Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
A Quiet Space | moderated by Clive Elwell

To understand the ground.........


Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 83 in total
Wed, 24 Feb 2016 #1
Thumb_patricia_may_2014_reduced_ Patricia Hemingway Australia 125 posts in this forum Offline

Can it be seen - in action here today - that the ground for inquiry that K laid down has not been understood?

And technically - what is that ground? Is it only in K's words? Is it much more than that? What is the relevance of his final statement? Had the people gathered around him missed something? Is that something still missing?

So - the ground for inquiry........

Does it include what one eats? Can there be the sensitivity to inquire deeply into what K pointed out if one feels nothing for the fellow sentient beings slaughtered so one can eat what one desires?

One may make a doctrine of 'love' and 'compassion'. Is one in actuality living lovingly and compassionately?

Does it include livelihood? Is one profiting in any way from the misery of others - from the destruction of the planet?

Does it include an austerity in the way one lives - and in the way one thinks?

Does it include care and protection of the body and mind - consuming only pure healthy plant-food for the body and avoiding alcohol, chemicals and drugs for the good of both body and mind.

Does it include understanding that the word is not the thing? That the words K used are no more than communication? They are not doctrine.

The above was posted earlier and quickly buried, then rose again on the other forum to much consternation. It is worth looking at again - along with K death-bed statement which also caused much consternation at the time, and has been generally ignored since. Perhaps the truth of it does not appeal.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 24 Feb 2016 #2
Thumb_patricia_may_2014_reduced_ Patricia Hemingway Australia 125 posts in this forum Offline

This is K's final statement.

He insisted upon recording it while on his deathbed, after those around him were pressing him to name his successor.

K was subsequently asked to retract it, and vehemently refused.

"Nobody, unless the body has been prepared, very carefully, protected and so on-nobody can understand what went through this body. Nobody. Don't anybody pretend. Nobody. I repeat this: nobody amongst us or the public, know what went on. I know they don't. And now after seventy years it has come to an end. Not that that intelligence and energy - it' s somewhat here, every day, and especially at night. And after seventy years the body can't stand it - can't stand any more. It can't. The Indians have a lot of damned superstitions about this - that you will and the body goes - and all that kind of nonsense. You won't find another body like this, or that supreme intelligence operating in a body for many hundred years. You won't see it again. When he goes, it goes. There is no consciousness left behind of that consciousness, of that state. They'll all pretend or try to imagine they can get into touch with that. Perhaps they will somewhat if they live the teachings. But nobody has done it. Nobody. And so that's that."

So what is missing in discussion today? Is the ground that K laid down understood? He talks about preparation of the body - what does that mean?

What does it take to move beyond petty little opinions about this and that being thrown around, to deep inquiry into the very immense problems that humanity is facing? For which humanity is responsible.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 24 Feb 2016 #3
Thumb_patricia_may_2014_reduced_ Patricia Hemingway Australia 125 posts in this forum Offline

Is it possible to move from the personal to the general so as to examine all this?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 24 Feb 2016 #4
Thumb_dsci0664 George Lanroh United States 33 posts in this forum Offline

Patricia Hemingway wrote:
And technically - what is that ground?

Isn't the ground that Krishnamurti spoke of without a single sentient being? What I mean is this: Even though Krishnamurti wanted to set man/women unconditional free isn't it also true that there isn't not even one self to set free.

Patricia you maybe right, I maybe one of these people who is missing Krishnamurti's point all together. What I get out of my understanding is we are all making one life long mistake and passing it through conditioning from one generation to another. It is my understanding that the mistake is: There is no self. No self in the way of an entity which can become and to get better and better over chronological time. Isn't this the fundamental mistake we are all doing? We all take the sense of self we feel, have been conditioned to identify with as an entity that is worth pouring all our and everyone else's energy into.

There is an old Buddhist saying: "It does not matter how much you polish a tile it will never become a jewel".

This tells me that it does not matter how much I attempt to polish myself that I will never become a jewel. Why? To these eyes it is because I am polishing thin air, nothing real, only an illusion. Not the territory but a map. If this is so what am I? To me that sense within that says "what am I" or "I am" is about the only honest thing we can say about ourselves. Pure presence, the presence of awareness. Anything extra is the dawn and the birth of time for us. The fork in the road Krishnamurti pointed toward. It is the moment where time is used by us or we can be used by the unconscious accumulation of psychological time.

Of course feel free to skip over my reply if you do not see its relevance. It is just that there is a sense here that if you or anyone skips the fact that the self of time does not exist outside of its dimension (psychological time). I fear one will cast away this human life identifying with a single creation instead of coming upon one is part of the creator when identified with self, and is the creator when self is but a creation.

