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

Meditation


Displaying posts 91 - 120 of 218 in total
Sun, 22 Jan 2017 #91
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

Sean Hen wrote:
K: ... we have never asked if it is possible to live a life absolutely without conflict.

For this to be possible there must be absolutely no resistance to 'what is' ...

What does this imply ?

A state of mind which would say (as K said himself unveiling his very "secret" in life):

"I don't mind what happens" ...

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 22 Jan 2017 #92
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3169 posts in this forum Offline

Jean Gatti wrote:
For this to be possible there must be absolutely no resistance to 'what is' ...

And there is a procedure to get 'there' from 'here'? Are you suggesting one make that non-resistance into a goal? We are thoroughly conditioned to resist...and to react. Is that a fact? How do we deal with that fact?

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 22 Jan 2017 #93
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5660 posts in this forum Offline

Pavani, I'm not sure what you want or expect of this forum or anyone on it or if you expect anything. But what I am talking about is Jean's unrelenting drive to idealized, conceptualize and memorize what he thinks is significant and present these things as a response over and over again. This is not dialogue, it's propaganda, sermonizing. Two recent examples below: How does this help anyone's understanding?

Jean Gatti Wrote:

Post # 64

in other words a state of non-resistance to 'what is' ...

K himself gave us the ultimate key, his very 'secret':

"I don't mind what happens"

Post 101

Jean Gatti wrote:
For this to be possible there must be absolutely no resistance to 'what is' ...

What does this imply ?

A state of mind which would say (as K said himself unveiling his very "secret" in life):

"I don't mind what happens" ...

And the best part is that Jean doesn't understand what K was saying with either of these two quotes he frequently uses. They are just abstractions, concepts for him.

This post was last updated by Jack Pine Sun, 22 Jan 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 22 Jan 2017 #94
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5660 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
And there is a procedure to get 'there' from 'here'? Are you suggesting one make that non-resistance into a goal? We are thoroughly conditioned to resist...and to react. Is that a fact? How do we deal with that fact?

We don't wave an icon, a concept, an abstraction at resistance if we want to understand resisting. If you are aware of resistance what else is there? And can you be aware of resistance if all you do, if all that is going through your mind, is not to "resist what is"? With this memorized quote playing in one's head how can there be an awareness of the moment, of resistance? All resistance is lumped into one and made into a concept with no understanding at all.

As K often pointed out the word is not the thing that it describes but making "resistance" a concept is focusing on the word and not what the word is representing. For the person who only memorizes words and phrases there is no real understanding. There is just the superficial understanding of the word and it's meaning and nothing else.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 22 Jan 2017 #95
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
We are thoroughly conditioned to resist...and to react. Is that a fact?

Yes.

How do we deal with that fact?

First of all we have to see this fact ... when we see the fact we already distance ourselves from it ...

However there is a key factor to take into account, and this key factor is about the unicity of consciousness (as K often reminded) ... when we understand that we are not separate from the outer world, then real 'responsibility' arises ... and replaces usual conditioned 'reactivity' ...

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 22 Jan 2017 #96
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 539 posts in this forum Offline

re 103

Sean Hen wrote:

"We are questioning very seriously whether there is an individual consciousness; whether you, as a human being, have a separate consciousness from the rest of mankind. You have to answer this, not just play with it." Krishnamurti

Ken B wrote:

He often raised this issue, but it creates confusion when one asks in what way the whole of humanity is changed by the change in one person's consciousness, if he implies that the individual consciousness is false to begin with.

I wonder if a parallel can be made with the term “book” to clarify the issue of individual consciousness? Both in terms of physical construction and content, books are extremely varied. But they are all “a book” by virtue of being bound by covers and containing pages with words on them (even those that are for the most part illustrated). In this sense, a book is a book, whether they are bound in leather or made from cheap pulp, small, large, light, heavy, scholarly, scientific, religious, vulgar, refined, fiction, didactic, imaginative, intelligent, ignorant, pornographic, boring, propaganda, informative, fantasies, expensive, cheap, rare, mass produced, and so on.

