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

How many people understand Krishnamurti?


Displaying posts 31 - 60 of 168 in total
Thu, 09 Aug 2018 #31
Thumb_pd Paul Dimmock United Kingdom 41 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
Thu, 09 Aug 2018 #32
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1248 posts in this forum Offline

P D wrote:
but it is always the idea of being nothing that frightens me. Actually being nothing, there is no terror.

Yes the "idea", the imagination of the 'unknown' is what can frighten.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 09 Aug 2018 #33
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1248 posts in this forum Offline

Sean Hen wrote:
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.

I don't know where awareness of this comes from, it seems that it follows on from 'insights' about the basic false dualities that K. has discussed : thinker/thought, experiencer/experience, observer/observed, etc. If the 'myth' of 'my' individuality is seen through, things start to fall into place and can be looked at differently; things that were taken for granted as being exclusive such as me and 'my' attachments, beliefs, etc. can be approached in myself differently. (more non-personally?)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 09 Aug 2018 #34
Thumb_screenshot_2014-08-09-12-40-46 Goodman B United States 285 posts in this forum Offline

When one reads all the comments in this blog one realizes how complicated the self is with it's greed and attachments .
The question is how is one to understand one self ?
One self is the rest of humanity. My self and another's self are the same .
There is only one self . Is that not what k said . Humanity is one. So by understanding my self the world around me changes.

I think to understand myself or the self I have to understand greed or attachment. Because there is no self without these qualities. No?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 09 Aug 2018 #35
Thumb_pd Paul Dimmock United Kingdom 41 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott: Yes, the "idea", the imagination of the 'unknown' is what can frighten.

There is no such thing as an idea of the unknown. It is only our ideas about the known that cause our terror. I am not afraid of being nothing. I am afraid of what I am. Do you see what I am saying? I am afraid that inwardly I am a terrible mess and I don't want anyone to find this out. That's why, outwardly, I cover it up as best I can.

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 09 Aug 2018 #36
Thumb_pd Paul Dimmock United Kingdom 41 posts in this forum Offline

Goodman B: One self is the rest of humanity. My self and another's self are the same. There is only one self. Is that not what K said? Humanity is one. So by understanding my self the world around me changes. I think to understand myself or the self I have to understand greed or attachment. Because there is no self without these qualities. No?

Let's find out. First of all, am I greedy? Yes, I am. Am I selfish? Yes, I am. Am I violent? Yes, I am. Is it necessary to understand why I am all these things, wipe them off the list one by one? What makes me seek to understand anything about myself? Isn't it also the movement of greed, vanity, selfishness, to seek to move to a better place, a stronger position? In other words, do first I see the fact that I am greedy? That is then a total understanding. There are not then two elements seeking a resolution: a 'me' who is greedy and a 'me' who wants not to be greedy.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 09 Aug 2018 #37
Thumb_screenshot_2014-08-09-12-40-46 Goodman B United States 285 posts in this forum Offline

To understand myself I have to understand greed. That is an irrevocable fact. There is no me without greed. If that is possible then I tell myself am I different than the greed that I am trying to understand. I see that the observer of the greed is greed . I realize that I cannot do a thing about what I call greed because it is me. The very realization that the observer is the observed ends duality and therefore there is the energy that is necessary to transform the greed or the self. This has to be seen or experienced. It cannot be imagined which is merely verbal understanding.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 10 Aug 2018 #38
Thumb_screenshot_2014-08-09-12-40-46 Goodman B United States 285 posts in this forum Offline

Jayaraj Kapila Kulasinghe wrote:
You have no proper understanding of what K said. All here might be having some grasp of it.

I wonder if understanding Krishnamurti's teachings needs to be proven to others at all. If I understand k which is my self then I am out of the rat race. I am a free being, I don't need to prove anything to anyone. No?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 10 Aug 2018 #39
Thumb_1507053_1_ Jayaraj Kapila Kulasinghe Sri Lanka 1158 posts in this forum Offline

Goodman B wrote:
I wonder if understanding Krishnamurti's teachings needs to be proven to others at all

Well, from the point of view of made up virtue or someone who is acting virtue it will be argued it is not needed.

However when K realized as a young person once he said anybody could come & live with him & see if he was contradicting what he was saying.

