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

On Relationships and Conflict


Displaying posts 61 - 90 of 160 in total
Fri, 18 Oct 2019 #61
Thumb_001 Sean Hen Spain 886 posts in this forum Offline

"When the truth is clearly seen, there is transformation."

Dan McDermott wrote:

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

Yes, it may indeed imply this. That's why I gave the example of seeing anger rise within yourself, becoming aware of it and the anger immediately transforming. I suppose it's the sentence without context that I find open to misinterpretation.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 18 Oct 2019 #62
Thumb_001 Sean Hen Spain 886 posts in this forum Offline

One Self wrote:
"Transformed" is a verb . "Tired" is an adjective!

Well, I don't claim to be an expert in applied linguistics, but here is what I understand:

"to transform" and "to tire" are both verbs. They are both regular verbs ending in "ed" as the past simple form and past participle form are "transformed" and "tired" respectively. Examples of these two verbs in past simple form would be:

"I transformed my kitchen by painting it yellow."

"I tired my dog out yesterday by going for a long walk."

The adjectives "tired" and "transformed" have the same form as the past participle of the verbs and are sometimes known as participle adjectives. Examples of use of these adjectives are:

"Are you tired?" - "tired" is an adjective describing the state of a person here.

"Are you transformed?" - "transformed is an adjective describing the state of a person here as well.

As I said, this is my understanding. Please correct me if I am wrong. Just a final thought - when grammatical truth is seen clearly, is there transformation?

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 2 readers
Back to Top
Fri, 18 Oct 2019 #63
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5755 posts in this forum Offline

Sean Hen wrote:
As I said, this is my understanding. Please correct me if I am wrong. Just a final thought - when grammatical truth is seen clearly, is there transformation?

Sean Hen wrote:
I suppose it's the sentence without context that I find open to misinterpretation.

Sean, first of all the person who challenged your correct explanation of grammar doesn't know a past participle from a hole in the ground so you are wasting your time debating English grammar with her. Secondly, what you said about context of the statement in question, or lack thereof, is a very good point and one that has occurred to me.

There are these sudden proclamations out of thin air without....well, context. It leaves the reader feeling a sense that the assertion is being repeated as an intellectual acceptance of something rather than of a deeply understood and felt truth. We all do this at one time or another.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 18 Oct 2019 #64
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5755 posts in this forum Offline

Dan Wrote:
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.

This brings up some fascinating possibilities. Does the taking of certain drugs, psychedelic drugs, increase the awareness of the brain? Are some people born with significantly more of these neurological connections? Was K an example of this? Or is it that most of us start out with more neurological connections and then loose these for various reasons? And can these connections be retrieved and retained through certain drugs? Below is just a sampling of an article I found on the internet when I put in neurological connections.

Neural Connections: Some You Use, Some You Lose
By John Bruer

Over 20 years ago, neuroscientists discovered that humans and other animals experience a rapid increase in brain connectivity - an exuberant burst of synapse formation - early in development. They have studied this process most carefully in the brain's outer layer, or cortex, which is essentially our gray matter. In these studies, neuroscientists have documented that over our life spans the number of synapses per unit area or unit volume of cortical tissue changes, as does the number of synapses per neuron. Neuroscientists refer to the number of synapses per unit of cortical tissue as the brain's synaptic density. Over our lifetimes, our brain's synaptic density changes in an interesting, patterned way. This pattern of synaptic change and what it might mean is the first neurobiological strand of the Myth of the First Three Years. (The second strand of the Myth deals with the notion of critical periods, and the third takes up the matter of "enriched," or complex, environments.)
Popular discussions of the new brain science trade heavily on what happens to synapses during infancy and childhood. Magazine articles often begin with colorful metaphors suggesting that what parents do with their infant has a powerful, lifelong impact on their baby's brain that determines the child's adult intelligence, temperament, and personality. This article was taken from the James S. McDonnell Foundation

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 18 Oct 2019 #65
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 1447 posts in this forum Offline

One Self wrote:
"Transformed" is a verb . "Tired" is an adjective!

