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

Are we actually machines?


Displaying posts 691 - 720 of 790 in total
Sat, 13 May 2017 #691
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:
Does he speak of "wearing down" in his later years? Please offer a citation.

just a quick comment, because I am leaving for a trip in a moment and will not be online and able to comment for 2 days. As a homework, study #636 again, read again the 2 talks from 1928 and 1979, look behind the superficial meaning of words, and discover for yourself, if they are similar, identical or very different.
A hint: search the 1928 text for "separation" and the 1979 text for "division"

Paul David son wrote:
Quite, but again, this whole exchange was initiated when you alleged the validity of describing the unknowable. Do you recall? It was I who pointed out to you that K had said all descriptions are sacrilege.

I pointed out, that K tried to (hesitantly) describe the unknowable in his early talks, but later deliberately avoided all such descriptions

as K said in his young years
"Never reduce or step down Truth, but rather incite the intense desire to attain the illimitable. Life then will be far more worth living than when you are content to dwell in the easy comfort of conditioned Truth. You have around you so much Truth that is conditioned, stepped down for the understanding of the inexperienced, but I speak all the time of the Truth in its unconditioned state - though words again create a limitation - I must not step it down, because to me that would be a betrayal of the Truth. Can you not see that by stepping it down, it loses its simplicity, its pristine nobleness, and thus you create complications? When you once condition Truth, you are creating those shelters of comfort where there is stagnation of the mind and of the heart. I have often heard people say: Oh, I do there things not for myself but because it helps another. That means that what you have attained, you are stepping down for others to conquer, instead of helping them to conquer in their own way, which is the only way to attain. That is how all the religions in the world are founded. And hence the very altar at which they worship Truth is the betrayal of Truth. But mere repetition that that religion is a betrayal of Truth does not mean true understanding or true conviction. I think it was Lao Tse who, when he found enlightenment, never talked about it but went away leaving a book behind him. When the Buddha was asked by his disciples to describe Nirvana, he said that he who says that it is, errs, and he who says that it is not, lies."

what is unconditioned Truth you will know only when you possess a non-dwelling mind, a mind without any division. It is Life in its unity

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 13 May 2017 #692
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 165 posts in this forum Offline

John Perkins wrote:

There is no point banging on to people in terms they can't understand. When Perception (capital 'P') was new to K he simply presented what he saw. In time he saw that it was of little use to present it like that, so he adjusted.

.

Tom Paine responded:

That's a fair enough explanation, John. I question it because of the reasons I already stated, but we can simply agree to disagree.

I'm not even sure we have to do that in this instance, Tom. You see, the underlying point is that it is evident from the earliest teachings themselves that the Perception, the one essential prerequisite for them (aside from the practical issue of a means of delivery of course), was already present in K in the mid 20's. Naturally there would have been a development of delivery skills etc in the subsequent decades but the crucial point is that the teachings were true, for such as are able to 'see' it, from the start.

If one makes a god of K, then one will never admit that there could be anything misleading or 'off the mark' in the early teachings.

Of course, but that is not what is happening here.

A question here for the K experts: Didn't K often questioned his own conclusions...his own insights... or the manner in which he expressed them?

With the proviso that he would never be 'questioning his Insights', my opinion would be that what you suggest would indeed have been a continual and ongoing part of the teaching process. For example he often said 'Let's find out together'; that is something that can be done because life is always new, and nobody was more aware of that fact than him. It wouldn't have been a platitude intended to cosy people up, he meant it. Another angle concerning your question is that language itself is inherently problematic. 'The word is not the thing'. Hence there might always be a better - a more accurate or more understandable - way of presenting something. This would also be grounds for a continual questioning and examination of what is presented.

Que Sera, Sera.

This post was last updated by John Perkins. Sat, 13 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 13 May 2017 #693
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 165 posts in this forum Offline

Paul David son wrote:
...And you think it is others who are blind and 'waxed over'?

