Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
Discussion Forums

Voco .'s Forum Activity | 1304 posts in 2 forums


Forum: General Discussion Fri, 16 Oct 2015
Topic: Anyone got any advice?

S A wrote: How is it possible to live morally as Krishnamurti spoke about when others feel that it is their right to live immorally and claim to be morally superior?

It is an important and complex question.

How do you live in a society, which is wrong at it's core?

First, we should stop thinking in terms of accepted morality and all the rest of traditions. To be responsible, we should be completely independent in our thinking, we should drop any society's influence, we should stop following and emulate others, we should stop adjust to society. If one is able to develop himself on his own, such man is free.

So, first of all, if one's mind is free from this net of ignorance and confusion, then one is no longer is tied to any established mentality.

How do you earn a livelihood in a society which is so corrupt?

Yes, most of the society is corrupt, but there are few people in various places in the world with whom you may connect and stay in touch. I think, that majority of people on this forum is here for the same reason. Yes, sometimes it can be very hard to survive in a bad living conditions, one can easily die, however life is not some romantic journey, to be free and build a world free of ignorance, we must work very hard on that.

Krishnamurti was fully supported, so he did not had to care about all those things, he did not need to earn a livelihood, and he was living in a secure environment, he was protected. But as I've said, not a single word from anyone should influence you. Don't listen to what Krishnamurti is saying, learn directly from life, not through someone's words.

Forum: General Discussion Fri, 16 Oct 2015
Topic: Why did Krishnamurti say.....

You are violent when you are living according to some fixed pattern, because then you are blind to everything else. Faith has the same roots as violence, because it is a coercion of oneself to see something what mind has invented.

Forum: General Discussion Fri, 16 Oct 2015
Topic: Why did Krishnamurti say.....

Jean Gatti wrote: Maybe so Max, but is awareness dependant on the physical body ? or is awareness of a totally different realm ? independant of forms ?

Awareness is not separate from the body, so yes it is dependent on it, the body is part of the the environment and the environment is part of you. It is a mind which is falling into belief that it is independent of the body.

Forum: General Discussion Fri, 16 Oct 2015
Topic: Why did Krishnamurti say.....

max greene wrote: Voco,

The physical body is mechanical in nature -- it senses through the nervous system and reacts to what it senses.If awareness is not separate from the body, doesn't that mean that awareness also mechanical?

What do you mean by saying physical body is mechanical in nature? What is mechanics? It is a movement, however it is a very broad term, mechanics in general is a science about movement of material objects, in the narrower sense, mechanical is something that is moving in a known direction, and we can say that something is mechanical by building a certain object by ourselves which will move in a certain direction, or we can say that something is mechanical by observing it and call it mechanical, because that movement is repetitious.

When we say that mind is mechanical, what do we mean? We mean, that the mind is moving in a fixed direction, it is programmed, conditioned. What is awareness? Can there be awareness without any movement? Isn't awareness at the very core is movement? A movement which is not mechanical by itself, a movement which direction is unknown?

Let's not play around with words, because words can confuse very easily. Life is not just this or that, it is complex.

Forum: General Discussion Fri, 16 Oct 2015
Topic: Why did Krishnamurti say.....

Jean Gatti wrote: So in which part of the body exactly does awareness abide ?

That's ridiculous question...

When you are hungry, the body is aware of hunger, when you feel pain, the body is aware of that also, when you feel thirst, the body is aware of that. Isn't this also awareness of what is? The mind isn't something that resides in the brain only, the mind is an ability to perceive, and what is important is for the mind to be completely aware of perception, to be aware of itself, for it is awareness and perception is the same and one.

Forum: General Discussion Tue, 20 Oct 2015
Topic: Is it wrong to be unemployed?

Sunny Muir wrote: What would K say?

Why you want someone to guide you, first of all? What does it matter what would K say? Would his words change your mind? That would be just another form of conformity.

Nothing is wrong to be unemployed, the question is what do you want? If you want to earn a living in a society by the means of the sick society, then there is no other choice than conform, go to job, and do what you are told to do against your will. First, find out what you really would like to do and then try to work on yourself.

