it? The word 'responsibility' comes from the root 'respond', to respond. Now, do you respond adequately to this question of fear? Or, do you respond with all your tradition, with your culture, you follow? - all that conditioning and therefore which prevents you from responding fully to this question? As we said, this is part of meditation. You don't know what meditation is, but this is part of it. When the mind is not afraid then only is it capable of entering into something totally different, but being afraid, to try to meditate only leads to illusion, to all kinds of deceptive experiences. So meditation is the investigation into your consciousness, into yourself; and see if there can be freedom from that, from the fear, and to understand the nature and the structure of pleasure, because we all want pleasure. To understand it, to go into it, to find out what is accurate in pleasure, what is right in pleasure - enjoyment, joy. And also to enquire into the whole problem of fear, not only your particular fear, sorrow, but the sorrow of mankind. All that is involved in meditation which is to discover the truth in yourself, to discover the truth which is a light to yourself so that you don't follow anybody. That's enough for today, isn't it? Is that enough for today?

J. Krishnamurti Talk and Dialogues Saanen 1967 1st Public Talk 9th July 1967

Topic: Can fear actually, really, end in me? From Quiet Space Fri, 08 Nov 2019

Contrary to the way it may seem I don't scour the "Quiet Space" (QS) to finds things to criticize. If I did I would be on here night and day typing away. Like idiot?, I can find better things to do with my time than spend huge amounts of it on this forum.

That said, the above title of this thread, which originally appeared on a thread post started by Clive on the QS Forum, shows a remarkable lack of understanding of what K tirelessly pointed out throughout his life: No Clive, fear can never end in "me". The me, the ego, the center has the same root as fear. Which is, of course, thought. The fear is part of the "me". Fear is an image of thought and so is the me. "Me" can never exist without fear for the above stated reasons.

Topic: What is the true function of the brain? Taken from A Quiet Space Fri, 25 Oct 2019

Dan McDermott wrote: First it has to realize its own "triviality", doesn't it? Without that happening, it will always find a 'hiding place' in itself that it feels is not trivial.

Dan, neither idiot? nor I brought up "triviality" K did in the quote. K didn't seem to think this was a problem or he probably would have gone into it don't you think? Are we creating a problem that really isn't there?

Dan McDermott wrote: Investigating, inquiring, experimenting is not "thinking real hard" (though it could be) but when someone tries to share those questions, insights,etc., using words, it might sound like that. And also this idea of something or other "leading" to the truth needs to be questioned in oneself doesn't it?

Dan, I think it is important to ask questions. What I see as a mistake is verbally/intellectually pondering over these questions. We all know, or have accepted intellectually, that thought is limited. Thought is conditioned, the past. Can we agree on that? If we can then what role does thought have in understanding the questions being asked?

Ask the question and then let the mind go quiet, observe. But what use is it to come to conclusion after conclusion based on knowledge that we may agree is limited? Is the past, not new.

Topic: What is the true function of the brain? Taken from A Quiet Space Thu, 24 Oct 2019

idiot ? wrote: Wait. You approve of one of my postings? That's too funny.

Well of this one anyway. It was more of a situation where you picked a very appropriate response to what appeared to me to be another inane question.

With regard to the original post and ending question I think Clive was asking if the brain, which is conditioned, limited, the past could go into itself and understand eternity. That's my phrasing not his. There have been any number of discussions started this way without any hope of getting anywhere with finding out anything significant.

It's my understanding, and I may be wrong, but it is not thinking real hard that is going to lead to "truth". But rather it is the mind becoming quiet without seeking anything that may open it (the mind) to seeing.

Topic: What is the true function of the brain? Taken from A Quiet Space Thu, 24 Oct 2019

So what, in all this, is a relevant question? Perhaps one is: “how can we enquire into the true potential of the brain?”.

Clive asked this question after a long and interesting recital on the immensity of the Universe, evolution and the human brain.

