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

How many people understand Krishnamurti?

This topic is locked.


Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 243 in total
Sat, 21 Jul 2018 #1
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 680 posts in this forum Offline

So far I can say not many. Everybody seeks entertainment in thought. k spoke against entertainment did he not?

This post was last updated by One Self Sat, 13 Oct 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 21 Jul 2018 #2
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5305 posts in this forum Offline

For anyone to ask the question: How many people understand Krishnamurti?, is ridiculous. Here is why. Your ill-advised anser, "So far I can say not many" is arrogant and delusional.

It implies that YOU do understand K when, in fact, there is no evidence to support that claim. That's your main problem here Buddy. You think you know what K was talking about and when others don't fit that image you criticize them.

Don't you see how you are deluding yourself?

This post was last updated by Jack Pine Sat, 21 Jul 2018.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Sat, 21 Jul 2018 #3
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 443 posts in this forum Offline

Nearly everyone here probably understands something of what K spoke about and was touched by it. There still may be aspects of K teaching that they do not understand or that they question.

It is quite common for someone to feel that they get K and someone else posting here does not. How could person X post in such away if they really understood K?

Perhaps they don't understand something and you do. That's part of why we're here. You can discuss it with them and see if an understanding can be reached.

Perhaps you don't understand something and they do. Again this is part of dialogue. It takes a certain amount of honesty and a willingness to not hold on to your own self centeredness to realize something you previously did not.

K said, shortly before he died, that no one really gets it. Why he said this and what it really means is subject to debate. I think he wanted to make it clear that he had no spiritual successor. If it is impossible for anyone to completely get what he taught, why did he spend decades teaching it? At least some is possible to get and will set you free. But we have to be careful because it is extremely easy to fool yourself. And we have to be careful with partial understanding.

As to entertainment, K himself enjoyed reading mysteries and watching tv. But as you say, when he gathered with others to discuss important issues, he encouraged seriousness. This doesn't mean that he had no sense of humor. He did. But he did encourage people to go into questions thoroughly and seriously.

I too think this is important. However we can go into all kinds of questions of varying importance. We don't have to reserve our dialogue to the most important questions. We can deal with the most vital. But we can also deal with various side issues which may have more or less importance for various people.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 21 Jul 2018 #4
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 680 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
"It is quite common for someone to feel that they get K and someone else posting here does not. " id-
I totally agree with what you said in your post except with the above statement. It is not about vanity. I am not comparing my-self with others.
We are here because k said something that our minds became awaken, but we go back to sleep again. May be the intention of this blog was to awaken the mind.

This post was last updated by One Self Sat, 21 Jul 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 21 Jul 2018 #5
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 680 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
"Perhaps you don't understand something and they do. Again this is part of dialogue. It takes a certain amount of honesty and a willingness to not hold on to your own self centeredness to realize something you previously did not."id-

That is a good way to look at dialogue. Dialogues are a luxury ,hardly comes by.

This post was last updated by One Self Sat, 21 Jul 2018.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 2 readers
Back to Top
Tue, 07 Aug 2018 #6
Thumb_pd Paul Dimmock United Kingdom 67 posts in this forum Offline

First of all, before we even approach the question of understanding K, do we understand ourselves? What are our own motives for listening to him, reading him, watching him? I feel this is very important because unless we understand something about our own nature, our understanding of other people is always going to be flawed, partial, distorted. Also, what does it mean to understand something or someone? What is the connection or the spark that demonstrates the utter truthfulness of our understanding?

I hope we can look at this together. I haven't been here for many years, but have been active on the KFA Ning site instead. I am also a member of The Friends of Brockwood Park forum.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 07 Aug 2018 #7
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 680 posts in this forum Offline

P D wrote:
First of all, before we even approach the question of understanding K, do we understand ourselves?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 07 Aug 2018 #8
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 680 posts in this forum Offline

That is a good question. What do we mean by "understanding " "my self"?
Is my-self different than the self? If we understand the self ,how it comes about and how it creates confusion in discussions and in relationships. Then we can see that my self and your self and someone else's self are essentially the same, they are born out of the lack of intelligence and wisdom.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 08 Aug 2018 #9
Thumb_1507053_1_ Jayaraj Kapila Kulasinghe Sri Lanka 1208 posts in this forum Offline

Goodman B, Sir I am afraid I find Jack's answer absolutely correct.

