Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
Discussion Forums

Peter Kesting's Forum Activity | 1742 posts in 5 forums


Forum: General Discussion Thu, 29 Sep 2011
Topic: Knowledge?

Hello Paul and Dr sudhir,

I'm new to this kind of thing. A bit shy. I noticed a quote here somewhere, K talking critically to someone about "These people going around helping people". K was asked "but isn't that what you are doing?" K's reply was "but I'm not doing it on purpose." (these quotes are probably not accurate) Anyway hopefully what I'm doing here will in a like way be not on purpose

I've read K extensively and seen him talk in Ojai for a number of years when he was alive . And I love him deeply.

But i dont take anything he says as true by authority.

This discussion is about the question "what is knowledge".

It is possible to question almost everything. Almost everything we take as known is actually assumption only. I'm assuming that there is actually a you there to read this. I am able to question this but for the moment I am makeing that assumption.

I am assuming there are a number of us, there is a we. Were I questioning this at this moment I woold not be writing. Together we assume that there is a real material world. When we examine this material world we find that the discoveries in the field of science seem to best describe what happens in this field of matter.

I see that my body is matter. I see that I have nerves and a brain. I discover that everything that I sense comes to me through nerves. But these sensations get to me only as impulses traveling on nerves. Likewise every thing I do is the result of nerve impulses traveling thru nerves to muscles. I am able to concieve of a being like me who consists of a brain only, connected to a computer at every nerve that enters and every nerve that exits its brain. If that computer were sufficiently advanced. It could simulate for that being a reality as real as the one I experiance by taking all of the outputs of outgoing nerves and doing the necessaru calculations and sending back to the brain the ingoing nerve impulses that would appear to that one to be a world as real to him or her as this that I experience. I cannot be sure that that is not the real nature of my world. If my world is this and has been so for all of my "life" I can now question the very existence of the brain itself and all of the material world and science. I can question the existence of the material.

I am left with quailia only. The redness of red for example. There is no red in the brain. Moreover everything, including thought itself the experiance of memory is quaiia only.

So what do I know?

This one thing is a certainty.

It is not the case that there is nothing.

I think all else may be assumption only.

Forum: General Discussion Fri, 30 Sep 2011
Topic: Knowledge?

Paul,

The quote is in the first post in the seventh topic "so surprising this krishnamurti !!" in the lounge discussion forum.

Peter

Forum: General Discussion Mon, 03 Oct 2011
Topic: The Conflict Underlying Self

Hello Muad,

For some reason when I type I lose the page I'm typing but if I post a word or two I can then go to the post and edit it, that's what I'm doing right now. Sorry if that confuses anyone.

Hello Muad,

I think there is a completely different way to look at all of this. I may be mistaken but I think most people who read K are missing something really fundamental.

It is necessary to end all identification with the self in order to observe it.

I hope we can talk as two friends.

Peter

Forum: General Discussion Tue, 04 Oct 2011
Topic: The Conflict Underlying Self

Muad,

There was a time in my life when I was in conflict and nothing i did resolved that conflict. This was well before I had heard of K. Not to say that there is no conflict now. I was in fact a bit ashamed and embarrassed, self conscious about something false in what I most recently posted to you. Some arrogance there. I won't correct the post or delete it.

Back to that earlier time of conflict. Wherever I did then, at that time, there remained painful conflict. Probably changing form.

It just happened that at that time my examination of this conflict and my situation led me to see it this way. I perceived or it seemed to me that there was the me, and then there was the world external to the me. And what was happening was that the me was trying to act upon the world outside of the me. And this activity was never working.

Now it just happened to occur to me that maybe the reason for my inability to resolve this suffering, this conflict is perhaps (I was looking at everything) is perhaps that I am making a mistake in my assumption of exactly where the boundary between the me and the world external to the me is located. If i draw an imaginary circle around the me, around what I take to be this self as i am seeing the self, and that circle extends too far outside of the true bound of the self, or if it is too far inward, so that it includes too much or too little, then that error may be what is causing the action of this self to be always incomplete.

So It occurred to me to ask the question,

what exactly is the self?

More later , if you are interested. There is something one can discover here that I think can be shared, conveyed.

Peter

Forum: General Discussion Wed, 05 Oct 2011
Topic: The Conflict Underlying Self

Muad,

I don't want to influence you in any way. Even my writing to you I see will influence you. What can I do?