Idiot? posted a very relevant quote from K which not only answered the above question but discussed the question of "what should the brain and/or thinking be? This is part of the K quote that idiot? posted:

With what are our minds occupied - actually, not ideologically? With trivialities, are they not? With how one looks, with ambition, with greed, with envy, with gossip, with cruelty. The mind lives in a world of trivialities and a trivial mind creating a noble pattern is still trivial, is it not? The question is not with what should the mind be occupied but can the mind free itself from trivialities?


Topic: On Relationships and Conflict Thu, 24 Oct 2019

Forget the snake analogy. What he was saying isn't about snakes it was about "hindrances" like nationalism, organized religion and other forms of conditioning that divide and separate, people that leads to conflict.

But then you know how those "Indian Gurus" and snake charmers are. Sitting there in their turbans with their flute and cobra in a basket...…….

Topic: On Relationships and Conflict Tue, 22 Oct 2019

idiot ? wrote: It's certainly possible, Jack Pine, that we have met in person and had a nice, friendly encounter. I wouldn't be at all surprised. Also, I have seen some fine carpentry work at the center. I don't know if you contributed to that but it's great.

Thanks for your above post. I appreciate it and I think it's time to stop this whatever is going on between us. And thanks for the compliment but I had nothing to do with the finish carpentry at any K property. I worked for Max Falk, the builder of Oak Grove School and redoing and adding on to the Pine Cottage, as a frame carpenter. He had a couple of really good lead carpenters working for him. And Max was no slough himself.

Horn Canyon Trail over by Thatcher School was the path K often took from the time he was a young man up into his senior years. In about an hour and a half you can get up to the top of, or at least close to, the Topa Topas. Personally I prefer the Cozy Dell Trail that begins over by Friends Ranch where they have the warehouse and you can buy oranges and other citrus fruit they raise. It's much closer to where I live and still gets you up into the mountains.

And, yes, we might know each other. We might even be or have been friends. That would be ironic wouldn't it? Peace.

Topic: On Relationships and Conflict Mon, 21 Oct 2019

idiot ? wrote: To me, the whole - K did yoga so I'll do it, too - is a little silly.

And who, pray tell, is saying this other than you? I haven't read where anyone else is even implying this.

idiot ? wrote: Are you going to wake up early, about 4 AM, sit up with the back straight in meditation every morning? He did.

Not according to Mary Z's Memoirs that closely documented the last 20 years of his life. I'm reading them now, am 75% done with them, the memoirs, detailed his daily life to the point of exhaustion. K didn't get up at 4 AM regularly to do anything according to the memoirs.

idiot ? wrote: Now at K centers there are yoga classes and programs. I've also seen people in Ojai carefully take walks on the same routes that K did, up into the mountains regularly.

I'm just curious. Can you name one of those routes, paths, that K regularly walked on? Actually there was one in particular that he mostly walked on that he could access from Pine Cottage fairly easily. Do you remember the name of that trail?

I live in Ojai for six months out of the year and regularly visit up there to the Pepper Tree Retreat (Arya Vihara) and Pine Cottage (K Library). There are still one or two people I knew from back in the 1970's who are still with the Krishnamurti Foundation of America and we have been friends for 40 years. I'm not aware of any official yoga classes or any yoga classes. They use to offer yoga classes years ago. They do have discussions on Saturdays I think at 4:00PM in the Library.

I'm not trying to "bust your chops" but I do question the veracity of your information.

Topic: On Relationships and Conflict Mon, 21 Oct 2019

Gentlemen, I know "expanding of consciousness" has various popular meanings and I think I know what you, Sean and Dan, are referring to but it raises the question with respect to what K pointed out: Do we want to expand the consciousness or move beyond it? Maybe expanding awareness and freeing the mind of conditioning is what you were referring to?

Topic: On Relationships and Conflict Mon, 21 Oct 2019

Sean Hen wrote: I understand that Krishnamurti had a daily yoga routine. Did this help him to maintain the level of alertness and clarity that he displayed?

Sean, I don't know the answer to your question but I tend to doubt K's yoga practice had much to do with his level of alertness and clarity. He wasn't doing kundalini yoga but rather a yoga called Astanga yoga, known as the eight limbs of yoga. His instructor was BKS Iyengar. A man K referred to at least once as unduly arrogant.

