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

The Future Of Humanity


Displaying posts 151 - 180 of 303 in total
Sat, 22 Jun 2019 #151
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 1404 posts in this forum Offline

From "Truth and Actuality" chapter two:

Dr. Bohm: It seems nobody has really succeeded in it.

Krishnamurti: Nobody has.
It’s part of education that keeps us constantly in the realm of reality.

Dr. Bohm: Everyone is expecting a path marked out in the field of reality.

Krishnamurti: You talk of a totally different kind of energy from the energy of reality. And you say that energy will wipe all this out, but it will use this reality.

Dr. Bohm: Yes, it will work through it.

Krishnamurti: It’s all words to me, because society, education, economics, my parents, everything is here in reality. All the scientists are working here, all the professors, all the economists, everybody is here. And you say “Look”, and I refuse to look.

Dr. Bohm: It’s not even that one refuses, it’s something more unconscious perhaps.

Krishnamurti: So in discussing this, is there a thinking which is not in the realm of reality?

Dr. Bohm: One might ask whether there is such thought, in the sense of the response of the drum to the emptiness within.

Krishnamurti: That’s a good simile. Because it is empty, it is vibrating.

Dr. Bohm: The material thing is vibrating to the emptiness.

Krishnamurti: The material thing is vibrating. Wait – is truth nothingness?

Dr. Bohm: Reality is some thing, perhaps every thing. Truth is no thing.
That is what the word “nothing” deeply means. So truth is “no-thingness”.

Krishnamurti: Yes, truth is nothing.

Dr. Bohm: Because if it’s not reality it must be nothing – no thing.

Krishnamurti: And therefore empty.
Empty being – how did you once describe it?

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

This post was last updated by Wim Opdam Sat, 22 Jun 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 23 Jun 2019 #152
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 1404 posts in this forum Offline

below some reflections on the discussion.

three metaphors were cited in the discussion.
huguette gave that of the waves on the ocean.
krishnaji used that from the river.
and David Bohm from the empty drum that vibrates.

They all give a slightly different perspective on the same phenomenon.
thoughts that contribute to the consciousness.
individual thoughts like waves on the ocean of consciousness
and the absence of thoughts through which
the physical can vibrate in harmony with the unknown nothingness.

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 23 Jun 2019 #153
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 782 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
You keep saying this and other things to the same effect as though it contradicts or refutes the oneness of the mind. It doesn’t. K himself never disputed the fact that we do differ in many ways. Nor does anyone else here as far as I can see.

Clearly, K questions the existence of the self. The question is, what does that mean?

Sometimes, K grants something of a separate self for practical matters. Other times he is quite adamant in insisting there is no self.

In The Future of Humanity, he grants that an individual human has a body and a name. There may or may not be more implied individual characteristics. But with respect to consciousness, he says there is one consciousness of mankind and separate consciousnesses are an illusion. Don't we have to at least consider taking him at his literal word? Don't we have to ask how much of who I feel that I am is illusory?

I brought up toe stubbing because it is a sensory event that seems connected to a separate self. Sure, in general we all experience physical pain. But a specific instance of pain from physical injury seems connected to a single human body and is felt in the consciousness of an individual brain in that individual body. That makes sense to me. But,

Dan McDermott wrote:
The toe is real, the pain is real but...'you' are not.

So according to Dan McDermott, connecting a separate individual self or "me" to the pain is a mistaken view.

It seems to me that a responsible person has to investigate the self, what it really is, is not, etc. K certainly questions it. He may express the non-existence of the self strongly sometimes and other times make more allowances. That's how it seems to me. He may sometimes be more radically challenging the existence of the self than some people think. That's how it seems to me.

We can even question how the human body is separate. The body breathes air in and out. Is the air part of the body while it's inside and not when it's outside? The same with food and waste. The body is connected to its surroundings and there is exchange. Where is the boundary? Is there no real boundary? And yet I had better wash my face and not yours or there will be trouble.

