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

Craving


Displaying posts 91 - 120 of 186 in total
Tue, 28 Feb 2017 #91
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 400 posts in this forum Offline

re 82:

Jean Gatti wrote:
Simply because pleasure brings you a temporary relief of your suffering ... the problem is that when you 'pursue' pleasure you will inevitably enter in conflict with 'what is' ... and this conflict engenders more suffering ...

Yes, I understand that pleasure brings temporary relief … keeping in mind that we’re talking about the pleasure that is craved or sought after, not about the pleasures of beautiful sunset, of a walk in nature, of swimming, singing, running, of hearing the birds, and so on.

Why then do I try to fight the urge and, once having “lost” the battle, why do I castigate myself or my parents or blame my unfortunate circumstances?

Does conflict engender suffering or is it in itself suffering? Will one inevitably enter in conflict with "what is", or is the whole process "what is"? "What is" is not static, it is in constant movement, no?

This post was last updated by Huguette . Tue, 28 Feb 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 28 Feb 2017 #92
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 4898 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Indulging for the pure pleasure of doing it is not what I was trying to say. Is pleasure “pure” if it is part of conflict? “Pure pleasure” to me means that there is no shadow of conflict in it, either before or after. And so the pleasure that is craved is not pure or innocent, as I see it.

Pure in this case is a figure of speech which in the US can be used to mean; "nothing else but..." Not pure in the sense that it is innocent or clean, beneficial, close to god and all that.

My intention for writing the response to you was to show another form of pleasure seeking or indulgence, whatever that one does not do because one knows it is harmful. I was saying that often it is the case we do certain things, even though we know they harm us physically and don't advance our deeper understanding of who we are, just for the pleasure of it. Just another view based on my personal experience.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 28 Feb 2017 #93
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Yes, I understand that pleasure brings temporary relief … keeping in mind that we’re talking about the pleasure that is craved or sought after, not about the pleasures of beautiful sunset, of a walk in nature, of swimming, singing, running, of hearing the birds, and so on.

Sure, once again pleasure must not be confused with the 'search for pleasure' ... pleasure is something to enjoy here and now, while the 'search' projects you in time and conflicts ...

Why then do I try to fight the urge and, once having “lost” the battle, why do I castigate myself or my parents or blame my unfortunate circumstances?

Blaming others or complaining is a sure sign of self modus operandi ... it always is a resistance to 'what is'

Does conflict engender suffering or is it in itself suffering?

Suffering itself is an 'inner conflict', it does not necessarily lead to 'outer conflict' (though in most cases it will) ... also an 'outer conflict' will not necessarily make you suffer, eg. you tell some truth to someone and this person denies the fact and starts to insult you and treats you of liar, most people would react aggressively but this reaction is not needed, you can as well remain quiet and accept the fact that the other persons reacts emotionally (this is 'what is') ... so there is no inner conflict created ...

Will one inevitably enter in conflict with "what is", or is the whole process "what is"?

Not 'inevitably', when you accept the fact that another person is reactive (aggressive etc), this is 'what is' and there is no need to 'defend' yourself and react too (see above)

"What is" is not static, it is in constant movement, no?

'What is' can be understood in 2 meanings:

1) as anything that happens inside or outside (therefore in the realm of the 'manifested' or 'forms') and this 'what is' is indeed constantly moving

2) as awareness or 'being' that perceives what happens, and this awareness is formless and therefore in the realm of the 'unmanifested', and the unmanifested does not belong to space, matter and time and as such does not 'move'

Ramana Maharshi used the analogy of the movie and the screen. You see a movie, but in reality what is seen is always the screen appearing in different moving colours. And the screen remains untouched by the movie, and itself does not move.

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 28 Feb 2017 #94
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 4898 posts in this forum Offline

Jean Gatti wrote:
Ramana Maharshi used the analogy of blah, blah, blah.......

par-rot

[par-uh t]

noun



any of numerous hook-billed, often brilliantly colored birds of the order Psittaciformes, as the cockatoo, lory, macaw, or parakeet, having the ability to mimic speech and often kept as pets.


  1. a person who, without thought or understanding, merely repeats the words or imitates the actions of another.

verb (used with object)


  1. to repeat or imitate without thought or understanding.


  2. to teach to repeat or imitate in such a fashion.


Really, how long are some of you going to sit there and be lectured to by this guy who has, apparently, never had an original thought. A walking copying machine that just spits out stuff that has been copied from some place else.

This post was last updated by Jack Pine Tue, 28 Feb 2017.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Thu, 02 Mar 2017 #95
Thumb_baboon-9186 dave h United Kingdom 1154 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
I want to understand why I feel compelled to do something that's harming my health. I know smoking us bad for me, but I can't quit. I feel a strong need....compulsion...to smoke or overeat or drink too much. One part of me knows it may be killing me but another part wants to continue with it....inner conflict. Have you ever known someone who maxed out their credit cards because they were compelled to buy all kinds of junk they didn't really need....clothes, jewelry, expensive perfumes and other stuff they felt that they just must have...own? That's the craving we're discussing.