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 18 Oct 2019 #66
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 1447 posts in this forum Offline

tired
/?t?(?)rd/
Learn to pronounce
adjective
in need of sleep or rest; weary.
"Fisher rubbed his tired eyes"
Similar:
worn out
exhausted
fatigued
tired out
overtired
weary
sleepy
drowsy
wearied
sapped
dog-tired
spent
drained
jet-lagged
played out
debilitated
prostrate
enervated
jaded
low
all in
done (in/up)
dead
dead beat
dead tired
dead on one's feet
asleep on one's feet
ready to drop
fagged out
bushed
worn to a frazzle
shattered
burnt out
knackered
whacked
pooped
Opposite:
energetic
fresh
wide awake
bored with.
"I have to look after these animals when you get tired of them"

This post was last updated by One Self Fri, 18 Oct 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 18 Oct 2019 #67
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 1447 posts in this forum Offline

If you want peace of mind don't read Jack's psychological writings. A miserable man tries to make other people as miserable as he is.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 18 Oct 2019 #68
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 1447 posts in this forum Offline

Transformed is something that happened in the past . If you say "I am transformed." That is a lie. You can't even claim (like some guru) that you were transformed. It all comes from a deceptive and ego -center mind that tries to advocate falshood.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 18 Oct 2019 #69
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 689 posts in this forum Offline

Sean Hen wrote:
"Are you transformed?" - "transformed is an adjective describing the state of a person here as well.

As I said, this is my understanding. Please correct me if I am wrong. Just a final thought - when grammatical truth is seen clearly, is there transformation?

That's funny.

"Are you transformed?" asks about a current state but that state is a result of past transformation, an end result.

"Are you transforming?" asks about a current state and the transformation is happening in the present.

"Is transformation happening?" asks about a current state and takes away the "you," an individual separate self.

Do any of these questions shed any light on what K really meant by transformation and its importance? Not really.

So what did K mean by transformation? Is it important? Can it have any impact on daily life? If I see that I'm aware to a degree but change isn't happening, I continue to find myself in conflict, does understanding what K says about transformation have any significance?

After all, an important question K addresses is: "Why haven't we changed?" Does that matter at all to you? Of course, grammar might be more entertaining.

This post was last updated by idiot ? Fri, 18 Oct 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 18 Oct 2019 #70
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 1447 posts in this forum Offline

Ken D wrote:
Language is a funny thing. You can do most anything with it. The word "disrespect" is a noun, but inner city youth have turned it into a verb....he "disrespected" me. Complete nonsense, of course.

You can say almost anything but who is going to listen to what you say is important.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 18 Oct 2019 #71
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 1447 posts in this forum Offline

I think that one bas to see what prevents one from what k says with regard to transformation. What prevents one to see the false as false? What is the relationship between thought and seeing ? Can thought see what it has created,an ego-centered entity with all it's misery and pleasures ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 18 Oct 2019 #72
Thumb_001 Sean Hen Spain 886 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
After all, an important question K addresses is: "Why haven't we changed?" Does that matter at all to you? Of course, grammar might be more entertaining.

If we are to discuss something as complex as "Why haven't we changed?" in a serious manner on an online forum we need to communicate with each other using words. I try to be precise as possible in my use of words in order to convey meaning clearly and accurately. Of course, sometimes I fail. I gently pointed out your error concerning your response to Jack writing, "Are you transformed?". It appears you did not like this. I'm sorry if I offended you in any way but I do reserve the right to clarify meaning when needed.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Fri, 18 Oct 2019 #73
Thumb_001 Sean Hen Spain 886 posts in this forum Offline

Ken D wrote:
Language is a funny thing. You can do most anything with it

I would say that it's a fascinating and enriching thing.

“Language is a process of free creation; its laws and principles are fixed, but the manner in which the principles of generation are used is free and infinitely varied. Even the interpretation and use of words involves a process of free creation.” - Noam Chomsky

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Fri, 18 Oct 2019 #74
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5755 posts in this forum Offline

Sean Hen wrote:
If we are to discuss something as complex as "Why haven't we changed?" in a serious manner on an online forum we need to communicate with each other using words. I try to be precise as possible in my use of words in order to convey meaning clearly and accurately. Of course, sometimes I fail.

