Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
Discussion Forums

saurab marjara's Forum Activity | 61 posts in 1 forum


Forum: General Discussion Tue, 22 Sep 2015
Topic: What is insight?

though K would not agree with me, I think insight is based on memory to a certain extent. Insight is logically pure, but it depends on the thinking process. If the thinking process is distorted, the insight will also be distorted. This proves that insight is based partially on the thinking process, hence memory.

Insight must be logically pure. But if you remove the thinking process in order to have insight, you wouldnt even recognize an insight when it comes to you. For recognizing an insight as an insight some form of thinking is a must.

Forum: General Discussion Tue, 22 Sep 2015
Topic: "Living in the moment"

to live in the moment, the mind must be at rest.

Forum: General Discussion Wed, 23 Sep 2015
Topic: What is insight?

mike c wrote: As far as "for recognizing an insight some form of thinking is a must", I distrust 'must's'! But what does it mean, to recognize an insight? Is that 'recognition' a translation into something thought can chew on?

But the other point, "If the thinking process is distorted, the insight will also be distorted." But the insight is into the distortion. Isn't that the point?

The translation of an insight may happen later. But even before the translation, there is thought involved in the very creation of the insight. A person who does not understand the chinese language will not have an insight that is in chinese. So, for the very creation of an insight thinking is required. However, one can say that the insight itself is to some extent free from memory but not completely.

When I wrote "to recognize an insight" I meant to know that it is there. To know that an insight is there, there must be some form of thinking. Simply awareness cannot recognize an insight. There must be thought to recognize an insight.

Insight is always based on context. Without context, what would you have an insight into ? No context, no insight.

Context is deeply intertwined with insight. To be free from thought you wouldnt even recognize a context. Your mind would be a blank. It would not be able to recognize a context. Let's say you want to have an insight into death. That insight would be linked to the concept of death in such a way that it clarifies the concept. If the concept of death was faulty, the insight would clarify the faulty concept. This clarification of thinking would not be achieved without some form of thinking. Insight into death would change the faulty concept of death, and this requires some form of thinking. Insight uses thought to organize facts.

Forum: General Discussion Thu, 24 Sep 2015
Topic: What is insight?

"I feel that there is insight when the mind is brought to complete silence. The mind of a child is more likely to be in silence than that of an adult which is more conditioned."


I agree that insight happens when the mind is completely silent. But the creation of an insight involves thought. IN a silent mind, the thoughts that arise are very insightful.

Forum: General Discussion Thu, 24 Sep 2015
Topic: Meditation

meditating in the traditional way stills the mind. The mind becomes empty of content. In this space insight arises into the way one is functioning.

Meditation may not be necessary, but it is helpful in creating a space where in one becomes aware of one's thinking and feeling. For some people meditation may not be necessary, but for a beginner it is very helpful.

Forum: General Discussion Thu, 24 Sep 2015
Topic: Thoughts on action

mike c wrote: My question is, is ALL action that? Image, conformity to that image, then repeat, repeat, this formula, endlessly, until death?

All action is not that. Action in which you have an interest is like that. But action in which you have no interest is not like that. There are many actions that we perform that is not interesting for us. Such actions do not create images in our minds. We just do them.

Forum: General Discussion Thu, 24 Sep 2015
Topic: Why Are We Exploitative?

max greene wrote: Without thinking and the self, the brain is quiet and there is awareness, understanding and right action.

agreed. However, there are mental stains that do not end when the brain is quiet. These mental stains are to do with our habits. The brain may be quiet, but the habits assert themselves despite that. So, right action does not necessarily follow from the brain being quiet.

For this, inquiry into the habit and observation of the habit is necessary. one must die without any pressure to the habit.

Forum: General Discussion Fri, 25 Sep 2015
Topic: Honest Thinking (QOTD 09-08-15)

max greene wrote: I know Krishnamurti cites "honest thinking,". But is there any such thing? All thinking has motive and purpose behind it; all thinking has a thinker -- and this thinker is the self. The self is by nature dishonest.

If thinking is based on conscience then it is not dishonest.

Forum: General Discussion Thu, 01 Oct 2015
Topic: Honest Thinking (QOTD 09-08-15)

Tom Paine wrote: Aren't many of these motives unconconscious? How to be aware of the unconscious motives, then?

In relationship with people, the unconscious motives become conscious.

