Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
Discussion Forums

Rich Nolet's Forum Activity | 329 posts in 1 forum


Forum: General Discussion Mon, 07 Jan 2019
Topic: Can we ask the right question?

I didn't clic yet and there is no offense. The thing is you are right, the mother pass on her conditioning, her beleifs, her sense of right and wrong, her worldview to that child, exactly as her own mother did pass on her conditioning to her. The conditioning comes from education, environement and so on. It is old and universal. We all have been conditioned. Is it this comditioning that pervert the heart ?

Forum: General Discussion Tue, 08 Jan 2019
Topic: Can we ask the right question?

Do you mean that the self, which is the me with all his attributes, his images, of himself and of the others, his believes, his envy, his jalousy, his ambitions, his conclusions , his hurts, his dreams and so on is what you named the center?

Forum: General Discussion Thu, 10 Jan 2019
Topic: Is it possible to live without comparison?

One Self wrote: That is why I say that we are not intelligent enough to discuss things and only Krishnamurti with his supreme intelligence was able to delve into these matters. And don't give me those worshiping of authority lines which is so silly and immature in this site.

Forum: General Discussion Thu, 10 Jan 2019
Topic: Is it possible to live without comparison?

One Self wrote: Krishnamurti is the only person who could discuss fear in dept(thank goodness). We are not intelligent enough to go into these matters by ourselves because we haven't lived it. We live in abstractions(the self and all that). K was very clear. Maybe we have lost clarity due to the old age. But k was always clear even when he was over 90.

Forum: General Discussion Thu, 10 Jan 2019
Topic: Is it possible to live without comparison?

Well, if he can't even be aware of his own contradictions, Pat, even K. will not do it for him.

Forum: General Discussion Sat, 12 Jan 2019
Topic: What K teachings are central for you?

Yes, the flowering of love is what matter. All the best to you too.

Forum: General Discussion Wed, 16 Jan 2019
Topic: Can we ask the right question?

Paul Dimmock wrote: Or one finds out why it hurts to get bitten. Right? Surely that makes far more sense. It may not be anything whatsoever to do with the other person, as stupid or as clever as they are.

As an example, I am hurt when the image that I have of myself is contradict . I have an image of myself as being an intelligent person, and you say I am stupid, so I become defensive, I protect my image. Then we are in conflict, as you already said. This image that I have of myself is very important ...to myself. Same thing with beleives. My beleif is very important to me. I am attach to it, because it promise me a better life after death. So if you doubt it, I am hurt, which can turn into violence. All conflicts are a form of violence, or end in violence. Why do we have an image of ourselves ? And why do we beleive in an hypothetical god who will save us ? We are not different from our images, whether of me or another; not different from our beleives. We are that.

K.: The content of consciousness is consciousness. Without the content, there is no consciousness. Content is consciousness. The two are not separate.

J. Krishnamurti Tradition and Revolution, New Delhi 11th May 1972

Forum: General Discussion Wed, 16 Jan 2019
Topic: Can we ask the right question?

Dan, yes. That's true.

Forum: General Discussion Wed, 16 Jan 2019
Topic: Can we ask the right question?

Aren't we afraid of the idea of being nothing ?

Forum: General Discussion Wed, 16 Jan 2019
Topic: Can we ask the right question?

Here is a very interesting part of a dialogue with Pupul, if I may Paul.

PJ: You see, please understand, Krishnaji, it is the brain itself which listens to that statement.

K: Yes, it listens. And then what happens? Just a minute. What happens? If it listens it is quiet.

PJ: It is quiet.

K: It isn't ruminating, it is not going on, 'By Jove, what does he mean', it is not rattling, it is quiet. Right? Wait a minute. When it is actually, not induced quietness, actually when it listens, and there is quietness, then there is insight. I don't have to explain ten different ways the limitation of thought, it is so.

PJ: I see what you're saying.

Is there anything further than...

K: Oh yes there is. There is a great deal more. Which is: is listening a sound? A sound within an area, or I am listening to what you are saying without the verbal sound? If there is a verbal sound I am not listening, I am only understanding the words. But you want to convey to me something much more than the words, so if the words are making a sound in my hearing I can't deeply understand the depth of what you are saying.

So I want to find out something much more. We started with the present. The present is the now, the now is the whole movement of time-thought. Right? It is the whole structure. If the structure of time and thought ends the now has totally a different meaning. The now then is nothing. I mean, when we use the word 'nothing', zero contains all the figures. Right? So nothing contains all. But we are afraid to be nothing.

