Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
Discussion Forums

Jack Pine's Forum Activity | 5685 posts in 2 forums


Forum: General Discussion Wed, 26 Oct 2011
Topic: Love...What is it?

Paul Davidson wrote: Negation at the superficial level of mind: involves changing behaviour. Giving up smoking would be an example of that. Negation at deeper levels: would mean dynamic and radical changes to one's being, one's whole perspective and behavioural patterns.

I know this is tedious to readers to pick apart, piece by piece, something that someone has written but.....Mr. Davidson,you denied you fragment negation and then you proceed to do just that. See the quote above.

You also give a rather detailed description of your image of negation which I think pretty much conceeds what I wrote above that you already think you know what negation is and you were going to compare what I wrote about negation, had I been foolish enough to do so, with what you already think you know. If it differed you were going to correct me.

Do I have an image of you? I don't know, but probably. Just like you probably have one of me. And as far as not having a suspicion towards what you write, I have reason to based on past experience. When you are walking along a path and you see a trap in the way you go around it. To do anything else would be stupid.

And why fragment images into positive and negative? They are just images. To say more is a subjective evaluation, a judgement, that clouds the seeing of that image.

Forum: General Discussion Wed, 26 Oct 2011
Topic: Love...What is it?

"When you are not, love is. When you are, love is not". Page 11, last sentence, Urgency of Change.

Forum: General Discussion Thu, 27 Oct 2011
Topic: Observations

Paul Davidson wrote: garrulous. Ever since I was very little I've been verbose. We are all different.

I think the definition of garrulous is excessively verbose. Are we all different? Are we other than our conditioning and the resulting emotions? And are those characteristics so different from person to person?

Forum: General Discussion Thu, 27 Oct 2011
Topic: Love...What is it?

Paul Davidson wrote: That seems logical. Only if the self has been negated can that which is not love be negated. Otherwise it is just another limited action of the self, a verbal trick. If the central core is destroyed, everything false left would wither and die.

Fact or supposition, Mr Davidson?

Paul Davidson wrote: I have never met anyone with no ego.

Have you met everyone in the world, Mr Davidson? Fact or supposition?

Forum: General Discussion Thu, 27 Oct 2011
Topic: Love...What is it?

Paul Davidson wrote: Some egos believe K did not have one.

Fact or supposition, Mr Davidson? Did you ever meet K or see him speak in public? Do you have any basis for your suppositons? Or is it all just opinion based on..........your conditioning? Once again I wonder why are you here on this forum if you have such disdain for K?

Forum: General Discussion Thu, 27 Oct 2011
Topic: Love...What is it?

Paul Davidson wrote: Only if the self has been negated can that which is not love be negated.

If the self and love can't exist together then the self is the negation of love, Mr Davidson. Why divide the self and negation into two seperate things? Maybe they are the same. Have you looked into it?

Forum: General Discussion Thu, 27 Oct 2011
Topic: Love...What is it?

Most of us suspend our center, our conditioning, for brief moments or even longer frequently. We see something or do something that completely captures our attention; the beauty of a sunset on the water, a rose that blooms in the snow, the moon setting behind a mountain ridge, the deep concern for another at a time of their crisis, the avoidance of great danger and so on. Don't seek to end your conditioning, just live and enjoy the time you have. Don't expect anything. Let go. What the hell have you got to loose?

Forum: General Discussion Thu, 27 Oct 2011
Topic: The Urgency of Change…

Reality is what thought thinks it is. Go beyond reality into nothing. Because without the center, the ego, the I, we are no thing and K points out that that is what freedom is. No thing.

Forum: General Discussion Thu, 10 Nov 2011
Topic: One hour

I don't know, but I think K was trying to say die to the past and be attentive of now. Find out what is important in life and drop the rest for the waste of time that it is. There is no time to waste on frivialities. Live now, you may actually be dead in an hour or day or sooner than you think.

But personally, I think I would be tempted to do something that I don't do presently and that is to get a bottle of single malt, 12 year old scotch and sip it with a modest amount of ice and laugh at the ridiculousness of what passes as life for most of us.

Forum: General Discussion Sun, 13 Nov 2011
Topic: One hour

RICK LEIN wrote: It seems like Krishnamurti was saying..at death...you can not argue with it..postpone it..and so forth..it is final.It seems that is what he points to when he says to die each moment?:)

Yes, I agree with you. Physical death will take care of itself no matter what we do. But is it possible for us to die to our conditioning? Is it possible to die to the cultural traditions and patterns of living that all of us have been instilled with? In the book, THE LIMITS OF THOUGHT, David Bohm seems to question whether dying to all that can happen or even should happen. This discussion between K and Bohm appears in the "Tradition and truth" chapter. Very interesting.

