Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
Discussion Forums

idiot ?'s Forum Activity | 582 posts in 2 forums


Forum: General Discussion Wed, 27 Mar 2019
Topic: What is the ground on which inner silence may come about?

Sean Hen wrote: Does sitting quietly and just observing help? What about walking, yoga or a good diet? Surely "getting our house in order" is important if we are to be in any way attentive and aware. What do you think?

All those are important. They are all things K did. But very importantly, they can all be done with awareness, FOR THEIR OWN SAKE. If we do them as trying to lay a ground, like the questioner in the video, we do them with seeking, with desire. When they are a means, instead of an end in themselves, they on some level prop up an individual self. Also there can be resistance to doing them, a divided self.

However, as they fall into being natural activities with awareness, there is no residue, no division.

There are plenty of other healthy physical activities, too, like going to the gym, dancing, tai chi, etc. You don't have to select yoga and walking just because K did them. Although walking in nature has its own magnificence.

Putting the house in order can literally mean cleaning up. And so on.

All this comes naturally out of seeing what is and being free, yes? I see junk food or fast food or meat and there is freedom from it. I see a sluggish body that doesn't move and there is freedom from it. I see dirty dishes in the sink and soon they are being washed and there is freedom from it. So it is like the video you provided at the start of this thread. These things can come from freedom or from trying to accomplish something and there is quite a difference, yes?

And sitting quietly with observation! Isn't that seeing the busy mind and self in nearly everything and being free of it? That is a truly extraordinary freedom.

Forum: General Discussion Tue, 02 Apr 2019
Topic: What is the ground on which inner silence may come about?

Wim Opdam wrote: this seems to me to be an appropriate piece of teaching!

Ojai, California | 5th Public Talk 23rd June, 1940 Does violence cease through violence, hate through hate? ... In understanding the cause of hate, there comes into being forgiveness, kindliness. Love and understanding come through being constantly aware.

Thank you, Wim Opdam, for posting this K quote. Clearly there is a level of animosity frequently in this forum. I'm sure that people don't feel that what they post rises to the strong word "hate." Nevertheless, a certain reactivity is triggered here, isn't it? A certain wanting to set the record straight? Which is simply the self involved in some kind of self-justified reactivity, isn't it?

I hope we can read and take this quote to heart. It really is up to us what kind of forum we want to create.

Forum: General Discussion Sun, 07 Apr 2019
Topic: What is the ground on which inner silence may come about?

Ken D quoted K and DB The Ending of Time: ...K: In that ground there is no darkness as darkness, or light as light. In that ground, there is no division. Nothing is born of will, or time, or thought...

Darkness and light here are distinctions made by the mind, not the sensory perceptions that are very rapidly interpreted by the mind.

This quote seems unclear to the mind because it is K referencing what is, to him, reality: no division, will, time, or thought. The mind cannot reach here. So what is there when there is no division, time, will, thought? K and Bohm discover that there is movement, physical activity. I would say further, there is awareness, love.

They use the metaphor of "the ground" because this is the foundation that is present even underneath thought, will, time. Those are needed sometimes for a certain level of practicality, but even then, this ground of - I would say, clear openness - is present.

So K and DB are in discussion, which is by necessity verbal and to some degree intellectual, but K always pulls directly from the reality of silence - clear, simple, open awareness - and brings that actuality into the discussion, description, verbal exploration.

Of course, you are welcome to question and disagree with me but I offer that understanding, clarification of the quoted passage for your consideration.

Forum: General Discussion Mon, 08 Apr 2019
Topic: What is the ground on which inner silence may come about?

Ken D wrote: It's confusing because Krishnamurti says the ground has a non-dualistic movement, but he also says that there's a movement in darkness. Now, really, what does any of this mean?

Yes, I appreciate what you are saying. It does seem that they were trying to feel their way into the inexpressible. As I said, K seems to draw on direct connection to what is being called the ground. DB may not have had this connection but he had an extraordinary ability to listen closely and to push K into clarification. Perhaps this time he was less successful at getting K to clarify.

