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

Are we actually machines?


Displaying posts 511 - 540 of 790 in total
Tue, 25 Apr 2017 #511
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 300 posts in this forum Offline

John Perkins. wrote:
Does it apply to K and his ilk?

How would I know?

If someone says they have been captured by an alien super-species and taken to the planet Kuydbviwyo where they were given a little yellow pill that spun their head around and made them know everything there was to be known, plus its opposite, in an instant, who would I be to call them delusional? (No need to answer that question)

By the way, were I to say I was K come back, how would you disprove it?

This post was last updated by Paul David son Tue, 25 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 25 Apr 2017 #512
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 165 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
as for the practical 'clues' for 'solving' it, they are pretty scarce...

Is that so, John? Or might it be that we're not placed to spot them? To my mind it appears that literature extolling the self same 'teachings' K presented, though invariably corrupted by priesthoods, is ubiquitous. It's to be found in every second-hand-book shop. People leave it for free in many if not most hotel rooms. If a mind can see past (or through) the priestly corruption, the self-same quintessence remains.

It's a bit like with all of this stuff; if we ourselves can't see it, we tend naturally to suppose it isn't there.

Que Sera, Sera.

This post was last updated by John Perkins. Tue, 25 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 25 Apr 2017 #513
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 165 posts in this forum Offline

@#508 Paul David son wrote:

Within the decision-making process by which a human acts, much is arrived at unconsciously and then afterwards justified as a conscious decision.

.

John Perkins wrote:

Does it apply to K and his ilk?

.

@#512 Paul David son wrote:

How would I know?

If someone says they have been captured by an alien super-species and taken to the planet Kuydbviwyo where they were given a little yellow pill that spun their head around and made them know everything there was to be known, plus its opposite, in an instant, who would I be to call them delusional? (No need to answer that question)

By the way, were I to say I was K come back, how would you disprove it?

To be addressed when I get back...

Que Sera, Sera.

This post was last updated by John Perkins. Tue, 25 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 25 Apr 2017 #514
Thumb_hot-sale-font-b-cool-b-font-cat-animal-poster-custom-font-b-wallpaper-b-font Jan Kasol Czech Republic 174 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
The only way 'out' is 'through'?:

I am not sure if "through" is the right word. Through somehow implies avoidance, escape, hope for some salvation on the other side. The essence of K's method is "choiceless awareness" and it is one of the most difficult concepts in the whole K teachings. What does he mean by awareness?
Awareness means staying with what is and removing all the escapes and illusions that the mind has created in its escape from what is. As a random example, here is what K said in Brazil in 1935

"Finding yourself in misery, in great emptiness, despair, you begin to seek a way out, an escape. This escape is called the search for reality, truth, or by whatever name you like to give to it.....You want a drug, a dope which will satisfy you, which will put you peacefully to sleep. The only actuality, the only reality that we can fully comprehend, is this confusion, this misery, this conflict, and to escape from this is but to create illusion. If you escape from actuality, you can only go to illusions, to hopes, to longings, which have no reality.....Once and for all, the mind must rid itself of this desire to escape, and only then is it prepared to discover the fundamental cause of suffering; for suffering is the main reality with which each one of us is acquainted. Now to understand fundamentally the cause of suffering, the mind must be free from ideals, because ideals are nothing but forms of escape from actuality.....So you have to ask yourself whether you are seeking a solution for your suffering within the circle of illusion, within the environment of centuries, and thus creating further illusions and entrenching yourself more within that prison; or whether you are seeking to break through the many illusions that you have built about yourself through the centuries. For in the process of discernment, the cause of suffering is known and dissolved. It is only then, and not till then, that the mind is able to discern truth. The very search for reality is an illusion, because it is but an escape. When all escapes and illusions have been cleared away by understanding, then only can the mind perceive that which is enduring, the immeasurable."

