Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
General Discussion | moderated by Dev Singh

Sat. Aug. 27 K Quote


Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 85 in total
Sat, 27 Aug 2011 #1
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5666 posts in this forum Offline

I direct your attention to today's quote. I think it is an excellent view of what K was pointing out all of his life.

As you can see it was spoken in 1934 and what he said then remained consistant with what he said throughout his life. K really didn't change that much from beginning to end. He did, constantly, search for new and clearer ways of expressing what he had to point out.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 2 readers
Back to Top
Sat, 27 Aug 2011 #2
Thumb_man_question_mark dhirendra singh India 2984 posts in this forum Offline

Probably basically he was pointing same thing in his whole teaching. ..Freedom in beginning..

I don't know

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Sat, 27 Aug 2011 #3
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

The quote is/was, "You should stay away if you make of me a teacher, if you make of me your guide."

Yet his life work is presented as a teaching. It passed through him and into the world. It was not 'his' teaching. That is clear in the discussions presented in the book, "Don't Make a Problem of Anything." which I strongly recommend. (Published in India)

In that book he calls on a small group of 'those who are soaked in the teaching' to go out into the world and present their actual understanding of things, but in their own words. He called it a nucleus and an ashram, in the original sense of the word..

"The ego is first and foremost a body ego." S. Freud

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 28 Aug 2011 #4
Thumb_patricia_may_2014_reduced_ Patricia Hemingway Australia 1925 posts in this forum Offline

Jack Pine wrote:
K really didn't change that much from beginning to end.

I question that statement. K was also conditioned - by the theosophists. He had to end that conditioning, and in so doing discovered all about conditioning. Quite clearly he did that as he went along, and by the end of his life the teaching was austere and very clear - with NO promises.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Sun, 28 Aug 2011 #5
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Patricia Hemingway wrote:
I question that statement. K was also conditioned - by the theosophists. He had to end that conditioning, and in so doing discovered all about conditioning. Quite clearly he did that as he went along

Dear Patricia, I do not want to start an argument with you about it, no way, but I do wish to point out that what you have outlined above is not questioning, it is opinionating. You are entitled to do that, of course. But please also continue to question the opinion. I see many good reasons for so doing.

I will suggest an alternative opinion:

K did not change the teaching, however the vocabulary with which it was imparted went through many convolutions along the way, hence apparant contradiction over time and hence also the necessity to read the whole teaching carefully and get beneath the words. A second point, K gave this teaching over 60 years. He started at the beginning and ended at the end. The subject matter he introduced in the early phase is different that that at the end. His teaching was like a spiral which came back over the same materials in phases deepening and enriching the understanding of those who were close enough to get soaked in it (an expression he used). I find no essential contradictions from beginning to end.

There, now I have also opinionated. One can differ, hopefully, without falling out. Leave it open to further insight.

"The ego is first and foremost a body ego." S. Freud

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 2 readers
Back to Top
Sun, 28 Aug 2011 #6
Thumb_patricia_may_2014_reduced_ Patricia Hemingway Australia 1925 posts in this forum Offline

Paul Davidson wrote:
One can differ, hopefully, without falling out. Leave it open to further insight.

Happy to do that.

I am not trying to prove anything - as the truth really does not require help from any mere human being. :)

This post was last updated by Patricia Hemingway Sun, 28 Aug 2011.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Sun, 28 Aug 2011 #7
Thumb_avatar Ravi Seth India 1573 posts in this forum Offline

Patricia Hemingway wrote:
I question that statement. K was also conditioned - by the theosophists. He had to end that conditioning, and in so doing discovered all about conditioning. Quite clearly he did that as he went along, and by the end of his life the teaching was austere and very clear - with NO promises.

Agreed

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Sun, 28 Aug 2011 #8
Thumb_man_question_mark dhirendra singh India 2984 posts in this forum Offline

Please point out the changes in teachings, if any one exactly know it.

I don't know

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 28 Aug 2011 #9
Thumb_man_question_mark dhirendra singh India 2984 posts in this forum Offline

Patricia Hemingway wrote:
K was also conditioned

This means freedom comes in instalments.This also means that K may had not got his last instalment of freedom.

