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

*

This topic is locked.


Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 31 in total
Mon, 10 Dec 2018 #1
Thumb_stringio Tomasz Gradgrind Vatican City 4 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

*

This post was last updated by Tomasz Gradgrind (account deleted) Wed, 02 Oct 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 10 Dec 2018 #2
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 654 posts in this forum Offline

Thank you for an interesting, perhaps un-K post.

Of course, Monteverdi's music is amazing, standing on the cusp between the stile antico of the Renaissance and the stile moderno of the Baroque, right at the moment of the birth of opera. Great music is beautiful and a tremendous amount of it was written by Christian composers for both sacred and secular purposes.

K loved and listened to Beethoven. But he also spoke out about maudlin sentimentality that can be part of worship and ritual. The Christians literally constructed awe, building jaw dropping cathedrals, profound visual art, and towering classical music compositions. How could you not believe in God and their version of it when faced with these overpowering works? But, as you likely know, it's a trick. It's false advertising. Humans, not God, made these monumental creations, yet they did so by letting go of the self and opening to the whole.

To feel and experience great art is indeed human. But we don't have to be fooled.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 11 Dec 2018 #3
Thumb_001 Sean Hen Spain 870 posts in this forum Offline

jamie f wrote:
If you can listen to Beethoven's Ninth without feeling the stirrings of emotion then you are made of stone, so it is safe to assume that Krishnamurti felt emotion. But perhaps he was not enslaved by them. Of course, that is just a guess.

Hi Jamie. The quote from Krishnamurti below might be relevant to this discussion:

"Question: I am a lover of music, and I derive joy from it. Is that emotion?

Krishnamurti: If music becomes an addiction, it is an impediment. You hear music and you have joy. Then you name that joy and want a repetition of it. Then that joy is emotion and is brought into the field of thought. It therefore ceases to be joy but only memory. Therefore, it is an impediment. When music is an escape from daily routine, it is not a joy but a night-mare. There is joy when there is constant freshness and not when you take joy into memory and bring it into the field of thought. An emotion untermed is not the same as when it is termed, brought into the field of thought and used as a means for one's continuing or for something else. So long as you think about a feeling, it is thought. Devotion as a means for self-abandonment is a thought-process. There is no devotion without thought-process, and therefore they are both impediments to transformation. A feeling, an emotion, when thought about, ceases to be feeling. Is there a state of being which is not within the field of thought-process? Anything within the field of thought is the known. To know the unknown I must completely abandon the known. Therefore, devotion, feeling, emotion - all of which lie in the field of thought, the known - are impediments to transformation."

Madras, India. Group Discussion 18th April, 1948

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 16 Dec 2018 #4
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5709 posts in this forum Online

Sean Hen wrote:
The quote below is from Sean's K quote which appears in this thread:

There is no devotion without thought-process, and therefore they are both impediments to transformation. A feeling, an emotion, when thought about, ceases to be feeling.

A very interesting quote Sean. The part above that I extracted from the text of the quote particularly struck me. A while back someone was all upset because they felt that Krishnamurti didn't show more "gratitude". The above quote seems to explain why that might be.

To express gratitude one has to think about the events that transpired and the emotions that these events elicited. Gratitude can be expressed at the moment in various ways but not after the fact without it being a part of one's emotion, thought/memory.

Judging K with one's own limited understanding and based on second hand information is obviously extremely limited.

This post was last updated by Jack Pine Sun, 16 Dec 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 17 Dec 2018 #5
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5709 posts in this forum Online

jamie f wrote:
I don't see any problem with being thankful. What do you think?

No, I don't either and that's not what I was saying in my above post. By the way, it's good to read that you are out of the hospital. I hope that is an indication that things are on the upswing.

What I was saying that, possibly for K who saw things differently than most of the rest of us, it is understandable that he didn't go around bestowing gratitude, verbally or otherwise, on what might be considered his benefactors. As you know one poster tried to make a Federal case out of K not mentioning gratitude enough to suit her. A person who has yet to understand that thought is limited and that she doesn't have all the facts and is, therefore, in no position to criticize anyone. She read a few lines from Mary Z's unfinished book and apparently came to a conclusion or conclusions about K.

