Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
Discussion Forums

Vikram P's Forum Activity | 26 posts in 2 forums


26 posts  |  Page 1 of 1
Forum: Experimenter's Corner Tue, 06 Feb 2018
Topic: Evolution

I am wondering and just wondering..maybe going into abstraction in the eyes of others, idk: but i am wondering...will it be acceptable to say that depending on the placement of the observer as in whether placed as a human/individual or placed outside of that as in a point of awareness, the topic of evolution might be perceived and understood differently by each? If the observer sees itself as a point of awareness then i am wondering... if all time will be in the now? And thus all evolution, it's culmination as well as its destruction will be in the now? So creation, evolution and destruction all happening in the now? Coming into existence, evolving and disintegrating all in a moment. For example the passage of the 6000 years of recorded history or of the unfolding of the universe since the current big bang is in the now. The story of the evolving mankind is occurring in the now. In other words whether it's creationism or evolutionism, they are still in the now.

But if what i said is correct, for me and not necessarily for another, then the understanding of time has undergone a radical change, hasn't it? For an observer that is placed in a point of awareness the movement of time i.e. Linear time has stopped whereas for the individual placed in their individualism time is still moving and linear. For the former each moment is a new slice of creation, evolution and destruction. But this understanding goes against the current mainstream scientific paradigms for obvious reasons.

Again, i am not sure what i said can be proved in a lab but as i said i was wondering.

Forum: Experimenter's Corner Wed, 07 Feb 2018
Topic: Evolution

My apologies for not being able to make it clearer, please feel free to delete the comment.

Forum: A Quiet Space Thu, 08 Feb 2018
Topic: What is experience?

Hello Clive, thanks for the welcome.

Before i start a dialogue on the topic of this thread i would like to make a disclaimer since i am a newcomer and we don't know each other: i approach a dialogue rather simply which happens to also be in sync with what K suggested throughout his life and that is, i go slowly, step by step, humbly, and DO NOT give or receive any handouts. By handouts I mean providing or receiving any ready answers. My effort is to have an interactive dialogue in which the participants are meeting each other in clean motives, equal effort and not where one is doing all the work and another has their legs stretched out as a passive listener wanting to be spoon fed. Also i won't respond to declarative statements unless it includes a question. Does this seem fair and acceptable to you? if so we can proceed and if at any time my approach creates a problem let me know and i will stop contributing.

If we are in agreement then i will start by saying: In regards to your original post (without reading all the responses of others) and since you postulate that "experience" requires a "recognition"...... would it be acceptable to distinguish between experience and experiencing? For an experiencing without an experience? That way the experiencing is ever new?

Forum: A Quiet Space Thu, 08 Feb 2018
Topic: What is experience?

Thank You Juan!

Forum: A Quiet Space Thu, 08 Feb 2018
Topic: What is experience?

Wim Opdam wrote: This is a very good distinction to make, does this prevent a remembering of this action ? Recently someone stated that if one remember such an event it did not took place as such !

Hello Wim, your question is a good one but has jumped way ahead if i may say so, if it was me then i will be investigating on what all is involved in "experiencing without an experience". The same goes for Juan E.

Forum: A Quiet Space Thu, 08 Feb 2018
Topic: What is experience?

What is the first requirement of investigation and inquiry into these matters? How does one initiate and continue in an inquiry?

Forum: A Quiet Space Fri, 09 Feb 2018
Topic: What is experience?

Clive Elwell wrote: Without doing any searching through past posts, I have a memory that I already mentioned this distinction, Vikram.

Yes i see it now Clive, you have made that distinction. I had however followed up with higher octaves when i made that distinction by pointing out couple of other things in a question format and they are "For an experiencing without an experience? That way the experiencing is ever new?". The second question posed by me was addressing your question on the "disturbing conclusion" issue in your original post. Nevertheless, this then brings us us to the point of inquiry where i will ask you to walk me though how you made that determination/distinction? (Is there any other inquiry or insight you have pursued or came upon, apart from what you mention in that paragraph to arrive at the determination?)

After you clarify the aforementioned question and in the interest of pursuing the inquiry i will ask you then to walk me through (if you have done it yourself i.e.) to what are the implications of that determination/distinction in daily living of a human? How does that insight translate into daily living? What does it look like, feel like?

Forum: A Quiet Space Fri, 09 Feb 2018
Topic: What is experience?

Juan E wrote: Hi Vikram,

You said to Wim (and by extension to me too) that he had jumped way ahead from the initial question put by you with his own question, which may be ... But i was wondering myself if asking someone about the ending result without first inquiring about the possibility or not of what is proposed in the initial question (which was "would it be acceptable to distinguish between experience and experiencing? For an experiencing without an experience?") could be considered also as "jump way ahead" from the initial question ... more when you yourself said in the same post to Wim that "if it was me then i will be investigating on what all is involved in 'experiencing without an experience'"

What do you think?

Hello Juan,

Excellent question! No it wouldn't be jumping ahead in this case i.e. between Clive and I as both of us have already arrived at the same determination. If you will look a little closer you will see that i wasn't asking about the "end result" but still am exploring the original question. Your determination that i was asking about the end result could be an error of perception which will be cleared up as Clive and i proceed. But to give you a hint:

I am not looking for the end result FROM Clive as i already have done my own investigation and found out somethings and it remains to be seen if he has. To find out if both of us have seen and discussing the same things. That's why i had put "(if you have done it yourself i.e.)" next to the question . Since he and I have already seen the same determination, now we will inquire into the "translation" of that determination which is the proof of the pudding. Why is the proof of the pudding important? It has been my observation that "determinations" on their own are kind of looking for "answers" and once found the questioner or the inquirer stops inquiring and forgets that without a translation into daily living any answer or determination is just a theory. So further inquiry and clarity is needed for that determination to translate into conduct. Otherwise we are still living in these appalling discrepancies between thought, word and conduct as we see people live in. Talking about the most sublime of the things and yet living a life of violence and neurosis. Believing something, talking something but doing something totally contrary etc. Their alleged insights not showing in actual daily living. Something you see everywhere including this forum. And this is the reason why further inquiry is needed which you will see presently. Does this satisfy your question?