Probably the most important question is whether or not there is a self when the mind is silent, naturally still, open, innocent, and without thought. But when thought is still, the question of self has not yet come up! Only the thinking mind asks if the self exists and gives an answer: yes, no, or whatever.

This post was last updated by idiot ? Sun, 23 Jun 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 24 Jun 2019 #154
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 1643 posts in this forum Offline

Should one not ask the right kind of questions? To ask a wrong question does not need any intelligence or care but to ask a righr question there must be intelligence and careful self observation . So simply throwing out questions does not bring out the truth . And on the other hand it may distract one from the truth.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 24 Jun 2019 #155
Thumb_001 Sean Hen Spain 935 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
below some reflections on the discussion.

Thanks for these reflections Wim and I hope you are being treated well in hospital.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 24 Jun 2019 #156
Thumb_001 Sean Hen Spain 935 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
I find the part of the video where he talks about the rat experiments baffling.

Yes, it is rather baffling as he doesn't give many details about these experiments so we are left with unanswered questions. However, he does seem to be giving this as an example of how a change in group consciosness leads to a change in behaviour in rats.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 24 Jun 2019 #157
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 782 posts in this forum Offline

One Self wrote:
To ask a wrong question does not need any intelligence or care but to ask a right question there must be intelligence and careful self observation.

It's odd that K sometimes used this term "wrong question." Are there any wrong questions? Of course, not. You are free to inquire into anything. So why and how did K sometimes say a question was wrong? Let's see.

Krishnamurti, The First and Last Freedom, Chapter 30:
Most of us are not experiencing. We are always outside the state of experiencing and therefore we ask this question as to who is the observer, who is it that is aware? Surely such a question is a wrong question, is it not? The moment there is experiencing, there is neither the person who is aware nor the object of which he is aware. There is neither the observer nor the observed but only a state of experiencing.

So when K says that "Who is the observer?" is a wrong question, it is not so much that it is wrong to ask, but rather that there is an inherent false assumption in the question itself. The question assumes that there is an observer apart from the observed. K says that assumption is false.

To ask the question is not wrong. You have complete freedom to ask anything. And perhaps one of the most important questions to investigate is: Who am I? Who is the observer?

The only thing wrong is an assumption in the question itself. And to see the assumption and to see whether or not it really is false, takes inquiry.

This post was last updated by idiot ? Mon, 24 Jun 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 24 Jun 2019 #158
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5799 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
Krishnamurti, The First and Last Freedom, Chapter 30:
Most of us are not experiencing. We are always outside the state of experiencing and therefore we ask this question as to who is the observer, who is it that is aware? Surely such a question is a wrong question, is it not? The moment there is experiencing, there is neither the person who is aware nor the object of which he is aware. There is neither the observer nor the observed but only a state of experiencing.

There is no Chapter 30 in The First and Last Freedom. The chapters only go to XXI. That means "21" in Roman Numerals. There is a section on "Questions and Answers" that has a "30" label. Being the 30th question and answer response. But that section is entitled "On God". I couldn't find your K quote in that section either. Try it again. What is the reference for your supposed K quote?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 24 Jun 2019 #159
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 782 posts in this forum Offline

I used the online pdf of First and Last Freedom here:
https://selfdefinition.org/krishnamurti/Jiddu_K....

If you open that and search for "wrong question" you will find the quote. This pdf version of The First and Last Freedom may differ somewhat from printed, published versions? It's probably the same content but organized a little differently. I used it because it's easier to search, copy and paste from an online source than a printed one. And yes, in the pdf it's in Chapter 30.

Thank you, Ken, for providing the correct location of the quote in the printed version: Chapter 8, page 175.

This post was last updated by idiot ? Mon, 24 Jun 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 24 Jun 2019 #160
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 1643 posts in this forum Offline

One: " Should one not ask the right kind of questions? To ask a wrong question does not need any intelligence or care but to ask a righr question there must be intelligence and careful self observation . So simply throwing out questions does not bring out the truth . And on the other hand it may distract one from the truth."