We take part in the forum to mutually explore isn't It? For each to learn.For me to learn as well as for others to learn together.

So if you want to learn here's something if you are willing to look at it-

You are not mutually exploring. You are passing judgement time & again.Whole time you seem to want to preach.

This forum loses its purpose of learning if I don't say this. Inquire together.Find things out. If you don't know say to yourself that you don't know.That is an essential requisite to learn.

If you want to learn my following comment will be helpful to you. Otherwise it will make you very angry.

You have no proper understanding of what K said. All here might be having some grasp of it. You have not looked to that extent but want to preach to some who have gone to this for sometime.

Sorry. As I said if you want to learn, if you are interested in self inquiry, I have helped you by this post. Otherwise I make you very,very, angry with this.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Wed, 08 Aug 2018 #10
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 680 posts in this forum Offline

Jay , i feel sorry for you .There you are exposing yourself . The self has to expose itself specially in arguments . I feel very sorry for you and selfish people who think that they are important in this virtual discussions . Your thinking is conditioned by your selfishness and no one can help you. (There is no anger in my response to your selfish comment. ) . You can't confuse those who are not confused to get angry or what so ever. I just feel sorry for you.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 08 Aug 2018 #11
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 680 posts in this forum Offline

Try to respond to the blog's question if you can and if you can't say anything related please don't lecture anybody as I don't preach anybody dude..I am not here to preach you anything for free dude..

This post was last updated by One Self Wed, 08 Aug 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 08 Aug 2018 #12
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 680 posts in this forum Offline

Jayaraj Kapila Kulasinghe wrote:
You have not looked to that extent but want to preach to some who have gone to this for sometime.

Let me advise you something honestly. If you have problem with people preaching in here or other Krishnamurti sites I suggest leaving these sites. You can't stop people from telling or preaching or lecturing . If you try You will just suffer. In other words don't be a reactionary and create a useless chain reaction as you have done.

This post was last updated by One Self Wed, 08 Aug 2018.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Wed, 08 Aug 2018 #13
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 680 posts in this forum Offline

The question in this blog is : How many people understand Krishnamurti?
Instead of responding correctly to that question you are assuming that I am saying that I am the only one who understand Krishnamurti. What a misleading assumption that is. I never said that I understand Krishnamurti more than others. That way of thinking gets nowhere. Pay attention to the question, there is no "I" thing in there.
Anyway, this site is too slow and dragging. A whole blog about if Krishnamurti was superstitious. That itself tels me that no one understood the revolutionary K.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 08 Aug 2018 #14
Thumb_pd Paul Dimmock United Kingdom 67 posts in this forum Offline

Goodman B: What do we mean by understanding my self? Is myself different than the self? If we understand the self, how it comes about and how it creates confusion in discussions and in relationships, then we can see that my self and your self and someone else's self are essentially the same; they are born out of the lack of intelligence and wisdom.

Therefore, what is myself? How are we going to find out? I think this is a deceptively simple question. There are all sorts of quick, clever answers to it. But who is providing these answers? I can go to K and he will tell me something about it; he won't be so quick and clever. But before I go to K or to anyone else, before I begin to search outside of myself, what is the state of myself inside? What is the state of my mind that says, 'Who am I?'

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 08 Aug 2018 #15
Thumb_001 Sean Hen Spain 729 posts in this forum Offline

P D wrote:
First of all, before we even approach the question of understanding K, do we understand ourselves?