So a person who has compassion, who wants to help the suffering people, would want to tell people, 'look a different mind, a different way of living without suffering & conflict is possible'.With this view, to help people, a compassionate person might say somethings about his life. This will be purely so that others will look at it & would want to inquire & get benefited.

So do our understanding reflects in our day today actions? Are we violent in our speach & actions? Are we divided? Are we greedy, pretentious? Unless what we talk reflects in our speech & actions, it becomes mere theory, mere imitation.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 10 Aug 2018 #40
Thumb_screenshot_2014-08-09-12-40-46 Goodman B United States 285 posts in this forum Offline

Jayaraj Kapila Kulasinghe wrote:
Are we violent in our speach & actions?

Who cares ? We are what we are and condemnation of what we are gets us nowhere. Or does it?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 10 Aug 2018 #41
Thumb_pd Paul Dimmock United Kingdom 41 posts in this forum Offline

Goodman B: To understand myself I have to understand greed. That is an irrevocable fact. There is no me without greed. If that is possible then I tell myself: am I different than the greed that I am trying to understand? I see that the observer of the greed is greed. I realize that I cannot do a thing about what I call greed because it is me. The very realization that the observer is the observed ends duality and therefore there is the energy that is necessary to transform the greed or the self. This has to be seen or experienced. It cannot be imagined which is merely verbal understanding.

I am greed. Therefore I can't do a thing about it. It is not an attribute of myself that can be changed like putting on a new hat. So when I say, 'I am greedy,' that's a false statement which brings in the observer. I am greed. Is there now anything to understand? It is only when I resist a fact that the desire to understand anything comes into play.

This post was last updated by Paul Dimmock Fri, 10 Aug 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 10 Aug 2018 #42
Thumb_001 Sean Hen Spain 657 posts in this forum Offline

P D wrote:
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.

Well, that might be true but isn't everything anybody writes here a result of their conditioning? Do we ever write anything here that isn't a result of conditioning?

P D wrote:
Most people say, 'I want to learn,' in some form or another. It is just a quick way of referring to it.

Ok, fair enough.

P D wrote:
But we can't do it - we really can't go any further into it - if we are not together.

Agreed.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 10 Aug 2018 #43
Thumb_001 Sean Hen Spain 657 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
I don't know where awareness of this comes from, it seems that it follows on from 'insights' about the basic false dualities that K. has discussed : thinker/thought, experiencer/experience, observer/observed, etc

So I think you are saying that there is an awareness that understands that I actually am my attachments. But this awareness is not ego. This awareness can obviously observe though. Is that right?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 10 Aug 2018 #44
Thumb_pd Paul Dimmock United Kingdom 41 posts in this forum Offline

Sean Hen: But isn't everything anybody writes here a result of their conditioning? Do we ever write anything here that isn't a result of conditioning?

That's our challenge. If everything we say and do is conditioned by the past, it means we are no better than machines. Therefore the machines of our own generation, the computers, are doing a better job of living than human beings because a computer doesn't waste time in self-reflection. Computers have been programmed and they get on with it. But we seem to be caught in a twilight world of conditioned autonomy.

What is conditioning? How seriously have we put this question to ourselves? How seriously are we putting it now? Because who is going to answer this question? There is no answer to it from anywhere in the past, from anyone, from any quarter. Those are all answers from within the machine. Therefore, what is conditioning?

This is an impossible question to ask if we are expecting to find a quick, convenient answer. There is no answer to it from the past, which is the quickest and most convenient place to search. That's where the conditioned mind always looks because the past is our greatest protection. But there is no answer in the past. Would you agree? Are we still together in this?

This post was last updated by Paul Dimmock Fri, 10 Aug 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 10 Aug 2018 #45
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1248 posts in this forum Offline

Sean Hen wrote:
So I think you are saying that there is an awareness that understands that I actually am my attachments.

There can be an awareness that illuminates the fact that there is no 'I' that is separate from thought, feeling, belief, aspiration, fear, sorrow, anger, joy, etc. But our 'conditioned' brain maintains the image of a separate 'I'. This is the 'self-image' as it is being called. Or the 'I process'. (The exercise of writing down one's thoughts as they appear ((even for a few minutes)) no matter what they are, illustrates that there can be an 'awareness' of one's thoughts even if only slowed down briefly).