Peter

I truely feel a great affection for you

Forum: General Discussion Wed, 05 Oct 2011
Topic: The Conflict Underlying Self

Paul

Trhere is something very deep that can happen to a person. One cannot talk about it.

Muabs writing reminded me a bit.

What I was going to try to describe regarding the self is much smaller than that something. But still it seems to me to be very significant, something almost no one sees. So I will try to go into it. I don't mind if I am mistaken in doing this. Or am mistaken in what I think I see. Someone may be able to correct me. Also It's an experiment, doing this writing.

There is a proof of the existence of an infinite number of prime numbers. (proof of course always based on many assumptions). The proof assumes that there is a largest prime and then there follows from that a contradiction. One can say,"maybe it's like this", then follow that out to it's end and discover it is definitely not.

There can be lots of impediments to communicating some thing to another. Much of what impedes will be what the other already "knows".

Also, someone can be told that there are an infinity of primes. But that is something very different from actually going thru the proof. One needs to see it for oneself.

If it happens to be that the reader knows quite a lot about quantum mechanics that knowledge may be an impediment. So i suggest that there seem always be new discoveries. If there are objections to the framework in what follows, this is how I visualized things at the time all of this came to mind. Also I think I can overcome all the obvious objections later.

At one time I wondered if the whole of existence might be completely programed. I didn't like that idea but I wanted to know the truth whatever the truth was. I was willing to face the facts. Also as I said earlier I was interested to know exactly what is the self. Where is the boundary.

There occurred the idea of a thought experiment.

Suppose there was some being with some extremely advanced technology capable of constructing a chamber that would completely insulate what is inside of it from what is outside. (Remember this is only a thought experiment)..

This chamber is big enough for me to comfortably get inside. Like a room. Suppose I get in it and it is closed. I'm going to describe...think about things,kind of in terms of classical physics. Suppose our imagined being, our technician, has the ability to discover the exact state of everything in the chamber, the movement of every particle in the chamber perfectly, every material bit and all the photons etc. whatever the ultimate entities be.

Now, Suppose our technician were able to construct a second chamber and put into this second chamber the exact same configuration of matter and energy and set it In motion so that it exactly replicates the matter and energy, position, motion, etc, so that this second chamber contains everything in the first all of it moving perfectly in parallel with that in the first chamber.

Tentatively i'm suggesting that in this chamber there is what seems to be an exact replica of me. Moving in exactly in the same way that I am moving in the first chamber, even to the level of any particular electron say in any particular nuron in the brain.

So the question arises:

Would there be anybody there in that second chamber?

Forum: General Discussion Wed, 05 Oct 2011
Topic: The Conflict Underlying Self

There seem to be two possibilities:

Somebody is in there.....or nobody is in there.

So let's take these one at a time. Let's start with the second case: nobody in there. I envision this as having only blackness in that one in that chamber. And yet it moves as a biological mechanism exactly like I do in the other chamber. Every ultimate particle moving in parallel. So there seems to be this one difference. I am in this first chamber but in the second chamber blackness only only the movement of matter, in parallel. So I see in this first chamber what I'm going to call "light" in contrast to the blackness in the other chamber. This is not physical light, not the light of the physicist. This is this that I see within myself the difference between these two chambers. The only difference. I see what it is directly as the one difference between these two chambers.

Now let's do something that requires an even more advanced technology.

Suppose our technician has the capacity to remove this light in me from the first chamber and say he/she puts it on the shelf in some appropriate container for a few minutes. Now both chambers are exactly the same, nobody in either. But the movement of mater in each continues. Suppose now after a time that light is placed back into the first chamber. I suggest that immediately upon it's reinsertion there is access to all of the memories that are in that brain including memories of what happened while it was absent. I'm suggesting tentatively that memories are recorded in the mater of the brain only. That while that light was outside it perhaps saw nothing. If that is so then it has no memory of ever being outside of the brain. When it is replaced in the brain it has even the memory of what happened while it was on the shelf. It sees it self as having been in the brain all of the time

Now suppose we repeat the procedure once again only this time we put that "light" back into the second chamber rather than the first. I suggest it would perceive itself as having always been in that second place. Having lived a lifetime in that body that has as we said only recently come into being. I'm suggesting that the self is that "light" only. That everything else, the material body and brain are outside of the self,outside of what one actually is.

