Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
Experimenter's Corner | moderated by John Raica

Tell it like it is


Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 34 in total
Fri, 06 Jan 2017 #1
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 516 posts in this forum Offline

No need for a lenghty rationale for this rather spontaneous thread. It simply occured to me this morning that in terms of the actual experiential 'feeling', the much used (and ab-used ?) term 'silence' could be more accurately conveyed by 'inner peace'. So...why not tell it like it is ?

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Fri, 06 Jan 2017 #2
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 516 posts in this forum Offline

Just coming back to this term 'silence', it has a great quality- it is both 'neutral' an...'psychologically correct' - what more can desire a stressed person than 'being silent', or a weary teacher in a class of boisterous children ? So, this is the generally accepted meaning of 'silence' - the absence of any disturbing noise. Now when we are getting to the inner or 'psychological' significance, it may mean 'no inner chattering' or 'no distracting thoughts' , no hard feelings. In short...a state of 'inner peace'.
So the word 'silence' has its own spectrum of associated 'images'.
And incidently, its experiential counterpart 'inner peace' has been traditionally assigned to the religious bussiness- as in 'Rest in peace' 'May his troubled soul find eternal peace' etc (you simply can't go wrong for a tombstone well wishing)

So, if we are to 'tell it like it is' what word should we use ?
Here are my suggestions: for the pros of all Psycho-realated jobs (including the school system, the industry of tourism, housing etc) the best sales-pitch is definitely 'silence', while for all post-mortem purposes, 'inner peace' would certainly be the bestest choice.

But in a meditative context, if you are to be honest with yourself...what would you chose to convey the closest 'feeling' of it ? Looking over K's shoulder, he chose to use the (psychologically correct) term 'silence' often assorted it with a long list of...'what silence is not' But the question still remains open : if we want to convey an 'authentic' feeling, a new perception is required each time we want to be true to ourselves. If not, better... keep silent.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Sat, 07 Jan 2017 #3
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 277 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
But in a meditative context, if you are to be honest with yourself...what would you chose to convey the closest 'feeling' of it ? Looking over K's shoulder, he chose to use the (psychologically correct) term 'silence' often assorted it with a long list of...'what silence is not' But the question still remains open : if we want to convey an 'authentic' feeling, a new perception is required each time we want to be true to ourselves. If not, better... keep silent.

Well communicating such event is uneasy...I consider myself the silence of thoughts as cravings , when some sort of apparent entirely different capacity is at work, thoughts sees it arising then vanishes somewhere in oblivion , yet as some is superficially recorded and one is able to cross the very busy road, it is still at work...the body must be able to still move within the environment..

for myself I never crossed some sort of absolute silence, yet may be I have as one of the deepest moment I had, beyond the kthing, left me with 5 hours ish not recorded at all in such day, when I have not a clue what took place in my life....in this very busy place at the time...at the beginning a friend was there, and at the end he was not...

But I can't say more obviously and am not interested in guessing...

To convey an authentic feeling must be tried is not it ?

Dan ...........

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 07 Jan 2017 #4
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 516 posts in this forum Offline

Daniel Paul. wrote:
To convey an authentic feeling must be tried is not it ?

Indeed, Dan, it must be filtered through our own inner experience. However...K is often repeating that you cannot experience 'that', Which if followed literally is putting even the most serious of us on a loop. The subliminal feeling is that all the public expressions of these K teachings are like wrapped in a totally transparent 'emballage'.

Now, for one thing, this seems to have worked pretty well- a psychologically dissuasive shield is protecting their direct 'experiencing'. Somehow you have to exit the 'shadow cone' of K's apparent authority and engage in your own 'experiencing'. In fact it is possible that it worked only like this for many centuries, for all authenic 'seers'.

Besides 'silence' there are a few more terms left to 'unwrap' - thought, insight, mind, etc and it may be that exposing them to the penetrating light of a non-personal attention, the 'thin foil' of the emballage is melting

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 07 Jan 2017 #5
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 126 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
Besides 'silence' there are a few more terms left to 'unwrap' - thought, insight, mind, etc and it may be that exposing them to the penetrating light of a non-personal attention, the 'thin foil' of the emballage is melting

Hi John, Dan, Jess, David...

I'm seeing all this as a kind of 'maturity' or maturation process: the child starts out in a mixed world of fact and fantasy. The fantasies give way and there is the accumulation of experiences, traits, habits, inclinations, beliefs...the myth of the 'individual'. Then (possibly) a next stage where the 'becoming', the frantic accumulation of experience, the search for psychological security etc. is seen through for the falseness that it is. Where the role of 'thought' is starting to be seen to be 'out of place'. Where the role of the intellect is seen as having limits as to the discovery of what one is in fact. So it is a kind of 'dying' to all that one has gathered in order to thrive, to survive, to maintain a kind of sanity in a crazy, brutal and violent world. And the 'dying', 'letting go' etc. are the words along with 'silence' and 'peace' that point at the characteristics of the maturing mind.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sat, 07 Jan 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 08 Jan 2017 #6
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 277 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
K is often repeating that you cannot experience 'that', Which if followed literally is putting even the most serious of us on a loop. The subliminal feeling is that all the public expressions of these K teachings are like wrapped in a totally transparent 'emballage'.

