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

Can we ask the right question?


Displaying posts 271 - 300 of 367 in total
Fri, 08 Feb 2019 #271
Thumb_001 Sean Hen Spain 755 posts in this forum Offline

jamie f wrote:
Interestingly, though, the more cynical I become of these postings, the less cynically I view the wider world.

Hi Jamie and all. There was a comment about the lack of innocence in the postings on this forum but it seems to have disappeared. That's a pity. Anyway, I suppose there is a lack of innocence in the whole world so perhaps it's not surprising that there is not much here. Children are innocent but they grow up. Tom Waits sang, "You're innocent when you dream." That could be true. Maybe this lack of innocence is a topic to be explored on another thread as I don't want to ruin Paul's one here. Would anybody be interested in going into this?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 08 Feb 2019 #272
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1341 posts in this forum Offline

One Self wrote:
What needs to be forgotten is the "me" thing. If you can do that you are with everyone who has also forgotten the "me". But as long as you stick to that "me" there is no way out.

The idea of "forgetting the 'me'" sounds 'good' but isn't that just another hopeful trick of mine to get to a better place where I'll be more like that free entity that I think K. is talking about? "Getting somewhere" other than 'here' is as far as I can see, just the same old ladder to 'heaven', that's been searched for from the beginning. Good old self-centered greed behind an esoteric mask?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Fri, 08 Feb 2019.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Fri, 08 Feb 2019 #273
Thumb_pd Paul Dimmock United Kingdom 142 posts in this forum Offline

One Self: What needs to be forgotten is the 'me' thing. If you can do that you are with everyone who has also forgotten the 'me'. But as long as you stick to that 'me' there is no way out.

Forgive me for being blunt, but you are not answering my question. First of all, are you with me? From there we can look at all the other questions, including what it means to forget the 'me' altogether. After all, we may find that there is nothing whatsoever to do about the 'me', that it cannot be forgotten about or escaped from, or that it may not even exist at all. But this comes later. To do it now is just to play around with theories and abstractions. Are we together? It is a simple enough question.

This post was last updated by Paul Dimmock Sat, 09 Feb 2019.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 2 readers
Back to Top
Fri, 08 Feb 2019 #274
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 949 posts in this forum Offline

K:The self is put together by time, by the movement of thought, by the known, by the word. In the abandonment of the self, in that total attention, that essence of beauty is there. The letting go of the self is not the calculated action of desire-will. Will is directive and so resistant, divisive, and so breeds conflict. The dissolution of the self is not the evolution of the knowledge of the self; time as a factor does not enter into it at all. There is no way or means to end it. The total inward non-action is the positive attention of beauty.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 08 Feb 2019 #275
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 1285 posts in this forum Offline

Is there a difference between 'he' and 'me', to me it seams not, but to him ......??

Ojai, California | 5th Public Talk 1945

Questioner: Can I find God in a foxhole?

Krishnamurti: A man who is seeking God will not be in a fox-hole.
How false are the ways of our thinking. We create a false situation and in that hope to find truth; in the false we try to find the real. 
Happy is he who sees the false as the false and that which is true as true.

We have become perverted in the ways of our thinking-feeling. In sorrow we wish to find happiness; only in abandoning the cause of sorrow is there joy.

P.s.: Bolding is mine!

Truth will unfold itself for those who enquire their own actions and only to them and for them and to or for no one else.

This post was last updated by Wim Opdam Fri, 08 Feb 2019.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Sun, 10 Feb 2019 #276
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 949 posts in this forum Offline

K:The self is put together by time, by the movement of thought, by the known, by the word. In the abandonment of the self, in that total attention, that essence of beauty is there. The letting go of the self is not the calculated action of desire-will.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 10 Feb 2019 #277
Thumb_pd Paul Dimmock United Kingdom 142 posts in this forum Offline

One Self wrote:
K:The self is put together by time, by the movement of thought, by the known, by the word. In the abandonment of the self, in that total attention, that essence of beauty is there. The letting go of the self is not the calculated action of desire-will. (No source given)

Yes, I understand all that. But to quote K at me is also a calculated action; it is a convenient way of avoiding my question. However many clever answers you may throw at me, the question or the challenge still remains: are we together?