Krishnamurti was supported and protected throughout all his life, so he did not have to earn money for living, he did not have those problems.

Forum: General Discussion Tue, 20 Oct 2015
Topic: Anyone got any advice?

Ravi Seth wrote: If aloneness could be disturbed , is it aloneness?

Until it doesn't touches you, you can philosophize about as much as you want. But, have you ever faced real threat, or have you been in a situations where you could die? If bombs would fall near you, or you would be terrorized, I don't think that aloneness is possible in such conditions.

Forum: General Discussion Tue, 20 Oct 2015
Topic: Why did Krishnamurti say.....

max greene wrote: (If you haven't already done so, you might take a look at the article "Awareness" shown in the box at the right on the home page under "The teaching.")

Don't give me all those explanations about what is awareness or what is not. Words will not make this world a better place.

Forum: General Discussion Tue, 20 Oct 2015
Topic: Is it wrong to be unemployed?

Jack Pine wrote: Generally I think your above answer #3 was pretty good. But do you think it was not work for Krishnamurti to travel all over the world year after year? From what he said himself it was difficult for him to travel on airplanes where people smoked cigarettes and talked loudly. For almost all of his life he was constantly moving from place to place giving talks, meeting people, being with large groups of people. I think that was not easy for him. He earned the food he ate and the roofs over his head.

First of all, Krishnamurti had time for this, because he was supported as I've already told. I don't think that Krishnamurti was making a living by talking, like all those phony gurus, or that he was a service for all those people. He spoke, because it was a necessity, because he saw an importance of this, but he was provided with money, with food, with shelter and even auditory. But, when you are living in a bad conditions, and you need money for food, you need to pay for house or flat, or you need to take care of family, then you are occupied with that, do you understand what I'm saying? Of course, that doesn't means that clear thinking in such conditions isn't possible, one man can be sane even if he is surrounded by insane society, but in such a society nobody is going to listen to you, and it is very hard to survive in a bad environment.

Forum: General Discussion Tue, 20 Oct 2015
Topic: Is it wrong to be unemployed?

Sunny Muir wrote: I am not saying it is right to conform to a sick society, but without a job I am being made fun of, living with my mom. Also in a third-world country there is no unemployment or housing benefits etc.

Don't be in such a company which makes fun of you. Be alone, rather. You see, perhaps people around are saying that you should get a job, and then there is a crack in you, you are not sure what is better, to live with mom or to get a job, because such is society's norms. Try to live on your own, independently and see if you can sustain yourself.

Sunny Muir wrote: So in this state, how can anyone observe clearly one's thoughts, feelings, etc.?

This is not easy, but society should not interfere with your thoughts. We are born in a society, and from earliest childhood we are becoming psychologically dependent on it, and also we are trained to conform. So, to see clearly, one must step outside of society, and think independently.

Forum: General Discussion Sun, 25 Oct 2015
Topic: The Great Pretender

Brian Smith wrote: Put away any idea of truth and just be happy. Anything wrong with that? I don’t have a question I just wonder what any of you might think about this.

Happiness or truth (I'm not talking about knowledge) cannot be brought about by will, because it is not an idea, belief is an idea. If truth is only an idea, then it is a belief.

In fact, happiness and truth is one and same, because for the truth to come in the mind has to be free and when there is freedom, there is natural happiness, you don't have to go after it. If you put aside any idea without seeing falsity of it and just try to be happy, then you can do that, but with this also comes ignorance. Please don't get me wrong, I don't mean to offend you, ignorance is not something bad, simply when your life is full of will, when the mind is occupied by will, then one does not lives at all, but just operates.

Forum: General Discussion Thu, 29 Oct 2015
Topic: A Final Statement of Krishamurti - Perhaps, the most important words.

Here's the quote from Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jiddu_Krishnamurti):

A few days before his death, in a final statement, he declared that nobody among either his associates or the general public had understood what had happened to him (as the conduit of the teaching). He added that the "immense energy" operating in his lifetime would be gone with his death, again implying the impossibility of successors. However, he offered hope by stating that people could approach that energy and gain a measure of understanding "if they live the teachings". In prior discussions, he had compared himself with Thomas Edison, implying that he did the hard work, and now all that was needed by others was a flick of the switch.

