Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
Discussion Forums

Rich Nolet's Forum Activity | 328 posts in 1 forum


Forum: General Discussion Fri, 19 Aug 2016
Topic: A Noisy Space ?

Hi Katy. Like you, I have been away for a long time ( I guess) from this forum. I have been a participant , here and there in time. Like you I think. It is an interesting question that you rise with this thread here Katy. I think that the raison d'être, the reason why people come in such a forum, is because they want to share their understanding of K.'s teaching. And maybe some are looking for answers. In which case, I would be incline to refering them to the real thing, the teaching, the teacher. Some quote of some sort I guess. And the teacher would say: you are the teaching and the teach. Though, pointing out facts is good, facts may vary from one person to another. So one have to establish the real facts first :). Often, understanding vary from one people to another. But at the end, one is alone in his own life, this is where it is important. The problem arise when people don't agree or interprete the teaching . A discussion is a trip, a journey that 2 or more people can take together, when they go one step at the time, one fact after another.seeing things at the same time , together. Otherwise, it become argumentation about words, without substance, if I may say. I would invite evveryone interested in K.'s teaching to read your other post below (from a talk by J. Krishnamurti 1949 ), in which there is a lot of answer about communication. But there will always be people more interested in themselves than in the teaching. K. had a lot to say, and he was making a lot of sense. Can one understand this radical revolution he talk about ? That is maybe why this forum is all about. Not who is enligtened and who is not :). Cheers.

Forum: General Discussion Fri, 19 Aug 2016
Topic: A Noisy Space ?

By the way, my first language is French , and I don't see any problem in saying it :)

Forum: General Discussion Sat, 20 Aug 2016
Topic: Poor Jean

David T wrote: Nobody seems to want to understand Jean,all there seems to be is the constant criticism.

Hi David. So where is the problem ? Don't we have to question evething that is being said ?

David T wrote: So in a way Jean is trying to set you free,so one should appreciate his efforts,rather than being irritated by him.

Really ? For one , life bring his own burden of irritations in our daily life So why continue here ? Everyone have his batch of irritations, and there , in our daily living, we have to understand this resistance. Do we have to deliberatly doing this here, in a discussion forum ? We can see how ridiculous is that just in asking the question.

And secondly, this idea of someone being irritate for the simple reason that he question the validity of an assertion, from anyone,have been brough in by Jung (or Jean, what is the difference ?). It is not a question of irritation. As soon as you question someone assertion, or conclusion, or point out something that you see as false, is not being irritate. Saying to another that he is irritate because he is not in accord seems more like a defensive reaction, a way of blaming the other for not seeing the fact, which may be false. If we don't see a fact together, there is no communication.

And thirdly, anyone will set anyone free by irritating him. This is vanity. It is obviously ridiculous. Don't we have to see the difference between contesting a fact bring by someone and being irritate ? Do you see this ? We flounder in a little swamp rather to look at the big picture, aren't we ?

Forum: General Discussion Sat, 20 Aug 2016
Topic: Poor Jean

Jean Gatti wrote: ... irritation means there is a 'resistance' to what others say

No. You see, we see things differently here. In a discussion, contesting what another say is not a resistance to what is. What is here is a discussion. Whether one see a fact together, or not. That's all.

Forum: General Discussion Sun, 21 Aug 2016
Topic: "Full Heart, Empty Mind"...

Katy Alias wrote: When there is love in your heart, you do not talk about organizing for brotherhood; you do not talk about belief, you do not talk about division or the powers that create division, you need not seek reconciliation. Then you are a simply a human being without a label, without a country.

