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

Are we actually machines?


Displaying posts 601 - 630 of 790 in total
Thu, 11 May 2017 #601
Thumb_a1056283319_2 Tom Paine United States 82 posts in this forum Offline

John: The teachings date from the event that occurred circa the date you relate,

Tom: It was Paul who first brought up the date of the beginning of the teachings. Perhaps he can clarify this point. Was it K or someone else who gave the date for the beginning of the teachings

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 11 May 2017 #602
Thumb_untitled5 Ken D United States 4 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:

Jan Kasol wrote:

do you have some source for that quote?

I wish I did, but no. I've only read the biographies....the major ones, and the transcriptions of the talks, so it was in a book that had K's approval, I'm almost totally certain.

"Krishnamurti in later years was to say of himself, 'Full awakening came in India in 1947 to 1948.' KRISHNAMURTI BY PUPUL JAYAKAR, page 105

This post was last updated by Ken D Thu, 11 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 11 May 2017 #603
Thumb_a1056283319_2 Tom Paine United States 82 posts in this forum Offline

Thanks Ken!

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 11 May 2017 #604
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 165 posts in this forum Offline

Ken D wrote:
"Krishnamurti in later years was to say of himself, 'Full awakening came in India in 1947 to 1948.' KRISHNAMURTI BY PUPUL JAYAKAR, page 105

If we have no realistic personal idea or experience of what 'awakening' consists in, how then, if we are honest, might putting 'full' in front of it make any real difference to us at all? The 34 year old Jiddu Krishnamurti who almost two decades prior to the dates Pupul talks of dissolved the Order Of The Star, showed no sign of indecision, and neither did he ever look back.

I think the proof of the pudding is in the eating. We cannot rationalize our way to the truth but the truth is always rational. If we can see for ourselves that what he said in the years post circa 1926 hold water, but yet we in the generality couldn't have come up with the sayings ourselves, then obviously he knew what he was talking about and the teachings must hold from that period. There is nothing more basic to the teachings than the precept that one shouldn't just 'believe' anyway. So simply look at them and see if they hold water for you. Nobody with any real grasp of K should need another to point out for them when the teachings might have begun. Few things could be more absurd. If you need somebody to show you what held water in 1930 then it is for sure that you need somebody to show you what held water in 1980.

Que Sera, Sera.

This post was last updated by John Perkins. Thu, 11 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 11 May 2017 #605
Thumb_3740 richard head United States 13 posts in this forum Offline

John Perkins. wrote:
We cannot rationalize our way to the truth but the truth is always rational.

Uh, could you elaborate on this a bit? Are you suggesting reality can be perceived through the logic/thinking device? Yet, cannot be pursued through the same apparatus?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 11 May 2017 #606
Thumb_3740 richard head United States 13 posts in this forum Offline

Paul David son wrote:
People try to preach their own version of K without understanding what K said.

Same with jesus and various other folks.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 11 May 2017 #607
Thumb_a1056283319_2 Tom Paine United States 82 posts in this forum Offline

John Perkins. wrote:
If we have no realistic personal idea of what 'awakening' consists in, how then, if we are honest, might putting 'full' in front of it make any real difference to us at all?

Did you not read the brief discussion between Jan, Paul, and myself concerning the early 'teachings' vs. the post 1940 or 1945 teachings? If you did, it would be obvious what 'difference' this awakening statement makes. It implies that the early teachings are not the teachings of a 'fully realized'(whatever that word may mean to anyone) K. So if a friend comes to me and asks, 'Tom, I know you're interested in the teachings. I'd like to read a bit of K. Where should I begin?" I'd tell him to begin anywhere after THE WWII years, as K himself said he wasn't fully realized until 1945 or 1947 or thereabouts. I mean, really John, this is from the horse's mouth, and you don't see what difference it makes?

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Thu, 11 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 12 May 2017 #608
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 300 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
When exactly do the 'official' teachings begin? With which talk? Do you know?

