Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
Discussion Forums

Michael Berry's Forum Activity | 25 posts in 2 forums


25 posts  |  Page 1 of 1
Forum: K, psychology and the physical brain Tue, 07 Jul 2009
Topic: Krishnamurti and Bohm on the Physical Brain.....

phil K wrote: Your knowledge and brain works in beautiful ways that my left brain doesnt allow me to access.

I wonder Phil!

Left brain and right brain...isn't that just another division, another illusion? Perhaps it is not as these sciencism experts tell us. Isn't left/right brain just another theory?

You also speak of solutions...is it a solution to seek order from a heavily conditioned disordered brain...or is it only a disordered brain which would seek solutions?

Forum: General Discussion Mon, 11 Jan 2010
Topic: J K's teachings & personal experience

Robert Michael wrote: And just for the record, I have NEVER said the evolutionary process (or man) has taken a wrong turn. Rather, I've always maintained that it is and always was perfectly on course and that both K and Bohm were wrong in suggesting that it took a wrong turn somewhere.

Mankind did take a wrong turn, that is quite clear...regardless of K or Bohm or you or anyone else - if you bother to look then it is evident...or otherwise one can just believe second-hand knowledge or cosmic nonsense as you and many others appear to be comfortable in doing...but to do so is not dealing in facts...it is dealing in wish fulfillment and all that disordered palaver and conditioning.

Forum: General Discussion Mon, 11 Jan 2010
Topic: J K's teachings & personal experience

Maleko (Mark) A. wrote: Those who are not full of duality you are repelling. K attracted those with precisely his own level of duality. Like attracts like, without exception!

"Duality" meaning what precisely? K's meaning was lucid - being this and wishing to be that, becoming, that is duality, and the brain has seen that holistically, but the personalized self never can as it is in itself duality...yes?

Forum: General Discussion Sat, 13 Feb 2010
Topic: The Ego in the mirror of the forums

mark exley wrote: Neither of the two faces of ego is sincere.

Ego has as many faces as the individuated self...but as that self is illusion the ego has only one face...the image of itself!

Forum: General Discussion Tue, 14 Jun 2011
Topic: Transformation-4th Step ("I" is an Illusion )

These steps and such processes have been dismissed by the brain as complete delusion...just psychological thought in all its royal spiritual regalia attempting to entrap followers and slavish brains with robotic nothingness which is not stillness, but numbness! And very dangerous propaganda it is too, typical of agendas pushed by gurus and guru fodder!

Buildings have steps, patterns have steps, instructions to reach conclusions have steps, thought has steps, but insight does not! Pure perception has no steps. Only psychological thought in all its desperation to find a conflict-free zone has steps, without seeing that for conflict to end the consciousness as we know it has to end! Or as K wryly said "The first step is the last step" - or decoded - NO STEPS!

Forum: General Discussion Wed, 15 Jun 2011
Topic: Transformation-4th Step ("I" is an Illusion )

Mohad Dib wrote: hello Michael.

why then k would have bother to say : the first step is the last step ? when as you say the reality is : no steps ! I don't get it..

You would have to ask K why he said what he said, but he did say "The first step is the last step". As to interpretation that is another step, and as it happens "away" from the fact of what is pointed out. Thought is on the move again.

Humans don't end psychological behaviors simply because the instrument they measure with, being thought, is able to only measure in a very limited and reactive manner by assembling and dismissing parts of the whole, hoping to achieve wholeness by such a deliberate collage process. This is the step approach.

When the brain sees for itself that the whole of the consciousness assembled by thought is limited and as such can never end its conflicting behaviors...then that is the end of it! No steps!

Forum: General Discussion Wed, 15 Jun 2011
Topic: Transformation-4th Step ("I" is an Illusion )

Paul Davidson wrote: Yogi's 'method' is to set up a series of experiments which cultivate an imaginary elephant that you will see if you follow him, step by step.

Yes the elephant is clear!

Forum: General Discussion Wed, 15 Jun 2011
Topic: Transformation-4th Step ("I" is an Illusion )

Mohad Dib wrote: Self ( whatever we put behind that word) may not be so wrong .

There is only one human brain and not many - physically and psychologically. So, this brain invents the concept of other brains which each then in turn invent the concept of other selves, each discrete and personalized, and then each of these selves then invents spiritual selves to believe in and follow, and as this drives the brain mad with conflict it further invents more selves as multiple personalities and imaginary friends (as god), and then consults others selves who are experts on making the individual selves feel really good about all its accomplishments! And this is cherished as cultural identity and humans wonder what is the root of war!