Hello John, hello to Dan and anyone !! for me ( not talking for others) this is a potentially very dangerous statement by k...it is more playing with words or not directly saying the fact as it is perceived, or if it is not I have no clue about what he is talking about..it is just my perception...

even in time when this "full bliss" bringing absolute contentment and much more was there out of the blue , I would certainly not have expressed it that way: you cannot experience it...unless he meant that thought as the only process left at work since some 2.5 ish millennium in our brain mind cannot live it deeply..yet this brings so little as well..

John Raica wrote:
Now, for one thing, this seems to have worked pretty well- a psychologically dissuasive shield is protecting their direct 'experiencing'. Somehow you have to exit the 'shadow cone' of K's apparent authority and engage in your own 'experiencing'. In fact it is possible that it worked only like this for many centuries, for all authentic 'seers'.

Besides 'silence' there are a few more terms left to 'unwrap' - thought, insight, mind, etc and it may be that exposing them to the penetrating light of a non-personal attention, the 'thin foil' of the emballage is melting

Yes...

but I see two levels here...one is about words themselves, they seem to be good at practical levels and not that good at any others....when not a problem....

and the second one is the extreme difficulty to exactly transcript for another what took place for oneself..

when one has some eventual so called talent in writing, he or she can be easily tempted to go wild in pure intellectual enjoyment of oneself at this level, not talking about k here, but generally speaking...sometimes I see myself doing so, this is why out of more reasons that when I was attempting to write a sort of book, when re rereading it it would sound total crap in fact...because the intellect was taking it over..

here in our short or not dialogues this phenomenon does not take place...

So yes k can generate or not a wide general interest in all that sort of topics...then our own experiencing must certainly take it over...

agreed that many words must be questioned as to what k meant by them, like the ones you mention here like thought, insight, mind etc..we have done for us some good work with the word meditation..more words may need such attention ...

cheerio..

Dan ...........

This post was last updated by Daniel Paul. Sun, 08 Jan 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 09 Jan 2017 #7
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 516 posts in this forum Offline

Talking about 'telling it like it is' (experientially !) , I was thinking this morning about one of K's most obscure statements ' Truth cannot be experienced'.
Now, for any authentic Truth seeker this is a pretty blunt statement and unfortunately plays the role of a smoke screen. But... how about ' Truth cannot be dualistically experienced' ?

We do certainly have a lot of objective 'scientific' truths which can be 'experienced', proved under rigorous lab conditions, not to mention that some of the lucky experiencers may go for the 'money & fame" (Nobel Prizes & other lucrative options ).

But about the inner truth - which is of an apparently sujective nature ( in the eyes of the beholder ?) the same objective (dualistic) attitude - as in 'this is a true inner fact' - the task is infinitely more delicate due to the volatile nature of its perception . So, to stay on the safe side of 'psy & philo' - sophy, all we can honestly assert is the 'lame' truth that...in fact all we really know is that we don't know. However, in the context of our own 'inner lab' we are free to 'experiment with it' at our own leisure- it's basically a 'hit or miss' endeavour : 'you', the 'observer' are either (one with) 'it', then the very nature of truth has an enlightening role or you are an outlooker ...in which case all you can get is an intellectual 'concept' - and although the market is already saturated by them, this is still the option choice of those who are using 'truth decoys' ...to 'make a living' In short, you are it or...you use it - a big deontological issue...

This post was last updated by John Raica Mon, 09 Jan 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 09 Jan 2017 #8
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 277 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
Hi, Dan, same here. But it eventually occurred to me that if we want to be 'truthful' in our philo-psycho (etc) endeavour, the thing has to be discovered live and moreover the impact is also to happen 'live';

Hello John, agreed yes...

John Raica wrote:
The spiritual nature of Truth is certainly 'timeless' but our perception of it is rather ephemeral (at best ?) So an authentic sharing of it would perhaps happen in a dialogue group as Dr Bohm tried (with or without all the collateral inconvenient - subtly or grossly egotistic participants, etc)

again yes, with some inconvenient, usually this will be due to where people talk from...facts,experiment,imagination,pure intellect, bullies, trolls, etc + of course a capacity to listen, may be not to everything of course but to anyone genuine and somehow serious..which is not that usual...

this is why k had to proceed as he did...in my view...

John Raica wrote:
And incidently this may be why K spent a lot of his time in 'prepping' ( 'working' ) the audience rather than enquiring more deeply into all these perennial existential questions that are methodically skirted by both the 'pros' and the 'artisans' of the 'genre'

Dan ...........

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 10 Jan 2017 #9
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 277 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:

Daniel Paul. wrote:

a capacity to listen, may be not to everything of course but to anyone genuine and somehow serious..which is not that usual...

Hi, Dan, talking of this 'capacity of listening' it is very possible that in the distant past people were a lot more reverent to the words of wisdom uttered by authentic or...semi-authentic religious people. There was a slow decay of this natural appreciation for Truth, all the way down to the modern 'washed out' culture and its various ' trolls'.

