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

K's superstitions


Displaying posts 181 - 208 of 208 in total
Fri, 16 Nov 2018 #181
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 443 posts in this forum Offline

Sean Hen wrote:
Have you had mysterious experiences? K answers this question in a short video

Thanks for sharing that video, Sean Hen.

You know, I once went to the Magic Castle here in Los Angeles. It's a private club for some of the world's best magicians. Every once in a while you know someone who knows someone and you get the opportunity to go and enjoy some great magic shows. (It still costs a certain amount of money to get in.)

I was watching a superb magician from a few feet away doing incredible card tricks. He was blowing people away in our group with his amazing skill. Of course, I'm also always trying to look where I'm not supposed to look. I asked him, what are those rubber bands I see up his sleeves a little bit. He said, "Don't pay any attention to those." And went on with his amazing show.

In this video, K says there's telepathy and telekinesis that have been demonstrated in laboratories. That is false. The best science has shown no evidence of anyone with these so called occult skills. And K says that he has gone deeply into some of these matters (kundalini, the process, etc.) but they are trivial. The sleight of hand magician said to pay no attention. K says to pay no attention to the trivial.

Sorry, but I WILL pay attention to the trivial as well as to the non-trivial. They are not mutually exclusive. And sometimes the one can reveal insight into the other. Luckily we have freedom to investigate. We can investigate what some consider trivial and we can investigate what might be considered not trivial. I say: why not investigate everything?!

K himself has said that the truth is not exclusion. Now that is wisdom.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Fri, 16 Nov 2018 #182
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 480 posts in this forum Offline

I wonder why you asked the magician about the rubber bands. We know very well that there’s no actual magic, just trickery. Did the others in your group believe they were seeing “real” magic? It’s one thing to discover how the magician does his tricks but, whether we do or don’t, we do understand that “magic” is not of fundamental importance in life. When my 4 year old granddaughter says, “it’s not fair!”, it’s trivial to me and not trivial to her. I don’t belittle her and dismiss her feelings. But I realize that she doesn’t understand the whole picture (nor do I!) and I don’t treat it as a fundamental issue. She has to face the fact of thwarted desire. That’s not exclusion of her concerns. It’s inclusion and understanding of their significance. There’s trivial and there’s fundamental, there’s starvation and greed. Everything is not everything. Inclusion doesn’t mean everything is treated the same. Understanding “magic” is trivial, not fundamental. That’s how I see it. I could be wrong.

There ARE fundamental questions though - not because Krishnamurti or anyone else says so but because they are spontaneously inwardly felt to be fundamentally important. K or no K, there’s a discontent that cannot be ignored. Isn’t it so?

When K points out the nature of self and time, when he talks about intelligence, order, beauty, consciousness, action, relationship, time, the workings of mind, thought, brain, and so on, THOSE things are felt by me to be fundamental - realizing I might misunderstand, be mistaken or fooling myself.

We don’t have to “follow” K. We can leave K out of it entirely and use our own minds to look into the things which are fundamental to us, for our own understanding, intelligence, life, relationship, and so on. I’m not interested in K’s superstitions but in the truth about life, in distinguishing between truth or fact and thought or idea. Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that K was superstitious, pretentious, a cheater, conceited, that he followed certain rituals, beliefs and other such nonsense. The fundamental questions remain. Is life a meaningless cosmic accident or is there fundamental order, love and beauty? Is such observable order in the universe its own meaning, or is such order meaningless, random and accidental? Do you have anything to say about THOSE things? Can you help me understand that?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 16 Nov 2018 #183
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 675 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
Sorry, but I WILL pay attention to the trivial as well as to the non-trivial.

I think that one has to be able to distinguish between the profound
and the trivial. When the house is on fire does one go and do the trivial ? .. There is one life. And when it goes on fire. We don't realize the danger of nationalism. We don't realize the danger of prejudice. There is one life to live. Merely doing the trivial things without being in contact with the deeper layer of the mind life becomes meaningless. .

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 16 Nov 2018 #184
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 443 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Is life a meaningless cosmic accident or is there fundamental order, love and beauty? Is such observable order in the universe its own meaning, or is such order meaningless, random and accidental? Do you have anything to say about THOSE things? Can you help me understand that?

Of course. Love discussing such matters.

Clearly some of us want God to be behind it all. Some of us may think that saying that God created everything for His own reasons that we can't fully understand solves it. But who created God and why? It just begs the question. And there is no scientific reason to believe there is a creator God.