I felt like putting a comment here. Isn't it that, when the mind sees the fallacies of organizations, of beleives system, of nationalies, which are at least one of the factors of divisions, of conflicts and wars, it cease to think that way? Then, right thinking appears naturally ? This insight being what change the ways of our thinking ? It seems that it is not will that bring any change, but rather insight. An insight comes naturally when we look at things closely ? Isn't it true that love also comes naturally when all the factors of conflicts are dissipate ? That maybe we don't know what love is, until we undertsand what love is not ? Just some thoughts . Cheers

Forum: General Discussion Sun, 21 Aug 2016
Topic: freedom

Huguette . wrote: What prevents the mind from being free is the refusal to put aside, the unwillingness to shed, for even one second, the totality of knowledge as its guiding light for action. No? That refusal or unwillingness stems from fear, doesn’t it? This process is the root of conflict, isn’t it? Because if I ignore the voice of the past, if I turn away from the authority of knowledge, then how do I know what to do, what to I say, how do I deal with my contradictions, obsessions, compulsions, my fears, my anger, my depression, my torment, and so on, what is my action going to be? Action from the known is the only action I know.

Yes it is. But if I ignore the voices of the past, if I turn away from the auority of knowledge, is there still contradictions, obsessions, compulsions ; fears anger depression, tourments and so on ? And you ask what is my action going to be ?

Huguette . wrote: I’m not, really not, implying that there’s anything wrong with wanting suffering to end. But we want it to end without understanding its nature, its source and processes. We think it can end without looking at “what is”, and that is a sterile quest. But this is like expecting a sterile womb to give birth.

It is. One have to look at what is. Without selfknowledge, can there be freedom ?

Huguette . wrote: The known IS the mind’s bondage, isn’t it? If so, then freedom cannot be engendered by the known; bondage cannot bring about freedom. Doesn’t this perception (if that’s what it is) transform the mind’s relationship with the known, such that it turns to the known only where appropriate? That is, the known remains of course, but it is in abeyance.

So freedom would be freedom from the known ?

Huguette . wrote: Whenever the known, the past, the self, the “me”, wants to teach a lesson, to outwit, to outsmart, to defeat, to avenge, to punish, to make the winning point, and so on, against “another”, that is not freedom, is it? Isn’t this the traditional action of the past which is the source of conflict, and it isn’t it therefore perpetuating conflict? An end to conflict, a true resolution of conflict, cannot come out of conflict, it seems to me.

Recommend

Of course not. Isn't this the actual conditioning of our mind ? We are conditioned. It seems obvious. Of course the question about what would be action without the past interferring remain. If there is no hurt accumulated, no beleives, no lesson, outwit, defeat, advenge punish , winning point; no system, no ..ism, no Jung, and so on....no past interfering , what would be our action ? Interesting and fundamental question. Because we have fear, as you said, to let go the past.

Forum: General Discussion Sun, 21 Aug 2016
Topic: freedom

Huguette . wrote: I wasn’t actually demanding to know what my action is going to be. I meant that, as I see it, the mind wants to know beforehand what the future will be if it turns away from authority. It is afraid so it demands to know, and of course, it can’t know. Therefore fear binds “me”, stops me from repudiating the authority of knowledge, feeds my dependency on knowledge.

Yes, it was understood Huguette.

Forum: General Discussion Sun, 21 Aug 2016
Topic: freedom

Well, one can't say : I am free. The moment one say: I am free, it is already something of the past. Is it what you mean ? Freedom from the known is not the same as: I am free from the known. One can never say that . Is it what you mean ?

Forum: General Discussion Sun, 21 Aug 2016
Topic: freedom

Huguette . wrote: As I see it, this question of "what action would be without the past" does not need to be answered, cannot be answered. The only thing that needs to be “done” with respect to this question is to see that it gives rise to fear and to a demand for security. This demand for security is what tethers me to knowledge/time. Isn't this more or less the process that binds the mind to the known?

Yes.

Forum: General Discussion Sun, 21 Aug 2016
Topic: freedom

Huguette . wrote: I don’t quite see it that way. If the mind says, “I am free from the known”, it is not. Right? The mind cannot see that it is free. It can see that it is afraid, angry, obsessed, jealous, etc. It can see anger, etc., by observing the movement of thought/emotion. But it cannot say, “I am free from the known”, can it? It cannot observe that, it seems to me.

No. There can't be consciousness of freedom. Is it what you mean ?