Forum: General Discussion Thu, 01 Oct 2015
Topic: Why did Krishnamurti say.....

Why did Krishnamurti say: "Faith invariably breeds violence" ?

Forum: General Discussion Mon, 05 Oct 2015
Topic: Why did Krishnamurti say.....

mike c wrote: I think we find security in faith, Catholic or Buddist or Muslim or Hindu or Democratic or xyz, then we have to defend them, as attacks on these ideologies we cling to breeds fear.

But suppose we dont defend them. Suppose we say everyone has his own viewpoint and so let live. I will have faith in my own ideology, and will allow others to have faith in their ideologies. How will such an attitude lead to violence ?

Forum: General Discussion Mon, 05 Oct 2015
Topic: Why did Krishnamurti say.....

b teulada wrote: the mind will turn violent and self-defensive any time that faith is challenged

Suppose the mind does not turn violent and self defensive when the faith is challenged ? Not everyone whose faith is challenged reacts violently. There are people who are broad minded enough to realize that everyone has his own viewpoints that need to be respected.

Forum: General Discussion Mon, 05 Oct 2015
Topic: Why did Krishnamurti say.....

Jean Gatti wrote: . therefore to "I am right and you are wrong" ... and this invariably leads to violence

Suppose you dont think in a black and white manner that I am right and you are wrong. Suppose you think that this is my preference and that is somebody else's preference. All are according to the propensity of an individual. It is not a question of right and wrong. It is a question of perspective. By having faith in anything you dont automatically think that I am right and you are wrong. THat happens in some cases, but in many causes there is no right/wrong division.

So, how is having faith in God (let us take that as an example) conducive to violence ?

Forum: General Discussion Mon, 05 Oct 2015
Topic: Anger

I think anger needs to be faced silently. When anger comes up, the best thing to do is to face the energy silently. It will then come to an end (when the energy is exhausted). Also to know the reason why anger is there, is also helpful. When the reason has been figured out, one can analyze the reason and see whether it can be adjusted through an action. Then taking the action often results in the diffusion of the emotion.

Forum: General Discussion Mon, 05 Oct 2015
Topic: Why did Krishnamurti say.....

Pavil Davidov wrote: Faith, as we find it in society and not as we idealize or demonize it, is a contradictory element. In some cases people move from violence to faith. But faith is also an instrument for organized religion, which is a means for control, and control is, by its very nature, violence.

good point Pavil. Yes, organized religions use faith as a means to control people. WE must then consider whether there is something called intelligent faith ? That is, faith which does not seek to control ?

Forum: General Discussion Mon, 05 Oct 2015
Topic: Why did Krishnamurti say.....

David T wrote: Faith-Belief is just the assertion of a self,call it definition addiction. I am defined by statements that I am.

But faith is not necessarily belief. IT can at times be belief, but not necessarily so. Faith can be based on an inner experience also.

Forum: General Discussion Tue, 06 Oct 2015
Topic: Why did Krishnamurti say.....

Jean Gatti wrote: So is God a belief for you or a reality that you have yourself experienced ?

I have faith in God based on an inner experience. But that is besides the point. My point is, why faith should breed violence. You see, the violent man will be violent through anything including faith. But a man who is not violent (or very rarely so) will not be violent by merely having faith. So violence breeds violence. Faith does not breed violence.

Forum: General Discussion Tue, 06 Oct 2015
Topic: Why did Krishnamurti say.....

b teulada wrote: But K clearly referred to the majority, and the majority are not broadminded and do react violently to defend their own little fairy tale.

This I can agree with that the majority are not broad minded. But to say that everyone reacts violently when their faith is challenged is nonsense.

Forum: General Discussion Tue, 06 Oct 2015
Topic: Why did Krishnamurti say.....

Wim Opdam wrote: And it gets even worse when two believes claim their faith as facts.

there may be no effort to convince another of one's faith. there may be no effort to call one's faith something absolute (like fact). Not everyone is dogmatic about his faith.

that is why, i asked earlier, whether there is something called intelligent faith ?

Forum: General Discussion Tue, 06 Oct 2015
Topic: Why did Krishnamurti say.....

Wim Opdam wrote: it seems impossible because it is intelligence which distinguishes between faith and facts.

Hi Wim, Faith may be based on facts. Then is it intelligent ?