Similarly, the configuration of each “individual” consciousness is different from others. But the process of conditioning which puts together individual consciousness is the same for all of us, isn’t it? It is a part, a fragment of the collective consciousness. The components of a particular consciousness - the “individual” beliefs, ideas, superstitions, images, and so on - are drawn from the cumulative collective consciousness, aren’t they? Consciousness is consciousness by virtue of drawing on existing language, beliefs, ideals, ideas, fantasies, superstitions, traditions, desires, fears, knowledge, imagery and so on. The particular collection or configuration is what makes individual consciousness. Hasn’t every one of us - each “me” - been programmed by the ideas, beliefs, habits, fears, desires, of previous generations?

The “me” which we think is unique is the result of that process of conditioning which is common to us all, isn’t it? The “me” which we think is superior or inferior is merely a result, not an independent actor. It may be unique in its particular configuration, but even that is doubtful. We think that it is this “unique me” which sifts through all the knowledge (ideas, ideals, beliefs, superstitions, etc.) and makes choices as to how to use it, and that these choices are made because “the unique me that I am” is inherently smarter (or dumber) than all the rest.

Another parallel might clarify (or not). The heart that beats in “my” chest is not unique to me. Nothing I did, no clever choice I made, provided me with this heart. We all have hearts - literally, not figuratively :-)

Even if the death of my heart will not kill “you”, having a heart does not make me uniquely capable or incapable, inferior or superior, wise or ignorant, trustworthy or untrustworthy. So it is with “my” consciousness. Is it in this sense that there is no individual consciousness, separate from the rest of mankind?

Of course, I'm not sure about any of this.

If this is so and individual consciousness is not the factor or actor which can act intelligently, which determines "my destiny", then can we find out what lies beneath consciousness, what if anything there is more to life than this consciousness? Doesn't this bring us back to Jamie’s original question on meditation?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 22 Jan 2017 #97
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
I wonder if a parallel can be made with the term “book” to clarify the issue of individual consciousness? Both in terms of physical construction and content, books are extremely varied. But they are all “a book” by virtue of being bound by covers and containing pages with words on them ...

Well interesting image Huguette, though I prefer the idea of the screen and movie ... you can have many very different movies projected on the screen but the screen is unique and remains unchanged whatever the movie projected on it ... and what one sees actually is always the screen (the movie itself being only some moving lights illuminating the screen)

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 22 Jan 2017 #98
Thumb_nolet Rich Nolet Canada 329 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
The components of a particular consciousness - the “individual” beliefs, ideas, superstitions, images, and so on - are drawn from the cumulative collective consciousness, aren’t they?

Yes. But if many have different beleives ( or non-beleives ) , what human consciousnes share, have in commun, which make every human being one and the same, is the fact to beleive in something, in the name of their security, their salvation. Seeing the insecurity, the madness in the world, the mind search a security, and find it in some beleive in god, in the heaven, in a particular system. Since , the process remain the same.

Huguette . wrote:
The particular collection or configuration is what makes individual consciousness. Hasn’t every one of us - each “me” - been programmed by the ideas, beliefs, habits, fears, desires, of previous generations?

Yes. Though if our ideas, beleives, habit and so on are different, the conditioning is the same. Fundamentaly, we are not different.

One man in India or in Russia says: I beleive in god. And another one in the usa says: I want more and more money. And all that is part of the whole of consciousness. And each fragment is in conflict one with another. Even inside the pseudo individual itself with all his own contradictions .

This post was last updated by Rich Nolet Sun, 22 Jan 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 22 Jan 2017 #99
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

Rich Nolet wrote:
And each fragment is in conflict one with another.

... as long as you identify yourself to a specific fragment ... not seeing the whole ...

Why resist 'what is' ?

This post was last updated by Jean Gatti Sun, 22 Jan 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 22 Jan 2017 #100
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1432 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette wrote:
...then can we find out what lies beneath consciousness, what if anything there is more to life than this consciousness? Doesn't this bring us back to Jamie’s original question on meditation?

I think that that is our question Huguette. K. and others have said there is and that through 'learning' about this 'false' limited consciousness (through meditation?), freedom from the known is possible.