Forum: A Quiet Space Fri, 09 Feb 2018
Topic: What is experience?

To Juan, Furthermore, both you and Win have agreed to my initial determination of the distinction between experiencing and experience. Both of you have made declarative statements. But agreeing is not your own insight (being a light to oneself) and without one's own insight we haven't even began to look at translation into conduct. Thus i pointed it out that let's take it slow and go step by step and see if both of you will see what i have seen and not simply agree since simply agreeing is impotent. Therefore i asked both of you a question " What is the first requirement of investigation and inquiry into these matters? How does one initiate and continue in an inquiry?" but so far haven't had a reply or seen interest to go deeper into the original determination and make it your own.... to a point where it translates into conduct. The importance of which was touched base in prior response.

I have done the same thing with Clive and one of the two questions i had asked Clive was "how did he arrive at the determination"? His answer will reveal the line of his inquiry (which is what all there of us should have pursued and still can) but have't. Is this becoming clearer?

Forum: A Quiet Space Fri, 27 Jul 2018
Topic: Living and Dying in the same moment

K has been heard many times mentioning; "to live and die at the same time" or "to live and to die in the same moment". One wonders what does that mean to fellow Inquirers?

Forum: A Quiet Space Fri, 27 Jul 2018
Topic: Living and Dying in the same moment

Dan McDermott wrote: It is a beautiful image, isn't it?

Yes, one is aware of the deep tendencies in US to make images and live within those fabrications. One of the many expression of those tendencies can be seen in our fascination with cliché's (whether nationalistic or any other kind) and its effect of generating a corresponding emotion....but one questions; if the statement highlighted in this blog that WE are looking into falls into the category of a 'metaphor' or is 'symbolic'; as alluded in the following alleged 'true' meaning :

Dan McDermott wrote: Rather than the 'grasping' and holding on...accumulating, building, adding to, becoming,... it points to a 'letting go'

Is the statement "to live and die in the same moment" simply a metaphor and a symbol for something else? Containing some alleged 'true' meaning? Which will then be open to 'personal interpretations', each having their own 'favorite' interpretation? Or is the statement more along the lines of a fact as in "it is so"; instead of the many ideas/interpretations? Hence one is asking and inquiring; what does that statement mean to us? The fact of it...and not the idea of it. Translation of that statement in daily living is part of that fact; unlike ideas which can exist within the security of the head. So....what does that statement mean to US?

Forum: A Quiet Space Fri, 27 Jul 2018
Topic: Living and Dying in the same moment

Yes we have heard K say a million times that “the word is not the thing” as well as to his pointing out the dangers of accepting “second hand information”;which BTW we don’t hesitate to use, throw around or parrot as if those understandings are our OWN deduction’s; with a similar tone of authority; which simply isn’t true. A closer inspection will reveal that rather easily. Original deductions seem to have a potency and a translation into character that acquired deductions seem to lack. One can see the radical effects of such original realizations in the lives of people that have had those in ways that are a far cry from those that have simply accepted a premise intellectually. But that might be a good topic for another discussion.

However in this discussion we are looking into living and dying in the same moment. When you say:

Dan McDermott wrote: ...but according to our general understanding of these words: 'living' and 'dying' are opposites. One can't live and die at the same time...

One questions one's "general understanding" and asks; what then is "non-general understanding"? If the general and the non-general were to be put aside; as they should; in the interest of skeptical inquiry (Which K has spoken of many times) and which can be another interesting topic; the topic being that of true skepticism. Even though skepticism is being touted by certain people in the business of bashing people; be it K or anyone else; or jumping into the bandwagon of bashing any and all kind of tradition one can see that these people are heavily conditioned by their own conditioning and one questions if they understand true skepticism which by default requires a freedom from affiliation to any one or multiple sides over others; i.e. a freedom from choice....but again that could be a different topic for discussion.

So coming back from that relevant tangent, as we were saying "One questions one's "general understanding" and asks; what then is "non-general understanding"? If the general and the non-general were to be put aside". Does this mean we have to understand living and dying differently? Understand what they are per se? An understanding that is free from both the "general" and the non-general"? If that be the case; what then is living and dying in the same moment?

Forum: A Quiet Space Fri, 27 Jul 2018
Topic: Living and Dying in the same moment

Clive Elwell wrote: There is a strange paradox here.

Yes, that’s what Dan also said but in different words and to quote Dan“'living' and 'dying' are opposites. One can't live and die at the same time...”……but one questions if there is a paradox? As Dan mentioned there seems to be a paradox when looked at the issue through “general understanding” (quoting Dan). How then do we look at living and dying; not only “psychologically” (as you pointed out) but also “physically” without the lens of general and non-general understanding? Is it possible to do so? Obviously one cannot start from a presumption of “a paradox” as then one is not looking wherein the looking is free of any lens, right? So can we look at living and dying puting aside all our acquired ideas of the same? Whether general or non-general.

