Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
Discussion Forums

Peter Kesting's Forum Posts

Forum: General Discussion

Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 1228 in total
Topic: The Future Of Humanity Wed, 26 Jun 2019

Ken,

One hundred years ago people assumed that time and space were completely separate. That space and time were changeless absolutes. Einstein changed that by carefully and deeply examining the behavior of light. Most of us today can and do still function as if these two are entirely independent.

Regarding Science and materialism. What is science? I suggest science is understanding the world as the field of cause and effect, determinism. But that is not limited to the scientist. All of everyday practical life for almost everyone assumes determinism. Seeing this we are all as it were scientists and materialists.

Just as space and time are one so also the scientific and the subjective must be related in some way, actually one. There is no real Division.

It looks to this writer that scientists who are trying to find the mind from the outside will never succeed. They would have to somehow get into someone else's mind, becoming of one mind, literally, with that other mind. They do not have any way to measure, or even to detect the existence of, the mind.

As seen here...to this one, at present, as a best guess, sentience is of a dimension beyond space/time. We are that and not the material person at all. Moreover, sentience here is one with sentience everywhere. It has within it no attributes yet it is seen. Having no attributes the sentience that is here cannot be distinguished from that that is there. We are one.

I think K was pointing some of this out. Almost all human beings identify as persons.

When there is no such identification there can be the observation of the material "self" which is actually external. The "observer" can be the observed"

The field of mater, which includes the "false" self is continuous with all the rest of mater as a river.

Topic: The Future Of Humanity Wed, 26 Jun 2019

One Self wrote: There is then neither what you want to do, nor the standard, but right action, without personal identification.

"without personal identification."

quoted from post 183 above

Topic: The Future Of Humanity Wed, 26 Jun 2019

A human body and its memory?

Topic: The Future Of Humanity Wed, 26 Jun 2019

One can ask: What is a person?

Topic: The Future Of Humanity Wed, 26 Jun 2019

Who is a person. It may be a number of persons. What is an object, an action, an idea and so on, but not a person. In post 173 that was what was meant.

Language is imperfect.

Topic: The Future Of Humanity Tue, 25 Jun 2019

idiot ? wrote: To ask the question is not wrong. You have complete freedom to ask anything. And perhaps one of the most important questions to investigate is: Who am I? Who is the observer?

The only thing wrong is an assumption in the question itself. And to see the assumption and to see whether or not it really is false, takes inquiry.

The Question: "Who am I?" is a wrong question because it implies already that one is a who... that one is the person. A right question would be: What is the self?

We are not persons.

It is possible to see this.

Topic: The Future Of Humanity Tue, 18 Jun 2019

As seen here there is no separation. Everything is connected.

Let's suppose there is a something which is not connected. Something that is separate.

To be separate it would have to have not only no contact in the present, but it will have to have had no contact ever in the past. It will also have to come to have no contact ever in the future.

I think we must say that such a separate something is in our reality a void, non-existent.

So we can say that everything is related, Everything is connected. There is no division

Topic: The Future Of Humanity Tue, 18 Jun 2019

First, we cannot assume that everything that K is saying is right. We must actually see things for our selves.

Topic: The Future Of Humanity Sat, 15 Jun 2019

Something that produces a lot of confusion here is the word self. As seen here the self is most often taken to be the material "self", which has attributes... but the self that most fail to see that actually is onesself, is this "light" that is sentience itself, that is universal, that is at once the sentience in all sentient beings.

Topic: The Future Of Humanity Sat, 15 Jun 2019

jamie f wrote: In the garden this morning a robin flew down and fluttered between the camellias. A female robin, it was much plainer than the male and as I looked at its small, rounded body, I suddenly found myself wondering if there wasn't one indivisible consciousness that all living things are part of. To limit it to the consciousness of man seems, well...limiting. It may have been my imagination but it was there again this afternoon floating on the breeze in between the showers. Krishnamurti is popular with those who like to intellectualize and theorize things half to death but how on earth do you intellectualize something that comes to you on the breeze?