Also one quote from here (http://www.ralphmag.org/AV/krishnamurti.html):

Krishnamurti died 17 February 1986. Ten days before he passed on, he said,

For seventy years that super energy --- no --- that immense energy, immense intelligence, has been using this body. I don't think people realize what tremendous energy and intelligence went through this body...You won't find another body like this, or that supreme intelligence operating in a body for many hundred years. You won't see it again. When he goes, it goes.

It seems that Krishnamurti associated extraordinary power he talk about with himself, and this contradicts with whole teaching.

And another point: Krishnamurti says that he has done all the hard work, what work is it? And if one simply starts living according to the teachings, then isn't that the same following which Krishnamurti was against of?

Yes, Krishnamurti was not an author of what he was saying, because truth does not belongs to anyone, and yet it is open to everyone, you just need to see it. And, no one has any right to claim that he is basically an inventor of his unique teachings, since there is no teachings above human, there is only learning.

Forum: General Discussion Fri, 30 Oct 2015
Topic: A Final Statement of Krishamurti - Perhaps, the most important words.

Well, sorry to say this, but to me it seems like a narcissism. Why would one declare something like that publicly? Did he wanted to highlight his uniqueness by saying that? It is the same as saying: "I am enlightened and the other around me aren't". Was Krishnamurti in a need of attention, recognition, admiration?

I was watching the last Krishnamurti talk the other day, and he was somehow nervous in that video, he was sort of humiliating the public by saying that they are machines. And also I've seen this sureness in him that the people who gathered to listen to him are dumb and senseless a priori.

Forum: General Discussion Sat, 31 Oct 2015
Topic: A Final Statement of Krishamurti - Perhaps, the most important words.

michael christani wrote: For one BIG point, this is a paraphrase from Wikipedia, not verbatim quote. An interpretation, pure and simple.

I guess you are referring to this genuine quote:

Nobody, unless the body has been prepared, very carefully, protected and so on-nobody can understand what went through this body. Nobody. Don't anybody pretend. Nobody. I repeat this: nobody amongst us or the public, know what went on. I know they don't. And now after seventy years it has come to an end. Not that that intelligence and energy - it' s somewhat here, every day, and especially at night. And after seventy years the body can't stand it - can't stand any more. It can't. The Indians have a lot of damned superstitions about this - that you will and the body goes - and all that kind of nonsense. You won't find another body like this, or that supreme intelligence operating in a body for many hundred years. You won't see it again. When he goes, it goes. There is no consciousness left behind of that consciousness, of that state. They'll all pretend or try to imagine they can get into touch with that. Perhaps they will somewhat if they live the teachings. But nobody has done it. Nobody. And so that's that.

When Scott asked him to clarify some of what he had said in this statement for fear it might be misunderstood he became 'very upset' with him and said, 'You have no right to interfere in this.'

As I said earlier, K knew far more than anyone else can ever hope to know about who and what he was, and in this last recording he ever made was he not sharing with us all something of what he did know which he had never revealed before? This sharing is surely an ineffable privilege. Did he not intend this message to be for all of us? Is he not telling us that the work is done, that it will not, and does not need to, be done again - at any rate not for a very long time? Nor is he taking away hope from us, for he tells us again, as he had maintained most of his life, that if we live the teachings we may be able touch 'that'. If. The teachings are there. The rest is up to us.

After this last tape K had nine more days to live.

-Pg 149, Biography of K by Mary Lutyens Vol III (The open door)

I have few questions. How K would even know that nobody understood what happened to him? And what happened to him? Is it so grandiose event? Or in this message he was suggesting that he is the Buddha? Why should anyone pretend to this "power", if it does not belongs to anyone and yet it is available to anyone? Like Krishnamurti would be an except, or chosen by that energy. To me it seems a very big delusion. Perhaps, he had some beliefs too.

Jack Pine wrote: Nothing you have quoted is of any importance. Certainly not the most important words he ever spoke. I have a idea. Instead of going online and taking a few quotes from Wikipedia or other sources read what K said himself. Or watch a video. Maybe even read a whole book of one of K's talks. Reading a few blurbs from the internet neither makes you an expert on anything nor does it give you the whole picture.

