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

On Relationships and Conflict


Displaying posts 31 - 60 of 160 in total
Wed, 16 Oct 2019 #31
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 689 posts in this forum Offline

Jack Pine wrote:
The fact remains that there are people on this site and else where who appear to be setting themselves up as experts on K. I question that.

Yes, you know best how we should discuss K. If someone doesn't conform to how you think K should be discussed, they deserve to be attacked by you, criticized, and taken down. That's your duty as a soldier for K.

Last month when I wasn't around, you went after jamie f., who dared to have an idea different than yours about K with respect to idealism. Well, now jamie f. has deleted all his posts and removed himself from the forum. So you should be happy that you cleansed the forum of that heretical view.

There's a long list of others you have hounded out of here. The forum records go back years so anyone who wants to can go back and see for themselves.

You are also attacking people in the other two forums. They are not meeting your standards either.

It is you, Jack Pine, who have fixed ideas about interpreting K and how issues should be discussed. Which would be fine if you just expressed those and respected others who have different views. But instead of friendly discussion, which is what K encouraged, you insist on attack and defend and degrading the forum into a perpetual brawl.

You know very well that there is at least some truth to the fact that you have acted aggressively. You have even admitted that you and others should be expelled from the forum. Are you going to just be aware of the self-justified aggression happening and let it continue? Is that what K teaches? Just watch yourself being nasty and be fine with it? Or does K teach transformation, which means clearly seeing what is true in the moment and real change happening by that seeing?

For my part, I'm sorry to criticize you in this way but it's just a fact that you've been pretty mean to a lot of people.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Wed, 16 Oct 2019 #32
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 1447 posts in this forum Offline

Ken D wrote:
"the production of belief is the sole function of thought." X

Should we be satisfied with one particulate definition of thought or there is much more to thought than what we know already? Surely there is.

This post was last updated by One Self Wed, 16 Oct 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 16 Oct 2019 #33
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 1447 posts in this forum Offline

It may sound greedy but what idiot shared about critisisem opened my eyes., .

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 16 Oct 2019 #34
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 1398 posts in this forum Offline

One Self wrote:
It may sound greedy but what idiot shared about critisisem opened my eyes., .

may not only your eyes but also your heart have opened :-().

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 16 Oct 2019 #35
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5755 posts in this forum Offline

Idiot, all your posts are doing is what you are accusing me of doing. Criticizing others. Not only that you spin things to fit your own opinions which often don't match what I actually said. And why not, you're doing that with what you think K said too.

I really don't care what you think. When I read what people write who are interpreting K or claiming to be this or that, transformed or whatever I'm going to question that. Get used to it.

I don't want to see what Krishnamurti pointed out turned into a religion which may be almost inevitable. I know Krishnamurti was concerned enough about that he mentioned it in several talks I attend, both public and private, in 1978 and 1979 at Pine Cottage and the Oak Grove. These concerns are also being mentioned in Mary Zimbalist's Memoirs.

In the situation with you that resulted in me asking you if you were transformed you said that if you do this then transformation follows. You did not indicate you were quoting K but rather you had seen that for yourself. So it was a natural question to ask since the only way you could know what leads to transformation is for you to be transformed. Transformation was the word you introduced, not me.

This post was last updated by Jack Pine Wed, 16 Oct 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 16 Oct 2019 #36
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5755 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
Or does K teach transformation, which means clearly seeing what is true in the moment and real change happening by that seeing?

And no, K didn't teach transformation. Another one of your misperceptions. He pointed out what he saw as fact about human behavior. But he never taught transformation which would mean he was encouraging us to strive for something. Understand yourself without trying to gain or become something.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 16 Oct 2019 #37
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 689 posts in this forum Offline

Krishnamurti, The First and Last Freedom, On Transformation:
Question: What do you mean by transformation?

Krishnamurti: Obviously, there must be a radical revolution. The world crisis demands it. Our lives demand it. Our everyday incidents, pursuits, anxieties, demand it. Our problems demand it. There must be a fundamental, radical revolution, because everything about us has collapsed. Though seemingly there is order, in fact there is slow decay, destruction: the wave of destruction is constantly overtaking the wave of life.

