Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
Discussion Forums

idiot ?'s Forum Posts

Forum: General Discussion

Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 689 in total
Topic: On Relationships and Conflict Fri, 01 Nov 2019

Sean Hen wrote: I would say that here in Spain, and perhaps in the Mediterranean in general, people usually express how they feel in quite a direct, frank manner.

Yes, it is wonderful that you live somewhere different than where you grew up and see interesting cultural and language differences.

Here in LA, many Americans only speak English but Spanish is perhaps the second most spoken language and I think it's fun to speak. I was amazed at how LA Spanish, which is largely Mexican, and perhaps a bit Salvadorean and Guatamalan, is quite different from Madrid Castillano. Of course, there are pronunciation differences. But also many of the commonly used words are different. In Madrid, I heard "Vale, vale" frequently. Whereas we say, "Ok" or "Está bién." We do say "Vale la pena" but not so much "Vale" all by itself. I think you say "conducir" whereas we say "manejar" for "to drive."

Of course, British English versus American is similar. It's not just different pronunciations and spellings sometimes but also different common words. Like "trainers" versus "sneakers." I guess you know all this, but it is interesting.

Culturally, talking to strangers is an interesting one. No doubt I speak comfortably to strangers much more so than many native to London. But I, too, have my limits. Young people here working at the grocery store seem to have no problem asking for details about how I will be spending the afternoon. I usually answer with some non-answer like, "Well, I'll be spending my afternoon spending my afternoon." I'm pleasant but not forthcoming and they take the hint.

So there are all kinds of interesting differences between people, which makes things so much more fun than if the opposite were the case.

Topic: On Relationships and Conflict Thu, 31 Oct 2019

Sean Hen wrote: If we're at all sensitive to other people, we surely won't go around upsetting them unnecessarily.

I agree with what you write in post 153, however I think we have to be careful of the last sentence that I have quoted above. I have known people, and you probably have, too, that are so worried about not upsetting others that they walk around on egg shells. There's a point where you are so nice and accommodating that you are no longer genuine. Sometimes the kindest thing is honesty, delivered with care, and it may be somewhat upsetting.

To be aware in a kind, loving way takes care of everything. It's the ultimate in being ethical and doesn't require any preconceived ethical ideas, yes?

I'm pretty sure you agree because you have been honest with me and I appreciate it.

Topic: On Relationships and Conflict Fri, 25 Oct 2019

Ken D refers to: In May 1985, a few days before JK’s ninetieth birthday, Mark Lee met JK for breakfast. By then Mark Lee had resigned as the director of Oak Grove School. Perhaps the separation wasn’t amicable. During the conversation at breakfast JK asked Mark Lee, “You are watching yourself. You have had a shock recently and are watching yourself. Right?” And then he asked, “Are you hurt by what happened?” Mark Lee said that there was no hurt but deep disappointment that he had not been able to deal with the situation effectively. JK then said, “Pardon me sir, but that is hurt.” That is when Mark Lee remembered what JK said to the director of Rishi Valley Dr. Balasundaram a decade earlier, “Old boy, if you are hurt, remember, there is something wrong with you.”

So this is a memory of a memory of something K supposedly said to a specific person. But that aside, yes, it's important to be aware of feeling emotionally hurt and how that may reveal attachment or whatever. But to condemn yourself? There's a loving, kind way to be aware, whether it's of yourself or others.

Topic: On Relationships and Conflict Fri, 25 Oct 2019

Sean Hen wrote: Does seeing things with great clarity bring us into contact with the present moment?

Or the reverse: Does being in the present moment cause us to see things with great clarity?

Or is there no causality whatsoever, just clear seeing now?

Topic: On Relationships and Conflict Fri, 25 Oct 2019

Patricia Hemingway wrote: One is responsible for BEING 'hurt'.

Perhaps, if we're only talking about an argument or insult. But the child is not responsible for being physically abused. Violence is committed on all kinds of levels and in all kinds of ways. "Blame the victim" is not the solution.