Clive Elwell wrote: One is tempted to say something like, “Yes, living and dying exist side by side, and this is deeply meaningful to one”, but as soon as that thought/image is formulated or expressed, it seems in contradiction to the fact of dying (we are talking psychologically of course). It is immediately seen that such a thought ‘has to be’ died to immediately. By ‘has to’ I am not implying any effort, any compulsion. it is certainly not an act of will. But it has to happen if there is not to be any contradiction. The dying is the only end to the contradiction of thought, is it not?

So one cannot hold on to any conclusion, any description, of dying to thought/feeling. But it can still be a fact, an actuality, something that actually happens from moment to moment. And it always comes as a surprise. I think it can happen in many little ways – the dying to memory, to a hurt, or it can feel immense, as if the whole universe is dying with one.

At this time We are not concerned about a 'methodology' or looking to prove or actualize the statement "living an dying exist side by side" or 'how' to "end the contradiction of thought" (any alleged contradiction has not been established at this point). Our only focus at this time is find out what does it mean to be living and dying at the same moment? What is living and what is dying? Can they at the same time and why should they? What does that statement translate to in everyday living? What all is involved in that state wherein living and dying is happening at the same moment? Why is it important? If it is..

Forum: A Quiet Space Sat, 28 Jul 2018
Topic: Living and Dying in the same moment

Dan McDermott wrote: Well for me it is important because it exhibits for me what actually happens in nature and perhaps the universe; that there really is no death, only 'life'. We have separated the two and created their 'opposition'. But for me personally , death does not exist, only 'life'.

Yes sir, the Holy Grail…..the proverbial ‘eternal life’. Something untouched by the pettiness and insignificance of one’s frail existence/’life’. One can say the exact opposite and point out that there is no life, only ‘death’, and they might be right. But our fear of death (as you have also mentioned) makes us cling to “eternal life”; which makes us look for arguments and fortifications in other ways to prove that there is no death. Is that a fact? Or is there only death?

The original authors of the statement “death does not exist, only life” have been known to proclaim that WHILE and during facing the ending of what we consider ‘life’. One wonders if the listeners to those proclamations such as US would be willing to test the authenticity of our adopted proclamations in 3D, say in front a person with a chainsaw coming at us and while it is cutting through, or to stand up against the numerous atrocities by people’s, organizations and Govt.’s that perpetuate them or do what is ‘right/just’ at the price of tremendous ‘personal’ loss’s etc…..and the list can go on. After all most of the original authors of statements like that have paid quite a price to make a proclamation like that. Obviously its not a cheap commodity that one can buy from a $20 book or a $2000 retreat, or living a life bereft of accountability.

Dan McDermott wrote: I could attempt to describe that but it would only be that, a 'description'.

There is nothing wrong in giving a description for purposes of elucidation, since it’s a joint venture in Inquiry and there will be further inquiry to any "descriptions". But perhaps one that hasn’t gone deeply into this question of living and dying but is trying to exist within the security of acquired premises will be unable to do that; as they have not seen the many facets of this issue; and most likely everything they say can be contradicted; so there maybe some fear involved; if that be the case. After all being contradicted is sort of a mini death.

P.S: One questions if a “person”; a “me” can ever know death or that living and dying is “one thing”….”personally”. So the question still stands, what does it mean to live and die in the same moment?

Forum: A Quiet Space Sat, 28 Jul 2018
Topic: Living and Dying in the same moment

Huguette . wrote: Living is action in relationship, isn’t it?

Is it? For people that are familiar with K; this statement sounds like verbiage which is deeply influenced by the literature of K and No, one is not sure that "living is action in relationship". One can see that one can exist/live without an “action in relationship”; and in some cases quite marvelously; without “people, things, events and ideas”.

Huguette . wrote: Life-action-relationship as we now know it is based on the accumulation of the past -

Since you have qualified your statement with “as we know it” I guess we can let it slide. But had you not done that then one would doubt if that is correct. If that was correct then the very statement we are looking into would be incorrect and not worth looking into. That said, even when one uses the qualifier “as we know it”; are they suggesting that there are other ways of knowing? If so; then what are they and how does that come about? But before we can get into those questions we have to answer the question ‘why is it that we want to know a different way of knowing’? Can “we” know it? Can a “person” know it?

Huguette . wrote: When death comes, one must let go of

One doesn't think "must let go of" is the correct expression, the fact is there is No choice; death will take US and everything we have whether we like it or not; whether we want it or not....and it will be as if WE never existed....

Huguette . wrote: But do I have to wait for the death of the body to be free of my attachments to the past and free of my desires for the future? Can I let go of that burden of time and knowledge now, while living? Then what is action and relationship which is not driven or determined by the past?

After referingr to the questions asked in para 2 one can then ask themselves, why have we labeled time and knowledge as a "burden"? Who/what has labeled it? Why do we have to be free of attachments and why are we condemning it? who/what has labeled it as such? Then one can ask, isn't the thought of freedom from attachments, time and knowledge an Acquired premise? Had it been our own/original insight then seeing and action would be instant, wouldn't it? That insight wouldn't depend on 'progressive' freedom, would it?

Huguette . wrote: To me, this ending of time is more or less what it means to die while living.

Again, this statement sounds like acquired K verbiage. If one was to ask you, can you elucidate on what it means to live without time? then you will be at a loss and if you attempt to intellectually explain it then chances are it will be rebutted easily. Or if one was to ask; do you know what the implications are of existing/living without time?then the chinks of a failure to understand that statement will be apparent. It might be a case of mere intellectual appreciation and subconscious repetition at best.

As it stands one is still asking, what is living and what is dying? What does it mean to live and die in the same moment?