Forum: General Discussion Sun, 21 Aug 2016
Topic: freedom

Exactly Huguette.

Forum: General Discussion Mon, 22 Aug 2016
Topic: The possibility of merging the two forums

Hi Clive. With all my respet for your good work and implication on the discussion forums, here is my humble opinion, because here, in this thread isn't it all about opininion ? And everyone have his own particular one. You, I'am affraid, will not end with consensus. For my part, I think that there is places for two or even more slot if people want or need them. You wouldn't have members in the quiet place if there was no demand for it. So it is a nice initiative and it seems to work well. The Discussion Forums ( with an s ) have been create by Dev, if I'm right. So Dev have put this space for people interested in exchange point of views, to discuss K's teaching. It is to the members to occuped this place, to use it as much as they want to. Yours rules doesn't differ very much than Dev's rules. It is maybe just in the way of applying them that differ. There is one rule in this one, very simple, that if the serious members would follow, that Dev have intelligently put, which could resolve things, could make this forum work. It is the #2:

2-Haranguing. Although intelligent debate is encouraged, should the exchange take a turn where any participant becomes overly forceful with their opinion or if it is evident that the discussion is at loggerheads, interaction on that subject should cease between the individuals involved.

Very simple. Serious members would just ignore what doesn't fit and , if seriously interested, would just keep going without being trouble by stupidity or incorrect assertions. The teaching stand alone, is alive and doesn't need to be defend or protect. And if sensible people feel better in a better moderate forum, why not. It was your initial idea, you did it, and it work well. So, maybe it is better that way, to have two forums, for now.

Cheers my friend.

Forum: General Discussion Tue, 23 Aug 2016
Topic: "Full Heart, Empty Mind"...

Though I would made a distinction between technical knowledge and the psyche. Isn't the becoming , the search for truth what K. is talking about here ? The search for happiness ? Love ?

Forum: General Discussion Tue, 23 Aug 2016
Topic: "Full Heart, Empty Mind"...

The quote of today is also interesting on the subject and also rejoin Huguette post on freedom in the Freedom thread. And also about the various psychoanalysis systems relating to the mind, which have been discuss in the Poor Jean thread.

Krishnamurti Quote of the Day Group Discussion 31st December, 1947 | Madras, India

Self-knowledge is quite different from technical knowledge. Accumulation of Engineering knowledge and also knowledge about other technical subjects has gone on through centuries and you cannot do without them. But it is not the case with self-knowledge which cannot be communicated to another. For instance, you suffer not because the book says so; to find a solution for suffering you have to start anew independent of others' experience. You have to start with yourself to enquire and to find out the solution. Any amount of understanding of what others have said about suffering will not be the same as your own understanding of your suffering or sorrow. Nowadays, people go to psychoanalysts in order to dissolve their sorrow. When you gather knowledge in regard to psychology, you are only assimilating the various systems of psychoanalysis relating to the mind. Gathering of such knowledge makes your mind conditioned; and there is also a constant choice and discarding of the knowledge given by others. Mere gathering of knowledge from books really conditions your mind because you search for security in knowledge, and you agree with what is pleasant to you; for instance, war is disastrous, everyone knows it; and yet, people are ready to go to war. You read a number of knowledge-giving books but you don't relate what you read to your action in daily life.

Forum: General Discussion Wed, 24 Aug 2016
Topic: "Full Heart, Empty Mind"...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Prxevl_neFY&amp...

K: But look, sir, if one knows the art of listening everything becomes extraordinarily simple. You listened to that music, some of you, if you listened to it it is very simple. But our mind, our brains are so conditioned to complexity that we don't even listen.

Forum: General Discussion Wed, 24 Aug 2016
Topic: Is reaction understanding or does it block understanding?

It is this interval that makes perception possible. There is a new quality in the perception in this quietness, in this interval where the old brain is quite. It is a non verbal perception, though there can be a verbal explanation. Can one say it is observable ?

K.: Because it's only out of quietness you perceive what is happening. If I am chattering I won't listen to you. If my mind is constantly rattling away, to what you are saying I won't pay attention. To pay attention means to be quiet.