Are you asking 'why' biologically? physically? psychologically?

Nicotine causes increased levels of serotonin, epinephrine, acetyl-choline and dopamine. Dopamine agonists are known to be particularly addictive. You could then say to yourself, well if I was enlightened or I understood K or the Buddha, I'd be in control of it all, and I'd be able to quit. Or, I wish I was someone who didn't have these compulsions. But these are deterministic material responses to substances/experiences. We are all susceptible, more-or-less, to compulsions and addictions - as are animals by the way.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 02 Mar 2017 #96
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

dave h wrote:
We are all susceptible, more-or-less, to compulsions and addictions

As long as there is suffering there will be a need for sedation hence for addictions of all kinds ...

So back to the basics: can one find the root cause of suffering ?

... and 'eradicate' it totally ?

Why resist 'what is' ?

This post was last updated by Jean Gatti Thu, 02 Mar 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 02 Mar 2017 #97
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3060 posts in this forum Offline

dave h wrote:
Nicotine causes increased levels of serotonin, epinephrine, acetyl-choline and dopamine. Dopamine agonists are known to be particularly addictive. You could then say to yourself, well if I was enlightened or I understood K or the Buddha, I'd be in control of it all, and I'd be able to quit

It doesn't necessarily take Enlightenment to lead one to quit smoking. Perhaps a simple insight into the truth that this crap will kill me....shorten my life. That's all it took me. After that I was able to withstand the chemical imbalances that the addiction created in the brain with all the physical withdrawal symptoms. After a couple of weeks of pretty severe discomfort the craving was almost gone. So we're talking about insight into craving....not seeking enlightenment or to be like K. Then we might want to address the other kinds of cravings....the ones not connected to chemical substances that alter the brain....the compulsive shopper....or the guy who thinks of nothing but his golf game all day long, neglecting his family and other responsibilities, because it takes his mind off his many inner conflicts and suffering.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Thu, 02 Mar 2017 #98
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
It doesn't necessarily take Enlightenment to lead one to quit smoking.

Of course so Tom ... however when one quits an addiction by an 'effort' of mind, there is a high risk that it will return or develop another kind of addiction ... eg. in many cases stopping smoking can lead to overeating

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 02 Mar 2017 #99
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3060 posts in this forum Offline

Jean Gatti wrote:
Of course so Tom ... however when one quits an addiction by an 'effort' of mind, there is a high risk that it will return or develop another kind of addiction

Sure, like trying to eliminate weeds by cutting off the visable part. The root remains. We still haven't got to the root here in this thread. The root of craving is suffering I imagine we all can agree on, however that leads to going around in circles. Buddha famously said that the root of suffering is attachment....craving. Or are craving and attachment perhaps NOT the same?

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 02 Mar 2017 #100
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Buddha famously said that the root of suffering is attachment....craving.

Not exactly, Buddha said that the root of suffering is ego ... and attachment, craving, fear etc are consequences of ego ...

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 02 Mar 2017 #101
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3060 posts in this forum Offline

Jean Gatti wrote:
Tom Paine wrote:

Buddha famously said that the root of suffering is attachment....craving.
Not exactly, Buddha said that the root of suffering is ego .

Were you present when he said that? ;) As we know this took place thousands of years ago and there's no written record. But we can find out for ourselves peryhaps. If we take the example of our attachment to ideals and beliefs.,our attachments to various pleasures...we can see how this leads to suffering. How it's relates to you point about ego might warrant some further discussion.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Thu, 02 Mar 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 03 Mar 2017 #102
Thumb_baboon-9186 dave h United Kingdom 1154 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
But we can find out for ourselves peryhaps.

Ah but Tom, we've been handed, most graciously, the answer to the big question. We can all get an 'A' in our eastern spirituality and philosophy exams now. I'm thinking to celebrate with a beer and some sort of interpretative dance.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 03 Mar 2017 #103
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
If we take the example of our attachment to ideals and beliefs.,our attachments to various pleasures...we can see how this leads to suffering. How it's relates to you point about ego might warrant some further discussion.

Does this mean that the relationship between attachment, desire, craving etc and 'ego' is not clear to you Tom ?

Because if this is the case it would indeed be worth some discussion ...

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 03 Mar 2017 #104
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 4898 posts in this forum Offline

Tom who you post with is clearly your business. But I am curious about something and I have a question. Since your choice of who to dialogue with is probably helping to perpetuate a situation on this forum that appears to me to be very counter productive and destructive of any meaningful discussion why do you do continue to do it?

