Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
Discussion Forums

Jan Kasol's Forum Activity | 19 posts in 1 forum


19 posts  |  Page 1 of 1
Forum: Experimenter's Corner Fri, 25 Nov 2016
Topic: What are actually the K-Teachings ?

This what K says in your last post is analogous to what I have been saying with the mirror. Mind can be compared to a mirror, thinking process and the observer stain the mirror. Or mind can be compared to a pond. Thought and the observer create ripples in the pond. The silence or quiteness means that the pond is not disturbed by the self-centred thought process anymore .

The observer is a resistance, is an effort, is past reacting to the present, making choice based on conditioning and projectiong to the future. The observer exists withing the field of choice, within the field of dualities. Every duality carries within itself the seed of its own opposite. Your very thinking creates everything, creates opposites, creates choice, creates suffering, creates loneliness, creates pleasure. Every thought is a cage of conditining based on choice. Thought is not free, every thought is limited, thought is based on duality, on comparisons, on contrasts - comparing this and that, making choice, measuring this and that. Only when the whole observer is understood, can there be silence, can the process of choice, comparison and measurement be silenced. And in this silence, there is nothingness. But it is a miraculous nothingness, because that nothingness is alive, is timeless, is limitless, out of it everything is borne and to it everything returns, life and death united in eternal creation. This miraculous nothingness is the only permanent thing in life, is the only eternity, is the root of all existence. It is perfect, nothing can be taken from it and nothing can be added to it. This nothingness is the pond, is the mirror. This nothingness is Life. When the scar, the resistance in the form of the observer, is disolved, there is only creation of Life in nothingness.

The observer is very tricky to understand. His very effort to grasp the K teachings is a process of envy, of comparing myself (the unenlightened) to K (the enlightened), thus the process of opposites, of comparison, of choice, of envy is borne. I want this (what K had) and I do not want that.(what I have). The K teachings has very little value. There is no partial understanding or partial insight, such things are self-delusions of pride. Either there is light or there is darkness. The observer is the darkness. There is no way to practice K teachings, because every kind of practicing is the cultivation of envy. The very reading of K teachings conditions the mind in a particular pattern and starts the process of comparison, of choice, of envy. The only thing that matters is: understand yourself, understand the observer, understand the process of thought, the process of choice, of desire. Only by learning how the mind deceives itself, how it creates its own prison tiled by opposites, how the ego is created by thought identifying itself. The ego is prison and its walls are decorated by what it has accumulated, by what it has identified itself with. Only by understanding acquisitiveness, desire, every motive that drives us, can we be free. Freedom is not a choice. Freedom is the spontaneity of living in the active present. Freedom is freedom from thought, thought creates choice, thought creates opposites, thought measures, compares, thought creates the observer, thought is the acquisitiveness, thought is the limitation. Pleasure and suffering exists withing the realms of duality, the realm of thought. Everything is in us, it cannot be found anywhere external to us. The very searching is running away from it, creating ripples on the pond...

That was my meditation :-)

Forum: Experimenter's Corner Sat, 03 Dec 2016
Topic: What are actually the K-Teachings ?

These are clear and insightful discussions with K. I would emphasize the relative nature of thought compared to the Absolute, the nothingness. The Absolute is not the opposite of the relative. Thought is always relative, which means trapped in a corridor of opposites. I am unhappy, I want to be happy. I am lonely, I want to be loved. I am in conflict, I want peace. I am in darkness, I want to be enlightened. All the opposites carry within themselves their own opposites. And any "absolute" or "god" or "nothingness" that you conceive as being opposed to something else is a creation of thought. Thought always measures, compares, creates opposites, creates choices such as the better and the worse, the dumb and the wise, the bound and the free, the enlightened and the unenlightened. Thought moves in this corridor of the opposites, always moving from one opposite to the other, always chosing one opposite over another, all its effort is within this corridor. But the Absolute, or the silence, or the nothingness is not an opposite of anything. Every choice, every effort, every thought, every movement is still within this corridor and is limited. Only when the mind understands its total movement and sees its limitation, can it crumble upon itself and enter into silence, can it become Nothing. This Nothingness is not negative at all, it is the source of everything. The observer is a cloud of darkness. All his effort is the darkness. The darkness is the corridor of the opposites created by thought. It is the prison in which we are trapped. And freedom is not the opposite of the prison.

http://www.jiddu-krishnamurti.net/en/1945-1948-...