This in different varieties he repeats in almost all his talks (sometimes he talks about ideals, other times about creating opposites or making effort or movement in time - different aspects of the same problem of escapes). It is very interesting to try to observe the escapes in one's own life. That is why I have written somewhere above, that the first thing that we should realize is that we are not seeking for truth, we are seeking for escape from suffering. The escapes can take very subtle and hard to realize forms. The whole K teaching is as escape under whose protective wings we are trying to find shelter. The very will to observe our own escapes (because K said so) is an escape from actuality, a desire to find security in observation of escapes. The very will to understand ourselves, to create a theory of suffering is an escape. Will itself is an escape. Only when you have no will is there choiceless awareness. There is no will to change, to escape, to choose one over the other. Will is observer, chooser, maker of effort. And this state can be reached only when the will realizes that no matter what it does can change anything. Then you stay with what is, with actuality, all escapes and illusions are gone and you can perceive clearly. Then the suffering dissolves. To cut off all escapes, to kill the observer is very difficult. You need to struggle hard, and only at the end of the struggle, when you perceive all escapes, all tricks and realize (actually, not theoretically) that nothing is going to help, will the will to change anything give up.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 25 Apr 2017 #515
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 300 posts in this forum Offline

John Perkins. wrote:
To be addressed when I get back...

Spellbound by the prospect, I am.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 25 Apr 2017 #516
Thumb_hot-sale-font-b-cool-b-font-cat-animal-poster-custom-font-b-wallpaper-b-font Jan Kasol Czech Republic 174 posts in this forum Offline

The essence of K in a single Q&A (Rio De Janeiro 1935)

Question: What is human will power?

Krishnamurti: it is nothing but a reaction against resistance. The mind has created, through its desire for self-protection and comfort, many hindrances and barriers, thus bringing about its own incompleteness, its own sorrow. To free itself from this sorrow, the mind begins to battle against these self-created resistances and limitations. In this conflict there is born and developed will, with which the mind identifies itself, thus giving birth to the "I" consciousness. If these barriers did not exist, there would be continual fulfillment in action, not an overcoming of a conflict. You are trying to kill out, to conquer these self-imposed limitations, which only give birth to resistance which we call will. But if we understood why these barriers were created, then there would not be an overcoming, a conquering, which but creates further resistance. These barriers, these hindrances have come into being through the desire for self-protection, and hence there is a conflict between the movement of eternal life and that desire. From this conflict arise sorrow and the many carefully cultivated escapes. Where there is escape there must be illusion, there must be the erection of barriers. Will is but another of the illusions which have been created in search of self-protection; and it is only when the mind liberates itself from its own centre of illusions and is creatively empty that there is discernment of that which is true. Discernment is not the result of will, as will springs from resistance. Will is the outcome of the conflict of choice, but discernment is choiceless.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 25 Apr 2017 #517
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 165 posts in this forum Offline

Paul David son wrote:

Within the decision-making process by which a human acts, much is arrived at unconsciously and then afterwards justified as a conscious decision.

.

John Perkins wrote:

Does it apply to K and his ilk?

.

Paul David son wrote:

How would I know?

By way of the mutation of the brain K speaks of; how else? Decisions imply choice; Perception doesn't allow of choice.

By the way, were I to say I was K come back, how would you disprove it?

By continuing to expose the fallacy inevitably lent your speculative assertions by the mechanistic nature of your personal ratiocinatory habit.

Que Sera, Sera.

This post was last updated by John Perkins. Tue, 25 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 25 Apr 2017 #518
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 300 posts in this forum Offline

John Perkins. wrote:
By way of the mutation of the brain K speaks of; how else?

Hahaha . . . but there's a hole in my bucket, dear Perky, dear Perky

John Perkins. wrote:
By continuing to expose the fallacy invariably lent your speculative assertions by the mechanistic nature of your personal ratiocinatory habit.

Am I your fallacy symbol? Did I ask for the job? (How much does it pay?)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 25 Apr 2017 #519
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 165 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
Unfortunately, John, the common language is seriously tainted when it comes to the human psyche . It was spontaneously developped by ( and for ?) people focussing almost exclusively on the survivalistic action in the material world- inwardly it did not really go further than...Do you believe in God/gods, or not ? The 'spiritual' terminology was therefore openly or implicitly assigned to subtle or gross manipulations of the group consciousness.
And 'religion' ( as in 're-ligo' )came down to 'binding people together' rather than re-establishing a forgotten 'link' with a more universal Mind. Which explains why all the global thesaurus of 'sacred books' -including the 'new age' stuff won't take us anywhere. They were and still are intended to decorate and give artificial meaning to a life spent almost exclusively in the known.