Wholly Different Way of Living, J. Krishnamurti, Eleventh Conversation with Dr Allan W. Anderson in San Diego California, 25 February 1974 (End of quote)

Forum: General Discussion Thu, 25 Aug 2016
Topic: Is reaction understanding or does it block understanding?

Right Jack. Though when we do it, we start finding beauty in it. As for example:

K,: When the old brain does not respond, there is a quality of the new brain coming into being. You can observe the mountains, the river, the valleys, the shadows, the lovely trees and the marvellous clouds full of light beyond the mountains you can look without a word, without comparing.

Forum: General Discussion Thu, 25 Aug 2016
Topic: Is reaction understanding or does it block understanding?

Quietness comes naturally when the brain sees that it must be quiet, not by an effort of will. That it is the depositary of memories, past experiences and that there can't be listening, real observation when it is active. And that it is an hindrance to the new, what K. called: the quality of the new brain coming into being. Just some thoughts.

Forum: General Discussion Thu, 25 Aug 2016
Topic: Is reaction understanding or does it block understanding?

Jack Pine wrote: Beauty that doesn't register but washes through and cleans out all the nooks and crannies of our consciousness which is all the things thought has acquired or inherited. Which is all of our psychological being.

Yes. Better expressed then I would have. I also wanted to add this to my post but decide to wait....and so it does follow naturally. Thanks.

Forum: General Discussion Thu, 25 Aug 2016
Topic: Is reaction understanding or does it block understanding?

Jack Pine wrote: Interesting point. It is tempting and all too easy to get hung up on terms and concepts and the feeling that one has achieved something, understood something, acquired something, instead of not dwelling on way points and continuing with the flow of awareness which doesn't register what is being seen.

Yes. Just a comment here. K. expressed this in saying: the first step is the last step. From one insight to the next, without accumulation. But I must say that, though you express it with your own words (which are very clear to what they pointed to), it is a good example of how it is important to not hung up on terms and concepts, as you say, and to see the real thing. Then things can be express in many differents ways, in many different words. knowing that the word, the description is never the thing. And so then , we avoid doing a concept, or slogans out of words.

Forum: General Discussion Fri, 26 Aug 2016
Topic: "Full Heart, Empty Mind"...

Thanks for sharing Wim. I couldn't resiste to put this little quote about innocence which talk so much to me.

K.: You may have love in your heart, because to love is a natural thing when one is young; but it is soon destroyed by the parents, by the educator, by the social environment. To maintain that innocence, that love which is the perfume of life, is extraordinarily arduous; it requires a great deal of intelligence, insight.

This Matter of Culture J. Krishnamurti This Matter of Culture Chapter 12

Forum: General Discussion Mon, 29 Aug 2016
Topic: 'Dying all the time.......'

Can we die to everything ?

Jack Pine wrote: Can we die to everything? I think that is what K was asking us to do. To die to the past, to give up everything to stand absolutely alone in life? No escapes, attachments which means all the things, the tricks the mind invents to avoid the one real issue.

You said there is holes in what you just wrote Jack. The only comment I would make is that one have to see the necessity to die to the past by ourselves, not because someone say so. I have any doubt that it was involve in what you say.

Jack Pine wrote: Something we have to do alone, not in a group, not as a result of discussing it to death. Seeing this challenge, for lack of a better word, sort of takes the meaning out of discussions and talking about "what is" when in fact we neither know or care about "what is" which are just a couple of words that have come to mean nothing through over use and misuse. We just want to maintain some level of comfort, of illusion as long as we can.

K.: The individual is the world; he is both the root and the outcome of the total process, and without transformation of the individual, there can be no radical transformation in the world. Therefore, the important thing is not individual action as opposed to collective action, but to realize that true collective action can come about only through individual regeneration.

(Krishnamurti's Talks in India 1948 (Verbatim Report) Series 2 Bangalore Fifth Talk at Bangalore . End of quote)

So in a way, we are all of us alone. We can't count on no one, if I may say. Just some thoughts. Good post Jack.