When I am violent, when I create conflict, which since I am a divisive self I most certainly do, then I am responsible. In fact, I can't think of a better motivation, if any is needed, for being aware, for watching myself in relationship, than seeing my own violence.

When K says that the current crisis demands a radical revolution, the crisis is me, the separative human self, and the violence and conflict I am creating and spreading.

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

Krishnamurti, The First and Last Freedom, On Triviality: The question is not with what should the mind be occupied but can the mind free itself from trivialities?

I've got to turn the computer off and stop burning time here.

Topic: On Relationships and Conflict Thu, 24 Oct 2019

One Self wrote: We are the deadly snakes...So one has to step out of oneself and then find a solution.

We certainly can be hurtful to others. Is the solution found by stepping out of oneself or by stepping into oneself? First I must see that I'm hurting others, yes?

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

Jack Pine wrote: 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?

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

But don't worry. I've started a new thread about K hallucinating seeing a face. Is my new thread trivial? Hmm.

Topic: The Face Hallucination Thu, 24 Oct 2019

When K gave a public talk, he'd go into all kinds of philosophical questions.

When he spoke on a personal level with people close to him, it could be quite different.

Here he describes seeing a face, that apparently no one else saw. What does it mean? Was it his face? Someone else's? Does that matter? Was it a hallucination? Was K in touch with a reality that you and I are not? Or did he just have some nutty peculiarities?

Topic: The Face Hallucination Thu, 24 Oct 2019

(Copied from John Raica's Experimenter's Corner and pasted here.)

A very rare K intimate interview

(as recorded by Mrs Pupul Jayakar & her sister Nandini Mehta in 1980)

Q: I'd like to question your position that ''there are no footholds to truth'. Most other systems of meditation insist on the need for some support, at least in the early stages. But you have repeatedly said that there are no steps, no levels : 'The first step is the last step'. However, going into your own past, as well as in casual conversations, I have observed that you have gone through all the kriyas, the actions known to religious tradition. You have tested yourself, you have denied your senses; tied a bandage for days on your eyes to see what it is to be blind. You have fasted for days, you observed total silence for over a year in 1951. What was your reason for this silence?

K: Probably it was to find out if I could keep quiet.

Q: Did it help at all?

K: Not a bit.

Q: Then, why did you do it?

K: I have done crazy things — eaten so that I did not mix protein with starch; eaten only vegetables; then only protein...

Q: Do you put silence in the same category?

K: You mean I did not talk to anybody—are you sure? It was never anything serious. There was no spiritual intention behind the silence.

Q: In the experiences that took place in Ooty, you still saw visions. Do you ever see visions now?

K: As far as I can remember, Master K. H. and the Buddha were always there somewhere in my mind. Their 'images' used to follow me for a considerable time.

Q: You have talked about a 'face' being with you, which merged into your face.

K: That is right.

Q: Today, is that face still with you?

K: Yes, occasionally, but why are you asking all these questions?

Q: Because I want to write an accurate account about your life.

K: Right from the beginning, C. W. L. and Amma had said that the 'face' has been created for many, many lives. I was too young to know what they were saying, but apparently the face impressed them tremendously. They said it was the face of the Maitreya Bodhisattva. Many, many years later one morning I suddenly saw that face, a most extraordinarily beautiful face, that used to be with me for many years. Then gradually that face disappeared. It all began after the death of the brother.

Q: Can we pursue the question of your 'visions' ?

K: For many, many years I was not really 'all there'. Sometimes, even now, I am not all there. After I moved away from Ojai—after 1947 to 1948, things started happening, like seeing this extraordinary face. I used to see it every day—in sleep, while walking. It was not a 'vision'. It was an actual fact.

Q: You saw it even when you were awake?

K: Of course, on my walks it was there.

Q: We saw in Ooty a tremendous change taking place in your face...