Yes.

Que Sera, Sera.

This post was last updated by John Perkins. Sat, 13 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 13 May 2017 #694
Thumb_3740 richard head United States 13 posts in this forum Offline

John Perkins. wrote:
For example he often said 'Let's find out together'; that is something that can be done because life is always new

He said such things because of the way people approached the phenomenon of Krishnamurti. When people came to him wishing to worship or sit back and be told all about it, he needed to reposition the relationship. Going from "teacher and student" to "find out for yourself", is the first step.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 13 May 2017 #695
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 165 posts in this forum Offline

richard head wrote:
He said such things because of the way people approached the phenomenon of Krishnamurti. When people came to him wishing to worship or sit back and be told all about it, he needed to reposition the relationship. Going from "teacher and student" to "find out for yourself", is the first step.

Possibly Richard. I dare say its specific purpose may have been various in the different settings.

Que Sera, Sera.

This post was last updated by John Perkins. Sat, 13 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 13 May 2017 #696
Thumb_leaping_fire_frog_by_sirenofchaos natarajan shivan India 17 posts in this forum Offline

Jan Kasol wrote:
But the original meaning of the word mysticism is union with the divine. Both in his early talks and in his late talks, K speaks about wearing down the sense of separation, division, the "I". Consciousness, with its sense of "I", is thought.

Mysticism in the sense of a purest unity with the divine is half the story; K kept a good distance from it , embraced the immediate second half of what could be called as a 'change' from any of the so called description of such a state. And by that very movement of life itself, negated all conceptions of mysticism or activism.

contraria sunt complementa

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 13 May 2017 #697
Thumb_a1056283319_2 Tom Paine United States 82 posts in this forum Offline

John Perkins. wrote:
Another angle concerning your question is that language itself is inherently problematic. 'The word is not the thing'. Hence there might always be a better - a more accurate or more understandable - way of presenting something. This would also be grounds for a continual questioning and examination of what is presented.

Valid point, John. He realized that some of his statements could be easily misconstrued....like some of the early statements that could be taken as mysticism, or encouraging continual effort and striving for perfection, or the divine, or some other goal, that he totally eliminated in the later talks.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 13 May 2017 #698
Thumb_a1056283319_2 Tom Paine United States 82 posts in this forum Offline

This excerpt was posted on the general forum today. I thought it might be relevant to the discussion.

Bombay, India | 7th Public Talk 25th March 1956

Question: Is there anything new in your teaching ?

Krishnamurti: To find out for yourself is much more important than my asserting 'yes' or 'no'. It is your problem, not my problem. To me, all this is totally new, because it has to be discovered from moment to moment; it cannot be stored up after discovery, it is not something to be experienced, and then retained as memory - which would be putting new wine in old bottles. It must be discovered as one lives from day to day, and it is new to the person who so discovers it. But you are always comparing what is being said with what has been said by some saint, or by Shankara, Buddha, or Christ. You say, "All these people have said this before, and you are only giving it another twist, a modern expression" - so naturally it is nothing new to you. It is only when you have ceased to compare, when you have put away Shankara, Buddha, Christ, with all their knowledge, information, so that your mind is alone, clear, no longer influenced, controlled, compelled, either by modern psychology, or by the ancient sanctions and edicts - it is only then that you will find out whether or not there is something new, everlasting.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Sat, 13 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 13 May 2017 #699
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 165 posts in this forum Offline

Ken D wrote:
"As long as this body is living....I am still the teacher." Krishnamurti
THE OPEN DOOR, Lutyens.

Where did that idea come from?

Where indeed, Ken. It's certain that many things were got wrong in transcription and it's more than likely that things then get played around with in trying to make them fit. It's not perfect but it's a million times better than the diabolically corrupted scriptures we were stuck with previously.

That's all I can offer I'm afraid my friend.

Que Sera, Sera.

