Tom Paine wrote:
but the man who fears losing his wife ....or his job for that matter...wants his wife or job, not self knowledge.

... and this was not K's problem, right ?

Then why is it a problem for this man ?

Why resist 'what is' ?

Tom Paine wrote:
My wife of 20 years threatens to leave me. I feel I love her dearly....I depend on her....she's a good cook.....she brings me sexual satisfaction and a feeling of security.

Can there be any freedom in a life built upon dependency ?

Why resist 'what is' ?

Jean Gatti wrote:
... and this was not K's problem, right ?

Then why is it a problem for this man ?

Because he's not K? Not trying to be cute, Jean. But we are obviously not K. He was never in our shoes(was not similarly conditioned), nor we in his(he never had conflict in life, he claimed). He did say, "no one got it" or something like that near the end.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Wed, 22 Mar 2017.

Jean Gatti wrote:
Can there be any freedom in a life built upon dependency ?

The man or woman who feels emotional pain from a divorce is not really interested in freedom. They want their lover back. Not that your question is not a valid one.

Let it Be

Jean Gatti wrote:
Can we observe that our reactivity decreases when we are quiet ? Therefore isn't it important to 'cultivate' quietness ?

But how is one to cultivate quietness ?

Maybe we could look at what cultivates 'excitement' (the opposite of quietness): like entertainment, looking for profit and social status, needs for all kinds of material goods, addictions of all kinds, stress at work etc ...

Cultivation is thought. This whole statement above is nothing but hollow prattle. Idealistic crap that is merely being repeated without any understanding. And, of course, excitement is not the opposite of quietness. He just makes this crap up and passes it off as "fact" without anyone questioning it.

Only when one is as nothing

Question: You often speak of living, experiencing, and yet being as nothing. What is this state of consciously being as nothing? Has this anything to do with humility, being open to the grace of God?

Krishnamurti: To be consciously anything is not to be free. If I am conscious that I am non-greedy, beyond anger, surely I am not free from greed, anger. Humility is something of which you cannot be conscious. To cultivate humility is to cultivate self-expansion negatively. Therefore any virtue that is deliberately cultivated, practised, lived, is obviously not virtue. It is a form of resistance; it is a form of self-expansion, which has its own gratification. But it is no longer virtue. Virtue is merely a freedom in which you discover the real. Without virtue, there can be no freedom. Virtue is not an end in itself. Now, it is not possible by deliberate, conscious effort to be as nothing, because then it is another achievement. Innocence is not the result of careful cultivation. To be as nothing is essential. As a cup is useful only when it is empty, so only when one is as nothing is it possible to receive the grace of God, or Truth, or what you will.
The Collected Works vol V, p 301

This post was last updated by Jack Pine Wed, 22 Mar 2017.

So to "cultivate" something is actually resistance to it. Why does anyone discuss anything with this guy? All of it is just snippets of memorized and misunderstood prattle he has taken from, and misunderstood, from some other source he has read.

Is it possible to have a dialogue with someone who just speaks in idealized phrases?

Wim Opdam wrote:
Rich,
There is still the feeling of distinction between 'perception', 'awareness' and 'observation'. The choiceless part is for me the fact that 'ego' is not involved.

Can we investigate what is meant by those three words ??

I don't know what to add. K. says: Awareness is the silent and choiceless observation of what is. Is it true ? It can be question , as all the rest.

And we all know what perception is, I guess. Isn't it what we are aware of through our senses ?

So if one see what is being said is true, then we see that perception, awareness and silent and choiceless observation are all inter related. There can't be awareness without perception. And can there be awareness without silent and choiceless observation ?

This post was last updated by Rich Nolet Wed, 22 Mar 2017.

Wim Opdam wrote in #24:
Tom,
Don't have an idea what might lead to, because that's already a goal as well as a pattern (causual way from one state of being to another).
The fact is that 'actually observe' the pattern is already breaking the pattern
(from personal experience) but it give you no garantee ' the 'me' in action....again, that would be thought in action.

Well said, Wim, thank you. You speak of observing the pattern....the mold in which thought functions. Right...we always want that guarantee that 'me' will not interfere. And this wanting is clearly an action of me...is in itself, more interference!

Let it Be

Tom Paine wrote:
The man or woman who feels emotional pain from a divorce is not really interested in freedom.

Well in fact he is, he wants to be free ... but at the same time he lives in a psychological dependency of another person ...

Didn't K say (restating in my own words from memory): can you not depend, can you walk alone, totally alone psychologically ?

Why resist 'what is' ?

Rich Nolet wrote:
So if one see what is being said is true, then we see that perception, awareness and silent and choiceless observation are all inter related. There can't be awareness without perception. And can there be awareness without silent and choiceless observation ?

Yes interrelated that's what is seen, but my heart, my kidneys, my longs are also interrelated and function well if they're in balance.

The differences are apparently very subtle and may exist differences in emphasis, so perceptionfeels for me close to the way of looking and not a conclusion but very close to that, while observation with 'watching' something and awareness yet again indicating another dimension; but maybe I do feel wrongly.

Here a few quotes from K. about these subjects:

Public Talk 14th March, 1948 | Mumbai, India

If there is passive awareness in which the dullness is perceived, and immediately after the perception there is a period of silence without condemnation, then in that period of observation without condemnation, the cause of insensitivity, of dullness, is revealed. The truth of that perception frees the mind from insensitivity.

.