Hello John, well we are connected on that one, you are expressing what I did not in the referent post...this is precisely what was hidden in it. I have discovered that by comparison to my teenage, not that far away let us say the years 1965++ that we already have sunk much deeper, and to some much more ancient time that we are not anymore on the wavelength of a life in goodness....I have been reading a lot of stuff about that, about hidden things in Pyramids, megaliths, ancient monuments that some cannot be dated in fact, and so on, which are found all over the planet and it seems that tall over the place they were using the same mathematical patterns, like the number 3.14115, le nombre d'or , the meter , etc ..and alas one cannot count of modern specialist to tell anything about it but the official version of it ,we were stupid and beast..violent and so on and built a pyramid with coper scissor and a round stone only to make tomb in which was never found any dead body nor anything, including in the ones which were totally sealed before to be opened..... as all this and much more is today totally hidden ..an ancient culture that "they " try to hide under the carpet...to fit the modern fake history..long topic..not for here..

one thing in those past days it seems that the techniques, science, society etc was concerned by the well being of all, about what is good for mankind..and it really seem that there was no frontier or whatever such division as today...when today science is about money, fame and war...end of the "parentheses" ...all this fake history started by "some" some 2500 up to 5000 years ago...

John Raica wrote:
Probably you also know that the Teachings of Buddha were initially supposed to be transmitted only orally, and it was only 500+ years later that whatever resulted from this 'telephone arabe' began to be put in writing. At first I thought that they lacked the necessary means but on a second thought it may have been Mr B's idea that the Teachings were to be communicated live, to people who were seriously interested.

Yes, I am aware of that..amazingly it is the same in fact with what I mention before up to around let's say the building of Notre dame de Paris for example in the middle ages, where not a single plan of any monument was ever found..we are talking of a really different "culture" at all levels here....then something took place...it is the same for what we may know about Celtic tradition, they were all orals traditions long time ago before false religion appeared..etc

John Raica wrote:
There is this 'anecdote' of Mr B and his wandering monks having been very generously hosted and fed by a pious local dignitary. And Mr B sent one of his disciple to ask him if he wouldn't want to come and ask him whatever he wanted to know about the Teachings. And the gentleman responded that he doesn't have anything special to ask, and was happy to have hosted his highly spiritual guests. So when this was reported back to Mr B he's supposed to have said " See, Ananda, this man is like the spoon that has never tasted the soup"....

You know I have been talking about such subjects we mention here to some that apparently would not listen at all to such bla bla, there is a way to eventually go into it, which is to do so when someone is in huge pressure ,mental and life trouble, etc of some sort..

On the opposite talking to some well educated persons, well situated on the social ladder did not work at all, I never insisted anyway because I am not trying to impose at all...

thanks

Dan ...........

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 15 Jan 2017 #10
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 516 posts in this forum Offline

A few thoughts on...'thought'

The practical difficulty of communicating the deeper significance of any psychological 'fact' is...when we're using the generally accepted name: for instance when trying to communicate the inner feeling of 'energy' we are using the generic word...'energy'. Chances are that the experiential information is 'lost in translation' (unless... we are 'talking to ourselves' ?)

For the physically observable facts the verbal description is usually conveying a relatively correct image of the object described - a 'red apple', no matter what size or shade of red, will offer a decent mental reference of recognition. Now , when we're using the word 'thought' its 'personal reception' can be in a whole spectrum of significances: from ' I thought it's gonna rain' , to ' I thought something about X ' ( please notice the presence of the 'thinker' and of the object he's thinking about') In short, we are so acustomed with our 'thinking routine' that we do not pay much (if any ?) attention to the act of thinking. Most of our attention is focussed on the object of our thinking - so (a) we have become experts in optimising our thinking ( but then...so are doing all the computerised machines) and (b) there is always a 'thinker' behind the thinking

Now for 'telling it like it is' perhaps we should mention that all out thinking (self-centred or objective) is taking place exclusively in the field of ' the already known' (see K's 'thought is the response of memory') We can also try 'think about what is not yet known ' ( K called it 'invention' ?). As for 'that which is unknowable', namely not pertaining to our physical reality, all we can think about it is purely 'conjectural' (working hypothesiy, personal insights, etc). Nevertheless, the term 'meditation' would probably be more adequate here since (as K wisely put it) meditation starts where the 'known' ends

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 15 Jan 2017 #11
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 516 posts in this forum Offline

Daniel Paul. wrote:
I have been talking about such subjects we mention here to some that apparently would not listen at all to such bla bla, there is a way to eventually go into it, which is to do so when someone is in huge pressure ,mental and life trouble, etc of some sort..

On the opposite talking to some well educated persons, well situated on the social ladder did not work at all, I never insisted anyway because I am not trying to impose at all...

Hi, Dan, I guess that the 'incommunicability' in all these cases -all the response spectrum from 'not interested', to 'says who ?' to 'this is an over-simplification'- is that the way our brain is now working (99 % or even more ) is on an 'auto-pilot self-protecting' mode So it is rejecting 'en bloc' anything perceived as damaging or dangerous to its 'identitary interface'- which for many is identical with the very safety of theirphysical survival. For instance if you're telling X that suffering is the final predicament of his existence, unless this X person is not already sensibilised to the subject (by his own life experience) he will readily discard it as 'intox'. The only difference between the intellectually sophisticated and the 'simple' people is mostly in the quantity & quality of the counter-arguments

This post was last updated by John Raica Sun, 15 Jan 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 15 Jan 2017 #12
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 277 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
Nevertheless, the term 'meditation' would probably be more adequate here since (as K wisely put it) meditation starts where the 'known' ends

Hello John, possibly for me the ideal way of putting it, then it speaks....one thing is about what is unconscious for the superficial analyser, it is both potentially known to some of our quite turned off capacities and unknown to the usual thinking process...