I don't know

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 28 Aug 2011 #10
Thumb_man_question_mark dhirendra singh India 2984 posts in this forum Offline

Patricia Hemingway wrote:
I am not trying to prove anything

Exactly, only issuing statements without proofs, like ten commandants.. or whatever.

I don't know

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 28 Aug 2011 #11
Thumb_man_question_mark dhirendra singh India 2984 posts in this forum Offline

1.Did K accept anywhere that he was conditioned?

2.Did K say anywhere that his early teachings are misleading?

3.Why he was so much cautious about preventing any adulteration in teaching, which also includes his early lectures.

4.When he had not included his writing's like '...feet/toe/nails of masters.." in his teachings, than why he allowed his early, so called, conditioned writings, as teaching?

(P.S. I have great respect for Patricia, these are only questions, her study is vast, I may be wrong(this is not exceptional thing, I am (is) very doubtful)

I don't know

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 28 Aug 2011 #12
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5666 posts in this forum Offline

Patricia

I think if you re-read Mary Lutyens' biographies of K, especially the first one, you will see that K was not only not conditioned by the Theosophists but was not conditioned by anyone or any thing. His trouble in school in India was that the lessons simply wouldn't stick to him. For which he was caned unmercifially. He was blank. As for the Theosophists he felt that he owed his life and that of his brother to Mrs. Besant and to the Theosophists. He hung on longer with that group than he would have because of his loyality to Mrs Besant. My impression is that he never bought into what the Theosophists were selling rather he simply went along with the program out of respect for Mrs. Besant and maybe Lady Emily and a few others.

Another point that I think is cogent is that K consistantly and frequently pointed out that there is "no becoming", "no psychological time" in which one sees what is, sees truth or whatever you want to call it. If that condition is true for us then it must necessarily be true for K. There is no evolution of the center to become whatever the center thinks it must become to BE. Indeed, K often pointed out that the center, the I or ego, cannot co-exist with truth. That there is time involved in seeing is the great illusion that most of us are caught up in and that blocks our seeing the basic fact that there is absolutely nothing to do or be or become. Psychologically, I, me, the center is an illusion which is a product of thought which is the past. Truth is the present. I know this, myself, logically but not as a fact. And no amount of reasoning and logic is going to bring anyone to the truth. Damn, stuck again.

This post was last updated by Jack Pine Sun, 28 Aug 2011.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 2 readers
Back to Top
Sun, 28 Aug 2011 #13
Thumb_man_question_mark dhirendra singh India 2984 posts in this forum Offline

Jack Pine wrote:
I think if you re-read Mary Lutyens' biographies of K

I think if we read K himself, not the things by biographers, it will be more clearer.

I don't know

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Sun, 28 Aug 2011 #14
Thumb_stringio RICK LEIN United States 4436 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Jack Pine wrote:
simply wouldn't stick to him.

This says it all..they did try[T.S] and others to influence Krishnamurti.. I feel that we can not know the intimate details of Krishnamurti..as he himself said..why bother you[I] we will never know him! Also keep in mind that Krishnamurti said..the unconditioned can have relationship with the conditioned..but not..the reverse!:)

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 2 readers
Back to Top
Sun, 28 Aug 2011 #15
Thumb_stringio RICK LEIN United States 4436 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

dhirendra singh wrote:
I think if we read K himself, not the things by biographers, it will be more clearer.

Yes very true my friend!:)

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Sun, 28 Aug 2011 #16
Thumb_deleted_user_med Muad dhib Ireland 175 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Jack Pine wrote:
K consistently and frequently pointed out that there is "no becoming",

jack, this I find very interesting, the all post in fact.
I recently found for me, that there is no escaping as it does not work at all, but there is only an attempt to escape , but it never works , yes I found that for me ..we leave a reasonable doubt here ok ? for me I have no doubt!....so far...

How can I know it ? Well I was "showed" through what is called here insight , hidden levels of some different "consciousness" places where are stored the main real motives driving our lives ,I mean the ones really pushing us, this time I mention I directly saw one hidden strong desire of one refusal which was not functioning at all but craving for its achievement even if it was not working at all, and because it was not working at all this was the origin of one sorrow which was creating a deep painful situation, the vision of it instantly removed all of it, gone, relief was there...there is somewhere in the brain a "program" which removes what is at the origin of a pain ,will it do the same for every pain and more?