Forum: Experimenter's Corner Sat, 03 Dec 2016
Topic: What are actually the K-Teachings ?

Thanks for your words, John. It is interesting that you always add to Krishnamurti. When I have been doing some editing in the past (for my personal purposes), I always subtracted, i.e. I tried to delete all those sentences that I either did not consider essential, or that were self-obvious or were endlessly repeated by K so that they became somewhat "Krishnamurti clichés" (such as "you are the world"). In the past (when I had more time), I did some translating of K into Czech language. Now I lack the time and also motivation.

The language barrier is always a problem, especially when describing things like "nothingness" or "absolute". Nothingness is an especially nice word. You cannot become nothing, because if you became that, you would be something. Likewise, you cannot understand nothing, you cannot grasp nothing. You cannot know nothing, because if you knew anything, you would know something. Silence is also a nice word. If you try to do anything about it, you are disturbing the silence. But these words are only pointers, only analogies. It is up to each of one us to discover their meaning for himself. The discovering of their meaning is meditation.

Forum: Experimenter's Corner Wed, 07 Dec 2016
Topic: What are actually the K-Teachings ?

Daniel Paul. wrote: Yes it is of transformational nature, I would add as a side effect so not as a goal, for me. Again "for me", thought has not the ability to find out the real causes of any suffering-sorrow, this is what my 40 years experience on it says with a 100% ratio

self-understanding is not of transformational nature. There is nothing to transform. All (seeming) change is only superficial exchange of garments of conditioning. It is still within the same old pattern of thought. Truth lies in a completely different direction, if you break away from the pattern of thought. And suffering is within the pattern, it is created by thought. Suffering is the other side of the coin of acquisitiveness. They both are the threads by which the pattern is woven. Any search by thought for the cause of suffering is escaping from suffering and does not solve the cause, rather it strengtens the suffering. You need to see that thought is creating suffering. By you very thinking that you suffer you suffer, by your very thinking of being lonely you are lonely. Suffering is only you self-image of you suffering, observer creating the illusion of being different from suffering. You need to see it in the now, not in the past, not in the future, a not create another escape from the "seeing" Remember K when he says "no accepting, no condemning". This attitude is the key and is very difficult to understand. Why should you accept anything, why should you condemn anything? Accepting and condemning are based on choice, on conditioning, they are the observer which is past...

Forum: Experimenter's Corner Tue, 28 Feb 2017
Topic: What are actually the K-Teachings ?

This discussion about AI is interesting. Memory and thought are mechanical. But the prediction that machine AI will overcome human intelligence in 20 years (that was 1980's) was overly optimistic and frankly ridiculous. Even now there are some scientists who claim that in 20-30 years we will have a human-level machine AI. They mostly have a computer science background and know little about human brain or psychology. It will probably take hundreds of years till the machines approach human intelligence, maybe never. While the computer AI may perform at some narrow tasks better than human intelligence (like playing chess), it is not flexible at all. It is a rigid program and does not come even close to the plasticity and flexibility of human brain.

Forum: Experimenter's Corner Tue, 28 Feb 2017
Topic: What are actually the K-Teachings ?

if we wanted to create an artificial intelligence similar to humans, we would need to program it with similar instincts such as self-preservation, inquisitiveness, the drive to acquire information, some mechanism to cope with conflicting information, conflicting drives. Otherwise the machine would have no personality, no individuality. The personality is the ego, the memories, the fears, the possessions. The computer guys working on AI do not realize this and how difficult it would be to programm something like that. Unless the machine had no memories, no sense of identity, no personality, it could not be conscious of itself as separate from the world and others, it would not be conscious. As K says, this sense of individuality, of separateness, egotism, is the basis of counsciousness. This consciousness is limitation, separateness, resistance, conflict. But K says that this consiousness, this resistance, can be transcended, that peace is beyond that. When you have no resistance whatsoever, you are in peace. Freedom is the lack of resistance. Would the artificial intelligence have the capacity to enlightenment?