Forum: General Discussion Tue, 06 Oct 2015
Topic: Why did Krishnamurti say.....

Jean Gatti wrote: When a fact is seen, the fact can not be qualified as 'faith' any more.

after the fact, what remains is faith, not the fact. so you can say that (intelligent) faith is a by-product of fact.

When once the fact has taken place, the fact remains no more. what remains is your faith based on the fact.

Forum: General Discussion Tue, 06 Oct 2015
Topic: Why did Krishnamurti say.....

Jean Gatti wrote: No, after the fact what remains is certitude, not faith or belief.

Reminds me when Carl Jung was asked by a interviewer if he believed in God, he answered "I do not believe, I know"

Oh okay, then yourt definition of certitude is my definition of (intelligent) faith.

Then we agree that after the fact there remains a certainty about the fact (which you call certitude and I call intelligent faith).

WE are in agreement otherwise.

Forum: General Discussion Tue, 06 Oct 2015
Topic: Meditation

mike c wrote: I also have beliefs in ten dozen other things, in reality etc. What do you do with a belief? Fighting it only strengthens it. So what do we do with belief, when we have belief?

Are you sure you want to rid yourself of all beliefs ? Some beliefs may be harmless or useful.

Beliefs in themselves are not bad as long as you live a good life. It is only when beliefs start creating negative influences in your life, that you must drop them. When beliefs create positive influences in your life, then there is no need to drop such beliefs.

Forum: General Discussion Tue, 06 Oct 2015
Topic: Why did Krishnamurti say.....

I would say that we can be certain about our own experiences. Of course, there is the danger that we would misinterpret the experience....

Forum: General Discussion Tue, 06 Oct 2015
Topic: Why did Krishnamurti say.....

mike c wrote: What about 'doubt'? Not as in 'everything is false', but as K called "a sparkle of doubt"- a certain skepticism, or hesitancy, which questions? If you have that along with faith, or belief, is there a problem?

I dont think there is a problem with skepticism. It is healthy to question.

Forum: General Discussion Wed, 07 Oct 2015
Topic: Why did Krishnamurti say.....

Huguette . wrote: What do you mean by faith?

I mean by faith a certainty about a fact that was experienced.

Forum: General Discussion Wed, 07 Oct 2015
Topic: Why did Krishnamurti say.....

Jean Gatti wrote: Then may I ask what is this 'experience' exactly ? Did you 'see' God or what ?

I felt the presence of God.

Forum: General Discussion Wed, 07 Oct 2015
Topic: Why did Krishnamurti say.....

Jean Gatti wrote: Hello Tom,

Would you qualify the fact that "I am" as a belief or a 'conclusion' Tom ?

Is it a 'belief' to say "I am" ?

??

or is it an undisputable fact ?

It is an indisputable fact.

Forum: General Discussion Fri, 09 Oct 2015
Topic: Why did Krishnamurti say.....

Huguette . wrote: But if the “inner experience” remains only as a memory, isn’t the memory a source of conflict inwardly and/or with others? If someone else or you yourself should call you a delusional fool or question the validity of your inner experience (just to be clear, I’m not doing that), is there no conflict and fear? Is there no conflict and fear in having “lost” the vision? Is conflict not indicative of division, fear and violence?

well, the inner experience is memory now. But it has created faith in me. Now if someone challenges my faith or questions the validity of my experience, all I can say is that my experience was not his experience, so he cannot know where I am coming from. There is no conflict when there is faith based on experience.

My point is: who would you rather trust ? your own experience or someone else's comment on that experience ? I think the answer is obvious.

On the other hand, if faith is not based on an experience, but on opinions or hearsay or someone's authority, then there would definitely be fear. But when the faith is part of one's being, a mere challenge cannot create fear.

Forum: General Discussion Fri, 09 Oct 2015
Topic: Pleasure

mike c wrote: What are the 'works' of it? What are the mechanics of it; our raison d'etre seems to be just going after pleasure. Are we afraid of boredom, if we do not?

I think it is laziness. laziness to question our pursuit of pleasure. Also, most of those who have not read K do not even want to know what you are asking. They are quite fine continuing as they are.

But those of us who have read K, have an additional responsibility. We intellectually understand that merely running after pleasure is not quite right. Most others who have not read K, dont even intellectually question their pleasure movement.

So, if in spite of having read K, if we dont change, I think it signifies laziness on our part.