The question: Do you enjoy being "corrected" and in general being patronized by an idiot?

This post was last updated by Jack Pine Fri, 03 Mar 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 03 Mar 2017 #105
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3060 posts in this forum Offline

Jack Pine wrote:
Since your choice of who to dialogue with is probably helping to perpetuate a situation on this forum that appears to me to be very counter productive

I don't see it that way, however. He may in fact come off as patronizing to many of us but we're discussing an issue...craving...and now some other issues have been brought into the discussion. I try to stick to the issue no matter who is posting...if at all possible. Anyone is free to contribute as long as they stick to the forum guidelines as far as I'm concerned.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Fri, 03 Mar 2017 #106
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 4898 posts in this forum Offline

But Tom Jean is not discussing anything. He is correcting what you write if it doesn't conform to his narrow, prejudiced, confused and unbending view of the world. Jean never questions himself just other people because Jean thinks he already knows the answer to everything.

Remember not so long ago when you finally wrote you "couldn't talk to (Jean) anymore? A couple of people asked, "What took you so long..."

Encouraging Jean, letting Jean think that he actually is saying something or in any way adding positively to the discussions on this forum clearly is destructive to any meaningful dialogue.

Feeling sorry for the guy because he obviously has a psychological condition is not helping him either. At some point Jean needs to realize that his anti-social behavior, his obsessive need to feel superior, to pontificate, to believe he "knows the truth",to be the only one who knows is not acceptable.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 03 Mar 2017 #107
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
I try to stick to the issue no matter who is posting...if at all possible.

Right Tom, true dialogue necessitates the absence of prejudices and images about others ... and to stick to facts ... not to opinions, beliefs and judgements of all kinds ... and also not indulging in emotional reactions and insults when one expresses statements we disagree with or do not understand ...

But it's a long way to Tipperary :-)

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 03 Mar 2017 #108
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3060 posts in this forum Offline

Jack Pine wrote:
to believe he "knows the truth",to be the only one who knows is not acceptable.

You bring up a good point, Jack, and maybe it deserves another thread. I mean, the issue of the one who thinks he 'knows' and he will teach 'you'. This is obviously an impediment to dialogue, and we can see it happens here when a thread hits a dead end with someone trying to hand out his particular version of truth rather than exploring together from a place of openness. Can one 'know' or 'own' truth or must it be discovered anew from moment to moment? K once said that the guru is an abomination. Why did he have such a disdain for spiritual teachers...religious authorities...gurus? Maybe we should begin a new thread about this.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 03 Mar 2017 #109
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 4898 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
K once said that the guru is an abomination. Why did he have such a disdain for spiritual teachers...religious authorities...gurus?

First and foremost I don't represent myself as a person who interprets or speaks for K. But if you don't mind I would like to share my impression of what K was referring to by your above statement. I have seen and heard him make that statement on several occasions, seen his face and heard his voice, watched his body language.

In answer to your question, however rhetorical it may have been, I think K was really put off by "spiritual teachers, religious authorities and gurus" because they were selling something they did not have. The Truth. They were exploiting people who came to them expecting to learn something to make their lives better. Perhaps their first and worse mistake.

If truth is not thought, not the result of conditioning, not the past then how can an individual, a person, a separate ego, an illusion possess what they are not? The Truth? Can one hand another the truth? Or is it something that is when there is no trace of anything thought has invented. For one to state that they "know the truth" is particularly offensive on a forum discussing what K has discovered. It shows a complete and utter lack of understanding of what K has pointed out, has discovered and is sharing with the rest of us.

And once again I ask why are you having a dialogue with just such a person?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 03 Mar 2017 #110
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 4898 posts in this forum Offline

Jean Gatti wrote:
Right Tom, true dialogue necessitates the absence of prejudices and images about others ...

And you honestly think you do this? Everything you write, practically is from what someone else has said first.

Jean Gatti wrote:
and to stick to facts ... not to opinions, beliefs and judgements of all kinds ...

Why don't you take your own advice Jean? You don't stick to facts. Just because you believe something or because some authority you believe in has said something doesn't make it a fact. A fact has to stand on it's own. If you state a fact then show that it is a fact. Don't ask anyone to accept it just because you think it is a fact.

Which brings us to the last point. I have taken particular care in what I have written about what you do on this forum and apparently other forums. It obvious, it's factual because your nearly every statement sustains what I pointed out about your posting style.

So instead of attacking the messenger look at yourself honestly and see if what I said is valid. Are you even still able to see yourself objectively? It doesn't appear so.

This post was last updated by Jack Pine Sat, 04 Mar 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 03 Mar 2017 #111
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3060 posts in this forum Offline

Jack Pine wrote:
They were exploiting people who came to them expecting to learn something to make their lives better. Perhaps their first and worse mistake.