The way I'm understanding 'attachment' is that a 'valuation' has been assigned to certain things in one's environment and to a greater degree or lesser, an identification is formed with each. Why different things are valued differently, I don't know but you can see that the very act of doing so can create conflict with others who have identified with potentially radically opposed 'ideas', philosophies, beliefs, religions. Not all 'attachments' lead to conflict of course but the very action of psychologically 'holding on' to anything is what K., to my mind, has put in question. Is it necessary to be 'attached'? Is the basic 'attachment' in us, the image of an individual 'me'? Is that what the brain perpetuates for it's sense of security, a psychological 'safe zone'? Consisting of memory (the "bundle of memories") and from that static repository, chooses what it considers to be of 'value' (and what it will defend?) from the surrounding environment?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 10 Aug 2018 #46
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 338 posts in this forum Offline

Paul Dimock wrote:
Let's find out. First of all, am I greedy? Yes, I am. Am I selfish? Yes, I am. Am I violent? Yes, I am. Is it necessary to understand why I am all these things, wipe them off the list one by one?

Now let me try:

Am I gorgeous? Yes, I am. Am I brilliant? Yes, I am. Am I hilarious? Yes, I am.

Okay, great. Now can I stay with this without trying to change?

Hmm, it's tough to be wonderful me but someone has to do it.

Amazing how arduous this awareness thing is.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 10 Aug 2018 #47
Thumb_screenshot_2014-08-09-12-40-46 Goodman B United States 285 posts in this forum Offline

We seem to have not understood what conditioning is . One can understand one's conditioning as a Catholic or a muslem or an atheist and so on and go beyond it. To say that conditioning is all that there is is wrong. Only a lazy mind remains conditioned for safety(which is in fact unsafe).

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 10 Aug 2018 #48
Thumb_screenshot_2014-08-09-12-40-46 Goodman B United States 285 posts in this forum Offline

The problem is that we don't want to do what krishnamurti suggested to us because of our greed for comfort and money. We don't want to be de - conditioned and free because in that freedom there is no money or comfort. In fact the mind seeks death over life. All ideologies are a dead thing and the mind clings to them. So the mind seeks death instead of life.

This post was last updated by Goodman B Fri, 10 Aug 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 10 Aug 2018 #49
Thumb_pd Paul Dimmock United Kingdom 41 posts in this forum Offline

Goodman B: The problem is that we don't want to do what Krishnamurti suggested to us because of our greed for comfort and money.

But is K suggesting anything to do? I don't think he is. He is merely pointing out the problem. It is how we look at this that matters because to follow someone's suggestion is itself a form of greed: I will do this to get that. First, do I see that I am greed? It is not just greed for comfort, money, but all the branches of greed.

This post was last updated by Paul Dimmock Fri, 10 Aug 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 10 Aug 2018 #50
Thumb_pd Paul Dimmock United Kingdom 41 posts in this forum Offline

idiot: Am I gorgeous? Yes, I am. Am I brilliant? Yes, I am. Am I hilarious? Yes, I am. Okay, great. Now can I stay with this without trying to change? Hmm, it's tough to be wonderful me but someone has to do it. Amazing how arduous this awareness thing is.

So it is all about images: greedy, selfish, gorgeous, brilliant. They are all images. Do these images bring anything except more images?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 10 Aug 2018 #51
Thumb_screenshot_2014-08-09-12-40-46 Goodman B United States 285 posts in this forum Offline

Paul Dimock wrote:
But is K suggesting anything to do? I don't think he is. He is merely pointing out the problem.

This post was last updated by Goodman B Fri, 10 Aug 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 10 Aug 2018 #52
Thumb_screenshot_2014-08-09-12-40-46 Goodman B United States 285 posts in this forum Offline

How many times k said do it and you will find out. How many time he said don't just listen to words.
K's teachings are all about action and doing. Otherwise they would be worthless like most of our our philosophers are worthless

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 10 Aug 2018 #53
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 1162 posts in this forum Offline

Is the mother attached to the newborn baby? Is that conditing? Is there something wrong in that?

