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

Are we really "progressing" in our understanding?


Displaying posts 31 - 60 of 207 in total
Sun, 28 Apr 2019 #31
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1453 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
We follow K up to this point and get stuck. I am thought, I am self, I am whatever problem. Since I am it, I can do nothing. Stay with it and be fully aware.

Now does K stop there? Does he say, "Great. Now just go on being a separate, conflicted self but with awareness?"

No. That would be an absurd thing to say wouldn't it? So you are saying that having "stayed with" whatever and that having done that with "full awareness", you found yourself still a "separate, conflicted self" and therefore needed to "go further"? And then you describe this 'going further':

idiot ? wrote:
To go further is to go into actuality. The actual is not stagnant. It is motion. Without the drag of memory, the cling of continuity. Moment to moment transformation. Moment to moment ending of the self. Moment to moment blossoming of love.

Alright. Can you say what this "going further into actuality" entails other than the 'staying with' what is? (If I'm understanding you.)

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sun, 28 Apr 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 28 Apr 2019 #32
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 689 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Can you say what this "going further into actuality" entails other than the 'staying with' what is? (If I'm understanding you.)

I just watched the end of the video Ken cited. K talks about putting your guts into it, your energy. He is largely saying this to a crowd where some are saying that they have not really changed. And K says that it is up to each person to inquire to the fullest.

It isn't a matter of will, is it? You cannot clench up your body in intensity and suddenly wake up, can you? I suppose it doesn't hurt to try. To see what will does, physically or mentally.

It's really a matter of caring, isn't it? To see the hurtfulness in this world. Then to see it in yourself, the hurt and the hurting you cause. To care and say this cannot continue. Maybe others are violent in more extreme ways than I am, but I am spreading conflict, too, on some level, that ripples hurt out into the world in an unnecessary way. You have to care and feel it.

You have glimpsed the silence of the heart/mind in rare moments. It must be clarified. Only the quiet mind is truly transformative. While such silence is essential, it cannot be cultivated. It cannot be successfully sought. But one can see it being covered over, with thought and self-centeredness. With guts and energy, this process of the self can be watched and gone deeper and deeper into. Inquired into.

We have been intrigued by K. But do we care enough to really put our guts into it? Or will we be content with a somewhat more aware separative self?

This post was last updated by idiot ? Sun, 28 Apr 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 28 Apr 2019 #33
Thumb_pd Paul Dimmock United Kingdom 210 posts in this forum Offline

Are we really "progressing" in our understanding?

At the end of the day, what is it that we are all trying so desperately to understand? Is it the words of K or of some other clever chap? Is it our own actions and motivations, the problems of our daily life? Is it the nature of the universe and our place within it? Or, does understanding actually matter at all? Does it have any significance whatsoever in the psychological life of a man or a woman? It seems to me that all the problems of existence come in the wake of our understanding anything because our immediate response to anything of value that we find is to hold on to what we see and thus transform it into solid and substantial blocks of knowledge. This is our habit, is it not?

This post was last updated by Paul Dimmock Sun, 28 Apr 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 28 Apr 2019 #34
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5755 posts in this forum Offline

Paul Dimmock wrote:
because our immediate response to anything of value that we find is to hold on to what we see and thus transform it into solid and substantial blocks of knowledge. This is our habit, is it not?

This is the way it appears to me and that I have tried several times to point out on this forum. We conceptualize what we learn and our understanding becomes like a fly in a drop of amber.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 28 Apr 2019 #35
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 1457 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
If you haven't, why not?

In fact I have never been nationalistic even before I ran in to K in 1978. You are missing the point that I wrote. I said the knowledge that we gather from k or anybody else has not made a dent to our selfish way of thinking and living. And I said "we" in the same way krishnamurti uses that word. So please don't ask why are " you " selfish and silly questions like that . Remember humanity is one and if we divide it to 'you' and 'me' or 'us' and 'them' we get nowhere, it is the same as nationalism, divisive.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 28 Apr 2019 #36
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1453 posts in this forum Offline

One Self wrote:
I said the knowledge that we gather from k or anybody else has not made a dent to our selfish way of thinking and living.