Dan ...........

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 15 Jan 2017 #13
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 277 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
I guess that the 'incommunicability' in all these cases -all the response spectrum from 'not interested', to 'says who ?' to 'this is an over-simplification'- is that the way our brain is now working (99 % or even more ) is on an 'auto-pilot self-protecting' mode So it is rejecting 'en bloc' anything perceived as damaging or dangerous to its 'identity interface'- which for many is identical with the very safety of their physical survival.

Yes exactly.

John Raica wrote:
For instance if you're telling X that suffering is the final predicament of his existence, unless this X person is not already sensibilised to the subject (by his own life experience) he will readily discard it as 'intox'.

Yes indeed, but apart from our talks here, and on one another website where I write about that, it is a political-social site so not at all a good idea to bring such topic yet I do it..., I do not go into that , apart when it is the right time to do so according to my feeling with very close persons, partner, children and Richard of course..:-)...I usually avoid it at all cost, as well as many more of "our subjects" here...

And If I bring it often here, it is not to persuade you of anything of course but you know that, it is because I think that some new readers are passing by and that in a k website, it is a very valid subject....

John:The only difference between the intellectually sophisticated and the 'simple' people is mostly in the quantity & quality of the counter-arguments

well, yes and no....

the so called simple people I met, are much less simple that some may think, many have just not the interest in intellectual bullshitting and were not at all fit for our type of education and formatting in fact ( a very good sign for me), I speak from experience of course and the sophisticated ones I met sometimes when not often were much less clever or smart than one may guess...but yes capable of very complex intellectual never ending talks..

of course it is not as simple as that..

So my point after this digression is that our usual classification is not valid in terms of capacity to understand beyond thought's dictatorship...

etc...

Dan ...........

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 18 Jan 2017 #14
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 516 posts in this forum Offline

Again, if we are to 'tell it like it is' , this all too often used K term "centre". How about..."centre of self-interest" ? or " the core of human consciousness polarised by self-interest" ?
This working hypothesis would -in my humble view- explain Dr Bohm's constant wondering that the 'self' ( which in K's words is no more than... "a bunch of memories") has such an inexhaustible vitality and (oportunistic) versatility. But then, this 'new idea' (as in "a new way of looking" at it ) would also give a deeper meaning to K's axiomatic statement "the thinker is the thought ". If the 'thinker' is just...another thought, then we could easily dispose of it. But if the same 'thinker' entity is just a personalised polarisation of the total energy of our consciousness, it would even logically follow that perceiving the truth of this 'axiomatic' K statement has as a direct effect the release of that energy from its 'temporal' casing ('emballage' ?) . Which would lead (even logically !) to the 'awakening' of an universal (non-personal) quality of compassionate intelligence.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 20 Jan 2017 #15
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 516 posts in this forum Offline

Since we are on a thread dedicated to 'telling it like it is' , many of us must have wondered what K really meant by the term 'total insight' and also why in his direct and uncompromising presentation of the Teachings there are so many voluntary 'roundabouts' and 'detours'- giving the casual reader the uneasy feeling of being hopelessly caught into a vast psychological labyrinth with no visible clues about how you got there and where is the actual exit. The truth of the matter may be that it is an ages old accumulation of personal & collective conditioning that created this apparently perfect 'mental labyrinth' and K is doing his best to throw some light upon it- a segment at a time or ( more rarely ?) a 'bird's eye view' of its totality. Here is an example of a global insight (experientially friendly edited ?) extracted from a K talk in Saanen 1968:

" (Intro:) First of all, the human mind, right from the beginning of time the ancient Egyptians and so on he has always asked if there is something beyond, something more, something which can be called Truth, to which a name may be given. The energy which is necessary in order to find out (within oneself ?) , was put into an organisational frame with its priests, with its images that became the means through which you had to go to find out. Obviously that is not (the true meaning of ?) religion. To see that very clearly and to deny it completely demands ( a lot of intelligent ?) energy. As we said, what is false must be denied to find out what is true. You cannot have one foot in the false and vaguely put out the other foot to find out what is true. So, in denying completely what is false, one can proceed to find out for oneself, not as a separate individual but as a human being, what is this (way of ?) action is that is complete each minute, without any (hidden ?) contradictions in itself, therefore an action which does not breed misery. That is a way of religious life, that is the positive. We have denied what religion is not and we are saying what it is. Then, if there is such action, there is a life of harmony, a life in which there is unity between man and man, not contradiction, not hate, not antagonism such as one observes every religion to have bred, though they talk of love, though they talk of peace.

(Experiential content:) We live inwardly in a world (populated ?) with things known. That is, I know the past of my own activity; I know through my past conditioning; I live in the 'known' which is an obvious fact, it does not need great explanation. The intellectual, the scientific, the business, the everyday life, is within the field of the known. And...we are (subliminally ?) afraid to move out of ( the illusory safety of ?) that dimension. We may feel there is a different dimension, which is not the known, but we are afraid of that, and we are afraid to let go of the known, the past, the familiar, the habitual. We are afraid of the unknown; can we be free of that fear and be with the 'unknown'? If you are afraid of that which you do not know, you begin (instinctively ?) to create 'images' of it, both outwardly and inwardly. So, can the (meditative ?) mind be with the unknown, live in it? Because it is only then that there is a renewal of life, that there is something new taking place. But if you always live in the known as most of us do, projecting the known into tomorrow and you call that the 'unknown', then it is not, it is still the known, as an idea. In that field of the known there is repetition, imitation, conformity, and therefore there is always contradiction.