Hello P D. It's nice to meet you here. Well, in answer to your question, we all probably have varying degrees of understanding ourselves and self-awareness but that understanding is very probably partial. We are highly complex beings and we are almost certainly confused about many things. Are we capable of looking at this confusion and learning anything at all? That would be my question.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Wed, 08 Aug 2018 #16
Thumb_pd Paul Dimmock United Kingdom 67 posts in this forum Offline

Sean Hen: ...we all probably have varying degrees of understanding ourselves and self-awareness but that understanding is very probably partial. We are highly complex beings and we are almost certainly confused about many things. Are we capable of looking at this confusion and learning anything at all? That would be my question.

Agreed, sir. That's the most logical place to begin. First of all, am I free to look? Do I have a motive for looking that will slant everything in one particular direction? I think this question frequently gets overlooked; and it is not until well into a dialogue that we discover we are both of us travelling down two different tracks. I raise this now because we have come here deliberately to a forum. We are not sitting at home in isolation attempting to sort our problems from self-reflection or from reading a book. So it's two questions, really. First, am I free to look? Second, are we together in our looking? They are perhaps the same question; though they may appear not to be. But my problems are your problems; I am starting from this very simple point.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 08 Aug 2018 #17
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 680 posts in this forum Offline

When one asks that "Do I understand myself?" one has to ask the motive behind the question. Right? When I ask that question do I want to understand myself because myself causes me pain and suffering?
What is the motive behind my question? If it is another escape from the self then the self gets satisfied with a description and moves on with the routine , the boredom and so on so. I think it is important to understand the motive behind the question first and then going to the question and answering it accordingly. Right? Isn't that what krishnamurti did in all of those discussions? He didn't answer a question without looking at the source of that question. No?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 09 Aug 2018 #18
Thumb_1507053_1_ Jayaraj Kapila Kulasinghe Sri Lanka 1208 posts in this forum Offline

Argumentative attitude may be self expression. You are right there. But it may not be also. An argument may be raising a valid question. However I don't feel my post was due to self centeredness.

See your responses to my post. See the language. That is aggression due to self centeredness because the self had been pricked.

I am saying this because this is something I do in day today life. Here also. My comments at home & my actions I always question to find out where it is propelling from. So I've said here something I do myself.

Please look at it & leave it at this.P.D & Sean have good inquiring posts & that can get disrupted otherwise.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 09 Aug 2018 #19
Thumb_pd Paul Dimmock United Kingdom 67 posts in this forum Offline

Goodman B: When one asks "Do I understand myself?" one has to ask the motive behind the question. Right? When I ask that question do I want to understand myself because myself causes me pain and suffering? What is the motive behind my question? If it is another escape from the self then the self gets satisfied with a description and moves on with the routine, the boredom and so on. I think it is important to understand the motive behind the question first and then going to the question and answering it accordingly. Right? Isn't that what Krishnamurti did in all of those discussions? He didn't answer a question without looking at the source of that question. No?

What is the self apart from its own descriptions? Is there an entity separate from the words it uses to protect itself? So, very often, our motive is to change descriptions, to find better words, ideas and images. Every human being wants to be secure. That's clearly my motive. But is there any form of security in the self?

This post was last updated by Paul Dimmock Thu, 09 Aug 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 09 Aug 2018 #20
Thumb_001 Sean Hen Spain 729 posts in this forum Offline

P D wrote:
First of all, am I free to look? Do I have a motive for looking that will slant everything in one particular direction?

Well, Krishnamurti talked a lot about conditioning. I understand that he argued that we are all so heavily conditioned by our previous experience that it is very difficult for us to look with any clarity at all. We see the world through a filter of conditioning. This seems to make a lot of sense. Having said that, we have all perhaps experienced moments of clarity and awareness. I'm talking about the awareness and seeing that brings about immediate action. For example, I become aware of the fact that I'm not listening and suddenly I'm much more attentive and start listening.

