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

Do we intentionally try to misunderstand or are we conditioned to misunderstand and argue with each other like politicians do all the time?


Displaying posts 31 - 60 of 93 in total
Fri, 05 Oct 2018 #31
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 Myself Only United States 523 posts in this forum Offline

Goodman B wrote:
Most intellectuals can read and write English correctly but they can't relate to the teachings.

I wonder why ? K spoke simple English. Anybody who knows a little English can understand K if he or she wants to.

This post was last updated by Myself Only Fri, 05 Oct 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 05 Oct 2018 #32
Thumb_001 Sean Hen Spain 693 posts in this forum Offline

Goodman B wrote:
Idiot, you are the first person who has responded correctly to the discussion's topic .

Well done idiot?! Maybe you should win a small prize for this. What about a Krishnamurti T-shirt with an unsourced quote on it?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 05 Oct 2018 #33
Thumb_001 Sean Hen Spain 693 posts in this forum Offline

Goodman B wrote:
Idiot, you are the first person who has responded correctly to the discussion's topic

Goodman, you seem to have compared idiot?'s "correct" response to the implied "incorrect" responses of the rest of us. I am not at all sure that this type of comparison is a good thing.

Krishnamurti - "Have you noticed what happens to you when you are compared? The teacher says to you `Be as clever as the other boy.' To make you as clever, as strenuous, as studious as the other boy or girl, he gives you grades, he gives you marks; and so you keep on struggling, competing; you are envious of the other boy. So, comparison breeds envy, jealousy, and jealousy is the beginning of fear. So, when you are compared with another boy, you as an individual, as a boy or girl are not important, but the other boy is important. When you compare yourself with somebody else, the somebody else is more important than you. Is it not so?"

BANARAS, INDIA 6TH JANUARY 1954 3RD TALK TO STUDENTS AT RAJGHAT SCHOOL

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Fri, 05 Oct 2018 #34
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 Myself Only United States 523 posts in this forum Offline

Sean, we are in a discussion forum. We are not young people in schools trying to become something. There is no reward in here that someone can use. When a question is put forth either you take that question as yours or you (you in general) take a defensive attitude. So any response from the ego must inevitably bring confusion. Idiot responded to the answer without the ego thing. He simply answered to the question that was put forth in the topic. There is no hero making in all of this. It is a matter of right cooperation. Unfortunately the older we get the more the resistance "I" becomes . The word older and resistance are all comparison but one has to use these words otherwise one should not even be in here. Don't you think so?

This post was last updated by Myself Only Fri, 05 Oct 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 05 Oct 2018 #35
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5216 posts in this forum Offline

Goodman B wrote:
So any response from the ego must inevitably bring confusion.

Well, you're confused as usual. You just put words together you apparently don't understand and hope for the best.

Response only comes from the ego. What else is there that can respond? Ego, the center, is the accumulation of experience and knowledge. All responses (thought), necessarily, have to be based on experience and knowledge. When there is no ego there is no response. Therefore, your response to Sean is also ego based, all of our responses are ego based.

Once again, for the millionth time: There is no "you" psychologically. It's an illusion, an invention of thought. Thought is the response of memory. Memory is the accumulation of experience and knowledge.

The rest of your response is your bruised ego reacting. It's not just you everyone is caught in the illusion of thought. K was trying to change this by describing what is written above about ego.

This post was last updated by Jack Pine Sun, 07 Oct 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 05 Oct 2018 #36
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 Myself Only United States 523 posts in this forum Offline

Jack Pine wrote:
Response only comes from the ego. What else is there that can respond?

Apparently you never understood krishnamurti. I have nothing to tell you dude.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 05 Oct 2018 #37
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 Myself Only United States 523 posts in this forum Offline

Jack Pine wrote:
Response only comes from the ego. What else is there that can respond?

Apparently you never understood krishnamurti. I have nothing to tell you dude.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 05 Oct 2018 #38
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5216 posts in this forum Offline

Goodman B wrote:
Apparently you never understood krishnamurti. I have nothing to tell you dude.