( Our hidden difficulty is that ?) the 'observer' is the ( all-controlling action of the ?) 'known'. When we look at a tree we always look at it with the (knowledgeable ) 'image' of that tree, as that species, as known. You look at your wife, or your husband, or your neighbour, with the image of the known, you never remain in that state in which you say 'I really do not know' and see what takes place in that relationship. Then you (would be far more ?) sensitive and alert to all the things that are happening to you and to her; then the relationship is entirely different, there is no image which has been built through habit, through every form of experience and so on through the known. And to live with another in a state of mind without the image, a state in which 'I do not know you and you do not know me', then relationship becomes extraordinarily (frictionless and ?) creative, there is no conflict; then relationship awakens the highest form of sensitivity and intelligence. So a 'religious' (or 'holistic' ?) life is (based on living with ?) the 'unknown', with (the inner humbleness of ?) 'I do not know'. I wonder if you have ever said to yourself that inwardly, psychologically, you really do not know about anything? If you have ever done it, not (only as an intellectual exercise but ?) actually, then you will have seen that all ( the inner limitations of your cultural ?) conditioning (momentarily ?) disappears. (However ?) To actually live that state (of inneer 'unknowing' ) , demands (a lot of compassionately intelligent ?) energy, because everybody around you functions in the (illusory safety of the ?) 'known' - you are always in danger (of getting again stuck in the known ?) and it demands a great deal of (integrated inner ?) energy and intelligence to remain in that state. But (on the 'plus' side ?) the mind is always ( in a dynamic of ?) learning; and this 'learning' is not a process of ?) accumulation.

( Conclusion: ) The 'religious' (or 'holistic' way of ?) life is a life of action, an action in which there is no contradiction, action which is not (inwardly) broken up (by the outer activities of ?) business life, the social life, political life, religious life, family life and so on. And you can only act in that (holistic ?) way when there is (an inner openness to ?) 'love'. This love is not (the result the search for ?) pleasure, cultivated and sustained (decorated ?) by thought; this (univeraly open ?) 'love' is not a thing to be cultivated. It is only love that brings about this total action and bring about this complete sense of unity (with All That Is) .
The 'unknown' (dimension of our being ?) is not something extraordinary; but living (exclusively) within the field of the 'known' makes the 'unknown' into looking like something contradictory. But when you understand the (time-binding ?) nature of the 'known', the past experiences, the "images" that one has built up about the world, as the (separate ?) nations, as races, as the various religious dogmatic beliefs, those are all the 'known' and if the mind is not caught in it there can be "Love"; otherwise, do what you will, there will be no peace in the world .

(And, for more meditational homework ?) One may ask further, can a human being come upon a life that has no death? Can we come upon an (inner dimension of our ?) life that is really timeless? Which means a life in which thought (the creator of the psychological time with its fear?) comes to an end. Outwardly, thought has its own importance, but psychologically it has no importance whatsoever. Thought (the 'thinker' entity operating within the field of the known ?) is a "mischief maker", always seeking (to optimise its own safety and/or ?) pleasure. But when it is seen very clearly that Love is not (to be found in the endless search for personal safety & ?) pleasure, that Love is something entirely different. and when one lives that way then perhaps there is (an inner awakening of a?) life that has no beginning and no end, a life of timelessness."

This post was last updated by John Raica Tue, 31 Jan 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 31 Jan 2017 #16
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 516 posts in this forum Offline

Let's try to 'tell it like it is ' regarding the perrenial topic of 'reincarnation'

Question: Do you believe in reincarnation? Is it a fact? Can you give us proof from your personal experience?

Krishnamurti: The idea of reincarnation is as old as the hills; the idea that man, through many rebirths, going through innumerable experiences, will come at last to perfection, to truth, to God. Now what is it that is reborn, what is it that continues? To me, that thing which is supposed to continue is nothing but a series of layers of memory, of certain qualities, certain incompleted actions which have been conditioned, hindered by fear born of self-protection. Now that incomplete consciousness is what we call the ego, the "I". As I explained at the beginning in my brief introductory talk, individuality is the accumulation of the results of various actions which have been impeded, hindered by certain inherited and acquired values, limitations.

I will try to make it simple: When you talk of the "I", you mean by that a ( self-conscious entity identified with a ?) name, a (physical) form, certain (cultural root assumptions or ?) ideas, certain prejudices, certain ( personal gifts or ?) qualities, and so on, which have been developed (throughout the ages by man's ?) desire for self-protection, security, comfort. So, this "I"-(consciousness ?) , is based on a (collectively shared ?) illusion, and has no reality. Therefore the ( essential ?) question is not whether there is reincarnation, but whether the (human) "mind and heart" can free itself from this ( ego-centric mental ?) limitation of the "I", the "mine".