You may be right John but I don't personally see them like that. I see real nuggets amongst the dross, though I confess the latter far outweighs the former quantity-wise. Nevertheless, the accumulated sum of the 'nuggets' tends to read, for me, along very much the same or similar lines as the K stuff. K did a marvelous job of guarding against the ever present danger of priesthoods, and so his legacy remains, currently, pretty clean for us. We don't have to discern the 'nuggets' but instead can just read, and paint the picture for ourselves which in the other writings is far more obscured.

Que Sera, Sera.

This post was last updated by John Perkins. Tue, 25 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 25 Apr 2017 #520
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 162 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
Indeed, Dan, the quote is 100% K-correct. But...how much of it -from the average readers' point of view is more than just wishful thinking ? The truth of the matter may be that there are obviously no quick solutions , but even the 'hardly worked out ' solutions (solid as they may sound) do not guarantee anything either.

I don't think the "average reader" could vaguely approach what that quote points to. It can take a lifetime it seems, to even get close. And even then we are aware of the 'escapes' that we make when even the slightest psychological discomfort comes our way, the speed with which we react to challenge. No, to be in the 'utter solitude of fear', without hope of escape, (because the futility of escape has been understood), to be there with no movement...is, as far as my own experience, not for the 'average reader' or even for the 'faint of heart'.

I think I understand what you mean by "vertical exit"...'Time' has no place in this.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Tue, 25 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 25 Apr 2017 #521
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 165 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
I don't think the "average reader" could vaguely approach what that quote points to. It can take a lifetime it seems, to even get close.

One man's view, but certainly not K's.

And even then we are aware of the 'escapes' that we make when even the slightest psychological discomfort comes our way, the speed with which we react to challenge.

But how deeply and inclusively aware? How might one know what one misses? The fact is, Dan, when the thing is truly seen there remains no counting of events or assessments of 'awareness'.

No, to be in the 'utter solitude of fear', without hope of escape, (because the futility of escape has been understood), to be there with no movement...is, as far as my own experience, not for the 'average reader' or even for the 'faint of heart'.

Spoken like a true deluded. (On my life no slight intended).

I think I understand what you mean by "vertical exit"...'Time' has no place in this.

True. So stop lending it to it by psychological shenanigans.

Que Sera, Sera.

This post was last updated by John Perkins. Tue, 25 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 25 Apr 2017 #522
Thumb_a1056283319_2 Tom Paine United States 82 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
I don't think the "average reader" could vaguely approach what that quote points to

No...it's not for the casual reader either, that's for sure. And the intellect is no use at all with this. In fact it needs much more than a reading....it needs a living of the fact of fear...without dividing from it as the one who tries to act upon it....'me' trying to do something about the fear.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 25 Apr 2017 #523
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 162 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
No...it's not for the casual reader either, that's for sure. And the intellect is no use at all with this. In fact it needs much more than a reading....it needs a living of the fact of fear...without dividing from it as the one who tries to act upon it....'me' trying to do something about the fear.

I agree with all that but I do think that the "intellect" has a function. My intellectual understanding that running away from 'what is' is the source of sorrow, leads to a 'meditative' exploration of the truth of that. What does it really mean to stay with 'fear' and not move to do something about it, in myself? What happens when I try that without any goal, just to 'let it flower'?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Tue, 25 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 25 Apr 2017 #524
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 165 posts in this forum Offline

John Perkins wrote:

By way of the mutation of the brain K speaks of; how else?

.

Paul David son wrote:

Hahaha . . . but there's a hole in my bucket, dear Perky, dear Perky

.

John Perkins. wrote:

By continuing to expose the fallacy invevitably lent your speculative assertions by the mechanistic nature of your personal ratiocinatory habit.

.

Paul David son wrote:

Am I your fallacy symbol? Did I ask for the job? (How much does it pay?)