Is the universe orderly? In many ways it is quite random and, according to the second law of thermodynamics, tends toward greater and greater entropy or disorder. But life is an extraordinary order. Once it gets started, and we don't yet know how that happened, then evolution gradually brings us to where we are, over enormous time scales.

So in a way, yes, life is meaningless. It is not in some fulfillment of some projected idea of man.

But living has it's own meaning, it's own fullness. We get this tremendous banquet called life that has delicious things, so so things, and horrible tasting things. If we weren't such picky eaters, perhaps we could enjoy it way more!

Krishnamurti, The First and Last Freedom, On the Meaning of Life:
Is not living in itself its own purpose, its own meaning? Why do we want more?...It is because our minds are full of technicalities and superstitious mutterings that our lives are so empty and that is why we seek a purpose beyond ourselves. To find out life's purpose, we must go through the door of ourselves; consciously or unconsciously we avoid facing things as they are in themselves and so we want God to open for us a door which is beyond. This question about the purpose of life is put only by those who do not love. Love can be found only in action, which is relationship.

The First and Last Freedom! That and Think On These Things remain my two most favorite books. They are just great. But that doesn't mean that they have all the answers. Actually they, and all K teachings, initiate real questioning, which is what really matters.

This post was last updated by idiot ? Fri, 16 Nov 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 16 Nov 2018 #185
Thumb_001 Sean Hen Spain 728 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
So in a way, yes, life is meaningless.

Have you seen the film about Krishnamurti's life called "The Seer Who Walks Alone"? Your sentence above reminded me of a quote from K that stuck in my mind from this film. It's in the opening minute. K said "A sheet of water has immense meaning."

You can see the whole film here.

This post was last updated by Sean Hen Fri, 16 Nov 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 16 Nov 2018 #186
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 675 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
Krishnamurti, The First and Last Freedom, On the Meaning of Life:

Is not living in itself its own purpose, its own meaning?

So the purpose of life is to live. Because if you know how to live then you will find the purpose of life in living.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 16 Nov 2018 #187
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 443 posts in this forum Offline

Sean Hen wrote:
Have you seen the film about Krishnamurti's life called "The Seer Who Walks Alone"?

No, I haven't seen it.

Yes, a sheet of water has immense meaning. It's own meaning! Just in and of itself it is beauty. And all of life is like that when love is in our hearts, yes? Even violence and cruelty. Of course, we feel responsible and want to bring about an end to violence. But the richness, the energy, the vitality is everywhere, isn't it?

This post was last updated by idiot ? Fri, 16 Nov 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 16 Nov 2018 #188
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 1215 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
The fundamental questions remain. Is life a meaningless cosmic accident or is there fundamental order, love and beauty? Is such observable order in the universe its own meaning, or is such order meaningless, random and accidental? Do you have anything to say about THOSE things? Can you help me understand that?

Consider this: That there IS actually anything rather than there being nothing at all, is an impossiblity.

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Fri, 16 Nov 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 16 Nov 2018 #189
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 1215 posts in this forum Offline

The most doable universe is no universe.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 16 Nov 2018 #190
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 480 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
Clearly some of us want God to be behind it all.

Are you speaking about me when you say this? Please, let us speak clearly and without subterfuge. I didn’t mention God. God to me is not a refuge or a hope. For me, God is a word that has too many interpretations to be used meaningfully in this exchange. For some God is somewhat akin to Santa Claus. For others God is a fantasy, a desire, a hope, a belief, a placebo, a justification for evil actions. For others still, including me, God is the mysterious, unknowable source of the order that is observed in the universe, including love, beauty, intelligence, the sacred, and so on. Still, I have reached no conclusions about any of it, about the source, the order, intelligence, love, the sacred, and so on. It may ALL be random and chaotic, but it doesn’t look that way to me.

It seems evident to me (I could be wrong) that there’s “something more” than the daily reality we take for granted, the day-to-day perceptions and experiencing of daily living. That “something else” is not something separate or distinct from daily living. The day-to-day reality which is known is within that “something else”, which is unknown, unimaginable, unthinkable, untouchable, unknowable by our small mind. I’m not saying it’s so but it seems rational to me.

How do I know? What makes me say that?