This post was last updated by Paul Dimmock Sun, 10 Feb 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 10 Feb 2019 #278
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 949 posts in this forum Offline

Paul Dimmock wrote:
(No source given)

The source is no one other than Krishnamurti. Do you care where and what time of the year he said that! What matters is the truth of what was said by him not who said that. K often says that there is no K, he only voices what we are. He is our voice so let's not make him into our authority by saying when he said that and so on. That brings time into our conversation if we have any.

Paul Dimmock wrote:
the question or the challenge still remains: are we together?

If someone understand what it means to be "together" in this forum please speak out because I don't know what it means to be "together".

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 10 Feb 2019 #279
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 949 posts in this forum Offline

One Self wrote:
K:"In the abandonment of the self, in that total attention, that essence of beauty is there. "

How can we who have never abandoned the self understand what k is talking about. What is interesting is to go into these matters (by oneself) completely so there is no illusion to be made by thought.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 11 Feb 2019 #280
Thumb_pd Paul Dimmock United Kingdom 142 posts in this forum Offline

One Self: I don't know what it means to be "together".

Neither do I. That means we are both free to find out. But, first, do you want to be together? If you do, you'll find out what it means.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 11 Feb 2019 #281
Thumb_pd Paul Dimmock United Kingdom 142 posts in this forum Offline

One Self: The source is no one other than Krishnamurti. Do you care where and what time of the year he said that?

You may have made it up. That is why I put 'no source given' - it is simply good manners when you quote another. What you want to do is up to you, but I prefer to give a reference so that anyone else can go back to the source and read the whole context.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 11 Feb 2019 #282
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 949 posts in this forum Offline

Paul Dimmock wrote:
You may have made it up. That is why I put 'no source given.

First of all I don't make things up. Secondly you are the one who makes up and gives crazy meaning to the words. For example "together means we are both free to find out"! . Thirdly if you are suspicious minded why bother to respond to me. I explained why I don't put reference on short paragraphs of k .But apparently you were not born in england and your understanding of English language is according to your background. Try to make some sense with words fellow and don't be a suspicious minded while you want to be free at the same time! Your questions are all empty and meaningless. That is why NO ONE responds to them(not that I care). Sorry to tell you the truth . You need to change. That is obvious. Now you known that we are definitely not together(in the true meaning of the word.) because of your suspicious mind. (This site is full of odd people! :-)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 11 Feb 2019 #283
Thumb_pd Paul Dimmock United Kingdom 142 posts in this forum Offline

One Self: First of all I don't make things up. Secondly you are the one who makes up and gives crazy meaning to the words. For example "together means we are both free to find out"! Thirdly, if you are suspicious minded, why bother to respond to me?

But, my darling, you have just made up something. I did not say that together means we are both free. I said it is the not knowing that makes us free: free to find out what it means. Nor am I suspicious of you. I prefer to give accurate references when quoting others, that's all; that is why I said the source was not given after re-posting your quote from K. It was for the sake of any other reader; I don't mind if you make things up or not. I am not the forum police. But when I post or re-post quotes from K, I always try to give the date and place; it is merely a common courtesy.

I was born in England and have lived in England all my life. I think I can work my way around any linguistic difficulties.

Now come back to the question. Are we together? No, obviously not. So the next question is: do we want to be together?

This post was last updated by Paul Dimmock Mon, 11 Feb 2019.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Mon, 11 Feb 2019 #284
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 949 posts in this forum Offline

Paul Dimmock wrote:
One Self: I don't know what it means to be "together".

Paul:Neither do I. That means we are both free to find out. But, first, do you want to be together? If you do, you'll find out what it means.

Why use a word that one doesn't know what it means. Let's talk about what we know and leave what we don't know to Gods.:-)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 11 Feb 2019 #285
Thumb_pd Paul Dimmock United Kingdom 142 posts in this forum Offline

One Self: Why use a word that one doesn't know what it means. Let's talk about what we know and leave what we don't know to Gods.