To my mind, it's not to do with any exact talk or time, Tom. The teaching, for whatever reason, seemed to begin to consolidate itself in the mid-1930's. There was a hiatus during WW2 and K started off again at the public level after that. The pre-war period, from the mid-30's on seem to have been a working out period and are genuinely interesting for that and are representative of what came after . . . a sort of early beginnings period. But the late 1920's were one in which the initial start offered by his 'pepper tree' revelations were themselves highly peppered with Theosophistic dogma. Even the dissolution speech cannot be in the main considered part of the teaching, despite certain phrases such as "truth is a pathless land" and "truth cannot be organised" being true to the later teaching.

It has to be looked at as a dynamic progress. For the purposes of presentation, the teaching begins where the collective works begin, in the mid-1930's and the Latin American tours.

This is only my opinion, but one I have found to be consistent with the "official" line. I hope the distinction may be understood.

This post was last updated by Paul David son Fri, 12 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 12 May 2017 #609
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 300 posts in this forum Offline

John Perkins. wrote:
I'm afraid this represents a fundamentally mistaken understanding, Paul. Psychological thought doesn't 'project' time. It IS time. You are dividing the indivisible; which practice is what the conditioned (ie. mechanical) thought process consists in.

No John, you are being pedantic. I did not refer to psychological thought in this instance but to thought in general. Thought projects time. All thought is time, in that sense, not just 'psychological thought' but all thought. That is consistent with K and is something I have found to be true, so far as I can see. As for "dividing the indivisible," this cannot be done and I do not see what you mean at all. If it is indivisible it cannot be divided. If I have divided it, it cannot be indivisible. Maybe you have tied yourself up in words you don't properly have an angle on.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 12 May 2017 #610
Thumb_a1056283319_2 Tom Paine United States 82 posts in this forum Offline

Paul David son wrote:
It has to be looked at as a dynamic progress. For the purposes of presentation, the teaching begins where the collective works begin, in the mid-1930's and the Latin American tours.

This is only my opinion, but one I have found to be consistent with the "official" line. I hope the distinction may be understood.

'Official line' of who? KFA or some other group that K put in charge of 'the teachings'? Personally speaking, I've always felt that the post WWII talks are better...more 'pure' perhaps...but this is purely subjective. K's statement that he didn't reach total liberation until 1945 or thereabouts is telling, however, imo.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 12 May 2017 #611
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 300 posts in this forum Offline

Jan Kasol wrote:
Truth does not stand outside of actuality, but it stands outside of the known. Truth is the actual.

I think you misunderstand K here, Jan. Let's get some K concepts clear. Reality is everything put together by the mind. Actuality is everything that nature has put together. Truth is that which is beyond both reality and actuality.

I am not saying I agree with K's concepts or use of language but I am pretty sure I get what he says. 'Truth,' with a capital 'T,' is beyond the actual. The actual is temporary and ever-changing. It is the 'now' in which we live and move. The actual is fully accessible to a mind not steeped in the past. But 'Truth' is not something to access. It is something that may come to you and touch you, but you cannot come to it. That is K's cardinal message. Again, I am simply repeating his message, not agreeing or disagreeing with it.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 12 May 2017 #612
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 300 posts in this forum Offline

Jan Kasol wrote:
K was fully self-realized in 1926.

How would one know that? It's a ridiculous statement to make. All I'm saying is that the teaching consolidates itself around some key and recognisable themes in the late 1930's. Before that it is all over the place, except for some key instances. I have no concept of self-realisation myself, Jan. But I do understand logically that what is being referred to could only be truly recognised by someone who is him or herself already fully 'self-realised.' Otherwise it is all wishful thinking.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 12 May 2017 #613
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 300 posts in this forum Offline

Jan Kasol wrote:
K actually tells what it is all about, what the goal is: to erase the ego, thus conquer separateness, and enter the effortless Being, which is Life, which is the totality of all Life. In his later talks, he talks about the same, but in a veiled manner.

In fact he consistently rejects the erasure of ego as a 'goal' after the mid-1930's. Those who miss that often still think in terms of 'goals.'

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 12 May 2017 #614
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 300 posts in this forum Offline

Jan Kasol wrote:
So K was deluding himself between 1926-1945, because I can give you countless quotes from these talks where he says, that he became the Truth, that he realized a living reality, that he became liberated. And later he found out, that he was, in fact, not fully self-realized?