I DON'T know. It may all be random and chaotic, without intrinsic love, beauty or intelligence, but in observing a fundamentally mysterious and ungraspable universal order it is understood that it is inarguably not man-made. Man did not create himself. Man did not create the mystery of time-space, the universe, the atoms, the fauna and flora, the galaxies, and so on. Man’s attempts to tamper with this mysterious creation which is beyond his comprehension seem to have grave consequences.

idiot ? wrote:
Some of us may think that saying that God created everything for His own reasons that we can't fully understand solves it. But who created God and why? It just begs the question. And there is no scientific reason to believe there is a creator God.

Again, can we leave aside "what some of us may think”? I don’t think that. I don’t anthropomorphise God. God is not an idea or belief of mine. God is simply the mysterious source of creation, which is intellectually unknown and unknowable. I don’t see why it follows that using such a term as God, the Ground, the Source of Creation, Love, Universal Intelligence, the Sacred, or some such term, “begs the question” of who created God. For me, it doesn’t follow at all. If the source of creation itself is beyond full understanding, how does it beg this question of who created the creator? God is the unknowable ultimate reality and it is beyond human understanding. The question of who created God arises in the human mind because the human mind functions in that groove of conditioning. The intellect cannot break free of that intellectual groove, just as the heart or kidneys cannot go beyond their biologically ordained functions. Even the most brilliant scientists are human and their intellects - while brilliant compared to me - are therefore limited by the capabilities of the intellect. So I’m not talking about having a reason to believe in a Creator. There is no reason, scientific or not, to believe in God. I’m not talking about belief but about what is observable, which is the order in the universe, in nature, in life.

idiot ? wrote:
Is the universe orderly? In many ways it is quite random and, according to the second law of thermodynamics, tends toward greater and greater entropy or disorder. But life is an extraordinary order. Once it gets started, and we don't yet know how that happened, then evolution gradually brings us to where we are, over enormous time scales.

You say that the trivial and non-trivial are not mutually exclusive. Are the universe and life mutually exclusive? Are order and disorder mutually exclusive? It may be but it doesn’t seem to little old me that it is necessarily so.

From the smallest particles, to all living organisms, to the vastest systems, order is seen. The planets do not collide, organisms do not disintegrate for no reason, the seasons inexorably follow their orderly movements. It seems foolish of Man to consider himself to be separate, unaffected, above or beyond, not subject to the laws, movements and energy of that infinite and eternal time-space. It seems foolish of Man to consider himself to be smarter, able to control or outwit, to be beyond the reach of the natural laws of infinite and eternal time-space, the unknown and unknowable source of which I call God. This is not the God of Abraham or Ibrahim, nor the God of any other book or tradition. This is what appears to me to be the creative intelligence which governs the universe in ways which are beyond Man’s comprehension. And within that observable order is also observable disorder.

Having said all this, the fundamental question for me remains, can one or can't one live without conflict, sorrow, misery?

Man in what I see as his pomposity, arrogance, conceit, selfishness, now assumes that he has “evolved” from the caves to being all-powerful Modern Superman ... but he still must die, and he still has no love, no compassion, no beauty in his heart. And without love, compassion and beauty, life has no meaning. It is, it seems to me, love alone that gives the "sensation" of meaning.

So, there is “something else”, something that is missing that can perhaps be found or understood if life is to have any joy, love or beauty. And maybe there isn’t.

In THIS context, I don’t see the trivial as having any relevance. The trivial is not separate from the non-trivial, true, But the trivial remains trivial. Whether or not K believed he had the protection of the Ground, whether or not K believed that his rituals protected the occupants from evil, does not change the facts about consciousness, time, order and disorder, and so on.

idiot ? wrote:
The First and Last Freedom! That and Think On These Things remain my two most favorite books. They are just great. But that doesn't mean that they have all the answers. Actually they, and all K teachings, initiate real questioning, which is what really matters.

Does that mean we can set aside the question of K's superstitions etc.? Or not?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 16 Nov 2018 #191
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 480 posts in this forum Offline

Peter Kesting wrote:
Consider this: That there IS actually anything rather than there being nothing at all, is an impossiblity.

Peter,

I'm not saying this is not so, but I don't understand it.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 16 Nov 2018 #192
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 480 posts in this forum Offline

Peter Kesting wrote:
The most doable universe is no universe.

..... nor this. Sorry.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 17 Nov 2018 #193
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 1215 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Peter,

I'm not saying this is not so, but I don't understand it.

What makes you think you should or could understand it? Understanding is limited.

Understanding is seeing things as determined, cause and effect. There is a field which is beyond that field.