There is no other.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Wed, 24 Feb 2016 #5
Thumb_dsci0664 George Lanroh United States 33 posts in this forum Offline

Patricia Hemingway wrote:
But nobody has done it.

How can the self that is Psychological time do it? How can it be that which is responsible for the self's creation and its duration through conscious or unconscious buy-in? What is more real the dreamer or the dream? If the dream self says I have done it, has awakened would that be a fact? But if you as the awareness awakens from being the dream self it has been done, at least for the moment.

There is no other.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 24 Feb 2016 #6
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1501 posts in this forum Offline

George, I think it's good what you write...it reminds me of what K said many times: "Where the 'self' is, the 'Other' is not."

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Wed, 24 Feb 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 25 Feb 2016 #7
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 1324 posts in this forum Offline

George Lanroh wrote:
It is my understanding that the mistake is: There is no self. No self in the way of an entity which can become and to get better and better over chronological time.

This is exactly right, George. The psychological "I," the self, is a totally imaginary entity, the result of thinking and thought. Unfortunately, this imaginary entity controls the individual. It does this through ignorance, the mistaken but fanatically held belief by the individual that it is . . . himself!

This is occurring all over the world with probably 99% of the world's population. And this is why I say that zombies are in control of the world.

max

This post was last updated by max greene Thu, 25 Feb 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 25 Feb 2016 #8
Thumb_dsci0664 George Lanroh United States 33 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
"Where the 'self' is, the 'Other' is not."

Yes, Or at least the other is under the spell of being unconscious of the presence of psychological time.

There is no other.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 25 Feb 2016 #9
Thumb_dsci0664 George Lanroh United States 33 posts in this forum Offline

max greene wrote:
And this is why I say that zombies are in control of the world.

Scary fact isn't Max. Sometimes I'm a zombie to :( LOL.

There is no other.

This post was last updated by George Lanroh Thu, 25 Feb 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 25 Feb 2016 #10
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 1324 posts in this forum Offline

Yes, it is scary. And it is hardly an exaggeration. Thinking creates the self, yet thinking is worshiped throughout the world's societies as the answer to all of our problems.

max

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 25 Feb 2016 #11
Thumb_patricia_may_2014_reduced_ Patricia Hemingway Australia 125 posts in this forum Offline

George Lanroh wrote:
How can the self that is Psychological time do it? How can it be that which is responsible for the self's creation and its duration through conscious or unconscious buy-in? What is more real the dreamer or the dream? If the dream self says I have done it, has awakened would that be a fact? But if you as the awareness awakens from being the dream self it has been done, at least for the moment.

George - there is no 'you as awareness'.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 25 Feb 2016 #12
Thumb_patricia_may_2014_reduced_ Patricia Hemingway Australia 125 posts in this forum Offline

max greene wrote:
Thinking creates the self, yet thinking is worshiped throughout the world's societies as the answer to all of our problems.

Max - thinking per se DOES NOT create the SELF - this is a simplistic sweeping statement, shows no insight into the whole movement of thought as thinking, and as such is completely on the wrong track.

Thinking is not the enemy. Thinking as technical thought in its place is essential for logical reasoned cognition, BUT psychological thought is at the root of the disorder.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 25 Feb 2016 #13
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 1324 posts in this forum Offline

Patricia,

I believe Krishnamurti says that thought creates the thinker -- the self. He says that one cannot exist without the other. Can you find where he says that only psychological thought creates the thinker?

All thinking, whether so-called technical or psychological, has reason and motive behind it. The entity with the motive is the psychological "I," the self. The physical body, itself, senses and reacts, it does not compare, evaluate, judge, etc. -- which is its thinking process. This process creates the psychological self and its world.

max

This post was last updated by max greene Thu, 25 Feb 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 25 Feb 2016 #14
Thumb_patricia_may_2014_reduced_ Patricia Hemingway Australia 125 posts in this forum Offline

max greene wrote:
I believe Krishnamurti says that thought creates the thinker -- the self. He says that one cannot exist without the other. Can you find where he says that only psychological thought creates the thinker?

All thinking, whether so-called technical or psychological, has reason and motive behind it. The entity with the motive is the psychological "I," the self. The physical body, itself, senses and reacts, it does not compare, evaluate, judge, etc. -- which is its thinking process. This process creates the psychological self and its world.

Max - the movement of thought out of place brings about the division in technical thinking as the thinker and the thought, manifesting as the self - which has nothing at all to do with the action of technical thinking where there is no such division, and therefore NO SELF!