For you there seems to be just two things when it comes to K. What K actually said and what you think he said.

Do please tell us what responds, reacts, other than the ego. Is there a personal "entity", "being", besides the ego that has not been invented by thought? The words I use in posts above this to describe, thought, memory, experience and knowledge are ones that were paraphrased from what K has said over and over again. Basically using the same words K used.

This post was last updated by Jack Pine Sun, 07 Oct 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 05 Oct 2018 #39
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5216 posts in this forum Offline

Talk 12 in the Oak Grove, Ojai, California, 1949

Then, what is the core from which you name, what is the center which is always naming, choosing, labeling? We all feel there is a center, a core, do we not, from which we are acting, from which we are judging, from which we are naming. What is that center, that core? Some would like to think it is a spiritual essence, God, or what you will. So, let us find out what is that core, that center, which is naming, terming, judging. Surely, that core is memory, isn't it? A series of sensations, identified and enclosed-the past, given life through the present. That core, that center, feeds on the present through naming, labeling, remembering. I hope you are following this. We will see presently, as we unfold it, that as long as this center, this core exists, there can be no understanding. It is only with the dissipation of this core that there is understanding. Because, after all, that core is memory-memory of various experiences which have been given names, labels, identifications. With those named and labeled experiences, from that center, there is acceptance and rejection, determination to be or not to be, according to the sensations, pleasures, and pains of the memory of experience. So, that center is the word. If you do not name that center, is there a center? That is, if you do not think in terms of words, if you do not use words, can you think? Thinking comes into being through verbalization, or, verbalization begins to respond to thinking. So, the center, the core, is the memory of innumerable experiences of pleasure and pain, verbalized. Watch it in yourself, please, and you will see that words have become much more important, labels have become much more important, than the substance; and we live on words. Please, don't deny it, don't say it is right or wrong. We are exploring. If you merely explore one side of a thing or stay put in one place, you won't understand the whole content of it. Therefore, let us approach it from different angles.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 05 Oct 2018 #40
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 Myself Only United States 523 posts in this forum Offline

KRISHNAMURTI: WHEN THERE IS NO SELF, THERE IS A RESPONSIBILITY FOR HUMANITY.

Dialogue 2 Malibu, California, USA
January 26, 1972

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 05 Oct 2018 #41
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5216 posts in this forum Offline

Goodman B wrote:
KRISHNAMURTI: WHEN THERE IS NO SELF, THERE IS A RESPONSIBILITY FOR HUMANITY.

Dialogue 2 Malibu, California, USA
January 26, 1972

What is your point? What does this have to do with anything that was pointed out above?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 05 Oct 2018 #42
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 Myself Only United States 523 posts in this forum Offline

Goodman B wrote:
What is your point? What does this have to do with anything that was pointed out above?

The self =the ego

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 05 Oct 2018 #43
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5216 posts in this forum Offline

Goodman B wrote:
The self =the ego

Yes, exactly. That is what I have been saying in my last three posts above. The self, the center, the core, the ego. These are all the same thing.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 05 Oct 2018 #44
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 Myself Only United States 523 posts in this forum Offline

Selfless=egoless=image-less=illusion-less

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 07 Oct 2018 #45
Thumb_nolet Rich Nolet Canada 283 posts in this forum Offline

Jack Pine wrote:

( K. from Talk 12 in the Oak Grove, Ojai, California, 1949 ): So, that center is the word. If you do not name that center, is there a center? That is, if you do not think in terms of words, if you do not use words, can you think? Thinking comes into being through verbalization, or, verbalization begins to respond to thinking. So, the center, the core, is the memory of innumerable experiences of pleasure and pain, verbalized. Watch it in yourself, please, and you will see that words have become much more important, labels have become much more important, than the substance; and we live on words.

So we should question: what is real perception? What is it that is verbalise, put into words ? The word is never the perception, the direct experience. It is always from memory. The experience is registred as memory. The experiencer is the experience ; he is the past, which become the center. It is not the same as direct experience, which leave no trace, in which there is no center. Please let,s dig it.

