Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
Discussion Forums

John Anderson's Forum Activity | 116 posts in 1 forum

Forum: General Discussion Sat, 06 Feb 2010
Topic: Unlock the Timeless

"My mundane existence is plagued by loneliness". Anastasia. When you and your husband had happy times...u didn't try to get away from them. Now he's gone, there is loneliness...which reveals dependency (I'm not condemning).

You didn't try to get away from the happy too with the loneliness. Let it flower, let it tell you it's story.

Forum: General Discussion Sun, 07 Feb 2010
Topic: Unlock the Timeless

nick carter wrote: The conditioned brain does what it does: identify/deny, pursue/flee, attract/repel, attach/detach, etc. You're suggesting that it can do what it is not conditioned to do. Can it?

Nick...let's forget the word "conditioned" for the moment.....

In circumstances like the above the mind lets say.. is enveloped in loneliness. It moves away from that ie God; belief in afterlife; solace of friends; searching, asking, searching. There's no end to that, it's like the dog chasing it's own tail.

When you see that, just see it, ...backs to the wall. Like the danger of stepping out in front of a bus!!.......

Forum: General Discussion Sun, 07 Feb 2010
Topic: Unlock the Timeless

nick carter wrote: I question whether one sees anything. The conditioned brain takes note of things, recognizes, identifies, makes adjustments and modifications, but the conditioning persists.

"makes adjustment, modifications"...yep for survival. It won't end itself. It will do anything to ensure it's survival. Extremely cunningly it says, lets devise, a process for ending myself. And so there is no end, it persists. Immense energy is channelled into that. It's got away with it for thousands of years.

But the games up, you've seen it does this. You've really seen it...and you can't unsee it. It has it's affect. You just can't play the game any more. But my..... it's cunning. Up it pops in various guises....but you are as alert as hell to it. You're learning, seeing, attending...wily as a fox, you know its tricks and so...with no energy to inform it's various guises, life's lived in a different way.

Yet all you did was see it. There was no you seeing. There was no process. But things changed.

Forum: General Discussion Wed, 17 Feb 2010
Topic: Unlock the Timeless

Anastasia Kovas wrote:

How did I become so lost??

The above exploration began with a very eloquent paragraph by Anastasia which finished with the almost despairing did I become so lost? And in seeking answers she has come across Krishnamurti. K had been exploring these issues throughout his life-time. And he had an insight which he encapsulated in the term "the Observer is the observed". He obviously couldn't give people the insight directly ...he could only point them in the direction of it. He approached that same insight from several directions....because what would resonate with one person might not with another...But he was desperate to get across that insight. He wasn't the only person in history to have undertaken that journey. Socrates, the Buddha, even Christ had the same insight though couched in different language...For Christ it was "those who have eyes to see yet cannot see" and "a man must lose his life in order to gain it" That is the same insight as "the observer is the observed".

Anastasia..Krishnamurti was just an ordinary guy like you and me....but he did get an insight......but don't add all the messianic trappings. It wasn't his insight, it wasn't jesus's, it wasn't Buddha' was just insight. And there is nothing to stop you and I seeing it.

The most honest starting point, in fact the only starting point, given what you have written, and in the context of Krishnamurti is to start by saying.....

At the moment, I just don't see it...I just don't see it.....

Forum: General Discussion Thu, 18 Feb 2010
Topic: The manner of dialogue

santos madrid wrote: Many writing somewhat unclearly with their paragraphs saturated with so much imagery, one either looses the point or has to read it again.

Well Said Santos. I joined about 3 weeks ago and was on the point of giving up. There were just one or two contributions which prompted me to persevere.

Having said that...this is an immensely difficult area we are exploring...."it teases you out of thought" (WS). When the dialogue goes deep, and there is real communion ....the words begin to emerge more slowly and sit in a kind of silence......real real silence.

But one has to be very simple and laconic in style to get there.

It's nice to share that silence!!!!

Forum: General Discussion Fri, 19 Feb 2010
Topic: Have I changed

max greene wrote: This psychological 'I,' or self, is dissolved when one becomes aware that it is a fabrication,.......The question of its return doesn't come up, if it's uselessness and danger has been seen clearly.

Enjoying your contribution Max, but can you develop that last sentence: The question of it's return etc..

I think we have to be very careful here..


Forum: General Discussion Sun, 21 Feb 2010
Topic: Have I changed


I don't know about you, but I haven't changed...

And I know why...take for example, the baby is teething and I'm awake much of the night. Next day at work I am tired.