The division of thought as the thinker and the thought is psychological thought, that is psychological time.

The insight that all the brain can do is technical thinking is about the brain's ability to measure the actual in a limited way (eg a cat) and the only motive is to produce empirical knowledge, which is knowledge based on what is objectively observed, meaning that no self is involved.

The mistake is in believing, as we all are conditioned to do, that all reason and logic must have a psychological motive, but this is completely false...and can be observed as such.

The manner in which the self arises is not as slick as you suggest, and can only be seen as an actuality when technical thought is logically in its place.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 25 Feb 2016 #15
Thumb_stringio richard villlar France 624 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Hello patricia and max,

max greene wrote:
I believe Krishnamurti says that thought creates the thinker

Yes but thought is Just the way which the brain in mistake take to make it

vivre, est le verbe de la vie...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 25 Feb 2016 #16
Thumb_dsci0664 George Lanroh United States 33 posts in this forum Offline

Patricia Hemingway wrote:
George - there is no 'you as awareness'.

Yes this is true. But there is awareness which is responsible for the sense of presence, the sense of "I am" coming from within the human body. I would agree that this awareness in its original state is without an accumulated identity, is without a persona to identify with. Just sense for a moment this awareness in its original state is unconditionally free being it is without the boundaries imposed by the accumulation of psychological time.

There is no other.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 25 Feb 2016 #17
Thumb_img001 Sudhir Sharma India 591 posts in this forum Offline

George Lanroh wrote:

Nice to see you back in action after such a long time, George! Welcome back! :)

FLOW WITH LIFE!

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 25 Feb 2016 #18
Thumb_img001 Sudhir Sharma India 591 posts in this forum Offline

Patricia Hemingway wrote:
the movement of thought out of place brings about the division in technical thinking as the thinker and the thought, manifesting as the self - which has nothing at all to do with the action of technical thinking where there is no such division, and therefore NO SELF!

So, there is a movement of thought in right place and another which is out of place. Is there a way to find/notice/observe this difference which is not just more words as explanation/logic/reasoning etc?

FLOW WITH LIFE!

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 25 Feb 2016 #19
Thumb_img001 Sudhir Sharma India 591 posts in this forum Offline

George Lanroh wrote:
But if you as the awareness awakens from being the dream self it has been done, at least for the moment.

I am an admirer of your prose, George...the poetic way of explaining. So, I enjoy putting questions to you and here are a few more...

One understands from your quote above that there is a dreamer, the dream state of self and awakening. Let us leave the 'dreamer' aside for the moment and consider the relationship between the self, the central entity ruling the dream state, and awakening.

What makes the transformation of former state in to later possible?

When/where/at what point the darkness ends and light shines?

FLOW WITH LIFE!

This post was last updated by Sudhir Sharma Thu, 25 Feb 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 25 Feb 2016 #20
Thumb_img001 Sudhir Sharma India 591 posts in this forum Offline

max greene wrote:
This is occurring all over the world with probably 99% of the world's population. And this is why I say that zombies are in control of the world.

Yes, some zombies who are actively doing their best in the name of saving the world are, as the results show, actually hastening its destruction...most others are the bystanders causing destruction at much smaller scale in their personal and social relationships...and only a few have the leisure to 'sleep' in small/large groups busy with their intellectual discussions of saving their 'selves' and the humanity...

But the fact is that the world could/would very nicely save itself if only the human race somehow get recycled in nature and disappear before it is too late!

FLOW WITH LIFE!

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 25 Feb 2016 #21
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 1324 posts in this forum Offline

Sudhir Sharma wrote:
But the fact is that the world could/would very nicely save itself if only the human race somehow get recycled in nature and disappear before it is too late!

The human race is right now in the very process of being recycled, Sudhir. The zombies grow in strength every day, and they are working toward not only their own destruction but the destruction of their hosts.

max

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 25 Feb 2016 #22
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 1324 posts in this forum Offline

Patricia Hemingway wrote:
. . . the action of technical thinking where there is no such division, and therefore NO SELF!

Krishnamutri most definitely said that thought creates the thinker (the self) and he said most definitely that the one (thought) does not exist without the other (the thinker).

Can you find where Krishnamurti said that there is no self with technical thought?

max

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 25 Feb 2016 #23
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 1324 posts in this forum Offline

Patricia Hemingway wrote:
The mistake is in believing . . . that all reason and logic must have a psychological motive, but this is completely false...and can be observed as such.

