Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
Discussion Forums

idiot ?'s Forum Activity | 227 posts in 2 forums


Forum: General Discussion Fri, 14 May 2010
Topic: Sad News to Report

Ken B wrote: I have just found out that one of our old friends from the earlier Kinfonet website has passed away unexpectedly. Jyothiprakash Hegde, who also posted as Mystry died Thursday.

Hi Ken,

Thank you for posting this. I'm sorry to hear of Mystry's passing. He was one of the most prolific posters on the old kinfonet, often engaging in exchange with large numbers of kinfonet members. Although he clearly cared deeply about K teaching, to me his views were far from K's. My own interaction with him felt largely like disconnect. Nevertheless, he was generally polite, something that couldn't always be said about many of the old kinfonetters. But then what do I know? Since I'm...

idiot

and

jokester

Forum: General Discussion Thu, 28 Oct 2010
Topic: Sam Harris and Atheism

Sam Harris introduces this recommended reading list with:

While I recommend the following books, I do not endorse many of their metaphysical presuppositions.

It is exciting that an atheist is interested in Buddhism, Krishnamurti and other spiritual areas. To me, Sam Harris is the best of the neo-atheist writers, although I strongly disagree with some of his political conclusions.

Instead of speculating on what the other prominent neo-atheists think about Sam Harris' spiritual interests, it would be interesting if someone could dig up some quotes from them.

Often atheists are very intelligent, in the traditional sense, not the Krishnamurti sense. Many followers of Krishnamurti are also very intelligent, in the traditional sense. These people love to think deeply. I too love to think deeply sometimes, to get totally lost in thought investigation.

Krishnamurti teaching at heart is stillness of mind, silence, quiet openness to the THIS of now. Some great thinkers may investigate meditation, really explore silence. But many will be so enamored with thought, so thrilled with their powers of mentation that they feel they cannot let it go. Perhaps surprisingly, deep thought and deep stillness of mind both can involve loss of sense of self. The absent minded professor can be quite absent. And yet there is a universe of difference.

Forum: General Discussion Thu, 28 Oct 2010
Topic: What is meditation?

Kapila Kulasinghe wrote: Is meditation a system?

No. Any system is thought.

Kapila Kulasinghe wrote: What is the beginning of meditation?

The beginning is the end.

Paul Davidson wrote: I have always been mystified when he talked in later talks about meditation reminding us that the word itself means to measure and always concluding with 'meditation is not measurement.' There was a deep paradox.

Meditation is not measurement. To measure is to compare. To compare is to separate this from that. To separate is the activity of thought. Meditation is immeasurable.

Rajiv Fonn wrote: K said that meditation was understanding. More specifically self-knowledge. Are you fully aware of your daily activities?

This is K teaching. We are not restricted to sitting cross-legged in a loin cloth and chanting a mantra. The entire day is awareness opportunity, especially relationship. In relationship, I can see my greed, my cunning, my one-up-manship, my false humility, my rebellion. I discover my friction.

Although this is meditation, there still seems to be a self. What is that? There still is the mental reminder I give myself to be aware in the moment. Is that not a method? And while there's awareness from time to time throughout the day in any posture, has quiet, open sitting been too quickly, too casually cast away? K sat with a straight back every morning before the sun rose, in utter silence. And yet how quickly we avoid this simple, beautiful posture.

Self-knowledge. Vital. Not final.

Kapila Kulasinghe wrote: Here K says conscious meditation is desire.

Much, perhaps most, of what we do is for a reason. We have an intention, an idea or an ideal. We initiate action towards it. Meditation is the opposite of doing something for a reason. It is the actual.

Forum: General Discussion Fri, 29 Oct 2010
Topic: What is meditation?

Kapila Kulasinghe wrote:

idiot ? wrote: No. Any system is thought

I thought this is very important because if we want to learn what meditation is we are invariably introduced to some system or other.But any system is thought out-produced by thought.And thought is limited as we know & so it's product is too limited.So the outcome of a system is necessarily limited & therefore is the cause of conflict-so it cannot bring about peace!

-

nick carter wrote: Is meditation intentional, premeditated?