You ask me whether I believe in reincarnation or not, because being forced to live in a conditioning environment with limited opportunities, you (are wondering if ) through this misery and conflict you can ever realize that ecstasy of life, immortality.

Now I say there is ( a spiritual ?) immortality, to me it is a personal experience; but it can be realized only when the ( time-bound ?) mind is not looking forward to a 'future' in which it shall live more perfectly, more completely, more richly. Immortality is the infinite present. To understand the ('being in the ?) present' with its full, rich significance, the mind must free itself from the ( bad ?) habit of self-protective acquisition; when it is utterly naked, then only is there 'immortality'.

Now, let's see if and how K answered this very specific question :

(a) He doged (holistically !) the question 'Do you believe in Reincarnation ?' , but we may safely infer that his implicit answer was 'No' . It is not a matter in 'believing' or 'not believing'

(b) But..is it a 'fact' ? Looks like he 'dodged' it again (by omission?). However, I remember an off-hand K quote (possibly in private) "Reincarnation is a fact...but it is not the truth "

(c) 'Can you give a proof from your personal experience ?'

Here his answer was definitely more direct, (but...)

I say there is immortality, to me it is a personal experience; but it can be realized only when the ( time-bound ?) mind is not looking forward to a 'future'. Immortality is (to be found in the timeless dimension of ?) the infinite present.

So...what can the decently serious 'truth seeker' conclude ?
That...unless you really got there there's no point in asking others about it. However, K turned the question inwardly by pointing the often neglected truth that the 'I' is an incomplete consciousness ever struggling to become 'complete', and this (perrenial) truth is definitely worth meditating upon.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 31 Jan 2017 #17
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 126 posts in this forum Offline

K: But is there a (similar self-) awareness of (the mental activity of the self-centred ??) thought, of its structure, its nature, what it has created, what it has done in the world, the misery, and all the rest of it ?

S: I'd want to save this question for tomorrow: when you are aware of your movement of the vase, it doesn't stop. But when you are aware of the movement of the brain it does stop. Isn't that interesting?

B: The irrelevant thoughts stop

The "irrelevant" thoughts may stop but the important point here is that the thought/self/me doesn't stop. When (if) it becomes aware of its own 'movement', it undergoes a 'change'...it is not the same 'thought' that occurs when the 'thinker' is separate. And this awareness of itself, of what it is, of what it does, of what it has done etc. is what is 'necessary'.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Wed, 01 Feb 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 02 Feb 2017 #18
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 126 posts in this forum Offline

K: You read some Hindu (Buddhist or ?) or some other book. And say, yes, how true that is, I am going to live according to that. But the 'me' that is going to live according to that is the same old me.

This touched me, The 'me' that is looking for change is the very thing that needs to be changed. And this is what has always eluded us.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 02 Feb 2017 #19
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 516 posts in this forum Offline

It dawned on me only lately that this particular thread might as well be dedicated to 'debuggging' a few key words that K used constantly
and of course 'thought' is the most commonly used.

So, what's psychologically wrong with this wonderful thinking instrument of ours, which took ages to develop into the meticulously precise and knowlegeable tool that sends rockets to the Moon and Mars or placed the telescope Hubble on the orbit ?

One main downfall in terms of inward perception is that this instrument of 'thought' is coming with a personalised interface called the 'thinker' which has its own (hidden) agenda in terms of its temporal continuity and safety or optimising various 'personal' factors such as pleasure, comfort. In short, the 'thinking ' process is splitting itself into a controlling or decisionary component and a vast array of more specialised sub- processes

The second is that there is a strong inherited tendency of our mind to get identified with this 'thinker' or 'experiencer' or 'observer' interface , probably brought about by our brain's need to be constantly in control in its various outward interactions. And as soon as this instinctual identification is taking place, the surrounding reality is perceived only in dualistic terms-'me' and 'you', 'mine' and 'yours' , 'us' and 'them', etc

But not in the least, our thought is working exclusively within the field of the 'known', pretty much like a person functioning exclusively in his 'virtual reality' world

In short, for any sincere attempt to see or learn (at first hand !) about what is really going on within our own psyche, this thinking instrument (so objective and rigurous in its interactions with the outer world) is not only introducing very significant errors and distortions, but it even arrests the inward perception altogether.

From where our 'natural' evolutionary developpment would be to start creating a new inwardly perceptive instrument. Easier said than done, but the implications are that this new instrument is the 'meditative mind'- a non-personal dimension of our existing consciousness emptied of its 'known' content.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 03 Feb 2017 #20
Thumb_photo Prasanna P India 8 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
It dawned on me only lately that this particular thread might as well be dedicated to 'debuggging' a few key words that K used constantly
and of course 'thought' is the most commonly used.

Yes, John this struck me decades ago. After discussing this in vain, with many readers of K, I presented my naturalmind.org as a ppt. other blogs are at medium.com/@sifybird

K (Consciousness) was undoubtedly in the natural state. Only his expressions involved some visualizations, where some discrepancies crept in. By correcting and implementing them, self-transformation becomes a breeze for those who are interested.

Only goal is to realize the avowed objective of K. I am looking for some dynamic person/s who are conversant with K teachings, and capable of intellectually understanding my theory. This I consider as not against K, but as an advancement only. After all, the end result or meeting the objective is important.