PJ: When you say it contains the all, is it the essence of all human and racial and environmental, and nature and the cosmos, as such?

K: Yes. No, I would rather... You see, I am talking of the fact of a realisation that there is nothing. The psyche is a bundle of memories - right? - and those memories are dead. They operate, they function, but they are the outcome of past experience which has gone. I am a movement of memories. Right? Now if I have an insight into that, there is nothing. I don't exist.

Dialogue 2 Brockwood Park, England-25 June 1983

Forum: General Discussion Thu, 17 Jan 2019
Topic: Can we ask the right question?

Paul Dimmock wrote: Yes, but have we had this insight? Or are we merely borrowing it from K?

I think that from here, it is up to each one of us to see by ourselves Paul. Whether one have an insight into all that or not, who can tell ?

Forum: General Discussion Thu, 17 Jan 2019
Topic: Can we ask the right question?

I understand. So how would you answer your question : have we had this insight? Or are we merely borrowing it from K?

Forum: General Discussion Fri, 18 Jan 2019
Topic: Can we ask the right question?

I think that we have to be careful with this statement we don't exist. It is about the psyche, for which K. uses the words the all structure of thought-time, which is the self, isn't it ? What is the state of the mind after such an insight? For sure we still have memories, knowledges in certain technical area, a name...

We can't say I have an insight or I have had an insight since insight happen out of this structure. If we make a conclusion out of an insight, this conclusion is then in the thought-time structure. If we put an end to an insight, then it is from an insight to another insight. K.point out that thought-time doesn't lead to insight; though insight can use thought.

Forum: General Discussion Fri, 18 Jan 2019
Topic: Can we ask the right question?

Exactly Dan.

Forum: General Discussion Sat, 19 Jan 2019
Topic: Can we ask the right question?

Patricia Hemingway wrote: Surely to the earth we definitely do exist. We may desire to wish ourselves away, but the havoc humanity has created upon this beautiful planet remains. So really, fanciful arguments just do not cut it.

Yes. That's why I say that we have to be careful with such a statement as we don't exist, that we are nothing. The thought-time structure that K. talk about, which is the psyche, a bundle of memories, the past, which still operate, function, in fact exist. Until there is an insight into the all thing, that I am in fact nothing, the thought-time structure continue. And that's what we are.

Forum: General Discussion Sun, 20 Jan 2019
Topic: Can we ask the right question?

One Self, it is true that we can't teach or learn from each other, though we have a lot to learn from K., from his unique discovery. We maybe discuss all that to challenge our thinking, because we also have to learn to think by ourselves, to challenge our minds, to be free.

Concerning your statement about altering what is, I would say that transformation, mutation propose by K. is not about to alter what is , exactly as you say, but to understand what is and go beyond; a total transformation, a radical mutation of the mind. That is what is propose by K.

Forum: General Discussion Sun, 20 Jan 2019
Topic: Can we ask the right question?

Jack Pine wrote: To be free is to not accept any explanation from anyone but rather to find out for ourselves. Each of us are the sum total of our conditioning. Can the conditioned brain see or understand anything apart from that conditioning? K was pointing the way but some have stopped to worship the finger that points the way.

That is so true Jack. K. point this out all his life, so that we don't worship him and be a light to oneself. We are the teacher and the teach. We have to find out for ouselves, by ourselves. And then, if we live the truth , then it is his own action, which only can bring about a transformation of what is.

Forum: General Discussion Sun, 27 Jan 2019
Topic: Can we ask the right question?

Jack Pine wrote: I have no reference for where I read this interchange.

I can tell you without a doubt. It was with David Bohm in The End of Time.

Forum: General Discussion Tue, 19 Feb 2019
Topic: Understanding and insight (article by Dev Singh)

An article which I found very interesting from Dev Singh, which can be found in the Articles tab on Kinfonet. Here is a quote from the beginning of the article.

A few years before his death, prompted by his biographer Mary Lutyens, Krishnamurti wrote a summary of his entire message. In this piece, entitled The Core of the Teaching, Krishnamurti writes:

When man becomes aware of the movement of his own thoughts he will see the division between the thinker and thought, the observer and the observed, the experience and the experiencer. He will discover that this division is an illusion. Then only is there pure observation which is insight without any shadow of the past or of time. (End of quote)

Krishnamurti here seems to suggest that the human mind is not limited to the familiar state of consciousness characterized by a clear separation between a subject (the experiencer) and an object (the experience). In addition to this everyday way of experiencing, Krishnamurti claims that the human mind also has the capacity for perceiving reality purely , that is to say in a direct, non-personal manner, one that is not processed through an egocentric consciousness.