Id:" It's odd that K sometimes used this term "wrong question." Are there any wrong questions? Of course, not. You are free to inquire into anything. So why and how did K sometimes say a question was wrong? Let's see."

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 24 Jun 2019 #161
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 1643 posts in this forum Offline

K spoke about right kind of questions . Why not start there instead of getting caught in the right/wrong morality.
Are we free to question any thing or anybody depends on how free you are from yourself. We can question what krishnamurti said but he is unfortunately not here to answer the questioning. So what can we do here? Not very much:)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 25 Jun 2019 #162
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 1404 posts in this forum Offline

Sean Hen wrote:
Thanks for these reflections Wim and I hope you are being treated well in hospital.

thanks Sean
the treatment is good, the attitude of the various care providers is striking.
there are those who do it from the heart and there are on routine and then there are those who are eagerly looking forward to retirement. the doctors in training are sometimes illogical in their argumentation and do not have the courage to admit it and then try to talk themselves out of it.

funny now that you have acknowledged that with yourself you are aware of it but no longer blame them for it.

they are still looking for the cause and are going to perform a viewing operation one of these days.

I found an e-book " Essential David Bohm " really very interesting. So time flies by.

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 25 Jun 2019 #163
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1471 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
funny now that you have acknowledged that with yourself you are aware of it but no longer blame them for it.

The more I 'learn' about myself, the more 'hollow' it sounds when I 'blame' others for what they do. (but I still do it automatically)

Wim, good luck with your treatments. I started a new thread in Clive's forum re this new theory of organic life and would like your and other's feedback when you have a chance.

https://www.quantamagazine.org/first-support-fo...

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Wed, 26 Jun 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 25 Jun 2019 #164
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 1228 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
To ask the question is not wrong. You have complete freedom to ask anything. And perhaps one of the most important questions to investigate is: Who am I? Who is the observer?

The only thing wrong is an assumption in the question itself. And to see the assumption and to see whether or not it really is false, takes inquiry.

The Question: "Who am I?" is a wrong question because it implies already that one is a who... that one is the person. A right question would be: What is the self?

We are not persons.

It is possible to see this.

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Tue, 25 Jun 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 25 Jun 2019 #165
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 539 posts in this forum Offline

re 161 and 165:

Idiot,

You say that K questions the existence of the self. Leaving aside “what K says” regarding the self - is the truth or nature of self clearly understood by “me”? Is understanding the self important to “you and me”? What IS self to “me/you”? And is the question of the self a strictly intellectual debate that is totally isolated from and irrelevant to living and experiencing, so to speak? Is it just an academic debate which is unrelated to sorrow, joy, self-understanding, relationship, conflict, and so on? The sorrow of living, like self, is not rooted in the big toe, is it?

:o)

You ask, “Don't we have to ask how much of who I feel that I am is illusory?” Why do “we have to”? If I do NOT consider self illusory, if I am NOT in sorrow, if “I” am SURE that I know what self is, if I am comfortable with the view of self which has been inculcated in “me”, then DO “I” or would I question whether or not I/self is illusory --- except perhaps as an intellectual exercise for entertainment? Isn't it when I face the fact of sorrow - my own and the world's - that I question who or what IS this "I" who suffers?

Isn't what makes a question “right” in the context of our questioning life and relationship, that it is vital, urgent, intense, that it comes from shared experiencing, not from experience? Experiencing is “what is” in the moment. Experience is “what was”. And “shared experiencing” means that we human beings are experiencing the same thing in the moment. So we are not sharing past experiences and ideas rooted in the past. No?

