available online now

Discussions between Mary Zimbalist and another close associate of K. Issue #1 available online for free (click the above link).

From an email from a fellow with a deep interest in K.:

The best news I got in a long time was that Scott Forbes is publishing Mary Z's memoirs. I was told by a foundation that those memoirs would not be published for 50 years after her death -- a numbing falsehood -- why should people have access to it in 50 years and not now? I reached out to Scott Forbes, an ex-trustee of KFT and someone I know was very close to both K and Mary Z, to ask if he likes to be video-interviewed -- and also to ask about Mary Z's memoirs. I was hoping to get him to leak it before 50 years :-) And first thing he said was to talk about this monumental project. He's been publishing Mary's memoirs in series. Mary spent more time with K than anyone in the last years of his life when he was in the West. I immediately subscribed to the whole series (over 100 issues released weekly) and have found the diaries to be extremely interesting. You can find more info by visiting www.inthepresenceofk.org Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/inthepresenceofkrishna...

I wonder what the motive is when we point out 'bullshit' in another...in what they do or say or think. Is it to shine light on the truth by dispelling the darkness or is it to shine light on oneself for being a dispeller of darkness?

Mr me speak: Yes, trying to find out the truth from an already taken fixed position is favorite pastime of me.

So all will and desire is an action of the 'me' then, would you say? K. would have never given talks if there were no will and desire, because we'd all have been living in truth, already, and who would have attended? But we're not, so he did, and we're here reading and discussing the 'teachings'. We have to begin somewhere, unless we're already free and whole, which we're obviously not.

Jack Pine wrote: Maybe it's neither one and you are just bringing your own bias to bear. Bullshit is a perfectly good word with an unambiguous meaning. It speaks for itself.

To answer your first statement: I don't know what the motive was, I was just asking a question. Perhaps the word 'bullshit' as used in this forum is mostly used out of bias and reaction, perhaps not. I know very well that the word 'bullshit' speaks for itself, but how one was using it was the question....with what motive...conscious or unconscious intent.

A lot of this thread seems to be nothing more than proof of the old saying: “A little learning is a dangerous thing"

I'm sorry to see that this thread turned out to be a bit of a barroom brawl for a while there....and on a Krishnamurti forum, no less. I never imagined my posting of that link would cause such a ruckus! But, if the 'me' and the 'you' are seen to be just thought images, what is there to attack or defend (attacking and defending are two sides of the same coin, as I see it)?

Eve G. wrote: WHY? The battle of the images is not brought up by anyone in particular in it what is.

Unfortunately, this battle of images all too often leads to physical violence. War is 'what is' too.

Eve G. wrote: Ah well WAR is the human condition. WAR is not out there it is right here. I am war. IMAGE is war because it sets me agains you.

I was replying to your question of 'why' I was sorry. I'm sorry about the human condition....'me' against 'you'... because it leads to all the violence and suffering we see out there in the world and in ourselves.

Eve G. wrote: We are that human condition and not separate from it. As long as we act from a selfish center suffering is inevitable.

Agreed....suffering, war, exploitation of man by man...the whole sorrowful tale since time immemorial. This is what motivates one to pick up a book by Krishnamurti in the first place, isn't it?

Eve G. wrote: Isn't our own identified state of sorrow enough?

Well there's no choice unless your head is buried in the sand. Aren't you moved when you see news clips of bombings and other brutalities...when you read about genocide? I'll never forget the day I first saw newsreel footage from the Holocaust. I was 8 years old and up until then had a very happy childhood. I felt like I was living a nightmare but would never wake up. Unless one is a statue, I can't see how one can avoid being touched by all that.

Eve G. wrote: Being moved means what

I thought it was obvious in the context of what I wrote...horrified, appalled, shocked, saddened. I'm sure you know what being moved by the violence in the news is like. You watch the news and you hear of a suicide bombing in Israel and an innocent child is blown to bits. You may have a child of your own, perhaps, and you think, "what if that was my own child". We're all moved to question, "why", aren't we?

Dean R. Smith wrote: Thought can realize itself.

Can you describe that? What takes thinking beyond it's limitation and fragmentation?

Dean R. Smith wrote: Self observation. Thought has to observe itself to realize that it is thought. Then the observer is the observed. That's the beginning.

Can thought observe anything... or only exist in a divided state of thinking about something/itself? Thought is constantly creating the observer/observed division and perpetuating itself by it's very nature.

Dean R. Smith wrote: If you don't know (first sentence), don't guess (second sentence). :)

:) the first sentence was a rhetorical question.

Dean R. Smith wrote: Well, if you're understood correctly, your rhetorical question was an inattention based conclusion, then!

Are you implying that it's not a statement of fact about the nature of thought?

Dean R. Smith wrote: Wasn't it clear? Didn't 'you are thought' and 'thought is the observer and the observed' give it away? :)

No, it's not at all clear what you're getting at. "Thought is the observer and the observed" points to thought dividing itself into two parts and separating itself from what it observes. There's only observation when thought stops. Thought doesn't observe, but thinks about.