Forum: General Discussion Tue, 15 Nov 2011
Topic: One hour

Mr Greene, what you stated in post #48 is what I am saying. There's no disagreement there. Tradition is conditioning and therefore it's worth discussing. If you want to nit pick about the words I used, fine. That doesn't really matter. The important thing is for each of us to realize our conditioning. All thought is conditioned. The conditioned mind is always in the past. The question is: Is it possible to not be conditioned? K and Bohm, in the discussion I referenced, point out that the conditioned brain is "damaged". Conditioning damages the brain and if it is damaged too much then the brain will remain conditioned.

And that brings up another couple of questions. What is the measure of a damaged brain and what is too much damage?

Forum: General Discussion Tue, 15 Nov 2011
Topic: One hour

And my point, Mr Greene, is that there is absolutely no difference between the entity and conditioning. The entity, the I, the ego, the center is an illusion of and the name of conditioning. Just as fear, greed, anger and so on are not seperate from conditioning. They exist, as does the entity, because of conditioning.

Forum: General Discussion Wed, 16 Nov 2011
Topic: One hour

kamarajugadda Mallik ArjunaRao wrote: and unconditioning of it, does it put the I or ego or the self in its place?

I am not sure that I understand the question. Would you explain a little more?

Also, it appears that both you and Mr. Rajiv have stated that the ego isn't vanquished forever but returns and the process is repeated. That is that the ending of conditioning is repeated. This is an interesting understanding. I think that you are both probably right.

Forum: General Discussion Tue, 22 Nov 2011
Topic: Love...What is it?

RICK LEIN wrote: Is Love self seeking?:)

K spoke of two kinds of "love". The first is the popularly held believe of what love is which is linked to sex, attachment, security and so on. Which is really desire which is directed toward some person or thing. K also spoke of love when the self is not. When one dies to one's conditioning, to one's whole past. So it would follow that the self cannot seek love because love is what is when the self is not.

I want to be clear that I am discussing "love" and I am not in the state that K described as "love".

Forum: General Discussion Sat, 26 Nov 2011
Topic: Strange feeling induced by K?

Angel Miolan wrote: The fact is we don’t live the same way others live, and don’t talk the same language and also we are not interesting in the same superficial level of the things, because we want to learn about what is real and what is not. All that generates a circumstance where we feel isolate and the others some way or the other feel the distance about us. That occurs also, because the world of the “I” is the world of false division and separation.

But don't you see your thought, your belief, as put forth in the above statement, strengthens the "world of the I". You have invented an ideal which says that you are different from someone who isn't aware of some aspect of what K pointed out. You are adding to your own conditioning and, therefore, strengthening your center, your ego, your "I". You are adding to the image you have of yourself and, at the same time, you are inventing an image of those you think aren't aware of what K has pointed out. This is what conditioning is. Thought is conditioning. Is it possible to see what is moment to moment without inventing an image about what is and storing it as memory which invariable shapes, conditions the brain?

The seperation, the fragmentation, that your thought has invented is no different from the seperation thought has invented when it believes that "my country is better than your country" or "my religion is better than your religion".

Forum: General Discussion Sat, 26 Nov 2011
Topic: Strange feeling induced by K?

B Teulada wrote: Dr.sudhir sharma wrote:

Once energy is freed from conflict and confusions, it is available for direct perception/seeing/listening. Free energy flows, that is its nature. This expanding energy will contact people, nature, things and ideas - the whole contains the parts. The limited consciousness has transformed. It is a new compassionate and intelligent mind in operation that knows no distance, separation or division. From what I was told, that is the way JK operated. What you wrote may be what people generally felt when they were with him. T End quote

Jack Pine replies:

You have no way of knowing what it was like to listen to K in person unless you actually did it. Don't believe anything you hear second hand. So why speculate? Why set up an ideal of what it must have been like to see and listen to K? How does that help you to better understand what K had to point out? Do you see that this kind of thinking is how we all condition ourselves constantly?

Forum: General Discussion Wed, 30 Nov 2011
Topic: Strange feeling induced by K?

Dr.sudhir sharma wrote: This 'becoming' is not of time - so its place of occurence can only be in the active present/present moment.

Sorry, but that is an absurd statement. "Becoming" means time. When one becomes anything there is a movement from what one is to what one will be. Becoming is movement and movement, from point A to point B is time.

Forum: General Discussion Wed, 30 Nov 2011
Topic: Strange feeling induced by K?