Sean, you didn't fail at anything. Your explanation of grammar was correct and your pointing out that we have to use words to communicate is obviously correct. But when you have people who are mainly interested in spinning what people write to fit their own needs, purposely refusing to understand what is being said, then you are wasting your time, I believe, trying to educate them.

For my own part I thank you for your efforts on behalf of everyone on this forum who is interested in communicating with each other and who are trying to understand each other.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 18 Oct 2019 #75
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 689 posts in this forum Offline

Sean Hen wrote:
I gently pointed out your error concerning your response to Jack writing, "Are you transformed?".

You mean when I said that "transformed" was past tense rather saying it was a past participle or participial adjective? Yes, I was mistaken about that and thank you for the correction. The point, however, is that it refers to transformation taking place in the past resulting in a current state. And that's not the way K refers to transformation.

Also, K is not talking about transformation as a state. Do you agree?

To me, transformation is no different than insight. It's freedom because the imagined continuity of the past is severed. And all that may sound grandiose but it can be totally about the mundane. I notice fully how I'm indulging in some escapist activity and see what I'm trying to escape from. The escapism drops. Transformation. But not transformed. It's not permanent. Maybe I'll start escaping again. Maybe I won't.

When we discussed this on an earlier thread we found an instance of K crying, talking to someone who had listened to him for decades and done his best, but hadn't really changed. K is still crying when we're fighting with each other in here. And I wonder if someone somewhere someday will make him jump for joy. (Yes, I'm speaking figuratively.)

This post was last updated by idiot ? Fri, 18 Oct 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 18 Oct 2019 #76
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 689 posts in this forum Offline

When I posted "When the truth is clearly seen, there is transformation," I did so in the Quiet Space forum, not here. Jack Pine pulled it off of a longer post in that forum and posted it here. He clearly didn't like the statement, found it arrogant, and wanted to challenge me.

It's a single sentence so it is brief. It's just me saying in my own words what K says transformation is, based on K's chapter On Transformation that I later posted in its entirety in post #37 of this thread. In that chapter K says, "So what do we mean by transformation? Surely it is very simple: seeing the false as the false and the true as the true." That's pretty close to my statement: "When the truth is clearly seen, there is transformation."

But K does not make the error of brevity that I made. K spends an entire chapter where he goes into detail about what transformation is not. Transformation is not based on an idea, it's not an ultimate thing, it's not an end result, it's not in the future, it's not etc., etc.

If you really understand all the things that K says that transformation is not, then I don't think my statement is at all controversial.

It's kind of like talking about love. K goes into what love is not. You and I are not going to communicate well if some of us are talking about love the way we understand K to have talked about it and some of us are talking about romantic love.

No one in the Quiet Space forum where I posted the statement within a larger post had anything to say about it. But here, my brief sentence has cost me many, many words.

Again, way more important than whether I realize anything, whether I say things in the best way, or anything else about me, is what did K say about transformation, about criticism, about whatever? And what meaning does that have for our lives?

This post was last updated by idiot ? Fri, 18 Oct 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 18 Oct 2019 #77
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5755 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
When I posted "When the truth is clearly seen, there is transformation," I did so in the Quiet Space forum, not here. Jack Pine pulled it off of a longer post in that forum and posted it here.

This statement is irrelevant and frankly sounds a bit whinny. We can take any statement from any forum and post it on any other forum. What do you care if I post it on another forum? One you have access to?

idiot ? wrote:
He clearly didn't like the statement, found it arrogant, and wanted to challenge me.

Pure speculation with more than just a touch of paranoia on your part. I asked you if you were transformed. PERIOD! Instead of refusing to answer directly or answering "Yes" or "No" you started this long, ridiculous dance about my motives. Which you clearly are not privy to.

idiot ? wrote:
It's just me saying in my own words what K says transformation is, based on K's chapter On Transformation that I later posted in its entirety in post #37 of this thread. In that chapter K says, "So what do we mean by transformation? Surely it is very simple: seeing the false as the false and the true as the true." That's pretty close to my statement: "When the truth is clearly seen, there is transformation."