A couple of more things about this:

First, any system involves a crutch thought. For examples, "I must repeat my mantra." or "I must return to the breath." or to body sensation or whatever. The system is the use of a thought to prod or coerce the mind into a certain direction. Advocates will say that the thought prod is eventually dropped. But we can see the control of thought or eventual habit in the technique. How is that freedom? It's not. It's self limiting.

That brings up the second point. Systems or methods of meditation involve narrowing the mind. Is truth exclusion? Or isn't rather truth inclusion? Real silence is not a forced narrowing. It is openness, glass attention.

So a natural silence is not coerced. When you see a beautiful tree or a bird in flight, you naturally relax and momentarily lose a sense of self and other. Such a moment, outside of time, is meditation.

For many of us, the bird in flight non-moment is rare. So we ask, How can such moments be stretched or nurtured to recur? And we run smack into, "There is no method." We're stuck between a rock and a hard place. It's as if K has taunted us, telling us about the beauty of choiceless meditation, and then telling us there's no way to get there. We're stuck with our busy, divisive brains while he blissfully walks in beauty.

So K sneaks in some methods. They are as un-methody as possible. But still, if there's some intentionality, there's a little method in there.

Self knowledge, which is pretty much what others call mindfulness, which is attending to the moment, relationship and any reactions that arise, is a non-method method. I begin with a thought, with an intention, to pay attention to the moment. Then awareness is. In time, there is more awareness. There is awareness of unawareness, which instantly transforms into awareness. There is observation of the self and the nearly infinite diabolical ways that it imposes onto the present. This understanding of the twisting, tyrannical self and it's subtleties is vital. And the self, which is past conditioning in reaction, is seen in ANY conflict that arises.

Another non-method method that K introduces is to sit quietly. If thoughts arise, they are watched like leaves in a stream. Or another one is to follow the thought all the way to its end.

If we find ourselves with a busy mind, making choices, there's no point in pretending that it isn't so. We can choose to sit in silence and see what happens. Perhaps thought will happen. Or perhaps, automatically, silent openness flowers. The choice to begin is a thought. We're stuck with our thoughts and choices anyway. But something choiceless, something boundless, may happen in a natural, unforced way. Just sitting, thoughts may drop. Please, everyone, consider this exploration. To sit yourself down may well be, at first, a choice.

Forum: Everyday Life Sun, 31 Oct 2010
Topic: Of Trout and Treachery

Paul Davidson wrote: Today I ate trout.

It's not an act of treachery or rebellion. It's killing. That's all.

Some killing is necessary to live. Your body automatically kills off a certain number of micro-organisms. But we can kill a lot less than many of us choose to.

Thank you for the times you have not killed.

Forum: General Discussion Mon, 01 Nov 2010
Topic: What is meditation?

mike christani wrote: K talked of, in his later years, the flowering of All the senses, and in this there is no center. Could meditation be related?

Of course. But unless we investigate for ourselves, it's just description. Maybe we'll even aim for it. Then we've created an idea that we cherish about what we think meditation is.

How many times did K say something like, "Please, sirs, do it."

It's up to each one of us to sit, to observe, to open.

Then what is poetry and what is not is seen in any description.

Forum: General Discussion Mon, 01 Nov 2010
Topic: humor etc.

mike christani wrote: It just strikes me as funny...

It is ironic that someone talked so much about silence.

But it's also natural to want to share what is most important. And luckily he did.

Forum: General Discussion Fri, 05 Nov 2010
Topic: Seriously, contd.

nick carter wrote: egocentricity is our conditioning and that our conditioning is us, therefore we can do nothing about it because anything we do is just more of the same.

K said that his only concern was to set man unconditionally free.

He considered whether he was a "freak", a kind of quirk of nature that no one else could be like, and he rejected that. Instead he talked and talked and wrote and dialogued again and again and again to set people unconditionally free.

We seem to be in a bind because we seem to be totally conditioned and only able to act from that conditioning. And "there is no method" or even intentionality that can transform us. So we seem stuck.

But it is not so.

First of all, there are moments of freedom, moments of activity of love that spontaneously arise, where caring movement manifests without preconception or imposed thought. It may be rare. But once in a while, freedom is. So there is a glimpse.