I have shared some of my understanding. Understanding can be grounded in the real, or it can be speculation. Here is some more of my take, make of it what you will:

A beautiful tree is standing. It is quite still. Yet there is shimmer from the morning sun. The branches very gently sway in a breeze. A squirrel is busy in the tree. And it is connected to everything else. It is a flow, and unstoppable process, even though one may have to look closely to see the activity.

Someone else glances at the tree. Ah, yes beautiful. Now I have to be on my way. What was I thinking about? Oh, yeah. Something in my past or future that was troubling me...

The ground. And darkness. There is movement in both. Yet it is altogether different.

Forum: General Discussion Sun, 28 Apr 2019
Topic: Are we really "progressing" in our understanding?

Jack Pine wrote: It's enough, isn't it, to just observe the act of identification as it occurs? To do anything else is a reaction which is an escape from what is happening.

No, this is wrong. A deep misunderstanding of Krishnamurti. K teaches transformation. K does NOT teach being aware without changing, continuing forever to be a violent, conflicted self.

Kirshnamurti, Public Talk 2, Brockwood Park, England, 10 September 1972: If you, who are listening, who are trying to learn... who are learning, if you don't change your conscious now, you don't change radically, how can you expect what the future will be? It will go on what it has been. And if you, as a human being, change the whole content of your consciousness you may create a totally different kind of culture.

Forum: General Discussion Sun, 28 Apr 2019
Topic: Are we really "progressing" in our understanding?

Here's a video called What Will Make a Human Being Change?

https://jkrishnamurti.org/content/what-will-mak...

Here's what K says at 12:30 in the video: "This is very important after the question of the gentleman yesterday. He said, 'I've listened to you for so many years. And I've not changed. I am where I started out.' You know? To hear such a statement, you cry inwardly."

This is amazing to me. K in this video is saying that he heard the statement of someone who listened to him for years and years and didn't change. And he says it made him cry inwardly! When have you ever heard K say anything like that? Ever!

But isn't that us? Vaguely aware but still violent selves. Not transformed. Not free. And that makes one cry inwardly.

Forum: General Discussion Sun, 28 Apr 2019
Topic: Are we really "progressing" in our understanding?

K, Public Talk 14, Ojai, California, 28 August 1949: To go into this question of self-knowledge and not be caught in self-consciousness, to go ever more deeply, more profoundly so that the mind is completely quiet that is true religion. Then the mind is capable of receiving that which is eternal.

Whether transformation can be taught is one question. Perhaps it cannot and must be discovered by each person. Perhaps it can be pointed to, as K does.

But is just being aware and yet stuck in the same self-centered ways what K teaches? And more importantly, is it how I want to live my life? Seeing my self-centeredness, my conflictual thought and violence inwardly and outwardly, but feeling that nothing can be done? Claiming that doing anything is just conditioned reaction?

So by explaining away that any reaction is necessarily conditioned, haven't I artificially relaxed the tension, made my myself comfortable with the mischief of my self? Let's be honest!

I'm screaming at my wife. But I'm aware of it. So it's fine.

Come on!

Real awareness is transformational. If I'm fully aware that I'm screaming at my wife, I immediately stop. There's no conditioned reaction, no ideal. She is a person I care about! What am I doing?

We have mentally excused our ongoing self-centered behavior. We say we are aware of it, but if that were deeply so, it would change. Moment to moment.

Awareness where there is transformation is what K talks about. Awareness where the self goes on bashing against reality, and oh, isn't it nice to watch it, is not what K talks about.

Forum: General Discussion Sun, 28 Apr 2019
Topic: Are we really "progressing" in our understanding?

Dan McDermott wrote: Is there 'someone' apart from the behavior that can "excuse" it, or 'accept' it. or condemn it, or justify it...or is it just the behavior itself and the so called 'thinker'?

Of course, "I" am the excuser, the accepter, the evaluator, the thinker in all its different disguises. So anything "I" do is just reactive thought. I can do nothing.

You see? We follow K up to this point and get stuck. I am thought, I am self, I am whatever problem. Since I am it, I can do nothing. Stay with it and be fully aware.