Forum: General Discussion Wed, 05 Oct 2011
Topic: The Conflict Underlying Self

Now let's try going a little further.

Suppose we were to repeat this whole procedure with the reader. Two more chambers are constructed. And you enter one and it's closed. And a replica of you is set in motion. So there are now four chambers. And that light which is you is is in one and this light here in the writer is in another. Now in the chambers there are two copies each of two different human beings with the memories of two different lives, mine and yours in the two of each. Now suppose we were to remove that "light that is in you and that that is here in me. We could put them back into the originals or the appropriate replicates but suppose we in stead we put that light that is in you into that chamber which contains one of my likeness. Into one with my memories and the light in me into one with your memories. Wouldn't it be that I would think that I Had always been you, having your body and all of your memories. And you would think you had always had mine. Is there actually a "mine" and a "yours"?

If that switch had just now taken place you would be now looking out of these eyes Ann I would be looking out of those. You would think that you had just now typed these words.

Suppose we go back a bit. Suppose we take these two "lights" out of these two bodies (still a thought experiment) and place them next to each other on the shelf. If you can look at these two which are each this "light" that is not light, you will see that there is nothing in the one that can be used to distinguish the one from the other. They have no form or color or age not male or female. They have no structure, they have no attributes. So we have two things that cannot be distinguished the one from the other.

If there is nothing whatsoever in the one that can be used to distinguish the one from the other Is that really two things? Or is it that that is really one thing only.....You are the other.

Forum: General Discussion Wed, 05 Oct 2011
Topic: The Conflict Underlying Self

I hope you are seeing this.

Everything that is material is conditioned. Everything that is conditioned is external to what one really is, but most people mistakenly identify themselves with this external conditioning. Conditioning is what it is about to be material.

So we started with the two somebody's in it or nobody's in it. We looked at the one case "nobody's in it". In the second case "somebody's in it, if there is somebody in it we see what that is that is in it. It is that one self, that light.

Now the question: is everything completely programed, cause and effect? We imagined a chamber that was just matter, nobody in it. If everything were completely programed, complete cause and effect determinism, then the chamber with blackness only in it would actually move in perfect parallel to the one with "light". There would be mo way to distinguish between them, no need for this "light". Robots would be the same as human beings in their behavior. But can one imagine two entities with blackness only in them having this conversation, referring to this " light" of which they oblivious. So somehow in this movement of brain and behavior here that has written this and that there that has followed this there was some movement in the brain that was not mechanism only. Else how could it talk about this "light" as we have been. If we could look at the working of each of these brains in detail, looking at the movement of each electron each atom in that brain we would find some movement that could not be explained as mater only. This light, mind, sentience intelligence touches mater and moves it. And matter in some way touches mind so that there is the experiencing of the various quaillia.

I think perhaps some of this clarifies what K meant when he used the phrase, "the observer is the observed."

If one can watch the behavior of the person free of identification, seeing that behavior, including thought, the activity in the brain, as something that is external, then what one actually is this "light" which is ones self, what one actually is, will be able to bring order.

Peter

Forum: General Discussion Thu, 06 Oct 2011
Topic: The Conflict Underlying Self

Paul,

I wonder if any of the rest of what I wrote clarifies things. Also I edited everything a bit.

In a post on the what is knowledge board I pointed out how little we know. I think that there is only one thing that is known. (is this a second known?). That one known needs to be put like this:

It is not the case that there is nothing

That is a known, a certainty.

I think that to put it any other way introduces some unnoticed assumption or assumptions.

So we make assumptions. I assume that you are actually there, someone will read this. It is possible for me to question that....your actuality. I assure you that I am actually here but that means nothing for you. For you I could be illusory. How will you know? In fact from the thought experiment one can question the reality of the past. That implies no Nisargadata, no Krishnamurti.

So we make assumptions.

If I assume you are there then I must assume something about how you are there. When I wrote about the brain connected to a computer we were able to get rid of the material world altogether, brain, computer, all of science. There remained just immediate...I won't say experience as that implies memory...I say quallia.

I hope it's alright to write like this. It seems the only way I can fully reply to your post.

So it could be that you and i and others are there in this field of quaillia only. Is this how you see the world...how you see existence? No matter etc. No physics.