K: That is true.

Q: And you said ''the Buddha was there''. Do you still see such visions ?

K: The other night in Madras I woke up with this face.

Q: So it is still there?

K: Of course.

Q: What is the 'feeling' of it ?

K: It is not a vision. It is not something imagined. I have tested it out. It is not something that I wanted. I do not say, ‘What a beautiful face’—there is no wish to have it.

Q: But what happens to you when you get these 'visions'?

K: I look at the face.

Q: Does anything happen to you?

K: It is like 'cleaning' the body and the face and the air. I have seen the face in the dark, in the light, while walking.

Q: Before the mystical process that happened in Ojai, in your letters to Lady Emily, you wrote that you were meditating every day?

K: All that 'meditation' was on Theosophical Society lines. I did it because I was told to do it. It was part of the Theosophical Society belief, but it meant nothing to me. I did all that automatically.

Q: When you ‘came to, was it in a flash or was it something which matured without your knowing?

K: In a flash, naturally.

Q: When one reads the Notebook and then reads the talks of 1948, one finds there has been a major leap in the teachings. Is there such a leap taking place all the time?

K: Yes, it is happening all the time, in my brain, inside me. That first night in Madras, I felt the brain exploding; there was an extraordinary quality, light, beauty. This is happening all the time, but not every day. What is necessary is quietness...

Q: I realize that things happen when you are alone. It happened when you were supposed to be very ‘ill’ in 1959, in Srinagar and later in Bombay. I have never been certain whether you have an illness or something else. At the end of any serious illness, you give extraordinary talks.

K: The illness may be a purgation...

Q: I remember your being ill in Bombay ; you had bronchitis. We had to cancel the talks. You had 103-degree to 104-degree temperature. Suddenly you wanted to throw up. So I ran to get a basin. I held your hand. I saw you were about to faint. I called out and you said, ‘No, no.’ Your voice had changed. Your face had changed. The person who sat up was different from the person who had fainted. You were cured. You told me not to leave the body alone; just to be there. You said, ‘Never be anxious near me; never get worried, don’t allow too many people to come near me. In India they never leave an ill person alone.’ You asked me to sit down quietly and then you said, ‘I must tell you something. Do you know how to help a person die? If you know that someone is about to die, help him to be quiet, help him to forget his accumulations, to be free of his worries, of his problems, to give up his attachments, all his possessions.’ You were silent and then you said, ‘It is just like 'stepping over’.... ‘If you can’t do that, you remain where you are.’

Topic: On Relationships and Conflict Thu, 24 Oct 2019

I'm reconsidering the snake:

K's point about the snake is that when there is urgency, when the snake is close, you immediately act, you put some distance between you and the snake, you don't think. Then, when you have some distance and feel a degree of safety, you think about how to deal with the situation.

So too, we tend to put mental distance between ourselves and our problems, we think about how to deal with them, we detach from them. If instead, we fully open to the problem head on in the moment, completely seeing the situation, the holding on happening, the full implications, then there is immediate action, there is dropping, there is liberation. For example, I see that I'm in conflict, I see that I'm holding on to an idea, I drop it, and the conflict vanishes. Which doesn't necessarily mean I surrender in an argument. It means that relationship improves when I don't have a personal investment in some preconceived outcome.

So the psychological problem is transformed with full present moment awareness. But some problems are technical and really benefit from being thought out carefully. When everyone is safe from the snake, the best way to remove it becomes a technical problem. Do we coax it out, lure it with food, call in an expert, etc.?

Topic: On Relationships and Conflict Wed, 23 Oct 2019

Today's quote of the day (Oct. 23, 2019) is appropriate to some of what we have discussed in this thread:

Krishnamurti Quote of the Day For April 25, 2012, National College, La Plata, Argentina | Public Talk 2nd August, 1935:

You can be intellectually aware, and so there will be no action; but if you are aware with your whole being, then there is action, which alone will free the mind from corruption. If you are merely aware intellectually, then you ask such a question as this. Then you say, "Tell me how to act", which means, "Give me a system, a method to follow, so that I can escape from that action which may necessitate suffering."