I take an interest here for a serious reason, Paul. The K stuff isn't a joke. For as long as any human entity remains unseeing then their every action is wrongly assessed and their movements are a detriment to their environment and the world. How do you think we landed (collectively) on the brink of catastrophe on so many fronts? Do you think the elephants or the lions or the ants would ever have landed here, in a trillion years? Of course not. Their life styles are sustainable; ours (collectively) is not. We can't reverse that trend. That is a long since lost cause. But every human being that makes it past the finish line in the interim counts. No others do.

Que Sera, Sera.

This post was last updated by John Perkins. Tue, 25 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 25 Apr 2017 #525
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 165 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
No...it's not for the casual reader either, that's for sure. And the intellect is no use at all with this. In fact it needs much more than a reading....it needs a living of the fact of fear...without dividing from it as the one who tries to act upon it....'me' trying to do something about the fear.

Tell me why you don't do it, Tom.

I've heard yourself and a dozen others - there's no intent to be offensive I'm just stating facts - talk about and describe what needs to be done endlessly for literally years. So why don't you do it?

It seems to me that yourself and Dan are bigging yourselves up here, making yourselves something bigger than the 'average' or 'casual' reader; on what account, quite, please?

Que Sera, Sera.

This post was last updated by John Perkins. Tue, 25 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 25 Apr 2017 #526
Thumb_a1056283319_2 Tom Paine United States 82 posts in this forum Offline

John Perkins. wrote:
I've heard yourself and a dozen others - there's no intent to be offensive I'm just stating facts - talk about and describe what needs to be done endlessly for literally years. So why don't you do it?

John, I'm sure you know by now that the 'me' can do nothing here. What "needs to be done" is nothing. This idea that 'I' can do something about 'me'/fear is part of what keeps the whole thing going. it's only when 'me' hits a brick wall and finally realizes that he can do NOTHING...absolutely nothing about fear...his problem, because he is it... is there 'seeing'...understanding.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Tue, 25 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 25 Apr 2017 #527
Thumb_a1056283319_2 Tom Paine United States 82 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
My intellectual understanding that running away from 'what is' is the source of sorrow, leads to a 'meditative' exploration of the truth of that

Here's where I think I disagree, Dan. If the understanding is purely intellectual, then we may be fooling ourselves that this will 'get us somewhere'. I may be mistaken, but that's my feeling about this.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Apr 2017 #528
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 162 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Here's where I think I disagree, Dan. If the understanding is purely intellectual, then we may be fooling ourselves that this will 'get us somewhere'. I may be mistaken, but that's my feeling about this.

Your 'intellectual' understanding "leads" you to look for a method and the hope that that will take you somewhere etc., but when you realize that there can be no 'method', and no 'somewhere to get to in the future' then you leave those old ideas and you begin. There is only 'beginning'. There is only 'now'.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Apr 2017 #529
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 165 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
John, I'm sure you know by now that the 'me' can do nothing here.

Yes. But I think my point is that it's also observable that it is the 'me' that is doing all the reading and writing here, though I'd say it fools itself otherwise. I was asking how, precisely, ie. on what grounds, Dan and yourself see yourselves as other than 'casual' or 'average' readers of the 'teachings'? Please believe me that there is no offence intended in this question. I'm asking it very cleanly.

What "needs to be done" is nothing.

I'm not sure it's quite 'nothing', Tom. We need to spot what's going on, don't we? And that 'spotting', I think K would say, would constitute 'meditation'. And in the very spotting a change is brought about. This 'change' represents a slight lifting of the veil. (I'm sure we all know what is meant by 'the veil'?)

This idea that 'I' can do something about 'me'/fear is part of what keeps the whole thing going.

Yes. I'm not sure that this fixation on 'fear' is helpful. K says that the 'watching' can become a pleasant, ie. interesting activity in itself. We might spot what we subconsciously try to avoid, ie. are 'frightened' of, but I'm not at all sure that we should keep the idea of 'fear' at the forefront.

It's only when 'me' hits a brick wall and finally realizes that he can do NOTHING...

Forgive me but it appears to me that there's a slight distortion here. It isn't that 'he' realizes anything at all. (The 'I', after all, is a nonentity). It's that 'he' is reduced by the circumstance to nothing at all. Ie. to 'his' true status.

"...in that moment of vital insecurity there is born the flame..."

...absolutely nothing about fear...his problem, because he is it... is there 'seeing'...understanding.