This may be all wrong of course

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sun, 22 Jan 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 22 Jan 2017 #101
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 539 posts in this forum Offline

re 108

Huguette . wrote:

I wonder if a parallel can be made with the term “book” to clarify the issue of individual consciousness? Both in terms of physical construction and content, books are extremely varied. But they are all “a book” by virtue of being bound by covers and containing pages with words on them ...

Jean Gatti wrote:

Well interesting image Huguette, though I prefer the idea of the screen and movie ... you can have many very different movies projected on the screen but the screen is unique and remains unchanged whatever the movie projected on it ... and what one sees actually is always the screen (the movie itself being only some moving lights illuminating the screen)

Does it make a crucial difference, Jean, whether it is a story told in a book or projected on a screen? Isn’t the burning issue whether I can actually understand, see, observe, what consciousness is? Is consciousness something external to "unique independent me", is “me the individual” an independent actuality having the ability to measure and make sense of “consciousness which is separate from me”, or is the “I-consciousness” merely the illusory result of a psychological process?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 22 Jan 2017 #102
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
or is the “I-consciousness” merely the illusory result of a psychological process?

Yes, of course it is so Huguette ... thought did create this sense of separation from the whole ... this fragment called self ... and it is indeed illusory ...

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 22 Jan 2017 #103
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1432 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Isn’t the burning issue whether I can actually understand, see, observe, what consciousness is?

It is...and just to change the wording a bit, can thought which has for whatever reason, separated itself into 'thinker and thought' and brought about the concepts of 'me' and 'mine' that have created so much pain, suffering, competition, nationalism etc., can it become aware that it has done this for a sense of psychological security that can never be attained? And can it come to understand that by creating the 'illusion' of an individual entity, a 'self', that it then thereafter must always live with a fear and doubt as to what will become of that entity when the physical body dies?

This may be all wrong of course

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sun, 22 Jan 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 22 Jan 2017 #104
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3169 posts in this forum Offline

Jean Gatti wrote:
Rich Nolet wrote:

And each fragment is in conflict one with another.
... as long as you identify yourself to a specific fragment ... not seeing the whole ...

Not just a specific fragment, Jean, but the whole bundle....my religion, my leader or guru, my sports team, my family, my name, my skills or talents...for sports, music, art, business. All the fragments that make up 'me'. Now is there some way to disidentify?

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 22 Jan 2017 #105
Thumb_nolet Rich Nolet Canada 329 posts in this forum Offline

Ken B wrote:
Another issue is the interaction between the brain and consciousness. If the change in one person's consciousness has an effect on all of humankind, then consciousness must not be a product of the brain. In some way, it must exist independently of the brain, because it is quite clear that a change in the "brain" of one person has no effect on the brain of another.

Not sure about that the brain and consciousness are two different thing. Can there be a brain without consciousness , or consciousness without a brain ? If they are two things, then they seems at least weld together. If a particular brain change, will it affect the consiousness of humanity ? Yes of course, it seems obvious. My relationship, my action in the world will be different. Isn't it ?

This post was last updated by Rich Nolet Sun, 22 Jan 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 22 Jan 2017 #106
Thumb_nolet Rich Nolet Canada 329 posts in this forum Offline

Is there such a thing as anyone else ? Consiousness is a whole, conditioned through and through, and is not yours or mine. Conciousness is cause and effect. What if the cause of the confusion, of the chaos cease in one brain? But I understand that the war will go on, the actual confusion in the world and all. But time is not a factor. K.'s answer to that was, if I remember: one drop of light in a sea of confusion can change things. And also, if you and me ( your brain and my brain) stop to add to this chaos, then a change is happening in the whole. Someting different is happening.

This post was last updated by Rich Nolet Sun, 22 Jan 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 23 Jan 2017 #107
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Not just a specific fragment, Jean, but the whole bundle....my religion, my leader or guru, my sports team, my family, my name, my skills or talents...for sports, music, art, business. All the fragments that make up 'me'.

What about the fragment called "body" ?

Now is there some way to disidentify?

A "way" ? ... a 'method' ?