Now does K stop there? Does he say, "Great. Now just go on being a separate, conflicted self but with awareness?"

K does not stop there. He goes further. But do we?

To go further is to go into actuality. The actual is not stagnant. It is motion. Without the drag of memory, the cling of continuity. Moment to moment transformation. Moment to moment ending of the self. Moment to moment blossoming of love.

Forum: General Discussion Sun, 28 Apr 2019
Topic: Are we really "progressing" in our understanding?

Dan McDermott wrote: Can you say what this "going further into actuality" entails other than the 'staying with' what is? (If I'm understanding you.)

I just watched the end of the video Ken cited. K talks about putting your guts into it, your energy. He is largely saying this to a crowd where some are saying that they have not really changed. And K says that it is up to each person to inquire to the fullest.

It isn't a matter of will, is it? You cannot clench up your body in intensity and suddenly wake up, can you? I suppose it doesn't hurt to try. To see what will does, physically or mentally.

It's really a matter of caring, isn't it? To see the hurtfulness in this world. Then to see it in yourself, the hurt and the hurting you cause. To care and say this cannot continue. Maybe others are violent in more extreme ways than I am, but I am spreading conflict, too, on some level, that ripples hurt out into the world in an unnecessary way. You have to care and feel it.

You have glimpsed the silence of the heart/mind in rare moments. It must be clarified. Only the quiet mind is truly transformative. While such silence is essential, it cannot be cultivated. It cannot be successfully sought. But one can see it being covered over, with thought and self-centeredness. With guts and energy, this process of the self can be watched and gone deeper and deeper into. Inquired into.

We have been intrigued by K. But do we care enough to really put our guts into it? Or will we be content with a somewhat more aware separative self?

Forum: General Discussion Sun, 28 Apr 2019
Topic: Are we really "progressing" in our understanding?

Ken D wrote: The real focus should be on the mind of Krishnamurti...the mind that presented this teaching.

Yes, the mind of silent openness is key. It doesn't belong to K or anyone else. And yes, it is the source, the reference that he drew from.

But we have to be careful because the description is not the thing. You can read K's descriptions again and again until you've had your full, but only your own direct connection has any real meaning.

If you're into reading that kind of thing, there is a lot in his journals: Krishnamurti To Himself, Krishnamurti's Journal, and a third one that I can't remember the name of right now. But as I said, what is important is your silent open heart, not his.

Forum: General Discussion Sun, 28 Apr 2019
Topic: Are we really "progressing" in our understanding?

Jack Pine wrote: We conceptualize what we learn and our understanding becomes like a fly in a drop of amber.

This is the way it must be as long as we are grounded in thought. When we are grounded in silent, open love, it is altogether different.

Forum: General Discussion Thu, 09 May 2019
Topic: Are we really "progressing" in our understanding?

Sean Hen wrote: ...Some ordinary, modest people you meet who have received little in the way of a formal education seem to have open hearts...Doesn't this show intelligence and an understanding that all living things are connected?

Absolutely.

Sean Hen wrote: How have they learned that I wonder.

Of course, you'd have to ask them. But is it a matter of learning or of unlearning? Is being kind, caring, open hearted something that can be learned? If so, it is artifice, isn't it? But to be genuinely loving is to have clearly seen the harm of division, to have put it aside, and to be fully aware now, yes? When you are fully attentive and present, love is just natural, isn't it?

Sean Hen wrote: Here on the forum we can see that we are not always kind and compassionate to each other.

Quite clearly so.

Sean Hen wrote: Is it contradictory for people who read the teachings of Krishnamurti to be in conflict with each other as much as we are?

Of course, it is contradictory. Do we see it, look at it, examine it? And if we do, does it transform? And if it does not, why not?

Probably most of us here are aware of others causing conflict. But do we turn the microscope around 180 degrees and look at ourselves? How do I get challenged on this forum and take it personally as a threat? How do I retaliate? How is this building up of myself? How does it spread animosity? How do I feign freedom from self or other self deception? The self activities and the conflict can occur in large ways and small, gross and subtle.