By extension , I may now question any craving of any sort , but again analytical process cannot reach those places where it can't go...here is where the catalyst which sorrow is can act...

Of all this the superficial brain has no awareness at all, not its fault at all, it is not set up for it...not guilty as such ,just working where it should not be working :(

I found that escaping which does not work ,ends up in projecting so becoming..

We are usually not aware of that either it is maybe the exact same movement.I say it is.

Jack Pine wrote:
That is the great illusion that most of us are caught up in and that hampers our seeing the basic fact that there is absolutely nothing to do or be or become.

Well ,where "I" is there, there is a craving-doing to achieve so to reach so to become and any becoming does the job, from quite sane and not too harmful to absolutely insane.

But indeed it is only some attempt to run away , there in no running away functioning and because what I am trying to escape is still right behind my back , because it does not work "I" invent a reaching out of terrible and unbearable fear...

many dreams show that too..

But again the words of the analytical world are not enough in the matter, even if the logic guess is entirely right...much much more is needed ...

The energy behind what we wrongly call sorrow maybe ?...a friend not to be fought so...but to walk and talk with it for the required time..

Analysing process cannot walk with sorrow , it wants to get rid of it , so its attempt to escape, so the achievements and becoming ,creating more pain ,so the idea to escape ,creating more pain...all that round and round in circle...a perfect catch 22.

May be we need to get the point that for some time we are going to suffer psychologically , let it be that way even if I read here and there that it is illusory well, for an illusion it seems quite real and painful is not it?

What is life beyond that...well we go an open the door:)....not the one life we know hopefully...because if it is to do the same ,better stop all that ,get a gun and go fighting in the real world of man, where competition is the only way to live together we have found ...but if the life beyond that door is entirely different , well that is great news....:::)))

Dan.....

This post was last updated by Muad dhib (account deleted) Sun, 28 Aug 2011.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Sun, 28 Aug 2011 #17
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5666 posts in this forum Offline

I want to add that K did, apparently, go through some physical changes a.k.a "the process" to, according to what I have read, prepare the body for the great amount of energy that past through it that was perhaps necessary for the speaker to do what he did. But, personally, I don't know why it happened or why I should even be concerned about K personally as Rick has already pointed out. A point I agree with.

All of your responses are interesting and to the point. Thanks. I think I have made all the points on this matter I intent to make. I hope all of you have a very pleasant day.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Sun, 28 Aug 2011 #18
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Patricia Hemingway wrote:
I am not trying to prove anything - as the truth really does not require help from any mere human being

Hey, what's with the 'mere?' Ain't nothing bad about being human!

Ravi Seth wrote:
Agreed

Well Ravi, you agree that K was conditioned by the Theosophists? He said he never was, but maybe he was mistaken.

dhirendra singh wrote:
This means freedom comes in instalments.This also means that K may had not got his last instalment of freedom

Well, you are right Dhirendra. It implies that the teaching developed in time. I do not see it that way. But it does seem that K's articulation did develop, not the power of his insight but his descriptive, linguistic and teaching skills. He was influenced stylistically along the way and also the audience changed, the world changed. He taught over six decades and so many wars, revolutions, major events, technological revolutions etc. This was part of the mix and his awareness of the world around him made him change emphasis according to circumstance, when favourable.

dhirendra singh wrote:
Exactly, only issuing statements without proofs, like ten commandants.. or whatever.

Please be aware of your petulance. Dhirendra. It is not so pretty as you may imagine.

Jack Pine wrote:
K was not only not conditioned by the Theosophists but was not conditioned by anyone or any thing

You see there is this thing of the conditioning of superficial layers, which is not important at all. Language, dress, mannerisms, they are also all conditioned. We see this in K. But none of it needed changing. Why would it? At the start of the teaching K used words shared with Theosophy WHILE speaking vehemently against Theosophy. K also used metaphors from the Jesus Gospels. Later he seems to have brought in forms borrowed from David Bohm. Such matters should be of little concern. They did not direct his actions and did no harm.

dhirendra singh wrote:
I think if we read K himself, not the things by biographers, it will be more clearer.