Forum: Experimenter's Corner Sun, 12 Mar 2017
Topic: What are actually the K-Teachings ?

Concerning the topic of this thread, I was thinking what to me is the most important message of Krishnamurti and it would probably be this: We are fundamentally free and we alone are fully responsible for how we perceive, how we think, how we feel and how we act. We lose the freedom by being entangled in our dependecies, fears, wishes, beliefs, thoughts. And because we are fully responsible, only we can free ourself from these falsehoods. We are generally slaves to our mental states, we are driven by fears, by greed, by attachments, by our possessions. What we do not realize is that we do not have to be slaves of our mind, but we can become free in the now. For example if we (mentally) suffer, we are trapped in the suffering, we are slaves to it. But why do we suffer? Who forces us to suffer? Do we have to suffer? Or can we be free of it instantly, in the now? This message of the fundamental freedom of man and self-responsiblity for the states of our minds is for me the most important message of Krishnamurti. Buddha said something similar with his 4 noble truths: there is suffering and there is a way out of suffering. I was brought to this by reading the early talks

Krishnamurti in 1929 (same year as the dissolution of the order): "Every individual in the world, whatever his circumstances may be, is absolutely and entirely responsible to himself. In the self alone, therefore, lies the possibility, the power of freeing himself entirely, wholly, unconditionally from the entanglements, the corruption of imperfect love. He is the only person who can conquer his own weakness, who can master his own passions, who can control his own desires, and who is entirely responsible for his own ambitions. ....Knowing therefore the purpose of life, and knowing that the individual is entirely and absolutely responsible to himself, you overcome fear of any kind. It is fear that throttles, suffocates every human being. It is the phantom which follows every human being as a shadow, because he does not realise that for every action, and the result of that action, for every desire, and the fulfilment of that desire, he is wholly responsible. With that realisation fear of every kind disappears, because the individual is absolutely master of himself. When you have no fear you really begin to live. You live, not in the future nor in the past, neither hoping for salvation in the future nor looking to the dead past for your strength, but — because you have no fear — in that moment of eternity, which is NOW. It is NOW that matters, not the future nor the past. It is what you do, what you think, how you live and how you act NOW that has value. Truth is neither in the future nor in the past. The man who is not bound by fear lives entirely responsible to himself, concentrated in that moment which is NOW, which is eternity. For such a man there is neither birth nor death. Most people are afraid of death because they are afraid to live. They are more concerned about death than about how to live in the immediate moment, which is eternity, which is NOW"

Forum: Experimenter's Corner Tue, 16 May 2017
Topic: Back to Basics

IMHO, the only difficult term of the above is intelligence. It is notoriously difficult to define even in the ordinary sense (are octopi intelligent?), but K uses it to describe the intelligence, that comes into being after you fully comprehend and thus transcend the self. K's definition of thought as a reaction of memory to some external or internal challenge is good. I would only add two remarks: there are different levels of thought and emotional reactions are thought too. The more general term (used in science) is cognition

Brain is build hiearchically - spine, brainstem, middle brain, hemispheres. The more primitive parts of the brain we share with other mammals/animals - brainstem or limbic system. The neocortex is most developed in humans and is responsible for higher thought such as abstract thinking. I guess (I may be projecting this onto you, so appology if I do) that many of you understand thought as the higher abstract thinking, which is responsible for verbal thought, theories, beliefs etc., but you are unaware or insufficiently aware of the deeper thought. This deeper thought is more emotional, possibly even non-verbal. Animals think in this nonverbal manner. And so it happens, that you feel anxiety or inner tension and you are unaware where it comes from, so you search with your intellect. This anxiety is the deeper thought, a deeper emotional reaction to some unconscious thought. What K says is that you first have to silence the intellect to be able to listen to these deeper levels of thought. What happens here on the forum and elswhere is that people are living in the intellect, so they just scratch the surface and thus will never get anywhere. You can explain, and explain, and explain, but until you become aware of the deeper layers of your mind, of your unconscious fears, reactions, desires, feelings of insufficiency, guilt, shame, inferiority, you will not move forward. Then you can endlessly argue about duality, God, effort, thought, but if you are unaware of yourself, of your deeper motives, emotions, reactions, all your activity will be just beating a dead horse.