So there must be a revolution - but not a revolution based on an idea. Such a revolution is merely the continuation of the idea, not a radical transformation. A revolution based on an idea brings bloodshed, disruption, chaos. Out of chaos you cannot create order; you cannot deliberately bring about chaos and hope to create order out of that chaos. You are not the God-chosen who are to create order out of confusion That is such a false way of thinking on the part of those people who wish to create more and more confusion in order to bring about order. Because for the moment they have power, they assume they know all the ways of producing order. Seeing the whole of this catastrophe - the constant repetition of wars, the ceaseless conflict between classes, between peoples, the awful economic and social inequality, the inequality of capacity and gifts, the gulf between those who are extraordinarily happy, unruffled, and those who are caught in hate, conflict, and misery - seeing all this, there must be a revolution, there must be complete transformation, must there not?

Is this transformation, is this radical revolution, an ultimate thing or is it from moment to moment? I know we should like it to be the ultimate thing, because it is so much easier to think in terms of far away. Ultimately we shall be transformed, ultimately we shall be happy, ultimately we shall find truth; in the meantime, let us carry on. Surely such a mind, thinking in terms of the future, is incapable of acting in the present; therefore such a mind is not seeking transformation, it is merely avoiding transformation. What do we mean by transformation?

Transformation is not in the future, can never be in the future. It can only be now, from moment to moment. So what do we mean by transformation? Surely it is very simple: seeing the false as the false and the true as the true. Seeing the truth in the false and seeing the false in that which has been accepted as the truth. Seeing the false as the false and the true as the true is transformation, because when you see something very clearly as the truth, that truth liberates. When you see that something is false, that false thing drops away. When you see that ceremonies are mere vain repetitions, when you see the truth of it and do not justify it, there is transformation, is there not?, because another bondage is gone. When you see that class distinction is false, that it creates conflict, creates misery, division between people - when you see the truth of it, that very truth liberates. The very perception of that truth is transformation, is it not? As we are surrounded by so much that is false, perceiving the falseness from moment to moment is transformation. Truth is not cumulative. It is from moment to moment. That which is cumulative, accumulated, is memory, and through memory you can never find truth, for memory is of time - time being the past, the present and the future. Time, which is continuity, can never find that which is eternal; eternity is not continuity. That which endures is not eternal. Eternity is in the moment. Eternity is in the now. The now is not the reflection of the past nor the continuance of the past through the present to the future.

A mind which is desirous of a future transformation or looks to transformation as an ultimate end, can never find truth, for truth is a thing that must come from moment to moment, must be discovered anew; there can be no discovery through accumulation. How can you discover the new if you have the burden of the old? It is only with the cessation of that burden that you discover the new. To discover the new, the eternal, in the present, from moment to moment, one needs an extraordinarily alert mind, a mind that is not seeking a result, a mind that is not becoming. A mind that is becoming can never know the full bliss of contentment; not the contentment of smug satisfaction; not the contentment of an achieved result, but the contentment that comes when the mind sees the truth in what is and the false in what is. The perception of that truth is from moment to moment; and that perception is delayed through verbalization of the moment.
Transformation is not an end, a result. Transformation is not a result. Result implies residue, a cause and an effect. Where there is causation, there is bound to be effect. The effect is merely the result of your desire to be transformed. When you desire to be transformed, you are still thinking in terms of becoming; that which is becoming can never know that which is being. Truth is being from moment to moment and happiness that continues is not happiness. Happiness is that state of being which is timeless. That timeless state can come only when there is a tremendous discontent - not the discontent that has found a channel through which it escapes but the discontent that has no outlet, that has no escape, that is no longer seeking fulfilment. Only then, in that state of supreme discontent, can reality come into being. That reality is not to be bought, to be sold, to be repeated; it cannot be caught in books. It has to be found from moment to moment, in the smile, in the tear, under the dead leaf, in the vagrant thoughts, in the fullness of love.

Love is not different from truth. Love is that state in which the thought process, as time, has completely ceased. Where love is, there is transformation. Without love, revolution has no meaning, for then revolution is merely destruction, decay, a greater and greater evermounting misery. Where there is love, there is revolution, because love is transformation from moment to moment.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 2 readers
Back to Top
Wed, 16 Oct 2019 #38
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5755 posts in this forum Offline

If you would have actually read your own quote or understood it if you did read it you would have seen this:

From your quote of K above:
Transformation is not an end, a result. Transformation is not a result. Result implies residue, a cause and an effect. Where there is causation, there is bound to be effect.

This is what I was saying #36 above. There is no end, no goal. There is understanding yourself which is what the above quote is talking about.

From above K quote:

Transformation is not in the future, can never be in the future. It can only be now, from moment to moment. So what do we mean by transformation? Surely it is very simple: seeing the false as the false and the true as the true. Seeing the truth in the false and seeing the false in that which has been accepted as the truth. Seeing the false as the false and the true as the true is transformation, because when you see something very clearly as the truth, that truth liberates.