I am at a low ebb, I am not very aware. My energy levels are low. Somebody says something and because I am not really paying attention, I get hurt and maybe I respond by hurting them. It's the stuff of life.

But what I can do is be aware of that behaviour: my feeling of being at two's and three's with myself, my nervousness or capacity to lash out with my tongue and attack. Sensitive to my nastiness!!! I am aware of my unawareness.

SO recapping:

There are times when I am aware: In that state there is harmony, I am in tune with things, people, nature. There is no separateness, no I. But I don't/can't live in that intensity. I haven't the energy for it. I've dissipated that energy cheering football teams or the baby needs looked after etc. Attention slips. I'm unaware.

BUT I can be aware of my unawaredness. (Here I am learning a great deal about the self which comes into existence when the above state is not).

PS: There was a time I didn't give a shit about the above. I never gave it the time of day. But having insight to the degree that I have mentioned...I can say that in my life there has been a change, a qualitative change....Which contradicts what I said in my opening sentence...but I hope you get the spirit of what I am trying to convey.

Forum: General Discussion Tue, 23 Feb 2010
Topic: Have I changed

Randal Shacklett wrote: oh never mind. I hate to pass on a juicy one like that, but I'm too tired.

Sooo Randal. The above was a response to my post. What did you mean by it?


Forum: General Discussion Thu, 25 Feb 2010
Topic: Have I changed

Randal Shacklett wrote: Yes well, I guess you deserve an explaination. Your line "I'm not changed and I know why" was a contridiction worthy of exploitation. But I wanted to also point at the difference between physical exhaustion and psychological laziness. No one took me up on it though and you seem only interested to see if I'm insulting you,

Randal, All I did was ask you a short question, with no qualifications. And you generously said:

Yes well, I guess you deserve an explaination.

Then you kindly gave an explanation....but added a wee barb at the end:

"you seem only interested to see if I'm insulting you,"

That's an assumption. Let's put the emphasis on the "seem" and move on, this is mirror stuff. We're both learning.

Back to your explanation: If I run a marathon, I'm physically exhausted. But I'm not in conflict with myself or anyone else. Fine, no problem usually.

But if I am awake with the baby all night and have to go into work next day and meet deadlines, midway through the day, I'm knackered. In that situation, if something upsets me, that old me or I, call it what you want, ups and outs and before I know it, I have insulted or hurt somebody. I'm not calling it "psychological laziness", I'm learning that the I or me is readily more active when I am tired. (I am aware of my unawareness!)

But I am not in conflict over this. I am Mr Nasty.

Forum: General Discussion Thu, 25 Feb 2010
Topic: Have I changed

Dr.sudhir sharma wrote: Sir, it is always easy to destroy the seed of a problem. Once it is permitted to grow to bigger size (by not paying attention to the seed), then uprooting the problem will be more difficult and also cause more damage.Psychological stress is to be dealt with as soon as it arises by observing it.Then it can not take deep roots.

Dr. Sharma

I'll take another approach. Developing post 204 which you have kindly commented on. Let's say the baby slept well. I slept well. My energy levels are high when I am at work. I am alert and attentive. When someone says something insulting to me, I'm there, aware, alert, full of energy. That attention immediately burns the seed of any problem as you have said above. Nothing takes root. Fine.

But hell, let's be honest, we're not always paying that degree of attention. Problems do take seed! Much of the day I may not be paying attention. So if you are with me so far, the question arises, where do we go from here?

Now ...I'm being very interested in my inattention. (I am aware of my unawareness)

(We can go places with this...but I think I've said enough for the moment).

Forum: General Discussion Fri, 26 Feb 2010
Topic: Have I changed

Dr.sudhir sharma wrote: Sir,does high energy level necessarily mean that I am alert and attentive ? A very ambitious man will show exceptionally high energy level but he is alert and concentrated and not alert and attentive.

There is no contention here. We are saying the same thing in different ways.

However, you have raised the above question. I want to explore it. The ambitious man may indeed have high energy levels. His energy in channelled, focussed on his ambition. I doubt if he would be interested in pursuing the issue we are addressing. But it is energy.

Awareness, attention, it too demands energy. Immense energy. Not focussed energy but nevertheless energy. But we dissipate that energy joining societies; sports; work; raising children etc.

I don't commit to that degree. I'm dissipating the stuff all over the place! (And you'll say, that's why I have problems, suffer etc. I know, quite right).

One guy who does appear to have committed to that degree was K. Utterly passionate about it. All his energy there. And the insights resulting from that engage the attention of both you and I and others on this website. (Ultimately they are not K's insights, they are just insights. I think you know what I mean).