So, to emphasize it again, thought is not just the intellect, that is just the surface. There are deeper layers of thought (cognition). Thought needs not to be just verbal. You can watch this fascinating documentary to convince yourself what the human brain is capable of.

To quote Krishnamurti

"We must begin to be self-conscious, which most of us are not; in bringing the hidden into the open, into the light, we discover the various causes of disharmony, of suffering. This alone will help to bring about a life of fulfilment and intelligent happiness. Without this liberation from the hidden, the concealed, our efforts must lead us to delusions. Until we discover, through experiment, our subtle and deep limitations, with their reactions, and so free ourselves from them, we shall lead a life of confusion and strife. For these limitations prevent the pliability of mind-emotion, making it incapable of true adjustment to the movement of life. This lack of pliability is the source of our egotistic competition, fear and the pursuit of security, leading to many comforting illusions. Though we may think we have found truth, bliss, and objectify the abstract idea of God, yet, while we remain unconscious of the hidden springs of our whole being, there cannot be the realization of truth. The mouthing of such words as truth, God, perfection, can have no deep significance and import."

Forum: Experimenter's Corner Thu, 18 May 2017
Topic: Back to Basics

I think K differentiated 2 kinds of mind: the individual mind and universal mind (his words from early talks) or the progressive self and the eternal self (his words from the early talks). The individual/progressive mind is created by thought, by conditioning, by material process in the brain - it is the mind we are all too familiar with. For the universal mind, K used many synonyms - intelligence, pure being, emptiness, nothingness, silence. I have told here several times the analogy with the mirror. Is is not my analogy, exactly the same analogy was used by Rumi, by K, by Meister Eckhart, by zen. If the mirror is stained by the ego process and its attachments, its egotism, it is not pure and there is distortion. If you clean the mirror (= purify your mind, heart, = silence your mind, = empty your mind etc), then the mirror is clean and it is the pure being, the universal mind, the intelligence. From the discussions with Bohm, you can clearly see, that K believed that this universal mind is no more material, is no more a product of thought. This universal mind is the mind of everyone and everything. I described it in #2 as pure being. Either study Krishnamurtis early talks, where he is much more open about these things, or study his dialogues with Bohm, where he is again more open, for example here they talk about 2 kinds of mind. http://jkrishnamurti.org/krishnamurti-teachings...

Forum: Experimenter's Corner Thu, 18 May 2017
Topic: Back to Basics

Dan McDermott wrote: If the 'mirror is there, (attention?), it will 'reflect what is there: fear, confusion, 'confidence' laziness etc., the attempt to 'change' what is reflected to something other than what is 'seen', is where the "quickness" is needed to detect that conflict-causing process.

Either the mirror reflects your own projections, or when you become as nothing, it will reflect something else. The word "what is" is problematic. Because "what is" appears different to a selfless mind and to an egotistic mind. What is the relationship of the observer to "what is"?

Forum: Experimenter's Corner Thu, 18 May 2017
Topic: Back to Basics

Dan McDermott wrote: I would say that the observer is 'what is'.

and what is the relationship of this insight to freedom?

Forum: Experimenter's Corner Sat, 20 May 2017
Topic: Back to Basics

Dan McDermott wrote: So be it. Maybe Jan will elaborate on how he sees the "relationship".

I think that there is no relationship. The observer is the center of illusion and all he ever observes are the projections of his conditioning, after which he is constantly chasing. The observer (=will) is effort, resistance, which is driven by fear or desire. There is no observer without effort. And the observer can be ended by an integral insight of the mind into the process of will, fear, desire, effort and time. The observer is the will, fear, desire, effort and time. When the observer is not, there is freedom.