The opportunity to follow myself in interaction is always now. Only by opening to that opportunity is transformation possible. And only through transformation, which is moment to moment self knowledge, which is freedom, does love have a chance to be born now.

Forum: General Discussion Sun, 12 May 2019
Topic: Are we really "progressing" in our understanding?

Ken D. quoted idiot from 2003: "The process" was a headache that lasted about 60 years. Dude, next lifetime take a little aspirin!

Ken, you made me laugh. Wait. I made me laugh.

Next, you can dig up the one I posted about the "Whirled Teacher." Or the one about itching powder.

Speaking of aspirin, I hope you all haven't been overdoing it with your birthday celebrations. What? You don't celebrate May 11 or 12?

Forum: General Discussion Tue, 14 May 2019
Topic: Are we really "progressing" in our understanding?

We interrupt this story for some court room drama:

Judge: The charge is murder in the first degree. Counsel for the defense is a Mr. Krishnamurti Jiddu, Esquire. How does the defendant plead?

K: Sir, can we go into this question?

Judge: No, we cannot. Guilty or not guilty?

K: The word “plea” means an appeal, a supplication. Which implies what? That there is an inequality of roles, does it not?

Judge: That’s right. I’m the judge. You’re the lawyer. I’m in charge here. Guilty or not guilty?

K: It is the small mind, is it not?, that sees matters in terms of black and white, in terms of yes or no, in terms of guilty or not guilty, in terms of…

Judge: Stop. Will counsel for the defense approach the bench?

K: Sir, what is a bench?

Judge: (Sigh) Very well. Let the record show that the defendant refuses to enter a plea. Therefore a plea of not guilty is entered on his behalf. Mr. Krishnamurti, you are qualified to practice law, sir?

K: From time to time I have been known to read a mystery novel.

(Later)

Witness: Da defendant over dere put four bullets in Bugsy’s head.

K: Now this murder… I wonder if we see the tremendous violence of it? The horrid lack of sensitivity. The appalling horror of it. Now, sir, this so called murder took place in the past, did it not?

Witness: Dat’s right. I don’t see nobody here now with a gun, do you?

Judge, muttering to himself: I could sure use one.

K: And being in the past, it is a thing of the mind, a mere thought, is it not?

Witness: Maybe for you. But last time I checked, Bugsy ain’t here no more.

K: Now sir, you are the observer, are you not?

Witness: Yeah, I’m the one that seen it.

K: And the observer is the observed.

Witness: Now wait a minute. Who you tryin’ to pin this on?

K: Sir, you are the world, are you not?

Witness: Look, buddy, I’m just the one what saw it.

K: Yes, you are the world. The observer is the observed. The seer is the seen. The doer is the done. The killer is the killed. The murderer is the murdered…

Judge: The nut is the nutty. Bailiff, remove Mr. Krishnamurti. Court will recess until a competent attorney can be found for the defendant.

K (being dragged out): The speaker is unimportant!

Forum: General Discussion Wed, 29 May 2019
Topic: Inward Flowering

Krishnamurti: ...the question of whether here, in this community, each one of us is flowering, and growing inwardly. Or are we each following a certain narrow groove, so that at the end of our life we will realize that we have never taken the opportunity to flower completely, and regret it for the rest of our life?

What am I doing in life? How am I living? How do I spend each day? Is there an aliveness, a vitality, a "flowering?" Or is there a pattern, a "groove," out of which I never look?

This is an invitation by K to really examine your life, isn't it? Enough with abstract theory. Bottom line is you. It's up to you to decide what is really important and then to find out if you are living that. And if not, why?

I really wonder, if one of us had posted like the K quote above that begins this thread, if we wouldn't be pounced on: What do you mean "flower?" Aren't you projecting an ideal? Don't you have an idea about "flowering" that is in the future rather than what is right now? And so on. Don't we often react to each other with knee jerk, superficial application of K principles, rather than sensitive and careful understanding?

But since it is a K quote there is deference. Which means, obviously, taking him as an authority.