By the way. Last week I visited the Krishnamurti Bookstore and I saw a copy of Mary Z's book. It has over 500 pages and is still called her "unfinished" work. You haven't read it by any chance have you?

This post was last updated by Jack Pine Mon, 17 Dec 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 17 Dec 2018 #6
Thumb_001 Sean Hen Spain 870 posts in this forum Offline

Jack Pine wrote:
A very interesting quote Sean. The part above that I extracted from the text of the quote particularly struck me.

Hello Jack, nice to hear from you. Yes, I also thought the quote was interesting. Just to make things clear, here's the part of the quote we're talking about:

Krishnamurti - "There is no devotion without thought-process, and therefore they are both impediments to transformation. A feeling, an emotion, when thought about, ceases to be feeling."

I understand that K is speaking about how a feeling or emotion that was originally spontaneous gets analysed by thought and ends up having no resemblance to the freshness and freedom of the original. Feelings and emotions which pass through the filter of thought are crushed. I'm not sure I've expressed this well but this is what I understand. Spontaneity seems to have great importance if we are to live in the present. Would you agree with that?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 17 Dec 2018 #7
Thumb_001 Sean Hen Spain 870 posts in this forum Offline

jamie f wrote:
When I next see the doctors and nurses who treated me so well, should I show gratitude or ignore them as the monkey ignored Krishnamurti? It is genuine question. What do you think?

Hi Jamie. Good to hear that you seem to be on the mend. Of course you should show gratitude to the people who treated you so well. That surely would be the right and natural thing to do.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 17 Dec 2018 #8
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 654 posts in this forum Offline

Krishnamurti quoted by Sean Hen:
There is joy when there is constant freshness and not when you take joy into memory and bring it into the field of thought.

A beautiful sunset is seen and there is great joy. Then every evening I go back to the same place where I saw the sunset and look for it again. It's never the same.

The brain takes a beautiful moment of joy and turns it into escapism, by trying to recapture the experience. So fragile beauty gets stomped on. Clear water turns to mud.

Most of us seek good experiences and avoid bad, yes? When something we call good happens, we head that way again. Yet only the moment right now is what it is and only in now is there liberation.

Is now spontaneous? Not if we expect it to be!

Awareness in the now is discovery. We can watch the self try to recapture experience. We can watch the self try to be spontaneous, which is, of course, impossible. We can watch the self seek after what it calls "positive" experience and avoid "negative." We can watch the self think that it understands these matters, only to encounter conflict again, as thought rubs to one degree or another against the actual.

Basically there is fear, which is denial of reality, and there is love, which is reality. We have remarkably little awareness of how much we actually live in fear, which manifests as annoyance, criticism, all kinds of conflictual ways.

It is so important to watch the self, to see its activities, its harm. Unfortunately, it can be the disease of K people to say there is no self, the self is illusion. And all the while a denied self is busy spreading violence and animosity in daily interaction.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 17 Dec 2018 #9
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5709 posts in this forum Online

Jamie, you continue to miss the whole point I was trying to make. Maybe that's my fault. I am not saying it's wrong to show gratitude and I am not saying that K didn't show it.

Sean Hen wrote:
I understand that K is speaking about how a feeling or emotion that was originally spontaneous gets analysed by thought and ends up having no resemblance to the freshness and freedom of the original. Feelings and emotions which pass through the filter of thought are crushed.

This is what I was trying to point out to Jamie but with little or no success. Maybe I wasn't clear enough.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 17 Dec 2018 #10
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5709 posts in this forum Online

idiot ? wrote:
It is so important to watch the self, to see its activities, its harm. Unfortunately, it can be the disease of K people to say there is no self, the self is illusion. And all the while a denied self is busy spreading violence and animosity in daily interaction.

