Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
Discussion Forums

Huguette . 's Forum Posts

Forum: General Discussion

Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 539 in total
Topic: How does one go to the very source of thought? Wed, 17 Jul 2019

idiot ? wrote: But a thousand years ago, most people thought that the sun goes around the earth.

Exactly. And people did then and still do now kill or attack those who disagree. Whether one believes the Earth goes around the sun or vice-versa, or whether one believes K said this or that - does not justify physical or verbal violence, does it? Nor does belief make the world a better place. But we attach value, virtue and significance to belief, we are attached to our beliefs and to the sense of security they provide. And so we feel justified in attacking non-believers. Science can only “help us get at the truth” if we drop all belief and conclusions. There is no dearth of beliefs and conclusions, even those which have been disproved by science. Good audio equipment cannot help us. Those who transcribed the tapes of K’s talks at the time had access to the horse’s mouth, didn’t they?

So where does this leave us? What are we really interested in? Whether K said “valid” or “wrong”? Is this the truth we hunger for? The truth that we hunger for cannot be proffered to us by science, can it? It cannot be understood by looking outwardly but only by looking inwardly. No?

“No matter how strongly a thing may be believed, strength of belief is no criterion of truth.”

I'm not very familiar with Nietzche, but this makes sense, doesn’t it? I have often heard people say, “I really really believe….”, as though adding an extra “really” strenghtens the truth. But it only shows the strength of the belief, not the truth.

Topic: How does one go to the very source of thought? Wed, 17 Jul 2019


K may have said “valid” or he may have said “wrong”. Whatever he said, he was not the Delphic Oracle, as he himself has said.

It’s not because someone stands alone in speaking out against the rest of the world that he or she is “wrong”. But one MUST be aware of the cause of one’s speaking-out - not the explanation, but the cause. One MUST be aware because the crucial importance of awareness is understood, isn’t it?

The truth is not a position, it simply IS. The very taking of positions about anything obfuscates the truth, don’t you think? No truth can be understood or spoken without self-awareness, wouldn’t you say?

As I went to log in, I noticed the QOTD:

As long as there is a guiding principle in our lives to which we are trying to be true, there must be duality in action, and therefore a problem.

Topic: How does one go to the very source of thought? Tue, 16 Jul 2019

7th QUESTION: What is the source of thought? How does one go to the very source of thought so that there is a possibility of silencing the thinking process itself?

K: This is a wrong question. Sir, what is thinking? I am asking you. What is thinking? You do that all day long. Right? When you go to the office, when you go to the temple, when you talk, when you are destructive. What is thinking? Go on, sirs. Have you ever even thought about what is thinking? What is the movement of thought? Let's begin slowly. This is the last question. It's quarter to nine. Good lord! We have been an hour and a quarter here, I'm sorry.

Now, what is thinking? Not what to think, not what you think about, not what thought should do, or not do, but we are asking what is thinking itself. You think if you are a businessman in one way, you think as a lawyer in another way, an engineer, a computer expert, you think in these ways; but we are asking, what is thinking itself. If one is asked your name, you reply instantly. There is no hesitation - hesitation being time interval. Please just follow this for a little. When you are familiar with something there is no activity of thought, there is instant response. You know the house you live in, the street you go by, that is familiarity, constant repetition as your name, there is instant response. That response has been immediate because there has been past repetition: my name is so-and-so, I have been called that name since I was a small boy, and I repeat it, repeat it, repeat it, when you ask what my name is, out it comes.

Topic: How does one go to the very source of thought? Tue, 16 Jul 2019

idiot ? wrote at #14: Not knowing is the opposite of knowing, obviously.

Up is the opposite of down; big is the opposite of small; fat is the opposite of skinny; short is the opposite of tall or long, and so on. “Opposites” means that there is a connection, a relationship, a continuum between 2 things. At one end of the continuum is one opposite (“up” for example), and at the other end of the continuum is the other opposite (“down” in this case). Opposites can only exist in pairs. Up has no meaning without down; big has no meaning without small, light has no meaning if there is no such thing as darkness, and so on.