Present situation may be explained somewhat like this. K readers are conditioned to K, and are unable to see any altered view, though with the same objective. Others seem to be simply oblivious to the deterioration of the world.

Let us continue this conversation with others who want to chip in.

Unless Advanced, K's Teachings May Remain As Ineffective As of Now

This post was last updated by Prasanna P Fri, 03 Feb 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 03 Feb 2017 #21
Thumb_photo Prasanna P India 8 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
However...K is often repeating that you cannot experience 'that', Which if followed literally is putting even the most serious of us on a loop.

May I John, intrude to give my 'experience'? The 'I', experiencer or the Consciousness got changed or transformed. I know it is difficult to communicate or to understand, but not impossible.

Unless Advanced, K's Teachings May Remain As Ineffective As of Now

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 03 Feb 2017 #22
Thumb_photo Prasanna P India 8 posts in this forum Offline

Why the present GUI for uploading pictures is so difficult? Why no one is uploading any pictures? Can anyone answer these questions? Can someone guide me how to upload pictures? I think, I can help answer many doubts thorough pictures.

Unless Advanced, K's Teachings May Remain As Ineffective As of Now

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 03 Feb 2017 #23
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 277 posts in this forum Offline

Hello Prasanna, you may ask this person, he is quite good at that..

Dan ...........

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 03 Feb 2017 #24
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 516 posts in this forum Offline

Prasanna P wrote:
Present situation may be explained somewhat like this. K readers are conditioned to K, and are unable to see any altered view, though with the same objective. Others seem to be simply oblivious to the deterioration of the world.

Well, Prasanna, reading or viewing most of K's talks may also act as an ego- stimulent. The 'ego' wanting to transcend its condition borrows some -if not all- of K's 'ideas', and upgrades its experiential language, etc Now, thought and the 'ego' (aka the 'thinker' ) are going hand in hand, namely one feeds the other, so the fact that they do it in the K circles or in any other circles available does not change their deep roots in self-interest Similarly the visiting 'ego' might check out your 'new theory' in the same way it will go window shopping for a new suit. I have seen a rather interesting documentary on what became the capital city of scientology - Clearwater, a small town in Florida - they were all wearing the same outfit; white shirts and black pants, they were all looking identical - you actually could not tell one from the other, and they were all dynamic and busy . For what, they didn't tell, but some of the older residents of that small town were already planning to move.

My point is, the deeper human nature even in the context of a self-supporting community did not change, since transcending one's conditioning is a very intimate individual affair. Same here- a lot of highly 'discontented' people- apparently this was K's greatest educational impact - who are hiding their faces behind some ridiculous computer generated 'avatars'- as if their 'self-images' were not a sufficient disguise. All in all, a pretty sad and...lonely planet

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 03 Feb 2017 #25
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 516 posts in this forum Offline

Relationship is another often used K term which, quite frankly bored me to death - as in ' The importance of having a right relationship' - an all-purpose generic statement that can be used by any lawyer, teacher, preacher, politician or social activist who wants to play it by the book.
Now if this statement experientially means 'myself having an affectionate and compassionate relationship' - with people, with nature, with the whole intelligent Universe, it would perhaps speak to me more directly. But on the other hand, this would probably expose the overly sincere 'speaker' to a chorus of rational and...irrational objections from a wide spectrum of politically correct 'activists', 'free thinkers', etc, up to the ubiquitous internet trolls.

So, this could be something significant to notice about the generic terms used by K in his talks & dialogues - that as a 'speaker' he avoided being too specific when it came to the key experiential terms, which is quite understandable giving the spontaneous aggressivity of the modern medias. This can also explain that we can find as many understandings of his Teachings as people who have ever read or heard them.

The main point may be that all these generically wrapped 'seeds of truth ' have to find a proper inner soil in order to germinate- and Jesus said pretty much the same thing-, or again, that there has to be a certain 'truth-resonance' ( see this other generic key term 'listening') if we are ever to benefit of their 'living' message.

It is nevertheless strange that while K never hesitated in his public talks to openly criticise a wide array of ideologies, politicians, organised religions, was using such vague generic terms when it came to the practical aspects of the inner experience. Now if this was the case, why would he complain at the very end of 60 + years of teaching & preaching that no-one he had met was living the teachings ? So, if I may conclude, the ball (of truth ?) is still bouncing in our court, and for quite a while.

This post was last updated by John Raica Fri, 03 Feb 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 03 Feb 2017 #26
Thumb_hot-sale-font-b-cool-b-font-cat-animal-poster-custom-font-b-wallpaper-b-font Jan Kasol Czech Republic 18 posts in this forum Offline

I have no problem with the statement, that "truth" cannot be experienced. Only the ego, the experiencer, can experience something. To experience something means to recognize it, to bring it to your frame of reference (of memory). The truth is, when the ego is not, when it dies, when there is silence, when there is peace.
Truth cannot be understood, grasped, experienced, possessed, accumulated etc. Every experience is conditioned by the past. And truth is the unconditioning of the mind.
You constantly want to experience enlightenment. But how do you know that it is enlightenment, that you are experiencing, if not by comparing it with past experience? And if you compare it, you are certainly out of it. The center of comparison, of accumulation, of desire, of greed, of fear has to be done with first. Only this center experiences, gathers, recognizes. Truth is always new, never old. What you recognize, experience, is already old.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 04 Feb 2017 #27
Thumb_photo Prasanna P India 8 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
Similarly the visiting 'ego' might check out your 'new theory' in the same way it will go window shopping for a new suit.