Forum: Experimenter's Corner Sun, 21 May 2017
Topic: Back to Basics

Dan McDermott wrote: Agreed and in that 1928 talk you posted, K breaks 'desire' into two: the desire for the non-essential and for the essential (the realization of our true being), an important distinction for me since I had thought of it, as it manifests in the 'psychological', as being a 'problem' and not the creative life force that it is with the potential to 'burn through' the non-essential

K's attributed different meanings to the words essential and non-essential at different times. Here he (probably) means essential is the effort which leads to liberation and non-essential everything else. At other times, he uses it in the context of opposites and choice. Thought creates opposites, measures, and then chooses the essential and avoids the non-essential and this is the process of ignorance.

Pure being cannot be arrived at by any effort, because every effort is becoming. But I believe that effort is necessary for liberation nevertheless - effort to understand yourself, effort to pierce through the many layers of ignorance, effort to know yourself, effort to reveal all the tricks of the mind to yourself. But in the final stage, all effort has to cease, when there is an integral perception of the whole process of ignorance. How to arrive at this integral perception is the real question. K thought that he would server as a mirror to the people and they would know themselves through him, he advised that relationships should serve as our mirror in which we would know ourselves. The "essential" thing is: we should know ourselves.

Forum: Experimenter's Corner Sun, 04 Jun 2017
Topic: What are actually the K-Teachings ?

Dan McDermott wrote: Easy enough to talk about its deconstruction (people make a lot of money doing just that) but as we see not easy to 'do'

you cannot deconstruct it. There is nothing you can do to dissolve the ego. Every effort to do or not do something is still continuity of the ego, process of time. But when you become aware of the whole ego-process, of the walls created by thought, desire, fear, security etc, then you have to power not to give thought its continuity. And then there is renewing of the mind. We are not even aware how dead, hard and small our minds are. Once you break through the walls created by thought, there is regeneration of the mind. Then the mind is young, pliable, like the fresh mind of children who are not burdened by knowledge. But we have to become aware in our daily living, not as an abstract theory, but in all our relationships - at home, at work, everywhere. All philosophising and speculating about the K teachings is vacuous if we do not put it into practice. No act of will can dissolve the ego. The will is the prison-creating mechanism.

Forum: Experimenter's Corner Sun, 04 Jun 2017
Topic: What are actually the K-Teachings ?

Dan McDermott wrote: But what about this 'fear'? Have you not come across it? Isn't it what holds our whole 'act' together?

of course. Will = fear. Fear is omnipresent in our lives, even unconsciously. In every effort there is fear, in every relationship there is fear. Attachment = fear. The Ommen 1938 talks are mostly about fear as a root cause of will. Without becoming aware of the fear (and most people are not aware) there is no way of going beyond.

Forum: Experimenter's Corner Sat, 10 Jun 2017
Topic: Back to Basics

John Raica wrote: Perhaps, Jan, you should also mail a copy of this diagnostic to Mr Trump and his 'merry folks'

yes, Trump is a textbook case. It is a rare opportunity to observe the dynamics of the disorder in the open and possibly raise pubic awareness about the disorder. Do you feel any sympathy, any pity for Trump? Because there is no doubt, that the man is not happy and that he is completely clueless. He was happy when the crowds were cheering at his meetings because he had his admiration. But when there is criticism, he is incapable of self-reflection, but defends himself by calling the media "fake". I do not think that he does it consciously, he is protecting his self-image no matter the cost. He is, in fact, mentally ill. The real problem is not Trump, but the deep corruption of the Republican party who in their greed for power allowed this to happen, and also the moral corruption of a fraction of the american public, who did not see the red flags during the campaign - the vulgar behavior, the lack of respect, the lying. But are we capable of compassion, even to Trump and his "deplorable" voters?

Concerning John P, I do not know his "diagnosis", if he has any. To diagnose things like personality disorders, some psychogical testing is necessary. But there is little doubt that he has interpersonal conflicts and that he attributes false causes to the origination of those conflicts.