But first of all, do you SEE your identifications ? your limitations ? your emotional reactions ?

... because the 'seeing' IS the way ...

Why resist 'what is' ?

This post was last updated by Jean Gatti Mon, 23 Jan 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 23 Jan 2017 #108
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

Ken B wrote:
then consciousness must not be a product of the brain.

just like the movie you see on your TV is not the 'product' of your TV-set ...

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 23 Jan 2017 #109
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 539 posts in this forum Offline

re 115

Ken B wrote:
Another issue is the interaction between the brain and consciousness. If the change in one person's consciousness has an effect on all of humankind, then consciousness must not be a product of the brain. In some way, it must exist independently of the brain, because it is quite clear that a change in the "brain" of one person has no effect on the brain of another.

Isn’t the innate nature of our brain to be conditionable or programmable, to function in the known? It is repetitive, it compares the known, it measures the known, it modifies, revises, analyzes the known. Being conditioned means it does not have the capability to come up with something totally new, totally unknown, doesn't it? So how can true change, true revolution in consciousness be put together by the past, by the conditioned consciousness, by the created brain? This programmable brain is the brain we humans come into the world with. It is a given.

And the known is not all bad, is it? We NEED the known as has often been discussed.

The brain can do “only” what it can do, what is in its limited nature to do and conversely it cannot do what it cannot do. By “only”, I don’t mean that what it does is unimportant or negligible. The brain is awesome, beautiful, crucial. But it is limited. That is, the brain stores and accumulates memories, assembles and reassembles them as knowledge, time, thoughts - this is the material the brain works with. This process results in consciousness and we see that the self is an illusion of consciousness, don’t we? Therefore we cannot rely on self to extricate us from our existential quandary. (The brain also ultimately regulates all the body’s organs, systems and functions but this is another matter I think.)

The question arises, is this consciousness all there essentially is to being human? Is it the totality of mind? If it is, there is no salvation, no solution, no exit from our psychological prison to something totally new. No fundamental change is possible if the known is our only source of action. The brain can do only what it is inherently capable of doing, just as the pancreas, liver, etc., can do only their “designated” dedicated jobs. Then change, if it can come, must come from elsewhere.

We also see that there IS more to being human than consciousness, don’t we? It is observable and the very observation of it does not rely on memory for its action, does it? It is unrelated to memory. For example, we see that love, beauty, awareness, joy, and so on, are “happenings” which are fundamentally different from the action that arises from memory, since our memory of love and beauty does not have the indescribable depth or vitality of the actual living thing. We understand that the memory of joy is not joy, that the memory of laughter does not have inimitable quality of actual laughter. We see that we do not have the capacity to bring true love and beauty into being. In this way, we understand that there is something beyond consciousness and that this something can come to us but we cannot reach for it or summon it. No?

If this is so, if this is clearly seen, does the seeing of it have no effect on the I-consciousness? Is this effect not a fundamental change? Is the perception or understanding of these facts intelligence? Then is intelligence a function of the brain? I’m not talking about IQ, which is measurable. Is the intelligence of love measurable? Is the actual perception of fact measurable, quantifiable?

And where does this understanding emerge from? From the brain or from beyond? If it comes from the brain, it must come from consciousness, no? Or is creativity still another function of the limited brain? Is creation the result of will or desire? We see that will is a function of desire and desire is a function of thought, don’t we? So can creation, creativity, be the result of thought? Can thought which is limited, dependent and based on the known, create the unknown, the totally new? Creation is the totally new isn’t it? Is creation a matter of “trying hard enough”, of wanting it hard enough? Shades of our childhoods! Can creativity emerge from the created, from the brain or from a painting?

These things can be considered or pondered. The pondering itself is effortless, wordless. A question arises and is left hanging. Then the perception or understanding that emerges from it is an action that flowers and has its own action, isn’t it? Who knows.

And through it all, the brain continues to do what is needed from it.