Sentience is there, is of that field beyond. Also, nowness, meaning, perhaps nonlocality, human intelligence, qualia seen in the experiencing of color, qualia includes all feeling, all seeing. Nothing there is explainable.

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Sat, 17 Nov 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 17 Nov 2018 #194
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 443 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Does that mean we can set aside the question of K's superstitions etc.?

We've gone into superstitions in quite a lot of detail on this thread. At the moment I don't have anything to add about it. But if someone wants to bring up something further about K's apparent superstitions, I don't see why we couldn't explore it further.

Huguette . wrote:
Are you speaking about me when you say this?

No, I don't know you. You brought up the question of order in the universe and whether there is any purpose behind it. Implied in the question is whether or not God is involved. I agree that the word "God" is very complex and can mean many different things. Until we clarify the word, it is very ambiguous. I appreciate your exploring your own feeling: "God is the mysterious, unknowable source of the order that is observed in the universe, including love, beauty, intelligence, the sacred, and so on."

Huguette . wrote:
It seems evident to me (I could be wrong) that there’s “something more” than the daily reality...

Is there something more? Why do we think so? Because we've been told? Because we've heard descriptions? (Please, I'm not talking about you or anyone personally. I'm referring to normal human existence.) If there is "something more," then speculating about it is worthless. Only directly discovering for ourselves is important. Perhaps we have glimpsed directly. Perhaps not.

Now what do we mean by something more? Clearly, many of us live preoccupied with thoughts, mostly about ourselves. If that is seen and really dropped, then daily life is lived fully, yes? But then has "something more" arrived or have we just taken off the blinders? So daily life lived in strife and monotony or whatever way distracted is very different from daily life lived fully, completely engaged, and with awareness, yes?

Huguette . wrote:
Are order and disorder mutually exclusive?

Obviously conceptual opposites depend on one another for their meaning. Yet when you look at a tree, is there order or disorder? There is an organic blending of both, isn't there? The tree has a certain style of leaf and branch and bark, and a kind of balance, but also it whimsically goes this way and that. It's beautiful, yes? And a lot of life is like that. Also great art, where unity and variety are balanced in a masterful way.

So the tree is its own meaningless meaning! It's just what it is. And if we are quiet and open, the tree is beautiful. Also life - daily life - is just what it is. Lived fully, with a clear heart and mind, it too is beautiful.

Perhaps it is just an unnecessary distinction the mind makes as to whether this intouchness is connection with a mysterious entity or ground or whatever, or whether this is simply awareness of what is right there, and it only feels enhanced because the blinders have come off. The important thing is to let the mind naturally quiet down to awareness, yes? Whatever is, then, the brain cannot touch, try as it may to pile on a conceptual understanding or interpretation.

This post was last updated by idiot ? Sat, 17 Nov 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 17 Nov 2018 #195
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 480 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
But if someone wants to bring up something further about K's apparent superstitions, I don't see why we couldn't explore it further.

For me, it's not vital, no more than to discover the magician's trick. It's not forbidden to explore it, of course.

idiot ? wrote:
Now what do we mean by something more? Clearly, many of us live preoccupied with thoughts, mostly about ourselves. If that is seen and really dropped, then daily life is lived fully, yes? But then has "something more" arrived or have we just taken off the blinders? So daily life lived in strife and monotony or whatever way distracted is very different from daily life lived fully, completely engaged, and with awareness, yes?

Yes. It is seen that there's more to life than the restricted daily field of strife and struggle engendered by thought. It's not speculation. Then is there anything left to say? Is time really dropped? Is life lived fully? Are the blinders off? There's just observation, no expectation of answers.


As I see it, thought cannot uncover the truth about what is vitally important. To explore the crucial questions demands observation, awareness, not thought. Thought can only speculate.

This post was last updated by Huguette . Sat, 17 Nov 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 17 Nov 2018 #196
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5298 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
Now what do we mean by something more? Clearly, many of us live preoccupied with thoughts, mostly about ourselves. If that is seen and really dropped, then daily life is lived fully, yes? But then has "something more" arrived or have we just taken off the blinders? So daily life lived in strife and monotony or whatever way distracted is very different from daily life lived fully, completely engaged, and with awareness, yes?

Idiot, have you considered that your relentless quest to pursue relatively meaningless topics; superstition, gratitude and so on are merely entertainment for you? You're bored and looking into what K pointed out is not stimulating enough for many people. From something you wrote I gathered you live in Los Angeles, California, the entertainment capital of the world. I live in California, Ojai, half of the year myself and I see and feel the frantic pace and maniacal drive for stimulation most people here seem to exhibit. Fortunately for me I live deep in the Rocky Mountains the other half of the year where life is much slower and quieter.

