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

A stroll in a day..... a reflection of the mind....past, present,&future.


Displaying posts 421 - 450 of 743 in total
Sun, 01 Jan 2012 #421
Thumb_img001 Sudhir Sharma India 1989 posts in this forum Offline

kamarajugadda Mallik ArjunaRao wrote:
What actually you mean by authority? What is the harm it is going to do while pursueing trueth?

When a question is asked during an enquiry to seek an answer/solution, then that supplied answer becomes one's authority. The questions can certainly be asked while inquiring, but it is done to bring clarity of understanding rather then seeking an answer. The answer is a trap keeping the enquiry in the field of known.

FLOW WITH LIFE!

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 01 Jan 2012 #422
Thumb_rao kamarajugadda Mallik ArjunaRao India 903 posts in this forum Offline

lidlo lady wrote:
what can I say?

Isn't your response is due to your knowldge?How could it be my thought?

nothing

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 01 Jan 2012 #423
Thumb_deleted_user_med Peng Shu Tse United Kingdom 1205 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Dr.sudhir sharma wrote:
When a question is asked during an enquiry to seek an answer/solution, then that supplied answer becomes one's authority.

Dear Dr.Sharma, Your point appears to assume that the questioner's intension WAS to seek an authoritative answer. It does not seem to me that ArjunaRao proceeds in such a way.

In the same way, the first sentence of your last post may 'appear' to be authoritative on the nature of enquiry, more so than ArjunaRao's open question,' how is self to be ended?'

My suggestion: Let as treat each other's statements and questions as open, whether or not the intention may be divined otherwise. Thismay help the flow of enquiry.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Sun, 01 Jan 2012 #424
Thumb_stringio lidlo lady United States 4003 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

kamarajugadda Mallik ArjunaRao wrote:
Isn't your response is due to your knowldge?How could it be my thought?

You don't understand what I'm saying and I can barely make out what it is you're trying to say, so let's not waste each other's time.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 01 Jan 2012 #425
Thumb_rao kamarajugadda Mallik ArjunaRao India 903 posts in this forum Offline

I do agree in academic circles the enquiries follow this convention , but here I was interested in the notion of "No auth0rity".That is what I am really interested.

nothing

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 01 Jan 2012 #426
Thumb_img001 Sudhir Sharma India 1989 posts in this forum Offline

kamarajugadda Mallik ArjunaRao wrote:
but here I was interested in the notion of "No auth0rity".That is what I am really interested.

Is your interest in knowing how words from any source are denied the power to influence one's thinking, feeling and action? Do clarify your angle of interest in "No authority".

FLOW WITH LIFE!

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 01 Jan 2012 #427
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 1228 posts in this forum Offline

Peng Shu Tse wrote:
But time itself, the fourth dimension (time/space) must contain not only the now but also everything that has happened and everything yet to happen. It is all 'NOW' within the fourth dimension. The whole of time is there, now.

I'm suggesting that now is what everything ,space/time, mater, energy, is in. Even movement is contained in the now in some way beyond the time/space notion of movement.

I'm suggesting that the now is something beyond all of time/space. Something that cannot be dreamed of, incorporated in science. Ask a scientist, as a scientist, what is the now. It is outside of that field. He lives in it, but overlooks it's transcendent nature. He understands nothing about it. It is not causal or moving thru time/space. Everything, even motion, even duration exists only in the now. Without the now, look at it, there would be nothing. Time is a "movement" in the now.

I also suggest that there is a whole field of "things" that are of this otherness: meaning, qualia, awareness, intelligence... Inside of a computer, however "intelligent", there is no one seeing anything. Science is devoid of meaning, meaningfulness. It is deals only with a blind machine as it sees the whole universe. And it does deal with that pretty well. But that all it deals with.

I'm also suggesting that these things of this otherness are a oneness that one could say pervades the universe. But more correctly the universe is in this greater field. Everything, mater/energy, space/time itself is in the now or It does not exist. There no love in the scientific only universe. Time/space, mater, energy is limited. All movements in time are mechanical. There is another movement. That is what K is pointing out, not of time.

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Sun, 01 Jan 2012.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 01 Jan 2012 #428
Thumb_stringio lidlo lady United States 4003 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Peter Kesting wrote:
Everything, mater/energy, space/time itself is in the now or It does not exist. There no love in the scientific only universe. Time/space, mater, energy is limited. All movements in time are mechanical. There is another movement. That is what K is pointing out, not of time.

K's contention was that when the mind, thought, the cognitive process, understands its own movement, it realizes its fundamental limitation, and that realization is limitlessness itself.