Forum: A Quiet Space Sat, 28 Jul 2018
Topic: Living and Dying in the same moment

Huguette,

Last point first:

Huguette . wrote: I will not be at a loss. Are you interested in it, in looking into it together, or are you only interested in a rebuttal?

One has to be mindful of not making a dialogue personal (and maybe you can see the level of effort being put in avoiding the words "I" and "you") unless it is necessary and there is no way around it. The word "rebuttal" was used with the intent to clarify that it is very difficult to rebut authenticity and facts; and one may go out their limb and use K teachings as an example and say, His teachings cannot be contradicted or rebutted. (but that may be the subject of another discussion). However one will ask others to be cautious and proceed slowly before making an assertion lest they fail to keep it up and then it's just sad to witness that. Yes, i am interested to see if you can clarify what are the implications of living a life without time and we will take it up in a dedicated discussion soon.

Huguette . wrote: I don't see it. What does it mean to live without action, without relationship, without people, things, events and ideas?

One example would be that of a person who has withdrawn from "society" in the true sense of that word and uses nothing other than the immediate requirements for the sustenance of the body and has the insight into things which has the effect of him or her "not thinking" and since there is no interaction with society, there are no "events" happening to him or her...do you get the general idea?

Huguette . wrote: there is another approach to life, other ways of meeting life than through the past.

That was exactly what was being challenged the first time; but was lost; since you have repeated it again. Maybe if the challenge is issued a second time it may make one to look harder, so in response: Oh yeah? And what is that "another approach" that is more than an idea? An idea that is put together by gleaning information from multiple sources? Is one meeting life without a past at this time? Or one has simply heard that phrase and made it their own?

Huguette . wrote: I want to understand myself, mankind, as I am, and that can only be done by observing myself in action, in relationship.

Same questions that were asked in my last response: Why does one want "to understand myself"? What is the motive and what is the incentive sought? Get the drift?

Huguette . wrote: Isn't there a direct relationship between my action and what I think,

Not really.....In most cases our actions don't match our thoughts. A lack of uniformity in thought and action is an undisputed facet of human conflict and neurosis. We think one thing but act different, we feel something but act different, we mean something but say different and the list will go on. These discrepancies are the story of our everyday life and cannot be denied. If we had uniformity in our thought and action then the result won't be pretty and some examples can be used to illustrate the point such as that of JC or Hallaj or Shurawardi or Tegh bahadur among many others. Or that of K disbanding the order of the star. That's why i mentioned in my last post as well as this one, if one was to know the 3D implications of the things we are discussing casually, the intelligent will be cautious in getting involved in things like these......almost always there is a price to be paid and one better pay it (mentioned in previous post).

Huguette . wrote: I see that time-knowledge is a burden to the human being. Is the human being not compelled to act in a repetitive, uncreative manner by his attachments? Don't his attachments enslave him to repetitively act with anger, fear, cynicism, conceit, aggression, and so on? Does the human being not long for a life of freedom, of spontaneity, without compulsion? I'm not trying to convince you. I'm asking if you don't see that. It is what I see. If you don't see it, so be it. You are "free" to carry on with the past and I have no problem with that.

One questions if you "see' it, as seeing is action (mentioned in previous post), if there is "seeing" then there is irrevocable freedom. Is that the case? as to "longing", Yes we long for things, before it was for that Ferrari(one can substitute that with a million different things), now it is "freedom from the past", same longing; but objects have changed, right?

So it might be helpful if we can come back to exploring, what is living and dying in the same moment?

Forum: A Quiet Space Sat, 28 Jul 2018
Topic: Living and Dying in the same moment

To bad Dan deleted one of his response as that last response was getting close to our topic and could have been used to go deeper into it. That was a good post Dan and feel free to post it if you change your mind.

Forum: A Quiet Space Sat, 28 Jul 2018
Topic: Living and Dying in the same moment

Dan McDermott wrote: Perhaps you can remember what you feel was of relevance. Regarding that experiment of writing down one's thoughts, I would recommend it to anyone interested in K.s teachings and the process of 'thinking'. John R. shared recently a story he knew about the subject, maybe you read it: K. during WWII practiced writing out his thoughts in this way and later Rajojopal who knew about them searched for them but never found them because K. had hidden them all under a boulder in the garden!

Yes i remember what was of relevance and can address it but it is ideal to have the context in plain view for everyone. Deleting responses is a somewhat peculiar and puzzling habit, but to each their own. Not sure what "writing experiment" you are talking about and No i have not read the post you are mentioning and also one is very skeptical of Hearsay statements (in reference to biographical accounts).

Just saw your addendum "maybe his way of deleting them"---Could be, if you are comparing your actions with K's and asserting equality.

Forum: A Quiet Space Sun, 29 Jul 2018
Topic: Living and Dying in the same moment

Clive Elwell wrote: Is that the case, that it is as if we never existed, as you say?

"as if we never existed" is in context to the "person" and everything that goes and associated with that person. People die and nothing of them remains, not even their memory except occasionally; and that is even rare. People who strived, worked, fought for their things, accumulated, hurt others, ALL gone. Space fills the chair they used to sit and it has all evened out as if they were never there....that sir was the intent of that statement; a brief elucidation that is; can be more. Therefore that statement was in context with the person and everything that goes with being a person (which is what we really care about anyways; the person; the individuality of our own). That statement had nothing to do with the acquired esoteric principles you are trying to highlight as they are just that....acquired ideas (in most cases) and any student of K or any serious investigator perhaps won't be dabbling in ideas.

