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

Conversation on afterlife and the stream of consciousness.


Displaying all 24 posts
Page 1 of 1
Sun, 08 Oct 2017 #1
Thumb_nolet Rich Nolet Canada 235 posts in this forum Offline

I don't know if anybody have ever read this text which seems to me so fundamental:

A conversation with Jiddu Krishnamurti following the death of John Field from The Reluctant Messiah, by Sidney Field.

For those interest, here is the presentation. The link to the transcription of the integral conversation, recorded on January 14, 1972 is:

https://selfdefinition.org/afterlife/krishnamur...

Participants: K., Alain Naudé and Mary Zimbalist.

I am putting the presentation here, click the link to read the integral conversation, which is too long to put here.

(Presentation)

A Conversation with Jiddu Krishnamurti following the Death of John Field

From: The Reluctant Messiah by Sidney Field.

This is a quote copied from pp. 117, 118 and pp. 135-157 from the book The Reluctant Messiah by Sidney Field, Paragon House, New York 1989, Edited by Peter Hay, ISBN 1-55778-180-X, Copyright 1989 by Sidney Field. [fair use]

Sidney Field was a close friend to Krishnamurti and the book is about all the encounters he had with K. At page 117, Sidney wrote:

My brother, John, died early in January, 1972. His death was totally unexpected and a great shock to me. John had been a photographer, a lover of adventure, women and wine, a mean of great Latin charm. He had known Krishnaji as long as I had, and had many times delighted him with his stories and personal adventures. Krishnaji had just arrived from Europe and was staying in Malibu at the home of Mrs. Zimbalist. I called him to give him the sad news, saying I wanted to see him, and he asked me to come the following day for lunch.

He greeted me most affectionately. At the dining table I came right to the point: Has John survived his bodily death in a subtler form? Yes or no? There was a moment's silence. My gut feeling, I went on, is that he is here beside me, right now.

Of course he is, right here beside you, said Krishnaji. He's very close to you, and will continue being close for some time. Two hours later we were still deep into the subject of death and the hereafter. He referred to that part of the personality that survives bodily death as an echo, instead of an astral body, as the Theosophists call it, the echo of the person who lived on earth, the duration of its life on the other side depending on the strength of the individual's earthly personality. Dr. Besant's echo, for instance, he said, will go on for a long time, for she had a very strong personality. Your viewpoint here is very similar to that of the Theosophists, I said.

With one important difference, he replied. There is no permanent substance that survives the death of the body. Whether the ego lasts one year, ten thousand, or a million years, it must finally come to an end.

Krishnaji's remarks during this conversation were among the most revealing and enlightening I had ever heard him make on the subject of death and survival beyond it. At the end of our talk Mrs. Zimbalist remarked that it was a great pity we had not recorded it, for, prodded by insistent questioning and probing on my part, and aided by a sympathetic Mrs. Zimbalist, Krishnaji had explored what to us was a new dimension on this fascinating subject.

Krishnaji has an extraordinary capacity for recall, when he wants to use that gift, and a few days later, he Alain Naude and Mrs. Zimbalist recreated the entire conversation, this time recording it, with Naude asking Krishnaji essentially the same questions I had asked. It was staged in a much quieter atmosphere, naturally, and Naude's questions were cool and intellectual. They did not have the same urgency and strong feeling of my approach, for I was hurting at the time. Nevertheless, I was fascinated when I heard the recording. Krishnaji gave me permission to publish it in connection with this memoir, as it appears below.

The link to the integral conversation between K., Alain Naude and Mary Zimbalist is here, again:

https://selfdefinition.org/afterlife/krishnamur...

Scroll down to avoid the above text.

This post was last updated by Rich Nolet Sun, 08 Oct 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 08 Oct 2017 #2
Thumb_nolet Rich Nolet Canada 235 posts in this forum Offline

Rich Nolet wrote:
Krishnaji's remarks during this conversation were among the most revealing and enlightening I had ever heard him make on the subject of death and survival beyond it . (Sidney Field).

You see, It's been the same for me. It is really about life and death and beyond. Undertsanding this is about understanding the meaning of life; which is about going beyond the self and the stream of consciousness ....and live.

This post was last updated by Rich Nolet Sun, 08 Oct 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 08 Oct 2017 #3
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 4916 posts in this forum Offline

First Rich, thank you very much for posting this excerpt of a conversation K, Fields, Naude and Mary Zimbalist had. It is extremely powerful and revealing. I feel like anything I say about it limits what it is. Just to see it, to stay with it without reacting to it is.... I don't know. To react is the stream pretending it sees what is not of it's self. Again, thank you Rich.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 08 Oct 2017 #4
Thumb_nolet Rich Nolet Canada 235 posts in this forum Offline

Extremely powerful and revealing it is Jack. I can't imagine where this light come from, the why and the how of those revelations. But in fact, it is not important, as long as they can be lived and share.

