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

images of k quotes


Displaying posts 31 - 54 of 54 in total
Sat, 03 Jan 2015 #31
Thumb_stringio John Perkins United Kingdom 1094 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Falco Peregrinus wrote:
As Martin B points out indirectly, an average person is one whose only mode of (or motive in) relationship to this world is in experiencing and using it.

Sounds not far off the mark I'd say, Falco. 'Martin B' being, please? I've got a friend called Martin Blamire but I don't think it will be him... :-)

Dialogue mirrors relationship; who can't, has none.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 03 Jan 2015 #32
Thumb_stringio Falco Peregrinus Nepal 256 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

John Perkins wrote:
I've got a friend called Martin Blamire but I don't think it will be him... :-)

Martin B is Martin Buber.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 03 Jan 2015 #33
Thumb_stringio John Perkins United Kingdom 1094 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Falco Peregrinus wrote:
Martin B is Martin Buber.

Ah! Thank you. :-)

Dialogue mirrors relationship; who can't, has none.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 03 Jan 2015 #34
Thumb_stringio Pavil Davidov Poland 4402 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

steve sds wrote:
Shame on you for sinking to these low depths, both in saying this to John

I forgive you your anger, Steve, as I forgive John his hate. Somehow, hurt has got into your systems. I wish you both well.

"Wherever you go, there you are." Insight from Mullah Nasruddin

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 03 Jan 2015 #35
Thumb_stringio Pavil Davidov Poland 4402 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Falco Peregrinus wrote:
As Martin B points out indirectly, an average person is one whose only mode of (or motive in) relationship to this world is in experiencing and using it.

I see. That for you is the average. Then what is below the average and what is above it? Where do you situate yourself?

What makes you different, Falco? In what mode do you relate to the world? Probably you experience the world. I cannot think you don't. But what do you mean by "using the world?" It seems there is implied a judgement but it would be good to make it clear.

I just think there are many prejudices involved in this sort of determination. It sounds ugly to me.

"Wherever you go, there you are." Insight from Mullah Nasruddin

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 03 Jan 2015 #36
Thumb_stringio John Perkins United Kingdom 1094 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Paul, had you been present when K began the quote in question, as he did, with the words "The average person...", and had you stopped him there to question his meaning, I'm sure he would have assumed you were being either pedantic or deliberately obtuse or both.

He would have been correct of course then, just as anybody drawing a similar conclusion about you now would be. It seems to me you're just one of these people who've got to be prominent and 'clever'. It's called ego. It's glaring. Why, I wonder, are you unable to see it?

Dialogue mirrors relationship; who can't, has none.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 03 Jan 2015 #37
Thumb_stringio Pavil Davidov Poland 4402 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

John Perkins wrote:
It's called ego. It's glaring. Why can't you see it?

Ah, the famous "Mr Ego." And we suppose from your rant that you don't operate one.

John, I would never have had the stupidity to have stood up at a K rally and questioned the speaker in full flow. But in smaller discussions some people did question various statements and K often backed down when he saw the wisdom in the questioning. But leave all that aside. It is not a question of confronting K, who is long gone and cannot answer for himself, but of questioning those who are present and who speak in their own words as to what they mean by certain phrases.

I asked you what you meant when you used the phrase, "the average person," and so far you have refused to answer. Falco has given his opinion and I can discuss it out with him. You say you mean the same as K but I cannot question K as to what he meant so I return to you and ask what you mean. You say it is 'obvious' but, were it so, there would be no need to ask. It is you who is being obtuse, in your refusal to answer, not me, by my posing the question.

As for me, I have no fear to speak my mind on this and other issues, where it seems important. I do not believe there are "average people." I think it's a sloppiness of mind and, perhaps on your part, an elitist prejudice. But you dare not say you are "above" the average and instead slither around by saying you are "outside" the average. Yet you cannot say what the average is and in what way you are "outside" it.

"Wherever you go, there you are." Insight from Mullah Nasruddin

This post was last updated by Pavil Davidov (account deleted) Sat, 03 Jan 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 03 Jan 2015 #38
Thumb_stringio randall merryman United States 3832 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Falco Peregrinus wrote:
an average person is one whose only mode of (or motive in) relationship to this world is in experiencing and using it.

yes, 99% of people do this.