Well there goes that 'fear' thing again, and as for the rest of this it sounds to me like yet another bunch of fine 'knowing'.

Please Tom there isn't the offence in this you might be prone to collecting. There isn't any. I've been banned numerous times for stating facts and presenting questions in which there has been no offence but which the 'I' has managed to read offence into. Anything honest or truthful has the potential to cause offence to the 'I'. That is fact which is far too often conveniently overlooked. There is far more offence, truth be known, in Dan's long term and pointed determination to treat me as a pariah. And he appears to believe he's not violent.

Que Sera, Sera.

This post was last updated by John Perkins. Wed, 26 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Apr 2017 #530
Thumb_photo saurab marjara India 1 post in this forum Offline

Paul David son wrote:
the brain being compared to a computer, a typewriter or a tape recorder.

The brain is thousands of times more intelligent than the most powerful supercomputer. a computer works based on an algorithm, but the brain has to deal with the unknown wherein algorithms are of no use.

Paul David son wrote:
He added a Kwote, "We function mechanically, in the home, in the office, when we talk, when we talk, it is always mechanical." Is this actually so?

It could be so, based on the individual. Some people work on auto-pilot, suspending their mind, and allowing the habits to take over. But generally speaking, a person is only somewhat mechanical, not completely so.

Paul David son wrote:
Man's growing activity with constructing ever more complicated machines made him question whether life itself could be constituted through mechanical means. Philosophers conjectured that nature itself, the universe, was a gigantic clockwork machine, set up and put into motion by an almighty clockmaker in the sky.

Nature is not like a gigantic clockwork machine. Nature is order, orderly like a clock, but the difference is that a clock is mechanical, and nature is not. Nature is life, life energy, and as such is not mechanical.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Apr 2017 #531
Thumb_hot-sale-font-b-cool-b-font-cat-animal-poster-custom-font-b-wallpaper-b-font Jan Kasol Czech Republic 174 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
What does it really mean to stay with 'fear' and not move to do something about it, in myself? What happens when I try that without any goal, just to 'let it flower'?

Once you understand this, you understand the whole Krishnamurti. It is watching the fear dispassionately, as if it was happening to someone else. Seeing the totality of that fear – the images and thoughts of death, that trigger fear, the escapes of the mind from the fear, the attempts to forget death, to rationalize is, the inability to comprehend death, attempts to cover it, overcome it etc. Seeing the whole fear within the mind, as if you were observing some exotic creature such as an octopus. How it is hiding in the dark corners of your mind, and its tentacles reaching into your superficial consciousness and influencing your behavior etc. Only when you look dispassionately, without the will to escape, to change, to condemn, to rationalize, can you really see. This kind of seeing is seeing without the observer, because the observer is always the center that is trying to change, to supress, to escape, to modify etc. When there is no observer, no center, you can see the totality of that fear, how it is hiding in your mind, as if you were observing something objective, that has nothing to do with you. Observer is resistance. Watching without observer is watching without resistance, giving the fear no resistance. When you see the totality of the fear, it will blossom and the wither away.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Apr 2017 #532
Thumb_a1056283319_2 Tom Paine United States 82 posts in this forum Offline

John Perkins. wrote:
I was asking how, precisely, ie. on what grounds, Dan and yourself see yourselves as other than 'casual' or 'average' readers of the 'teachings'? Please believe me that there is no offence intended in this question. I'm asking it very cleanly.

You've been banned John, not for giving offense, but for making your replies to an image you project on to 'others' here. But this image making is a projection..a product of your own mind. You see yourself as 'transformed'...obviously an image...and other members as less than transformed....also an image. You're free to do this of course, but it's pure imagery and a diversion from the subject being discussed. I don't take the teachings casually....not usually. I was responding to you from my own experience with fear...but I could have used any conflict. I chose fear only as an example.

John Perkins. wrote:
Tom: It's only when 'me' hits a brick wall and finally realizes that he can do NOTHING...

John: Forgive me but it appears to me that there's a slight distortion here. It isn't that 'he' realizes anything at all. (The 'I', after all, is a nonentity).

