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

Are we actually machines?


Displaying posts 631 - 660 of 790 in total
Fri, 12 May 2017 #631
Thumb_3740 richard head United States 16 posts in this forum Offline

John Perkins. wrote:
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.

What seems quite evident sir, is that the apparatus can only spot what it has previously spotted, and that, is the reason we can all sit around and compare our spots.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Fri, 12 May 2017 #632
Thumb_3740 richard head United States 16 posts in this forum Offline

John Perkins. wrote:
our 'apparatus' - to use your terminology - is defective.

Is it defective? Or is our inability to use it to it's function and only for it's function (as opposed to using for some imagined application), the seeming "malady"?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 12 May 2017 #633
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 165 posts in this forum Offline

Paul David son wrote:
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.

Not at all. Humanity is in the mess it is because it constantly takes consummate singularity to be dual. In other words the 'I' is what it is because it divides, for and of itself, the indivisible. It's very simple, Paul, and always making simple things look tangled is a game the sharp intellect likes to play for its ends. It's a road to nowhere.

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 #634
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 165 posts in this forum Offline

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

Would this serve to unite the 'Experimenter's Corner' forum?

The three Kinfonet forums are maintained in division by the shortcomings of certain 'moderators'. There is a reason they do this, which is that they like to discuss, or see discussed, things only with or by their favourites; those whose minds run along basically the same or similar lines as their own. Your activity places a further divide, ie. one within the 'Experimenter's Corner' itself. If you can't (or refuse to) see that that is the case then there is nothing to be done about it by you. But please don't at the same time repeat the raising yourself up above the 'average' or 'casual' reader. The abusive activity of yours that we're discussing is a detriment to the community, Dan, not a boon.

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 #635
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 165 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:

...It implies that the early teachings are not the teachings of a 'fully realized' (whatever that word may mean to anyone)...

Yes, Tom, your "whatever that word may mean to anyone" addition simply serves to emphasize what I said, viz.:

"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?"

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,...

I think this is fair comment, but you yourself should realize that, as Jan has pointed out, the only adjustments to the teachings in the later years are on account of the difficult reception of them. He adjusted things so that what he was saying could be more readily grasped.

...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?

But I would refer you again to my above statement. You see, he might simply have meant that he hadn't previously recognized how waxed-over the people's eyes and ears are. We can't know can we? Do you see what I mean?

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 #636
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:
but you yourself should realize that, as Jan has pointed out, the only adjustments to the teachings in the later years are on account of the difficult reception of them. He adjusted things so that what he was saying could be more readily grasped.

yes, that is what I claim, and I claim even more. The adjustments were for the worst, and not for the better. Compare two talks, some very early talks

http://www.jiddu-krishnamurti.net/en/1927-1928-...
"In that there is self-conscious separateness. Now, it is vain to increase self-consciousness, which is separateness, to the nth degree; it will remain separate because it has its roots in separation. Therefore, the magnifying of that "I am", which is separateness, cannot be inclusive. The evolution of "I am" is but an expansion of that separateness in space and time. The individual held in the bondage of limitation, knowing the separation of "you" and "I", has to liberate himself and has to fulfil himself in that liberation. Liberation is freedom of consciousness, which is not the multiplication of "I am", but results from the wearing down of the sense of separateness. The ultimate purpose of individual existence is to realise pure being in which there is no separation, which is the realisation of the whole. The fulfilment of man's destiny is to be the totality. It is not a question of losing yourself in the Absolute, but that you, by growth, by continual conflict, by adjustment, shall become the whole. Individuality is merely a segment of the totality, and it is because it feels itself to be only a part that it is all the time seeking to fulfil itself, to realise itself in the totality. Therefore self-consciousness involves effort. If you do not make an effort against limitation, there is no longer self-consciousness and individuality. When individuality has fulfilled itself through ceaseless effort, destroying, tearing down the wall of separateness, when it has achieved a sense of effortless being, then individual existence has fulfilled itself."

and a late talk
http://www.jiddu-krishnamurti.net/en/1979/1979-...