...

If you are really conscious with your whole being that a particular thing is a hindrance, a poison, then you will be completely free from it. If you are conscious of a snake in the room - and that consciousness is generally acute, for there is fear involved in it - you never ask another how to get rid of the snake. (Laughter) In the same way, if you are completely, deeply aware, for example, of nationalism, or any other limitation, you will then not ask how to get rid of it; you discern for yourself its utter stupidity. If you are wholly conscious that the acceptance of authority in religion and politics is destructive of intelligence, then you, the individual, will disentangle the mind from all the stupidities and pageantry of religion and politics. (Applause) If you truly felt all this, then you would not merely applaud, but individually you would act.

This is just what K says in the chapter On Transformation.

He says if you're really fully aware of some problem that you are participating in, it drops, there is transformation, there is liberation from it.

And that is exactly what I meant when I said, "When the truth is clearly seen there is transformation."

Now I have more recently found some situations where people bring up "transformation" and use the word in its ultimate sense, and K responds to that. So there may in fact be situations where he discusses an ultimate transformation. I certainly was not using the word in that way and K in his chapter On Transformation states that he is not using the word in that way. But it is not unreasonable that my brief sentence was understood differently than the way I intended. Hopefully it is now clarified.

And by the way, I'm not convinced by his snake analogy. If I were in a room with a snake, I certainly would keep my distance. But discussing how to get rid of it with people would be helpful for resolving it.

Topic: On Relationships and Conflict Tue, 22 Oct 2019

This is something I really differ with K about. He was so strict about no method, insisting that real meditation is something that just happens and nothing can be done to create an environment where it might happen. So what happens? The people who take K seriously know that K said real meditation is of the utmost importance. And they know he said they can do nothing to bring it about, because that would be a method, an idea supporting something beyond any idea. So they wait for lightning to strike. And it doesn't. They continue to live in conflict.

It's a catch 22.

It's not the way K grew up. He chanted mantras when young. He did whatever meditation the Theosophists taught, probably including astral travel and kundalini. Was it nonsense? Sure. But somehow, some quiet sitting was important. Just before the process begins he was doing a lot of meditation.

You and I are making choices in life. We pick what to eat, what to do. As long as we are making some choices, we can choose to investigate sitting quietly, watching the mind, watching how it moves, and if it quiets down or not. That choice is no more problematic than any other of the many choices we make daily. I am existing now as a separate self making choices. That's a fact. That's how I must begin. There's no other way to begin. It may be that the dissolving of the self, love, true silence only happen without choice, without method. But I, the choosing separative self, must begin where I am. I must investigate for myself. Lightning still may not strike. But for sure it won't if I don't really look into things for myself.

Can I follow my thought in daily life? Sure. And that is so important. But if I just sit down in silence with no other distractions, responsibilities, escapes, I will be face to face with just what is. There is really nothing quite like that, for beginning anew.

Topic: On Relationships and Conflict Tue, 22 Oct 2019

Sean Hen wrote: The teacher would then ask us to become aware of what was going on both inside our bodies and the sounds in and outside the room. He would ask us to observe in silence, becoming aware of each thought that entered our head and watching as it left.

It's pretty clear that K was opposed to group meditation, guided or unguided. The teacher, in leading the group meditation, is given a degree of spiritual authority. And K warned of even the hint of any kind of coercion that could happen in a group meditation.

Now again, I've personally done this kind of thing a lot, especially sitting quietly, unguided, with lots of other people. You and I eat alone and we eat with other people. Why shouldn't we sit quietly alone and also with other people sometimes? But this is something K clearly was against. I don't think you will see group quiet sitting at a K center. Yes, K sat quietly in silence. He encouraged you to sit alone in silence. He didn't run groups doing it.