This post was last updated by John Perkins. Sat, 13 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 13 May 2017 #700
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 165 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
...He realized that some of his statements could be easily misconstrued....like some of the early statements that could be taken as mysticism, or encouraging continual effort and striving for perfection, or the divine, or some other goal, that he totally eliminated in the later talks.

Yes Tom, I think you fair nailed it there.

Que Sera, Sera.

This post was last updated by John Perkins. Sat, 13 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 13 May 2017 #701
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 165 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Bombay, India | 7th Public Talk 25th March 1956

Question: Is there anything new in your teaching ?

Krishnamurti: To find out for yourself is much more important than my asserting 'yes' or 'no'. It is your problem, not my problem. To me, all this is totally new, because it has to be discovered from moment to moment; it cannot be stored up after discovery, it is not something to be experienced, and then retained as memory - which would be putting new wine in old bottles. It must be discovered as one lives from day to day, and it is new to the person who so discovers it. But you are always comparing what is being said with what has been said by some saint, or by Shankara, Buddha, or Christ. You say, "All these people have said this before, and you are only giving it another twist, a modern expression" - so naturally it is nothing new to you. It is only when you have ceased to compare, when you have put away Shankara, Buddha, Christ, with all their knowledge, information, so that your mind is alone, clear, no longer influenced, controlled, compelled, either by modern psychology, or by the ancient sanctions and edicts - it is only then that you will find out whether or not there is something new, everlasting.

Nice find, Tom. Thank you.

Que Sera, Sera.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 13 May 2017 #702
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 165 posts in this forum Offline

Paul Davidson wrote:

Maybe we should have a new forum specifically for the average reader, the lesser being, the blind chaff and the machines

.

Dan McDermott wrote:

I think that already exists , doesn't it? It's called 'Facebook'.

I think I begin to see why you choose to utterly negate me. I begin to get a taste of you. You are one of those self elected 'superior beings' aren't you. What in the UK we call a snob. Probably with at least back-ground wealth. Definitely personally opined 'above'. I'm surprised you bother to involve here Lord McDermott. Isn't it strictly a tad beneath you? Ah, but yes that has already been elicited from you: you are self opined above 'average' and 'casual' here.

Que Sera, Sera.

This post was last updated by John Perkins. Sat, 13 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 13 May 2017 #703
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 168 posts in this forum Offline

John Perkins. wrote:
I think I begin to see why you choose to utterly negate me. I begin to get a taste of you. You are one of those self elected 'superior beings' aren't you; what in the UK we call a snob. Probably with at least back-ground wealth. Definitely personally opined 'above'. I'm surprised you bother to involve here Lord McDermott. Isn't it strictly a tad beneath you?

Hi John

That was just a little joke. But I do wish you wouldn't take what I post so personally. It's not meant that way. We're all in the same boat here as I see it.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 13 May 2017 #704
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 165 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
That was just a little joke. But I do wish you wouldn't take what I post so personally. It's not meant that way. We're all in the same boat here as I see it.

Ah, progress. Let's hope we might see an end to this nonsense.

Que Sera, Sera.

This post was last updated by John Perkins. Sat, 13 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 13 May 2017 #705
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 168 posts in this forum Offline

John Perkins. wrote:
Ah, progress. Let's hope we might see an end to this nonsense.

;-)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 13 May 2017 #706
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 165 posts in this forum Offline

John Perkins wrote:

Ah, progress. Let's hope we might see an end to this nonsense.

.

Dan McDermott responded:

;-)

Good on ya Dan.

Que Sera, Sera.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 14 May 2017 #707
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 165 posts in this forum Offline

Always on the mark and with a wonderful comic mix, Ken. Much appreciated in this quarter for one.

Que Sera, Sera.