Second, we can begin to see and be sensitive to the tremendous violence that exists. Wars are going on, with devastating weapons, and also in interaction, even in interaction here in this forum. There is conflict and there is violence.

As we become aware of it, we begin to see our own part in it. We begin to see how our own past, our own conditioning, imposes on the moment, fights with it, and generates conflict and violence between human beings.

Then we watch more and more how this reactive activity of memory works. All the tricks and subtleties. How control works. Dominance, submission and rebellion. Desire and sensation. All the many, many things that K discusses we watch and see in action, in what actually is.

When the entire thing is clear, in all it's intricacy, subtlety, deviousness and cruelty, when it is factually seen the way thought divides this from that and exacts damage in doing so, then thought ends. Silence is. Openness is. Simple, clear awareness. And out of that there is love.

Total transformation can only happen when the whole thing is seen. Clearly.

Otherwise, there is always fall back. There is just the incorporation of this kind of knowledge into a bigger bundle of memories. And now the memories are K-equipped and have all kinds of new ways for the self to fool itself.

Until I stop self-justification and see my own violence, my thoughts go on, oblivious to their cruelty.

Forum: General Discussion Sat, 06 Nov 2010
Topic: Seriously, contd.

nick carter wrote: When we say "when", we're either procrastinating or admitting inadequacy. If one is unable to comprehend "the entire thing", it's a matter of "when". Contrarily, if one can comprehend it, now is the only time.

Clearly now is the time. There is an urgency to the conflict and violence.

But if you're asking about my personal comprehension, you're welcome to consider me an idiot, if you like.

Forum: General Discussion Thu, 11 Nov 2010
Topic: Desire

nick carter wrote: If it wasn't for desire, where would we be? Are we better or worse off for it? Can we live without it? Can we find out if we can live without it? Does the desire to be free of desire bring freedom? Is freedom the end of desire?

Here's a quote from near the very end of Think On These Things that perhaps may surprise some people:

Krishnamurti said in Think On These Things: Wanting to bring about a state of desirelessness is merely a trick of the mind. Seeing that desire creates misery and wanting to escape from it, the mind projects the ideal of desirelessness and then asks, "How am I to achieve that ideal?" And then what happens? In order to be desireless you suppress your desire, do you not? You throttle your desire, you try to kill it, and then you think you have achieved a state of desirelessness – which is false.

What is desire? It is energy, is it not? And the moment you throttle your energy you have made yourself dull, lifeless. That is what has happened in India. All the so-called religious men have throttled their desire; there are very few who think and are free. So, what is important is not to throttle desire, but to understand energy and the utilization of energy in the right direction.

You see, when you are young you have abounding energy – energy that makes you want to skip over the hills, reach for the stars. Then, society steps in and tells you to hold that energy within the walls of the prison which it calls respectability. Through education, through every form of sanction and control, that energy is gradually crushed out. But you need more energy, not less, because without immense energy you will never find out what is true. So the problem is not how to curtail energy, but how to maintain and increase it, how to make it independent and continuous – but not at the behest of any belief or society – so that it becomes the movement towards truth, God. Then energy has quite a different significance. As a pebble thrown into a calm lake creates an ever-widening circle, so the action of energy in the direction of what is true creates waves of a new culture. Then, energy is limitless, immeasurable, and that energy is God.

Forum: General Discussion Thu, 11 Nov 2010
Topic: Seriously, contd.

nick carter wrote: But if one is incapable of comprehending "the entire thing", it may as well be never.

K kept urging his listeners to wake up and face the fact of non-duality, oneness, wholeness, etc., but the fact is that they weren't/aren't ready for it. You can't get people to wake up.

If we dwell too much on what people are capable or not capable of, it just feeds our own conceit, doesn't it? It's easy to feel that one knows better than the other person.

So one thing is to watch whether I am comparing, whether I think I am better, worse, or the same as someone else.

And supposing I do really think I have some insight that someone else doesn't. Do I treat that person dismissively, with contempt, or rather with kindness? Because if it's the former, how much insight do I really have?