This is an example of being trapped in a false circle of logic. I wish I could offer a way out, but I cannot.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 12 May 2017 #615
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 300 posts in this forum Offline

Jan Kasol wrote:
do you have some source for that quote? Because if that is true, I see no reason to trust anything K has ever said.

Again, the endless vicissitudes arising from false logic and the emotional binds that keep one there.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 12 May 2017 #616
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 300 posts in this forum Offline

John Perkins. wrote:
I ask in return, 'How can that possibly happen whilst you persist in applying the electrodes?' it is YOU who maintains the situation not me.

I'm reminded of a story where a child is remonstrated with for pulling the cat's tail. "I'm just holding it," the child protests, "It's the cat that's doing all the pulling."

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 12 May 2017 #617
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 300 posts in this forum Offline

Ken D wrote:
"Krishnamurti in later years was to say of himself, 'Full awakening came in India in 1947 to 1948.' KRISHNAMURTI BY PUPUL JAYAKAR, page 105

Isso. Obrigado!

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 12 May 2017 #618
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 300 posts in this forum Offline

John Perkins. wrote:
I think the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

which depends on who cooked the pudding and who does the eating.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 12 May 2017 #619
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 300 posts in this forum Offline

richard head wrote:

John Perkins. wrote:

We cannot rationalize our way to the truth but the truth is always rational.

Uh, could you elaborate on this a bit?

Of course, it's easy to spill off a few lines one has read as if they mean something. But what does it mean, "truth is always rational?"

Rationality, the ability to reason, is a function of the mind. A rational mind can be true to the thing it is rationalising but is truth itself rational? Truth (with a small 't') may either be taken as an expression that stands for 'the actual,' or it may be taken as an expression that stands for the mind that accurately reflects the actual.

But rationality, being a movement of the mind, implies that the mind is consistently applying itself to reflect actuality as accurately as it can, given the data available to it. To the degree a mind reflects the actual, it is 'rational.' That is, it is acting reasonably. A mind that resists and obfuscates the actual is deemed as acting outside of reason, or 'irrationally.' Yet, each irrational act has its own reason. The one comes to another problem. A mind that deceives itself may be acting rationally, but only within a framework which is itself irrational, therefore inflicting harm in some way.

K points out that rationality must be total, therefore non-conflictive.

But truth? How can truth be rational. Truth is what is, including both the rational and the irrational movement.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 12 May 2017 #620
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 300 posts in this forum Offline

richard head wrote:
Same with jesus and various other folks.

Well, the Jesus character is substantially fictitious. We have zilch evidence for his existence or for anything he is supposed to have said. One can read many things into the character's 'teaching.' K comes across clearer precisely because his words have been accurately recorded (post 1940's). They do not depend upon a mediated interpretation.

So far as Jesus goes, the church gives us the official four gospels, according to people who never met Jesus and were not around in his lifetime. Yet there are many more gospels not included in the official record. Please understand that what has been handed down is the censored and selected version of a much wider tradition. They give us what they want us to hear and for us, that is the story of Jesus. Jesus was a very violent man, even according to the four official gospels. He preached the end of ages when the whole of humanity would be killed off by his almighty dad and only those deemed righteous would rise from their graves and inherit the earth. Think of it! It's like when 'God' killed off the whole of humanity and all other species except for Noah and his family and a few species he could get together. I mean, God is a mass murderer worse than Hitler. Hitler only exterminated six million. And Jesus was his son, for God's sake.

(I hope I haven't offended anyone)

This post was last updated by Paul David son Fri, 12 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 12 May 2017 #621
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 300 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
I mean, really John, this is from the horse's mouth

Some prefer to see things from the other end of the animal.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 12 May 2017 #622
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 168 posts in this forum Offline

Paul David son wrote:
I'm reminded of a story where a child is remonstrated with for pulling the cat's tail. "I'm just holding it," the child protests, "It's the cat that's doing all the pulling."