The speak about exactly the same things. About effortless being and about the sense of separateness (division), which is ego and which is created by thought. The early talks are clearer, the later talks communicate the same thing, but are much less coherent

"So can you observe this 'me', which is created by thought, observe it without introducing the movement of thought in that observation? Have you got it? Please see first of all the logic of it. The logic. Thought is the response of knowledge and memory, which is the past. So thought is the past, modifying itself all the time, but it is rooted in the past. And therefore it must always be limited, narrow, can never be whole - right? And thought has created the division in its action, the 'me' and the 'not me', the 'you' and I, we and they. And has also created various kinds of divisions: the technological action, the personal action, the ideological action, the supreme action and so on and so on. Right? That is a fact. Now can you observe that fact - please listen carefully - can you observe that fact without thought entering into that observation?"

what K is actually saying, in an incoherent manner, is the fact that you observe, what you project out of your conditioning, and then try to act on the projection. So you see a division as "me" and "not me", because your thought is conditioned like that. Can you erase the observer, so that there is silence, effortless being, in which there is no more this division created by thought? What K describes is, in fact, logical and clear, but his way of communicating it is confused. That is at least my opinion.

This post was last updated by Jan Kasol Fri, 12 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 12 May 2017 #637
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 165 posts in this forum Offline

John Perkins wrote:

...but you yourself should realize that, as Jan has pointed out, the only adjustments to the teachings in the later years are on account of the difficult reception of them. He adjusted things so that what he was saying could be more readily grasped.

.

Jan Kasol responded:

yes, that is what I claim, and I claim even more. The adjustments were for the worst, and not for the better. ...

I'm entirely with you, Jan. Anything that has to be adjusted in order to accommodate the 'blind' cannot possibly be better for its revision; it has become angled. Though of course a multitude of 'blind' would be likely to argue the converse. On account they can more readily get a handle on the latter version than on the former they mistakenly think it is 'better'. Our 'I' never ceases from getting things back to front.

But there is an additional problem: if you have revised something in such a way that the revision looks a tad different from the original, then you are obliged to provide some sort of explanation for the change. What more convenient way than to claim - for the sake of the blind - that you had become more 'awakened' in the interim? It wouldn't even be untrue!

Such is the tangled web the 'I' weaves and causes to be woven in its wake.

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 #638
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 300 posts in this forum Offline

Jan Kasol wrote:
He asked "why don't you change"? Does that not imply that you should be something different from what you are now?

Yes, of course, but it is not the point at issue. K taught that change is not a consequence of setting goals. Setting goals implies duality. I am this but I will be that. It implies what he called 'becoming.' He had not seen this clearly up until the mid-1930's and in that period still taught a sort of stageist approach, going from this to that by increments.

After that time he taught that the first step is the last, that mutation was an instant happening, that all 'becoming' is a trap and that there can be no goals, no method, no practice and no stages. He taught (which is the point at issue) that it is not a matter of cleansing consciousness of its content, or of that part of its content which is deemed wrong, but of a radical transformation that obliterates what came before in its entirety and all at one stroke.

These are such cardinal points in K's teaching that to gloss over them is to refute the teaching and put it in the league of all other teachings and scriptures which promote effort in whatever form.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 12 May 2017 #639
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 300 posts in this forum Offline

Jan Kasol wrote:
My ego dissapeared and I became one with the Ultimate Reality, with the source of all energy, the source of time and space itself.

'I' + 'became'

Jan, whatever happened to you under LSD is to do with the manipulation of the brain, not its mutation. Certainly one can feel all those things but the only true thing about it all is the feeling and the feeling is manufactured. Lifting the everyday consciousness out of its everyday construct and its everyday surroundings and its everyday cares can feel like the Ultimate Reality precisely because it has no bearing on the everyday reality. And you are correct in identifying the absence of ego as a major factor for the ego is precisely the interface the mind has constructed between the id and the actuality it moves within. The id simply 'wants' and does not care for space and time at all. It is also why many who used LSD frequently, lost the ability to deal with everyday realities yet were still driven by their ids. When they don;t get what they want they are driven to tantrums, like young children. I saw it many times. Go to the 'Lost Coast' in Northern California and you will see.