Ommen Camp, Holland | 3rd Public Talk 8th August, 1938

All habit must prevent clarity of perception and must conceal one's own integrity. This mechanism has been developed as a means of escape, a process of concealment, of covering up one's own confusion and uncertainties; it has been developed to cover up the futility of one's own actions and the routine of work, of occupation; or to escape from emptiness, sorrow, disappointment, and so on.

.

Ojai, California | 7th Public Talk 7th July, 1940

In the very beginning of awareness there is the perception of what is true; truth is not a result or an achievement, but it is to be understood. In the very process of understanding, say for example, greed, there is the realization of what is true. This understanding is not born of mere reason or emotion but is the outcome of awareness, the completeness of thought-action.

One can see there are differences by what is meant but it still not clear to me !!

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.

Jean Gatti wrote:
T: The man or woman who feels emotional pain from a divorce is not really interested in freedom.
J: Well in fact he is, he wants to be free ... but at the same time he lives in a psychological dependency of another person ...

He doesn't want freedom, Jean... he wants security and pleasure

Let it Be

Tom Paine wrote:
He doesn't want freedom, Jean... he wants security and pleasure

and finally what he gets is just more suffering ...

Why resist 'what is' ?

Jack Pine wrote:
Is it possible to have a dialogue with someone who just speaks in idealized phrases?

blijkbaar niet !! .................... zie #41 & #42 ;-)

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.

Wim Opdam wrote:
blijkbaar niet !! .................... zie #41 & #42 ;-)

ja, dat lijkt het geval te zijn. Bedankt, Wim

This post was last updated by Jack Pine Thu, 23 Mar 2017.

Wim Opdam wrote:
Ojai, California | 7th Public Talk 7th July, 1940
In the very beginning of awareness there is the perception of what is true; truth is not a result or an achievement, but it is to be understood. In the very process of understanding, say for example, greed, there is the realization of what is true. This understanding is not born of mere reason or emotion but is the outcome of awareness, the completeness of thought-action.
One can see there are differences by what is meant but it still not clear to me !!

Good quote. I'll have to stay with it for a while :)

Jack Pine wrote:
snippets of memorized and misunderstood prattle

Anyone not involved in this activity, please raise your hand.

Stuff happens

Jack Pine wrote:
Dedankt,

I think in Dutch, it's Bedankt. ;)

Stuff happens

Tom Paine wrote:
He doesn't want freedom, Jean... he wants security and pleasure

He? Who he? Me me me, not he/she. This is all about the human mind and anyone who works one.

Stuff happens

Jean Gatti wrote:
can you not depend, can you walk alone, totally alone psychologically ?

Without quotes and without sympathy for the suffering of any particular special interest group, like the plight of women (Jean's sacred cow), for instance?

Stuff happens

Jack Pine wrote:
Is it possible to have a dialogue with someone who just speaks in idealized phrases?

What else we/you got, Jack? Freedom? Choiceless perception?

Stuff happens

randall merryman wrote:
Tom Paine wrote:

He doesn't want freedom, Jean... he wants security and pleasure
He? Who he? Me me me, not he/she.

Yes, the human mind, but I was speaking of a particular case...the guy who's wife just filed for divorce. That's the reason for the 'he'. That's definitely not 'me'....I'm not married. Now whether I'm seeking pleasure and security is another issue.

Let it Be

Tom Paine wrote:
I was speaking of a particular case...

Yes. And I was simply pointing out that discussing a/the particular, is not productive to rigorous self enquiry.

Stuff happens

Tom Paine wrote:
whether I'm seeking pleasure and security is another issue.

How/why is it another issue? Are we to attack an issue in another then apply it to our selves?

Stuff happens

randall merryman wrote:
Yes. And I was simply pointing out that discussing a/the particular, is not productive to rigorous self enquiry.

No, you misunderstood. Now I lost track of what we were discussing....but it had to do with the human mind. I only used this guy as an example of someone (me, you, Jean, anyone) who is unable to objectively observe his particular conflict. I wasn't implying that I was an exception. I, in fact, went thru this experience(very painful breakup of a romantic relationship) when young, and it's an example of a type of conflict and suffering most people can relate to. In fact my reason for coming here to the forum may be a search for some sort of security in 'the teaching' ...or using K as an escape from facing my problem/s....or the pleasure of showing off my vast understanding ;)

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Thu, 23 Mar 2017.

Jean Gatti wrote:
Tom Paine wrote:

but the man who fears losing his wife ....or his job for that matter...wants his wife or job, not self knowledge.

Jean Gatti wrote:
... and this was not K's problem, right ?

Then why is it a problem for this man ?

You two guys are made for each other :)

This post was last updated by Rich Nolet Thu, 23 Mar 2017.

Rich Nolet wrote:
You two guys are made for each other :)

Wouldn't it be more helpful to share your objection to the point or points made?

Let it Be

Tom Paine wrote:
No, you misunderstood

Possibly possibly.

Stuff happens

Tom Paine wrote:
wasn't implying that I was an exception.

I did not take that implication Tom (I have already understood deeply the implication of what goes on at Kinfonet and everywhere)

I was simply pointing out the obvious fact. Knowledge/information/belief/imagination/thought will not bring anything except temporary comfort/security.

Stuff happens

Tom Paine wrote:
Wouldn't it be more helpful to share your objection to the point or points made?

Beside the fact that you've totaly lost track of the topic ?

randall merryman wrote:
I think in Dutch, it's Bedankt. ;)

Thanks for the correction.