Forum: General Discussion Sat, 27 Feb 2010
Topic: Which is the major cause of division?

Dr.sudhir sharma wrote: Will there be division if one is aware of the thoughts as they are arising and subsiding ?

That's a good and very valid question.

No there won't. If one is simply watching/aware without condemning or condoning, there is no division. It is like watching a film in a cinema.


Forum: General Discussion Sat, 27 Feb 2010
Topic: Which is the major cause of division?

Dr.sudhir sharma wrote: Sir, if one is watching the reaction of condemning and condoning, then these also can not cause division.If we place any fore condition in this matter, then division will result. Is this right ?

Nicely put. It's very subtle. Absolutely right. Now one just travels with a chuckle in your heart. No more to be said. You've got it.



Forum: General Discussion Mon, 01 Mar 2010
Topic: Have I changed

dhirendra singh wrote: I was reading today's qoute. Beauty of K's saying is that they are very clear and to the point. I wonder why I am same even after reading him. Is there any benifit of discussion here,

Dhirendra....Your whole post #217. That was very heartfelt. It prompted me to look at today's quote. It finished with the line: "There is not the simple act of meditation". You've obviously read a fair bit of K's work. Can you tell me, what you think is meant by "the simple act of meditation."

I only want about 4 short lines, in your own words, and if you can, steer clear of any poetic stuff. ( you know what I mean...there's loads of it on this site).

Cheers John

Forum: General Discussion Mon, 01 Mar 2010
Topic: Soon, all your questions will be answered...

Anastasia Kovas wrote: There is no time. Truth is found in time?

Anastasia. What do you mean by that? Can you elucidate.

Cheers John

Forum: General Discussion Mon, 01 Mar 2010
Topic: Have I changed

dhirendra singh wrote: how can I say something about meditation when I don't know it.

Post 218 & 220 Well said Dhirendra. Now apply the same understanding to change. You don't know what "change" is either.

Forget it. Stop beating yourself up with it.

Keep it simple. Watch what you are thinking and feeling from moment to moment without condemning or condoning it. That you do know. That's the first step and the last step.

Forget what K or anybody else says beyond that. Otherwise you will tear yourself apart.



Forum: General Discussion Tue, 02 Mar 2010
Topic: Have I changed

dhirendra singh wrote: So i don't know nature of change but I believe there may be a change, but not through discussion or thinking.

Post 222. Thanks Dhirenda.

On this website, the only means of communication we have are thought and discussion. Thought and discussion has it's place. But it has to be as precise as if we were together trying to build a bridge. I am not just rattling this off in five minutes. You've challenged me and I'm exploring hard....choosing every word carefully, as if I was building that bridge! OK.

Now any thought or discussion in this realm, is only a signpost. We don't believe in the signpost, we don't worship the signpost, we don't revere the signpost etc, Nor do we hang around the signpost. It's only a signpost.

K was/is that signpost here. And the direction he pointed comes down to this: When he was asked how did he learn what he had been saying...he said quite simply:

By watching my mind...without condemning or condoning.

Now that doesn't mean instant nirvana, peace which passes all understanding, a blinding flash of understanding which transforms everything etc. in fact, there's a chance you might even get more discontented!



Cheers John

Forum: General Discussion Wed, 03 Mar 2010

K was like a signpost. We don't worship a signpost, we don't believe in a signpost, nor do we hang around a signpost. You set out alone in the direction suggested, and in essence the direction suggested came down to this:

When asked how he learnt what he did, K said:

By watching my mind...without condemning or condoning.

There's nothing there you and I can't do.

Now that doesn't mean instant nirvana, peace which passes all understanding, a blinding flash of understanding which transforms everything etc. in fact, there's every chance you might get even more discontented!

Forum: General Discussion Wed, 03 Mar 2010
Topic: Have I changed

dhirendra singh wrote: There is one question, you have that signpost, and it shows you direction, then why you have not learned what K learned? Is this a time consuming path?, Or you don't understand that signpost?, or no signpost can help to truth?, because signpost indicates path, and K was saying that truth is pathless land

Hi Dhirendra Re. Post 224

To watch your mind without condemning or condoning is a pathless land. You are watching your own mind without reference to guru's; religious leaders; commandments and Krishnamurti!!!. Now you are really on your own! It's Dhirenda watching his mind.

It is the only dynamic and living way of learning about the nature of the self and it's activities. Otherwise you will have nothing but dead leaves...the dead leaves of reading countless Krishnamuti books describing what he saw. And he desperately did not want you doing that.