From reading Mary Zimbalist's Memoires I gather that the yoga K did was part of his daily physical fitness regime which also included vigorous walks. Of course physical exercise can have a positive affect on your mental alertness.

The above information was taken from the afore mentioned Mary Z's Memoirs.

Topic: On Relationships and Conflict Sun, 20 Oct 2019

idiot ? wrote: You can try. But it's the past.

Of course it's the past, idiot. All thinking/conditioning is the past. To understand conditioning you have to deal with the past and the influences of that past which conditioned the way we see the world.

We are all living in the past because we are our thinking. We don't exist psychologically without thinking. Listen, idiot, I don't have time or the inclination to educate you on conditioning/thinking and the past.

Dan, if we're going to discuss this then let's discuss this without constant interruptions of inane comments. OK?

Topic: On Relationships and Conflict Sun, 20 Oct 2019

Dan McDermott wrote: .but can we question it? Can we look at the whole situation in a different light?... That we, each of us, have settled for these tiny 'prisons' we inhabit and perpetuate and live out our lives in.

I don't see why we can't question anything we want. The way I see it we, don't we need to see how our brains were conditioned beginning back when we were children? First I draw your attention to part of today's quote: If we can know for ourselves that which is false in our thinking, then we shall know naturally, without imposition, what is the true.

Can I give you some examples of how I was conditioned at a very early age by the public school system I attended? I was raised in a fairly conservative state in the US. By the second or third grade we were required to stand up in class every single morning and recite both the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag and the Lord's Prayer.

Even though we had many Jewish classmates Christianity was still being forced on us by the public school system and therefore the government of this state. If you asked my parents if they were Christian they probably would have said yes. But as far as I can remember they never, ever stepped inside a church unless it was a funeral they were attending. They never recited any of the Christian propaganda and so on. Yet the public school system was making me, all of us, participate in the dominant religion by saying a Christian prayer.

I soon grew tired of repeating these meaningless words every day and I started to change some of the words as children will do. In the Lord's Prayer during the part where it says...." our Father who art in heaven...." I added and "f" and an "s" to the beginning and end, respectively, of the word "art". It made me feel better and also gave me and those close around me a little laugh. I changed words in the Pledge too that were seriously anti patriotic.

Then there were the lessons in school itself. All the utterly false history lessons like little George Washington chopping down a cherry tree, which never happened, and all the rest of the "legends" about our great national heroes which were mostly crap.

Here's my point, Dan. Can we be aware of the things we had hammered into our brains both in and out of school? And then move from there through-out our lives becoming acutely aware of those things that conditioned us? The TV shows, movies, books, traditions, ceremonies, national beliefs and so on?

Topic: On Relationships and Conflict Sun, 20 Oct 2019

Dan McDermott wrote: Can we go into this as first-hand 'owners of these three organs: the reptilian, the animal, and the neo-cortex, (intellectual) brains? And leave the scientific work of the 'experts' out?

Well we can certainly try. When asking questions of a scientific nature it has long been my response to include studies and I am not quite sure how to proceed otherwise. Also, my background is not in the biological sciences but rather the physical sciences. Geology was my undergrad study and hydrogeology was my graduate study. So I have no background in studying the function of the brain.

I'm presently reading Mary Zimbalist's Memoirs on K. A bit repetitious but interesting. In it she again points out that K was sheltered from a fairly young age and the main source of possible conditioning was from the Theosophists. K apparently remained unaffected by that conditioning. The point is that the way we were raised most likely has a great deal to do with by what and by how much we were conditioned.

How do you think we should start this discussion. And should we move it to another thread and not intrude on Sean's thread?

Topic: On Relationships and Conflict Sat, 19 Oct 2019

So Dan, if you have time away from your other pursuits on this thread do you have any comment to the information you posted about neuro-connections and my response to it. I thought it was a fairly interesting subject to inquire into a bit further. What do you think?

Topic: On Relationships and Conflict Sat, 19 Oct 2019

I asked a simple question to someone who made a fairly extravagant statement wondering if he/she was merely repeating what K had said or whether that person have made a break through of being able to "see the truth which leads to transformation". I have been met with a string of false equivalencies and dodges. Anything to avoid answering the question.