It is important to look at your life, to take stock, isn't it? What do you want to do with the time you have? Is it possible to flower, to be energetically alive and responsive, without making that an ideal? What is your relationship to pattern, to groove? Is it necessary to break out of repetition or can there be discovery even while outwardly there is apparent regularity?

As always, it's up to you to go into these questions if you find them important.

Forum: General Discussion Thu, 30 May 2019
Topic: Inward Flowering

Sean Hen wrote: Do we have some understanding of Krishnamurti's teachings beyond a purely intellectual one? Are we actually living the teachings...?

Exactly. Like I said, the quote that begins this thread is an invitation by K to really examine your life. And it's not something to consider once and then toss away. This question can be renewed again and again!

The answer you give to kinfonet people or anyone else is unimportant. What's important is the real answer you find when you honestly look for yourself: at your life, your relationships, your activities. Is there an aliveness of freedom, transformation, love? Or is there groove, mechanical reaction, dreary carrying on through the same old, same old? Is there a wave of sadness, of loneliness, of fear?

Real transformation is not an endpoint. It is constant renewal, right now.

Forum: General Discussion Sun, 02 Jun 2019
Topic: The Future Of Humanity

I'm going to read The Future Of Humanity. I thought you might like to read along, too. You can find it here: https://selfdefinition.org/krishnamurti/Jiddu_K...

As I read, I'm going to comment and I hope you do, too. Perhaps we can together follow a K dialogue and go into some of the questions that come up.

I'll start off by saying that, to me, David Bohm was often one of the very best to dialogue with K. Why? Well, for one thing K respected him. He realized he was a very smart scientist. K was kind with others. But some were sycophants and didn't really challenge him much. Bohm listened closely, intelligently, and frequently asked K to clarify where a common sense view seemed to differ from K's. That's super helpful.

Bohm also respected K and felt that K had deep insights. But later in his life he grew disillusioned with K and they had a falling out. At the time of the dialogues, they respected each other, listened to each other, challenged each other, and brought out great points.

I'm going to read the long unedited versions that begin on page 69. No point at looking at only the parts someone else thought were important when we can see the whole thing and the contexts.

Forum: General Discussion Sun, 02 Jun 2019
Topic: The Future Of Humanity

Now the first word out K's mouth is...

"I"

The second word is...

"thought"

You may not see any irony in that, but I do.

"I thought we were going to talk about the future of man."

Forum: General Discussion Sun, 02 Jun 2019
Topic: The Future Of Humanity

So two humans are having a conversation. They don't begin by saying the self doesn't exist so there is no one to have a conversation with. They take it for granted that two human organisms can converse. The organisms may or may not have a sense of self as it is commonly understood. But they certainly can talk together and go into questions together. And perhaps this might have an impact on us. Us, being human organisms that exist, and who may or may not have a sense of self, whatever that means.

Forum: General Discussion Mon, 03 Jun 2019
Topic: The Future Of Humanity

Now one of the first questions they address is what a young person might do in these crisis times. DB says he might not go into science if he were starting today. K says science is helping. DB disagrees.

It's interesting to notice that they take completely opposite sides on the issue but they don't linger in argument. They remain friendly and continue to investigate other angles. Can we learn from this?

Does science help or hurt us? Obviously both. We can't go back to a pre-science civilization, even if we wanted to. Science is here to stay. So obviously we need to ethically use it. This is a huge challenge. Fortunately, only a limited number of entities control nuclear science, so we haven't yet blown ourselves up. But there are many other dangers. Profit seems to incentivize the use of science for short term gain at the expense of long term well-being for the planet. But publicity is a factor, too. If a company pollutes like crazy it doesn't project a very good image and hopefully there are consequences.

So science is a tool that can be used for good or ill. It's not so much the problem. The problem is humanity and its short attention span. Some people misuse the tool of science for short term gain. Others may realize this but have little power to do anything about it. All this feeds ecological disaster.

Forum: General Discussion Mon, 03 Jun 2019
Topic: The Future Of Humanity

Next DB suggests that going beyond the self might help a young person decide how to earn a living in this crisis:

JK: Are you saying one should really forget oneself for the time being

DB: Yes.