Yes, K said it but I don't question whether he was transformed or not. Just because K said and you read it and repeated it, that doesn't mean squat. That certainly doesn't mean you understood what K said. So once again, K was transformed but I was asking you if you were. Can you understand this simple little fact? Just because we read something that K wrote and repeat it doesn't mean we understood it. ¿Comprendes?

idiot ? wrote:
No one in the Quiet Space forum where I posted the statement within a larger post had anything to say about it. But here, my brief sentence has cost me many, many words.

As far as I have read no one in the Quiet Space questions anything anyone says. People can and often do make the most extravagant statements without one shred of context. It's common there. I hope it doesn't become common here.

Listen, idiot. If you didn't like the question I asked, if you questioned my motives for asking it why didn't you just ignore it? You talk about avoiding conflict but when it comes down to doing it you perpetuate it as much as anyone else. You go on and on about why you did or didn't do or say something. Why do you care what I think? Do you have a delicate image to protect? Are you insecure in other ways that keep you from feeling confident about what you write and just let it go at that? I'm really curious. I am also curious why you, instead of answering my question or ignoring it you blew it up into a few pages of this conflict that you won't end. And it's not just with me. Now it's with Sean. Do you feel you have to explain yourself to him too?

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 18 Oct 2019 #78
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5755 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
To me, transformation is no different than insight.

Have you experienced both transformation and insight? A "yes" or "no" answer will do find. Thanks

Oh, whoops, sorry! Are you experiencing both transformation and insight?
This last sentence doesn't really sound right does it.

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 18 Oct 2019 #79
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 689 posts in this forum Offline

Jack Pine wrote:
If you didn't like the question I asked, if you questioned my motives for asking it why didn't you just ignore it?

I did ignore it. I posted K's talk on criticism. That was all I intended to do. But then Sean Hen asked for clarification. So I have spent a lot of time trying to make things clear.

I realize you will not accept any clarification from me. I realize that you are open to very little from me. But I have written at length in case it will be of help to others.

Your question "Are you transformed?" is a wrong question because it contains assumptions about transformation that are false and it is accusatory. I have explained this and I'm sure you don't accept it.

Jack Pine, I think you have a good heart and care deeply about K. But you say a lot of false and mistaken things. For example, in post #36, you said, "And no, K didn't teach transformation." Obviously, that is simply false.

Some other things you say, including about people who post here, are also mistaken to one degree or another. For the most part, I'm not interested in correcting these falsehoods. You certainly won't accept it. And I can't be responsible if others are misled by what you say.

So yes, for the most part I will ignore you and your frequent misstatements.

This post was last updated by idiot ? Fri, 18 Oct 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 18 Oct 2019 #80
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 1447 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
Your question "Are you transformed?" is a wrong question because it contains assumptions about transformation that are false and it is accusatory.

The accusatory questions are no question. They are an attack. In the seventies communists had bunch of these accusatory questions up in their sleeves and asked them mechanically from people who were week. I see similarity between Jack's way of thinking and those aggressive and ruthless communists in the seventies. I may be wrong.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 18 Oct 2019 #81
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5755 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
Jack Pine, I think you have a good heart and care deeply about K. But you say a lot of false and mistaken things. For example, in post #36, you said, "And no, K didn't teach transformation." Obviously, that is simply false.

No actually' in the literal sense, what I wrote about transformation and K is true. K was not teaching anyone HOW to transform. He was showing us his discoveries about the self, thought, consciousness and other things. Understanding these things, as K did, mostly likely be transformation. But he wasn't teaching us how to transform. There is no technique for that. I think you can agree with that can't you?

idiot ? wrote:
I did ignore it. I posted K's talk on criticism. That was all I intended to do. But then Sean Hen asked for clarification. So I have spent a lot of time trying to make things clear.