As I said above, K pointed to understanding ourselves, our thinking, our conditioning which may result in transformation but he was not teaching transformation as and end in itself apart from understanding. Maybe it's just a matter of semantics but I stick to what I wrote. K was not teaching transformation but understanding which may lead to transformation.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 16 Oct 2019 #39
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 689 posts in this forum Offline

Jack Pine wrote:
If you would have actually read your own quote or understood it if you did read it you would have seen this: "Transformation is not an end, a result..."

I not only understood it, I specifically quoted it in post #22.

It is the question "Are you transformed?" that misunderstands K's usage of the word "transformation."

First of all, "transformed" is past tense, as One Self pointed out. K never uses "transformation" in the past but rather says that it is from "moment to moment."

Second, the question implies that there can be an end, a result, and that a human can achieve that. Again, this is not at all how K uses the word transformation.

It also not how I used the word. I used "transformation," to the best of my ability, the way K did. I said, "When the truth is clearly seen there is transformation." Which is quite close to what K says transformation is.

Sean Hen also used the word more or less the way K does and explained it in a very practical way.

I'm sorry if you misunderstood me and applied ideas to the word "transformation" that I did not. Now if we approach matters in a friendly way and ask, "What is transformation? What did K mean by that?" We might arrive at a very different situation than the one we have gone through, yes?

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Wed, 16 Oct 2019 #40
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1453 posts in this forum Online

Jack Pine wrote:
K was not teaching transformation but understanding which may lead to transformation.

It's good I'd say to air this thing about 'transformation' out. A good use of the forum. We've gotten from the culture that 'transformation' is a state to be attained. That it is out there waiting and that if you came upon the 'right' teaching, 'right' guru, etc., you might 'become' transformed, enlightened...the trouble with that notion as I now see it is, that it admits 'time', psychological time. But transformation can only be in the moment, the moment the truth is seen, the moment the false is seen...there is no-one or nothing that can 'teach' me to see that, do that...it can be pointed out to me but the seeing can only be done by me. So no-one can truthfully say that "I am transformed" because as someone pointed out here, that is already in the past and transformation, as the truth, can only be found can only exist, in the moment

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 16 Oct 2019 #41
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 689 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
So no-one can truthfully say that "I am transformed" because as someone pointed out here, that is already in the past and transformation, as the truth, can only be found can only exist, in the moment.

Of course. And that is why the question, "Are you transformed?" both contains false assumptions and is accusatory.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 16 Oct 2019 #42
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1453 posts in this forum Online

idiot ? wrote:
Of course. And that is why the question, "Are you transformed?" both contains false assumptions and is accusatory.

Yes I'm not disagreeing with you but wanted to state that this false 'understanding' of transformation and enlightenment has existed since time immemorial and has been used as a means, in the case of 'religious' beliefs, to exploit and to confuse. Especially in the sense that : "if you do this, you'll get that"...

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Wed, 16 Oct 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 16 Oct 2019 #43
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5755 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
First of all, "transformed" is past tense, as One Self pointed out. K never uses "transformation" in the past but rather says that it is from "moment to moment."

Now we're getting into semantics. Don't lecture me on what K meant because you don't know. And also I understand what the past tense is in English. Once more, you made an emphatic statement about transformation. Like you knew what transformation is. When posing a question to someone to find out if they know transformation, are transformed, it is grammatically correct to use the past tense. This doesn't say anything about how transformation works, past or present. It's just posing a question. You're trying to spin this which is a bunch of BS and you know it.

Lastly, and of not much importance almost no one responds to posts by "one self". Most of them aren't rational and many leap to completely irrelevant conclusions. Also they are the most ludicrous, asinine posts on here and most everyone just ignores her. Just as Patricia recently did when one self became nearly completely irrational mumbling about nationality and English.

This post was last updated by Jack Pine Thu, 17 Oct 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 16 Oct 2019 #44
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5755 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
and enlightenment has existed since time immemorial and has been used as a means, in the case of 'religious' beliefs, to exploit and to confuse. Especially in the sense that : "if you do this, you'll get that"...

Dan you have mostly been reasonable in your replies. I think you know what I was driving at when I asked idiot if he was transformed. He keeps trying to slip out of it by spinning what was written and all manner of other evasions. I've gone as far as I can with him. He simply won't or can't understand what I write.