Came across this quote from K. on the web today:

"Can we not look at the truth without creating ideas? It is almost instinctive with most of us when something true is put before us to create immediately an idea about it. And I think if we can understand why we do this so instinctively, almost unconsciously, then perhaps we shall understand if it is possible to be free from effort.

So, why do we create ideas about truth? Surely that is important to find out, is it not? Either we see the truth nakedly, as it is, or we do not. But why do we have a picture about it, a symbol, a word, an image? - which necessitates a postponement, the hope of an eventual result. So, can we hesitantly and guardedly go into this process of why the mind creates the image, the idea? - that I must be this or that, I must be free from dependence, and so on. We know very well that when we see something very clearly, experience it directly, there is a freedom from it. It is that immediacy that is vital, not the picture or the symbol of the truth - on which all systems and philosophies and deteriorating organizations are built. So, is it not important to find out why the mind, instead of seeing the thing directly, simply, and experiencing the truth of it immediately, creates the idea about it? I do not know if you have thought about this. It may perhaps be something new. And to find the truth of it, please do not merely resist. Do not say, "What would happen if the mind did not create the idea? It is its function to create ideas, to verbalize, to recall memories, to recognize, to calculate." We know that. But the mind is not free, and it is only when the mind is capable of looking at the truth fully, totally, completely, without any barrier, that there is a freedom."

Dean R. Smith wrote: Please don't be insulted, Tom, but there's no point in wasting any more time with our discussion. If you don't realize that you are thought, you'll never understand any of this. This is a 'been there done that' situation and there is no desire to waste time endlessly repeating it.

Not insulted, but my mind is a boggled by this kind of response. 'If you don't agree with me, you're not worthy of a reply.' Is that it? "He who says he knows, does NOT know" (K.)

Dean R. Smith wrote: That's an incredibly off base interpretation of what was said.

It wasn't said outright, but the fact is that you don't agree. I made the statement that thought doesn't observe but divides....creates distance(psychological), or something to that effect. And then you cut off the discussion. I'm assuming you disagreed.

Dean R. Smith wrote: The reason for ending the discussion was made very clear.

Clear, but very odd, none the less.

Dean R. Smith wrote: We could talk for the next 40 years and you still wouldn't realize something that manifests in a micro second of self observation.

I'm starting to think you're just putting people on. Oh well, I don't want to waste any more time on this either. I'm quite happy to not discuss it further.

Eve G. wrote: How do we go about understanding Why?

IDK, but the first step for me over 40 years ago, when I was struggling with the issue of the immense suffering we've created on earth, was that I was fortunate enough to come across a book by Krishnamurti. Over the years, whenever I had a pressing issue, I'd pick up one of his books and open it to a random page, and he'd usually point my inquiry in exactly the right direction.

Eve G. wrote: :) What do you suppose would end human suffering?

I wish there was a simple solution like "pray to the Savior and he will answer your prayers", but it seems that we have to be willing to address the issue of our conditioning. However, most people won't even question it. They accept the armies and the organized religions and all the punishments and rewards as a given in life....like the air we all breathe.

RICK LEIN wrote: Do you remember summer vacation(from school)..seemed endless when young didn't it?:)

Yes, but there's houses to be built and crops to pick and endless stuff to learn, so they ring the school bell....recess is over...it's time to get back to your studies :-)

Eve G. wrote: Yes why? The existence of the self depends on occupation. No occupation no self.

"...why?"

Is there any reason at all? or is it just happening of itself?

Eve G. wrote: Tom, Krishnaji said that one can perform all these tasks with no psychological self. What is the need for the cumulative nature of self to be there while one work the fields etc.

I was just wondering something along a similar line after I posted that. Why is school learning made into a chore....or even worse, a torture for some? Perhaps K. was trying to address that aspect in the schools he founded. I haven't read any of his writing about that particular issue....why we've made learning in school and doing the things necessary for our survival(our daily work, assuming we have a job in an office or farm or wherever) into a struggle/conflict.

max greene wrote: Dean R. Smith wrote:

In pedestrian terms (because there is really only thinking and a body) . . . This assertion appears either shocking or ridiculous, depending on one's point of view.

The body is an evolutionary development and thought is memory evaluated to conform to the individual's circumstances. You say that these are all that we are.

Where are awareness, understanding and love? Surely you don't equate memory, and the evaluation of memory, with awareness? With understanding? With love? Or are you saying that awareness, understanding and love are not a part of the human being? Or that they simply are not in the first place?

I'm also a bit confused as to the meaning of Dean's 'only thinking and a body'. The flowers and trees and the oceans aren't just thought/thinking, obviously. Are you and I and awareness separate from those or is there only a unity?

Eve G. wrote: Yes he is talking only about humans.

But humans are more than thinking and a body, no? Thinking may obstruct awareness of our true nature, but thinking is not all there is, thinking along with the physical body.

Eve G. wrote: Is there escape without thinking? or escape is thinking....?

Is this in reference to escaping from pain, conflict? If so, that would be thought/thinking, yes. Taking refuge in the thoughts of a better future(based upon the past)...a better 'me'.

Eve G. wrote: It may go much deeper than that?

can you elaborate?