Forum: General Discussion Thu, 11 Nov 2010
Topic: Desire

Well, I say "surprising" because often K discusses desire quite differently:

Elsewhere (1st and Last Freedom), Krishnamurti said: What is desire? Is it not the symbol and its sensation? Desire is sensation with the object of its attainment. Is there desire without a symbol and its sensation? Obviously not. The symbol may be a picture, a person, a word, a name, an image, an idea which gives me a sensation, which makes me feel that I like or dislike it; if the sensation is pleasurable, I want to attain, to possess, to hold on to its symbol and continue in that pleasure.

Whereas, in the Think On These Things quote he's discussing "desirelessness" and not just desire. So these are somewhat different angles. I find both beautiful.

We need to understand the working of desire. We also need to understand striving for desirelessness.

Forum: General Discussion Fri, 19 Nov 2010
Topic: Would Krishnamurti post in this forum?

If Krishnamurti were alive, would he post in this forum? Why or why not?

In my view, K dialogued best with one or two people at a time. When he interacted with large audiences, it was fine when he took written questions and dealt with them at length, but less successful when people just shouted out questions and responses.

Usually an organized K dialogue, like this forum, involves a certain number of participants. More than just one or two. Here we perhaps have a dozen or so active participants, as well as mostly silent observers who jump in from time to time. Is the number of participants an important factor in dialogue?

K, as far as I know, didn't participate in online dialogue because it wasn't prevalent while he was alive. Is there a difference between online and face to face dialogue? Are we - to put it kindly - more direct here than we would be face to face? And is that a good thing?

Forum: General Discussion Fri, 19 Nov 2010
Topic: Would Krishnamurti post in this forum?

nick carter wrote: A better question: Why do you post in this forum?

Well, I don't know that it is a better question. It is a different question and a good one and I am happy to answer it. I also look forward to what people say to the questions I have asked in the original post.

To be honest, I don't know why I do the things I do. Mostly I do them for their own sake. And that is true here, too. I interact with people in this forum for its own sake. Connection is beautiful and important all by itself.

I think what you're getting at is, Are there any hidden motives for posting here? And I agree that is a good question to ask yourself.

Do I post here so that others will think I have some kind of wisdom or insight? Is there a kind of ego stroke being sought? That has no meaning, does it? Sometimes people agree with the mistaken. Sometimes people disagree with correct. So accord is unimportant. What's important is what's true. Personally I'm not interested in seeking anyone's approval here.

At the same time, I'm interested in interacting respectfully. If I challenge and insult people, that's a kind of violence. If I am offended, that's self reactivity. Real communication seems to only happen if there is caring and respect.

Often we have different angles on things and benefit from hearing them. You may notice something I overlooked in K teaching or vice versa. So we can help each other.

And of course, we can be aware of our reactions.

So that's what I'm doing. And I don't really know why.

And now I throw your question back to you. Why do you post in this forum?

Forum: General Discussion Fri, 19 Nov 2010
Topic: Would Krishnamurti post in this forum?

max greene wrote: max greene United States 225 posts in this forum Offline

I believe Krishnamurti remarked somewhere that it was necessary for people of good will to come together.

Thank you for your comment. And I would be interested if you have anything more to say with respect to the questions I asked in the original post.

Forum: General Discussion Sat, 20 Nov 2010
Topic: Seeking

Why do people read spiritual books? Why do they pursue spiritual teachers? Why do many meditate, pray, go to religious services? Why do they think about these matters?

They see turmoil. In the world, in their relationships, in themselves. And they are wondering what to do about it. They see conflict, within themselves and with others. And they want to do something about it. But they don't know what to do. So they seek. They seek for a way out of this mess. Isn't this reasonable?

But there's no way out. There's only in. Going into it all. Seeing into the total situation. With complete seeing, there can be full stop, stillness. In silence and openness, conflict ends. Love ripples out in relationship. Transformation is.

There's a kind of not-seeking which is complacency. If I throw up my hands and say there is nothing to be done, then the violent warmongers swarm on. Then turmoil continues.

But if I allow the destructiveness I see in myself and around myself to give urgency to my own investigation, not seeking a preconceived ideal, but finding out the truth of the situation, then I take responsibility for change that is needed. Now.

Forum: General Discussion Sat, 20 Nov 2010
Topic: Seeking

nick carter wrote: Do you see "the destructiveness" in yourself or are you the destructiveness? Is there a you apart from it?