If a question is vital, urgent, intense to both of us in the moment, is that what makes for communication, even if we don’t fully understand each other or the question? If it is vital, urgent, intense, then our energy is gathered or gathers itself and any question which arises is "right". Is this so?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 25 Jun 2019 #166
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 1643 posts in this forum Offline

who (hu?)
pron
1. which person? what person? used in direct and indirect questions: he can't remember who did it; who met you?.
2. used to introduce relative clauses with antecedents referring to human beings: the people who lived here have left.
3. the one or ones who; whoever: bring who you want.
[Old English hw?; related to Old Saxon hw?, Old High German hwer, Gothic hvas, Lithuanian kàs, Danish hvo]

what (w?t, w?t, hw?t, hw?t; w?t, hw?t when unstressed)
pron.
1.
a. Which thing or which particular one of many: What are you having for dinner? What did she say?
b. Which kind, character, or designation: What are these objects?
c. One of how much value or significance: What are possessions to a dying man?
2.
a. That which; the thing that: Listen to what I tell you.
b. Whatever thing that: come what may.
3. Informal Something: I'll tell you what.
4. Nonstandard Which, who, or that: It's the poor what gets the blame.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 25 Jun 2019 #167
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 1643 posts in this forum Offline

Of course we are all above the dictionary because we all read krishnamurti !:-)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 25 Jun 2019 #168
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 782 posts in this forum Offline

Ken D wrote:
Asking "Who am I?" is vastly different from asking "What am I?"
Both have different assumptions behind them.

They don't seem that different to me. I'd like to know more how they are different to you. "What" is perhaps somewhat more precise in targeting the inquiry.

They both direct you to the felt sense of self. What is the feeling of I? Does it have a location? Is it findable? Naturally I look within, in my mind. What happens when I search for I? Is it like the eye trying to see the eye? Is it revealed in the mirror of relationship?

With the intellect, it can be made as inclusive or exclusive as desired: The entire universe as I know it is completely in my mind. Therefore I am everything, inclusive of all that I know and perceive. Everything I know or can know is registered in my brain. On the other hand, I am nothing. I am not the world. I am not my arm because if it is cut off I continue. I am not my body because I can look at that separately. I am not my thoughts because I can look at them, watch them. I am not even the watcher because I can watch the watcher. I am nothing.

Conceptually, the I can be expanded or contracted as much as you want.

Scientifically, the I seems to be an emergent property of the brain. Over billions of years, those brains that had a sense of self were in bodies more likely to take survival actions and therefore be able to procreate and pass on their genes. Evolution favors the emergence of the self and its survival benefits.

In meditation, thought can naturally still so that there is no sense of I or not I. Quiet, open awareness. Beyond words.

This post was last updated by idiot ? Tue, 25 Jun 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Jun 2019 #169
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 1228 posts in this forum Offline

Who is a person. It may be a number of persons. What is an object, an action, an idea and so on, but not a person. In post 173 that was what was meant.

Language is imperfect.

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Wed, 26 Jun 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Jun 2019 #170
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 1228 posts in this forum Offline

One can ask: What is a person?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Jun 2019 #171
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 1228 posts in this forum Offline

A human body and its memory?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Jun 2019 #172
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 1643 posts in this forum Offline

K:So if you see that, if you really recognize with your whole being that belief is conditioning thought, then what happens? You become aware that your thought is conditioned, aware your thought is caught up, tethered to a belief. In the flame of awareness you will recognize the foolishness, and therefore you are beginning to free the mind from the conditioning, and hence you begin to think completely, fully. Please experiment with this, and you will see that life is not a process of continual battle, battle against standards as opposed to what you want to do. There is then neither what you want to do, nor the standard, but right action, without personal identification.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Jun 2019 #173
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 1643 posts in this forum Offline

Whoever is concerned with where the above statement came from more than what the context of the above is must be a retarded minded person..

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Jun 2019 #174
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5799 posts in this forum Offline

One Self wrote:
Whoever is concerned with where the above statement came from more than what the context of the above is must be a retarded minded person..