This post was last updated by Rich Nolet Sun, 08 Oct 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 09 Oct 2017 #5
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 1046 posts in this forum Offline

Rich Nolet wrote:
I don't know if anybody have ever read this text which seems to me so fundamental:

Hi Rich,

Thanks for the link.
I don't remember how this information came to me first but I knew already and this is more complete. When this information came first to me it was liberating because after my fathers dead I had an experience which were so obvious -even for my wife- and the only explination we came to was that my father came to say goodbye.

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.

This post was last updated by Wim Opdam Mon, 09 Oct 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 09 Oct 2017 #6
Thumb_3740 richard head United States 248 posts in this forum Offline

Rich Nolet wrote:
Of course he is, right here beside you, said Krishnaji. He's very close to you, and will continue being close for some time.

In every other instance that K address this subject, he points in the opposite direction to what is being interpreted here. Don't you think he is saying the brother is manifesting next to him (syd) in his own imagination/ego? Those on the forum citing "otherworldly" encounters/experience as evidence to validate this misinterpretation of what K is saying, might want to look deeper into the things K says, rather than rely solely on one text/conversation.

This post was last updated by richard head Mon, 09 Oct 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 09 Oct 2017 #7
Thumb_nolet Rich Nolet Canada 235 posts in this forum Offline

I think that if one read the integral conversation to the end, everything is very clear.

This post was last updated by Rich Nolet Mon, 09 Oct 2017.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Mon, 09 Oct 2017 #8
Thumb_3740 richard head United States 248 posts in this forum Offline

Rich Nolet wrote:
everything is very clear.

I will just respectfully suggest that clarity, is somewhat more elusive than we give it credit for.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 09 Oct 2017 #9
Thumb_nolet Rich Nolet Canada 235 posts in this forum Offline

richard head wrote:
Those on the forum citing "otherworldly" encounters/experience as evidence to validate this misinterpretation of what K is saying, should look deeper into the things K says.

You are right. I think that if one read the integral conversation between K., Mary and Alain , one would see that they go a lot deeper in the subject. The sentence you quote could lead to misinterpretation effectivily. Good point.

richard head wrote:
I will just respectfully suggest that clarity, is somewhat more elusive than we give it credit for.

I will not go futher in this, until it bring more clarity, not more confusion. I think it could be just a quality in the listening. But I insist that the integral conversation should be read before discussing anything. It was an inquiry, as K. usualy did, so it has an unwinding.

This post was last updated by Rich Nolet Tue, 10 Oct 2017.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Mon, 09 Oct 2017 #10
Thumb_3740 richard head United States 248 posts in this forum Offline

Rich Nolet wrote:
I think it could be just a quality in the listening.

Which K states over and over as the general response of the human mind (inadequate quality).

Are you suggesting that the agreed upon narrative here, is giving that quality of listening/attention K speaks of?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 09 Oct 2017 #11
Thumb_3740 richard head United States 248 posts in this forum Offline

Rich Nolet wrote:
I insist that the integral conversation should be read before discussing anything.

I am not at all certain that an infusion of more knowledge/information into the situation will bring a quality of clarity K spoke of.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 10 Oct 2017 #12
Thumb_nolet Rich Nolet Canada 235 posts in this forum Offline

Maybe you could start a topic about: should we read K. or not, since according to you, it is only more knowledge/information. But I am not interested in this question, . So I will leave it at that.

This post was last updated by Rich Nolet Tue, 10 Oct 2017.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 2 readers
Back to Top
Tue, 10 Oct 2017 #13
Thumb_nolet Rich Nolet Canada 235 posts in this forum Offline

richard head wrote:
Are you suggesting that the agreed upon narrative here, is giving that quality of listening/attention K speaks of?

The other way around. There is any request for an agreement. Read it first, with sensibility, with attention, with openness. And then there is no need for discussion, question or agreement. Have you read it , gone into it ? No. Otherwise you wouln't say what you say.

This post was last updated by Rich Nolet Tue, 10 Oct 2017.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 2 readers
Back to Top
Tue, 10 Oct 2017 #14
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 4916 posts in this forum Offline

Rich, you should be advised that this is what Richard Head does. He doesn't really start posts of his own he criticizes what others put on here. His obvious incomplete understanding of what K has pointed out and/or his own inability to understand what he reads, if he reads, what K has said leads him to confusion and criticism of others.

Now most of us have an incomplete understanding of K but I think we are willing to set aside our own prejudice beliefs of what we think K is saying and just stay quiet and see for ourselves the meaning of what K is saying instead of reacting and telling others what they have seen is in error. What Richard Head is really saying is that if others don't agree with what he believes K is saying then they are wrong.