Don't show me a direction where I should go, please. If it's not important for you, then you are free not to participate in this talk.

Patricia Hemingway wrote: Have you walked a mile in K's moccasins by any chance? I suggest not - in which case you speak from total ignorance.

No, why should I? I'm not K. And that doesn't means that K is superior than others, because what he was talking about is available to anyone. He did not say anything new. And if you are trying to silence me, because I'm touching something you are afraid to touch, then K also should be totally ignorant in your view, because he was speaking in the name of all humanity.

Forum: General Discussion Sat, 31 Oct 2015
Topic: A Final Statement of Krishamurti - Perhaps, the most important words.

One more thing:

You won't find another body like this, or that supreme intelligence operating in a body for many hundred years. You won't see it again. When he goes, it goes. There is no consciousness left behind of that consciousness, of that state. They'll all pretend or try to imagine they can get into touch with that. Perhaps they will somewhat if they live the teachings. But nobody has done it. Nobody. And so that's that.

Now, what state K is referring here to? To me it seems like a projection of some mystical "powers". With the passing of K nothing changed, the life goes on, and to learn from life, you don't need the teachings, you don't any teachings nor teachers to discover sacredness of life.

Forum: General Discussion Sat, 31 Oct 2015
Topic: A Final Statement of Krishamurti - Perhaps, the most important words.

Patricia Hemingway wrote: It may well be available - but not too many accessing it, it would seem.

There is nothing to access, the discovery of sacredness happens without any knowing about it in advance. You would not know that you are accessing it, because it is not an action coming from self.

Patricia Hemingway wrote: Oh - but he did. That is precisely why not too many can access it. It is not inclusive in the human conditioning - therefore: something new.

I'm not going to argue with you. What he was saying was already said thousands of times, just in different ways. And, I will repeat again, no one can be a pioneer of truth, because truth cannot be invented by someone, and no one can come and directly or indirectly say that he is the only one who sees.

Patricia Hemingway wrote: Ah - paranoia!

You are accusing me of paranoia, without even knowing me.

Patricia Hemingway wrote: Secondly - there is no logic at all in your claim that 'K also should be totally ignorant in your view'. Perhaps you would like to elaborate upon that dodgy connection in your logical process.

Your message:

Patricia Hemingway wrote: Have you walked a mile in K's moccasins by any chance? I suggest not - in which case you speak from total ignorance.

First of all, you are seeing K as superior than others, that's why you are comparing him with me and perhaps anyone else. First you explain why do you say that I'm talking from total ignorance?

Patricia Hemingway wrote: Thirdly - in saying 'because he was speaking in the name of all humanity' you seem to be implying that you are also. Are you claiming to speak from where K spoke?

I speak for myself, but I also represent whole humanity, as well as you and everyone else in this forum. And my question is, why do you put K above others? If you wouldn't do it, then K would be an ordinary man, so in that sense I'm speaking from where K spoke, because there is not much difference between him and me or anyone else, or did K spoke from a pedestal?

Forum: General Discussion Sat, 31 Oct 2015
Topic: A Final Statement of Krishamurti - Perhaps, the most important words.

Patricia Hemingway wrote: You know Voco - whoever you are, your opinions are of no interest. You show no understanding, no genuine interest in what exactly K pointed out. You appear to want only to spout your opinions about the man himself - from your very limited viewpoint of absolutely no understanding of the teaching.

Therefore there can be no genuine discussion.

You are already predisposed, so yes, we cannot talk. How can you know who has genuine interest and who don't, what is the criteria by which you measure people? I don't need K or Buddha or anyone else to understand for myself, now what, I am an ignorant and dumb? Should I be a K admirer?

Julian S wrote: He can't spend years saying the speaker is not important and then say an extraordinary, super-human energy went through his body for 60 odd years. This is surely a contradiction. "The speaker" must have been extremely important.

Well, you see, K was saying to the public that the speaker is unimportant to make people listen with more attention, because if one is focused on the speaker, then the words of the speaker cannot penetrate deep into listener. As of what K was thinking of himself, I don't think he was thinking that he is unimportant, because of that statement he made before death.