Clive Elwell wrote: Does not K suggest otherwise?

I wasn't aware that we are engaged in the business of interpreting K. Are we interpreting or inquiring? The poor chap spoke his entire life against interpretation and what are we doing? Furthermore, We have no way of knowing what K suggested unless we are similar to K, right? At best we can make an educated guess. We see this in daily living where we thought we knew what a person was pointing to later to find out it wasn’t the case.

Clive Elwell wrote: As we have discussed quite a lot recently, does not K say that we “live on” in the stream of human consciousness, the common human consciousness – which is where we have our existence while we are alive. And through our living, we are adding to that stream all the time.. So in this way we leave our mark.

I am not aware of the discussion you are pointing to but it sounds as if you are stating a fact, are you? You know what a fact is; right sir? Undisputed and verified by any and all reasonable people; either individually or collectively; right? That’s a fact. Is that what K said? In those words? Or have you paraphrased and interpreted the quote you provided? K was worried about people “leaving a mark”?! One must be joking, right? Because right now I am not sure if I should laugh or cry; to be honest; forgive me!

Clive Elwell wrote: I am not saying this in any reassuring or comforting sense! Just suggesting that this is how it is. And that stream of consciousness has been created by others leaving their mark in it – others being every human being who has ever lived. So in a way they still exist.

"Just suggesting that this is how it is"--Smile, That sir is not a suggestion; it is an assertion of a fact(your own interpenetration being emphasized as a fact) and i am going to refer you back to the what was said about facts in the prior para. No reason to respond to anything else in your para as they are your interpretations; being asserted as facts applicable to humanity.


Now as to the quote you have provided to make your case; few things come to mind: 1st it would be ideal/correct to cite any source as there is lot of paraphrasing going around; some subconscious mistakes and some with ulterior motives. Furthermore; It not only helps the reader to reference it if the need be but also make it a bit easier. It is also useful to establish CONTEXT (of what was said earlier and after the cited extract). I was surprised that a person such as yourself isn't doing it (i have seen some with questionable integrity not doing it on account of ulterior motive and you don't strike as one of them). For anyone interested in the citation for that quote; it is '6th Public Talk - 25th July 1974 Saanen, Para 16". Now some cite and yet cite it incorrectly/sloppily; jeez; and yet they talk about everything under the sun....just talk....Anyways; 2nd you probably saw my reaction to your claims/interpretations of that extract in the third para of this post and it is suffice to say that your interpretation is ENTIRELY incorrect and has led to those appalling conclusions that you are emphasizing as facts and the most painful part is that the travesty is done under K's name.....which will have the effect of confusing and misleading others that are less aware or have lesser research. Be cautious on what you say and write Sir; as WE have a responsibility of being responsible as no one else wants to be responsible. If one is not sure or doesn't know enough on a subject then its better to be quiet than to give wrong information and consequently be the factor for misleading others and making it more difficult for them than what it already is. And i am saying this in the way i am only because there is a feeling that you are a sincere person (and these interpretations might simply be errors and not deliberate), had that feeling not been there i would have spoken differently. I am not in the business of providing unsought interpretations but if you seek a 2nd take on that extract then ask me and i will try to give the correct meaning as a one time courtesy but will not go back and forth on it.

In any case; i understand the fascination behind the proverbial eternal life and the quest for "leaving a mark" (as mentioned to Dan in prior comments)......but the question we are still looking at is what does it mean to live and die in a moment? can we focus on the question?

Forum: A Quiet Space Sun, 29 Jul 2018
Topic: Living and Dying in the same moment

Huguette . wrote: What makes a dialogue "personal" is having a vested interest - psychologically speaking - in proving the veracity of one’s viewpoint or in convincing others of its veracity, isn’t it? Therefore I cannot “be mindful of not making a dialogue personal” if I am unaware that I have such a vested interest. Don’t you think so? It is relatively easy to spot such a vested interest in another, but difficult if not impossible to see it in oneself if one is unaware of one’s own motives, desires and fears. So there is a relationship between my thoughts-emotions - conscious or unconscious, acknowledged or unacknowledged - and my actions.

That is very true,; IF that be the case. IS that the case however? Or is it a superimposition of one’s own standards and images? Or could it be a hasty judgment on account of the shoe pinching? One of the way’s to find out is to notice wherein lies the emphasis, right? That is rather easy to spot, isn’t it? Is the emphasis on the topic or the person, right? Is it on the message or the messenger, right? Especially after being pointed out multiple times to go slow, focus on the topic, give the person a chance and not jump into conclusions and not get involved with silly social games. To make assumptions as if they were matters of fact (and emphasizing it as such), forming ill-informed assumptions based either on one’s own standards or that of pigeonholing. So usually the emphasis gives it away. Or it could be an error of perception such as in the case of the rope being perceived as a snake for a myriad of reasons. Or it could just be a projection of one's internal snake...outside.

Huguette . wrote: As long as there is unconscious or unacknowledged fear, motive or desire, there cannot be true enquiry, as I see it. By "unacknowledged", I mean being unaware of the inner movements of fear, desire and motive. So it is no good setting down “rules of conduct” for dialogue. The unacknowledged fears, motives and desires surely override them.

Yes that seems to be the case, it sounds like our inquiry isn’t on topic any more so maybe it would be best to end it at this time. BTW conscientious people; and those with self accountability in the least or those that care or those that are sincere....are usually mindful of their "conduct" wherever they go or whatever they are doing Be it a dialogue or anything else, as it is conduct that is the proof of the pudding and not what they say or claim...but that would be too much to expect; eh?