Is there a similar relationship between knowing and not knowing? Is there a continuum which has “knowing” at one end, and “not-knowing” at the other end? There can be. If I don’t know the distance to Paris, I can get that knowledge. If I don’t know the law, I can study books to know the law. Then "not-knowing" becomes "knowing". Then there is a relationship between not-knowing and knowing. Knowing is the accumulation of memory.

But we are NOT talking here about the “not-knowing” which IS related to knowledge/memory. It is the STATE OF MIND of “not-knowing” that K is pointing to, and this state of mind has nothing to do with acquiring knowledge. The state of “not knowing” that K is pointing to is NOT the mere absence of accumulated knowledge; it cannot be "cured" by acquiring knowledge. It is not related to knowledge, it has nothing to do with knowledge. There is no “opposite” to the still state of mind of not knowing.

The question being examined here has 2 parts. The 2nd part of the question is “so that there is a possibility of silencing the thinking process itself”. Doesn't this 2nd part point to the questioner’s conclusion that “silencing the thinking process” is necessary? And so it is the motive for asking “How does one go to the very source of thought...”. THAT’s what makes the question “invalid” or “wrong”, as I see it.

Topic: The Future Of Humanity Fri, 28 Jun 2019

For heaven's sake, Jack, stop! One Self, you too. "Just do it!"

Topic: The Future Of Humanity Thu, 27 Jun 2019

re 213 and 214:

Whether physical or psychological, isn’t the fear that one is aware of always felt as physical sensation, whether mild or strong? Without the physical sensations of fear, would it be called fear? “I’m afraid” means feeling sensations in the gut, in the chest, in the heart, in the blood flowing through the arms and face, in weakness in the legs, or as a surge of energy, and so on. It may be rooted in actual physical danger or threat, in which case fear serves as an intelligent warning. It may be wholly rooted in psychological thought and time, but “psychological fear” is also experienced physically, isn’t it? Psychological fear can also be strong, debilitating, incapacitating, visceral.

Topic: The Future Of Humanity Thu, 27 Jun 2019

idiot ? wrote: if I notice that I am afraid, I have the opportunity to look at it in the moment, directly, to not be apart from it. To do that, I must set aside ideas about fear, and really ideas period. I have to let go of thought and go into what is: fear. Then I may realize that I am not different than the fear. Then there can be staying with.

I'm not contradicting you. I'm looking into it with you.

Can I "set aside ideas"? If I'm afraid and I think that "I should not be afraid", isn't it necessary to be aware of both elements, to see the whole thing - the ideas about fear and fear itself? If I look "only" at fear and not at the ideas about fear, there is only partial seeing and so no understanding, isn't it?

Is fear independent or separate from the idea that "I should not be afraid"? "Staying with" is staying with everything that arises as it arises, as it recedes, as it fluctuates, as I see it. Staying with or facing what is does not start once I have let go of thought. It starts immediately, with awareness of anything and everything that arises in the moment. And the awareness of ideas and thoughts is not the pursuit of ideas and thought.

I can only "discover a connection between thought and fear" if both are looked at.

Topic: The Future Of Humanity Thu, 27 Jun 2019

re 202:

You have a point, Idiot. I’m not saying any question is invalid or wrong where it arises spontaneously, innocently. What makes a question wrong, as I see it, is where it is attached to a conclusion or motive, where it is attached to the desire to be right, to win an argument, and so on. That is a wrong question, a frivolous question, as I see it.

idiot ? wrote: We cannot know in advance anything about the moment. It is only accessed when we set aside everything and look. Yes?

It is not that “we set aside everything and look”, as I see it. It is that nothing is set aside and everything is looked at. If nothing is set aside, then fear, conceit, desire, and so on, are observed, and it is from the looking itself that understanding flowers and questions arise. I could be wrong.

Topic: The Future Of Humanity Thu, 27 Jun 2019

Ken D wrote: Asking "Who am I?" is vastly different from asking "What am I?" Both have different assumptions behind them.

I don’t disagree, Ken.