Although it's possible to imagine what such a state of non-duality might resemble, these musings rarely go beyond the realm of the intellect. For us, the separation between the observer and the observed lies at the heart of our actual experience, unquestioned and unquestionable. In fact, the sense of separation is so real that we find ourselves in a state of constant tension with our environment. We view the environment as an external agency, one that has the power to shape and influence who we are. Despite our strong intuitive feeling to the contrary, Krishnamurti nonetheless keeps on insisting that the individual and its environment are in fact one and the same thing.

Understanding and Insight by Dev Singh | December 2011

For those interested, the whole article is here :

http://www.kinfonet.org/articles/37-understandi...

Forum: General Discussion Wed, 20 Feb 2019
Topic: Understanding and insight (article by Dev Singh)

Wecome back Idiot? You say that people don't even know this last teaching. Not sure that it wasn't there since the beginning. Maybe for some it goes unnoticed.

You say that without the core of K.'s teaching, the dissolving of the self, the end of division and separation, the flowering of love, there really is no understanding and the violence goes on. Yes it is so. Though merely an intelectual understanding will not do it. That is , I think, what Dev is pointing out in his article: understanding and insight.

Dev: Although it's possible to imagine what such a state of non-duality might resemble, these musings rarely go beyond the realm of the intellect. For us, the separation between the observer and the observed lies at the heart of our actual experience,

(And further in the same article) Most definitely then, the understanding Krishnamurti speaks of is of a wholly different order than what we normally understand as understanding. The "understanding" he speaks of is a flash of insight that instantaneously does away with illusion. And that is the end of the story. No further action is required. There is nothing to oppose, nothing on which to act, to change, to control.

Forum: General Discussion Thu, 21 Feb 2019
Topic: Understanding and insight (article by Dev Singh)

Of course the situation may require action . But I think that this statement(...no further action is required, etc ) concern the realisation of the fact of this division .

And yes, love is it's own action. That is important because love is in the absence of the self

idiot ? wrote: As long as the self is busy with its thoughts, one can't even see that someone needs help, let alone manifest what's appropriate.

That's right.

Forum: General Discussion Thu, 21 Feb 2019
Topic: Understanding and insight (article by Dev Singh)

idiot ? wrote: Thank you for bringing Dev Singh's article to our attention and also for your comments about it.

I was surprise not only in that he is an excellent writer, but also by his relevent comments. Thanks to you too for your relevent comments.

Forum: General Discussion Fri, 22 Feb 2019
Topic: Understanding and insight (article by Dev Singh)

One Self wrote: So are we there yet? Do we see that the division between the thinker and his thought is a fictitious one? Are we there yet? Do we see that the observer is the observed. Have we ended conflict in ourselves yet? If not, why?

If not, it is maybe because, as pointed out by Dev:

Although it's possible to imagine what such a state of non-duality might resemble, these musings rarely go beyond the realm of the intellect. For us, the separation between the observer and the observed lies at the heart of our actual experience

I must say that I see things the same way, for what it's worth.

And if we realise that the separation between the observer and the observed is but an illusion, that the experiencer is no different from the experience, the thinker no different from thought, then it is just the beginning of an observation in which there is a different quality, in which there is no conflict, no division.

As pointed out by Idiot?, all this is meditation. Or should we say the beginning of real meditation ?

Forum: General Discussion Sun, 24 Feb 2019
Topic: Understanding and insight (article by Dev Singh)

Sean Hen wrote: What do we understand by "the realm of the intellect"? Is the point here that we understand intelectually but cannot actually stop our minds from constantly chattering?

Intellectual understanding ...one understand the statement, the wording.

Sean: Thought is clearly the cause of the separation between the observer and the observed

As Dev put it: . For us, the separation between the observer and the observed lies at the heart of our actual experience.

Is this observable ? Can it be perceive? Perception is of a different nature. But can there be perception when the mind is chattering ?

As long as it is not observed, that one is not aware of the phenomenon in itself,the fact of the division, create by thought, when it is happening in the instant, it remains intellectual, isn't it ?

Forum: General Discussion Sun, 24 Feb 2019
Topic: Understanding and insight (article by Dev Singh)

Sean Hen wrote: Is it ever not intellectual only? Do we ever move beyond the intellectual with this?

Sean Hen wrote: (answering to Dan): What about awareness that brings about immediate action, where the seeing is the action? Have you ever experienced this? I am inattentive and I become aware of my inattention. This awareness brings about attention.