So the lesson is then, when you feel it 'tugging', let it go!

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 12 May 2017 #623
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 300 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
'Official line' of who? KFA or some other group that K put in charge of 'the teachings'?

I'm taking the Collected Works as a guide. They start in 1933. I am saying that the teaching begins to consolidate itself around major themes from then on. It's not a matter of any authority deciding it. To be anti-official is as bad as being pro-official. But it seems to me that before the mid-30's the teaching slides about and contains much that is dispensed with later. And its not just terminology. Even in the 1950's and 1960's, even right up to the end the terminology changes, but the concepts change very little. But many of the concepts of the 1920's and early 1930'd are completely rejected later on. The concept Jan brought in of 'pure being' as a 'goal' is a case in point. He spoke vehemently against any type of a goal from the mid-30's on.

For me, the teachings start mid-30's and have consolidated themselves by the late 1950's. Everything after that is just further exploration from the established concepts, taken as truths.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 12 May 2017 #624
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 300 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
So the lesson is then, when you feel it 'tugging', let it go!

A fair conclusion. It takes two to tango.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 12 May 2017 #625
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 300 posts in this forum Offline

Apols for the volume of posts in the last hour. The discussion has been very valuable and many points deserve consideration. I am not against anyone and not trying to put anyone down. I hope that is understood.

Signing off for today.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 12 May 2017 #626
Thumb_3740 richard head United States 13 posts in this forum Offline

Paul David son wrote:
Apols for the volume of posts in the last hour.

Where I come from, when someone tugs on a crack/meth pipe, their communications become profuse with some irritation and agitation mixed in....

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 12 May 2017 #627
Thumb_3740 richard head United States 13 posts in this forum Offline

Paul David son wrote:
God is a mass murderer worse than Hitler.

We already see some similar characteristics among the followers of Mr. Krishnamurti. Mostly subtle and somewhat discreet, but give us a few generations to come to full fruition.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 12 May 2017 #628
Thumb_hot-sale-font-b-cool-b-font-cat-animal-poster-custom-font-b-wallpaper-b-font Jan Kasol Czech Republic 173 posts in this forum Offline

Paul David son wrote:
The concept Jan brought in of 'pure being' as a 'goal' is a case in point. He spoke vehemently against any type of a goal from the mid-30's on.

He did not use the word goal anymore, yet he constantly spoke about the need for an inner revolution. He spoke against any ideals, yet he constantly spoke about a life in peace, truth, non-violence and love. He asked "why don't you change"? Does that not imply that you should be something different from what you are now? I copy here a comment from Amazon

"For seventy years I traveled the world giving talks. The talks were always the same. Same words, same themes, same gestures, same pauses, same murkiness. The people who came and listened were all needy people. They were looking for a meaning to their lives. Castaways from organized religions. Idealistic young people. I was able to convince them that I of all men, was a special man with enlightened knowledge. I was the “world teacher”. I radiated a divine confidence. I was supremely unassailable, imperturbable, seemingly apart from this world. With great skill, perfected over years of practice, I would hypnotize them. They did not look upon me as a mere mortal man. I was a god to them. It was dada! My philosophy was the anti-religion, anti-guru, anti-philosophy, anti-meditation, anti-capitalism, anti-establishment, anti-everything. I told them “truth was a pathless land” and they believed it! Pure dada! I got them all traveling on a pathless path that led to nowhere. I told them to “silently observe” without judgement (suspend rational thought). Pure dada! If you attended one of my gatherings, you could see my “non-followers” roaming around gazing at clouds and birds and silently observing things. Suddenly, they would pause and stare at a mountain. They had a certain look about them. They were trying so hard to follow without following. It must have been very painful for them. Similarly, I got them to meditate without meditating. Dada! They would sit and watch their thoughts come and go without any goal in mind. Well, there was a goal. The goal was to have a silent (empty) mind. How beautiful. Their minds would all become empty as if they were brain dead! Dada, pure dada! All the while, I was living a double life. Sleeping with my business partner's wife. Running my empire with the ruthlessness of a Rupert Murdoch. New Mercedes in every garage. My clothing bought from exclusive Mayfair's Savile Row. Traveling first class, while my non-followers traveled coach. Don't you see, the double life was the ultimate dada! I was the non-guru living a life that contradicted everything I advocated for others. I was a mortal man after all. At the end, as I lay dying of cancer, I told them that no one had ever understood my teachings – it was all just dada!"