Wouldn't it be of more value (to you), if you just spoke about yourself, your "selfish way of thinking and living" rather than a blanket, disparaging statement about the thousands of people who have come into contact with him and who have studied his work?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sun, 28 Apr 2019.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Sun, 28 Apr 2019 #37
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 689 posts in this forum Offline

Ken D wrote:
The real focus should be on the mind of Krishnamurti...the mind that presented this teaching.

Yes, the mind of silent openness is key. It doesn't belong to K or anyone else. And yes, it is the source, the reference that he drew from.

But we have to be careful because the description is not the thing. You can read K's descriptions again and again until you've had your full, but only your own direct connection has any real meaning.

If you're into reading that kind of thing, there is a lot in his journals: Krishnamurti To Himself, Krishnamurti's Journal, and a third one that I can't remember the name of right now. But as I said, what is important is your silent open heart, not his.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 28 Apr 2019 #38
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 689 posts in this forum Offline

Jack Pine wrote:
We conceptualize what we learn and our understanding becomes like a fly in a drop of amber.

This is the way it must be as long as we are grounded in thought. When we are grounded in silent, open love, it is altogether different.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 28 Apr 2019 #39
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 1457 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Wouldn't it be of more value (to you), if you just spoke about yourself,

Do you realize how subtly you strengthen the self?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 29 Apr 2019 #40
Thumb_001 Sean Hen Spain 886 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
But is just being aware and yet stuck in the same self-centered ways what K teaches? And more importantly, is it how I want to live my life? Seeing my self-centeredness, my conflictual thought and violence inwardly and outwardly, but feeling that nothing can be done? Claiming that doing anything is just conditioned reaction?

Just being aware and stuck in the same self-centred ways is surely not what K spent his life talking about. I don't think anybody on this forum would argue otherwise. "Claiming that doing anything is just conditioned reaction" needs more exploration I think. However, I do feel that saying everything is a conditioned reaction can be a dead end and more of a closing down than an opening up. Perhaps that's just me though.

idiot ? wrote:
Real awareness is transformational. If I'm fully aware that I'm screaming at my wife, I immediately stop. There's no conditioned reaction, no ideal. She is a person I care about! What am I doing?

Yes, of couirse! Real awareness is indeed transformational and brings about immediate action. I keep giving more or less the same example but it is surely one we can all relate to in some way - I am not listening to my wife as she is speaking and suddenly I become aware of this. I immediately start listening and have established communication. Without communication, how can there be affection and love?

This post was last updated by Sean Hen Mon, 29 Apr 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 29 Apr 2019 #41
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5755 posts in this forum Offline

I have taken a few quotes from several of your posts. You seem to be making a lot of positive statements, authoritative statements.

idiot ? wrote:
To go further is to go into actuality. The actual is not stagnant. It is motion. Without the drag of memory, the cling of continuity. Moment to moment transformation. Moment to moment ending of the self. Moment to moment blossoming of love.

idiot ? wrote:
Yes, the mind of silent openness is key. It doesn't belong to K or anyone else. And yes, it is the source, the reference that he drew from.

idiot ? wrote:
This is the way it must be as long as we are grounded in thought. When we are grounded in silent, open love, it is altogether different.

Really? And you have personally realized all that is stated in your statements? Or are they concepts, like the fly in the amber I mentioned, that you believe in and hold tightly to?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 29 Apr 2019 #42
Thumb_pd Paul Dimmock United Kingdom 210 posts in this forum Offline

Jack: This is the way it appears to me and that I have tried several times to point out on this forum. We conceptualize what we learn and our understanding becomes like a fly in a drop of amber.

But why are you pointing it out, if I may ask? Maybe it doesn’t require pointing out.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 29 Apr 2019 #43
Thumb_001 Sean Hen Spain 886 posts in this forum Offline

Ken's posts seem to have disappeared which is a pity - I hadn't finished watching the video where some members of the audience were questioning whether K should continue speaking or not.

Here's another video where K asks "Why don't you change?" then talks about this for just over four minutes.

This post was last updated by Sean Hen Mon, 29 Apr 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 29 Apr 2019 #44
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5755 posts in this forum Offline

Paul Dimmock wrote:
But why are you pointing it out, if I may ask? Maybe it doesn’t require pointing out.