Of course, it's not just you, we all share a deeply conditioned need for entertainment and activity that gives us pleasure and/or reward or acceptance of some kind. It's realizing this as it occurs that eludes so many of us.

What have you learned about yourself, your conditioning, wants, needs and so on by delving into these topics you've started? This is a rhetorical question for you. I'm not asking for a answer.

Using K and his discoveries as a mirror for your life is what this forum is dedicated to not trying to spread baseless rumors about K or anyone else.

This post was last updated by Jack Pine Sat, 17 Nov 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 17 Nov 2018 #197
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 480 posts in this forum Offline

We are not on opposite sides of a divide. As long as I am a slave to MY thoughts and emotions - that is, as long as action is driven by thought/emotion - I am inattentive, unaware, ignorant. Isn’t self-ignorance the cause of suffering? Isn’t ignorance the fruit of inattention? Isn’t attention or awareness to the totality - inner/outer - the essence of “the teachings” and seen to be essential?

Then it seems to me that as long as I am inattentive to the fact of my own bondage, I am wasting vital energy in inconsequential, divisive thoughts, and perpetuating suffering and conflict inwardly and outwardly. My responsibility is not to analyze or point out the ignorance of others, only to observe my own. I realize that I personally am NOT free of compulsion and of the tyranny of thought/time which drives me: thought/time says get angry and I get angry; thought says retaliate, and I retaliate; thought says be depressed or "you are a failure" and I wallow in depression and self-pity; thought says you’re better, smarter, etc, than them, you’re superior, outstanding, and I bask in conceit .... and so on.

So isn't the overriding concern to be free of the tyranny of thought and time, to understand the workings of the mind, to find out whether there is such a thing as freedom from compulsion, conceit, pretense, hypocrisy, fear, anger - from thought/time? Can we help each other by looking into it together without deceit or conceit, or is this just a pipe dream, another self-deception?

This post was last updated by Huguette . Sat, 17 Nov 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 17 Nov 2018 #198
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1311 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Can we help each other by looking into it together without deceit or conceit, or is this just a pipe dream, another self-deception?

No I would say that a sharing of insights is important. K. is saying I think in what Clive has posted today that what is called for is non-effort. That the "unconscious" can understand the 'self' with its attributes that you list and the only way that that can happen is through the 'conscious' understanding that any 'effort' I make in regards to bringing about a fundamental change will result in more conflict, more slavery etc. Now no-one can 'help' me to understand this and to no longer make any effort. But if in the 'not-doing' anything, there is an insight that this is what is called for, I think that should be shared and what someone else does with that is completely up to them. The 'self' is what it is and it is what we are. Whether we wish or can bear ourselves to be seen for what we are, without judgement, condemnation,etc. is a moment to moment 'decision', it seems to me.

In regards to myself, the temptation is to use the word 'fraud', that I am fraudulent...but that means there is a comparison of myself with someone else who is not fraudulent and that word carries a judgement and brings in the duality of a fraud calling itself a fraud...so seeing perhaps the necessity of not making that sort of judgement of good or bad, etc (which is always a temptation) because it is a form of escape and 'listening' to the thoughts and seeing the actions in myself and outside choicelessly and non-judgementally begins to make sense.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sat, 17 Nov 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 18 Nov 2018 #199
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5298 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
As long as I am a slave to MY thoughts and emotions - that is, as long as action is driven by thought/emotion - I am inattentive, unaware, ignorant.

Would you agree that there is no "MY" thoughts because the thinker is the invention of thinking and not separate from those thoughts? Is there my thought and your thoughts or is there just thinking? Who is the "I" that is inattentive? Is there an entity separate from thought?

Huguette . wrote:
Isn’t ignorance the fruit of inattention?

Most of us would probably respond to this question by saying that ignorance is the lack of knowledge. But as has been pointed out numerous times knowledge and experience are what conditions the brain. Is attention the accumulation of knowledge? Or is attention awareness without choice, without conclusion, without recording it in memory?

Huguette . wrote:
My responsibility is not to analyze or point out the ignorance of others, only to observe my own.