Huguette . wrote: These things we are talking about - dialogue, truth, thoughts, emotions, consciousness, fear, motive, desire, perception, relationship, and so on - are what K talked about. We don’t have to be similar to K in order to understand them. These are human issues. If we have to be like K in order to understand them, then can we ever understand any of it? And making guesses is of course of no help for understanding.

The same problem discussed in earlier para seems to apply here. One's listening ears don’t seem to open. What was alluded in this context is when we assert that someone/ X Y Z or in this case ‘K’ “suggested” something; we are claiming (interpreting) to know the exact meaning of that statement; which is an impossibility as we see in our everyday life. E.G.;To know you or to precisely know where you are coming from when you say something I have to be similar to you, right? Or vice versa. In order to make that claim logically we have to prove that we and XYZ are similar in most aspects, whether they be that of life experiences, wisdom, knowledge, mental and physical faculties, intelligence etc. Yes; we don’t have to be similar to K to understand human issues; but we have to be similar to K if one is emphasizing (erroneously) or putting themselves up as interpreters of K (or X Y Z’s ) words, right? Because that’s exactly what’s going on and one took the incentive of pointing that out. It was urged not to put oneself as an interpreter and make such assertions as if they were matter of facts.

Huguette . wrote: Added: Although of course we ARE similar to K in that he was a human being like us.... but I suppose that's not what you meant.

On the contrary, that’s exactly what I meant! One questions if we are humans, are we?! A human…as it means etymologically? Humane? Not someone merely having a “human body”; but human? Get the drift? So I definitely see a chasm between K and US. I see K as human; however not sure if WE are, are we? Apart from that I am well aware of differences in humans in relation to their capacities, their faculties, their resources, their conditioning's, their backgrounds, their affiliations etc.

Peter Kesting wrote: "What makes a dialogue "personal" is having a vested interest - psychologically speaking - in proving the veracity of one’s viewpoint or in convincing others of its veracity, isn’t it? Therefore I cannot “be mindful of not making a dialogue personal” if I am unaware that I have such a vested interest. Don’t you think so? It is relatively easy to spot such a vested interest in another, but difficult if not impossible to see it in oneself if one is unaware of one’s own motives, desires and fears."

Please see my response to Huguette since you are quoting his/her words and my response is going to be the same to you as well. Thank you for your tremendous contribution to 'this topic'!

Added: It sounds like our inquiry isn’t on topic any more so maybe it would be best to end it at this time?

Forum: A Quiet Space Mon, 30 Jul 2018
Topic: Living and Dying in the same moment

Clive, :-)

First, appreciate your comprehensive response. Your response is good enough for me but taking into account the attention problems of many/others/readers please forgive me if I point out that the response could have been more simpler had you decided to simply quote me (which is automatically highlighted as you know) and put your response underneath instead of the format you have chosen which has made an excellent post rather long & cumbersome with some inconsistencies. If the reader doesn’t read both of our posts thoroughly and more than once; it might be difficult for them to to understand it. Take this as a sincere feedback and not as a demand or instruction…..to each their own.

Clive Elwell wrote: Clive: How do you know that, Vikram? How do you know what was said and quoted was “acquired esoteric principles/ ideas”?

You will find out how i know as we get to know each other better.....its perhaps a good grasp of the subject matter; without going into details at this time.

Clive Elwell wrote: Clive: Well, just because something is accepted as a fact by billions of people (and who is decide if they are reasonable or not?) does not make it a fact. I thinker the vast majority of people would claim as a fact that the thinker is independent of his thoughts, but that does not make it a fact.

Correct! But that fact of the thinker and thought as you mention, is that claim coming out of one's own insight and being in immediate contact of the FACT; or having heard K and accepting it verbally and intellectually? If it is the former then there are what one may call litmus tests to check the authenticity of it. usually it has to do with translation of such facts into conduct and daily living. Apart from that there are other complications in your reasoning which can be taken up later. In any case; this is a good topic that will help to unravel many discrepancies.

Clive Elwell wrote: Clive: You are wrong, it was a suggestion. That is why I used the word “suggesting”.

Yes i saw you used the word "suggesting" but you also used "this is how it is". So it was if one may put affectionately; a sneaky move. ;-)

Clive Elwell wrote: An important question, it seems to me, (and you can add the emphasised phrase to all my (tentative) statements if you wish), is: is there a part of the mind that is superior in understanding to other parts.

This question has to be looked into another time and requires a dedicated inquiry.

Clive Elwell wrote: Clive: I have read the original in a book and in published talks. I have listened to the original discussion. I tend to accept, unless it is proven otherwise, that the K Foundations are very careful in their reproductions of the teachings. But before machine recording started, it is possible there is some “paraphrasing” in the older published talks.

Sir, the paraphrasing i was referring to in my original response is being done by the so called 'k-people' and the so called 'anti-K-people' in 'K-circles'. Hope this clarifies. Which is what you were doing and to which i was objecting in my initial response.

Clive Elwell wrote: Clive: What is a person “such as myself”?

That was a compliment. I haven't been in the forum long but when i joined i did read some posts and somehow felt as you being sincere. Note the use of the word sincere.

Clive Elwell wrote: Anyway, if you have evidence that the quote is wrong, please present it, I would be interested. The implications of the quote I myself found deeply disturbing (not saying there is anything wrong with being disturbed)

Sir, first lets clarify that what you presented was not a quote per se. It was an extract that you were quoting so technically it is an extract. Now we get to the interesting part: I never said the extract is wrong. I said YOUR INTERPRETATION of that extract is wrong. Not in parts but in entirety. So now we see that you didn't understand me correctly; perhaps.