I took acid myself many times when part of a hippy commune in 1970-72 under the 'leadership' of one Michael Hollingshead (self proclaimed 'man who turned on the world,' ex-Harvard colleague of Timothy Leary and who introduced acid to the Beatles and Stones in 1965-6). I also had some interesting sessions with Stanislav Groff's 'holotropic breathing' after LSD was banned.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 12 May 2017 #640
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 300 posts in this forum Offline

John Perkins. wrote:
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.

While another person's 'apparatus' spots the soundness of the sayings of the likes of Donald Trump. Which only proves we hear what we want to hear and find 'sound' that which comforts us. Our 'apparatus' is a comfort machine. It is precisely our 'apparatus' which K says has to go.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 12 May 2017 #641
Thumb_a1056283319_2 Tom Paine United States 82 posts in this forum Offline

John Perkins. wrote:
But I would refer you again to my above statement. You see, he might simply have meant that he hadn't previously recognized how waxed-over the people's eyes and ears are. We can't know can we?

Is that what 'total liberation' implies to you, John? To me it means that he didn't have the degree of understanding...enlightenment... previously, that he had reached in c. 1945. I think I should bow out of the discussion of the early teachings because I simply haven’t the familiarity with them that I do with the post WWII talks. I've read a ton of excerpts from the talks, but they're almost entirely from the 40's on. My view of the early talks is only subjective. I have no objective way to measure the degree of truth, nor the lack of truth, in them. However I have come across statements in the early talks that totally contradict what he said in the later talks. To me, it's almost always been the later statements that seem to ring true and the early ones false or misleading. K's statement on his reaching 'total liberation' speaks for itself. And most of us, I'm certain, wouldn't share your particular interpretation, John, that you shared above. You're free to read it any way you choose, of course.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Fri, 12 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 12 May 2017 #642
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 165 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
And most of us, I'm certain, wouldn't share your particular interpretation, John, that you shared above. You're free to read it any way you choose, of course.

Fair enough, Tom. Thanks for your communications.

I don't know whether you might have read my related #637 above?

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 #643
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 300 posts in this forum Offline

richard head wrote:
Is it defective? Or is our inability to use it to it's function and only for it's function (as opposed to using for some imagined application), the seeming "malady"?

And it is always the other chap's apparatus which appears defective. Funny thing that.

When the mind looks at the function of a thing, what is it doing? If I have a machine in front of me I can judge its function quite well because I am familiar with designs of machines and with the purposes for which they have been constructed. Inherent in my looking therefore is the knowledge that the machine has been designed for a specific purpose by another intelligent mind such as my own and its functions will become clear through scrutiny and experimentation.

Is that the same when we speak of the functions of the human mind? If the human mind is a machine then it has been designed by an intelligence and has certain specific functions. But this is obviously not the case. The brain and its mind have evolved due to natural processes, not by intelligent design. Therefore the idea of 'function' has to be put into context and given a different perspective.

The human mind must be judged by what it actually does rather than by what it is supposed to do. That is the difference. It is not supposed to do anything. It has just followed blindly the evolutionary pattern that preceded it.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 12 May 2017 #644
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 300 posts in this forum Offline

John Perkins. wrote:
you yourself should realize that, as Jan has pointed out, the only adjustments to the teachings in the later years are on account of the difficult reception of them. He adjusted things so that what he was saying could be more readily grasped.

Why should Tom realize such a thing? Why does Tom have to agree with your interpretation of K's teaching? Tom has put his perception of things clearly and it should be respected as such.

It seems however, that you think your interpretation is the only correct one and that everyone else "should realize that."