We tend to see conflict, destructiveness within as apart from ourselves, at first. We imagine a step-back observer apart from our anger, greed, cruelty, or whatever. But as you imply and K points out, the observer is the observed. I am the conflict, destructiveness or whatever. Although thought fragments the self, all thinking is the self, including the so called witness and the flow of various thoughts.

So first I see my destructiveness. Then I realize I am the destructiveness. Then I can do nothing. Then there's transformation.

This is formulaic K. Does it work? I say yes. Each person has to check it out and see if it so.

Forum: General Discussion Tue, 30 Nov 2010
Topic: Conditioning, contd.

So we see there's a war of conditioning going on inside. We see we are the war. What can be done? Isn't anything I do part of the war?

We also see in others that their conditioning is usually invisible to them. We can see how their view is tainted by their past, but to them things just seem real and not filtered or colored at all. They don't see their own conditioning. So it's very likely that we are the same. That we are conditioned and don't see it. How can I do something about something I don't even see?

An extraordinary K teaching is that conflict indicates conditioning! If I experience ANY conflict, it is my past rubbing up against actuality. If I am annoyed, what is that? Some past conditioning in me is in conflict with what is. If I am angry, greedy, envious, etc. then reaction is taking place and that reaction is the bundle of memories called me in friction with the moment.

So self-knowledge, observing reaction in relationship, is critical for seeing my own elusive conditioning, yes?

In the activity of love, which naturally arises from a silent open heart, conditioning is set aside and is out of play. Yet until we see our own reaction in relationship, which is conditioning, until we see each friction as it arises, how can there be true caring activity?

Forum: General Discussion Wed, 01 Dec 2010
Topic: Conditioning, contd.

nick carter wrote: I defer to you.

That's pretty funny. We both know that ain't true!

And it's a very good thing.

No, I'm afraid one conditioned person deferring to another does neither any good. You're going to have to be aware of your own reactions and I mine.

Forum: General Discussion Wed, 01 Dec 2010
Topic: Conditioning, contd.

nick carter wrote: But what is awareness for the conditioned brain? It isn't "choiceless", so what good is it?

I start with where I am. I look at what is now. Maybe I look and see a real mess. Okay. Noticing begins to clean things up. Maybe. I notice and find out.

People might tell you that liberation only comes by grace. Or they might tell you that you must passionately investigate. Who's right? Is it really an either/or? Or is there truth in both?

Speculation.

Thing is, I have to start with myself. As I am.

To measure my own awareness, to put it down because I am still conditioned, is itself a process of comparison, done by the conditioned self.

Enough. Let awareness be. Without evaluating it.

Forum: General Discussion Wed, 01 Dec 2010
Topic: Conditioning, contd.

So are you saying that since I'm a conditioned self and everything I do is conditioned that I give up? Any awareness I have is tainted? I'll just go on being cruel and violent and inconsiderate because I have no choice but to me messed up some way or another anyway?

Isn't there, rather, a fine line between throwing up your hands and living a violent life versus coming to full stop with full attention? The former being complacent acquiesce and the latter being transformation.

Forum: General Discussion Sat, 04 Dec 2010
Topic: Conditioning, contd.

nick carter wrote:

The phrase "action from outside the brain" is not mine. I think it's misleading. What I would say is that since the conditioned brain can't bring about radical change, whatever does is unknown.

I agree.

And I would say K used the word "unknown" in reference to the unconditioned.

Forum: General Discussion Mon, 13 Dec 2010
Topic: Actions by Krishnamurti As Teachings

There are certain actions that K took that I also take and consider very important:

  • Eat vegetarian.
  • Sit in silent meditation with a naturally quiet mind.
  • Walk in nature.
  • Talk with people about important issues.

Do you also do these things? Which of them? Do you consider these important? Which? Why or why not?

Of course, to blindly copy the actions of a person is to take them as an authority, just as much as blindly following the verbal teachings of a person is. Yet won't insight into life naturally lead one into actions like the above?

Are actions as important as words as teaching? Are any actions by K teachings?