Regardless of the reasons you are claiming, the fact is that you still did drag it out. Just as you are doing now.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Fri, 18 Oct 2019 #82
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5755 posts in this forum Offline

One Self wrote:
I see similarity between Jack's way of thinking and those aggressive and ruthless communists in the seventies. I may be wrong.

Has it occurred to you yet that your posts are absolutely idiotic? No one responds to them because they don't make sense. Now you say I'm like the communists in the 1970's. Two things you know nothing about. Make that three things you know nothing about. You don't know me at all. Once again, how old are you and do your parents know you post hateful, idiotic things on Kinfonet?

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Fri, 18 Oct 2019 #83
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 1447 posts in this forum Offline

Jack Pine wrote:
how old are you and do your parents know you post hateful, idiotic things on Kinfonet?

More accusatory (condemnatory) questions from jack in Kinfonet which he has no regard for. Communists didn't have any respect for anyone also. And they did spoke against other religions but not theirs.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 19 Oct 2019 #84
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 1447 posts in this forum Offline

It is very unfortunate that jack pine (and his unfortunate friends) have dominated this forum . I don't blame jack because he is mentally ill to me. But I blame his blindly supporters like Win, Patricia, Sean , and so on .. . In the same way it is not Trump to be blamed but his blind supporters ...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 19 Oct 2019 #85
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 1447 posts in this forum Offline

I am only trying to make some sense in this senseless questions of accusation that goes on in the kinfonet..

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 19 Oct 2019 #86
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 1447 posts in this forum Offline

K says that the highest intelligence is in seeing false as false. Why don't we employ that in kinfonet ?¿?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 19 Oct 2019 #87
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 689 posts in this forum Offline

K told his organizations to call the body of his work teachings. He taught awareness, self knowledge, love, meditation, and yes, transformation, among many other topics, which means that he investigated together with his listeners these issues to see what is true and false about them and their importance. Obviously he didn't teach "how to," which if you really understand what he says, doesn't even make sense. To see what is true or false about something, you just see it or you don't. There's no how.

K defined what he meant by transformation as seeing what is true and what is false moment to moment. To insist on another meaning, like a state, a spiritual accomplishment, something that can be approached with a how to, and so on, is to misrepresent what K said he meant by transformation.

This post was last updated by idiot ? Sat, 19 Oct 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 19 Oct 2019 #88
Thumb_fuzzy6 Ken D United States 47 posts in this forum Offline

How many times did Krishnamurti say that 'truth' was a living thing and not a fixed point? But 'transformation' seems to suggest a final resting point or state, otherwise it would simply be change, which is happening all the time anyway.

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 19 Oct 2019 #89
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 689 posts in this forum Offline

Ken D wrote:
How many times did Krishnamurti say that 'truth' was a living thing and not a fixed point? But 'transformation' seems to suggest a final resting point or state, otherwise it would simply be change, which is happening all the time anyway.

Again, K says transformation is not an end result, so obviously it's not a fixed point. You can read exactly what he says transformation is and is not in the full chapter that I posted in post #37.

I will give my understanding, which is just that. Go to the chapter for what K actually says. Here's how it makes sense to me:

I see the truth that junk food is really bad for you and my hand puts the Doritos down and my mouth stops eating them. We're used to thinking about this temporally, as cause and effect. There's the realizing and the resultant change. But that is transformation based on an idea which K specifically rejects. Instead the insight about junk food and the change are completely one and in the moment. There's no residue of an idea. In the future I may devour a bag of Doritos or I may abstain from them. But in the moment there is clear seeing of the fact about something and there is change that is not apart from that seeing.

As I said in an earlier post, this is related to action without idea. You see a rock in the road and you remove the rock to the side of the road. There's no idea of doing a good thing or accomplishing something. The situation is seen and the action is not separate from the seeing.

I welcome others to express their understanding about what K really meant and didn't mean by transformation.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 19 Oct 2019 #90
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1453 posts in this forum Offline

I would state it simply: 'transformation' is ceasing to meet the present moment ( the "what is") with psychological baggage, judgements, likes, dislikes, etc. from the past. Transformation is the ending of the thinker/thought duality.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 61 - 90 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.)