As I see it, “one who” begins questioning life, action, relationship, suffering, and so on, might ask “who am I” - “I am sometimes angry, afraid, conceited, self-deprecating, anxious, jealous, kind, cruel, and so on. So who am I really, which one is the real me?”

By looking into it, the questioning itself is in movement, it changes, and a new question arises: “what am I?”

Topic: The Future Of Humanity Tue, 25 Jun 2019

re 161 and 165:


You say that K questions the existence of the self. Leaving aside “what K says” regarding the self - is the truth or nature of self clearly understood by “me”? Is understanding the self important to “you and me”? What IS self to “me/you”? And is the question of the self a strictly intellectual debate that is totally isolated from and irrelevant to living and experiencing, so to speak? Is it just an academic debate which is unrelated to sorrow, joy, self-understanding, relationship, conflict, and so on? The sorrow of living, like self, is not rooted in the big toe, is it?


You ask, “Don't we have to ask how much of who I feel that I am is illusory?” Why do “we have to”? If I do NOT consider self illusory, if I am NOT in sorrow, if “I” am SURE that I know what self is, if I am comfortable with the view of self which has been inculcated in “me”, then DO “I” or would I question whether or not I/self is illusory --- except perhaps as an intellectual exercise for entertainment? Isn't it when I face the fact of sorrow - my own and the world's - that I question who or what IS this "I" who suffers?

Isn't what makes a question “right” in the context of our questioning life and relationship, that it is vital, urgent, intense, that it comes from shared experiencing, not from experience? Experiencing is “what is” in the moment. Experience is “what was”. And “shared experiencing” means that we human beings are experiencing the same thing in the moment. So we are not sharing past experiences and ideas rooted in the past. No?

If a question is vital, urgent, intense to both of us in the moment, is that what makes for communication, even if we don’t fully understand each other or the question? If it is vital, urgent, intense, then our energy is gathered or gathers itself and any question which arises is "right". Is this so?

Topic: The Future Of Humanity Fri, 21 Jun 2019

Or as Shakespeare put it:

He hath disgraced me and hindered me half a million, laughed at my losses, mocked at my gains, scorned my nation, thwarted my bargains, cooled my friends, heated mine enemies – and what's his reason? I am a Jew. Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions; fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die? And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge? If we are like you in the rest, we will resemble you in that. If a Jew wrong a Christian, what is his humility? Revenge. If a Christian wrong a Jew, what should his sufferance be by Christian example? Why, revenge. The villainy you teach me, I will execute, and it shall go hard but I will better the instruction.

—?Act III, Merchant of Venice

Topic: The Future Of Humanity Fri, 21 Jun 2019

idiot ? wrote: But still! I am a separate self, too. I go to my job and home to my house. I waste time on kinfonet, while someone else doesn't go near it. I'm different from someone else, even as we are the same. Just sayin'.


You keep saying this and other things to the same effect as though it contradicts or refutes the oneness of the mind. It doesn’t. K himself never disputed the fact that we do differ in many ways. Nor does anyone else here as far as I can see. K referred over and over to the fact that we differ - in appearance, customes, culture, characteristics, occupation, talents, “life stories”, and so on. What do particular attributes have to do with the oneness of the human brain’s functioning, with the universal psychological processes which result in duality?

Man is conditioned to think that he IS different, unique, better, worse, smarter, stupider, self-made, competent, incompetent, special or unimportant, and so on. He is not. In experiencing of anger, fear, conceit, desire, pretense, sorrow, and so on, he is one with the world, isn't he? The narratives and circumstances vary but the experiencing of the one is the same as the experiencing of the whole of humanity.

Topic: The Future Of Humanity Fri, 21 Jun 2019

Dan McDermott wrote at #145: But I agree that he did bring it up and that it was right to ask him to elaborate but he wouldn't and my guess is that 'it' is indescribable and 'thought' will take and run with it.


You might be right but I don't think Scott WAS asking for a description of the indescribable when he asked "And that consciousness existed before he stepped out of the stream, so to speak."

In the bits of conversation with Alain Naude quoted above, K said:

How am I to step out of this misery, this terrible chaos, shallowness and all the rest of it. And is it possible? If I was in the stream, that’s the only question I would ask.