It's all quite plausible and perhaps, true. I don't pretend to know, but I don't think anyone can take K seriously if they're not open to the possibility that the joke may be on them.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 01 Jan 2012 #429
Thumb_deleted_user_med Peng Shu Tse United Kingdom 1205 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Peter Kesting wrote:
I'm suggesting that the now is something beyond all of time/space.

I don't know, Peter. I feel you have jumped a couple of steps, but you may be correct. Think through the dimnensional language to the end before you shift to something else. Time may be just a word we give to all higher dimnensions beyond those which we experience. We call time the fourth dimension precisely because our consciousness is three-dimensional. But from the perspective of the fourth, the fifth would be time.

It may be, not so much a matter of ending time, as K put it, but of ending our entrapment in three-dimensional consciousness. Time, as the movement of three-dimensionality, would appear to end and, as far as our consciousness would experience it, past, present and future would co-exist experientially. What that experience would be like exactly, is impossible for three-dimensional consciousness to imagine. Would it even be experience?

It all sounds too sci-fi when put into words.

Perhaps we should get back to a more approachable matter.

This post was last updated by Peng Shu Tse (account deleted) Sun, 01 Jan 2012.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 02 Jan 2012 #430
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 1228 posts in this forum Offline

Peng Shu Tse wrote:
It all sounds too sci-fi when put into words.

Perhaps we should get back to a more approachable matter.

We will drop it.

What shall we talk about?

Peter

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Mon, 02 Jan 2012.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 02 Jan 2012 #431
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 1228 posts in this forum Offline

Dr.sudhir sharma wrote:

Sir, ending of the present concern/interest of the self is not changing the basic nature and structure of the self.

Peter Kesting wrote:

Do we see the necessity and possibility of ending the arising of the self?

I suspect that this is not possible. Is there anything that you can point out? Are you mistaken? Even in JK I suspect that the self could have come up at any time. Not a problem if ends quickly and leaves no mark.

Peter

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Mon, 02 Jan 2012.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 02 Jan 2012 #432
Thumb_rao kamarajugadda Mallik ArjunaRao India 903 posts in this forum Offline

This is the quote from "Exploration into insight", involving Jk and Sunada Patvardhan,the concerning authority.

JK: Do you observe hurtbecause JK said it?

S:I see hurt.I see the emergence of hurt.The observation of the hurt is something which I can do as part of self-knowing.But where do I creat authority?When krishnaji says:'Once you see hurt it is over,'it is then I creat authority.Then I project a certain state, a moment towards that state,because I do not want to be caught in the trap of constant observation of hurt.But there are several factors in consciousness.I see that instead of observation of hurt,I hear from time to time a person saying that observation of the hurt without the observer is the ending of hurt.That is where I creat authority.

As far as the poster is concerned the situation is no defferent when he has problem involving observation of condemntion of what one has done( it is more or less equailent to hurt)Jk hardly gave pointers, but those he gave ,are becoming an authirity.Problem is crossing the hurdle?

nothing

This post was last updated by kamarajugadda Mallik ArjunaRao Mon, 02 Jan 2012.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 02 Jan 2012 #433
Thumb_deleted_user_med Peng Shu Tse United Kingdom 1205 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

So, we cannot start by assuming K's statements for fact. But we may value them enough to enquire into them. They may touch us and fire our curiousity or we may turn them into stone and rest there.

What shall we do?

Something within me is fired by a statement of K. How should I proceed?

K says, if I were to really see the danger of self, then it would end.

Something in me is stirred by that. What should I do?

Have I already trapped myself?

This post was last updated by Peng Shu Tse (account deleted) Mon, 02 Jan 2012.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 02 Jan 2012 #434
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 1228 posts in this forum Offline

Peng Shu Tse wrote:
K says, if I were to really see the danger of self, then it would end.

Doesn't Everyone have moments when there is no self? Perhaps very rare for some. K would sometimes mention looking at a beautiful mountain. Can one see if it's really there just now, the self. If it is, when it is, I see it. It is unbearable. I see the ugliness of it. There is no relationship with another. Just self concern. There is no way out. Yet it ends. Maybe that happens when there is some concern for someone or something else. Even just to look at something. How the shift happens I do not know. Something else takes away the self concern. Attention goes elsewhere. Are you interested in this jump? Can you see how it happens? are you interested in that? Can you catch it in the act. Is it completely instantaneous? Or is there time however slight involved?

Hope you can be out of it.

Peter

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Tue, 03 Jan 2012.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 03 Jan 2012 #435
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 1228 posts in this forum Offline

I wonder if at times it can be there and there be no awareness of it? But wouldn't that be innocence? A child is like that sometimes. Maybe not.

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Tue, 03 Jan 2012.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 03 Jan 2012 #436
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 1228 posts in this forum Offline

kamarajugadda Mallik ArjunaRao wrote:
As far as the poster is concerned the situation is no defferent when he has problem involving observation of condemntion of what one has done( it is more or less equailent to hurt)Jk hardly gave pointers, but those he gave ,are becoming an authirity.Problem is crossing the hurdle?