The other way, (both ways require assumptions), is that there is a material world. There is this body and a brain, the earth, plants, animals, other human beings, stars, galaxies. Besides the mystery that any thing exists at all, there is the mystery of what it actually is. Why this? So then one can look at what the scientist have discovered. All very interesting.

So if there are others, not just me, not just me and you, and it seems that almost every human being assumes that matter is real. Then I'm making that assumption for the moment. And it seems that in human beings there is unnessary conflict and suffering. And all kinds of beliefs and division. K seemed to be aware of all of that. It seems that one might point out something that might reduce ignorant mechanical behavior and allow a little clarity to operate.

I thank you for being there and for tolerating this strange person. I hope you will do that.

I haven't been able to look back at your post. I may have wandered. I hope some of this is relevant.

It is good to be able to look into things together. Let's see what happens next.

Peter

Forum: General Discussion Sat, 08 Oct 2011
Topic: The Conflict Underlying Self

Paul,

I watched all 18 parts of the Campbell talk and questions and answers.

It is the blind leading the blind.

Peter

Forum: General Discussion Tue, 11 Oct 2011
Topic: The self(-defining process) ~ an inquiry

You are not what you think you are. This I you are examining is not the subject at all. This I is only another part of the scenery. It isn't the you. It is part of what is viewed by what you really are. There is this light in oneself. You are that only. You might want to look at this writers earlier posts.

This light here is not a different light from that in any other, be it in a human, K or any other, good or bad sane or insane. Briliant mind or mentally disabled or that in any rabit or bird or insect. And this light has in it immense value, really all value, significance, worth. Next to it all of ones achievements, capacities, accomplishments, briliant wit, intellect, history are quite insignificant, really nothing.

This I here is nothing.

Peter

Forum: General Discussion Wed, 12 Oct 2011
Topic: The self(-defining process) ~ an inquiry

Hello Joseph,

What can I say? I'm am very sad to hear of your illness.

I'm here to talk about anything you care to talk about.

Just s friend.

About this Krishnamurty stuff, perhaps the thought experiment might be something useful. It's elsewhere in the forums.

Aparently there is this brain and body that is this one. The brain is conditioned. This conditioning comes up. There is always more there. The brain gets control. Somehow there is a sense, a feeling, a knowing that it is a wrong movement. One sees it. It is not acceptable in some very strong way. One always comes out of it. I've tried to follow what happens as a thing of interest but I cannot ever see that shift. All of it is of no consequence. There is no possibility of going wrong.

There is some fundamental innocence. It cannot be hurt.

This light is always there. It's not of time.

I am an incredibly fortunate person....I deeply wish the same for all.

Peter

Forum: General Discussion Thu, 20 Oct 2011
Topic: Observations

"I'm here to stand up for the rights of the human faeces," he told the crowd. "Remember that we was all faeces once. You was faeces. I was faeces . . ."

I laughed

Peter

Forum: General Discussion Tue, 06 Dec 2011
Topic: A stroll in a day..... a reflection of the mind....past, present,&future.

I haven't been following this conversation here very closely but I notice some talk about loneliness.

Some times K talks about not rejecting something (my words) but to look at it like it is a precious jewel. (Do keep this as a consideration in all concerns.)

A small thing: the animal is programed: to feel hungry or thirsty, to feel the need to sleep, or to urinate or to move about and much more. The human same thing. Those feelings are there, thru evolution, so that we will eat or drink have sex and so on. The human being has evolved to live socially as part of a group of others. Different primates have there own social patterns. The orangutan male is solitary I believe.

The feeling of loneliness is, I suspect, just another feeling programed into the human brain, to tend to drive one out of isolation into relationship. Something produced by evolution because those that lacked it, or had that feeling, that circuitry, less developed, produced marginally fewer decendants. I think there is also a drive to have conversation. ( perhaps that is why one sees so many of the homeless alone, the disconnected talking to themselves).

Just a part of this consideration regarding loneliness.

Peter

Forum: General Discussion Wed, 07 Dec 2011
Topic: Are you happy?

Peng Shu Tse wrote: I want to ask a simple question. Maybe it will lead somewhere interesting.

Are you happy?