Is this "how" a search for a method? Is this "is it possible" speculation? Obviously not.

It seemed to me that K was eager to leave the exchange with Scott and others in order to challenge the Buddhist scholar on meditation. I could be wrong.

Topic: The Future Of Humanity Fri, 21 Jun 2019

idiot ? wrote: But he is using the metaphor and image of "the stream" and it's only going to go so far. If am the stream and the stream is me, then how do I jump out of myself? The stream is jumping out of the stream? The imagery and logic break down.

idiot ? wrote: It is all too easy for assumption and misunderstanding to come in...


Are you sure that assumption has not “come in” when you say the logic of the stream breaks down? Any metaphor obviously only goes so far. Beyond a certain point, the intellect and reason must drop the metaphor. Beyond a certain point, everything that is known must be dropped. It is when one becomes attached to the metaphor itself, or attached to the desire to prove the metaphor wrong, etc., that assumption and misunderstanding come in, isn’t it? What is important is to understand oneself, not the metaphor. I think the importance of the metaphor of the stream of self is that it illustrates how the mind is carried or driven by pressures and currents which it is not aware of and does not understand. This powerful current is seen in mobs, in society, in politics, religion, education, fashion, entertainment, and so on. The “self” (the fragment) who is so carried or driven thinks that “he or she” is in control, thinks that he is acting out of his own intelligent choices, convictions or morality, and so on.

When I am “in” the stream, “I am” the self. That state of self-ignorance obstructs or blocks intelligence and love. Self is ignorance. The stream of consciousness, of self, of conditioning, of ignorance clouds the entire mind. It does not destroy intelligence; it clouds intelligence. But the ignorance of the stream or the self is NOT the totality of mind. Intelligence, love, compassion, are not OF or IN the stream. The total mind is thought and time, also intelligence, beauty, love, compassion, which are one indivisible quality, not a personal quality, not a quality of self. And without intelligence, there can be no understanding of relationship. So there can be no understanding IN the stream. “Stepping out” of the stream of suffering means the ending of ignorance, the freeing of the mind, as I see it.

There is a darkness in the wholeness of the mind which is self - which is put together by thought. But self is not the whole of thought and not the whole of the human being. The darkness invades, occupies, takes over, commandeers the human being, the human mind. This darkness is this stream, this powerful current, which has flowed through the generations, inwardly as self and outwardly as society. In the stream, there is nothing no love, no intelligence, nothing that is not put together by thought. So this is the “me” which is the stream.

And there is the “me” which is the whole human being - love, intelligence, compassion, thought or intellect, and so on - the “me” which observes, which needs to communicate in relationship. The whole human being needs (so far) a functional or utilitarian “me” in order to communicate.

As I see it, the human being who suffers, who has been observing his mind and has a certain understanding, has insight into the nature of self, into the root of suffering and into the fact that there is NOTHING he can do to escape suffering or end self. That suffering human can divest himself of his attachment to anger and fear and all their tributaries. So that he can observe them but not be led to action by the conflict that he “should” do something about them. He is not tethered to them, not compelled by them. He simply observes, learns, finds out about life beyond self. That is stepping out of the stream, to me.

So, to find that reality one must understand oneself, the structure and the nature of the self; and the structure and the nature of oneself is measurable by thought. It is measurable in the sense that thought can perceive its own activities, thought can see what it has created, what it has denied, what it has accepted; and when one realizes the limitations of thought, then perhaps one can go into that which lies beyond thought.

The thought which "can perceive its own activities" is not the self which is a fragment of thought. It is the unfragmented intellect, as I see it.

But I depart from K when he says "to find that reality". I think that self-understanding is not “to find that reality” as K says. Above all, one simply hungers for understanding on its own … not “in order to...”. No?

Topic: The Future Of Humanity Thu, 20 Jun 2019

The following extracts are what I referenced in the first paragraph of my previous post. Transcribed by me (with ellipses) from

Dialogue with Alain Naudé, Malibu, January 26, 1972:

At 5:30 Alain Naudé says there must arise for every man the question: "One MUST come to ask a question: is there another dimension....?"