The answer, by the way, was NO. The same answer the rest of us would give if we were being honest. I really hope this ends it.

Topic: On Relationships and Conflict Sat, 19 Oct 2019

Sean Hen wrote: However, what if Fred says, "Happiness is a timeless state". Here Fred's statement seems to be true according to Krishnamurti. But has Fred worked this out for himself or is he just repeating something he doesn't really understand? Does it matter? Well, I think it does. If we just repeat truths that we don't understand then the original truth of the statement is diminished, surely.

Clearly and succinctly put. I think this has always been the heart of the discussion. Or should have been if we hadn't of been distracted with several quotes from K and other attempts to cloud the real issue behind my simple question: Are you transformed? And my other question idiot? is, Do you see truth?

Topic: On Relationships and Conflict Fri, 18 Oct 2019

One Self wrote: I see similarity between Jack's way of thinking and those aggressive and ruthless communists in the seventies. I may be wrong.

Has it occurred to you yet that your posts are absolutely idiotic? No one responds to them because they don't make sense. Now you say I'm like the communists in the 1970's. Two things you know nothing about. Make that three things you know nothing about. You don't know me at all. Once again, how old are you and do your parents know you post hateful, idiotic things on Kinfonet?

Topic: On Relationships and Conflict Fri, 18 Oct 2019

idiot ? wrote: Jack Pine, I think you have a good heart and care deeply about K. But you say a lot of false and mistaken things. For example, in post #36, you said, "And no, K didn't teach transformation." Obviously, that is simply false.

No actually' in the literal sense, what I wrote about transformation and K is true. K was not teaching anyone HOW to transform. He was showing us his discoveries about the self, thought, consciousness and other things. Understanding these things, as K did, mostly likely be transformation. But he wasn't teaching us how to transform. There is no technique for that. I think you can agree with that can't you?

idiot ? wrote: I did ignore it. I posted K's talk on criticism. That was all I intended to do. But then Sean Hen asked for clarification. So I have spent a lot of time trying to make things clear.

Regardless of the reasons you are claiming, the fact is that you still did drag it out. Just as you are doing now.

Topic: On Relationships and Conflict Fri, 18 Oct 2019

idiot ? wrote: To me, transformation is no different than insight.

Have you experienced both transformation and insight? A "yes" or "no" answer will do find. Thanks

Oh, whoops, sorry! Are you experiencing both transformation and insight? This last sentence doesn't really sound right does it.

Topic: On Relationships and Conflict Fri, 18 Oct 2019

idiot ? wrote: When I posted "When the truth is clearly seen, there is transformation," I did so in the Quiet Space forum, not here. Jack Pine pulled it off of a longer post in that forum and posted it here.

This statement is irrelevant and frankly sounds a bit whinny. We can take any statement from any forum and post it on any other forum. What do you care if I post it on another forum? One you have access to?

idiot ? wrote: He clearly didn't like the statement, found it arrogant, and wanted to challenge me.

Pure speculation with more than just a touch of paranoia on your part. I asked you if you were transformed. PERIOD! Instead of refusing to answer directly or answering "Yes" or "No" you started this long, ridiculous dance about my motives. Which you clearly are not privy to.

idiot ? wrote: It's just me saying in my own words what K says transformation is, based on K's chapter On Transformation that I later posted in its entirety in post #37 of this thread. In that chapter K says, "So what do we mean by transformation? Surely it is very simple: seeing the false as the false and the true as the true." That's pretty close to my statement: "When the truth is clearly seen, there is transformation."

Yes, K said it but I don't question whether he was transformed or not. Just because K said and you read it and repeated it, that doesn't mean squat. That certainly doesn't mean you understood what K said. So once again, K was transformed but I was asking you if you were. Can you understand this simple little fact? Just because we read something that K wrote and repeat it doesn't mean we understood it. ¿Comprendes?

idiot ? wrote: No one in the Quiet Space forum where I posted the statement within a larger post had anything to say about it. But here, my brief sentence has cost me many, many words.