If you dislike K and "K people" so much why do you remain here spreading your long-winded BS about what a terrible person K and some of the rest of us are? Why the vendetta?

You didn't get what you wanted from reading K so now you're gonna pay him back? Is that it?

This post was last updated by Jack Pine Mon, 17 Dec 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 17 Dec 2018 #11
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 1386 posts in this forum Offline

jamie f wrote:
but in one version Krishnamurti says that he saw the monkey later in the afternoon and waved to it as it was in a tree. The monkey showed no recognition. Without recognition, without gratitude, are we just monkeys?

Interesting about K and the monkey:). Yes we are monkeys for sure. Some of us are more mischievous than others.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 17 Dec 2018 #12
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 1386 posts in this forum Offline

wrote:
idiot wrote:

"It is so important to watch the self, to see its activities, its harm. Unfortunately, it can be the disease of K people to say there is no self, the self is illusion. And all the while a denied self is busy spreading violence and animosity in daily interaction."

Jack: "If you dislike K and "K people" so much why do you remain here spreading your long-winded BS about what a terrible person K and some of the rest of are? Why the vendetta?

You didn't get what you wanted from reading K so now you're gonna pay him back? Is that it?"

See jack's respond to a fact that idiot points out to. Jack thinks in term of hate and condemnation even though he justifies what ever his so called friends post. So immature.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 18 Dec 2018 #13
Thumb_001 Sean Hen Spain 870 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
Unfortunately, it can be the disease of K people to say there is no self, the self is illusion.

Hello idiot?. I'm not aware of "K people" saying there is no self. Surely this would be a strange thing to say. Also, I wonder who exactly "K people" are. On this thread so far we have me, you, Jack, Jamie, Ken D and One Self. Are we, or some of us, "K people"? We all share an interest of the teachings of Krishnamurti so I assume we all are.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 18 Dec 2018 #14
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 654 posts in this forum Offline

Sean Hen wrote:
I'm not aware of "K people" saying there is no self.

If you click in the search box that says, "Search the forum for..." and you type "self does not exist," quite a few posts come up. Some people dispute the idea but others claim it is true.

Did the self exist for Krishnamurti? Certainly there are some that would say no; that he was without self. And then some people here, convinced that they have fully realized what K taught, may also claim that there is no self. If they really are free of self, wonderful! They can set humanity unconditionally free. But if, as is much more likely, they claim there is no self and continue to spread conflict with an all too apparent self, then they are simply self deluded.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 18 Dec 2018 #15
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5709 posts in this forum Online

idiot ? wrote:
And then some people here, convinced that they have fully realized what K taught, may also claim that there is no self.

I don't remember anyone on here making the above claim. Saying that it appears that K had no self in the traditional sense of the word is not the same as the person making that statement saying that they have no self. It's not that subtle of a difference but perhaps for you it is.

Do you have any other hobbies aside from trying to discredit K and the people who fine what he pointed out interesting and possibly life changing?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 18 Dec 2018 #16
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 1386 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
Did the self exist for Krishnamurti?

Surely if k had a self or not has very little importance. What is important is to be aware of the activities of the self without condemnation or justification, is it not? Thought is the self. Thought has created the self in the same way as thought has created God,religion,politics ,tradition and so on. Thought has created the present society which is based on greed. Self-knowledge is the understanding of one's thought from moment to moment. Therefore freedom from the self or the known.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 20 Dec 2018 #17
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 1386 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
Unfortunately, it can be the disease of K people to say there is no self, the self is illusion. And all the while a denied self is busy spreading violence and animosity in daily interaction.

I suppose that by k people you mean people who read or watched k once a while and continued their mischievous behaviors. I wouldn't call them k people. I would say ego people who ran into k but never were been effected by K.

Surely this Website has shown to me that there is no harmony between people who were exposed to k. K people implies unity. There is no unity in this website or the other k forum for sure.