They are two different things. A not so subtle difference but one that obviously eludes what passes for your intelligence. If you read it why not cite it? Or would you rather try to start a controversy instead? If you had had a higher education, especially in science, you would never question the validity and importance of citing your references.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Jun 2019 #175
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 1643 posts in this forum Offline

An authority bounded person accepts whatever Krishnamurti says and rejects it if the same thing is said by another. In fact Krishnamurti saw the danger of it and he declared that there is no Krishnamurti, there is no K. Any way jack keeps repeating the same line over and over. Don't listen to him . That is his belief which conditions his thought just as in the above k statement. The point is that belief conditions thought therefore limits it and makes it useless.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Jun 2019 #176
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 1228 posts in this forum Offline

One Self wrote:
There is then neither what you want to do, nor the standard, but right action, without personal identification.

"without personal identification."

quoted from post 183 above

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Wed, 26 Jun 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Jun 2019 #177
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5799 posts in this forum Offline

One Self wrote:
K. Any way jack keeps repeating the same line over and over. Don't listen to him . That is his belief which conditions his thought just as in the above k statement. The point is that belief conditions thought therefore limits it and makes it useless.

And, of course, you're not conditioned and you have no beliefs. What a joke your posts are. You are so clueless you don't even see it. Have you noticed that every K-site, this one and the others, always cite a reference for every quote that is posted? But you're special. You don't have to cite your quotes.

You can't see that your last sentence above beginning with "...belief conditions..." is an accurate depiction of what all of your endless opinions and conclusions about what you think K is saying are rooted. It's your conditioning along with your general misunderstanding of what K was saying that is the root of all these opinions of yours we must endure day after day.

This post was last updated by Jack Pine Wed, 26 Jun 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Jun 2019 #178
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 1228 posts in this forum Offline

Ken,

One hundred years ago people assumed that time and space were completely separate. That space and time were changeless absolutes. Einstein changed that by carefully and deeply examining the behavior of light. Most of us today can and do still function as if these two are entirely independent.

Regarding Science and materialism. What is science? I suggest science is understanding the world as the field of cause and effect, determinism. But that is not limited to the scientist. All of everyday practical life for almost everyone assumes determinism. Seeing this we are all as it were scientists and materialists.

Just as space and time are one so also the scientific and the subjective must be related in some way, actually one. There is no real Division.

It looks to this writer that scientists who are trying to find the mind from the outside will never succeed. They would have to somehow get into someone else's mind, becoming of one mind, literally, with that other mind. They do not have any way to measure, or even to detect the existence of, the mind.

As seen here...to this one, at present, as a best guess, sentience is of a dimension beyond space/time. We are that and not the material person at all. Moreover, sentience here is one with sentience everywhere. It has within it no attributes yet it is seen. Having no attributes the sentience that is here cannot be distinguished from that that is there. We are one.

I think K was pointing some of this out. Almost all human beings identify as persons.

When there is no such identification there can be the observation of the material "self" which is actually external. The "observer" can be the observed"

The field of mater, which includes the "false" self is continuous with all the rest of mater as a river.

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Wed, 26 Jun 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Jun 2019 #179
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 1643 posts in this forum Offline

Jack Pine wrote:
If you read it why not cite it?

If you don't read it why ask for citation?
They have train you to site any article that is not yours in order to get grades. Wake up, You are an elder not a school boy any more!
I don't tell you what to do so be quiet and mind your own business.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Jun 2019 #180
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 1643 posts in this forum Offline

How easily a positive thing is turned into hate and antagonism. As if hate is always waiting to step in . Maybe that is the nature of online. It can turn a good thing into a bad thing.
When the house in on fire what does citations do ? Obviously we are not aware that the house is on fire so we play verbal and intellectual cleverness. We are half sleep as k said(oh let me go and research where Krishnamurti said that .-) . While the house is on fire we go off after each other online!

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 151 - 180 of 303 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.)