Clive Elwell wrote: Clive: is this statement not a little bit assertive :-).

Yes it might be and i hope you will forgive me. :-) But i stand by the content of everything said prior to it and just to clarify (its interesting how we have selective listening), but just to clarify that the citation frustration wasn't directed to you but others.

Clive Elwell wrote: Clive: What wrong information do you consider that I have given?

The response to that will be in the following paras.

Clive Elwell wrote: Clive: I do not seek it, but if you wish to present your interpretation, you are welcome. But you appear to be saying “I will present it but with the proviso that I will not discuss it with you”, and I wonder why this is so?

Sorry Sir, if you don't seek it then i will not present it. As to your question "and i wonder why this is so?", It is so because I don’t engage in a discussion with motives of intellectual gymnastics (debating/mental masturbation) or entertainment (nothing else to do) or to prove a point, but having encountered many that do that i stay away from it altogether. If you recall i had said the same thing when i joined that i don't go back and forth for those reasons. Also if i get the feeling or detect insincerity i will also not engage. The same goes for what what we colloquially refer to as those that talk the talk but don't walk the walk. But a sincere person is a person close to my heart and i would love discussing with them. That effort is worthwhile. BTW humility and coming to the table with clean hands are essential too. Otherwise one just briefly points out or highlights what needs to be corrected or highlighted; out of...you may say...self accountability; and leaves it at that.

Clive Elwell wrote: Clive: It does seem to be difficult to focus on a question here on the forum, I have often remarked upon it. Why is that, I wonder? Is it simply the vagrant nature of thought? It is so easy to go off on a tangent. But often it is not immediately clear just what IS a tangent, and what is relevant. And if people just want to make statements and not discuss what they have said, as happens sometimes, this is another level of difficulty.

I hope i have answered or covered the last sentence of yours; if that was directed to me. To clarify one other thing; some times i capitalize certain words to emphasize them so the capitalization should not be misconstrued as yelling.

Forum: A Quiet Space Mon, 30 Jul 2018
Topic: Living and Dying in the same moment

Huguette,

Huguette . wrote: What meaningful answers can you give

What “meaningful” answers can YOU receive? How good is your capacity to receive? What is meaningful? By what and whose measure? What is the incentive for seeking meaningfulness? Get the drift? Almost everything one has said is meaningful, don’t you see it? Can you see it? If memory serves us right there was at least one occasion where you “didn’t see” something and it was shown to you without as much as an appreciation in return. Similarly; most of your knee jerk reactions so far have been rebutted. Isn’t there meaning in it? REBUTTALS have given you a new platform than the one you were standing on, isn’t that meaning enough for you to start working? Maybe if one goes back and reads the posts again they will see a lot of meanings to ponder on which we can discuss.

Huguette . wrote: what light can you shed on this question of living and dying in the same moment?

It’s not my job to shed light where it is unsought nor to give handouts. It is one’s understanding that we are inquiring, looking and investigating; not providing answers. One begun the inquiry by asking the question.

Huguette . wrote: There can be no dialogue about the meaning of living and dying at the same time - or about anything at all - if it does not flow out of a meeting of minds and heart.

By “meeting of the minds”, I don’t mean “agreeing” as to conclusion. By meeting of the minds, I mean the intellect approaching the question hesitantly, with uncertainty, with no expectations as to the outcome or conclusion, with humility, without knowledge. Uncertainty cannot be forced or adopted as a “rule of conduct”. Uncertainty comes from the intellect itself understanding its limitations, incompleteness, conceits and arrogance; that understanding comes from awareness.

By “meeting of the hearts”, I mean mutual affection, which comes from the realization that the other’s mind-and-heart functions in the same way as my own - i.e. in fear, anger, pretence, desire, and so on.

As one mentioned/highlighted many times in the past posts, these words are straight from K verbiage and not your own so one is going to refrain from responding to these.

Huguette . wrote: The intellect which does not face the fact of its fear is authoritarian and there is therefore no meeting of the hearts. We are in the same boat, sailing life in uncharted waters, aren’t we?

Are we in the same boat? One doubts it! One questions it, most likely not. I think we went over this briefly in a prior response where we were talking about the humanity of K. This acquired premise of "even playing grounds" is a recent fad of modern civilization and is almost suicidal to "believe" in, get the drift? But the fact is that it is an experience/exercise of humility when one meets another that may be gifted (note the use of the word gifted), or who has more than what one has; it could be anything. Once one see that; then it is also is an experience/exercise of graciousness to admit or acknowledge the other's gifts (who might be superior; as in a figure of speech) rather than feel less. So it might be of some use to put aside the acquired premises of subatomic equality. As to "authority"....the same response, be cautions in acquired premises and acquired verbiage such as "freedom from authority", those verbiage don't apply to most and it doesn't help them in anyway to simply parrot them without understanding its implications or without noticing a translation of those insights into daily living. Truth be said a good dose of authority (the fair kind) might actually do much good in present times; are people are out of control!(figure of speech). Freedom from authority is very different than what you are making it out to be.....and one will be hard pressed to locate ONE in billions of people who is actually free from authority. Ponder on this: can you be free of the authority of Newton and found calculus independently? (ponder on what was just said,as this particular topic isn't open for discussion). Does one now see where GRATITUDE is such a NATURAL outcome of that realization?! A gratitude let's say for one's teacher from whom one has learnt; and who is THE ONLY catalyst in the whole Black & White world that has the capacity to FREE the tormented human/s from the intrinsic reservoir of anguish that WE have become. And this "natural gratitude" in most cases is rather silent and full of life; unlike the many nonsense that goes around in it's name; which we can call pseudo gratitude....perhaps the topic can be taken up in future. So maybe it be best to get off the high horses, know where one actually stands, questions one's acquired premises, be mindful of language.......but i guess to each their own and i am all for what is colloquially referred to as "doing your thing", so carry on! :-)

All that said, we can start over on the topic and see if you can articulate something "meaningful"(In your words and not K's words); what is YOUR take (and not K"S take) on what it means to you to live and die in the same moment?