I know, it is cynical and exaggareted, but it has some truth in it. I describes the state most of K followers are in. They travel on a pathless path that lead nowhere. The are following their guru Krishnamurti, saying they are not following anyone and K is an anti-guru. They are trying to empty their mind and become brain dead.

If I did not have some experiences of my own, I would probably subscribe this comment exactly because these obvious internal inconsistencies of K teachings, and possibly of the behavior of K himself. The more I read all these third-person accounts of K, the more I am convinced that the source of his altered states of consciousness was some neurological disorder, either migraine or epilepsy. Google it, it can cause it.

I read here (page 87) that in 1979 he reached the source of all energy. He did not reach it, it came to him in the middle of the night, possibly as result of migraine or epilepsy. I had similar experiences on LSD. My ego dissapeared and I became one with the Ultimate Reality, with the source of all energy, the source of time and space itself. This source is a nothingness that is pregnant with all possibilities. I contains everything and lacks nothing. I have no reason to doubt that my experience was in any way different from the experience of Krishnamurti. I had many such experiences, I have recordings of LSD sessions, I have transcripts. I have reached states of complete harmony and peace lasting for months. And I personally say, that I consider some of the earliest K talks to be the closest to the source, the closest match for my own experiences. The later talks became somehow lost in their inconsistencies, denying any god, yet constantly implicitly talking about some truth, bliss or reality. Denying any ideals, yet constantly talking about the need to change. Why simply not say what the goal is, and then not describe the obstacles? The goal is pure effortless being. Effortless being is in contrast to becoming. If you are trying to become, you cannot be. Pure being is not a reaction, hence it is no conditioning. I know I will probably anger a lot of K devotees, but K was not a very clear thinker. He could have written a booklet, where he would really describe with utmost clarity, what his teachings is all about. Instead, he lectured, lectured, lectured, most of his talks are the same, lacking clarity, focus, coherence and consistency.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 12 May 2017 #629
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 165 posts in this forum Offline

John Perkins wrote:

We cannot rationalize our way to the truth but the truth is always rational.

.

richard head responded:

Uh, could you elaborate on this a bit?

Certainly. The teachings don't only make sense collectively but they make sense severally; the parts are stand-alone logically and rationally cohesive. There is a tendency to marvel somewhat at their very simplicity, and this is because we wonder, if things are so simple, why we couldn't have come up with the things they point out ourselves. But yet we can't. The reason we can't (and the likes of K can) is because our 'apparatus' - to use your terminology - is defective. Because of our, let's call it misaligned perception, it is running all the time on something of a tangent. That's the whole point and what K (and his ilk) try to get us to see.

Are you suggesting reality can be perceived through the logic/thinking device?

Well, Richard, things could run off-track and get a bit messy if we want to go chasing and delving into various definitions of 'reality' and 'truth' to find anything out (witness eg. #619 here). That's a game our 'I' loves to play. But what I'm saying - and it's self evident - is that our 'apparatus' can certainly spot the soundness of the sayings of the likes of K, yes. If it couldn't we wouldn't be here discussing them.

Yet, cannot be pursued through the same apparatus?

Certainly it can be pursued using it; it's what we do. But what I'm saying is that the defective apparatus can never get to it itself. Only when a person becomes a 'light unto themselves' can they 'get to it' themselves. But then of course a somewhat different 'apparatus' is being employed. (And strictly speaking there is no 'getting there', a person simply is).

Que Sera, Sera.

This post was last updated by John Perkins. Fri, 12 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 12 May 2017 #630
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 165 posts in this forum Offline

Paul David son wrote:
This is an example of being trapped in a false circle of logic. I wish I could offer a way out, but I cannot.

Indeed, Paul, if you could you would use it.

Que Sera, Sera.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 601 - 630 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.)