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 12 May 2017 #645
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 165 posts in this forum Offline

John Perkins wrote:

you yourself should realize that, as Jan has pointed out, the only adjustments to the teachings in the later years are on account of the difficult reception of them. He adjusted things so that what he was saying could be more readily grasped.

.

Paul David son wrote:

Why should Tom realize such a thing? Why does Tom have to agree with your interpretation of K's teaching? Tom has put his perception of things clearly and it should be respected as such.

It seems however, that you think your interpretation is the only correct one and that everyone else "should realize that."

I'm sure I don't have to tell you that you conveniently (ie. for your purposes) removed the context of my above statement, thereby introducing a twist to the conversation which I'm not interested in chasing your lead up the garden path with.

I imagine that after a small number of years your wife could probably see you coming from a mile away and just catches you one with the frying pan and speaks to you again when you come round. Tedious to say the least.

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 #646
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 300 posts in this forum Offline

Jan Kasol wrote:
The(y) [the later talks] speak about exactly the same things. About effortless being

Let's see if Jan's statement holds. Here is how K approached effort in 1928

"When individuality has fulfilled itself through ceaseless effort, destroying, tearing down the wall of separateness, when it has achieved a sense of effortless being, then individual existence has fulfilled itself."

Individuality . . . through ceaseless effort . . . achieves a sense of effortless being. That was K in 1928. How about 30 years later? This is what he taught in 1958:

"Why do we make effort? Is it not, put simply, in order to achieve a result, to become something, to reach a goal? And if we do not make an effort, we think we shall stagnate. We have an idea about the goal towards which we are constantly striving, and this striving has become part of our life. If we want to alter ourselves, if we want to bring about a radical change in ourselves, we make a tremendous effort to eliminate the old habits, to resist the habitual environmental influences, and so on. So we are used to this series of efforts in order to find or achieve something, in order to live at all. And is not all such effort the activity of the self? Is not effort self-centered activity? And, if we make an effort from the center of the self, it must inevitably produce more conflict, more confusion, more misery. Yet we keep on making effort after effort. And very few of us realize that the self-centered activity of effort does not clear up any of our problems. On the contrary, it increases our confusion and our misery and our sorrow. We know this. And yet we continue, hoping somehow to break through this self-centered activity of effort, the action of the will."

Comparison of the two passages, three decades apart is a striking reminder of just how much of the previous ideas K ditched and passionately rejected later on.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 12 May 2017 #647
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 300 posts in this forum Offline

John Perkins. wrote:
Anything that has to be adjusted in order to accommodate the 'blind' cannot possibly be better for its revision

Can you please offer even one quotation from K where he explains that he revised his teaching in order to accommodate the blind?

This is your own construction, John. Your apparatus finds it a great comfort.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 12 May 2017 #648
Thumb_a1056283319_2 Tom Paine United States 82 posts in this forum Offline

John Perkins. wrote:
Anything that has to be adjusted in order to accommodate the 'blind' cannot possibly be better for its revision; it has become angled

My view is that is was "adjusted" because the former is misleading...and K wished to clarify ....not to pander to unenlightened minds.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Fri, 12 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 12 May 2017 #649
Thumb_a1056283319_2 Tom Paine United States 82 posts in this forum Offline

Thanks Paul, for #646. A very good illustration of my point about the early vs. the post WWII talks.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Fri, 12 May 2017 #650
Thumb_untitled5 Ken D United States 4 posts in this forum Offline

It should be noted that for a short period of time after the war, Krishnamurti began adding the phrase 'mind-heart' into his talks, which made things quite confusing.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 12 May 2017 #651
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 165 posts in this forum Offline

Paul David son wrote:
Let's see if Jan's statement holds. Here is how K approached effort in 1928

"When individuality has fulfilled itself through ceaseless effort, destroying, tearing down the wall of separateness, when it has achieved a sense of effortless being, then individual existence has fulfilled itself."