Hello jamie,

We have a dog as a pet. It is obvious that she has awareness.. that there is the same sentience there in that one as here in this one. Several crows and a squirrel visit our backyard. As I see it they are also sentient beings. So as I see it sentience goes very far down the phyla of living beings.

As I see it sentience is not material, it has no memory. Memory is stored in the matter that is the nervous system. Sentience then, is not personal. Not yours or mine, but it is one, universal. Everywhere that it is it is the same one. We are not the person that most think they are, having attributes, memory, a body, and so on, We are the "light" of awareness. Same one here in this one as there in the one where "you" are. What "we" actually are is this "light" everywhere it exists. "We" are that.

Topic: Can we ask the right question? Sat, 16 Feb 2019

Something very close.

Topic: Can we ask the right question? Sat, 16 Feb 2019

What can we do for the world?

This morning this thought came:

It is necessary that each human being should come to see that there is something beyond the material.

Can I say? Not just any thing, not an idea, not ideas, but the actuality.

And words destroy everything? No amount of words can capture that. Can convey that.

Topic: What K teachings are central for you? Sat, 19 Jan 2019

"Love is where the self is not"

Topic: Thought is limited. Sun, 02 Dec 2018

Hello Ken,

As I see it photons enter the eye and are converted to signals that travel along nerves to the brain. Nerves in the brain are activated. That activity becomes a complex of signals moving again along nerves. That activity in the material brain somehow produces the experiencing of, for example, something seen as red But the inside of the brain is black. The redness that is experienced, the experiencing of it, is unexplained. Would you say that redness, the actual experiencing of that, is something that is material? Emotions including fear as experienced, the experiencing of these, and also all other experiencings are beyond the material.

There is something that is beyond the material that sees. As I see it, there is something, that is empty of any attributes. No shape, form, color, not biological, timeless, no memory,something (not a thing) having no past, not person, nothing in it that would distinguish that something here from the same something there in any other. That is what we actually are, the emptiness that sees. That is the observer that can observe the self without identifying with it. That is when the falsly identified self, the I, the whole of that, no division, can be the observed. As K says the observer is the observed.

Topic: Thought is limited. Sun, 02 Dec 2018

Ken D wrote: There need not be a "who" or a "what". It is most likely an emotional need, based on fear.

Aren't you suggesting here that emotional need and fear are beyond matter?

Topic: Thought is limited. Sun, 02 Dec 2018

Is what you are only matter?

Topic: Thought is limited. Sun, 02 Dec 2018

Me Myself wrote: " You know what I mean by the self? By that, I mean the idea, the memory, the conclusion, the experience, the various forms of namable and unnamable intentions, the conscious endeavor to be or not to be, the accumulated memory of the unconscious, the racial, the group, the individual, the clan, and the whole of it all, whether it is projected outwardly in action, or projected spiritually as virtue; the striving after all this is the self. In it is included the competition, the desire to be. The whole process of that, is the self

And all of that is matter.

Topic: Thought is limited. Sat, 01 Dec 2018

Are you thought?

Topic: Thought is limited. Sat, 01 Dec 2018

The real question is: What is the self?

You are mistakenly assumeing that you know, or that you are close to knowing, what it is that is the self.

K has told you something, and you accept it, but it is only knowledge, you don"t question that knowledge, that known.

Topic: Thought is limited. Sat, 01 Dec 2018

Is there something within us that is not matter?

Topic: Thought is limited. Sat, 01 Dec 2018

K's secret: "I don't mind what happens"

Topic: Today's quote: Nov 18, 2018 Sun, 18 Nov 2018

There is something that this writer has discovered recently. Are you aware of what is being called VHEMT: the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement?

Topic: K's superstitions Sat, 17 Nov 2018

Huguette . wrote: Peter,

I'm not saying this is not so, but I don't understand it.

What makes you think you should or could understand it? Understanding is limited.

Understanding is seeing things as determined, cause and effect. There is a field which is beyond that field.

Sentience is there, is of that field beyond. Also, nowness, meaning, perhaps nonlocality, human intelligence, qualia seen in the experiencing of color, qualia includes all feeling, all seeing. Nothing there is explainable.

Topic: K's superstitions Fri, 16 Nov 2018

The most doable universe is no universe.