Previous experience has shown if you want to preserve the beauty of what K has said here having further dialogue with Richard Head is not the way to do it. Let K speak for himself and let each of us find out for ourselves what K is saying.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 10 Oct 2017 #15
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 4916 posts in this forum Offline

richard head wrote:
Rich Nolet wrote:
Of course he is, right here beside you, said Krishnaji. He's very close to you, and will continue being close for some time.

Dick, if you would actually take the time to read the whole piece Rich put on this thread you would discover that K said what you quoted and what is quoted above not Rich. K is saying this. Do you understand? There hasn't been any interpretation by anyone this is a quote from K.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 10 Oct 2017 #16
Thumb_nolet Rich Nolet Canada 235 posts in this forum Offline

Post # 14

Yes Jack, I undertsand. I was thinking exactly the same thing. And as you say, let each of us find out for ourselves what K. is saying.

This post was last updated by Rich Nolet Tue, 10 Oct 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 10 Oct 2017 #17
Thumb_3740 richard head United States 248 posts in this forum Offline

Jack Pine wrote:
Let K speak for himself and let each of us find out for ourselves what K is saying.

The problem with this Jack, is that most human minds rely on the authority of their own thinking. Be aware, this is not a criticism.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 10 Oct 2017 #18
Thumb_3740 richard head United States 248 posts in this forum Offline

Jack Pine wrote:
There hasn't been any interpretation by anyone this is a quote from K.

Yes, there has been interpretation.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 10 Oct 2017 #19
Thumb_3740 richard head United States 248 posts in this forum Offline

Jack Pine wrote:
but I think we are willing to set aside our own prejudice beliefs of what we think K is saying and just stay quiet and see for ourselves the meaning of what K is saying

I would simply suggest few, if any, are willing/able to do this. Otherwise, K would not have had to speak for 60 years. We would have figured it all out with his first talk.

Disclaimer...this is not a criticism.

This post was last updated by richard head Tue, 10 Oct 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 10 Oct 2017 #20
Thumb_leaping_fire_frog_by_sirenofchaos natarajan shivan India 80 posts in this forum Offline

Randall, as I see, it's K's adamancy in grounding everything mystical to physical reality and hence the reference 'physical heat' as a response to 'psychic momentum' in the interview; so that, there isn't any escape from here especially into the psychological realms, and the only thing left being the seeing/action principle. He hasn't deviated an inch away from his position if one may put it that way. But I see your point, when one quotes a part of text to justify personal experiences.., I think we should let it pass.

contraria sunt complementa

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 10 Oct 2017 #21
Thumb_3740 richard head United States 248 posts in this forum Offline

natarajan shivan wrote:
I think we should let it pass.

I said what I had to say and will let it pass. ;)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 10 Oct 2017 #22
Thumb_nolet Rich Nolet Canada 235 posts in this forum Offline

This will be my last post on this thread. If one read the all text, one sees the fact that there is no richard, no John, no Rich, no Jack. There is the stream which is mechanical, in which there is conflict and division and so on. Which is:

K.: No, sir, just go slowly. It's rather complicated. The stream of humanity is anger, hate, jealosy, seeking power, position, cheating, corrupt, polluted. That is the stream. Of that stream is my brother John. When he existed physically, he has a physical body, but psychologically he was of this. Therefore was he ever different from this? From the stream? Or only physically different and therefore thinking he was different. You follow my point?

A: There was an entity who was self-conscious ...

K: ... As John.

Keep in mind that this is not an interpretation. It is K. words not mine. And also, this is only a fragment of the conversation. The all thing is in the link in post #1, which was what I wanted to share, to expose to anyone interested. You are free to comment of course , or to pass.

(Another quote from the text.)

A: That is meditation, that is real meditation, because the stream is not life. The stream is totally mechanical.

K: I must die to the stream.

A: All the time.

K: All the time. And therefore I must deny - not deny, I must not get entangled with - John who is in the stream.

A: One must repudiate the things of the stream.

K: That means I must repudiate my brother.

A: I must repudiate having a brother. You see what that means?

K: I see my brother belonging to this, and as I move away from the stream my mind is open. I think that is compassion.

A: When the stream is seen from that which is not of the stream.

K: When the man of the stream steps out and looks, then he has compassion.

A: And love.

This post was last updated by Rich Nolet Tue, 10 Oct 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 10 Oct 2017 #23
Thumb_3740 richard head United States 248 posts in this forum Offline

Rich Nolet wrote:
should we read K. or not, since according to you, it is only more knowledge/information.

I have never, not even once, suggested that one should not read K.

Now, according to you, what else is it other than knowledge/information?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 10 Oct 2017 #24
Thumb_3740 richard head United States 248 posts in this forum Offline

Rich Nolet wrote:
And then there is no need for discussion, question or agreement.

Yet, discussion question/answer and or agreement/disagreement accept/reject goes on day after day at this site and elsewhere.

Attention: this is not a criticism.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying all 24 posts
Page 1 of 1
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.)