Again, I think these kinds of investigations, whether seated or lying flat, whether guided or not, although I prefer unguided, whether alone or in a group, are fine. But K warned against them. And you can certainly see them being taken as methods.

Topic: On Relationships and Conflict Tue, 22 Oct 2019

Sean Hen wrote: You know, if there were pole-dancing or stud poker events advertised at K centres I'd probably find it a bit odd, but is there really anything wrong with "Yoga + Inquiry" events?

To me, the question isn't "Why can't there be yoga at K centers?" but rather "Why should there be yoga at K centers?" The purpose of the centers is to disseminate K's teachings, have inquiry meetings, promote K stuff. K didn't teach, "Do yoga." It's something he personally did for exercise. He was opposed to any religious trappings of yoga. We think of yoga as physical and possibly breathing exercises, separate from their Hindu origins. But they were created as part of a larger pursuit of moksha, union with God. Even the common phrase that you hear in yoga classes, "Namaste," I bow to the divine in you, begs many questions from the K perspective.

As far as I know, none of the K centers had yoga when K was alive. They have introduced it more recently, I think. And the justification is that yoga was something K did. But he did a lot of things. For example, he went out to dinner with some of his wealthy supporters. I wouldn't mind being taken out to dinner by a wealthy K supporter but I don't see that happening at a K center any time soon. He wore expensive shoes and clothing. Should the brands he wore be sold at K centers?

I don't think there's anything wrong with taking a yoga class, although there may be some religion in it, and I have done so many times. But I question whether the K centers are the place for it.

Topic: On Relationships and Conflict Mon, 21 Oct 2019

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

Actually, you may be surprised by this but I appreciate being corrected when I'm wrong.

I can't remember where I read that K often would sit up straight in bed upon waking and meditation happened. I haven't read all of Mary Z.'s book. Of course, her not mentioning it doesn't mean that it didn't happen. Yet I do remember she and K discussing whether meditation happened for him at some point in her book, although it may not have been at 4 AM. In any case, someone with an electronic version of her book can search for "meditation" and see what she says, if anything.

As to yoga at K centers, please look at https://kfa.org/calendar/ which shows a number of upcoming "Yoga + Inquiry" events.

I don't know the names of Ojai trails but I have certainly walked up the street from Pine Cottage and into the mountains once or twice. I've also hiked other trails in Ojai that were beautiful.

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.

Topic: On Relationships and Conflict Mon, 21 Oct 2019

To me, the whole - K did yoga so I'll do it, too - is a little silly. 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 mean sure, exercise is very important, taking care of the health of the body and mind. And yoga and walking are great. I do them both. But copying K outwardly? Trying to expand the mind to be like K?

Are you going to start astral traveling to the masters? He thought that he did when he was younger.

Are you going to strictly eat vegetarian? Are you going to wake up early, about 4 AM, sit up with the back straight in meditation every morning? He did. The latter two would probably be great for you but now you're probably thinking "Oh God, don't suggest that."

If we copy K outwardly aren't we just vainly seeking after a method?

Anyway, I think it's wonderful if you do yoga, tai chi, go to the gym, walk, eat healthy vegetarian, do quiet sitting meditation. But you're going to be you and K was K.

What K points to most importantly is the end of trying to become something, seeing what is, and in that seeing, dissolving, yes?

Topic: On Relationships and Conflict Sun, 20 Oct 2019

Anyway, we're getting away from Jack Pine's idea of looking at his past and seeing what conditioning took place. To me, that's only going to strengthen the self and not free a person from conditioning. But I'm sure he doesn't want to talk with me about it and wants to talk with Dan McDermott about it.

Topic: On Relationships and Conflict Sun, 20 Oct 2019

Dan McDermott wrote: Isn't it our main conditioning, that we 'must' be attached somehow, somewhere always to (or against) something or someone?