(6:13) K: I wonder if you would ask that question ... Your first question would be: ... How am I to step out of this misery, this terrible chaos, shallowness and all the rest of it. And is it possible? If I was in the stream, that’s the only question I would ask. Not whether gods exist, don’t exist … If I was in the stream ... I would say to myself, “Is there in me a place where there is no corruption, where there is real absolute peace, order? I would like to get at that, in spite of all the misery … my concern would be, Is there in this chaos, which is me … a place where the mind is completely quiet, full of beauty and the rest of it? I think I would ask that question.

(12:48) Then my next question is, "Is there something in ME - not invented, not supposed, not self-created myth - is there in me a peace, a silence, a beauty that is not corruptible, that doesn’t belong to the vulgar stream, that is not an illusion? … Is there something real when I have discarded the whole human culture … out of myself, is there something … real, unadulterated peace? I ask the question whether there is - when I have thrown out the whole invention of man …. is there a state of mind that’s really timeless? … Now how do I find out? A strange thing happens, because you have thrown out everything, your mind instantly has a different quality.

Topic: The Future Of Humanity Thu, 20 Jun 2019

Ken D wrote at 120: Toward the very end, Scott Forbes again raises the issue of where this intelligence comes from but Krishnamurti says he won't play that game any longer.

As I see it, the seeming difficulty K had understanding the various questions put to him in this talk and his refusal to respond to this question of Forbes, indicate inattention, inner conflict, contradiction, division. K himself has put the same kinds of questions in other talks (see the next post below for an example). It seemed to me that he was just jumping to conclusions as to what questioners meant and not listening attentively.

At 1:16:20 a young man (you inform us that he is Scott Forbes) asked:

Young Man: For the man who has stepped out of the stream and is no longer a manifestation of the stream, there is something else which is operating. Could we say something about the nature of that thing? K answers: Which is intelligence. Intelligence is love. Intelligence is compassion. YM: And from many things you’ve said in the past, that seems to have an independent existence. K: Obviously. YM: Even before, or without it manifesting in him. K: If A’s consciousness is no longer of the stream, his consciousness is entirely different. It’s a different dimension altogether. YM: And that consciousness existed before he stepped out of the stream, so to speak. K: Ah, now you are speculating. YM: Yes, I am. K: I won’t play with you.

Why does K introduce “an entirely different consciousness, a different dimension altogether” and then refuses to answer a question which, as a result, arose for YM - Scott Forbes - about that new dimension? Scott’s question is the question I myself would have wanted to ask. Obviously, IN the stream that is the self, there is no “altogether different dimension”. I don’t see Scott’s question as speculation at all. Scott numbly agreed that, yes, he was speculating but I don’t think he WAS speculating. He was asking, wanting to understand what K was saying. I think he was shocked, too shocked to challenge K about speculating.

Then another young man says:

YM2: Perhaps another way to say it would be: is there intelligence without the intelligent person?

K: ... Let’s put it another way. Wars have created a great deal of misery. Right? And that misery remains, in the air. Goodness has been also part of man, trying to be good. There’s also that enormous reservoir of both. One doesn’t contribute to that goodness, but one is always contributing to the other.

MZ: Are you saying the other exists only in the human psyche but goodness exists apart from humanity?

K: Let’s put it this way. There is not only A suffering, there is this whole suffering of mankind.

MZ: Or more than mankind. There is suffering.

K: There is suffering. Of course.

Out of the blue, K drops this very fruitful (to me) exchange and turns to one of the Buddhist scholar to talk about meditation.

K: Sir, would you kindly explain what is Buddhist meditation.

The rest of the talk is wasted on K challenging the scholar about meditation. As I see it, he was also inattentive here. K was being what I can only call competitive, petty, conceited aggressive and controlling as he tried to push the Buddhist to say that there is a method to HIS (the Buddhist) meditation.