I don't know. Why did you point it out? Why does anyone point out things on this forum?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 29 Apr 2019 #45
Thumb_fuzzy6 Ken D United States 47 posts in this forum Offline

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3D11qAmRmI

Watch 1:07:25 on....that's one hour, seven minutes in

1st Question & Answer Meeting, Saanen, Switzerland, 25th July, 1979

"Sow the seed of freedom, which is to awaken intelligence; for with that intelligence you can tackle all the problems of life." Krishnamurti

This post was last updated by Ken D Mon, 29 Apr 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 29 Apr 2019 #46
Thumb_pd Paul Dimmock United Kingdom 210 posts in this forum Offline

Jack: I don't know. Why did you point it out? Why does anyone point out things on this forum?

That's what I am questioning. It may be totally the wrong way to go about things. It may be just another part of the knowledge process, which we both say is a flawed process. In other words, we see something of tremendous value and we want to share it. But what is it that we are sharing or pointing out? Hasn't it already disappeared? Except, supposing it is something we both see together at the same time. Then the whole question of sharing and pointing out doesn't arise, does it? I'm not sure about it; I am questioning this.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 30 Apr 2019 #47
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1453 posts in this forum Offline

Jack: This is the way it appears to me and that I have tried several times to point out on this forum. We conceptualize what we learn and our understanding becomes like a fly in a drop of amber.

PD But why are you pointing it out, if I may ask? Maybe it doesn’t require pointing out.

DM The 'warning' about our 'habit' to conceptualize what we see as the truth seems sound to me. That can of course, in turn, become a concept itself and not an awareness in the moment that the process is taking place. The 'fly' is attracted to the tree's sweet smelling and tasting 'resin'. It can't resist partaking, gets stuck and winds up encased forever... I read recently here in one of the QOTD K. saying to find out "why" we build this 'wall' between us...so the warning that our 'seeking' and then holding on to our discovery leads to the "fly in the amber" (the wall?) is a good one, but doesn't there also have to be this discovery and understanding in ourselves (and communicating?) of 'why' this continual 'searching' and then holding on (accumulating) to what is seen, is taking place? To understand as it occurs, this continual ('sticky') attempt to 'preserve' and hold on to the past?.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 30 Apr 2019 #48
Thumb_pd Paul Dimmock United Kingdom 210 posts in this forum Offline

Dan: The warning about our habit to conceptualize what we see as the truth seems sound to me.

But do we actually hear and heed the warning? That’s what I am questioning. Because the warning comes from outside, the inner response is to make sense of the warning; and we make sense of it through our concepts. Wouldn’t you agree? So what happens is that we form another concept about not forming concepts. I am asking if there another way into this that doesn’t involve concepts at all. As you say, the warning seems sound and logical. But this may be part of the problem: it triggers merely a logical reaction.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 30 Apr 2019 #49
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1453 posts in this forum Offline

Paul Dimmock wrote:
But do we actually hear and heed the warning? That’s what I am questioning. Because the warning comes from outside, the inner response is to make sense of the warning; and we make sense of it through our concepts.

And that is where there is or there isn't the 'jump'. The realization that this thinking process is searching for something, always searching. It is the search. When it is seen that thought is itself 'time', it can stop. The warning sign that says "don't go there, you'll get stuck" is only a reminder. It is only when 'intelligence' is awakened that the truth of it can be seen, it seems.

K... any form of conclusion, right or wrong, immediate or ultimate, now or final, or any form of working hypothesis consciously or unconsciously held, is detrimental to full comprehension or understanding of the whole process of existence. Hindrances are not overcome or broken; but when the mind becomes aware of the hindrances, those hindrances cease to be.

Madras, India | Group Discussion 28th October, 1947

DM Not 'wanting' there to be any hindrances is just another form of hindrance that can be seen and 'allowed to flower' and to cease...Yes?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Tue, 30 Apr 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 30 Apr 2019 #50
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 1457 posts in this forum Offline

Words are concepts . There are no fact or truth in words. To keep pointing out to someone that what you say is concept seems to be so immature. It is like keep pointing out to someone that you have a head above your shoulder. It is stating the obvious over and over like a robot who is programmed to do so.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 30 Apr 2019 #51
Thumb_pd Paul Dimmock United Kingdom 210 posts in this forum Offline

Dan: And that is where there is or there isn't the 'jump'. The realization that this thinking process is searching for something, always searching. It is the search. When it is seen that thought is itself 'time', it can stop. The warning sign that says "don't go there, you'll get stuck" is only a reminder. It is only when 'intelligence' is awakened that the truth of it can be seen, it seems.