Yes, that is so interesting. And it meshes with K's secret: "I don't mind what happens." In other words, for K no attachment at all.

Topic: On Relationships and Conflict Sun, 20 Oct 2019

Dan McDermott wrote: Attachment is key isn't it?

Yes. When we see our attachment in the present, revealed in conflict, we touch our past conditioning. And the particular conditioning being discovered is relevant to the present situation. That's part of what K is saying in Commentaries On Living, isn't he?

Topic: On Relationships and Conflict Sun, 20 Oct 2019

Jack Pine wrote: 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?

You can try. But it's the past. Memories can be false, partly because they can be built to support a self rather than from what exactly happened.

Another approach is to watch when in conflict in the present, to see any attachment happening. As I posted previously in post #9:

Krishnamurti, Commentaries On Living, Series 2, Chapter 2 Conditioning: Conflict exists when there is no integration between challenge and response. This conflict is the result of our conditioning. Conditioning is attachment: attachment to work, to tradition, to property, to people, to ideas, and so on. If there were no attachment, would there be conditioning? Of course not.

...

“How can one be free from conditioning?”

Only by understanding, being aware of our escapes. Our attachment to a person, to work, to an ideology, is the conditioning factor; this is the thing we have to understand, and not seek a better or more intelligent escape. All escapes are unintelligent, as they inevitably bring about conflict.

...

Freedom from conditioning comes with the freedom from thinking. When the mind is utterly still, only then is there freedom for the real to be.

Topic: On Relationships and Conflict Sun, 20 Oct 2019

Sean Hen began this thread with a video about conflict. We got sidetracked talking about transformation. Are we in conflict with what K says transformation is? He says it is seeing the true and the false moment to moment. But some of us apparently are sticking with it being an ultimate thing, something reserved only for K, despite K saying explicitly it is not an ultimate thing. I encourage you to read K's chapter On Transformation (post #37) several times if you are interested in understanding what he really says about transformation.

The question of transformation is related to conflict. K says that division creates conflict. Do we insist on dividing seeing the truth about something from an end result of that seeing? If so, the seeing and the result are in conflict. Surely K is talking about wholistic seeing that is not apart from change that the seeing entails. Undivided. Surely it is seeing moment to moment, not bound up in the thought division of past or future.

At about 9:50 in the video K says, "Where there is division there must be conflict." Is that true? If I tear a piece of paper in half, dividing it, does the left half fight with the right? No. So K must be talking about psychological division, yes? Which is thought. Thought separates this from that, yes?

You might listen again to the video at 9:50 and afterwards. "Where there is contradiction there must be conflict. Where there is division there must be conflict." Is that so? Are we doomed to conflict?

A lot of the sticking points in understanding K have to do with division and oneness, don't they? For example, "the observer is the observed." We're used to a division and K proposes a oneness. "You are the world." Again, we tend to think in division and K talks about a oneness. What do you say?

Topic: On Relationships and Conflict Sat, 19 Oct 2019

Ken D wrote: How many times did Krishnamurti say that 'truth' was a living thing and not a fixed point? But 'transformation' seems to suggest a final resting point or state, otherwise it would simply be change, which is happening all the time anyway.

Again, K says transformation is not an end result, so obviously it's not a fixed point. You can read exactly what he says transformation is and is not in the full chapter that I posted in post #37.

I will give my understanding, which is just that. Go to the chapter for what K actually says. Here's how it makes sense to me:

I see the truth that junk food is really bad for you and my hand puts the Doritos down and my mouth stops eating them. We're used to thinking about this temporally, as cause and effect. There's the realizing and the resultant change. But that is transformation based on an idea which K specifically rejects. Instead the insight about junk food and the change are completely one and in the moment. There's no residue of an idea. In the future I may devour a bag of Doritos or I may abstain from them. But in the moment there is clear seeing of the fact about something and there is change that is not apart from that seeing.