Hello Arjuna

I maintain it is possible and it is correct to put away the past completely. One can end identification. What one actually is has no past. What we think is the self is not really the self at all. That doesn't mean there is no memory. What you really are has no baggage.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 03 Jan 2012 #437
Thumb_rao kamarajugadda Mallik ArjunaRao India 903 posts in this forum Offline

Peng Shu Tse wrote:
K says, if I were to really see the danger of self, then it would end

During conversation one suddenly feels, at times one has hurt the other with harsh word which is not motivated,and immediatly looks appologitical, at times appologies.Is that not an occasion where self had subdued?If it is done with full awareness(that is not involving thought process), then the self subsides completely.That is toughest thing to do.

nothing

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 03 Jan 2012 #438
Thumb_deleted_user_med Peng Shu Tse United Kingdom 1205 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Peter Kesting wrote:
Maybe that happens when there is some concern for someone or something else.

Would it not depend upon what our concern is based? Mostly our concerns are to do with self-interest, even when they appear to be selfless and/or altruistic. All the saints and revolutionaries have thought themselves selfless.

I question whether we are capable of seeing it all so clearly. I question that we have such sensitivity of touch.

I am pretty sure we do selfless acts. I am not so sure we can disecern which they are. What seems more important (for me) is to become more aware, more sensitive to those acts which are discernable as self-willed. Not so I can prevent it but in order that I know my self better by its observable behaviour.

Knowledge of the activities of self is the criterium, not curtailment.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 03 Jan 2012 #439
Thumb_deleted_user_med Peng Shu Tse United Kingdom 1205 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

kamarajugadda Mallik ArjunaRao wrote:
.Is that not an occasion where self had subdued?If it is done with full awareness(that is not involving thought process), then the self subsides completely.

Are we trying to subdue or subside self? Would not that be an effort of self?

Can there be full awareness if there is any effort involved?

When awareness is its own goal it may be fuller. The goal (curtailment of self) is the limitation.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 03 Jan 2012 #440
Thumb_rao kamarajugadda Mallik ArjunaRao India 903 posts in this forum Offline

Peng Shu Tse wrote:
Can there be full awareness if there is any effort involved?

This must take note of;

If it is done with full awareness(that is not involving thought process), then the self subsides completely.

For me the 'awareness' when thought process is not taking place.Effort needs process.It is ultimatly the passion must be at work.

nothing

This post was last updated by kamarajugadda Mallik ArjunaRao Tue, 03 Jan 2012.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 03 Jan 2012 #441
Thumb_rao kamarajugadda Mallik ArjunaRao India 903 posts in this forum Offline

What we most keep aware of while dealing with JK's teachings is, it is the self which most likely to get affected by them, so it brings in its registance in most subtle way by allowing itself to following the teachings upto the pointers that Jk gave,then with clever manpulations of moods of individual, it builds a mental state which JK's pointers suggest.There starts the typical illusions that self is well known about.It is upto the individual to realise that there are still some cravings left over for the self to manufacture the illusions.Authority is there at the slightest inclination of cravings.Only sellf knowldge at the instant would make the individual be aware of it.

nothing

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 03 Jan 2012 #442
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 1228 posts in this forum Offline

Peng Shu Tse wrote:
Peter Kesting wrote:

Maybe that happens when there is some concern for someone or something else.
Would it not depend upon what our concern is based? Mostly our concerns are to do with self-interest, even when they appear to be selfless and/or altruistic. All the saints and revolutionaries have thought themselves selfless.

I question whether we are capable of seeing it all so clearly. I question that we have such sensitivity of touch.

I am pretty sure we do selfless acts. I am not so sure we can disecern which they are. What seems more important (for me) is to become more aware, more sensitive to those acts which are discernable as self-willed. Not so I can prevent it but in order that I know my self better by its observable behaviour.

Knowledge of the activities of self is the criterium, not curtailment.

One of the things I saw most clearly at one point in my life was that I actually do nothing. It is the whole that does everything. "there is no doer only doing". I am sure that this is an ultimate truth. Even if I think I am doing something it is that that is doing it. Even that thinking itself is that. I see that there is the material brain that is operating mechanically that seems to produce self centered movement. That is just mater moving. The physicist can describe that movement. This image of the I is in the structure and movement of mater in the brain. If one says, feels "I am sure I do selfless acts"... when the I does a selfless act... it is the mechanical I doing it. Not selfless. (though ultimately the whole is actually doing it).

There is also seeing, which is always there and which is not material but something beyond mater. All seeing is that, even seeing the process of thought happening. That seeing can act....the seeing itself acts. The I does not do it, the seeing it's self only, acts. There is no "I doing" involved. This is also an action ultimately of the whole.