Also, I used to think that the poster "one self" was just a sycophant of idiot's but now I'm really beginning to wonder if idiot doesn't have two identities on this forum. I can't prove it one way or the other so I may as well drop it.

The whole point of all of this discussion is that there are people on this forum, and certainly people I have first met more than 40 years ago at K talks, who were confusing K with Jesus. We have all been heavily conditioned in this society by Christianity and other organized religion, but especially Christianity in this country. So it is not surprising that some people would tend to replace the Jesus myth with one where K takes his place in their minds.

When I pointed out that K's aim wasn't to give us transformation but rather that we need to understand ourselves: Our conditioning, how thought works, how the mind works, etc. But to just say K's was trying to transform us is just not correct because it by-passes the understanding of the center, consciousness which is essential. Forget about transformation and focus on the moment by moment understanding of what is now.

And then there is this: Who is it that transforms? K pointed out that the psychological self is an illusion. There is a physical body which uses our name but there is nothing else according to K. I don't know if that is an actual fact or not. I think most of us understand what K is pointing out but is it an actual reality for us as it apparently was for K?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 16 Oct 2019 #45
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1453 posts in this forum Online

Jack Pine wrote:
I think most of us understand what K is pointing out but is it an actual reality for us as it apparently was for K?

I question using K. as a model for what we ordinary humans are capable of. I see him as a very special case. A child who somehow escaped being conditioned and then was treated by those around him in a very unique manner. He 'pointed out' what he saw as Man's problem, as he said he didn't bring a 'message'. But he said experimentation, investigation was essential into oneself because without self-knowledge, we would stay in the 'security' of the traps we had grown up in and assimilated. That the only possible freedom would come from that awareness and understanding of the 'walls' we had unwittingly built around ourselves...I don't care what others do or say...I can't know anything about them. It just seems a shame to waste time on anything other than getting to the bottom of oneself.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 16 Oct 2019 #46
Thumb_001 Sean Hen Spain 886 posts in this forum Offline

I agree with Dan that this is a very interesting debate. I hope we can continue without too much conflict.

idiot ? wrote:
First of all, "transformed" is past tense, as One Self pointed out.

From a linguistic point of view, I think that it's more complicated than this. The sentence "Are you transformed?" is not actually in the past. The verb in this sentence is "are" (second person of the verb "to be") in the present simple tense. The word "transformed" in the sentence is a participle adjective. That means that the past participle of the verb "to transform" is acting as an adjective. It's similar to the sentence, "Are you tired?". The question is asking about a present state of tiredness. The cause of the tiredness may have been in the past but the state of being tired is in the present. So the question, "Are you transformed?" is talking about now rather than the past.

Anyway, I don't think this alters what we are all saying about transformation. I think the key point is this - When someone says, "When the truth is clearly seen there is transformation.", there is an implication that the speaker has clearly seen the truth. It's all very well for Krishnamurti to say this, but if someone else says it, what does it imply? I don't know the answer to this question.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 16 Oct 2019 #47
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1453 posts in this forum Online

Sean Hen wrote:
It's all very well for Krishnamurti to say this, but if someone else says it, what does it imply? I don't know the answer to this question.

Well why doesn't it 'imply' that they have indeed seen the 'truth' in a particular moment and wish to share that with others?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Wed, 16 Oct 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 16 Oct 2019 #48
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5755 posts in this forum Offline

Sean Hen wrote:
Anyway, I don't think this alters what we are all saying about transformation. I think the key point is this - When someone says, "When the truth is clearly seen there is transformation.", there is an implication that the speaker has clearly seen the truth. It's all very well for Krishnamurti to say this, but if someone else says it, what does it imply? I don't know the answer to this question.

I don't either that's why I asked the person who said was he/she transformed. By the way, thank you very much for your brilliant explanation of English grammar which was absolutely correct. I'm struck by the irony that someone for whom English is a second language had to explain this to two people whose first language is English. The past tense remark was never a valid point anyway.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 17 Oct 2019 #49
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 1447 posts in this forum Offline

"Transformed" is a verb . "Tired" is an adjective!

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 17 Oct 2019 #50
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5755 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
I question using K. as a model for what we ordinary humans are capable of. I see him as a very special case. A child who somehow escaped being conditioned and then was treated by those around him in a very unique manner.

So who is using K as a model? idiot keeps posting long quotes from K to somehow try to bolster his defense of why he didn't just answer a simple question.

Once again. Here's the point: When someone who has read K makes the emphatic statement that: "When the truth is clearly seen there is transformation.", this begs for the person saying this to answer whether they see the truth clearly and are they transformed. I settled for one question and still didn't receive an answer.