Forum: Experimenter's Corner Sat, 10 Jun 2017
Topic: Back to Basics

John Perkins. wrote: I wonder if we might do this, Jan? I recognise the possibility of a difficulty if we both remain as entrenched in our 'positions' as would currently appear, but who knows, some flexibility may be gained one way or another and a discussion might be rewarding.

Hi John, nice to see that you are not offended too much. I am not entrenched in any position. I think it was Dan who once told you "why don't you let this go"? I think it was well meaning but you misunderstood it then. You cling to these past hurts, to why you have been banned from some forum etc, and you will not let go of things, of these personal hurts. And even if the discussion gets uncomfortable, you seem to persevere in continuing it. You don't seem to know when to let go of certain things and not come back to them again. Simply leave all the hurts and perceived injustices in the past.

The general rule of thumb is, that if you are offended by something or someone, the problem is in you. You can be angry, that the others are not behaving as you would expect them to behave, or that they are doing things that you consider immoral etc. But everybody is a free person. If you are offended, it means that you are not free, but are trapped in some problem of yours, in some self-righteousness. It is always the ego, who is hurt, offended. So, Dan's advice to let things go is a really good one. What is there to discuss? Just let things go, and switch your inner attitude from "knowing" to "learning". If you already "know", you can never learn anything new. You must leave you entrenched position, which is the ego-prison, and only then can you really learn anything new. The ego is always the old. The ego "knows", "remembers the hurts", is "self-righteous". So let go of your old self, and start learning about yourself. Because that is what all of us are doing, learning about ourselves. And the contradictions of others are really not our concern. I do not care for your contradictions and anyone's elses contraditions, because they are your problems, not mine. Unless of course I want to prove my superiority over you, that I am more clever, and that I have fewer contradictions than you, or that I am more advanced than you, which is childish. I care only for my own contradictions, because they are the causes of my suffering. And my suffering is my only concern. Intellectual discussions of K teachings lead nowhere, they scratch the surface. It is really the deep emotions, the hurts, the fears, the secret wishes, the frustrations, the suffering, that we have to understand. And no verbal theory is going to understand that.

Some time ago you started a thread about innocence. K talked about it, that it comes from Latin in-nocere, not to hurt. So innocence is a state of not being hurt and not hurting. And only a mind that has let go of the old, can be innocent. So can you let go of all these hurts? Have you ever asked yourself what in yourself is hurt anyway?

Forum: Experimenter's Corner Sat, 10 Jun 2017
Topic: Back to Basics

Dan McDermott wrote: So there is sorrow, utter despair... and to be "thankful" at that moment of mourning for our losses, is to remember to not 'escape' but to stay and be motionless in the face of our weeping "arrogant beauty".

yes Dan, I agree with all that you have written. I would just add that an effort not to escape or an effort to "stay with what is" is again an escape, because it indicates that you still think that you are different from your suffering and that you can escape from it or stay with it or somehow operate on it. You cannot really do anything. You are the effort, you are the escape, which is the suffering. The will to hold, to protect, to gain, to escape etc. is the creator of darkness. And only if we let go of this will, which is the "known", the conditioning, can there be something new.

Forum: Experimenter's Corner Sat, 10 Jun 2017
Topic: Back to Basics

Dan McDermott wrote: Juan put up a link on Clive's forum to a small meeting of K. and friends where he addressed this for me in a different way. He was trying to get across the idea that life was "movement" as well as "non-movement.

I found the link. It is a 2 hour discussion and I do not want to listen to it. But what I think K meant by this "movement in non-movement" is the "unmoved mover". Sometimes K spoke about movement, other times about the "eternal becoming" or about creation. It refers to that aspect of Life, that while with its roots Life is eternally umoved beyond space and time, yet it moves and creates within space and time. Forms (you, me, the bumblebees) are moving in and are moving out (of eternity), know life and know death. But Life is one, nobody is being born, and nobody dies, life and death are one in Life.

19 posts  |  Page 1 of 1