“The created cannot think about the
uncreated. It can think only about its
own projection which is not the real.
Can thought which is the result of
time, of influence, of imitation,
think about that which is not
measurable? It can only think about
that which is known. What is knowable
is not the real, what is known is ever
receding into the past, and what is
past is not the eternal. You may
speculate upon the unknown but you
cannot think about it. When you think
about something you are probing into
it, subjecting it to different moods
and influences. But such thinking is
not meditation. Creativeness is a
state of being which is not the
outcome of thinking. Right meditation
opens the door to the real.”

Fifth Talk in The Oak Grove, May 5,
1946

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 23 Jan 2017 #110
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3169 posts in this forum Offline

Jean Gatti wrote:
Now is there some way to disidentify?
A "way" ? ... a 'method' ?

But first of all, do you SEE your identifications ? your limitations ? your emotional reactions ?

... because the 'seeing' IS the way ...

I imagine that all of us do see ....at least some of them. If we're familiar with K., then we are aware of religious conditioning and nationalism. We may have even 'seen through' those obvious kinds of identification. Aren't there many identifications that we're unaware of because they're unconscious? And do we have to go through a process of analysis or some other process to bring them to the surface? K said that by observing oneself in the 'mirror of relationship', that one becomes aware of the unconscious. I wonder how many years this takes to see all the unconscious identification. I'm also wondering if there's a quicker way to totally dis-identify? Otherwise this could take a lifetime ...or longer!

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 23 Jan 2017 #111
Thumb_beautiful-nature-wallpaper pavani rao India 541 posts in this forum Offline

Jack : Pavani, I'm not sure what you want or expect of this forum or anyone on it or if you expect anything.

Event - An Intensive Week With Self Inquiry And Silence « What Prevents Us From Living Fully Now..?

« We never ask, never, how to live – to live with delight, with enchantment, with beauty every day. We have accepted life as it is with its agony and despair and have got used to it… To live completely, wholly everyday as if it were a new loveliness, there must be dying to everything of yesterday, otherwise you live mechanically, and a mechanical mind can never know what love is or what freedom is. » - J. Krishnamurti Freedom from the Known

What do we call life ? And how do most of us live ? Busy, agitated, hurrying all day long – the stress at work, the constant pre-occupations at home ? And then fruitless attempts to escape through the various entertainments our society lavishly provides : a mediocre, mechanical existence without any creative joy. Is this really living ? And even when we read so-called spiritual books or follow certain practices, how is it that our minds continue to remain mediocre and burdened with stories of past and future ? And what is this recurrent feeling of missing something essential, something precious ? The feeling that life passes me by, the feeling of a dreamlike, confused, often conflicting existence ?

What could it mean to be completely there, fully present, fully alive, awake and aware ? What prevents us from experiencing what Krishnamurti calls the wholeness of life ? And what might be the relevance of such a holistic way of living in a society torn by divisions – rising nationalities, violent ideologies, economic and financial wars and social inequalities… ? Why have we become the only species which is a threat to this beautiful earth ? So the question is : can we allow a new consciousness, a new mind to emerge – which is able to live with love and compassion in one’s daily life – by seeing through and ending the root cause of suffering and ignorance ?

In this week-long retreat, set in a quiet beautiful French village, we are going to explore as friends and co-travellers such fundamental questions of our day to day life in a non-authoritarian and affectionate atmosphere. The entire day will include introductory talks, existential dialogues and shared inquiry into self-knowing, experiment with silent observation and listening, long walks in nature, simple yoga exercises and meditation. The primary intention is that our entire day becomes a meditative process so that we can allow our minds and hearts to open up for the unknown, for our inherent goodness, trust, love and quest for truth.

Hi Jack

The above extract is taken from the main page where in some one posted about the proposed retreat in France . The above entire content is from courtesy the convenor of the programme . I just happened to start reading to see what it is and felt it is exactly appropriate an answer to the query you raised of me . Well this forum might not be providing the atmosphere of retreat .. But nevertheless we all have the common goal of exploring our lives and understanding what K passionately talked of spending sixty years of his life time .