This post was last updated by One Self Thu, 20 Dec 2018.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Thu, 20 Dec 2018 #18
Thumb_001 Sean Hen Spain 870 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
Did the self exist for Krishnamurti? Certainly there are some that would say no; that he was without self. And then some people here, convinced that they have fully realized what K taught, may also claim that there is no self.

It seems that Krishnamurti was, largely, free of thought so therefore free of behaving in a way which was influenced by and based on past conditioning. If thought is not present is the self also not present? I understand that with a silent mind with no thought present there is no self. I could be wrong. Are some people here convinced that they have fully realised what K taught? I'm not aware of this. Occassionaly I read something here and wonder about this though. I think we're realistic on the whole and concede that most of the time we do indeed live with thought present and act through past conditioning.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Sat, 22 Dec 2018 #19
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 1386 posts in this forum Offline

So there is no K- people .There has never been and there will never be a group of people who came together because of the teachings. Physically people get together in the foundations but psychologically they never meet each other. Because everybody is busy showing off how wise they are in front of the others . Just like what happens here. Jack tries to show off how knowledgeable he is in front of others but exposes to others his ignorance at the same time. He is always waiting for me or idiot to say something and then he tries to show off to his friends how wise he is and writes something totally irrelevant . The point is that we never meet each other and there is no k-people and there will never be one.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Sat, 22 Dec 2018 #20
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5709 posts in this forum Online

One Self wrote:
So there is no K- people .There has never been and there will never be a group of people who came together because of the teachings. Physically people get together in the foundations but psychologically they never meet each other. Because everybody is busy showing off how wise they are in front of the others . Just like what happens here. Jack tries to show off how knowledgeable he is in front of others but exposes to others his ignorance at the same time. He is always waiting for me or idiot to say something and then he tries to show off to his friends how wise he is and writes something totally irrelevant .

paranoia noun

Definition of paranoia

1 : mental illness characterized by systematized delusions of persecution or grandeur usually without hallucinations

2 : a tendency on the part of an individual or group toward excessive or irrational suspiciousness and distrustfulness of others

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 23 Dec 2018 #21
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 1386 posts in this forum Offline

Jack, If you are genuinely concerned with paranoia why can't you open a discussion on fear . But instead you prefer wasting away this forum on grammar errors and misspellings . Change yourself dude,change yourself as Krishnamurti asked you . By I know that you are careless.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 23 Dec 2018 #22
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5709 posts in this forum Online

One Self wrote:
Jack, If you are genuinely concerned with paranoia why can't you open a discussion on fear . But instead you prefer wasting away this forum on grammar errors and misspellings . Change yourself dude,change yourself as Krishnamurti asked you . By I know that you are careless.

hypocrite, noun

hyp·?o·?crite | \?hi-p?-?krit

\

Definition of hypocrite

1 : a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion

2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 23 Dec 2018 #23
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 1386 posts in this forum Offline

irrelevant
adjective unconnected, unrelated, unimportant, inappropriate, peripheral, insignificant, negligible, immaterial, extraneous, beside the point, impertinent, neither here nor there, inapplicable, inapt, inapposite, inconsequent irrelevant details
related, connected, relevant, fitting, appropriate, suitable, apt, applicable, pertinent, apposite
Collins Thesaurus of the English Language – Complete and Unabridged 2nd Edition. 2002 © HarperCollins Publishers 1995, 2002

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 23 Dec 2018 #24
Thumb_001 Sean Hen Spain 870 posts in this forum Offline

One Self wrote:
So there is no K- people .There has never been and there will never be a group of people who came together because of the teachings. Physically people get together in the foundations but psychologically they never meet each other. Because everybody is busy showing off how wise they are in front of the others .

Surely just because there never has been does not imply that "there will never be". Can we reach this conclusion about the future based on the past? Just because "everybody is busy showing off" now does not mean that this will always be the same. It's the same with people. I met a man two months ago and he was rude so I think of him as a rude man. But just because he was rude two months ago does not mean that he is this way permanently. My image of him as "a rude man" based on past experience will condition and distort my relationship with him in the present. Is it possible for us to come to this forum and read messages from fellow posters with new eyes, free from our image of them based on past experience?