JK: Even if I did forget myself and when I look at this world in which I am going to live, and have some kind of career or a profession, and the unemployment. What would I do? This is a problem that I think most young people are facing.


So K says that there must be the practical taking care of yourself, of earning a livelihood. Forgetting the self is not going to change the need for activity to take care of food, shelter, etc.

Aren't we often quick to jump to the solution of "no self?" K is not having that shortcut here.

Forum: General Discussion Mon, 03 Jun 2019
Topic: The Future Of Humanity

Next they go into "psychological evolution." K says there is no such thing.

What does he mean? Most of us think we can make an effort to be a little nicer or improve in some way. Can't we improve?

What is psychological evolution and why does K reject it?

The normal view is continuity: the present proceeds from the past and there is movement into the future. The radical view K presents is discontinuity. Freedom from the past and and from the future, in the now.

There is no gradual step by step process to reach this radical departure. Because that again implies the continuity of time. So there must be an immediate rupture.

Forum: General Discussion Mon, 03 Jun 2019
Topic: The Future Of Humanity

JK: That me is not different from my consciousness.

DB: Yes. Well someone might feel - well I think one could say that I am my consciousness for if I am not conscious I am not here.

JK: Of course.


Here, K and DB have very casually taken an enormous step!

At night I go to sleep. At some point I lose consciousness. They are saying that at that moment I don't exist!

Now psychologically that is true. Since I am unconscious for that part of sleep, I don't exist to myself. But if someone else walked into the room and saw me sleeping, I would exist to them. Physically the organism exists. Psychologically it has vanished.

This is so, so important. There is a separate organism, even when the self is dissolved. But the psychological separateness is gone.

Forum: General Discussion Mon, 03 Jun 2019
Topic: The Future Of Humanity

Dan McDermott wrote: Another question that arose in reading this was about the brain's relation to the consciousness with its contents.

K says consciousness IS its content. Which is radical.

DB says, wait, can you explain? Ordinarily, we think of the glass and the water inside, container and content. Most people see consciousness and the content of consciousness as separate. K says no! Consciousness is its content.

Scientifically this makes no sense. But it is the psychological feeling of the awakened mind: There is no separation between consciousness and its content. The observer is the observed.

Again K is coming from the psychological which can be quite different from the physical. It's very important to get this nuance.

Forum: General Discussion Mon, 03 Jun 2019
Topic: Are we really "progressing" in our understanding?

Sean Hen wrote: he cooks up a huge pot of soup and goes out at night with a group of friends to feed homeless people sleeping on the street.

This is a great kindness your friend does. But what does he serve the soup in? Styrofoam bowls that are used once and then end up in a landfill? Does he serve meat soup? If so, what impact does the raising of meat have on the environment? There are so many details in how we impact the planet. It seems endless.

Forum: General Discussion Tue, 04 Jun 2019
Topic: Are we really "progressing" in our understanding?

Sean Hen wrote: My point was that even though we are in conflict, we can still do things which bring about very positive outcomes. That doesn't mean that we can just ignore our conflict. Of course we need to address it. However, when you help someone else, I don't think there's a need to analyse it too deeply. It's just the right thing to do on most occasions.

Yes.

Are we in an ongoing state of conflict? Or rather is every moment new?

Continuity is a story we tell ourselves. Moment by moment, the possibility of love is. The possibility of the unknown, of discontinuity. When there is open attention, the situation is its own response.

Forum: General Discussion Tue, 04 Jun 2019
Topic: The Future Of Humanity

As an aside to our reading of The Future Of Humanity, I want to say that once I was in Ojai and I heard someone speaking about how it was his job to edit some Krishnamurti - David Bohm dialogues. He mentioned that there was at least one conversation where DB seemed to come out on top. In other words, in one conversation DB seemed to make the more salient points and insightful comments. This was troubling to the editor and others responsible for release of K materials. I can't remember whether they decided to hide that dialogue away and not release it, or whether they edited it in such a way as to turn things around. In any case, I found these remarks quite disturbing.