Forum: A Quiet Space Tue, 31 Jul 2018
Topic: Living and Dying in the same moment

Peter Kesting wrote: Don't feed the troll.

Right Sir, your very first post gave an indication to your cahracter and this post just cemented it. Thanks again for your contribution to the topic.

Will keep the blog up for any more responses or insults; whichever one you prefer; and if no further responses are posted then will consider taking it down.Thank you one and all.

Forum: A Quiet Space Thu, 09 Aug 2018
Topic: Living and Dying in the same moment

To Moderator Clive:

I asked you twice if there is a post deletion function somewhere that can be used should i choose to delete this post in its entirety but never got a clear answer from you. Reason for wanting to delete post is simple, there is a mountain of ashes in the forum/ many posts; and i would prefer not to contribute any more ashes to this mountain if it can be helped.

Besides, there is no point in keeping a post that allegedly is not "sensitive" and "courteous" according to you and 2 anonymous voters :-) so please feel free to delete this post if you can.

Forum: A Quiet Space Sat, 11 Aug 2018
Topic: Living and Dying in the same moment

Clive Elwell wrote: I did reply to your question, Vikram, in a Private Mail. I explained that you can delete your own posts, but not anyone else's. You will see the delete function at the bottom right hand corner of all mails.

Sir i am not sure if it is selective reading, selective hearing or something else, i have used the word "in entirety" both in the PM as well as here. Can i delete the entire post? If i can't delete this post then feel free to do it yourself. Evidently you seem to have access to that function as evidenced in the deletion of "peter's" nasty comment. In the alternative if you want to keep it, that's fine with me albiet i don't see any point for the reasons stated in previous comment.

Clive Elwell wrote: In a sense I understand the appellation “ashes”, in that what is insight in the moment can quickly be turned into knowledge by the mind – and knowledge is essentially dead.

Your understanding is either incomplete or deliberately misleading. Other examples of "ashes" are parroting other's words, discrepancies in thought, actions (conduct) and "words", discrepancies in claims(words) and conduct; and the list can go on. So Sir; it's not really the words but the person's character coming through those words. The character is the flame and the words are ashes. Similarly; conduct is the flame and words are ashes. Sir; words are simply a portal and impotent without the flame of character and conduct. As i said there are other factors too; apart from what i just mentioned; which in itself can be voluminous if elaborated and i see no reason to do so.

Clive Elwell wrote: And yet – rather than state that “there is a mountain of ashes in the forum”, would it be not more accurate to say “I experience the words as ashes”.

Not really; one of the expressions of "integrity" is to call a spade a spade.

Clive Elwell wrote: I was asking myself, are Krishnamurti’s words, printed there in books, a “mountain of ashes”?

Yes; they are to most.

Clive Elwell wrote: Surely it depends on how I might approach them?

No, more than that.

Clive Elwell wrote: So can I approach them with freshness, with eyes, as K says, “completely unspotted by the past”?

You can't at this time, but you are welcome to keep trying.

Clive Elwell wrote: And can I similarly approach everyone’s words in this way? Can I approach the whole of life, not from a perspective of what I know, from conclusions I might have drawn, but with a quality of newness and so openness? Without recognition, and so without turning challenges, which are essentially new, into experiences, which are essentially old?

You can't at this time, but you are welcome to keep trying

Clive Elwell wrote: This implies a certain spirit of inquiry, no?

No, much more than that.

Clive Elwell wrote: The secret, if I can call it that, seems to me to lie in the issue that you originally raised. It is essential to die all the time to reactions, to my experiences, my conclusions, my perceptions, my hurts, my criticisms, my judgments. Otherwise yes, all I have is ashes.

Good luck....dying.

Forum: A Quiet Space Sun, 12 Aug 2018
Topic: Living and Dying in the same moment

Clive Elwell wrote: So, you are suggesting that perhaps I deliberately mislead people, Vikram, and you do not hesitate to post this suggestion on a public forum. As I have asked you previously, how do you “know” this? On what basis do make what amounts to an accusation, or at least a speculation?

Sir, my response is still going to be the same; as it was the last time you asked this.

Clive Elwell wrote: And once again you turn a discussion from an inquiry into human consciousness, the human mind, into something personal. To me that is an utter waste of time, a waste of human energy. The energy that is needed for inquiry and understanding, rather than the accusing and rather childish “you’re wrong”, "you did that", "it's your fault".

And if one turns an inquiry into personal accusations, the forum degenerates into a confused mess of conflict – as one can see one most other forums on the internet. I started this particular forum, with moderation, to see if that energy-dissipating conflict could be eliminated.

If i was to use your words, i will say all that you say are conclusions. There were no accusations made towards anyone and one was simply trying to state some general insights without being particular; as evidenced throughout the thread (linguistic markers) except in cases where it was required to meet certain responders...at their own level. You weren't one of them. Maybe a second glance with a clearer head might make it clear.

Clive Elwell wrote: I have to finish there, no more time.

I agree with you sir....and Thank You.

26 posts  |  Page 1 of 1