This post was last updated by John Perkins. Sun, 14 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 14 May 2017 #708
Thumb_a1056283319_2 Tom Paine United States 82 posts in this forum Offline

I wholeheartedly agree with Mr. Gleason, hahaha

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 14 May 2017 #709
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 553 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
I wholeheartedly agree with Mr. Gleason, hahaha

Sorry folks, this particular forum is dedicated to a very serious & profound Teaching. Perhaps... "one of these days", Gleason's fans will have their own 'ha-ha" forum but certainly this is not the right place.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Sun, 14 May 2017 #710
Thumb_a1056283319_2 Tom Paine United States 82 posts in this forum Offline

John, you missed the point of Ken's post....the point being that some of the talks from the late 40's were transcribed from memory. The shock of reading that was likely the reason for Ken's little joke. I'm sure most of us were at the very least very surprised to read that. K had quite a good sense of humor and most likely would have appreciated the post....but I'm only guessing.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Sun, 14 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 14 May 2017 #711
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 300 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
Gleason's fans will have their own 'ha-ha" forum

When?

Besides the Gleason classification for prostate cancer (which I am sadly personally familiar with) I've never heard of the chap/name/syndrome etc.

But I agree with John R. This thread was kindly allowed by John R and was dedicated to the question, "Are We Actually Machines." I think we'd better get back to it.

Okay, several posters have come down in favour of the machine analogy so I feel it's time to put the question fairly and squarely to them in person, particularly to John Perkins and Jan Kasol. Let's start with the most simple question possible:

John, are you a machine?

Jan, are you a machine?

This post was last updated by Paul David son Sun, 14 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 14 May 2017 #712
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 553 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
The shock of reading that was likely the reason for Ken's little joke. I'm sure most of us were at the very least very surprised to read that. K had quite a good sense of humor and most likely would have appreciated the post....but I'm only guessing.

I do understand your point, Tom, but under a slightly different avatar, the same 'Ken' person repeatedly produced other 'graphic distractors' - and it does look like an open invitation to 'trolling'. So, no hard feelings, but let's wish him 'better luck next time'... in other more appropriated forums. As K was often saying on a far more serious tone , 'It is enough if half a dozen people would 'live' in the light of the Teachings'.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 14 May 2017 #713
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:
Jan, are you a machine?

Are you, Paul? It is up to you to do some thinking. Do you exist in habits of behaviour, in habits of thought, which by constant repetition have become machine-like? Is not your whole life a habit? Are you aware of all your habits? Isn't your whole self just a habit thinking itself to be alive?

PS: I described the indescribable for you in my thread.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 14 May 2017 #714
Thumb_a1056283319_2 Tom Paine United States 82 posts in this forum Offline

Jan Kasol wrote:
Is not your whole life a habit? Are you aware of all your habits? Isn't your whole self just a habit thinking itself to be alive

How about consciousness(thought/ emotion)...which reacts to stimuli (external or internal) in a habitual, machine like manner? Is there anything in our reactivity that's NOT mechanical..conditioned?

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 14 May 2017 #715
Thumb_017 John Perkins. United Kingdom 165 posts in this forum Offline

Paul David son wrote:
John, are you a machine?

If we look back through chronological time we go through the earth's molten state etc to the purported 'big bang'; for which science would have us believe there was no pre-existent potential. That's what science says, and if we agree with this nonsensical version of events then everything but everything is surely mechanical.

I say that science cherry-picks its ideas and questions to keep itself in business. It refuses to admit, for a start, that it hasn't yet found any matter, and doesn't even have a properly supportable theory for it. I say that the 'issuance' is from none matter, and to none matter it returns. 'None matter' is not mechanical. Thus nothing, actually, is mechanical, with the exception that is of the strictly unreal operation of the generality of sapiens, whose combination of (i) immense power and inherent influence and (ii) wrong footedness, makes of him a temporary anomaly. What I mean by that is that for as long as he remains essentially blind he looks and acts mechanical, but he is not, and he will move through the phase just as have the ones we now think of as 'great teachers'. When a human being comes to 'see', his strictly unreal mechanical modus op is sloughed off and he becomes whole, by which I mean he is the unison of matter and none matter, or in religious jargon the spirit made flesh.