Stuff happens

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 03 Jan 2015 #39
Thumb_stringio randall merryman United States 3832 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

John Perkins wrote:
Why, I wonder, are you unable to see it?

what is the entity that will see? what is the entity that is to be seen? Are they one and the same phenomenon? Is the observer, the observed? Is there division?

Stuff happens

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 03 Jan 2015 #40
Thumb_stringio mike christani United States 2234 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

What would be a worthwhile life? Is this another way to phrase this? Society is you, and as such cannot tell you, on the contrary. Only the individual can say, truely, alone, whether he or she is living, or is wasting their life in pointless aims. Deep down one must have a loadstar; if one is attached in fruitless or destructive ways, or is abiding on the surface, one must know it, whether one knows a way out or not. It's not a question of 'average', but nearing one's potentials and responsibilities.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 03 Jan 2015 #41
Thumb_stringio John Perkins United Kingdom 1094 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

John Perkins wrote:
It's called ego. It's glaring. Why can't you see it?

Pavil Davidov responded:
Ah, the famous "Mr Ego." And we suppose from your rant that you don't operate one.

We? ... I have neither ranted, Paul, nor been stupid enough ever to imagine what you suggest.

John, I would never have had the stupidity to have stood up at a K rally and questioned the speaker in full flow. But in smaller discussions some people did question various statements and K often backed down when he saw the wisdom in the questioning. But leave all that aside. It is not a question of confronting K, who is long gone and cannot answer for himself, but of questioning those who are present and who speak in their own words as to what they mean by certain phrases.

This is fair comment, Paul, the problem with it is that from my experience it can't be discussed with you because of preconceived ideas you hold; both of me and, as a direct consequence, of anything I have to say.

I asked you what you meant when you used the phrase, "the average person," and so far you have refused to answer.

I'm not at all sure that's true; you just refuse to accept the possibility of an 'outside' of what K obviously intended by 'average'; even though he himself was plainly an example thereof. You are filled with an absurd jealousy of 'intelligence' because you yourself are not an example of it; which of course is because nothing - in the view of any potent, ego-driven intellect - can be more seeing than it. It is , as the saying goes, 'hoisted with its own petard'. It cannot get past itself.

Falco has given his opinion and I can discuss it out with him. You say you mean the same as K but I cannot question K as to what he meant so I return to you and ask what you mean. You say it is 'obvious' but, where it so, there would be no need to ask. It is you who is being obtuse, in your refusal to answer, not me, by my posing the question.

Here, from #35, is what you call 'discussing it out' with Falco. Now this to me is closer to a rant if not actually one:

Paul D sez to Falco: "I see. That for you is the average. Then what is below the average and what is above it? Where do you situate yourself?

What makes you different, Falco? In what mode do you relate to the world? Probably you experience the world. I cannot think you don't. But what do you mean by "using the world?" It seems there is implied a judgement but it would be good to make it clear.

I just think there are many prejudices involved in this sort of determination. It sounds ugly to me."

Paul D:As for me, I have no fear to speak my mind on this and other issues, where it seems important. I do not believe there are "average people."

That's exactly it you see, and there's no discussing it with you because you're stuck-fast in what you already think or believe and nobody is cleverer than you.

...I think it's a sloppiness of mind and, perhaps on your part, an elitist prejudice.

No Paul, what you are presenting here is an example of one-man elitist 'prejudice'.

...But you dare not say you are "above" the average and instead slither around by saying you are "outside" the average. Yet you cannot say what the average is and in what way you are "outside" it.

I would and indeed have even attempted, but you just immediately start shouting at me just as you have above at Falco; because we (including K) have got it wrong, you see? Do you see?

Dialogue mirrors relationship; who can't, has none.

This post was last updated by John Perkins (account deleted) Sat, 03 Jan 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 03 Jan 2015 #42
Thumb_stringio John Perkins United Kingdom 1094 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

John Perkins wrote:
Why, I wonder, are you unable to see it?

randall merryman responded:
what is the entity that will see? what is the entity that is to be seen? Are they one and the same phenomenon? Is the observer, the observed? Is there division?

They're interesting questions aren't they, Randall. I think in the roundest of terms they're easy enough to answer (it's the detail that gets tricky):

What is the entity that will see? ... Reality?