Cheers John

Forum: General Discussion Wed, 03 Mar 2010

Dr.sudhir sharma wrote: Could there be a lesson for all of us in this ? Could we discuss the nature of these Two different Movements ?

Dr Sharma. Post 2

I always have a fear of getting too cerebral in these matters. I'm going to take this slowly for myself. There are huge pauses here as I type this........

I think you hit it when you said:

In both instances, one is moving and making efforts.

(This is all that matters) In doing that, one is moving away from the self and not letting it tell it's story. If one lets it flower, in that choiceless awareness, one may be seeing/learning some very unsavoury things about yourself.

However...In doing this, you are putting your house in order. Forget Nirvana, peace of mind etc. One is a million miles from that without this order.

Forum: General Discussion Wed, 03 Mar 2010
Topic: Have I changed

dhirendra singh wrote: There is one question, you have that signpost, and it shows you direction, then why you have not learned what K learned?

Dhirendra Post 227

This is going to hurt. The answer to this question lies in what kind of idealised view you have of Krishnamurti. I have told you very clearly what I have learned in the above posts. And I have learned other things:

There is very good evidence for him having shagged his editor and best friend's wife. He managed to keep it concealed for 25 years. In all of that time, he would have known, that when it became common knowledge, his behaviour was going to hurt a lot of people he loved and were close to him. And it did.

The guy was no saint. But the psychological insights, which were not his insights, but just insights, are valid and worth exploring.

He wasn't constantly in nirvana all his life. He also experienced the ecstacy of ******* his friend's wife!

Forum: General Discussion Wed, 03 Mar 2010
Topic: Have I changed

dhirendra singh wrote: So it is not proof that he was not constantly in nirvana


I can say no more. Good luck in your journey.

God Bless.


Forum: General Discussion Wed, 03 Mar 2010
Topic: Have I changed

emphasized text>Dr.sudhir sharma wrote:

Sir, one understands that there is no 'how' in these matters, but could you throw some light on the factors that will make watching a dynamic and living activity and save it from turning in to a system or a habit ?

DR Sharma

I think that we have agreed in previous posts that the only active principle is that of:

Observing/watching the mind without condemning or condoning.

However, if you find yourself condeming or condoning, watch that. That means there is no conflict, and the emphasis continues to be on seeing.

Cheers John

Forum: General Discussion Wed, 03 Mar 2010

Dr.sudhir sharma wrote: Sir, in that seeing/ learning, will there be any criticism and categorisation as unsavoury or good things about 'yourself' ?

Dr. Sharma Post 4

That's a great question. Watch me struggle???? This is immensely tricky. It relates to your other question

When watching, you are watching your response to a challenge. Not the challenge where someone says to you, does 2 X 2 = 5?

It's in that psychological realm where the self jumps into play. That self, positive or negative in it's response...isn't needed to meet the challenge. In fact the self is a distortion in response to the challenge. Or put it this way, the response to the challenge is always inadequet when the self responds, positive or negative.

Awareness, seeing, watching, call it what you want, allows you to see that immediately and puts a spanner in the works of the self.

But hey, we're not always aware. There are great gaps. Challenges to which the self has responded. In that state I hurt and get hurt in response to challenges etc.

But awareness of this unawaredness acquaints me very keenly with the operations and subtlty of the self. I may well apologise to the person I made suffer when I was unaware and responded from the self. That's an ethical catch up.

What do you think?

Forum: General Discussion Wed, 03 Mar 2010
Topic: Have I changed

RICK LEIN wrote: Hi John,One would suggest reading Mary Luyten's rebuttal to Sloss's book,there were a number of factors at play other than sex.

Hi John

Yep. I intend to have a read at that. Krishnamurti was not the only person to have seen the psychological insights that he so brilliantly articulated. There were sages in the past who saw the same.

It's this virtuous image of one who lived the insights with untarnished integrity which gets up my nose. He didn't. Thank God he didn't.

Forum: General Discussion Thu, 04 Mar 2010
Topic: Have I changed

Randal Shacklett wrote: If? Isn't this "what is"? The mind is constantly doing it. Everyone, always. Other than in a condoning (accept/like/agree) manner, why are you saying that it can be done?

Post 234 & 232

Hi Randal

If I get your drift right, here's my reply:

What is: is when one is watching without condemning or condoning. The mind is in a state of watching. It's not aware that it is aware! It's conscious, but it is responding appropriately, effectively and with intelligence.

But when the mind responds by condemning or condoning it has moved away from what is. . There's disorder, one is not responding effectively. There's effort, conflict, wanting to change what is. Now, watch the mind doing that, without condemning or condoning.

