It may be a hundred years from now, or ten years from now, or next year, or this year, but what will you do with the man or the woman who embodies the teachings as K embodies the teachings? Suppose he is a man, what will you do with him?

Is this a strange question to pose? Probably it is. But let’s open it up and see what gets revealed.

At some point in the future, hopefully, a human being who is totally serious about the teachings is going to arrive at that point where there is for him no separation between himself and the teachings of K. He will have seen through and dissolved the whole illusion of thought in the psychological field of life. Essentially, he won’t have an ego. Essentially, he will be the same as K with the same kind of understanding about what happens to consciousness when it is not tied to the confines of the limited personal brain. He will be like K, not Krishnamurti, but he will be like K. His physical appearance and characteristics will be different, but essentially he will be the voice of the teachings as K was the voice of the teachings.

Or, no such person will appear even after a thousand years and the teachings will eventually fade away and die. That is the other possibility.

This is a strange question. It is quite a terrifying question, but I think we ought to pose it and see what happens.

Paul Dimmock wrote:
Is this a strange question to pose? Probably it is. But let’s open it up and see what gets revealed

Hi Paul,

IF is something not existing in the NOW,
except as hope or regret for that not existing.

Let us be on our guard to not abandon what is NOW about self-protection

• also a fact of self-disclosure - or the game that is played with the Teaching in hand to get ones right or to provoke another.

Time is not the issue in the Teaching,
but to investigate NOW and ALWAYS our own activities, behaviour, etc., etc.,,,,,!

Truth will unfold itself to those who enquire their own actions.

This post was last updated by Wim Opdam Wed, 29 Aug 2018.

Forget K or someone like him "returning". The only important thing to be concerned with, surely, is what you understand about what K pointed out. How it relates to your conditioning; your beliefs, desires, hope, etc, etc.

Wim Opdam: IF is something not existing in the NOW, except as hope or regret for that not existing.

Then you can't meet my question, sir. You can't enquire with me even a little bit of the way. You have put up your fence and say, 'No.'

Jack Pine: Forget K or someone like him "returning". The only important thing to be concerned with, surely, is what you understand about what K pointed out: how it relates to your conditioning, your beliefs, desires, hope, etc, etc.

I understand all that. But this man appears and he says, 'I have done all that. I have come to the end of all my conditioning.' What will you do with him?

This post was last updated by Paul Dimmock Wed, 29 Aug 2018.

Paul Dimmock wrote:
But this man appears and he says, 'I have done all that. I have come to the end of all my conditioning.' What will you do with him?

Missing your point here, why does anything have to be done with him/her? If such a person wishes to speak or to write, you can listen or read what he/she has to say if you are interested, or not.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Wed, 29 Aug 2018.

Dan McDermott: Missing your point here. Why does anything have to be done with him/her? If such a person wishes to speak or to write, you can listen or read what he/she has to say, if you are interested, or not.

It is not about being interested or not. He says, 'I have come to the end of all human fears.' You can't just say, 'That's interesting,' and carry on with all your fears and all the conflicts of daily life. It means you haven't listened to what he is telling you. Are you saying that you will listen only to the interesting bits?

Paul Dimmock wrote:
He says, 'I have come to the end of all human fears.'

Why would you believe anyone who says something like that? There's no litmus test is there? The person saying that could be insane, or fooling them self, or a deceiver...or for real. But what does it matter to you?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Wed, 29 Aug 2018.

Dan McDermott: Why would you believe anyone who says something like that? There's no litmus test is there? The person saying that could be insane, or fooling them self, or a deceiver, or for real. But what does it matter to you?

What does it matter to you to be totally free of fear? That's the real question here. Do you want to be free? He is not insane; he is not delusional; he is not deceiving anyone. Take all that for granted. He is real. What will you do with him? Suppose, after ten years of talking to him, arguing with him, listening to him, you say, 'Yes, he is real.' Why has it taken you ten years to find out?

Paul Dimmock wrote:
Do you want to be free?

"Free" from what? 'Freedom' sounds nice but what does it mean to you? Is this 'freedom', something that you "want" that's up ahead...and that you are going to get one day with the 'help' of this person?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Wed, 29 Aug 2018.

What would you do.....?

First, you won't listen to him. Because of your conditioning.... What he would be saying won't be what he "should" be saying. It would be something foreign to the ideas you already have about "enlightenment".

Then if it might be that you would listen, you will not understand him for the same reason... your conditioning (which includes mechanical self-interest)..... You have yet to really understand K himself, isn't that so?

Perhaps it would be best to not listen to anyone but to work it out yourself.

In spite of your behavior, we are all already enlightened. What you are is not what you think you are, and your behavior is not even yours (including the behavior that is thought) It is only when you cease to identify with that behavior that intelligence, which is not yours or mine, can bring that behavior to run true.

My question is can we actually change things for the better? K seemed to think so.

Something I just discovered this weekend: Go online to search for Voluntary human extinction movement.

A first ray of hope.

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Wed, 29 Aug 2018.

Peter Kesting wrote:
My question is can we actually change things for the better?

Maybe so, we don't know...we don't know the ultimate effects of our little 'understandings' or insights might have on human consciousness . What they might mean to generations down the line (if there are generations down the line!)