Topic: K's superstitions Fri, 16 Nov 2018

Huguette . wrote: The fundamental questions remain. Is life a meaningless cosmic accident or is there fundamental order, love and beauty? Is such observable order in the universe its own meaning, or is such order meaningless, random and accidental? Do you have anything to say about THOSE things? Can you help me understand that?

Consider this: That there IS actually anything rather than there being nothing at all, is an impossiblity.

Topic: What did exactly Krishnamurti meant by the statement of "You are the world."? Mon, 12 Nov 2018

What is the self? Is it just thought, which is material only? Or is there something beyond thought, and we are that?

Can thought experience the present? Is it thought that is experiencing color in the present?

There is the empty seer. Something that is beyond matter.

We mistakenly think that we are something that is a self but that self is actually only matter. It is really only the closest part of everything that is outside. We have mistakenly put the boundary between self and other too far out.

Topic: The surprising lack of gratitude Sat, 27 Oct 2018

To be thankful seems to imply some personhood to which it is directed. It may be directed to the invented person, god. There is in this thanking of individuals the reinforcement of identification in both directions, giver and receiver.

In this person, there is an awareness at times of how incredibly fortunate his situation is. Sometimes there is an awareness of the tremendous misfortune of so many others. One could cry.

Topic: The surprising lack of gratitude Thu, 18 Oct 2018

Oh, I see now an example in post #4 above.

Topic: The surprising lack of gratitude Thu, 18 Oct 2018

I wonder if K ever said, "thank you". For example at the dining table " Could you please pass the butter", with a "thank you" on its being received.

Topic: Why do we want to dominate others? Fri, 28 Sep 2018

idiot ? wrote: Jack Pine wrote:

Have you stopped the activities of the self?

I'm just a person like anyone else.

I don't know if you see the trick or trap in the question.

Let's say that X is free of self. Y asks, "Are you free of self? Are you without conditioning?" Or some such question.

If X says "Yes," then X is in contradiction. It's an assertion of a self that is free of self. That makes no sense. "I" cannot be free of self.

Nevertheless, some people do fool themselves and believe they are free of self when they actually are not. This is a trick of the self. The self learns a bit about the activities of the self, by reading K and observing or whatever, and then it fools itself into thinking it understands and is free. This self-fooling self ignores the conflicts it continues to find itself in, which are indicative of conditioning and lack of freedom from self.

Now, let's say X is free of self and completely dissolved into Y. Being one with Y, who is not free of self, X answers, "No, I am not free of self." Wow! How about that?!

On the other hand, X may not be free of self, realize the fact, and honestly answer the same way: "No, I am not free of self." The very same answer!

So any "yes" answer is contradictory and self-deceiving, and any "no" answer is ambiguous.

Now why do we ask the question? Either we want to put someone to the test, or we are convinced that someone is not free and is fooling himself or herself, or we want to put them on a pedestal and make a guru out of them. None of these are very good reasons for asking and none of them will really help Y or X.

Whether X or anyone else is free of self is unimportant. What is important is to investigate if it is possible to be free of self and what that means. If being free of self means being a comatose vegetable, what good is it? But if it means being truly alive and caring and vibrant, then it's worth investigating, at the same time realizing that is not something that can be sought or achieved.


Hello, This is Peter,

I would like for us to consider another possibility:

I suggest that there are transitions. At times there is self and its movement. At other times there is the absence of self. When there is the absence of the self, it is seeing that acts. To any question whatever the reply is, whatever the responce is, it will be correct. This is what happens here.

When the self is present and when that is painful, there is an attempt from that state to get back to the other state. But there is no way to do this. It is the self trying to do something. The self is the doer there, and in that situation, there is no escape. The absence of self comes only from the place that is without the self. It comes when there is an abandonment of the action of the self. It comes from the dropping of all protection. It seems that that dropping also arises out of that other, out of the field where there is no self. It is a jump that is instantaneous, and that seems to be not understandable, understanding being of time.

I think this is the way it happened for K. There were transitions but that state beyond was there much more of the time then it is for the rest of us, and in much more difficult situations.

Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 1228 in total