Angel Miolan wrote: The fact is we don’t live the same way others live, and don’t talk the same language and also we are not interesting in the same superficial level of the things, because we want to learn about what is real and what is not. All that generates a circumstance where we feel isolate and the others some way or the other feel the distance about us. That occurs also, because the world of the “I” is the world of false division and separation.

Mr. Miolan, it is not just you who are making images that re-enforce the center. We are all doing it but what you wrote, which I have quoted in part above, is such a good example of thought inventing an image of itself and seperating itself from others. Clearly, from your above statement your thought has invented a description of yourself and of others relative to whether they know about or are interested in what K had to point out.

The fact that you say you didn't intend to invent an image and therefore you didn't invent one is nonsense. Very few of us intend to add to our self image which further seperates us from the rest of humanity and blocks our understanding of what is. We seem to do it naturally. Don't take what I have pointed out personally. I don't mean it personally. The point is we should be looking at how are thought works from moment to moment, not wasting time engaging is meaningless intellectualizing like several people are doing on this thread and on the other threads.

Forum: General Discussion Thu, 01 Dec 2011
Topic: Strange feeling induced by K?

Dr.sudhir sharma wrote: All thoughts do not re-enforce the centre/self. One condition has to be fulfiled before a thought would form/strengthen an image.

The discussion was not talking about all thoughts. It specifically was talking about a particular thought. Try to focus. Mr. Sudhir. But saying that, all thoughts that are recorded do in fact condition the center. All thought is conditioned. Thought is conditioning. We need thought to survive in the physical world. We are conditioned to drive a car, cook a meal, do our jobs, etc. The problem comes with thought in the psychological situations.

You make these outlandish proclamations, these authoritarian utterances and you assume everyone is going to buy it. I don't. I don't accept your self proclaimed authority at all.

Forum: General Discussion Thu, 01 Dec 2011
Topic: Strange feeling induced by K?

Angel Miolan wrote: I have to insist I wasn’t trying consciously or unconsciously to create an ideal and thought centered state of mind.

It doesn't matter a bit whether you were trying to do anything consciously or unconsciously. You added to your conditioning non the less. It's simple. You had a thought that you are somehow different than those that don't read Krishnamurti. You may be right or wrong, that's not important. But the very perception that you made and wrote out on this thread was an impression, an opinion of who you are and of who the others are. You then recorded that opinion in your memory. That is what conditioning is whether you intended to do it or not is completely irrelevent.

If you don't understand the basic structure of conditioning why waste your time with anything else K had to say? Conditioning is so very basic to what K discovered and pointed out. Conditioning is what invents the center, what is the center, and the center, the I, the ego, that is the wall that keeps us from seeing the whole. Thought, all thought, is conditioned. This isn't so because I am saying it but this is what K pointed out over and over again. And it seems fairly obvious once someone, K, tells you where to look.

Forum: General Discussion Fri, 02 Dec 2011
Topic: Strange feeling induced by K?

Dr.sudhir sharma wrote: If someone is not doing so, only he will/can know it very clearly. By looking at his written or spoken words, others can not find out whether those words are re-enforcing the images or not in the speaker/writer. For example, only you can know whether you have formed an image about Angel Miolan or are free of it after reading his post.

The above quoted statement is comparable to saying that I cannot tell you how the engine in your car works I can only tell you about how my car engine works. Does my car engine work differently than yours? No, of course not. And like an engine in a car, thought is a mechcanical process. It works the same for all of us. And whether we like it or not all of us human beings function the same. Our thought processes are the same. Why is this so difficult to understand? I guess it is more entertaining to endlessly theorize about what you think K was pointing out than do actually watch how your thought works moment to moment.

Forum: General Discussion Fri, 02 Dec 2011
Topic: Strange feeling induced by K?

Dr.sudhir sharma wrote: What is that condition that has to be fulfilled before a thought would not form or strengthen a pre-existing image?

If a perception is not recorded in memory as thought than it will not condition the center. Thought is rooted in the past and may be modified in the present and projected into the future. But it is still the past.

Forum: General Discussion Fri, 02 Dec 2011
Topic: Strange feeling induced by K?

Angel Miolan wrote: That applies particularly for you, Mr. Pine. We are not going to communicate each other, so I think is better to stop these arguments for the moment. Regards, Angel.

Of course it applies to me. I have already stated what I said about your conditioning yourself is not personal but common to all of us. Can you not read? Or do you simply prefer to ignore what I am actually writing? If you would suspend your hurt ego long enough to see what I am actually trying to say you might even agree with me. Not that I need your agreement.