Roundly then Paul, no, I am not a machine. And you yourself only behave as one on account of your unlit status. You'll get over it. That is what K says and that is what I say.

Que Sera, Sera.

This post was last updated by John Perkins. Sun, 14 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 14 May 2017 #716
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

Tom Paine wrote:
How about consciousness(thought/ emotion)...which reacts to stimuli (external or internal) in a habitual, machine like manner? Is there anything in our reactivity that's NOT mechanical..conditioned?

yes, but it is nothing you can think about. All thought is conditioned, habitual, reaction of memory. Nevertheless, there is the unknown, which is spontaneous, always new. And that is not conditioned.

This post was last updated by Jan Kasol Sun, 14 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 14 May 2017 #717
Thumb_a1056283319_2 Tom Paine United States 82 posts in this forum Offline

Jan Kasol wrote:
Is there anything in our reactivity that's NOT mechanical..conditioned?

Jan: yes, but it is nothing you can think about

I was only pointing out that our reactivity is mechanical...conditioned...not free. I was only speaking of our reactivity. I wasn't speaking of some part of 'me' that's beyond thought. As I see it, all of 'me' is based upon tnought....and it conditioning.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 14 May 2017 #718
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

Tom Paine wrote:
I was only pointing out that our reactivity is mechanical...conditioned...not free. I was only speaking of our reactivity. I wasn't speaking of some part of 'me' that's beyond thought. As I see it, all of 'me' is based upon tnought....and it conditioning.

I wasnt speeking of any part of me beyond thought either. If you can perceive in silence, that perception in silence is not mechanical. Total perception is not mechanical. It means perception, in which the observer is silent, not talking, not wanting, not projecting. Such perception is pure listening, pure observing. Beauty that you observe is non-mechanical. That in you, which talks and asserts, is mechanical, that which is open and listens, is not mechanical. There are two modes of being, either you talk or you listen, you cannot do both. And to listen means to die to the observer, who is mechanical.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 15 May 2017 #719
Thumb_a1056283319_2 Tom Paine United States 82 posts in this forum Offline

Jan Kasol wrote:
Tom: As I see it, all of 'me' is based upon tnought....and it conditioning.

Jan: I wasnt speeking of any part of me beyond thought either. If you can perceive in silence, that perception in silence is not mechanical. Total perception is not mechanical.

But "if you can perceive in silence" means perceiving without or beyond the realm of thought. So, you are talking about total perception ...beyond thought...now. I was discussing the conditioning and reactivity of 'me', however. I think it's important to see/understand what we are now..,to understand how we function in daily living...which for the overwhelming majority, has NOTHING to do with total perception. It's almost entirely conditioned reactivity....which is 'mechanical', as I see it. We're almost always functioning mechanically, aren't we? Someone says the word God, and I react..,either positively or negatively. Or Democrat or Republican or socialist. The reaction is a conditioned reaction. Perhaps no more intelligent than Pavlov's dogs.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Mon, 15 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 15 May 2017 #720
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 300 posts in this forum Offline

Jan Kasol wrote:

Paul David son wrote:

Jan, are you a machine?

Are you, Paul? It is up to you to do some thinking. Do you exist in habits of behaviour, in habits of thought, which by constant repetition have become machine-like? Is not your whole life a habit? Are you aware of all your habits? Isn't your whole self just a habit thinking itself to be alive?

Jan, it's rather silly to just point the question back. I've made it clear that I do not consider any life form to be a machine. You seem to be clear that man is a machine so the question pertains to you. If man is a machine and you are a man, are you a machine?

Let's start from the simple and then we can proceed with your other waterfall of questions.

So, okay, I do not consider myself to be a machine. Do you consider yourself to be a machine?

I have answered. Will you? After all, this is what this thread is all about.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 691 - 720 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.)