Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
Discussion Forums

Timothy Orr's Forum Activity | 9 posts in 1 forum

9 posts  |  Page 1 of 1
Forum: General Discussion Tue, 27 Jul 2010
Topic: Daily Life

Daily life, sensitivity...many suffer from what is called "Hyper-sensitivity"...of which I count myself in. A curse or blessing? Yes! One of the two. I count it more as a blessing.

I think that K had the same, or at least in a similar way. A sensitivity towards life, towards the reason for the rest.

What is the rest? The rest is exactly this sensitivity, towards life, towards seeing and knowing exactly what is going on around us and happening each day. How do we cultivate this "sensitivity". It cannot be cultivated, cannot be reaped like wheat at the peak of the season. It is a gift.

Those who have it, know it. Those who do not, know that they don't know something! Funny, in a way, but ultimately tragic.

K's aim was so help others to see the same thing that he saw. He admitted in his latter years, that very few, if any, were able to grasp his same vision, outlook on life.

Nevertheless, his message can still be realized. It IS there! To be found, to be realized.

Reading this is another step on your way, dear friend, to having it. What is "IT"??? It, as it turns out is nothing special. It is only what it is.

It is just this.

Blessings. Tim

Forum: General Discussion Wed, 28 Jul 2010
Topic: Daily Life

You could be right, Randy. I will look into it.

Thank you.

Forum: General Discussion Thu, 29 Jul 2010
Topic: Daily Life

Lots of jocularity happening here. I'm wondering where is the seriousness, the intensity of inquiry required for seeing the full, the total, irrepressable truth? Is not that what we are after here? Please, correct me if I am wrong.

Thank you. T.

Forum: General Discussion Fri, 30 Jul 2010
Topic: Daily Life

"Sensitivity" is simply an acute awareness of "what-is". Some people seem more endowed with the capability than others. It cannot be cultivated. It simply is there, or is not. WHY is it not there for some? Previously, we might answer, "Only God knows that answer to that", but in this day and age with modern science the way that it is, it would seem that our biology determines the outcome.

Is "God" in control of Biology, then? Seems so.

That some should have it and others not? I challenge that notion. Why only for the "chosen-few"?

It either is available to all or it is not genuine, not real, not the Truth.


Forum: General Discussion Wed, 15 May 2013
Topic: Difference between being absorbed and attention?

Thank you for looking.

I have been wondering what is happening when one is so totally absorbed with thoughts or an idea. I noticed it myself this morning as I was showering. I was thinking deeply about something and then suddenly awakened from that and realized that during that brief time, the self; the sense of "me" was completely absent. Then I snapped out of it and realized what had happened. My sense of self returned and I realized I had been completely lost/absent in my thoughts. The self seemed to be gone. There was only the thoughts. This has been described as being "in the zone" or "caught in the 'flow'of the moment. I would much appreciate your thoughts on how these sorts of moments fit in with K's teachings.

Thank you so much! Tim

Forum: General Discussion Fri, 17 May 2013
Topic: Difference between being absorbed and attention?

Thank you so much for your responses...I'm seeing more clearly that the apparent absence of self during the shower moment was really no different than a child being absorbed with a new toy (K's words)...shortly after, if the toy breaks or something else comes along, the sense of self abruptly returns and along with it the separation and division between the thinker and the thought. Something like that eh/huh?

Forum: General Discussion Fri, 17 May 2013
Topic: Difference between being absorbed and attention?

Arivalagan S wrote: what does it mean, the separation of the thought and the thinker. I have read Krishnamurti talk of this but cannot get it. The thought is not existing on its own so why deny the thinker?

"Thought" is simply the chattering of the is what the mind, the brain does. Of course we need thoughts in order to function in the world, to brush our teeth, to go to work, etc., or we would be good for nothing. The separation to which I'm referring is when one identifies with the thought, claims it as ones "me"..."I thought this, I am thinking that" and so on. There is the separation, at the moment of identification, and that generates the illusion of being separate from our thought. Who is doing the thinking? Better, what is doing the thinking; that is closer. But the fact is, there is only thinking! The thinker, our conception of being a separate "I", "Me" apart from THE thoughts is the illusion.

Mix the ingredients for a cake...flour, water, salt etc...all separate ingredients when combined form the cake. The cake is the result of the ingredients, but the fact is, it is a combination of the parts, the fragments that make it. Our various thoughts in the same way give rise to our sense of identity (of mistaken identity to be more precise), of being a thing that is separate from our thoughts, but in reality, the fact is, we are not. Thought + thought + thought = me, my sense of being separate from the thoughts, deluding me into thinking that "I" thought them. However, subtract the thoughts and what do you have left? Nothing, only pure awareness, a singular clarity of mind. That is what K means...I "think"!...LOL

Forum: General Discussion Sun, 19 May 2013
Topic: Difference between being absorbed and attention?

Certainly seems the focus of this thread had shifted. Is this an example of the self, the me being occupied, or rather -- pre-occupied with itself? Certainly its self-defence. Watch/observe THAT perhaps?

Forum: General Discussion Mon, 20 May 2013
Topic: Difference between being absorbed and attention?

Is there any way to close discussions? This one seems to have gone far astray!

Please advise. Thanks.

9 posts  |  Page 1 of 1