Cheers John

Forum: General Discussion Thu, 04 Mar 2010

nick carter wrote: K was no ordinary human being. He was selected by Leadbeater and the Theosophists because he was extraordinary, exceptional, a veritable mutant. Just because it was possible for him to observe without culturally conditioned judgement doesn't mean it's possible for you and I...and it's that impossibility that must be seen.

Hi Nick

Nick we tend to block ourselves when we think like that. It makes K into a demi God. He wasn't. Nor was he special. But that is what is so terrific about all this. He said many times, especially in his later years as he matured, I learnt all this by watching my mind.

He articulated brilliantly psychological insights which people throughout the world, no matter what the culture, consider worth exploring. These insights have been seen by sages in past ages, but became so embroiled in religious overtones of various kinds that nowadays they fail to resonate with people like you and me.

If again we start to load these psychological insights with religious overtones..... and treat with hallowed reverence the messenger, then the whole circus begins again. K was desperate to avoid that.

It's a fabulous and wonderful starting point.

Mind: his, yours and mine, desperately need these insights. We're all in the pot together.

Forum: General Discussion Thu, 04 Mar 2010

nick carter wrote: K was an oddball, a mutant, a freak - not a demi-god, a holy man, or a saint, but "special". Furthermore, there's no indication that studying or parroting his teachings has done anything to change the human condition or "awaken intelligence", but playing K-cheerleader can be gratifying.

Nick....Given that. Why bother to be here? Maybe the answer hinges to some extent on your understanding of what is meant by "awaken intelligence" Do you fancy having a stab at that?

PS: I am not asking you to be cheerleader, just help me explore this.


Forum: General Discussion Thu, 04 Mar 2010

nick carter wrote: Who knows if K could really do it?

Post 31 Hello Nick

Absolutely. The guy could, given his history to be the world teacher etc have found a very nice way of playing them at their game and living quite a nice life style thank you. Certainly compared to the poverty of his circumstances in the India of the early 20th century.

But for the moment let's give the the guy some space...he says he dedicated his life to watching his mind.... and we have some very interesting observations on that topic from him. Many people find these worth exploring, and apparently you do too from what I have seen of your other posts.

Now even for academics the psyche is an immensely difficult area to explore. (In western culture, you've only to look at Freud and Jung) Most of us, well at least I didn't, never thought about this stuff until I read what this guy had to say.

Now to explore this difficult area, we need common reference points, a common terminology. This is a world site. Full of people from different nations and cultural backgrounds. So if one uses terminology used by K such as: what is; awareness; observer is the observed etc, there's a good chance that those who are reading the post see what one are trying to get at. It doesn't mean one is being a K cheer-leader as you put it, or thinks one has made the definitive statement.

Finally. You said that K was a mutant; special. Does that this is only a question....that you think he was right in what he said, but only he could do it because he was special, mutant?

Forum: General Discussion Thu, 04 Mar 2010
Topic: Have I changed

nick carter wrote: Is an insight something someone else has and you confirm


So that we have common understanding. Dictionary definition of Insight:

A view into anything: awareness, often of one's own mental condition.

Now to ground this, I want to explore an example. Saying one has been brought up in a certain nationality. One has lived for many years within that conditioning without being too perturbed. I identify with it. But along comes this guy K and says: If you act from the basis of this identity, it is divisive. He explains it in a way which really hits me. It's almost a shock to me. Nobody ever said this before for me so precisely. It's an insight: an awareness of my own mental condition. I'm open to seeing the ramifications of living within that conditioning. It divides....and we then need a League of Nations to try and get these different identities to tolerate enough to solve common problems. That fails, doesn't stop a world war. So we create another, the UN. Same difference. Next thing my own nation gets embroiled in a war, there's conscription and I'm expected to even die for this. But I've had this insight, which showed me what a nonsense that identity was. Four hundred years ago I might have been doing exactly the same for a tribe in the hills I identified with.

Hey, now I've got problems. I'm not walking around in Nirvana. I've seen something, I can't unsee it. And it is mighty difficult to convey the point to those around me....especially if there is no impending war or dire crises felt by them. But whenever I see the sense of nationality arising in me, I see the danger of it, immediately. And it can pop up anytime. Believe me, I come from a part of the world where this is crucial. But the mind is doing exactly the same in different parts of the world though the cultural circumstances may differ. And some of them have nuclear weapons.

I don't trust politicians. I put my faith in there being enough people in countries throughout the world, including the US, who share this. It's all we've got...