There are an infinity of states. The word "happy" is just a word. It tricks us into thinking there some limited fixed something rather than this this particular segment of that infinity. There isn't even some definite edge to this "particular" collection . It actually merges into every thing else at it's imagined boundary

Words are very illusory.

Don't live by words.

Peter

Forum: General Discussion Wed, 07 Dec 2011
Topic: Are you happy?

Peng Shu Tse wrote: Peter Kesting wrote:

Don't live by words.

You are right Peter. There is no fixed boundary, even between hot and cold. Yet the words still have meanings and we use them to convey meaningful states. Happiness and sadness, it is the same. But you cannot tell a starving man that there is no fixed boundary between hunger and satiety.

I do not think there is an infinity of states. Human beings are not infinitely different. We share a limited number of key emotions. Because of this there are sufficient emotional meeting points to share and communicate with anyone on this planet, even on this site.

I wonder. Simply examining this now. Not really important, but interesting. Looking at this just for fun. I feel a bit of freedom here.

There may be an infinite number of possible organisms that could experience inner states. An infinite number of possible nervous systems.... an I infinite number of possible brains. One perhaps must limit things to the the limit of mater/energy in the universe. But what do we know. Is there a limit there. Where did that come from? Anyway, very many possible brains. Very many possible states. Why a limit?

Back to the word, words ...sometimes K said something about, say fear or anger or jealousy or ....happening now. Does it have a past? Each moment always new. Look at it without naming. Doesn't that apply to each moment? The idea of happiness is perhaps unhappiness.

I may be putting words in his mouth.

Is naming thought?

Peter

Forum: General Discussion Fri, 09 Dec 2011
Topic: Are you happy?

There is this beingness. One sees it's immense significance. Happiness or unhappiness... really a very small business.

Treating one another other with less pettiness. Probably much more important than happiness/unhappiness.... At least see what you are doing. This person writing simply couldn't behave in such a way. It would be an painfull thing. Unbearable.

Please don't be offended....I assure you, it is possible to put away all of the past that touches on identity completely.

Peter

Forum: General Discussion Sun, 11 Dec 2011
Topic: Are you happy?

Dear Little,

Please don't be offended. I am saying this in a completly kindly way.... That The you is being annoyed is a pointer.

Not just for you but for any of us.

Peter

I edited this about half a dozen times.

Much affection.

Forum: General Discussion Sun, 11 Dec 2011
Topic: What Does it Mean to be "Nobody"?

I think that what one actually is is everybody, actually every thing that is sentient all at once. I am also you is the actual fact at the deepest level.

If you ever are actually seeing this you don't hurt the other person or the dog or the bird or ..... It just happens naturally without effort.

My status, my importance, hurts the other being.

Peter

Forum: General Discussion Sun, 11 Dec 2011
Topic: Are you happy?

Are you saying I am restricted in what I may say here?

Peter

Forum: General Discussion Mon, 12 Dec 2011
Topic: Are you happy?

lidlo lady wrote: Observe your own reaction to what I've said. I've said that Dhirendra's misplaced K-quote was obstructive and his non-explanation for it, evasive, but you're less interested in this than you are in getting defensive.

It goes without saying that you can say whatever Dev Singh permits, so your asking whether you're restricted or not is as disingenuous as Dhirendra's "sorry".

I suspect there is nothing that I can say to you that will get thru.

K talked for sixty years.

Go to his printed talks.

I wish you the best. I actually wish that for everyone.

Probably that means the radical transformation that K talked about.

Peter

Forum: General Discussion Mon, 12 Dec 2011
Topic: What Does it Mean to be "Nobody"?

One self is actually this light in oneself. That only. One is not the person, the somebody. The person is external to what is actually ones self. See if you can discover what you actually are. One can watch the activity of the self without identifying with it. That thing is completely programed. Watching it without identifying changes the program.

Peter

Forum: General Discussion Tue, 13 Dec 2011
Topic: Love...What is it?

Actually we are all of us already and irrevocably enlightened. All disorder arrises from fact that this astonishing, perfect, creative, intelligent, transcendent state that is what we really are is covered over by the activity of a purely deterministic, perfectly functioning mechanical brain.

Forum: General Discussion Tue, 13 Dec 2011
Topic: Love...What is it?

Mechanical dificulties In posting. See above post 476.