Of course, action can be by choice, by volition, or it can flow without idea, from silent awareness, from love. The four actions I cite above could arise either way (with the possible exception of natural, silent meditation). If you live without choice, do actions like the above happen? Or if you live by choice, can you choose compassionate actions, or does choice always sully action? If choice always contaminates action, does that give me an excuse to act badly and uncaringly?

Forum: General Discussion Tue, 14 Dec 2010
Topic: Actions by Krishnamurti As Teachings

ganesan balachandran wrote: Occasionally i discuss with my friends on the message of JK without mentioning his name...

Yes, and of course, we are discussing issues here online, too.

Another action K talked about and put into practice was to "put your house in order". I think he meant this both figuratively and literally. I am not a slob but I'm not a total neatnik either. My home is mostly clean and yet there is also a small level of disorder, too. I think K lived in very orderly places, although he himself probably wasn't doing the cleaning all the time. So in this regard, I'm not a K clone.

Forum: General Discussion Tue, 14 Dec 2010
Topic: Actions by Krishnamurti As Teachings

Eve Goodmon wrote: So where are we? We need to stop eating animals, take walks in woods and get some space.... I read someplace that Hitler was a vegetarian....makes me wonder about following formulas.

Well, as I said, these things, vegetarianism, sitting meditation, nature walking, and discussion, may arise by following models/authority or naturally as one discovers.

You seem to dismiss them quite quickly. It is true that Hitler was a veg. But K also did these things. Do you think they are unimportant things that he did? Like the fancy brand of shoes he liked to wear? To me, these are beautiful and vitally important activities. To me, they are not incidental at all to K teaching but essential expressions of it.

Part of what got me to start this thread is the question in the Kinfonet questionnaire about making the teachings practicable. To me these are highly practical aspects of the teaching that naturally flow from a sensitive life.

Forum: General Discussion Tue, 14 Dec 2010
Topic: Actions by Krishnamurti As Teachings

Kapila Kulasinghe wrote: Yes, I do.All four.I consider these to be extremely important & vital.

I have to say that I am very happy to hear that, Kapila. Like you, I consider these four things extremely important and vital. It is no accident that K did these things and they naturally flow out of insight into life.

Sometimes I feel very different from other people. Lots of people, including lots of people interested in K, do not feel that things like this are so important. I'm sure that you and I are quite different in many ways. But we seem to be quite in agreement about these matters.

Part of my understanding of "You are the world" is that we are all not so different. Of course, we are all unique in many particulars. But in many ways, we share the same suffering, dissatisfaction, joy, and so on. That is how we can understand and relate to one another. And yet, even though at base we may not be so different, I rarely encounter someone who deeply values vegetarianism, real meditation, walks in nature and discussion of matters like this. There's a strange and beautiful aloneness, to be together with everyone and everything, and yet...

Forum: General Discussion Sun, 19 Dec 2010
Topic: Actions by Krishnamurti As Teachings

One of the reasons I started this thread is that I was reading all the answers to the Kinfonet interview question about whether the teachings could be made more practical. I discovered and very much appreciated the answer by prasad mulupuri, someone who became a kinfonet member, answered some interview questions and then vanished without posting in the forums. His answer is at: http://www.kinfonet.org/profiles/520-prasad-mul... and begins: "Krishnaji is nothing if he is not "practicable"." And then he lists a number of practical K teachings.

This got me thinking about K's actions as teachings.

Forum: General Discussion Tue, 21 Dec 2010
Topic: Actions by Krishnamurti As Teachings

nick carter wrote: Squalor I've observed, but "squalidity"?

Obviously, Mr. prasad mulupuri, whom Eve Goodmon is quoting, is not perfect in his English, punctuation, etc. Of much more importance are his ideas, yes?

Forum: General Discussion Sun, 06 Feb 2011
Topic: Dear Krishnaji, no how and no where,we can't do it? Why?

We think we have to do. The significant is not done. It happens. When we get out of the way.

Forum: General Discussion Sun, 06 Feb 2011
Topic: Has K shown you anything?

There is freedom to investigate

Which is having no authority

No books, no guru, that can sway

And there is the freedom of love

Which is free of the past, of self, of thought

I learned this from an authority

Named Krishnamurti

From whom I am free

Or am I?

The speaker does not matter