Dan McDermott wrote:
because as someone pointed out here, that is already in the past and transformation, as the truth, can only be found can only exist, in the moment

Come on Dan. The above comment was always a non-starter and makes no sense as Sean kindly pointed out for us. It was not only nit-picking but showed a remarkable misunderstanding of what the adults were talking about. And it wasn't the first time, unfortunately.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 17 Oct 2019 #51
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 689 posts in this forum Offline

Sean Hen wrote:
Anyway, I don't think this alters what we are all saying about transformation. I think the key point is this - When someone says, "When the truth is clearly seen there is transformation.", there is an implication that the speaker has clearly seen the truth. It's all very well for Krishnamurti to say this, but if someone else says it, what does it imply? I don't know the answer to this question.

If Fred the plumber says that nationalism divides people and creates unnecessary conflict between people, then either what he's saying is true or it's false. Maybe Fred the plumber realizes it, no longer puts a flag on his front porch and no longer sings the national anthem. Maybe he just heard K say it and it made sense to him. Maybe he still puts a flag on the front porch. Is Fred getting a bit uppity saying this about nationalism? Who really knows anything about Fred the plumber and what difference does it make? The important question is what is really true about nationalism. And in understanding what is true about nationalism, is it dropped?

Now I say, "When the truth is clearly seen, there is transformation." K says transformation is not an ultimate thing, not cumulative, not an end result. I agree completely. K says transformation is seeing the true as true or the false as false moment to moment. I agree completely. Nowhere does K use the term "transformation" to say that he has attained some kind of enlightenment. And I certainly don't use the term in that way. Nowhere does K use the term "transformed," as far as I know. That would totally go against what he says about transformation. That would be an end result. We're in a K discussion group and hopefully we can understand and use terminology that K used and we don't add meanings that he didn't intend. So can we be clear on this? K did not use the term "transformation" to refer to some kind of spiritual attainment, did he? Neither do I. Never have. Never will. To me, spiritual attainment is a fiction. I don't even apply it to K, as it seems many of you do. Rather in every moment there is the possibility of awareness. Accumulation is what the thinking brain does. Accumulation of so called spiritual insight is fool yourself activity of the brain. Obviously it is not freedom because accumulation is binding.

Let's say I'm a husband, married to a wife. I notice that I'm getting irritated with her and I notice I'm saying something mean to her. Now some people here say that doing something about it is to depart from what K teaches. If I tried to stop being mean I'd be judgmental of myself. I'd be creating an ideal. I'd be desiring a change from what is and imagining a future rather than being aware of what is. What is is that I'm grouchy and being cruel to her. But any change would no longer be choiceless awareness. I'd be making a choice. So what happens? I continue being a jerk, harming someone I supposedly love, but now I'm doing so with awareness.

Is that really what K teaches? Just continue being nasty to someone but be aware of it? Nonsense. K teaches transformation. It's the very last chapter in the First and Last Freedom because it's very important. If I really see what is true in the moment, I'm being hurtful to my wife, that seeing liberates. The seeing is the stopping of the nastiness. A radical change happens. I, the accumulating self, am not changed, transformed. Transformation is now. It's not part of a past accumulating self. Transformation liberates the situation. And believe me, the wife is very happy about this.

When the truth is clearly seen, there is transformation. It is simple. My saying it says zero about me, idiot. It's either true or not. Either there is seeing of nastiness and it's dropped, or the seeing is only partial. Full, complete seeing is transformation, is change.

This post was last updated by idiot ? Thu, 17 Oct 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 17 Oct 2019 #52
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5755 posts in this forum Offline

I still maintain that when the statement is made, "When the truth is clearly seen there is transformation.", how do you know this is a fact unless you, yourself, have seen the truth and are transformed by it? Just because K may have said it doesn't mean that we know it and have realized it.

K also said, for example, that the psychological center is thought. When thought ends then the center, the ego ends. I think this was a fact for K. I understand it intellectually and I accept that this was true for K and would be true for humanity in general.

I, myself, have not understood it to the point where thought has ended for me and my psychological center has been vanquished. This is the difference I have been trying to point out. Accepting something intellectually and understanding it to the point where a radical change has come about are two very different things.

I don't know about the rest of you but I'm more than ready to move on. Ciao.

This post was last updated by Jack Pine Thu, 17 Oct 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 17 Oct 2019 #53
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1453 posts in this forum Online

idiot ? wrote:
Full, complete seeing is transformation, is change. And my saying so says zero about me.