I'm not sure about the motive to look. If we can become aware of patterns of behaviour that repeat over and over again in our daily lives, that may bring about a motivation to look and to change things. For example, if I keep getting into violent arguments (I don't personally) I may think, "What exactly is going on here? Can I look at this and change something?"

What do the rest of you think?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 09 Aug 2018 #21
Thumb_pd Paul Dimmock United Kingdom 67 posts in this forum Offline

Sean Hen: Krishnamurti talked a lot about conditioning. I understand that he argued that we are all so heavily conditioned by our previous experience that it is very difficult for us to look with any clarity at all. We see the world through a filter of conditioning. This seems to make a lot of sense. ... I'm not sure about the motive to look.

It is the same thing, surely. I come here with a motive. There is the outer motive which I may or may not share with you; and there is also the inner motive, which I may or may not share with myself. So in coming here, I am going to find out about both the inner and the outer motives. I am going to find out when I agree with someone and when I disagree, for example. Both those reactions - agree and disagree, accept and reject - may be my conditioning at work. So I have to find out whether agreement and disagreement really have any part to play in a dialogue together. They may both be merely ways that I confirm and consolidate my conditioning, my beliefs, my opinions, my hopes and fears and all the rest of it.

That's why the question of whether we are together in our looking is really the most important part of all this. As human beings, we are conditioned to suppose that we are together when in agreement with others, when we share the same beliefs, when we hold the same principles, or when we are in the same club. Our motives direct our relationships - that's perhaps it in a nutshell. But we are approaching it differently here. By exposing our own motives, slowly and carefully, our relationship then begins to take on a totally different flavour or feeling. It is then not about our understanding of K but only about the observation of ourselves in relationship.

Why do I come here? I can tell you anything, but whatever I say is coming directly from the past. I can say, 'I want to learn', which is what most people say. That is my conditioning speaking. Therefore it only means I want to learn along conditioned lines. The real truth may be that I am terrified of learning about myself, about the inner emptiness at the core of me. So we have begun to expose it.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 09 Aug 2018 #22
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1315 posts in this forum Offline

Sean Hen wrote:
If we can become aware of patterns of behaviour that repeat over and over again in our daily lives, that may bring about a motivation to look and to change things.

If we realize that we can't 'do' anything, then it is possible to see this desire that wants to "change" as the perpetuator of the 'self'. The 'self' wants to be this or that, to change this or that...and that is always based on what will be best for 'me' (and 'mine'). I 'want' to understand what K. is talking about because he seems to have, or understand something that I don't...and I want it. In this case its k.'s teaching but the desire behind 'wanting' it, is the same desire behind wanting anything out there that 'glitters'. No?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 09 Aug 2018 #23
Thumb_001 Sean Hen Spain 729 posts in this forum Offline

P D wrote:
Why do I come here? I can tell you anything, but whatever I say is coming directly from the past. I can say, 'I want to learn', which is what most people say.

I must say that I have a bit of a problem with expressions like "that is what most people say". When I read this I understand "that is what most people say, but not me". I get the idea that the writer is sparating himself/herself from most people here because he/she knows better than to say this. Of course, this may not have been the writer's intention at all, but that's how it comes across to me.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 09 Aug 2018 #24
Thumb_001 Sean Hen Spain 729 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
If we realize that we can't 'do' anything, then it is possible to see this desire that wants to "change" as the perpetuator of the 'self'.

Dan, imagine somebody always gets into destructive relationships. Can that person not do anything? Should that person just accept that this is the way it's always going to be?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 09 Aug 2018 #25
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1315 posts in this forum Offline

Sean Hen wrote:
Should that person just accept that this is the way it's always going to be?