Jack Pine wrote: Julian, you have long since proven that you have no real understanding or interest in what K pointed out so I'm not surprised to see you here chiming in and agreeing with the vacuous statements of Voco.

What is real understanding? Should I or anyone else go and listen to what K was saying necessarily to understand what is going on in the world and inside me? If you say so, then for you K is only an instrument, isn't it? Why do you want to hide behind K, behind his words, behind his understanding?

Jack Pine wrote: The question remains if you are not interested in K why are you here?

To be here, one should be necessarily interested in K? Without that one is not welcomed here?

max greene wrote: But it is still up to us find out for ourselves whether what Krishnamurti had to say was of any importance.

Why don't you find out for yourself what is important for you in a first place?

Forum: General Discussion Sat, 31 Oct 2015
Topic: 340 died in South Asia Earthquake.Is the "Ground" indifferent to mankind?

max greene wrote: a moment which does not exist but which is always moving into being, timeless, forever new.

How existence is different from the timeless movement? What moment does not exist, if you know about it's nonexistence, it must exist, at least in your thoughts, isn't it?

michael christani wrote: Where illusion is, truth is not.

Not where illusion is, but when one is completely living that illusion. To see an illusion is to see truth.

michael christani wrote: I was just questioning that we have this unity. It's all so much theory unless one comes upon it, and is it of any use to speculate?

Life itself is a uniting process, so there is unity, but just knowing that is not enough, one has to live it, not intentionally, but factually, and for this one has to hear the call of life.

Forum: General Discussion Sat, 31 Oct 2015
Topic: 'God'

Hindrance to what?.. People prefer to live the way they live, and what can you do about it? You can slam them with the words of truth, but that's useless, enough has been said by many people and will be said in the future, but in fact the last thing world needs is words.

Forum: General Discussion Sat, 31 Oct 2015
Topic: Contact: Is it Possible?

Jean Gatti wrote: The child is a form moving in the space of awareness ... find awareness and everything else becomes clear ... when you wake up you realize that all the forms perceived in your dream were unreal ...

I suggest you to take a walk, instead of writing this... I will just say that world is not divided to real and unreal, there is only real. And when one sees the reality of his illusions, then only he can wake up, not first wake up and then realize.

Forum: General Discussion Sun, 01 Nov 2015
Topic: 340 died in South Asia Earthquake.Is the "Ground" indifferent to mankind?

max greene wrote: And, so far as awareness is concerned, there is never an entity who is aware; there is just the awareness itself. At the moment of awareness, there is nothing other than awareness.

I think you are crazy. If there is never an entity who is aware, then how have you typed your message? When you was outside last time, when have you been in a contact with the world last time? It seems to me you are lost in your theories.

max greene wrote: So what do we mean by "separation"? All separation is psychological, and psychological only.

When umbilical cord of baby is being cut, this is not a separation from his mother? What is the problem you have with separation? I agree, that psychological separation have led world where it is now, but physical separation is entirely different thing.

max greene wrote: The brain, through its process of thinking, constructs the self, the individual

Individuality is not just the outcome of thinking, but if it is, then it lives an artificial life.

Forum: General Discussion Tue, 03 Nov 2015
Topic: How meditation dissolves identification with thoughts and connects you with the whole

George Kakaris wrote: Also true awareness carries a sense of non-identification with thoughts.

Have you heard about it first somewhere and then applied to yourself? The sense you are talking about can be just a thought, an idea, which gives one certain feeling, like an idea of enlightenment. When there is such a sense of non-identification, how does it come about, by making yourself think about it, or it comes about naturally? One can easily fall into such a delusion and so the borders of identification will expand to the whole universe, this is just a ego expansion, which is dangerous illusion.

And also, there is no such thing as non-identification, as soon as it is there and you name it, it is just another identification. For non-identification to be, first there must be identification. If there is no identification at all, only then comes about freedom.

Meditation can not be used as a means to dissolve identification and connect you with the whole, One, or whatever you call it. Meditation is there as soon as there is no identification and a strong sense of unity, you can't use it in advance to achieve some known state.