This is NOT to say that I discard everything K has said. I do not. K is not perfect and K is not infallible and I don’t begrudge him being imperfect and fallible. It does not make less truthful the truths that he pointed out, as I see it. It means that I must be vigilant and see things for myself, not be like a politician who strives to make everything fit a personal “vision”, personal desires, and so on.

Topic: The Future Of Humanity Mon, 17 Jun 2019


I do agree that aside from memory and its derivatives (knowledge, opinion, theory, belief, etc.), there are also mental processes such as reasoning, extrapolating, categorizing, comparing, and so on. As I see it, the mental connections or pathways established by these processes are essential for giving meaning to memory. Without these processes, memory would be a meaningless collection of words, phrases, images, and so on, wouldn’t it?

In fact, it seems to me that consciousness as we know it DOES disappear where the content is “removed” and/or where mental connections and pathways are disrupted or broken, as in Alzheimer’s to illustrate. In a sense, memory and its derivatives have no meaning on their own, that is, no meaning without the processes which process them. I could be mistaken.

It seems to me that when K says that consciousness is its content, it merely means that there is no “SELF” outside of consciousness who “owns, manages and controls” the content of consciousness..

“Consciousness is it content” does not mean that the content of consciousness is useless, unnecessary or dangerous , as I understand it. The very seeing that consciousness is its content does not “remove” the content which IS consciousness. Seeing that consciousness is its content merely removes the illusion that there is a duality in consciousness - a duality of “me” and the content - as I understand it. There is only the content and this content - consciousness - is not the totality of the mind.

Topic: The Future Of Humanity Mon, 17 Jun 2019

idiot ? wrote at #79: K says consciousness is its content! DB says, wait, a glass is not the water it contains. K says it's all one.


One Self's comment made me look at what you wrote in #79.

As I see it, consciousness is not a container in the way that a glass contains water. Where a glass contains water, there are clearly 2 objects - the container and its content. Each can and does exist on its own: the glass as an empty glass, the water as a puddle.

When K says that consciousness is its content, isn’t it because there simply is NO container outside of the “content”, outside of the totality of the brain’s memories (as knowledge, belief, opinion, etc.)? So the totality of memory is consciousness and consciousness is not a container. No? There is no consciousness or “me” which possesses or controls its memories, knowledge, beliefs, opinions, etc. Consciousness IS THE TOTALITY of memories, not a container holding the content. Isn't what holds the content "together" the very illusion of a separate self?

Topic: The Future Of Humanity Sun, 16 Jun 2019

idiot ? wrote at #77: The whole is everything, totality. To talk about the "whole consciousness of man" is to divide it off from other consciousness, like that of animals. So it ain't so whole anymore.

Either totality is, which means thought has stilled to zero, or some subset of totality is considered, which means that thought has seeped back in.

To talk of the whole consciousness of man is not necessarily to separate it from other consciousnesses. Man may be “one with the tree” psychologically, but he separates himself from the tree by observing it through time, through knowledge, through emotion. Whatever man’s consciousness is, it is not divided by the mere fact of observing his own consciousness. Self-understanding comes through self-observation. What else can be observed directly, not as an idea or as a theory, but simply through choiceless awareness? The human mind is observing itself. “Itself” is mankind. The human mind cannot DIRECTLY observe the dolphin mind or the tree mind through choiceless awareness. Where there is choiceless awareness, where there is no time, no memory, no knowledge, what is seen, what is observed?

It may very well be that there is “one indivisible consciousness that all living things are part of“, as Jamie says. As I see it, it is beyond my ability to observe that directly or understand it. Perhaps a scientist like Bohm or Einstein can come to it, I don’t know. As I see it, this is one of the things that is beyond the limits or capabilities of thought, and beyond choiceless awareness, direct observation and human understanding. It can only be speculation as I see it. And THAT is where thought creeps in, isn't it?

Topic: The Future Of Humanity Sun, 16 Jun 2019

I see a parallel between the layers of consciousness and the layers of the ocean (from top to bottom, the sunlight zone, the twilight zone, the midnight zone, the abyss and the trenches). As far as I know, there are no clear divisions or barriers between these layers. And yet, the forms of life, activities, temperatures, atmospheric pressures, and so on, in each layer are quite different and distinct. Does this mean that the ocean is not one?