I think that the actual point here Sean is that there really is no-one to "accept" or reject anything psychological. That is the ongoing conflict in us and what needs to be 'seen'... as I understand all this. Maybe this applies here, that K. said that his "secret" was that he didn't "mind what happens". You can interpret that different ways but for me it corresponds with his saying that the 'fact' is, is that we are "nothing". Stripped of our name, the physical body, the psychological and physical attachments gathered along the way, that stripped of those, there is nothing, we are "nothing".. P D posts that there may be terror in the realization of the fact that we are nothing, but that 'terror' would all be the reaction of the 'self' and imagination as it fights to 'hold on', would it not?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 09 Aug 2018 #26
Thumb_001 Sean Hen Spain 729 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
I think that the actual point here Sean is that there really is no-one to "accept" or reject anything psychological. That is the ongoing conflict in us and what needs to be 'seen'... as I understand all this.

Ok Dan, there is conflict. I gave the example of someone who always gets into destructive relationships but we are probably all confused and in conflict. This is where we are. The conflict is due to the ego and all the self-centred activity it produces. As far as I see, the problem is that the ego keeps popping up all the time. When we think, the ego is there. And we spend a lot of time thinking.

Dan McDermott wrote:
Stripped of our name, the physical body, the psychological and physical attachments gathered along the way, that stripped of those, there is nothing, we are "nothing"

This may very well be true but, as has been said many times, it's up to us to discover this for ourselves. Can we really live without all these things? Are we actually doing this?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 09 Aug 2018 #27
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1315 posts in this forum Offline

Sean Hen wrote:
Can we really live without all these things? Are we actually doing this?

Can we live without being psychologically attached to anything? That's the main question isn't it? Because if we see that attachment is the source of the problem : division, greed, violence, cruelty, misery, poverty, fear, etc. Is living like that really living at all? K. says "no" but as you say, we have to see that for ourselves. I question this image of 'me getting rid of my attachments'... is there a separate me apart from what I am psychologically 'attached' to (identified with) or am I my attachments? Is there a 'me' separate and apart existing from what I am attached to..or is it just attachments? If I see the situation as 'me' here and the 'attachment' there and I want to end the attachment, there is a struggle that has to take place..the habit or attachment has to be 'overcome' for 'me' to become free of it. But if it is seen that the attachment is me then the false 'duality' doesn't exist and then the approach to the problem is different.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Thu, 09 Aug 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 09 Aug 2018 #28
Thumb_001 Sean Hen Spain 729 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
But if it is seen that the attachment is me then the false 'duality' doesn't exist and then the approach to the problem is different.

It's an interesting idea Dan. What about the awareness that the attachment is you? Where does that come from? I'm assuming there has to be awareness to realise that the attachment is actually you.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 09 Aug 2018 #29
Thumb_pd Paul Dimmock United Kingdom 67 posts in this forum Offline

Sean Hen: I must say that I have a bit of a problem with expressions like "that is what most people say."

That's your conditioning out in the open, isn't it? It stops you reading the rest of what I said, which is that the verbal or spoken motive is deceptive. Most people say, 'I want to learn,' in some form or another. It is just a quick way of referring to it. After all, there are very few of us who say, 'I don't want to learn.' Most people, including you and me, want to learn about what K is talking about. That's all it means. That's our agreed or shared motive. But I am saying that the hidden motives are far more difficult to get at.

Now, wait. When I said, 'That's your conditioning out in the open,' did you react also to that? That's the whole point. This is not a game; we are going to get hurt. And why are we hurt? This is the first thing we have to find out, not chase after abstract concepts. We are exposing the whole nature of the self. It is not a safe intellectual exercise. But we can't do it - we really can't go any further into it - if we are not together. Only then can we brush aside such minor irritations and uncover the whole saga of sorrow.

This post was last updated by Paul Dimmock Thu, 09 Aug 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 09 Aug 2018 #30
Thumb_pd Paul Dimmock United Kingdom 67 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott: P D posts that there may be terror in the realization of the fact that we are nothing...

I didn't quite say that. There is no terror in the realisation of a fact. It is only the idea we are terrified of. The truth may be that I am terrified of being nothing - but it is always the idea of being nothing that frightens me. Actually being nothing, there is no terror.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 243 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.)