But how do we know intelligence is awakened? Between us both now is there awakened intelligence? Let’s test it out.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 30 Apr 2019 #52
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5755 posts in this forum Offline

One Self wrote:
Words are concepts . There are no fact or truth in words.

No. Words are not concepts but rather symbols we use to express our thinking. Words put together may express concepts. Concepts are ideas, thinking, that may be expressed in words or numbers. I realize this may be difficult for you to understand but this is as simply as I can put it.

This post was last updated by Jack Pine Tue, 30 Apr 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 30 Apr 2019 #53
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1453 posts in this forum Offline

Paul Dimmock wrote:
Between us both now is there awakened intelligence? Let’s test it out.

When intelligence is present (awakened?), thought is aware of its own movement. Its process of wanting conclusions, results, surety is seen. It sees that holding on to 'anything' it finds is not intelligent. Anything in the 'psyche' that is, but of course in the technical where thought belongs. The 'awakening of intelligence' you could say is the quieting of thought. Yes?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Tue, 30 Apr 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 30 Apr 2019 #54
Thumb_pd Paul Dimmock United Kingdom 210 posts in this forum Offline

Dan: The 'awakening of intelligence' you could say is the quieting of thought. Yes?

Wouldn't it be the total absence of thought in the psychological field? That would mean no shred of fear. Is that so?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 30 Apr 2019 #55
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1453 posts in this forum Offline

Paul Dimmock wrote:
Wouldn't it be the total absence of thought in the psychological field? That would mean no shred of fear. Is that so?

If thought is "totally"absent, in that moment there could be no fear. But why should it be 'totally'? Psychological thought is fear. Is it not? Though fear may not be present, there is the knowledge that there are images, remembrances, experiences in memory 'below the surface' that contain fear. Or is it as been said that we don't really know psychological 'fear', we only know our reaction to 'it', the running from it? The awakening of intelligence then is the ceasing to run from those images etc., to stay with the source?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Tue, 30 Apr 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 01 May 2019 #56
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 1457 posts in this forum Offline

Jack Pine wrote:
One Self wrote:

Words are concepts . There are no fact or truth in words.

jack:No.

Somebody please teach this guy some Krishnamurti.:)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 01 May 2019 #57
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5755 posts in this forum Offline

One Self wrote:
Somebody please teach this guy some Krishnamurti.:)

As I said, I didn't think you would understand but I tried anyway. Words are symbols which we use to express our thoughts. Words are used only to represent ideas, concepts which are from out thinking. It is the thinking, not the symbols with which we express our thinking, that are true or false, factual or not, concepts, beliefs.

OK, here's another example. The symbol 9 is not really nine separate things. It just represents nine distinct things. Get it?

Now try very, very hard to understand this and I think you might be able to understand what most of us learn by the first grade or earlier.

This post was last updated by Jack Pine Wed, 01 May 2019.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Wed, 01 May 2019 #58
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 1457 posts in this forum Offline

Jack Pine wrote:
Words are symbols which we use to express our thoughts. Words are used only to represent ideas, concepts which are from out thinking.

Gee, did one-self say anything otherwise?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 01 May 2019 #59
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5755 posts in this forum Offline

One Self wrote:
Gee, did one-self say anything otherwise?

Yes you did. When you disagreed (#56) with the post (#52) where I first tried to explain this to you. You know you really remind me of Trump. When caught you try to lie your way out of it. And by it I mean making incredibly stupid statements. Take responsibility for what you say.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 01 May 2019 #60
Thumb_patricia_may_2014_reduced_ Patricia Hemingway Australia 1929 posts in this forum Offline

Jack Pine wrote:
Words are symbols which we use to express our thoughts. Words are used only to represent ideas, concepts which are from out thinking.

Jack - words are a means of communication, nothing more. Words can communicate truth or untruth, fact or non-fact - but either way they are just communication - they are NEVER the thing.

And it is very obvious on Kinfonet when those writing here are communicating what they have discovered first-hand - what is insight for them, and when they are just repeating K's words for effect, without any understanding at all. Anyone understanding K's teaching will never be fooled by another's dogmatisation of K's words. :)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 31 - 60 of 207 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.)