I stand by my statement. You see I take no offense at all...none....when you attack my statements, John... only when you project an image on to Tom....or Dan or anyone else ...as you often do in the middle of our discussion of the 'teachings', and assume that the image is outside of yourself/John. Now back to what I was attempting to communicate in my post. Saying 'me' realizes is just another way of saying 'it is seen/understood/realized' that 'me' can't act upon the conflict because 'he's' not separate from it.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Wed, 26 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Apr 2017 #533
Thumb_a1056283319_2 Tom Paine United States 82 posts in this forum Offline

John Perkins. wrote:
What "needs to be done" is nothing.

I'm not sure it's quite 'nothing', Tom. We need to spot what's going on, don't we?

But that 'spotting'/observing cannot be done by 'me', right?Observing(spotting), when it happens...is not a product of effort or will. That's all I was attempting to communicate. All our doing ...our effort/will...is more of the same....the me in action.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Apr 2017 #534
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 165 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
You've been banned John, not for giving offense, but for making your replies to an image you project on to 'others' here.

I wonder if you'd be good enough to spare a little time to go through this with me, Tom, because it's something that baffles me. Have I, would you say, 'projected an image' onto anybody here? I mean in my last number of posts discussing Dan and yourself? If you feel that I have, in other words if you feel that anything I've said is unjustified (because if it is justified then it's simply presenting facts isn't it?), would you please be good enough to point it/them out to me. I ask, Tom, because I honestly consider that I haven't said anything that can't be supported.

Que Sera, Sera.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Apr 2017 #535
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 165 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
But that 'spotting'/observing cannot be done by 'me', right? Observing(spotting), when it happens...is not a product of effort or will. That's all I was attempting to communicate. All our doing ...our effort/will...is more of the same....the me in action.

Well surely there has to be a starting point if anything is to be achieved, doesn't there? And if nothing can possibly be achieved then what might be the point of the teachings and our interest in them? I do take your point, but to my mind it isn't quite holding together. Would you agree, firstly, that there must-needs be a start point?

I'll give you an example: At some point K himself asked a question, he said (paraphrased), "Can we listen out of the darkness?" and without waiting for a response he stated, emphatically and with emphasis, "Of course we can!"

What this says to me is that despite lacking Insight we are not completely as it were 'blind'. And it is the fact of this necessary glimmer of light that allows us what I'm calling 'a start point'. Do you see what I mean?

Tom, please, I am not being awkward, I'm simply being logical.

Que Sera, Sera.

This post was last updated by John Perkins. Wed, 26 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Apr 2017 #536
Thumb_a1056283319_2 Tom Paine United States 82 posts in this forum Offline

John Perkins. wrote:
I wonder if you'd be good enough to spare a little time to go through this with me,

I don't feel it's important to go any further into this subject. If you feel you don't do it(project images), fine. Now, can we get back to the topic if at all possible? Or let's at least get back to something K was trying to point out....or the points we were discussing.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Apr 2017 #537
Thumb_a1056283319_2 Tom Paine United States 82 posts in this forum Offline

John Perkins. wrote:
Well surely there has to be a starting point if anything is to be achieved, doesn't there?

What is the starting point when we realize we are violent? Let's start with that as an example.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Apr 2017 #538
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 165 posts in this forum Offline

Tom, I think I added a fair bit to #536 after you read it. I feel your impatience and frustration with me. I'd ask you to examine it but I suspect there's little chance of that if you wont even point to what I'm supposed to have done wrong.

Que Sera, Sera.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Apr 2017 #539
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 165 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
I don't feel it's important to go any further into this subject. If you feel you don't do it (project images), fine.

But if you feel that I do when I don't then it's not fine is it?; for anybody or for the inquiry?

Que Sera, Sera.

This post was last updated by John Perkins. Wed, 26 Apr 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Apr 2017 #540
Thumb_hot-sale-font-b-cool-b-font-cat-animal-poster-custom-font-b-wallpaper-b-font Jan Kasol Czech Republic 174 posts in this forum Offline

John Perkins. wrote:
What this says to me is that despite lacking Insight we are not completely as it were 'blind'. And it is the fact of this necessary glimmer of light that allows us what I'm calling 'a start point'.

speaking of starting points, what do you think K meant when he said that "freedom is at the beginning, not at the end"?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 511 - 540 of 790 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.)