Individuality . . . through ceaseless effort . . . achieves a sense of effortless being. That was K in 1928. How about 30 years later? This is what he taught in 1958:

"Why do we make effort? Is it not, put simply, in order to achieve a result, to become something, to reach a goal? And if we do not make an effort, we think we shall stagnate. We have an idea about the goal towards which we are constantly striving, and this striving has become part of our life. If we want to alter ourselves, if we want to bring about a radical change in ourselves, we make a tremendous effort to eliminate the old habits, to resist the habitual environmental influences, and so on. So we are used to this series of efforts in order to find or achieve something, in order to live at all. And is not all such effort the activity of the self? Is not effort self-centered activity? And, if we make an effort from the center of the self, it must inevitably produce more conflict, more confusion, more misery. Yet we keep on making effort after effort. And very few of us realize that the self-centered activity of effort does not clear up any of our problems. On the contrary, it increases our confusion and our misery and our sorrow. We know this. And yet we continue, hoping somehow to break through this self-centered activity of effort, the action of the will."

Comparison of the two passages, three decades apart is a striking reminder of just how much of the previous ideas K ditched and passionately rejected later on.

But did he ever stop saying that it was arduous? No he didn't. So you see, he never 'ditched' the idea of a requirement for effort at all. You've just rigged things up to make it look as if he did (as ever, I'd suggest, for your ends).

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 #652
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 165 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
My view is that is was "adjusted" because the former is misleading...and K wished to clarify ....not to pander to unenlightened minds.

That may be so, an adjustment of presentation, which is pretty much (it seems to me) what I was inferring.

Que Sera, Sera.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 12 May 2017 #653
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 165 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Thanks Paul, for #646. A very good illustration of my point about the early vs. the post WWII talks.

Sooo easily convinced, Tom. Tut tut tut.

Que Sera, Sera.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 12 May 2017 #654
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

Paul, concerning LSD. I value my explorations with LSD precisely because I experimented before I discovered Krishnamurti. Stanislav Grof motivated me to do these experiments. He comes from Czechoslovakia, like me. His first 3 books about his explorations into human consciousness using LSD experiments are amazing, I especially recommend Realms of the Human Unsconscious. Do yourself a favor and read the book, if you havent. Later he degenerated into new age crap, unfortunately, so I would not recommend any of his later books. I had many experiences of the Ultimate Reality, of the egoless state. And this, in turn, prompted me to search for the explanations of these experiences, and so I discovered Krishnamurti. What he describes is not different from the LSD experiences. I do LSD no more, since at least 10 years, I am adult now and know no drug dealers among my friends and collegues. Of course I could always pick some magic mushrooms in the forest, if I really wanted, they grow here. But I achieved the state of effortless being, spontaneous joy and wisdom also without drugs.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 12 May 2017 #655
Thumb_a1056283319_2 Tom Paine United States 82 posts in this forum Offline

John Perkins. wrote:
Sooo easily convinced, Tom. Tut tut tut.

Not convinced...it was my view already. And go 'tut' yourself, John. Sorry, but it sometimes appears thst you have lost your mind... or have been hitting the bottle a little too much.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Fri, 12 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Fri, 12 May 2017 #656
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

Paul David son wrote:
After that time he taught that the first step is the last, that mutation was an instant happening, that all 'becoming' is a trap and that there can be no goals, no method, no practice and no stages. He taught (which is the point at issue) that it is not a matter of cleansing consciousness of its content, or of that part of its content which is deemed wrong, but of a radical transformation that obliterates what came before in its entirety and all at one stroke.