The same parallel can be made for the Earth as a whole. I remember (but can’t provide a reference) Jacques Cousteau saying that the chemicals from every cigarette smoked on Earth end up in the ocean. The effects of man-made pollution are more and more obvious - from the Earth’s outer atmosphere, to the depths of the oceans.

And looking with the mind’s eye at the universe as a whole, no dividing barriers are seen.

So all these levels exist as one goes about one's daily tasks and activities, in awareness or no awareness, in attention or inattention.

Topic: The Future Of Humanity Sun, 16 Jun 2019

idiot ? wrote: To say that nearly all human beings approach life as separate selves is clearly true. To say that in general we share similar experiences is also obvious. Most everyone would accept those. But that is quite different from saying there is only one consciousness of mankind and separate consciousnesses are an illusion.

Suppose I said that all pencils are writing implements. Some may have sharper or duller points or their points may be broken off, but basically they are all writing implements and their purpose is to be useful for writing. We'd likely agree. But if I said therefore there is only one pencil. It is an illusion that there are separate pencils. Most people would say wait a minute, that's both untrue and illogical.

I understand the difficulty (I think). But I’m not just referring to the fact that the psychological processes of self and time are the same in all mankind. I mean that the inner state - the movements of thought and emotion - of the human being is not hermetically sealed off from and impervious to his environment, and vice-versa. For example, if one is in a room where there is angry shouting going on, doesn’t it have a direct impact on one’s inner state? Also if there's shooting or fighting in the street outside. Or if you witness an injustice on TV or in person. Or if you witness kindness. Isn't the impact of all this on the inner state observed if one is attentive? So “outer” behaviour - the environment - impacts the inner, negatively and positively. To think that "what I do" is none of anyone’s business is not a reflection of fact, as I see it.

Another example: you know how some people are very prickly and quick to anger when they feel criticized. Someone might say something to them when they don’t pick up after their dog, or when they are seen verbally or physically abusing their child, or when they steal from the office, or cheat on their income taxes, and so on. (There’s also the issue of “why” one might feel compelled to make such criticism but it's not what we're looking into right now). What’s relevant here in terms of our questioning the “oneness of consciousness”, is the kind of responses that are often given: “What’s it to you? It’s none of your business.” In other words, the person - the mind, the so-called “individual” - thinks that whatever he or she does is nobody’s business but his own, that it is “not supposed to” have any impact on “society”, on the human collective. Doesn’t such anger also stem from the concept of a separate self?

As I see it, K was addressing this same issue of oneness in different words when he said:

"So, if we are clear that the outer is the inner - the inner is the outer, that there is not the division, the society and the individual, the collective and the separate human being, but the human being is the whole, he is the society, he is the separate human individual, he is the factor which brings about this chaos.”

As for the example of the pencils, I think there is no parallel with what we’re talking about, which is consciousness. I think you would agree that pencils have no consciousness, no notion of self or time, no conflict, desire, fear, and so on!


K also said somewhere (I can’t find a quote) that saying that there is no division between me and the tree doesn’t mean that I AM actually the tree. It means that psychologically, there is no division, that I don’t look at the tree through my memories, knowledge, and so on.

I don’t know if I’m clear.

Topic: The Future Of Humanity Fri, 14 Jun 2019


I WAS essentially responding to your post #58, via your post #57, if you know what I mean. I have nothing to add about the question of one consciousness.

Topic: The Future Of Humanity Fri, 14 Jun 2019

Jack Pine wrote: You are your own worst enemy when it comes to understanding what K is pointing out.

idiot ? wrote: Of course. The same is true for you and for everyone.

Isn’t this the very essence or crux of the meaning of it - “the consciousness of mankind is one”? Every so-called individual views life and approaches life’s problems through the viewpoint of the illusory self-centre looking outwardly: I’m afraid, I get angry, I’m conceited, I’m aggressive, I’m deceitful, I hate myself, I love myself, I hate the world, I'm a victim, I'm a winner, I've been wronged, I look out for myself, and so on.

