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

The Future Of Humanity


Displaying posts 151 - 180 of 318 in total
Fri, 21 Jun 2019 #151
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 641 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
We all have beliefs, ideals, conclusions, ambitions, fears, attachments, desires, hopes, assumptions. Functionally we are the same in that sense.

Yes, of course. I get it.

And I see that perhaps K looked at the sea of humanity pouring forth headlong toward disaster. And what matter in that onrush are not the idiosyncrasies of individual human beings but the fear, the sorrow, the division that keep the mass of humanity plunging toward calamity. He wanted, perhaps, to redirect us from our petty, private concerns toward concern for the whole. He saw our conditioning as blocking us from seeing that we are the world, in conflict and hurling toward more. And only by freeing ourselves from conditioning will we take responsibility for this world.

So I see all that.

But still! I am a separate self, too. I go to my job and home to my house. I waste time on kinfonet, while someone else doesn't go near it. I'm different from someone else, even as we are the same. Just sayin'.

This post was last updated by idiot ? Fri, 21 Jun 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 21 Jun 2019 #152
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 641 posts in this forum Offline

Sean Hen wrote:
Yes, the part where he goes to the root of the complex question of toe stubbing was probably edited out as was his observations on the commonality of shirts and underwear.

;-) That's funny!

I find the part of the video where he talks about the rat experiments baffling.

First he talks about how in England they learned faster, presumably by being able to run a maze and get to food faster, by successive generations. This seems to prove evolution, the gradual improvement of survival skills over generations. That's the opposite of how he insists elsewhere that mental evolution is not going to save mankind.

The Future of Humanity:

JK: You see I don't think in terms of evolution.

DB: I understand that. That's the point I was expecting we would discuss.

JK: I don't think there is psychological evolution at all.

Next in the video, he talks about how rats did even better in Australia, where he refers to "the group consciousness that is operating." I don't think he's saying that the rats telepathically communicated to each other how to get through the maze to the food. Do you? I am sure that was not the conclusion of the scientists.

I don't know what K's brief mention of science experiments means. It just seems to me to be a feeble attempt to give a scientific veneer to what he is talking about.

This post was last updated by idiot ? Fri, 21 Jun 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 21 Jun 2019 #153
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 1187 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
As I see it, the human being who suffers, who has been observing his mind and has a certain understanding, has insight into the nature of self, into the root of suffering and into the fact that there is NOTHING he can do to escape suffering or end self. That suffering human can divest himself of his attachment to anger and fear and all their tributaries. So that he can observe them but not be led to action by the conflict that he “should” do something about them. He is not tethered to them, not compelled by them. He simply observes, learns, finds out about life beyond self. That is stepping out of the stream,

Yes ,that is what is implied by what k said earlier .
A rational person asks why suffer?
What is that entity that suffers? Is it thought? If it is thought then it is an illusion is it not? Illusions breed fear and pleasure . We are addicted to pleasure therefore to illusion .So the mind wears it- self out by thought / illusion which breed fear and suffering. Now why be concerned with another dimension or outside the stream and so on. The actual is here ,it is not out there in another dimension.. That is what I think. Why deal with the fictitious when you can deal with the real thing?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 21 Jun 2019 #154
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 539 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
But still! I am a separate self, too. I go to my job and home to my house. I waste time on kinfonet, while someone else doesn't go near it. I'm different from someone else, even as we are the same. Just sayin'.

Idiot,

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. K referred over and over to the fact that we differ - in appearance, customes, culture, characteristics, occupation, talents, “life stories”, and so on. What do particular attributes have to do with the oneness of the human brain’s functioning, with the universal psychological processes which result in duality?

Man is conditioned to think that he IS different, unique, better, worse, smarter, stupider, self-made, competent, incompetent, special or unimportant, and so on. He is not. In experiencing of anger, fear, conceit, desire, pretense, sorrow, and so on, he is one with the world, isn't he? The narratives and circumstances vary but the experiencing of the one is the same as the experiencing of the whole of humanity.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 21 Jun 2019 #155
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 539 posts in this forum Offline

Or as Shakespeare put it:

He hath disgraced me and hindered me half a million, laughed at my losses, mocked at my gains, scorned my nation, thwarted my bargains, cooled my friends, heated mine enemies – and what's his reason? I am a Jew. Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions; fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die? And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge? If we are like you in the rest, we will resemble you in that. If a Jew wrong a Christian, what is his humility? Revenge. If a Christian wrong a Jew, what should his sufferance be by Christian example? Why, revenge. The villainy you teach me, I will execute, and it shall go hard but I will better the instruction.

—?Act III, Merchant of Venice

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 21 Jun 2019 #156
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1425 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
But still! I am a separate self, too.

That feeling of being a "separate" continuos self is what is being questioned. You have it, I have it but is it anything more than an 'illusion'? Is it a sense of continuity propagated by the process of thought? Does it (I) disappear when thought does, as in sleep without dreams only to appear again in dreams or upon awakening?
Do I exist psychologically as I think and feel that I do or am I only a 'product' of thought with memory?

(Shakespeare is a tough act to follow!)

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Fri, 21 Jun 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 21 Jun 2019 #157
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3169 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
That feeling of being a "separate" continuos self is what is being questioned

Right....it's what divides us. Physically we're different....I'm short or fat....you're tall or thin or Black or brown. I'm white. But it's the psychological divisions that we're looking at. It's those that have created all the wars and misery. That K said are fundamentally false. So why is idiot? giving great significance to those? There doesn't seem to be a point to emphasize those

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Fri, 21 Jun 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 22 Jun 2019 #158
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 1372 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
There doesn't seem to be a point to emphasize those

As long as there is emphasize on those one is blocking a possible insight.

I've to look it up but there is another metaphore in which is spoken of the empty drum which is giving vibration.

I'm in hospital know so it will may be took some time to find it.

P.s.: Thanks all for the discussion it kept me busy between the investigations.

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 22 Jun 2019 #159
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 1372 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 #160
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 1372 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 #161
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 641 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 #162
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 1187 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 #163
Thumb_001 Sean Hen Spain 844 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 #164
Thumb_001 Sean Hen Spain 844 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 #165
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 641 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 #166
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5609 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 #167
Thumb_em3 Ken D United States 29 posts in this forum Offline

Chapter 8, page 175

"Whence should there be joy to a peaceless man?" Bhagavad Gita

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 24 Jun 2019 #168
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 641 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 #169
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 1187 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 #170
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 1187 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 #171
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 1372 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 #172
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1425 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 #173
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 #174
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 #175
Thumb_em3 Ken D United States 29 posts in this forum Offline

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

"Whence should there be joy to a peaceless man?" Bhagavad Gita

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 25 Jun 2019 #176
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 1187 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 #177
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 1187 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 #178
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 641 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 #179
Thumb_em3 Ken D United States 29 posts in this forum Offline

A scientist would simply answer the question "What are we?" in a scientific fashion, in basic physical terms. We are a biological organism.

"Who are you?" however, opens up the whole personal narrative based on memory, identification, achievement, failure etc.

"Whence should there be joy to a peaceless man?" Bhagavad Gita

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Jun 2019 #180
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
Displaying posts 151 - 180 of 318 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.)