All reason and logic is psychological. Reason and logic don't "have a motive." The self, the thinker, thought, motive, reason, are all a nice little psychological package. On the other hand, brain cells, arms, legs, the sky, trees are our physical world. That's what I observe.

max

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 25 Feb 2016 #24
Thumb_dsci0664 George Lanroh United States 33 posts in this forum Offline

Sudhir Sharma wrote:
One understands from your quote above that there is a dreamer, the dream state of self and awakening. Let us leave the 'dreamer' aside for the moment and consider the relationship between the self, the central entity ruling the dream state, and awakening.

What makes the transformation of former state in to later possible?

When/where/at what point the darkness ends and light shines?

Ah my old friend :) Behind the moon the sun shines. In these eyes awareness/sun has identified so completely with its ego/self it does not know its original innocence of timelessness, being without time. In listening to Krishnamurti and a few other awakened teachers one can get the sense that they are attempting to reach over, jump over, our accumulated knowledge now holding us in the bondage of psychological time. The problem seems to be as Krishnamurti pointed out here in my words: The unconscious presence of accumulated knowledge acting as an authority is keeping awareness as man from being unconditionally free.

As your aware there could be many different reasons why an awareness may wakeup from its present identification with time. Just to mention one is a total mental break down through some form of stressful event (one is shattered). Another is through never accumulating one through the understanding at an early age through great leadership. Very difficult, maybe impossible but isn't this the idea behind the schools founded through Krishnamurti like Ojai. For most of us it was something that we heard or seen that triggered a deeper enquiry into the nature of self and took us down the empting road of negation. Along this road the wall off our shell has been cracked, holes have been punched through letting through a light that some how we can't resist. Low and behold the day we find out that what was looking in was the same eyes that was looking out. Isn't that the day we find out that the journey all though necessary was a journey without distance, a journey of finding out psychological time was the distance and it was only a matter of awakening up to the self being played was only but one of countless possible identifications.
Sudhir, where I part with many here is I feel when awareness awakens to the nature of psychological time and time in general it can use time instead of time using it. Krishnamurti used time, it just didn't use him. He treated it as if it was a snake in a room with him, he understood its nature like we understand the nature of fire. Fire can be a great destroyer or it can give us warmth and cook our food. I say I am George as an address, I am using the education of writing to communicated with Sudhir your address. Yet I know Sudhir and myself are both so much more and so much less. I would not put such a dear friend in a conceptual box as to who and what he is. I know at his heart Sudhir and all my friends are limitless.

There is no other.

This post was last updated by George Lanroh Thu, 25 Feb 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 25 Feb 2016 #25
Thumb_stringio richard villlar France 624 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

K. said that the observation of the movement of thought is the beginning of learning, m├ęditation. That's true. To observe the movement of technical and psychological thought is the beginning.
So if there is observation (which is not thought) of the movement of thought, in this observation, there is no self. . .

vivre, est le verbe de la vie...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 25 Feb 2016 #26
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 1324 posts in this forum Offline

George, that is a great post. Thanks.

Yes, we can use time. Time is a very practical tool for keeping order in the march of events, for measurement. But timelessness is the physical reality of nature.

max

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 25 Feb 2016 #27
Thumb_stringio richard nolet Canada 48 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

max greene wrote:
Can you find where Krishnamurti said that there is no self with technical thought?

LOL !! You must be kidding. Everyone on this site have quote and try to explain to you about right thinking and all that ?

And anyway, you have claim many times that you disagree with K. on this question. So why do you ask for a quote ? It sounds like a joke. Is it ? Or maybe you are in need for attention :)

This post was last updated by richard nolet (account deleted) Thu, 25 Feb 2016.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Thu, 25 Feb 2016 #28
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 1324 posts in this forum Offline

richard villlar wrote:
. . . if there is observation (which is not thought) of the movement of thought, in this observation, there is no self. . .

This is the way I see it, too. When there is observation, awareness, there is only the observed -- no self, no observer.

max

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 25 Feb 2016 #29
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 1324 posts in this forum Offline

richard nolet wrote:
So why do you ask for a quote ? It sounds like a joke. Is it ?

No joke. Where is the quote? Not that even a quote should be the last word -- the authority thing, you know. We look for ourselves.

max

This post was last updated by max greene Thu, 25 Feb 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 25 Feb 2016 #30
Thumb_stringio richard nolet Canada 48 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

max greene wrote:
richard villlar wrote:

. . . if there is observation (which is not thought) of the movement of thought, in this observation, there is no self. . .

But still, there is thoughts ?

max greene wrote:
This is the way I see it, too. When there is observation, awareness, there is only the observed -- no self, no observer.

max

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 83 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.)