Forum: General Discussion Tue, 04 Jun 2019
Topic: The Future Of Humanity

DB: Therefore thought will not be able to handle everything that happens.

JK: That's right. That is what the politicians and all the other people are doing. They think thought can solve every problem.


Don't we all love to complain about politicians? But guess who elects them? That would be us.

Anyway, I suppose it's true that politicians approach problems with thought. Some also with prayer. Would anyone who talked like K ever get elected? I don't think so.


DB:...there is a very strong predisposition, feeling, tendency, to feel that way, that thought can do anything.

JK: Anything. It can't. See what it has done in the world.

DB: Well I agree that is has done some terrible things but that doesn't prove that it is always wrong. You see maybe you could always blame it on the people who have used it wrongly, you see.

JK: I know, that is a good old trick! But thought in itself is limited, therefore whatever it does is limited.


Now the implication of what K is saying is that there is something that is not thought that is unlimited. And this unlimited can, in some way, solve problems in some unlimited way. Is that so?

It may or may not be. But clearly we cannot know this unlimited, if it exists, by means of thought.

In other words, the conversation has reached the point where we are thinking about something beyond thinking.

K is condemning thought as limited, incomplete. The implication is that there is the unlimited, the complete, which is beyond thought. But we cannot know, at least by means of thought, if this is so or not.

Also, there are some people who will take this "unlimited, beyond thought" to mean "God," in some way or another. And that brings up another can of worms.

Forum: General Discussion Tue, 04 Jun 2019
Topic: The Future Of Humanity

JK: That is fairly simple: because whatever action is born of limited thought must breed conflict, inevitably.

DB: Yes.

JK: Like dividing humanity into geographically - into nationalities and so on and so on and so on, religiously, has created havoc in the world.


Since thought can only be partial, incomplete, limited, fragmented, then inevitably it must be conflictual, the one limited part against the other. The nature of thought is to divide, which is conflict, which is what we have in the world. This is K 101.


JK: The very division creates insecurity.


They are also discussing security. What is security? Doesn't it mean trying not to have fear? And K is saying that thought is division. And division is fear, that is one fragment fears another: my country fears yours, etc. Division creates insecurity.

Again this is K 101, and anyone here in this forum is familiar with it. Nevertheless, do we fully understand the implication? Every single thought we think puts us at odds, puts us in conflict! Yet I cannot seem to stop my thinking! What to do?!

Forum: General Discussion Tue, 04 Jun 2019
Topic: The Future Of Humanity

DB: Yes, we have to get this clear. You see if I say this is a table which is limited, it creates no conflict - right?

JK: No, there is no conflict there.

DB: Now when I say this is me that creates conflict.

JK: The me is a divisive entity.


They zip by this but to me this is very interesting.

There are places where K talks about non-recognition, where even seeing a table as an item that is distinct from totality...

What happens when I call something a "table?" There is a dismissal, isn't there? I am no longer looking at the table, discovering its pattern of wood grain, its curves and its shape, whether someone once spilled something on it, and so on. By calling it a "table," the brain departs from discovery, puts it in a category with other tables, and judges it to be unimportant. That way the brain can focus on what it considers important.

This is something that we all do, that we have to do. Can you imagine if you gave importance of discovery to every object around you right now? The brain would overload! It's actually a good experiment. But in normal activity, can we be lost in minute discovery of the pencil on the desk? I've never taken LSD but apparently that is what happens when people do. Perhaps this getting lost in surrounding detail is good to explore at some point, but not when you have a job to get done.

So even calling a table a "table," involves division, the separating out of a part from the whole. We need to do this to live practically. DB and K are focused on the big source of division: the me.


DB: Yes. Whereas to create division between me and the table is not dangerous because in some sense we are not one.

JK: Me and the tree - of course.


Apparently K is not saying, "I am one with the tree." On the contrary, he is saying he is separate from the tree and this separateness is not a dangerous division, yes?

Many people think that the enlightened state is to be one with the tree. K doesn't seem to say that here.

On the other hand, he does seem to say that each one of us is one with humanity, in the sense that we essentially all have the same problems, so we share responsibility in the solution of those problems.