This post was last updated by Rich Nolet Sun, 07 Oct 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 07 Oct 2018 #46
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5216 posts in this forum Offline

Rich Nolet wrote:
So we should question: what is real perception? What is it that is verbalise, put into words ? The word is never the perception, the direct experiencing. It is always from memory.

What is real perception? Isn't real perception, necessarily, always in the present without the verbalizing? Once we verbalize perception it is the past because thought is based on the past. I think I just said what you said above only using slightly different words.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 07 Oct 2018 #47
Thumb_nolet Rich Nolet Canada 283 posts in this forum Offline

Jack Pine wrote:
What is real perception? Isn't real perception, necessarily, always in the present without the verbalizing? Once we verbalize perception it is the past because thought is based on the past. I think I just said what you said above only using slightly different words.

Yes exactly as I see it Jack.

Goodman B wrote:
Selfless=egoless=image-less=illusion-less

Are these only words, if I may ask, or is there any direct perception behind those words ? Which ask for awareness, close observation ? Or do we just intellectualised something we have learn in a book ?

This post was last updated by Rich Nolet Sun, 07 Oct 2018.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Sun, 07 Oct 2018 #48
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 Myself Only United States 523 posts in this forum Offline

Rich Nolet wrote:
Are these only words, if I may ask, or is there any direct perception behind those words ?

Obviously these are words. Direct experience is not something extraordinary. Life is experiencing but previous experiences prevent further experiencing. Experiencing is living but experience is a dead thing. When a dead thing becomes more important then direct experiencing then life becomes a battle. These are words unless one can see it taking place in his mind?

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 2 readers
Back to Top
Mon, 08 Oct 2018 #49
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5216 posts in this forum Offline

Goodman B wrote:
Life is experiencing but previous experiences prevent further experiencing.

How do previous experiences prevent further experiencing? Could you make this clearer please?

It seems that we are constantly "experiencing" which implies this is in the present because you used the present tense of the verb to experience. Now when we register this "experiencing " by thinking about, by comparing this new experience with previous experiences then it becomes "old", in the past. It becomes part of our conditioning. Our conditioning affects the way we see the present. It biases the way we see the present. "We" are this conditioning. Is that what you are trying to point out? But it doesn't "prevent" further experiencing that I can see.

In other words: What we both may be saying is that experiencing is in the present but when thought, which is conditioned, registers the experience then that experience becomes part of the past, part of our conditioning.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 08 Oct 2018 #50
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5216 posts in this forum Offline

Goodman B wrote:
When a dead thing becomes more important then direct experiencing then life becomes a battle.

This is a conclusion that you don't need. It is also conceptualizing "direct experiencing" which is adding to your conditioning. A conclusion is thought and thought, as we already pointed out, is conditioned. Stop with thought registering experiencing, registering the present, adds to our conditioning. Staying in the present only occurs when thought is not active. Conclusions are thought

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 08 Oct 2018 #51
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5216 posts in this forum Offline

Rich Nolet wrote:
Are these only words, if I may ask, or is there any direct perception behind those words ?

GB,Rich is totally capable of speaking for himself but I thought I would clear up a possible misunderstanding you may have about what Rich meant in his above referenced statement. He didn't mean you are literally using words but rather are you just repeating words that you have heard without really understanding them or are the words you used something that are the result of your own discovery and understanding?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 08 Oct 2018 #52
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 Myself Only United States 523 posts in this forum Offline

Jack Pine wrote:
you just repeating words that you have heard without really understanding them.

Do you do that? That is a silly thing! Nobody can repeat Krishnamurti. You can copy and paste Krishnamurti. That is one of the reason that I said hardly anybody understands Krishnamurti , in this and other Krishnamurti sites. You just can't imitate Krishnamurti.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 08 Oct 2018 #53
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5216 posts in this forum Offline

GB, did you really not understand my post #59 or are you just trying to find a reason for conflict? The post from which your above quote was taken was trying to explain what Rich meant in his post that you, apparently, didn't understand.