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Wed, 04 Jan 2012.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 03 Jan 2012 #443
Thumb_stringio lidlo lady United States 4003 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Peng Shu Tse wrote:
Knowledge of the activities of self is the criterium, not curtailment.

Criterium: a bike race held on a short course (usually less that 5 kilometers), often run on closed-off city streets.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 04 Jan 2012 #444
Thumb_rao kamarajugadda Mallik ArjunaRao India 903 posts in this forum Offline

Peng Shu Tse wrote:
Are we trying to subdue or subside self?

It is subside,not subdue.

nothing

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 04 Jan 2012 #445
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 1228 posts in this forum Offline

Peter Kesting wrote:
Dr.sudhir sharma wrote:
Sir, ending of the present concern/interest of the self is not changing the basic nature and structure of the self.

Peter Kesting wrote:
Do we see the necessity and possibility of ending the arising of the self?

I suspect that this ending of the arising of self is not possible. Is there anything that you can point out? Are you mistaken? Even in JK I suspect that the self could have come up at any time. Not a problem if ends quickly and leaves no mark.

Sudhir

What do you say? Can we go further?

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Wed, 04 Jan 2012.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 04 Jan 2012 #446
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 1228 posts in this forum Offline

Dr.sudhir sharma wrote:
Dear Peter K and ArjunaRao,

Before asking the question,'can we end that?', it is necessary to see the necessity of ending. If the necessity is not seen, then all enquiry would become intellectual. Do we actually see the dangers of actions of separative self?

My question is about ending the arising of self.

Can we thru enquiry come to see this necessity? Has any one seen an approach?

Do we have to see the possibility?

K apparently saw better the necessity of what he was doing/not doing than any other. Why don't we see this well?. Would we be more serious, more like him in some way? Would we be giving public talks?

We all are different in capacity. Some have a better brain. In some not much of any complexity will be grasped. There are some who cannot do simple multiplication. Of course we can use that as a good excuse.

I see not just the necessity of ending self. But how can one bare to live in self? In the absolute isolation? But can it's arising be ended? I don't see the possibility. Also a good excuse.

Of course the truth is we are all of us one in sentience. What I really am is you as well as me and this cat and the bird out my window. I see that at least intellectually. And everything is grace.

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Wed, 04 Jan 2012.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 05 Jan 2012 #447
Thumb_rao kamarajugadda Mallik ArjunaRao India 903 posts in this forum Offline

Peter Kesting wrote:
My question is about ending the arising of self.

We have on many occations discussed that the self is not ending as we would have been ending a materail process.For the sustainace of living organic body certain amount of continueous self has to be there, so a self which is been understood meets that basic requirement without pouncing out as an ego which the trueth seekers normally despise.

It is the understanding of the self, that is important.Its understanding is same as undestanding the thought process.A thought is direct result of a desire, there fore it is basically understanding of the desire, which is directly related to the cravings,urges, which sensations creat.There is in built provision for generating time(psychologically),along with memory, and instant conversion of the memory into a past record.For continueous existance one requires past.This is the process of self.

How do we end the self as if it is some materail thing?If one fixse the self at the level of market promoter's defention of self,then there is no way one can do that, otherwise the self sustains as long as there is life in the organic body.

nothing

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 05 Jan 2012 #448
Thumb_avatar Amber Cinquini United States 351 posts in this forum Offline

Peng Shu Tse wrote:
When awareness is its own goal it may be fuller. The goal (curtailment of self) is the limitation.

When you speak of a goal, does 'goal' have any particular direction? Awareness without thought without direction, does it need effort? A movement from here to there in a specific direction, consecrations. Effort implies will. The ending of self does it require will or effort?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 05 Jan 2012 #449
Thumb_rao kamarajugadda Mallik ArjunaRao India 903 posts in this forum Offline

An actin with an 'end result' needs effort.Otherwise an action without 'end result' is considered as effortless.A pure action is direct result of perception/facts without thought process.Then the under leying current is awareness,which is at its full swing.

nothing

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 05 Jan 2012 #450
Thumb_avatar Amber Cinquini United States 351 posts in this forum Offline

kamarajugadda Mallik ArjunaRao wrote:
An actin with an 'end result' needs effort.Otherwise an action without 'end result' is considered as effortless.A pure action is direct result of perception/facts without thought process.Then the under leying current is awareness,which is at its full swing.

Yes that is true but since the organism has biological drives, peruses security, comfort, fight and flight responses to a challenge (built into the organism for survival purposes), unless one as this ABSOLUTE attention which K is speaking of, one is likely to confuse motive for something else, don't you think?

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Displaying posts 421 - 450 of 743 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.)