But we know enough to start. We know what the word 'together' implies, roughly, simply, because we both understand enough of the English language: it means you and me. And we are together here now because we are both reading and replying to one another. But we don't know the deeper implications of this word. We don't know the deeper significance of human relationship. If we say we do know, we have already cut it short, diminished it. But, in saying that we do not know, we are free to start out and look at it all with fresh eyes.

This post was last updated by Paul Dimmock Mon, 11 Feb 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 11 Feb 2019 #286
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 949 posts in this forum Offline

What I am saying is that we can't talk about something that we have not experienced it. We can only talk about togetherness when we know what it is. There is no use saying I don't know what togetherness is but I want it to happen to me. Ideas can easily be made.
The word together

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 11 Feb 2019 #287
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 949 posts in this forum Offline

to·geth·er (t?-g?th??r)
adv.
1. In or into a single group, mass, or place: We gather together.
2. In or into contact: The cars crashed together. She mixed the chemicals together.
3.
a. In association with or in relationship to one another; mutually or reciprocally: getting along together.
b. By joint or cooperative effort: We ironed the entire load of clothes together.
4. Regarded collectively; in total: She is worth more than all of us together. Considered together, the proposals made little sense.
5. In or into a unified structure or arrangement: put the food processor together.
6. Simultaneously: The bells rang out together.
7. In harmony or accord: We stand together on this issue.
8. Informal Into an effective, coherent condition: Get yourself together.
adj. Slang
1. Emotionally stable and effective in performance: She's really together.
2. In tune with what is going on; hip.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 11 Feb 2019 #288
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 949 posts in this forum Offline

Now which meaning do you refer to when you say are me and you together?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 12 Feb 2019 #289
Thumb_pd Paul Dimmock United Kingdom 142 posts in this forum Offline

One Self: What I am saying is that we can't talk about something that we have not experienced. We can only talk about togetherness when we know what it is.

Look, come back to the word 'love' because it is really the same thing. Is love an experience? Is love something that we can know about? It is the same question but put with a different word. We said a while back: it is only love that matters. Do you have this same feeling in your heart? Or are you going to continue arguing about it?

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Wed, 13 Feb 2019 #290
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 949 posts in this forum Offline

Paul Dimmock wrote:
Look, come back to the word 'love' because it is really the same thing. Is love an experience? Is love something that we can know about?

What I say is logical. We can't talk about something we don't know or have not done it. Love is a dirty word . I love my nation,love my family, love my property and so on. If we haven't loved anybody then we can't talk about loving someone. We are second handed people . We talk from other people's experiences. If Krishnamurti talked about love it is because he has done it and knows what it is. Us talking about love or God or enlightenment is merely speculation without any meaning.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 13 Feb 2019 #291
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 1285 posts in this forum Offline

One Self wrote:
What I say is logical. We can't talk about something we don't know or have not done it.

why then claim that it is logical what you say, while your following text is completely illogical.

nobody can claim to know what K. Was or has done or knew.
The word 'love' is not dirty, but what one is doing with it is.

To me It's obvious that you don't love the Teaching
and you are lost in the maze of words !

One Self wrote:
We can't talk about something we don't know or have not done it.

you prove your own right,
you do not make sense about logical if you do not do it yourself.

Truth will unfold itself for those who enquire their own actions and only to them and for them and to or for no one else.

This post was last updated by Wim Opdam Wed, 13 Feb 2019.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 2 readers
Back to Top
Wed, 13 Feb 2019 #292
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 949 posts in this forum Offline

Win, It seems like you are losing clarity. Or your English understanding in extremely poor. I usually don't respond to you because I don't want to stimulate your further nonsenses. Now write more false statements.:-)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 13 Feb 2019 #293
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 1285 posts in this forum Offline

One Self wrote:
Win, It seems like you are losing clarity.

to lose clarity one must have had it first.
to claim logically you must be it too.

my clarity is still such that I find that you are not even able to spell my name correctly.

so maybe you understand that I do not take the rest of what you say seriously.