Can I listen to another speaking about all this without any judgement whatsoever? Not because 'judgement is 'bad' and I want to be 'nonjudgmental', but because judgement (and defending my judgement) is what I've been conditioned to do since childhood. Because I understand that 'judging' comes between what is being said (posted) and the simple awareness of the words themselves. If I understand that the 'description is not the described', that the 'words' can never convey the 'truth'... Having an 'insight' and using K. words to convey it to another can be 'judged' as 'imitation' but you can't know, you can be suspicious and challenge the speaker, call him or her a phony. But why? Why not listen and let it go? Point out how you see it and let it go? It occurred to me this morning that 'defending' a 'teaching', any teaching, is how the bloody, tortured trail of 'heresy, 'blasphemy' begins. The Crusades, the Inquisitors, the Isis fighters, the Nationalists... all the self-righteous killing.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Thu, 17 Oct 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 17 Oct 2019 #54
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1453 posts in this forum Online

Here is something different but related to 'transformation' I think. I watched recently a report about psilocybin being administered in a controlled medical environment...I was struck with the result one woman had who had stage 3 cancer of some kind. To look and listen to her after her experience was over, the session under the drug had 'transformed' her. As a result of what she had experienced psychologically, her intense anxiety had disappeared and she saw life and her own situation in a new way...My guess (and from my own personal experience) is that her transformation will not last. Why I'm bringing this up is what the researchers found with these experiments. That under the psilocybin the brain made more connections within itself. There was a side by side of a before and after brain scan photos and there was this dramatic increase in connections after the drug. The question that arose in me and maybe others have a view on this, the 'before' brain on the left is 'stuck' in certain grooves and patterns. It functions but it suffers, it fears etc. The 'after' brain is 'freed' from its usual routines, ruts, etc and seeing 'things' in new ways, frees itself from the fears and anxieties that were the result of its limited functioning that the 'before' brain lived and 'put up' with...So is it that 'freedom' then lies in the physical brain not being as limited as it has been conditioned to be? If that is so and given that drugs are not the way, how does this increased connectivity happen? If I can connect K. to this...it is that by seeing totally the 'limited' functioning of our brain without any judgement or desire to 'change' it, these new connections will take place naturally by the brain itself? Because any judging or desire to change what is choicelessly seen is simply another 'pattern' by the limited patterns already formed? So unless the 'self/psychological thought' is seen in its 'actuality', the brain stays 'stuck' there...its 'potential' stifled?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Thu, 17 Oct 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 17 Oct 2019 #55
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 1447 posts in this forum Offline

When you listen to Trump(the most powerful man in USA) most of his statements are false. Does he know that he is false or is he blind to see the truth of his false accusations? We have something similar in here. It takes intelligence to distinguish between false and fact or truth. Anything that comes from a false source(ego) must inevitably be false. The ego is blind and what it sees is the distorted version of fact. That is why most people who ran into the teachings don't change. They look at the world from an egotistical view which is falsehood.
It is pointless to explain color to a blind man. Mr False will always be false unless he sees his own falsness. Transformation is indeed to see false as false in oneself.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 17 Oct 2019 #56
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 1447 posts in this forum Offline

For example X is false. He doesn't speak the truth . One can see that very easily. But can one also see that one has an image of Mr X that says false things about others all the time? It is hard to see the false in oneself because one stops out there( externally).

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 17 Oct 2019 #57
Thumb_fuzzy6 Ken D United States 47 posts in this forum Offline

One Self wrote:
When you listen to Trump(the most powerful man in USA) most of his statements are false. Does he know that he is false or is he blind to see the truth of his false accusations?

People who have the money and power Trump has, create their own reality. What's to stop them? Laws? Please. And the reality the rest of us deal with on a daily basis never jumps up to challenge them.

"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 Thu, 17 Oct 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 17 Oct 2019 #58
Thumb_fuzzy6 Ken D United States 47 posts in this forum Offline

"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 Thu, 17 Oct 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 17 Oct 2019 #59
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5755 posts in this forum Offline

Dan, Your post #54 is extremely interesting. I have no time today but I have both comments and questions about the content of your post.

This post was last updated by Jack Pine Fri, 18 Oct 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 17 Oct 2019 #60
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5755 posts in this forum Offline

Ken, Henry Kissinger once said "Truth is not important. What is important is the perception of truth". Well, what the hell. What do you expect from a war criminal?

Do you know a politician who doesn't think this way, aside from Bernie, of course.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Displaying posts 31 - 60 of 160 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.)