Self means eternal conflict! There is no right or wrong about it as both are fragmented value judgements.

Forum: General Discussion Wed, 15 Jun 2011
Topic: Transformation-4th Step ("I" is an Illusion )

Raj Kumar wrote: Wow,wow!!! I doubt this, that K said. Please Quote!

Doubt all you like...he did say it!

Forum: General Discussion Sat, 21 Jan 2012
Topic: The Love Train

lidlo lady wrote: We are violent because we're animals. But because we're thought-driven animals, we're ambivalent about our violence, justifying and condemning it, fashioning ever more subtle and covert forms of violence to rail against and perpetrate. It's our animal nature.

The assumption you are making here, and the same assumption others make, is that animals are violent - evidently by pure observation they are not violent as their instinctive nature is not conflicted as it is not thought-bound.

Even Darwin was unable to evolutionarily bridge the gap between animal nature and human (so-called) higher functioning - only a couple of men have been able to logically do so and they were not holy men.

Clearly humans have stepped out of evolution and pure animal nature by simple and then complex patterns of thought as ritual, repetitive behavior and conditioned responses as psychological time, self-centered behavior.

Human beings are the ONLY animal which lies to itself.

Violence is psychological time...and as animals in the wild do not exist in psychological time their animal nature is not conflicted and therefore no violence.

Animals lie to each other via camouflage, which is survival - humans lie to themselves which is violence.

Violence arises out of thought as measurement, as time which is limited.

The circle of human violence, its psychological patterning, can only end when the whole argument of animal nature as violence ends and the brain gains an insight into technical thought and its limitations.

Forum: General Discussion Sun, 22 Jan 2012
Topic: The Love Train

Humans stopped evolving a longtime ago by not allowing people to die without intervention. By this action and others humans interfered with the variation and diversity required for natural selection as genetic mutation to occur. Evolution of species is now derailed by all the "toxic" chemicals now released into the natural environment from the billion year incorporation. And the killing of other species incorrectly for food and enhancing human so-called well-being...a wrong step.

"Stepped out" of evolution means specifically that humans found ways to manipulate the human brain and its development over approx 3.5 millions years - it is there if you look for it but it will take concerted uncovering and objectivity to find the facts.

Forum: General Discussion Sun, 22 Jan 2012
Topic: The Love Train

lidlo lady wrote: Define violence in whatever way pleases you but animals are territorial, hierarchical, they kill for food, and humans are animals by this definition.

Sorry but such tactics don't work with this observer.

It is not a matter of defining violence, it is a matter of what is psychological conflicted and that which is not.

Argue you all like, but animals in the wild are not psychologically conflicted as observed, but humans clearly are the sole species which lives in an inner and outer spatial division - simply animals do not. Violence arises as this division.

There is no conflict within an animal in its instinctive territorial imperative, nor in its social structure which arises as a dynamic group relationship, nor in the food drive as some animals are carnivorous, some, vegetarian and a few omnivorous.

Humans are vegetarian by intestinal tract length, a fact by the way...argue against it all you like as that will not change the actuality of the physiological and anatomical base.

Humans have become carnivorous and omnivorous by habit and not by biological type. Herein lies the root of violence in humans.

So if humans have inherited violence from animals then violence is in its place, and all is as nature intended it, so why wish for it to be any other way or discuss it at all - as nothing will change such predetermination genetically. So if we are deemed violent by our animal nature then we are what we are supposed to be - surely?

You can't have it both ways! If violence is inherited then accept it and end the futile battle against it, or violence has arisen in humans psychologically through some actions which are not genetically (naturally) linked! So which is it...it CANNOT be both - can it?

Etymologically the root meaning of the word "violence" means vehement, outrageous, very forcible - "due to strength". Please feel free to look them up in an etymological dictionary and just perhaps some insight might click...then again it may not!

The issue is very simple isn't it at the root: either humans killing, controlling and destroying humans (and themselves) and every other aspect of the universe, is in order evolutionarily or it is not. So which is it? One way humans can take an action through insight and the other they cannot! Beautiful isn't it!

There is NO psychological evolution!

Forum: General Discussion Mon, 23 Jan 2012
Topic: The Love Train

Peter, Without being tricky - if you look you will find out yourself. I had to - even K said humans had taken a "wrong turn". The question is - What was it?

Forum: General Discussion Mon, 23 Jan 2012
Topic: The Love Train

There are a number of significant differences between herbivores/humans and carnivores. Carnivores are very different in at least four key aspects which are NOT shared by both humans and herbivorous animals.