'The guru exploits the follower and the followers exploit the guru.' Maybe not an exact quote but K did say this even if the wording is not exact. You make some good points in your above post. Thanks for clarifying the point about spiritual authority.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 03 Mar 2017 #112
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3060 posts in this forum Offline

Jack Pine wrote:
And once again I ask why are you having a dialogue with just such a person?

I'm not sure we are, in fact, having one. I'm just looking for clarification on the topic of craving and Jean happened to join the discussion. So far that seems to be the extent of what we're doing....discussing. But anyone is free to join in and perhaps stimulate some genuine dialogue here...who knows. By the way, Bohm wrote some very interesting stuff on the subject of dialog. I think one of his books was titled 'On Dialog', in fact. I may be mistaken, but I read an interview with him many years ago and was very impressed... he's definitely worth reading.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Fri, 03 Mar 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 04 Mar 2017 #113
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 4898 posts in this forum Offline

Jean Gatti wrote:
and also not indulging in emotional reactions and insults when one expresses statements we disagree with or do not understand ...

Yes, of course, one of your stock reactions to being called out. You accuse others of "emotional reactions" when you can't think of anything else to say.

Not emotional Jean. Also I'm not calling you anything you haven't earned. You do do these things I have pointed out. You have claimed on many occasions to "know the truth" and much more. Why deny what is plain to see? This is part of "what is". Don't resist seeing yourself for what you are. Think of what I have written about you as being a mirror Jean in which to see yourself. Isn't this what you have said to others many, many times? Of course it is.

This post was last updated by Jack Pine Sat, 04 Mar 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 04 Mar 2017 #114
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

Jack Pine wrote:
So instead of attacking the messenger look at yourself honestly

Are you speaking to yourself Jack ?

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 04 Mar 2017 #115
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

Jack Pine wrote:
Also I'm not calling you anything you haven't earned.

Calling other people as this or that is image making ... which is a hindrance to dialog ... K101

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 04 Mar 2017 #116
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

Jack Pine wrote:
I have seen and heard him make that statement on several occasions, seen his face and heard his voice, watched his body language.

Jack knows exactly what K meant ... he was there in person and did study his body language ...

Do you mean by that that we can trust your word ? Is this the building of an authority Jack ?

Seems that your ego is showing the tip of its nose now ...

Why resist 'what is' ?

This post was last updated by Jean Gatti Sat, 04 Mar 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 04 Mar 2017 #117
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 1038 posts in this forum Offline

Jean Gatti wrote:

Jack Pine wrote:

So instead of attacking the messenger look at yourself honestly

Are you speaking to yourself Jack ?

Jack Pine wrote:

Also I'm not calling you anything you haven't earned.

Calling other people as this or that is image making ... which is a hindrance to dialog ... K101

Jack Pine wrote:

I have seen and heard him make that statement on several occasions, seen his face and heard his voice, watched his body language.

Jack knows exactly what K meant ... he was there in person and did study his body language ...

Do you mean by that that we can trust your word ? Is this the building of an authority Jack ?

Seems that your ego is showing the tip of its nose now ...

Oh man, You must love eachother very much to free each other from the selves !!

Truth will unfold itself for those who enquire their own actions and only to them and for them and to or for no one else.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 04 Mar 2017 #118
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
You must love eachother very much to free each other from the selves

Right, truth will free you :-)

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 04 Mar 2017 #119
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 4898 posts in this forum Offline

Jean your responses are so without a factual basis and so dishonest because you have taken some things I wrote out of context and twisted them to suit your narrow needs. What you wrote simply isn't worth trying to respond to.

Do you think others are so stupid they can't see what you are doing? And Jean why are you getting so emotional? Why are you making images of others? Why are you resisting what is? Try seeing yourself as you are Jean instead of how you want to be or think you are.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 04 Mar 2017 #120
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3060 posts in this forum Offline

Jean Gatti wrote:
Jack Pine wrote:

I have seen and heard him make that statement on several occasions, seen his face and heard his voice, watched his body language.

Jean: Jack knows exactly what K meant ... he was there in person and did study his body language ...

Do you mean by that that we can trust your word ? Is this the building of an authority Jack ?

Well, you did it again Jean....congratulations. You side tracked us from the issue I was discussing with Jack with an irrelevant point about studying K's body language. What exactly k meant is what he said... 'the guru is an abomination'. What Jack and I were discussing were K's statements about gurus and the one who 'knows'. One needs to only have some basic understanding of K to know his feelings on spiritual teachers and spiritual authorities and paths. Your body language point was totally irrelevant to the questions I raised above, and that Jack responded to.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Sat, 04 Mar 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 91 - 120 of 186 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.)