Dan McDermott: Free from what? Freedom sounds nice, but what does it mean to you? Is this freedom something that you want that's up ahead and that you are going to get one day with the help of this person?

We said it: freedom from all human fears. Do you want to be free of fear? He is not going to take it away from you or give you anything or help you to get it. That is not freedom; that is charity, dependency. But he is asking you very simply, ‘Do you want to be free?’

Peter Kesting: First, you won't listen to him because of your conditioning. ... In spite of your behaviour, we are all already enlightened.

Are you speaking for yourself? If so, it is not clear if you are saying that you are conditioned or enlightened. They are both rather meaningless words, don’t you think? A man who says, ‘I am conditioned,’ is speaking as mechanically as a man who says, ‘I am enlightened.’

Paul Dimmock wrote:
Are you speaking for yourself? If so, it is not clear if you are saying that you are conditioned or enlightened. They are both rather meaningless words, don’t you think? A man who says, ‘I am conditioned,’ is speaking as mechanically as a man who says, ‘I am enlightened.’

No, a person who says he or she is conditioned is not speaking meaningless words. We all are conditioned. All thought is conditioned. To realize that is an important realization of who we all are.

To say "I" am enlightened is a contradiction. As long as one identifies as an "I" there is no enlightenment. Because "I" is an illusion. We are not individuals psychologically. It is not "our" consciousness it is the common consciousness. The consciousness that is a product of our conditioning.

Jack Pine: No, a person who says he or she is conditioned is not speaking meaningless words.

Yes, but he is saying two things: conditioned and enlightened. Which is it? We cannot answer for him.

Dan McDermott wrote:
"Free" from what?

Free from our conditioning. Free from the bounds of psychological thought Free from the illusion that we are individuals that can effect change through thought, that thought can end our problems. Thinking, psychologically, is our problem. Thinking has creating the problems we face and it cannot solve these problems.

We are divided by religion, nationalism, race; but these are all false divisions that thought has invented. Thought invented "god" and all the rest.

Paul Dimmock wrote:
Yes, but he is saying two things: conditioned and enlightened. Which is it? We cannot answer for him.

Yes, I understand. I don't agree with Peter that we are, "...already enlightened". That is an unfounded statement and I am not sure what he means by that.

Paul Dimmock wrote:

Wim Opdam: IF is something not existing in the NOW, except as hope or regret for that not existing.

Then you can't meet my question, sir.
You can't enquire with me even a little bit of the way.

That's right

You have put up your fence and say, 'No.'

That's a wrong conclusion, I'm NOW just not interested. May I ?

Paul Dimmock wrote:
'I have done all that.
I have come to the end of all my conditioning.' What will you do with him?

If someone refers to K. and claims I have finished with my conditioning, he proves to have been conditioned by the Teaching.

Truth will unfold itself to those who enquire their own actions.

This post was last updated by Wim Opdam Thu, 30 Aug 2018.

I would like to open an inquiry.

What does each one here see the word sentient to mean?

Is there anything within that is unconditioned?

Is intelligence conditioned?

Is love conditioned?

What I am trying to point out is if we are completely conditioned, completely mechanical, then there is no escape.

Peter Kesting: What I am trying to point out is if we are completely conditioned, completely mechanical, then there is no escape.

You are pointing to a conclusion based on logical thinking, but it is rather a closed argument. Therefore, if I may suggest, it may make more sense to look together at the word 'conditioning' and find out if we are looking at the same thing. The manner of our looking together may be the factor that dissolves our mechanical behaviours. What do you say?

Peter Kesting wrote:
Is intelligence conditioned?

Peter Kesting wrote:
Is love conditioned?

As K pointed out both love and intelligence are not the result of thought, which is the movement of conditioning. There is no relationship between love, intelligence and conditioning according to K. K pointed out that the ending of thought is the beginning of intelligence and love. I have not independently confirmed this myself.

This post was last updated by Jack Pine Sun, 02 Sep 2018.

Peter Kesting: What I am trying to point out is if we are completely conditioned, completely mechanical, then there is no escape.

Paul:You are pointing to a conclusion based on logical thinking, but it is rather a closed argument. Therefore, if I may suggest, it may make more sense to look together at the word 'conditioning' and find out if we are looking at the same thing. The manner of our looking together may be the factor that dissolves our mechanical behaviors. What do you say?<

To start:

As this one sees it conditioning is matter....all of matter....everything that is matter, the structure of it, all of the world of matter to the extent that its behavior, its movement, is deterministic.

So that includes biologically the structure that arises in organisms through biological evolution, also environmental impacts during growth and development, and also structure as material memory in the brain.

Why should one cut any of this out?

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Sun, 02 Sep 2018.

Jack Pine wrote:
Do you mean "matter" when you use the word "mater"?

Yes, thank you.

Peter Kesting: As one sees it, conditioning is matter...

But you are already starting from a conditioned position. Before we say what it is and what it is not, is this something we really want to investigate together? That's my question.

Paul Dimmock wrote:
When K returns, what will you do with him?

Can thinking start with a none-fact?
Why can't we use krishnamurti's questions which are based on facts and are relevant to our daily life ?
Why have we stopped learning and merely are satisfied with assertions? Assertions come from the 'I' thing so they are useless in the daily life.