Forum: General Discussion Mon, 29 Aug 2016
Topic: 'Dying all the time.......'

Individual regeneration, mutation, radical revolution; aren't they many words pointing to the same thing ?

Forum: General Discussion Mon, 29 Aug 2016
Topic: Our responsability as an individual

K.: As an individual, it is your responsibility to bring about a tremendous change in the world. It is your responsibility, because you are part of this society, because you are part of this tremendous sorrow of man, this constant effort, struggle, pain, and anxiety. You are responsible. Unless you realize that immense responsibility and come directly in contact with that responsibility and listen to the whole structure, the machinery of that responsibility, do what you will, go to every temple, to every guru, to every Master, to every religious book in the world, your action has no meaning whatsoever.

Collected Works, Vol. XV",52,Social Responsibility

About the machinery of that responsability:

K.: The individual is the world; he is both the root and the outcome of the total process, and without transformation of the individual, there can be no radical transformation in the world. Therefore, the important thing is not individual action as opposed to collective action, but to realize that true collective action can come about only through individual regeneration.

(Krishnamurti's Talks in India 1948 (Verbatim Report) Series 2 Bangalore Fifth Talk at Bangalore . End of quote)

So in a way, we are all of us alone. We can't count on no one, if I may say. Individual regeneration, mutation, radical revolution, transformation; aren't they many words pointing to the same thing then? The individual is the world. Can one see this ? Is it a reality for you ?

Forum: General Discussion Mon, 29 Aug 2016
Topic: Intelligence

K.: Krishnamurti Quote of the Day New York City | 1st Public Talk 11th March, 1935

For most people this is the problem: merely to wait, marking time; or to be able to discern the true significance of life with its conflicts and sorrows, and not create a new set of stupidities, a new set of illusions, and therefore to live directly and simply. The one leads to utter disorder, superficiality, boredom, to such superficial lives as most people lead, whether in the intensity of work or in the lack of work. The other, to the ecstasy of immortality.

Everywhere there is a despair, waiting for some action, waiting for governments to change conditions. And, in the meantime, your own lives are becoming more and more superficial, shallow, with all the inanities of modern society and the inanities of the so-called spiritual people.

As I said in the very beginning of my talk, intelligence is the only solution that will bring about harmony in this world of conflict, harmony between mind and heart in action. No system, the mere alteration of environment, is ever going to free man from ignorance and illusion, which are the cause of suffering. You yourself, through your own awareness, in your own completeness, can discern the true significance of these many limiting barriers. This alone will bring about lasting intelligence, which shall reveal immortality.(End of quote)

Would you say that one need intelligence to see this ? Or isn't it that the seeing of the truth in this is intelligence ? The insight into this is intelligence by itself ? Just a question. Cheers .

Forum: General Discussion Mon, 29 Aug 2016
Topic: Recommend, like, clap- clap...

We have 19 recommend about the recommend button in 7 posts. Let's enjoy it while it is still there...lol...:-)

Forum: General Discussion Tue, 30 Aug 2016
Topic: Intelligence

Hi Randall. Not sure that intelligence is something to be use. I would ask by who ? In the quote above, my question was: do one need intelligence to see the truth, or is it that , the seeing of the truth is itself intelligence , which bring his own action ?

Forum: General Discussion Tue, 30 Aug 2016
Topic: Intelligence

Salut Jean. You ask: can truth be seen ?..or does intelligence discern the false.

By truth I simply meant the facts. So I would say whether we see the truth of a fact or its falsness is the same.

Jean Gatti wrote: when the falsity of a belief is seen, then any action or thought based on such erroneous belief is immediately stopped ...

Yes, I would say that.

Forum: General Discussion Tue, 30 Aug 2016
Topic: Intelligence

It all depend of if it is observable, describable or not. Some things fall in the second category. To see ( or discern) the truth in the false is then a better approach, yes.

Forum: General Discussion Fri, 02 Sep 2016
Topic: Our responsability as an individual

Hi Dhivendra. You express it very well .