What is conditioning?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 11 Aug 2018 #54
Thumb_screenshot_2014-08-09-12-40-46 Goodman B United States 285 posts in this forum Offline

Peter Kesting wrote:
Is the mother attached to the newborn baby? Is that conditing? Is there something wrong in that?

What is conditioning?

No, the word conditioning is exclusively used by Krishnamurti. He clearly says what he means by the word conditioning. We are conditioned from childhood to believe in the existence of God or in other part of the world we are conditioned to believe in the none existence of God. Conditioning according to Krishnamurti is how we are brought up to be nationalistic in schools . A mother caring for her offspring is not thought made . It is therefore unconditional love..

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Sat, 11 Aug 2018 #55
Thumb_pd Paul Dimmock United Kingdom 41 posts in this forum Offline

Goodman B: How many times K said, 'Do it and you will find out.' How many times he said, 'Don't just listen to words.' K's teachings are all about action and doing. Otherwise they would be worthless like most of our philosophers are worthless.

But what is action? At the deepest level, what is it? Are you waiting to be inspired into action? Stick with it and find out. But you have already gone off to start a new topic on laziness! I am not be rude; I am pointing it out. If you react, resist, get angry with me, that is action in the form of reaction. So forget K altogether. The whole truth of it lies at your door, in your own hands.

This post was last updated by Paul Dimmock Sat, 11 Aug 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 11 Aug 2018 #56
Thumb_screenshot_2014-08-09-12-40-46 Goodman B United States 285 posts in this forum Offline

Paul Dimock wrote:
So forget K altogether. The whole truth of it lies at your door, in your own hands.

That is it . We subtly avoid krishnamurti because he was a revolutionary and we are merely a lazy mediocre which want to remain so.
And if you find the English words that I use as being rude I feel sorry for your intellect. It must be poor and local.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 11 Aug 2018 #57
Thumb_pd Paul Dimmock United Kingdom 41 posts in this forum Offline

Goodman B: That is it. We subtly avoid Krishnamurti because he was a revolutionary.

We can't avoid K. You have been reading him for years; I have been reading him for years. I said forget K. Then you are totally alone. Then you can talk to me, who is not K, from there, not from behind a screen. Then you can't use K as your weapon against the world and against me. You have to meet the world and meet me as you are. And the world is you. If you want it revolutionary, you've got it. You have had a basinful of the theory and now someone is saying, 'Put it into practice. Be really revolutionary. Don't follow K or anyone.' Then you haven't got the protection of any books, any creeds, any slogans - nothing.

This post was last updated by Paul Dimmock Sat, 11 Aug 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 11 Aug 2018 #58
Thumb_screenshot_2014-08-09-12-40-46 Goodman B United States 285 posts in this forum Offline

Paul Dimock wrote:
Then you can talk to me, who is not K, from there, not from behind a screen. Then you can't use K as your weapon against the world and against me.

Do you really think so?!
Do you think that any body can possibly use krishnamurti or truth as a weapon?
Please don't use your local English with me.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 11 Aug 2018 #59
Thumb_screenshot_2014-08-09-12-40-46 Goodman B United States 285 posts in this forum Offline

Here we have difference of interest. The best thing is to realize it.
You say don't "follow" Krishnamurti. I like to know when you first read krishnamurti?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 11 Aug 2018 #60
Thumb_pd Paul Dimmock United Kingdom 41 posts in this forum Offline

Goodman B: Do you think that anybody can possibly use Krishnamurti or truth as a weapon? ... I like to know when you first read Krishnamurti.

I have been reading K since I was 22 years old. I am now 62 years old. Forty years in total. There is not a single false note throughout the whole of the teachings; I have read the lot. So I know K very well. But I want to meet you, not K. You say you don't use K as a weapon and yet you want to know how long I have been reading him. Therefore you are contradicting yourself. If I had said I have been reading him for 2 weeks you would have your excuse to dismiss me. People will use whatever they can to protect themselves when they are in a corner. But I am putting you in a corner. That's what a dialogue is all about. We are here to face the truth about ourselves, not what K tells us about ourselves. K is just one mirror to look in. This is now the mirror of relationship to look in. Or you can turn away and go back to bed.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 31 - 60 of 168 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.)