Yet previously you made the point that only one book or even one talk is enough for you! Now you are advocating . . . what?

"The ego is first and foremost a body ego." S. Freud

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Mon, 29 Aug 2011 #19
Thumb_patricia_may_2014_reduced_ Patricia Hemingway Australia 1925 posts in this forum Offline

Paul Davidson wrote:
Ain't nothing bad about being human!

Ya think? :)

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Mon, 29 Aug 2011 #20
Thumb_patricia_may_2014_reduced_ Patricia Hemingway Australia 1925 posts in this forum Offline

dhirendra singh wrote:
1.Did K accept anywhere that he was conditioned?

Not that I am aware.

2.Did K say anywhere that his early teachings are misleading?

Not that I am aware.

3.Why he was so much cautious about preventing any adulteration in teaching, which also includes his early lectures.

Now that is the question Dhirendra...... Perhaps K credited those who would have the passion to go deeply into the teaching with the intelligence to understand the life journey.

4.When he had not included his writing's like '...feet/toe/nails of masters.." in his teachings, than why he allowed his early, so called, conditioned writings, as teaching?

Did K have a choice? - it was said - done - written - out there in the public domain - it would be dishonest to deny or censor the journey.

And again: Anyone who approaches the teaching with genuine passion to find out will also discover the understanding of what brought about such massive insight in one man - standing all alone.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 3 readers
Back to Top
Mon, 29 Aug 2011 #21
Thumb_avatar Dhanan Rao India 75 posts in this forum Offline

K himself has stated that the teaching has only unfolded over the years(Chronological). That it was the SAME teaching right from the theosophy period to his latter period.

Like the flower blooms over time(Chronological) but is the SAME flower.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 29 Aug 2011 #22
Thumb_avatar Ravi Seth India 1573 posts in this forum Offline

RICK LEIN wrote:
the unconditioned can have relationship with the conditioned..but not..the reverse!

pl supply reference.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 29 Aug 2011 #23
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Dhanan Rao wrote:
K himself has stated

This is also my understanding, Dhanan. Because this question arose in the past I have taken time to read the Collected Works (up to 1955 at present) and I do not find any essential change in the teaching. I am not expert and do not purpoort expertise. My reading is personal. But having read in the past another seventy or so books of K, and all the available biographies that I know of, I feel able to justify my claim that the teaching was a sixtyyear long unfolding of the basic themes, understken in a spiral movement of development and deepening.

Often people hear things repeated and do not see that the repetition is also a deepening. This teaching is not something that could have been given in much less time . . . and it is said that the K body was kept going long enough for its completion. Then he peacefully let go.

And if one reads the small group discussions he had in the final few years, so-called 'nucleus talks,' one sees that K was preparing the way for the teaching in his absense, not in terms of succession but in terms of giving some serious people the confidence to go out themselves and teach. But this was hardly ever done. As is said, little can grow beneath the shade of the banyan tree (or was it mango?)

The teaching then passes out, not as the K teaching but as a teaching of life according to one's understanding of it. But, as one sees among fervent followers, the spirit of following does not easily take to this and the right to speak is denied. This is why we become defenders and interpretors rather than teachers. It is the idea that there can only be one messenger, an idea K resolutely combatted.

"The ego is first and foremost a body ego." S. Freud

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Mon, 29 Aug 2011 #24
Thumb_deleted_user_med Muad dhib Ireland 175 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

For god sake: grow up and get a life ! Deal yourself with your vital physical needs, get a garden and the right tools and really work for once , get the stones ,the wood and built a shelter , deal with all vital mental facts of life , like a beginning means an end , you cannot say "no" to that , but you do and if you do you are doomed in your own life ,and the world is too , your mistake , and for intelligence sake don't use others for any purpose but only cooperate when you feel like it for no profit , just because it is nice to share and work together ,share all you can in both fields , be aware ,awake and just live...When you suffer why expand it to the world and make others suffer for you , stay with it , be an adult at once and for once , this is all ,there is nothing to reach ,all is there..can you go beyond what is beyond time ?

and my little finger tells me that even the brain itself is ready...
the entire "nature" is like the womb , with all its Goodness ,by refusing the end , you have no life , and the pleasures of hell..

this is some of k message in my this morning view...to the children we still are , but have you seen a cocoon refusing to become a butterfly ?
Our mental does that with life , because I may die right now, this is a possibility ALWAYS there at any time...When I see it once , then I definitively take the wrong turn...this is what frodo does with the master ring ...the master ring can be the refusal of death leading to a nobel price for peace to the warrior...SAUron leads the world, SArUman too...