Responsibility means the ability to respond but who is responding? Is there a separation between your ignorance and the ignorance of humanity? What happens when there is a realization that there is just one brain; that we all suffer, we all feel pain, we are all greedy, lonely, confused and deeply conditioned? We all have been conditioned to blindly accept organized religion, nationalism, racism and all of the other things invented by thought to separate humanity into "them and us".

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 18 Nov 2018 #200
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5298 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
No I would say that a sharing of insights is important.

How do you share an insight?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 18 Nov 2018 #201
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 443 posts in this forum Offline

Jack Pine wrote:
How do you share an insight?

When you have one, we'll let you know.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 18 Nov 2018 #202
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5298 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
When you have one, we'll let you know.

Will it be like you sharing "love and kindness"?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 18 Nov 2018 #203
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 480 posts in this forum Offline

Jack Pine wrote:
Would you agree that there is no "MY" thoughts because the thinker is the invention of thinking and not separate from those thoughts? Is there my thought and your thoughts or is there just thinking? Who is the "I" that is inattentive? Is there an entity separate from thought?

Yes, I do agree with that. There is no “I” separate from memory/thought, so it is not the “I” who is inattentive. But there IS inattention.

Then what happens when anger or fear stirs or arises within consciousness and the brain or mind is inattentive to those movements? Doesn’t that inattention engender the ages-old illusion of self? Isn’t that more or less how the whole circus is set in motion, the circus of self expressing outrage, self-righteousness, analysis, insults, self-pity, fear, comparison, condemnation, the desire to control or punish, and so on?

And so where action is driven by thought-emotion rather than by intelligence, the particular brain is a slave to the illusion of the “I”. “My” particular brain within “my” particular skull is the human brain. It is not to say that there is an actual “me” or “I” there. If “I say” that “I am” a slave to MY thoughts and emotions, and if “you say”: “would you agree that...”, it only refers to the particular as a means of communication. Seeing the fact that the particular brain - which like every particular brain is the human brain - is subject to this illusion, a slave to this illusion, how can the fact be expressed “between us”?

Similary, if a particular body is shot, breaks a leg, has a cold, it is the human body but the particular feels it directly and another human being can perhaps feel it through compassion.

If the difficulty of communicating this is seen and understood by both of us, can’t the words such as “I”, “my”, etc., be used without it erecting a barrier between us? I don’t know. Maybe it can’t. Maybe there’s no such things as true communication or communion, except for petty things like “pass me the salt”.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 18 Nov 2018 #204
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1311 posts in this forum Offline

Jack Pine wrote:
How do you share an insight?

You don't. But if you want to communicate it to another who might be interested, you use the most accurate words you can find, understanding that there is no relationship between those words and what you are trying to describe. And that is all one can do. Hearing beyond (through) those words is up to the listener.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 18 Nov 2018 #205
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5298 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
You don't. But if you want to communicate it to another who might be interested, you use the most accurate words you can find,

Yes, the above is what I was getting at. K's insight, for example, into the self being an invention of thought and his describing that insight still leaves others who are interested to see it for themselves. Without that insight is there really an understanding of the fact?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 18 Nov 2018 #206
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5298 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Then what happens when anger or fear stirs or arises within consciousness and the brain or mind is inattentive to those movements? Doesn’t that inattention engender the ages-old illusion of self?

Yes, that appears to be what is happening. All that was being suggested is that we have to be conscious of our pronoun usage especially when we are describing our reactions to thinking. It is difficult because we have been so conditioned all of our lives to think in terms of having a psychological self. Isn't psychological thought, itself, inattention? We need thought, obviously, to live. To do all those physical things we need to do everyday to maintain life like driving a car, cooking a meal, doing our jobs, etc.

It's when we are theorizing, describing something psychological, which we all do, that we start creating problems. As I am sure you are aware, all thought is the past and conditioned. So is it possible to actually discuss something in such a way that we are not just regurgitating the past? K seemed to have pulled it off for whatever that may be worth.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 18 Nov 2018 #207
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 675 posts in this forum Offline

Was Einstein superstitious or he was unconditioned like k ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 18 Nov 2018 #208
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 675 posts in this forum Offline

We need to be clear as what we mean by the words' conditioned' and 'unconditioned'. Are they the opposite of each other as bad and good are? We say k was unconditioned from childhood. I am not sure he was. " at the feet of the master" was written by k when he was young and he was conditioned then by the "masters". After the death of his brother he started to doubt the masters. And that doubt about authority made him to be what he was,an unconditioned mind.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 181 - 208 of 208 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.)