What is the entity that is to be seen? ... Identity? (ie. the imaginary self?)

Are they one and the same phenomenon? ... No, of course not; one is imaginary the other is real?

Is the observer, the observed? ... Yes; once the identity (the imaginary self) is seen. Not before.

Is there division? ... No; except and for as long as there remains an imaginary self. Which is to say 'division' is illusion/delusion.

Dialogue mirrors relationship; who can't, has none.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 04 Jan 2015 #43
Thumb_stringio Falco Peregrinus Nepal 256 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Pavil Davidov wrote:
Then what is below the average and what is above it?

OK, if you insist in definitions, below average is the case where a relationship with the world is never recognized, above average is the case where the relationship with the world is not limited by the mode that has been described in Post 29.

Pavil Davidov wrote:
Where do you situate yourself?

The nature of 'you' defines the mode of relationship, and there is no permanent entity as a 'you'.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 04 Jan 2015 #44
Thumb_-sparkle- kirsten zwijnenburg Netherlands 6 posts in this forum Offline

alt text

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 04 Jan 2015 #45
Thumb_stringio Falco Peregrinus Nepal 256 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

The observer is the observed.

alt text

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 05 Jan 2015 #46
Thumb_stringio randall merryman United States 3832 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

John Perkins wrote:
So I'll ask you again: what quite might be the point of the archived 70 year teaching that K was so hugely concerned to protect and preserve even after his passing?

K was mostly concerned about the legal ramifications of Rajagopal in possesion of the intellectual property that was created every time K opend his mouth. As far as the words themselves and what happened to them, well, as Jean likes to say... "I don't mind what happens". He cannot be concerned about what the mind does (distortion) as it reads what he said.

Stuff happens

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 05 Jan 2015 #47
Thumb_stringio randall merryman United States 3832 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

John Perkins wrote:
What is the entity that will see? ... Reality?

Which of your sensory organs are connected to this?

Stuff happens

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 05 Jan 2015 #48
Thumb_stringio randall merryman United States 3832 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

John Perkins wrote:
No, of course not; one is imaginary the other is real?

Which means they are one and the same phenomenon, one is just imaginary?

Stuff happens

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 05 Jan 2015 #49
Thumb_stringio randall merryman United States 3832 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

John Perkins wrote:
What is the entity that is to be seen? ... Identity?

But we have already established it's illusory nature.

Stuff happens

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 07 Jan 2015 #50
Thumb_man_question_mark dhirendra singh India 2984 posts in this forum Offline

alt text

"Jiddu Krishnamurti: the Flight of the Eagle"
I have done something in the past; I have had experience, which obviously conditions my response today; and today's response conditions tomorrow. That is the whole process of karma, cause and effect; and obviously, though it may temporarily give pleasure, such a process of cause and effect ultimately leads to pain. That is the real crux of the matter: Can thought be free? Thought or action that is free does not produce pain, does not bring about conditioning. That is the vital point of this whole question. So, can there be action unrelated to the past? Can there be action not based on idea? Idea is the continuation of yesterday in a modified form, and that continuation will condition tomorrow, which means action based on idea can never be free. As long as action is based on idea, it will inevitably produce further conflict. Can there be action unrelated to the past? Can there be action without the burden of experience, the knowledge of yesterday? As long as action is the outcome of the past, action can never be free, and only in freedom can you discover what is true. What happens is that, as the mind is not free, it cannot act; it can only react, and reaction is the basis of our action. Our action is not action but merely the continuation of reaction because it is the outcome of memory, of experience, of yesterday's response. So, the question is, can the mind be free from its conditioning?
J. Krishnamurti,

I don't know

This post was last updated by dhirendra singh Sat, 10 Jan 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 09 Jan 2015 #51
Thumb_man_question_mark dhirendra singh India 2984 posts in this forum Offline

alt text

I don't know

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 09 Jan 2015 #52
Thumb_man_question_mark dhirendra singh India 2984 posts in this forum Offline

alt text

I don't know

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Fri, 09 Jan 2015 #53
Thumb_man_question_mark dhirendra singh India 2984 posts in this forum Offline

alt text

I don't know

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 10 Jan 2015 #54
Thumb_man_question_mark dhirendra singh India 2984 posts in this forum Offline

alt text

I don't know

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 31 - 54 of 54 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.)