In my darkness I have seen the deep huge fear of the end...the origin , the master ring of our misery...no one said it would be easy , no one said it would be difficult either.

ps: of course I am include in the bunch of insane...well I work on it :::)))

Dan.....

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Mon, 29 Aug 2011 #25
Thumb_stringio RICK LEIN United States 4436 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Ravi Seth wrote:

RICK LEIN wrote:
the unconditioned can have relationship with the conditioned..but not..the reverse!

pl supply reference.

Sorry ravi..it may be in any number of books..On being human..Awakening of Intelligence..ect ect. The context of the statement was as I recall...Conditioned is between images..so it is no relationship at all..so it stands to reason only when image making stops is real relationship possible.Hence the above quote. I hope that helps.:)

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 2 readers
Back to Top
Mon, 29 Aug 2011 #26
Thumb_1507053_1_ Jayaraj Kapila Kulasinghe Sri Lanka 1208 posts in this forum Offline

RICK LEIN wrote:
..it may be in any number of books

If I can recollect rightly he said it in a dialogue he had with Dr.David Bohm.Not so sure though.

This post was last updated by Jayaraj Kapila Kulasinghe Tue, 30 Aug 2011.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Mon, 29 Aug 2011 #27
Thumb_avatar Ravi Seth India 1573 posts in this forum Offline

Kapila Kulasinghe wrote:
If I can recollect rightly he said it in a dialogue he had with Br.David Bohm.Not so sure though.

all ready i am confused abt the other statement i asked you before and now this is another one.My confusion is compounded.Have to ask the expert.Patricia!! Where are you?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 29 Aug 2011 #28
Thumb_man_question_mark dhirendra singh India 2984 posts in this forum Offline

Paul Davidson wrote:
Yet previously you made the point that only one book or even one talk is enough for you! Now you are advocating . . . what?

See the context.Some one say that his early teachings are conditioned, than other try to prove from his biography that it was not.Is it right way?For this, one have to read teachings, early and later.

But if you want to understand his message, his one book is more than sufficient.K said many time that he was lucky enough that he had not read spiritual kind of books.

From my view, interest of reading books, one by one, is an entertainment.

Point is if one has understood his one book he don't need his next one, but if one has not understood his one book, than why should he read his another, when one has not finished the first.

I don't know

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 2 readers
Back to Top
Mon, 29 Aug 2011 #29
Thumb_man_question_mark dhirendra singh India 2984 posts in this forum Offline

Patricia Hemingway wrote:
Now that is the question Dhirendra...... Perhaps K credited those who would have the passion to go deeply into the teaching with the intelligence to understand the life journey.

Hi Patricia

May be you are right, or may not be.

If time allow, can you give some basic points where K looked conditioned in his early teaching?

I don't know

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 29 Aug 2011 #30
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

dhirendra singh wrote:
Point is if one has understood his one book he don't need his next one,

Are you saying, Dhirendra, that you have understood? Because if you have truly understood then you are free. Understanding is not verbal. Words may articulate and communicate what one truly sees, but the appreciation of text does not amount to understanding.

And if you have not understood then your one book may be thrown from the highest building. One book, one man, one guru, one disciple, one bible. And all is one. But that is another delusion we can get caught in. I am not saying you need to read more books, Dhirendra. That is for you to find out and you seem to have a strong opinion about it. But it is an avoidable error to put that opinion, which may be right for you, as a recipe for others.

In the line I quoted from you, above, it appears you tell the world one book is enough. It may be for you, but you have to answer honestly whether that one book has been fully understood, in which case you put yourself in the same position as K, it would seem.

"The ego is first and foremost a body ego." S. Freud

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 85 in total
To quote a portion of this post in your reply, first select the text and then click this "Quote" link.

(N.B. Be sure to insert an empty line between the quoted text and your reply.)