Forum: General Discussion Tue, 13 Dec 2011
Topic: A stroll in a day..... a reflection of the mind....past, present,&future.

kamarajugadda Mallik ArjunaRao wrote: The sef/thought/time/reaction/past/ memory have been engageing my mind during my walking, for the simple reason that pay the dominat role for continueity of living as the contineuity of the past.That is present is made to agree with the past incidents.What ever it is, utimatly it is with thought that is we are going to deal with.It occurs in present what ever its content ultimatly turn out to be.

In religious/spirituality we treat the thought to be past and has several limitations, but all the same it is what conveys the information to us from our consciousness.

Thought as such may not be a materail stuf, but its process is a materail process in the brain.It is in the brain, that before the verbalization of thought takes place, thought under goes materail process and stored in it as a memory.It is as verbal expression we encounter as a thought.A verablization is a self projection, a pattren of the brain.Most of those psychological entities mentioned above are just born simulatenously during the thought process. with back ground of sensations which carry the required energy.There are many forms of energy are involved in it.We have no axis to them ,accept the essence of energy, the attention.Attention comes negatively when there is absence of inattentiveness due to understanding of psychological conflicts. This is the spiritual lesson.

The learning is suppose to be a process, an action which is always in present.On needs to learn the undestanding of the thought process.It is not accumalation of knowldge.Then past/memory/self/ time/thought will find their place.Then the problem is ending the psychological conflicts which are makeing us inattentive to the process that are taking place in the brain.Undestanding of the psychological conflicts enables one to be aware of the inattentiveness which on default makes one attentive.

The question then how do we keep track of all our reactions that pour out during the day? One thing is sure attentiveness need not be contineous.Continuity is the activity of the past .The individual will not be present now psychologically.Keep track of the reactions without any motive and do not worry about the discontinuity of attention, but start again from the begining.There is nothing to take home.Start counting the number of discontinuities for statistics onlly.There are at least two dosen discontinuities.

Hello sir,

I am having difficulty following what you are posting. Much of that may be my own inadequacy.

Sorry for that..... Can you put things more simply, or perhaps give me some of just the core of what you are trying to convey? Or give it in smaller bites?

If you can and would be willing I will appreciate that. No demand here and no disrespect.

Peter

Now I will go for my walk. :)

Forum: General Discussion Tue, 13 Dec 2011
Topic: Love...What is it?

HeLlo Little,

Have you ever heard of something in the field of psychology called " a double bind "?

Peter

Forum: General Discussion Wed, 14 Dec 2011
Topic: Love...What is it?

lidlo lady wrote: leaving the reader to think you know a lot less than you think you do.

You may do that. Perfectly all right.

Peter

Forum: General Discussion Wed, 14 Dec 2011
Topic: A stroll in a day..... a reflection of the mind....past, present,&future.

Thank you sir,

This is a lot to digest. I will try. You will have to give me some time. I don't yet know even where to start.

Peter

Forum: General Discussion Wed, 14 Dec 2011
Topic: A stroll in a day..... a reflection of the mind....past, present,&future.

Let me begin by discussing words and their meanings. I think this will be good for many of the people who post on these forums. My view is that the meaning of a word, contrary to most peoples assumptions, cannot be captured by some dictionary definition. My idea of how a word gets it's meaning is thru the actual use of the word by people. Take the word chair. If I draw a big circle I can put every thing that is a "chair" in that circle. There will be every sort of chair in there. Every thing that anyone would be able to call a chair. Dining room chairs,easy chairs, children's chairs toy chairs. benches,some stools, folding chairs, a stump in a childs mind etc. etc. Everything thinkable that is a chair. No definition can capture this. The word chair is "defined" by the whole collection. This collection is not fixed at the edge, it is in flux, there are things moving in and out of the circle. And there are things that sit on the boundary, not exactly in the circle or out of it. I suspect that all words are like this. Including the words we are dealing with: consciousness, thought, self, mind, memory, probably time. All most people deal with are words having kind if dictionary definitions in their minds. That is...concepts. The fact is each thing is itself alone, that one itself, not a "chair" but that particular thing itself alone.

There is something else I suspect, which is that there are no boundaries in fact. That every thing merges into every thing else. Not speaking only of words here, looked at closely everything actually is continuous with everything it touches, merging at it's "edge". There is no division anywhere.

But we must use words.

Can we say what thought is?

Talk more later.

Peter