We are all adding to our conditioning all of the time except in those rare moments where thought is suspended for a brief moment and there is just awareness of what is. Something I think all of us do from time to time in those unguarded moments.

Forum: General Discussion Sat, 03 Dec 2011
Topic: Is K with us any longer?

RICK LEIN wrote: Yes...you are! It is not "about Krishnamurti" it is about you!:)

Yes, I agree with you Rick. The whole topic of this thead is irrelevent. Just like in organized religions where you frequently see people overwhelmed with the messenger and and ignoring the message. K will have been dead 26 years this coming Feb 17. Forget K. The discoveries are what is important, what is living. The rest is sentimental hash.

Forum: General Discussion Sat, 03 Dec 2011
Topic: Is K with us any longer?

Angel Miolan wrote: I feel K., is around here for anyone of us perceiving with a clear mind and compassion in the heart. He is here as well, at any moment, with no distance, for anyone of us in the hour of need. I feel this as an insight, with no analysis or any ancient religion knowledge as a background. It’s just a feeling . That’s all. Angel.

Sir, I think you are misusing the term "insight" as K discussed it so often. Feeling and insight do not go together. Feeling is thought which is conditioning. Wouldn't you agree that feeling is based on thought, feeling is thought Mr Miolan? Insight, on the other hand, is free of conditioning and therefore not based on thought. It is a flash of understanding not based on our acquired knowledge. Here is an example of insight taken from a K talk in 1972. If you want to read the whole thing put insight into the search engine on Jkrishnamurti.org. It's the first topic that appears at the top of the page.

Krishnamurti: First of all do you know what it means to have an insight? Do you know what takes place when you have an insight into something? Say for instance, you have an insight into the whole religious organisation, let's take that for an example. An insight, see what is implied in it, how corrupt it is, how false it is. Now that insight you can only have when the mind is not conditioned, is not attached to any particular form of belief. Right? Now having an insight into the religious structure, then you draw a conclusion from that. Right? When you draw a conclusion you are terminating that insight. Right? You put an end to that insight when you draw a conclusion which you perceive through the insight. Is that clear?

Forum: General Discussion Sun, 04 Dec 2011
Topic: Is K with us any longer?

B Teulada wrote: I wonder if you understand the extent and scope of 'the rest' that you say is sentimental hash.

Believe me Ms. Teulada I am a lot harder on myself than I am on any one else. It's not a question of who is right and who is wrong. I'm not saying you are wrong or that I am right. But you seem to be stuck on the man rather than the message. What I am saying is don't dwell on K the person. It's so easy to do. I was lucky enough to have discovered K many years before he died. I attended many talks over the years and being that close to K you have to constantly remind yourself not to make a "god" out of him.

Look at what the Christians have done. They are infatuated with Jesus and they ignore the message of Christianity. Please don't do that with K. Don't make a religion out of K's discoveries by elevating K above what he had to point out.

Forum: General Discussion Mon, 05 Dec 2011
Topic: Love...What is it?

Peng Shu Tse wrote: Why do you ask questions?

You're asking questions. How is that different than Mr. Lein asking questions? Is it because you want to add to your knowledge or is it something else? You seem to have a sarcastic attitude. If you have a problem spit it out. Don't hide behind questions you don't really want the answers to. And anyway, what's wrong with asking queations?

Forum: General Discussion Mon, 05 Dec 2011
Topic: Is K with us any longer?

Peng Shu Tse wrote: Dear sir, Please allow me to ask, why are you so hard on yourself?

Well, that would be my business. Besides you don't really want to know. You have already made up your mind why YOU think I am hard on myself.

Forum: General Discussion Tue, 06 Dec 2011
Topic: Is K with us any longer?

Peng Shu Tse wrote: If a man is hard on himself of course he will be hard on others, He will say that I am hard on you but harder on myself. In my country the leaders have always said that. They told us to remember the privation they suffered on the long march and all that. They had to be hard with us to re-educate us and mold us.

Obviously, you have been conditioned by your experiences. And because of that you think you know all there is to know about me. You have analyzed me from just one statement I wrote. Why don't you ask what I meant by writing " hard on myself" instead of assuming that you already know what I meant by using that figure of speech?

You know, I'm not one of the Khmer Rouge. Get a grip.

Forum: General Discussion Tue, 06 Dec 2011
Topic: Is K with us any longer?

Peng Shu Tse wrote: Please sir, in post 57 I did ask, "Dear sir, Please allow me to ask, why are you so hard on yourself?"

No, you are asking "why" instead of asking "what" I meant by saying I am hard on myself. But then, Mr Davidson, you always did shoot from the hip. So sorry you are back so soon. Please try to moderate your saturation of the site.