As far as I have read no one in the Quiet Space questions anything anyone says. People can and often do make the most extravagant statements without one shred of context. It's common there. I hope it doesn't become common here.

Listen, idiot. If you didn't like the question I asked, if you questioned my motives for asking it why didn't you just ignore it? You talk about avoiding conflict but when it comes down to doing it you perpetuate it as much as anyone else. You go on and on about why you did or didn't do or say something. Why do you care what I think? Do you have a delicate image to protect? Are you insecure in other ways that keep you from feeling confident about what you write and just let it go at that? I'm really curious. I am also curious why you, instead of answering my question or ignoring it you blew it up into a few pages of this conflict that you won't end. And it's not just with me. Now it's with Sean. Do you feel you have to explain yourself to him too?

Topic: On Relationships and Conflict Fri, 18 Oct 2019

Sean Hen wrote: If we are to discuss something as complex as "Why haven't we changed?" in a serious manner on an online forum we need to communicate with each other using words. I try to be precise as possible in my use of words in order to convey meaning clearly and accurately. Of course, sometimes I fail.

Sean, you didn't fail at anything. Your explanation of grammar was correct and your pointing out that we have to use words to communicate is obviously correct. But when you have people who are mainly interested in spinning what people write to fit their own needs, purposely refusing to understand what is being said, then you are wasting your time, I believe, trying to educate them.

For my own part I thank you for your efforts on behalf of everyone on this forum who is interested in communicating with each other and who are trying to understand each other.

Topic: On Relationships and Conflict Fri, 18 Oct 2019

Dan Wrote: That under the psilocybin the brain made more connections within itself. There was a side by side of a before and after brain scan photos and there was this dramatic increase in connections after the drug.

This brings up some fascinating possibilities. Does the taking of certain drugs, psychedelic drugs, increase the awareness of the brain? Are some people born with significantly more of these neurological connections? Was K an example of this? Or is it that most of us start out with more neurological connections and then loose these for various reasons? And can these connections be retrieved and retained through certain drugs? Below is just a sampling of an article I found on the internet when I put in neurological connections.

Neural Connections: Some You Use, Some You Lose By John Bruer Over 20 years ago, neuroscientists discovered that humans and other animals experience a rapid increase in brain connectivity - an exuberant burst of synapse formation - early in development. They have studied this process most carefully in the brain's outer layer, or cortex, which is essentially our gray matter. In these studies, neuroscientists have documented that over our life spans the number of synapses per unit area or unit volume of cortical tissue changes, as does the number of synapses per neuron. Neuroscientists refer to the number of synapses per unit of cortical tissue as the brain's synaptic density. Over our lifetimes, our brain's synaptic density changes in an interesting, patterned way. This pattern of synaptic change and what it might mean is the first neurobiological strand of the Myth of the First Three Years. (The second strand of the Myth deals with the notion of critical periods, and the third takes up the matter of "enriched," or complex, environments.) Popular discussions of the new brain science trade heavily on what happens to synapses during infancy and childhood. Magazine articles often begin with colorful metaphors suggesting that what parents do with their infant has a powerful, lifelong impact on their baby's brain that determines the child's adult intelligence, temperament, and personality. This article was taken from the James S. McDonnell Foundation

Topic: On Relationships and Conflict Fri, 18 Oct 2019

Sean Hen wrote: As I said, this is my understanding. Please correct me if I am wrong. Just a final thought - when grammatical truth is seen clearly, is there transformation?

Sean Hen wrote: I suppose it's the sentence without context that I find open to misinterpretation.

Sean, first of all the person who challenged your correct explanation of grammar doesn't know a past participle from a hole in the ground so you are wasting your time debating English grammar with her. Secondly, what you said about context of the statement in question, or lack thereof, is a very good point and one that has occurred to me.

There are these sudden proclamations out of thin air without....well, context. It leaves the reader feeling a sense that the assertion is being repeated as an intellectual acceptance of something rather than of a deeply understood and felt truth. We all do this at one time or another.

Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 5755 in total