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 2 readers
Back to Top
Sun, 23 Dec 2018 #25
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5709 posts in this forum Online

One Self wrote:
irrelevant
adjective unconnected, unrelated, unimportant, inappropriate, peripheral, insignificant, negligible, immaterial, extraneous, beside the point, impertinent, neither here nor there, inapplicable, inapt, inapposite, inconsequent irrelevant details

Yes, thank you for pointing out that your posts are also irrelevant. I suppose that's why so many of your threads just fade away without others making a comment.

Why do you feel the need to harangue me with a post critical of me even when I haven't made a comment about your posts? You did that above in post #30 and you do that often. It appears you want to pick a fight. Are you bored or what?

This post was last updated by Jack Pine Tue, 01 Jan 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 23 Dec 2018 #26
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 1386 posts in this forum Offline

Jack Pine wrote:
Yes, thank you. Your posts are also irrelevant. I suppose that's why so many of your threads just fade away without others making a comment.

You should know by now that I don't think or write for unknown characters in here. I think and write for myself and usually you try to respond wrongly and try to distort my thinking (by trivial thing like spelling and grammar.) which only shows your ignorance. The fact is that you can't teach me or anybody else in here anything above what Krishnamurti has taught . I have studied Krishnamurti much more than you ever did. So don't be a Krishnamurti-guru in here and mind your business. If you mind your business I promise you that I won't quote or respond to you ever. But if you keep responding wrongly to my writings I will do the same to you. What goes around comes around. And you are the one who has picked up a fight with anybody outside of your circle.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 24 Dec 2018 #27
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 1386 posts in this forum Offline

Sean Hen wrote:
Can we reach this conclusion about the future based on the past?

How else would one come to a finding or a conclusion?
The problem with a group is that there is always one or two bad apples who ruin everything for everyone else just like in this forum. That is why it doesn't work. Maybe two people can be friends and discuss the problems that they run into with each other but not in the form of a group therapy.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 24 Dec 2018 #28
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5709 posts in this forum Online

One Self wrote:
I have studied Krishnamurti much more than you ever did.

This sounds like a statement Donald Trump might make. In fact he did make several statements like this just this weekend. Stuff like "I understand more about ISIS than anyone", "I understand more about business than anyone" and so on.

Let's look at your statement I quoted above for a moment. Is it relevant how much someone has "studied" K (whatever that means)? Is the key to understanding K in the amount of "studying" one does? One person might listen to and read what K has written their whole life and still not really understand what K pointed out. While another might gain vast insight into what K was pointing out after just one book or attending one talk. Is understanding K a question of time?

Why compare yourself to another? And why do you think I am trying to tell you something about K? This is what I mean about paranoia. You feel threatened by me when in fact I'm not threatening you at all.

This post was last updated by Jack Pine Mon, 24 Dec 2018.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Mon, 24 Dec 2018 #29
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 1386 posts in this forum Offline

Jack Pine wrote:
You feel threatened by me when in fact I'm not threatening you at all.

That is the most silly thing you said .

Jack Pine wrote:
Let's look at your statement I quoted above for a moment.

Let's not because your intention is wrong.

Behind all your words is a character that doesn't change so it is a waste of time to superficiality discus anything with you. You can't put a Krishnamurti mask on and pretend that you know anything. You can deny that but it won't change a thing.

Jack Pine wrote:
Is the key to understanding K in the amount of "studying" one does?

Yes ,that is why you don't understand Krishnamurti.

Jack Pine wrote:
While another might gain vast insight into what K was pointing out after just one book or attending one talk.

Is insight to be gained? No.
What you gain is intellect not insight.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 24 Dec 2018 #30
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 1386 posts in this forum Offline

Jack the fact that you find yourself not qualified to post on the two other threads explains who you are. You know who you are. I don't need to tell you who you are.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 31 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.)