Forum: General Discussion Tue, 03 Nov 2015
Topic: 340 died in South Asia Earthquake.Is the "Ground" indifferent to mankind?

Praveen Boyeneni wrote: Universe is killing man thru earthquake, tsunami...etc.

There is no intention behind that, it is an incident, not a carefully crafted plan. Human cannot go against nature, we can only find the way of reasonable co-existence with it.

Forum: General Discussion Wed, 04 Nov 2015
Topic: 340 died in South Asia Earthquake.Is the "Ground" indifferent to mankind?

Pavil Davidov wrote: Death is in the comparison of what is to what was.

Subjectively it is so, but not objectively. If you will look objectively, then death is natural, it is a part of life, it is like day and night. If you will look subjectively only, then death is indeed only a knowledge.

And tell, what is death to you? Perhaps for you it is only a concept.

Forum: General Discussion Wed, 04 Nov 2015
Topic: 340 died in South Asia Earthquake.Is the "Ground" indifferent to mankind?

Pavil Davidov wrote: I only respond to this (with which I agree entirely) in order to point out you are quoting me quoting Max and so your end question, "And tell, what is death to you? Perhaps for you it is only a concept." should really be directed to him, but I will give my answer, of course"

Yes, it was directed to max, but thanks for responding.

Pavil Davidov wrote: Death is both actual and something we have made a concept of.

Yes.

Pavil Davidov wrote: The concept frightens us because the ego is afraid of ending.

Yes. I would say, the self is not afraid of the ending of itself, even if one may say so, since there is no independent psychological self, there is only self which is made out of attachments, so there is attachment from one side and fear to loose attachments from the other side, and without attachment there is no fear.

Pavil Davidov wrote: But the idea that death is ONLY a thing of the mind is an idea fit for lunatics . . . and I do mean that in the most caring way.

Of course, it is immature to say such things.

Forum: General Discussion Wed, 04 Nov 2015
Topic: 340 died in South Asia Earthquake.Is the "Ground" indifferent to mankind?

max greene wrote: The problem seems to stem from a misunderstanding of what "the present" is. I see the present as timeless. How do you see it?

The mind can be in present without past or future, that is a timeless state, when the mind is not living in terms of time. However, that does not means that there is no past and future at all, in a physical sense. When you drink a cup of water, it becomes empty, it was full, now it is empty, isn't that obvious? It seems to me your understanding is purely verbal... As if word would constitute truth, it is not, in fact.

Tell, is the past only a concept to you?

Forum: General Discussion Wed, 04 Nov 2015
Topic: Contact: Is it Possible?

Tom Paine wrote: To tell the man who suffers to 'be your own light' is totally useless, imo.

I don't think so. If just that one sentence is useless, then another billions of words are useless as well. It is much worse to go to listen to someone who supposedly should liberate one from suffering. People who are responsible wouldn't go with their problems with the hope to resolve them just by listening one man, and do problems goes away if you are merely seeking another source of knowledge? That is why "be your own light" is the most important words, and there is something of much great importance than this sentence, but it is not of words.

Maybe someday there will be no wise man anymore, that would mean, that there is no people around who needs to be taught life. A wise man will be an ordinary man.

Forum: General Discussion Wed, 04 Nov 2015
Topic: Contact: Is it Possible?

Tom Paine wrote: unless someone takes the time to explain how thought functions in a conditioned pattern, he is lost.

And do you think that any explanation will end suffering?

Forum: General Discussion Thu, 05 Nov 2015
Topic: WOOBUSTERS

Huguette . wrote: Is there a way to deal with the source of violence?

I think it is an incorrect question. How would one even deal with the source of violence? If one is violent, how he can become non violent? Again, by violent approach? Forcing oneself to believe in some idea? There is no way to deal with violence outwardly or inwardly, the violence is not, when there is love, compassion, responsibility, you don't have to deal with it.

Forum: General Discussion Thu, 05 Nov 2015
Topic: What is the self? continued

Pavil Davidov wrote: In fact, K said exactly what he meant. Sensation is full of contradiction and from those contradictions thought arises.

There is physical and psychological sensation, which one you are talking about? The rest of your post is somehow confusing and based on a theory which seems to me has no meaning at all.