Truth will unfold itself for those who enquire their own actions and only to them and for them and to or for no one else.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 2 readers
Back to Top
Wed, 13 Feb 2019 #294
Thumb_pd Paul Dimmock United Kingdom 142 posts in this forum Offline

One Self: What I say is logical. We can't talk about something we don't know or have not done it. Love is a dirty word. I love my nation, love my family, love my property and so on. If we haven't loved anybody then we can't talk about loving someone. We are second-handed people. We talk from other people's experiences. If Krishnamurti talked about love it is because he has done it and knows what it is. Us talking about love or God or enlightenment is merely speculation without any meaning.

Then what matters most to you? Krishnamurti? An ideal? What? Don't you feel that as two human beings caught in the middle of this vast and vicious society it behoves us to find out if there is such a thing as love? Not from K or from another expert, but directly for ourselves. After all, is there anything else to say to another human being apart from, 'I love you'? What else matters? I am being perfectly logical too, not romantic or idealistic. What else is there to say, either to a stranger or to a dear friend, than these three simple words? If we haven't loved anybody, as you suggest, then it puts us both in the perfect position to find out what it all means. The finding out is the most important part of it because if we say, ‘I know what love is,’ we can never find out. And who knows where it may lead us? It may be a dirty word as it is now, but we are not interested in the word; it is what lies behind the word that counts. What did K do? He enquired into it all; and that is what we are doing too.

This post was last updated by Paul Dimmock Wed, 13 Feb 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 13 Feb 2019 #295
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 949 posts in this forum Offline

Paul Dimmock wrote:
If we haven't loved anybody, as you suggest, then it puts us both in the perfect position to find out what it all means.

First of all is it a fact to both of us that we never loved and were never been loved by any one? All our relationships with another is a utilitarian relationship. We use them and they use us. Now, we have brought this utilitarian attitude which is based on reward and punishment into our own minds. Do you see where we are? Until we understand what we are doing with our lives we cannot talk about love.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Wed, 13 Feb 2019 #296
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 949 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
nobody can claim to know what K. Was or has done or knew.

Everybody knows what k has done and was. He was a world teacher. Just look online.
If up to now you think that k was fake and he talked about love and he didn't know what it was I feel sorry for you. But you say that for the sake of your meaningless arguments. You are bored to death to say that kind of stuff with personal intentions. In any case I feel sorry for you .

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Thu, 14 Feb 2019 #297
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5421 posts in this forum Offline

Wim and Paul Dimmock surely you both have long since realized that you are trying to have a reasonable, logical discussion with someone who is obviously incapable of either. As one small example among countless examples; how can you discuss anything with someone who thinks defining who K was is covered by calling him a "world teacher"? That's like defining the Sun as being yellow. Yes it's yellow but is that all there is to say about it's real essence? Of course not.

Don't you see that you are trying to discuss the finer points of various subjects with someone who is utterly incapable of seeing those finer points? In anything. Let alone with someone who was as undefinable as K.

K's essence was not that he was a world teacher. World teacher is not who he was but a name for part of what he did in life. It doesn't say anything about who he was or what he brought to humanity.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 2 readers
Back to Top
Thu, 14 Feb 2019 #298
Thumb_patricia_1_2016_copy Patricia Hemingway Australia 1913 posts in this forum Offline

Dear Jack - your logic and honesty is valued, at least by this human being, who always takes the time to read what you write on here.

It is important to bring reality back into the discussion when it drifts off into banalities about 'love', and subjective opinions about 'clarity' and 'togetherness'. Thank you.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 2 readers
Back to Top
Thu, 14 Feb 2019 #299
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 949 posts in this forum Offline

Jack leading others in here is like a blind man leading other blind men (or woman) to light.:-)

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Thu, 14 Feb 2019 #300
Thumb_patricia_1_2016_copy Patricia Hemingway Australia 1913 posts in this forum Offline

One Self wrote:
Jack leading others in here is like a blind man leading other blind men (or woman) to light.:-)

Who said anything about 'leading'?

Perhaps only an dedicated follower would make such an assumption out of what was stated.

This post was last updated by Patricia Hemingway Thu, 14 Feb 2019.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 3 readers
Back to Top
Displaying posts 271 - 300 of 367 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.)