The individual narratives differ, the circumstances differ, the sophistication, crassness, style or polish of individual behaviour differs, the expressions and degrees of deceit, pretense, anger and fear vary, and so on. But every single “individual” approaches life and faces life’s challenges THIS WAY - through the illusory self. Isn’t it so? And isn't this approach to life responsible for all conflict, chaos, deterioration, danger, and so on? Isn’t the total consciousness of man as it presently is - one in this way?

Topic: Are we really "progressing" in our understanding? Tue, 04 Jun 2019

Dan McDermott wrote: chanting and marching with signs

People can demonstrate without chanting and signs, even perhaps spontaneously without organizing, can't they?

Topic: Are we really "progressing" in our understanding? Tue, 04 Jun 2019

Dan McDermott wrote: Shouldn't you be sure before you put your life at risk that what you are doing is something that actually makes a difference rather than a temporary reformation... and something that won't simply be undone in the future by different players?


Such certainty and guarantee about the future outcome of action cannot be had, can it? There's no such thing, is there?

Topic: Are we really "progressing" in our understanding? Tue, 04 Jun 2019

Can you and I, Sean, call for a global demonstration, to be carried out silently and peacefully by all citizens of the world, demanding right action from political, religious, social and business leaders. Can this be done? Any ideas?

Topic: Are we really "progressing" in our understanding? Tue, 04 Jun 2019

Sean Hen wrote: So an intelligent person might say "we must campaign peacefully to put limits on how corporations act". Would this just breed more conflict or would it help protect our endangered planet?


I personally don’t have an automatic objection to peaceful demonstration. What seems peaceful outwardly or superficially may be conflictual inwardly, or it may be peaceful.

We have been looking into self-ignorance, inner division, time, intelligence, love, attention, understanding and so on. For me, it is the inner state which is the touchstone, the thing which determines what is at the root of action. If the inner state is conflicted, self-centred, if action is rooted in fear, hate, conceit, desire, greed, and so on, the action is inevitably divisive and conflictual, as I see it.

Topic: Are we really "progressing" in our understanding? Tue, 04 Jun 2019

Sean Hen wrote: So an intelligent person might say "we must campaign peacefully to put limits on how corporations act". Would this just breed more conflict or would it help protect our endangered planet?

I personally don’t have an automatic objection to peaceful demonstration. What seems peaceful outwardly or superficially may be conflictual inwardly, or it may be peaceful.

We have been looking into self-ignorance, inner division, time, intelligence, love, attention, understanding and so on. For me, it is the inner state which is the touchstone, the thing which determines what is at the root of action. If the inner state is conflicted, self-centred, if action is rooted in fear, hate, conceit, desire, greed, and so on, the action is inevitably divisive and conflictual, as I see it.

Topic: Are we really "progressing" in our understanding? Tue, 04 Jun 2019

idiot ? wrote: K is talking about radical revolution, not a gradual improvement of character. He's talking about an eruption, a complete break.

That is what this early quote is saying, yes?

Which means what? That K is talking to no one?


Isn’t K talking to whoever realizes and is facing the fact that he is “really in conflict”? In the observation of inner conflict, there is only that. Blaming of the environment, speculating about the future or about what the ending of conflict might be like, is an attempt to avoid the inner conflict and therefore an extension of the conflict, as I see it. Any such avoidance is also observed.

For one who is in conflict, isn't talk about "the miraculous, the earthshaking revolution" speculation and time?

Topic: Are we really "progressing" in our understanding? Tue, 04 Jun 2019

Today's quote of the day (Ojai, California | 9th Public Talk 28th June, 1934):

What I am saying can only apply to those who are really in conflict, not to those who want to reform, who want to do patchwork. I have explained what I mean by reform, by patchwork - it is an adjustment to an environment, born out of the lack of understanding.

You and I have to feel the fire burning in ourselves, inwardly, in order to come to right action. The fire is conflict, which is rooted in self-ignorance, isn’t it? As long as we think the fire is only burning “out there” and that "out there" is what needs to be fixed, we cannot act rightly, as I see it.

Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 539 in total