Forum: General Discussion Mon, 23 Jan 2012
Topic: The Love Train

Peter, Are these things you raise, and others such as violence, part of human evolutionary history or part of humans emerging from the background of evolution due to some action humans took? That is, leading to psychological disorder.

Forum: General Discussion Mon, 23 Jan 2012
Topic: The Love Train

Any human eating flesh in whatever form is disorder according to human anatomical and physiological nature.

Animals act within the order of their evolved anatomical and physiological nature...humans clearly do not.

Forum: General Discussion Mon, 23 Jan 2012
Topic: The Love Train

lidlo lady wrote: "No, and it isn't etc"

What are you talking about - or not talking about - where are the facts in this?

Forum: General Discussion Mon, 23 Jan 2012
Topic: The Love Train

lidlo lady wrote: I be nippin' at their heels.

Oh! Woof! Woof! Woof!

Forum: General Discussion Mon, 23 Jan 2012
Topic: The Love Train

Amber Cinquini wrote: This is an insult to animals, they are often more evolved than we are eating flesh and all :)

Sorry but I don't understand what you are talking about! I have only said that animals are within their evolutionary nature and in order as such, and it is humans who have stepped out of such evolutionary order and are the peak of disorder.

Forum: General Discussion Mon, 23 Jan 2012
Topic: The Love Train

Amber Cinquini wrote: unnecessary blood when we have lots of other things to eat....I am not sure what I would do if I was starving to death....

What is wrong with death? If "my" life depended on the decision to eat meat/flesh to stay alive then I would happily die!

Forum: General Discussion Mon, 23 Jan 2012
Topic: The Love Train

ganesan balachandran wrote: you didn't notice the smiley.

Oh the horrors of the computer virtual space...just dots on a page to me...even if the dots are amusing themselves.:-) ;:-)

Forum: General Discussion Mon, 23 Jan 2012
Topic: The Love Train

Dr.sudhir sharma wrote: Why are you so sure, sir?

Isn't this the projection of self about an imiginary scenario that could very easily change under real conditions? And even If the decision didn't change, what would differentiate such action from adamancy or very deep conditioning?

Evidently "you" are not already dead as if you were you would not ask the question!

Forum: General Discussion Tue, 24 Jan 2012
Topic: The Love Train

Dr.sudhir sharma wrote: Only the self could and would overrule the demand of the body to live. If Intelligence is in operation now, it would never be emphatic about what would happen then in that particular scenario.

To be clear! This human body is by dietary and anatomical/physiological propensity vegan, and it is not by choice it is by clarity of insight into the emergence of human beings from the background of evolution.

Where choice is - thought is acting. When there is no choice thought is not acting. Psychological death is in this action. Why is there such a clamor to live on regardless and defy death psychologically when it might be the only action the whole body takes?

Humans appear to be obsessed with extending and extending their lives just to achieve more collective experiences. What if experience is meaningless? When thought is technically in its place the body lives in harmony, and when thought is out of place the fear of death permeates all its conscious actions, surely.

While no sane and logical human wills to die, death is in every action when psychological time has ended. Surely it is that simple?

Forum: General Discussion Tue, 24 Jan 2012
Topic: The Love Train

Peter Kesting wrote: I am dropping out of this discussion.

Why? Too hard to find out alone. I ask but one question.

In the fossil record the cranial capacity of the hominid line changes in volume over time from about 400cc to 1500cc, meaning that the brain is growing. How can that occur in evolution, as organs do not evolve independently of the organism?

Now you are on your way! Have a great journey of discovery!

Forum: General Discussion Tue, 24 Jan 2012
Topic: The Love Train

Amber Cinquini wrote: Right or wrong, is living in duality....what is it that decides for another person what is right action ?

If there is awareness of what is correct living, this awareness dictates what is to be done....no one dictate or rationalizes this, it is the consequence of right living and awareness, at lease this is the way this observer sees it. :)

Nothing I have said is making decisions for other people nor for this body...the body speaks and it is up to the whole body as to whether or not the conditioning prevents such listening.

I fail to understand why when someone tells someone else in all seriousness, and after deep reflection, that death is easy and nothing to fear as it is in every moment...and that the body cells one was born with have largely been replaced over one's lifetime...so one is literally dead to what one arose as, people find it so troublesome?

Awareness of correct living is precisely what I am saying...die to every moment...psychologically or physically what is the difference?

25 posts  |  Page 1 of 1