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 23 Jan 2017 #112
Thumb_beautiful-nature-wallpaper pavani rao India 541 posts in this forum Offline

Hi Huguette

Your above post #122 is so lucid , very well articulated and so well presented . No doubt to be able to arrive at that clarity in understanding might have taken very long years of deep reflection coupled with keen , sensitive and passionate 'search ' as certainly there are neither short cuts and nor any free lunches in this long process and years of hard work .... And every human being needs to work hard and realize and face this reality . Only one thing can be said the sooner the better .

" Your problem is not only to break away from the society, but to come to life again, to love and be simple. »- J.Krishnamurti, Commentaries on Living

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 23 Jan 2017 #113
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Aren't there many identifications that we're unaware of because they're unconscious?

What about identification with the physical body ?

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 23 Jan 2017 #114
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3169 posts in this forum Offline

Jean Gatti wrote:
What about identification with the physical body ?

I know you think this is primary, but I question that. Interesting that K never mentioned that, but he spoke extensively about identification with beliefs and ideas...ideals, opinions, etc

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 23 Jan 2017 #115
Thumb_nolet Rich Nolet Canada 329 posts in this forum Offline

pavani rao wrote:
" Your problem is not only to break away from the society, but to come to life again, to love and be simple. »- J.Krishnamurti, Commentaries on Living

Thanks Pavani for this quote. It make a lot of sense.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 23 Jan 2017 #116
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:

Jean Gatti wrote:

What about identification with the physical body ?

I know you think this is primary, but I question that. Interesting that K never mentioned that, but he spoke extensively about identification with beliefs and ideas...ideals, opinions, etc

Well, not sure K did not mention that at all ... I remind some statements he did in this sense, but he was very prudent on this field, he knew perfectly well that it would not be accepted easily by most people ...

Now what is your view on this question Tom ? Are you identified with your body ?

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 23 Jan 2017 #117
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Interesting that K never mentioned that, but he spoke extensively about identification with beliefs and ideas...ideals, opinions, etc

J. Krishnamurti Truth and Actuality Part III Chapter 14 Question from the 6th Public Talk Saanen 24th July, 1975 'The Stream Of 'Selfishness'

"One can see that thought has built the 'me', the 'me' that has become independent, the 'me' that has acquired knowledge, the 'me' that is the observer, the 'me' that is the past and which passes through the present and modifies itself as the future. It is still the 'me' put together by thought, and that 'me' has become independent of thought. That 'me' has a name, a form. It has a label called X or Y or John. It identifies with the body, with the face; there is the identification of the 'me' with the name and with the form, which is the structure, and with the ideal which it wants to pursue. Also with the desire to change the ``me'' into another form of 'me', with another name. This 'me' is the product of time and of thought. The 'me' is the word: remove the word and what is the 'me'?"

http://www.jkrishnamurti.org/krishnamurti-teach...

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 23 Jan 2017 #118
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

J. Krishnamurti The Wholeness of Life Part II Chapter 13 3rd Public Talk Brockwood Park 3rd September 1977 'What is death?'

"Thought lives in the known; it is the outcome of the known; if there is not freedom from the known one cannot possibly find out what death is, which is the ending of everything, the physical organism with all its ingrained habits, the identification with the body, with the name, with all the memories it has acquired."

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 23 Jan 2017 #119
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
I know you think this is primary, but I question that.

And btw, didn't K say "You are the world" ... he did not say "you are the body" !

"you are the world" means the whole, NOT a limited fragment ...

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 23 Jan 2017 #120
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

And now back to the topic of this discussion: meditation ...

"The identification with your house, with your family with your name, with your body, with your gold and so on, all that is your consciousness, which is the content of the mind, with its brain. The brain with its knowledge, accumulated, stored up as memory, all that is consciousness. Now what happens to that consciousness, to that mind, in meditation? As we said, when there is this meditation, the true meditation takes place there is no content; the content is the 'me', is the 'me' which is attached to my house, to my family, to my pictures, to my books, to my habit, to my tradition, to the furniture, to the bank account, all that is the 'me'. And in meditation, the deep meditation, that me is not, and if it is, it is not in deep meditation, it is playing around."

J. Krishnamurti

Fourth Public Talk in Santa Monica

March 1974

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 91 - 120 of 218 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.)