Yes. Then one is beyond the intellect in attention, which is seeing. The intellect is thinking, chattering, analysing, which is inattention (in regard of selfknowledge). The mind must be quiet to perceive, to see , to be aware of what it is doing, of what is going on.

Forum: General Discussion Sun, 24 Feb 2019
Topic: About observing..

I thought that this citation from K. would be a good follow up to the thread : Understanding and insight. Who's the entity that decide to observe and when , ask a questioner ?

Questioner: You tell us to observe our actions in daily life but what is the entity that decides what to observe and when? Who decides if one should observe?

Krishnamurti: Do you decide to observe? Or do you merely observe? Do you decide and say, 'I am going to observe and learn'? For then there is the question: 'Who is deciding?' Is it will that says, 'I must'? And when it fails, it chastises itself further and says, 'I must, must, must; in that there is conflict; therefore the state of mind that has decided to observe is not observation at all.

You are walking down the road, somebody passes you by, you observe and you may say to yourself, 'How ugly he is; how he smells; I wish he would not do this or that'. You are aware of your responses to that passer-by, you are aware that you are judging, condemning or justifying; you are observing. You do not say, 'I must not judge, I must not justify'. In being aware of your responses, there is no decision at all. You see somebody who insulted you yesterday. Immediately all your hackles are up, you become nervous or anxious, you begin to dislike; be aware of your dislike, be aware of all that, do not <code>decide' to be aware. Observe, and in that observation there is neither the</code>observer' nor the 'observed' - there is only observation taking place. The 'observer' exists only when you accumulate in the observation; when you say, `He is my friend because he has flattered me', or, 'He is not my friend, because he has said something ugly about me, or something true which I do not like,. That is accumulation through observation and that accumulation is the observer. When you observe without accumulation, then there is no judgement. You can do this all the time; in that observation naturally certain definite decisions are made, but the decisions are natural results, not decisions made by the observer who has accumulated.

The Impossible Question | 5th Public Talk, Saanen, 26th July

1970

Forum: General Discussion Sun, 10 Mar 2019
Topic: What is passion?

Native American writer Sherman Alexie, who is of Coeur D’Alene descent, has said that kemosabe means “idiot” in Apache. “They were calling each other ‘idiot’ all those years,” he told an interviewer in 1996, a few years after the publication of his story collection The Lone Ranger and Tonto Fistfight in Heaven. “It’s always going to be an antagonistic relationship between indigenous people and the colonial people,” he added.

On a 1969 episode of The Johnny Carson Show, Carson did a sketch in which he interviewed Jay Silverheels—who portrayed Tonto on the Lone Ranger TV series—in character, for a new job at NBC. “I work 30 years as faithful sidekick for kemosabe,” Silverheels tells Carson in the bit. “Hunt, fish, make food, sew clothes, sweep up, stay awake all night, listen for enemies for kemosabe. Risk life for kemosabe. Thirty lousy years.” When Carson wonders why Tonto’s former employer let him go, the once-faithful sidekick replies, “Him find out what kemosabe mean.”

(By AISHA HARRIS. Thanks to Fred Shapiro, editor of The Yale Book of Quotations, and Dave Wilton from the University of Toronto.)

LOL!!

Forum: General Discussion Mon, 11 Mar 2019
Topic: What is passion?

Yeah, still , you have the question mark after your name, which let the door open to a yes or a no...haha!!

A question mark means that we don't know. And without humility, how can we learn anything ?

Forum: General Discussion Tue, 23 Jul 2019
Topic: To Die

To live is to die. We maybe have read Krishnamurti, probably , since we are here, in this forum. If we have read him right, with all our mind and heart, then, part of the job is done. Because he spoke the truth. If there has been a real understanding of what he've said, then this understanding is working, with no interference from the past, from what he've ever said. Because learning is from the timeless present.

One have to die to what K. have said . To this forum. To all what we've learn .To all what anyone have said. To all memories. If one doesn't start from nothing, from the present moment, from what is happening in our mind and heart right now, in a state of perception, of awareness, then our mind is not alive, it is but the past, the old. Regurgitating words and memories. Are we connected to the present ?

So to live, to observe and to understand, in the present moment, and go beyond what is, we have to die to the known. And what will happen then is undescribable. Without any references to K. or to whatever Georges or Paul have said. One can't speculate or imagine what it is. We have to do it.

To die seems to be the hardest thing to do. Can one die to the known ? Can you forget about K.? And live?