Yes, liberal people including some K readers are testing my new Theory of Fragmentation of Intelligence (TFI). Though it is a simple and clear theory, it takes a long time to be proved. It is by an Independent Researcher in Psychology, for enabling adults to 1) return to their original or unfragmented state of Consciousness and to protect the Consciousness from fragmentation in Newly Arriving Children. As adults would be only losing their fragmentation with flab of ego, externally worn new suits won't be needed.

John Raica wrote:
My point is, the deeper human nature even in the context of a self-supporting community did not change, since transcending one's conditioning is a very intimate individual affair.

When natural phenomenons are scientifically explained, everything becomes easy and possible. K seems to have failed to realize his own objective, only because he failed to visualize and explain the concept with simpler words. K's explanation about the 'fragmented consciousness and its return to its unfragmented state' is perhaps one of the greatest intellectual exercise of mankind.

K failed in his endeavor, perhaps because he couldn't juxtapose the concept of 'I' along with Consciousness. 20K years ago, it was saint Ashtavakra, who simply declared that 'I am the Consciousness'. Taking a cue from him, I amalgamated the I and the Consciousness, and the life has been smoother thereafter.

John Raica wrote:
Relationship is another often used K term which, quite frankly bored me to death - as in ' The importance of having a right relationship' - an all-purpose generic statement that can be used by any lawyer, teacher, preacher, politician or social activist who wants to play it by the book.

To understand anything, in its absence or lack of it is obviously boring. 'State of absence of conflicts' is the True, Right or Natural Relationship. Because, all conflicts are 'intellectual or associating memory', and are motivated due to fragmentation. No fragmentation of consciousness means permanent absence of conflicts. Merely imagining it 'without actually losing fragmentation', is obviously discomforting or annoying.

John Raica wrote:
This can also explain that we can find as many understandings of his Teachings as people who have ever read or heard them.

You are right. It should perhaps read as 'misunderstandings'. Because, accurate understanding can be only one. That is why he often used to say, don't accept me Sirs, Please understand me. Only fragmentation prevents us from understanding, whereas nothing should prevent the understanding of even wrong statements.

John Raica wrote:
The main point may be that all these generically wrapped 'seeds of truth 'have to find a proper inner soil in order to germinate- and Jesus said pretty much the same thing-, or again, that there has to be a certain 'truth-resonance' ( see this other generic key term 'listening') if we are ever to benefit of their 'living' message.

According to me, if children are raised with minimum of attention level in senses at 51% or above, it is enough. Such children are rational. They may commit mistakes, but when explained they are able to correct themselves. This is the biggest problem of developing countries.

John Raica wrote:
It is nevertheless strange that while K never hesitated in his public talks to openly criticise a wide array of ideologies, politicians, organised religions, was using such vague generic terms when it came to the practical aspects of the inner experience. Now if this was the case, why would he complain at the very end of 60 + years of teaching & preaching that no-one he had met was living the teachings ? So, if I may conclude, the ball (of truth ?) is still bouncing in our court, and for quite a while.

Yes, the ball is in our court, and we have to respond accurately and adequately. For that, we have to lose our fragmentation.

Unless Advanced, K's Teachings May Remain As Ineffective As of Now

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 04 Feb 2017 #28
Thumb_photo Prasanna P India 8 posts in this forum Offline

Jan Kasol wrote:
I have no problem with the statement, that "truth" cannot be experienced.

According to me, Truth is the purity, accuracy and quality of a statement or situation that we perceive. Truth is not the statement itself. "Is there any truth in what you say", is a generally asked question.

An unfragmented or unconditioned Consciousness has the ability to see the 'truth or untruth' of any situation or statement. Hence, understanding is the ability of the unconditioned Consciousness.

It is important and essential to understand that only in 'conditioned or challenging intellectual areas or situations' mankind has lost the ability to understand, so it retaliates. naturalmind.org

Unless Advanced, K's Teachings May Remain As Ineffective As of Now

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 04 Feb 2017 #29
Thumb_photo Prasanna P India 8 posts in this forum Offline

Daniel Paul. wrote:
Hello Prasanna, you may ask this person, he is quite good at that..

Thanks Paul, I have sent a message to him. I await for his reply.

Unless Advanced, K's Teachings May Remain As Ineffective As of Now

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 04 Feb 2017 #30
Thumb_photo Prasanna P India 8 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
This touched me, The 'me' that is looking for change is the very thing that needs to be changed. And this is what has always eluded us.

It is no longer elusive. Some people say that the 'I' has to change. Others say the 'I' has to be lost or eliminated.

If we understand the 'I', then we would know, what to do with it. Presently the I is the combination of Pure I or Pure Consciousness, which is only energy and knowledge in memory.

Because of damage or fragmentation, the pure I or Consciousness combines with memory, and the present common I is formed or constituted. If they can be separated, that brings freedom to the 'I' or Consciousness. Thereafter the thinking becomes voluntary, optional and discreet. naturalmind.org

Unless Advanced, K's Teachings May Remain As Ineffective As of Now

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 34 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.)