As I said in an earlier post, this is related to action without idea. You see a rock in the road and you remove the rock to the side of the road. There's no idea of doing a good thing or accomplishing something. The situation is seen and the action is not separate from the seeing.

I welcome others to express their understanding about what K really meant and didn't mean by transformation.

Topic: On Relationships and Conflict Sat, 19 Oct 2019

K told his organizations to call the body of his work teachings. He taught awareness, self knowledge, love, meditation, and yes, transformation, among many other topics, which means that he investigated together with his listeners these issues to see what is true and false about them and their importance. Obviously he didn't teach "how to," which if you really understand what he says, doesn't even make sense. To see what is true or false about something, you just see it or you don't. There's no how.

K defined what he meant by transformation as seeing what is true and what is false moment to moment. To insist on another meaning, like a state, a spiritual accomplishment, something that can be approached with a how to, and so on, is to misrepresent what K said he meant by transformation.

Topic: On Relationships and Conflict Fri, 18 Oct 2019

Jack Pine wrote: If you didn't like the question I asked, if you questioned my motives for asking it why didn't you just ignore it?

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.

I realize you will not accept any clarification from me. I realize that you are open to very little from me. But I have written at length in case it will be of help to others.

Your question "Are you transformed?" is a wrong question because it contains assumptions about transformation that are false and it is accusatory. I have explained this and I'm sure you don't accept it.

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.

Some other things you say, including about people who post here, are also mistaken to one degree or another. For the most part, I'm not interested in correcting these falsehoods. You certainly won't accept it. And I can't be responsible if others are misled by what you say.

So yes, for the most part I will ignore you and your frequent misstatements.

Topic: On Relationships and Conflict Fri, 18 Oct 2019

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

It's a single sentence so it is brief. 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."

But K does not make the error of brevity that I made. K spends an entire chapter where he goes into detail about what transformation is not. Transformation is not based on an idea, it's not an ultimate thing, it's not an end result, it's not in the future, it's not etc., etc.

If you really understand all the things that K says that transformation is not, then I don't think my statement is at all controversial.

It's kind of like talking about love. K goes into what love is not. You and I are not going to communicate well if some of us are talking about love the way we understand K to have talked about it and some of us are talking about romantic love.

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.

Again, way more important than whether I realize anything, whether I say things in the best way, or anything else about me, is what did K say about transformation, about criticism, about whatever? And what meaning does that have for our lives?

Topic: On Relationships and Conflict Fri, 18 Oct 2019

Sean Hen wrote: I gently pointed out your error concerning your response to Jack writing, "Are you transformed?".

You mean when I said that "transformed" was past tense rather saying it was a past participle or participial adjective? Yes, I was mistaken about that and thank you for the correction. The point, however, is that it refers to transformation taking place in the past resulting in a current state. And that's not the way K refers to transformation.

Also, K is not talking about transformation as a state. Do you agree?

To me, transformation is no different than insight. It's freedom because the imagined continuity of the past is severed. And all that may sound grandiose but it can be totally about the mundane. I notice fully how I'm indulging in some escapist activity and see what I'm trying to escape from. The escapism drops. Transformation. But not transformed. It's not permanent. Maybe I'll start escaping again. Maybe I won't.

When we discussed this on an earlier thread we found an instance of K crying, talking to someone who had listened to him for decades and done his best, but hadn't really changed. K is still crying when we're fighting with each other in here. And I wonder if someone somewhere someday will make him jump for joy. (Yes, I'm speaking figuratively.)

Topic: On Relationships and Conflict Fri, 18 Oct 2019

Sean Hen wrote: "Are you transformed?" - "transformed is an adjective describing the state of a person here as well.

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?

That's funny.

"Are you transformed?" asks about a current state but that state is a result of past transformation, an end result.

"Are you transforming?" asks about a current state and the transformation is happening in the present.

"Is transformation happening?" asks about a current state and takes away the "you," an individual separate self.