K himself had no idea how to bring about this change of consciousness. His views evolved. My own personal view is that effort is necessary. The effort is necessary for self-knowing, self-discovery. Most people are programmed by various conditionings, caught in various (often subconscious) patterns of behaviour, thinking and feeling. And if you do not realize these patterns, you cannot be free of them. So an effort to become aware of yourself, to know yourself, is necessary. If you are not aware of all your motives, you are pushed and pulled by those motives, fears and desires, like a cloud blown by various winds. Only if your perceive the totality of your consciousness can you enter into that state of effortless being. The you realize that any search for anything outside of yourself, is running away from being, from your true self. Any search is becoming. But you cannot truly realize this, if you are unaware of yourself. Cleansing the consiousness is in essence another expression for becoming aware of all your motives.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 12 May 2017 #657
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 165 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Not convinced...it was my view already. And go 'tut' yourself, John. Sorry, but it sometimes appears thst you have lost your mind... or have been hitting the bottle a little too much.

Did he ever stop saying it was arduous?

Que Sera, Sera.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 12 May 2017 #658
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 300 posts in this forum Offline

Ken D wrote:
It should be noted that for a short period of time after the war, Krishnamurti began adding the phrase 'mind-heart' into his talks, which made things quite confusing.

He did use that phrase, along with 'thought-feeling.'

My understanding, and it is only an interpretation, is that coming from a theosophical background in which the mind and heart were seen as distinct organs, K chose to put them together to emphasise they were one thing, not two. The same with 'thought-feeling.' Later he made clear his view that intellect and emotion were part of the one process, thought.

Contrary to what John and Jan are arguing, that K began to water his message to appeal to the masses, it has always seemed to me the opposite was true. In the early days, many in his audience were theosophists and he found that much of the time he was having to explain to them his ideas and he was sometimes using their terminology and conceptual framework to do so. As the audience changed, especially post-WW2, he no longer was dealing with such people so regularly. The questions put to him are significantly different. Hardly anyone is asking about Besant or about the 'masters.' Then, you see how he approaches the Indian audience differently that the US or UK or Saanan audiences. What comes across is that he makes an effort to address people where they are but that his concepts are much clearer, more precise and even more combative.

Dealing with people where they are is quite different than pandering to their ignorance, which would entail unprincipled compromises. To accuse K of unprincipled compromise, or to sugarcoat his teaching for the 'blind' is quite a claim. Maybe they think he went gaga early.

Though I do not accept the teaching as a whole, I value it greatly and endeavor to understand where, when and why I depart from it. I think it possible that people who are bent on identifying with the teaching in order to justify or affirm their own beliefs and/or experiences, tend to force interpretations on that teaching which simply to not gel with it. Because I am not in a state of identification I can be a little less emotionally charged about it, I feel.

If anyone prefers the early K, that's fine by me. But please don't try to ram down anyone's throat that the early K is the real K and the later K is a watered down version to appeal to the masses. That claim does not stack up. It is not objective.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 12 May 2017 #659
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

Paul David son wrote:
We know this. And yet we continue, hoping somehow to break through this self-centered activity of effort, the action of the will.

I have written before, that when I achieved these states of effortless being before, it always happened by giving up my will. Will is the maker of effort, effort being either the desire to change something to something else or the will of fear. This giving up of will came always after an intense struggle to achieve. Then, at the end, you realize that you cannot really achieve anything, so you give up. And this giving up gives you the energy to see in a completely different light. Then there is no more the will to change, to achieve, to gain, but a will to learn, an openness. And that is the beginning of freedom, which is efforless being. The will is the observer, who projects out of his conditioning some ideal, and then tries to achieve that ideal as an effort of will. Giving up will is the death, or silence, of the observer. Then there is pure observation, or pure being, in which there is no effort, no will.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 12 May 2017 #660
Thumb_a1056283319_2 Tom Paine United States 82 posts in this forum Offline

John Perkins. wrote:
Did he ever stop saying it was arduous?

Yes, at those times when he was saying no effort is necessary... that effort is always self serving. Well, it can't be both, can it? Yet at one time he is quoted saying "And very few of us realize that the self-centered activity of effort does not clear up any of our problems. On the contrary, it increases our confusion and our misery and our sorrow." and at other times he says it's "arduous"...difficult. Well it's arduous because we are in the false habit...that we can't get rid of...of making effort....not that effort is necessary, however.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 631 - 660 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.)