Also, who are you or anyone to judge who does and doesn't understand Krishnamurti? For you to make that statement you have to understand Krishnamurti. You, apparently, didn't even understand Rich's or my posts. Worry about your own understanding and let others tend to their own understanding of K.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 08 Oct 2018 #54
Thumb_nolet Rich Nolet Canada 283 posts in this forum Offline

GB, as Jack pointed out, I didn't say you are just repeating words you have learn in a book, I said: Are you, or are we, just repeating words. We have to be honest one with the other for any understanding to occur. We have to be honest with oneself. Only you, or oneself if you prefer, can answer this for oneself. This is what I meant. We can't answer that question for another.

This post was last updated by Rich Nolet Mon, 08 Oct 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 08 Oct 2018 #55
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 Myself Only United States 523 posts in this forum Offline

What jack does is gang up on you. I think that if he is honest he should answer that question. or rich should answer the question that he is asking. But you insist to put that question on somebody else.(something like saying you are crazy instead of saying I am crazy or we are crazy). The word "you" is a form of aggression in these forms and should be avoided unless it is used in a friendly manner. My problem is with jack . He intentionally tries to misunderstand and attack people who don't consider him as a friend (not friend because of him trashing any blog that I post and make it about himself (illusion) therefore conflict. The guy has not said a wise word yet and always attacks the writer. And he copy and pastes Krishnamurti here and there. If he keeps his aggressive behavior I would have to luck any blog that I post after his attack .

This post was last updated by Myself Only Mon, 08 Oct 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 08 Oct 2018 #56
Thumb_nolet Rich Nolet Canada 283 posts in this forum Offline

Goodman B wrote:
I think that if he is honest he should answer that question. or rich should answer the question that he is asking. But you insist to put that question on somebody else.

In my last post, I said that this question was for all of us who are interested. You, me , us should't matter. It is a question that arise naturally in the enquiry. And also that we can't answer that question for another. Answering that question is not require by you or Jack or me, as I said in the above post.

You don't like the you, so let's say: do I repeat words that I have learn in a book, or is there an insight about what have been said ? One doesn't have to answer, just look, if one is interested.

Why being so personnal ? The conditioning, the stream, is not yours or mine. We are in the same boat.

This post was last updated by Rich Nolet Mon, 08 Oct 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 08 Oct 2018 #57
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 Myself Only United States 523 posts in this forum Offline

Rich Nolet wrote:
Goodman B wrote:

Selfless=egoless=image-less=illusion-less

Are these only words, if I may ask, or is there any direct perception behind those words ? Which ask for awareness, close observation ? Or do we just intellectualised something we have learn in a book ?

This was your question to me! The one who wrote :ego-less= image-less=illusion-less. And I answered it . Now you are judging my answer as being personal! This all too silly it only creates the illusion of the thinker being separate from his thought. Just read the words and don't worry about who is behind them and your problem is solved in here.

This post was last updated by Myself Only Mon, 08 Oct 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 08 Oct 2018 #58
Thumb_001 Sean Hen Spain 693 posts in this forum Offline

Myself Only wrote:
What jack does is gang up on you.

I don't think this really makes sense. "To gang up on" suggests a group of people coming together to unite against someone. One person can't really gang up on another person.

Myself Only wrote:
The guy has not said a wise word yet.

This is a very subjective opinion. By saying this you set yourself up as the one who can identify wisdom. This is in itself an act of separation as it separates you from the rest of us.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 08 Oct 2018 #59
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 Myself Only United States 523 posts in this forum Offline

Sean Hen wrote:
This is in itself an act of separation as it separates you from the rest of us.

The fact is that there is no "us" in here to join. It is an illusion to think that we all think the same or some of "us" think the same.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 08 Oct 2018 #60
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 Myself Only United States 523 posts in this forum Offline

Rich Nolet wrote:
Do we intentionally try to misunderstand or are we conditioned to misunderstand and argue with each other like politicians do all the time?

Yes this is my question. Notice that the question is not a personal question. We are conditioned to argue and misunderstand like politicians that we choose to be our leaders. We are the politicians.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 31 - 60 of 93 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.)