Do any of these questions shed any light on what K really meant by transformation and its importance? Not really.

So what did K mean by transformation? Is it important? Can it have any impact on daily life? If I see that I'm aware to a degree but change isn't happening, I continue to find myself in conflict, does understanding what K says about transformation have any significance?

After all, an important question K addresses is: "Why haven't we changed?" Does that matter at all to you? Of course, grammar might be more entertaining.

Topic: On Relationships and Conflict Thu, 17 Oct 2019

Sean Hen wrote: Anyway, I don't think this alters what we are all saying about transformation. I think the key point is this - When someone says, "When the truth is clearly seen there is transformation.", there is an implication that the speaker has clearly seen the truth. It's all very well for Krishnamurti to say this, but if someone else says it, what does it imply? I don't know the answer to this question.

If Fred the plumber says that nationalism divides people and creates unnecessary conflict between people, then either what he's saying is true or it's false. Maybe Fred the plumber realizes it, no longer puts a flag on his front porch and no longer sings the national anthem. Maybe he just heard K say it and it made sense to him. Maybe he still puts a flag on the front porch. Is Fred getting a bit uppity saying this about nationalism? Who really knows anything about Fred the plumber and what difference does it make? The important question is what is really true about nationalism. And in understanding what is true about nationalism, is it dropped?

Now I say, "When the truth is clearly seen, there is transformation." K says transformation is not an ultimate thing, not cumulative, not an end result. I agree completely. K says transformation is seeing the true as true or the false as false moment to moment. I agree completely. Nowhere does K use the term "transformation" to say that he has attained some kind of enlightenment. And I certainly don't use the term in that way. Nowhere does K use the term "transformed," as far as I know. That would totally go against what he says about transformation. That would be an end result. We're in a K discussion group and hopefully we can understand and use terminology that K used and we don't add meanings that he didn't intend. So can we be clear on this? K did not use the term "transformation" to refer to some kind of spiritual attainment, did he? Neither do I. Never have. Never will. To me, spiritual attainment is a fiction. I don't even apply it to K, as it seems many of you do. Rather in every moment there is the possibility of awareness. Accumulation is what the thinking brain does. Accumulation of so called spiritual insight is fool yourself activity of the brain. Obviously it is not freedom because accumulation is binding.

Let's say I'm a husband, married to a wife. I notice that I'm getting irritated with her and I notice I'm saying something mean to her. Now some people here say that doing something about it is to depart from what K teaches. If I tried to stop being mean I'd be judgmental of myself. I'd be creating an ideal. I'd be desiring a change from what is and imagining a future rather than being aware of what is. What is is that I'm grouchy and being cruel to her. But any change would no longer be choiceless awareness. I'd be making a choice. So what happens? I continue being a jerk, harming someone I supposedly love, but now I'm doing so with awareness.

Is that really what K teaches? Just continue being nasty to someone but be aware of it? Nonsense. K teaches transformation. It's the very last chapter in the First and Last Freedom because it's very important. If I really see what is true in the moment, I'm being hurtful to my wife, that seeing liberates. The seeing is the stopping of the nastiness. A radical change happens. I, the accumulating self, am not changed, transformed. Transformation is now. It's not part of a past accumulating self. Transformation liberates the situation. And believe me, the wife is very happy about this.

When the truth is clearly seen, there is transformation. It is simple. My saying it says zero about me, idiot. It's either true or not. Either there is seeing of nastiness and it's dropped, or the seeing is only partial. Full, complete seeing is transformation, is change.

Topic: On Relationships and Conflict Wed, 16 Oct 2019

Dan McDermott wrote: So no-one can truthfully say that "I am transformed" because as someone pointed out here, that is already in the past and transformation, as the truth, can only be found can only exist, in the moment.

Of course. And that is why the question, "Are you transformed?" both contains false assumptions and is accusatory.

Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 689 in total