Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
Discussion Forums

Sean Hen's Forum Activity | 886 posts in 1 forum


Forum: General Discussion Fri, 22 Aug 2014
Topic: The thinker is the thought

b teulada wrote: it has happened to me too, to sometimes see things more sharply than usual. and usually it is K (videos or reading) that brings about that effect. there must really be something about what he says that does away with a lot of rubbish and makes the mind a little sharper. i have always felt that.

I can certainly relate to this. Sometimes after reading or listening to K I find my mind "a little sharper" as B put it. The problem seems to be the difficulty in sustaining this heightened level of awareness and the ease with which one can slip back into the old pattern of thought going round and round in circles.

Forum: General Discussion Fri, 22 Aug 2014
Topic: The thinker is the thought

Jean Gatti wrote: do you need K to tell you WHO you are ?

Hello Jean. In my humble opinion, it's not a question of K telling us who we are. Any insight or seeing clearly must obviously be done by the person him/herself but K or anyone else can help by pointing things out. This need not entail dependency but rather cooperation.

We could take anger as an example. We all experience anger from time to time. How do we react when we are angry? Are we capable of standing back and seeing the anger rise in us from an outside, detached perspective? From this point of view, can we observe what is going on and understand what is happening? I can only say that, in my experience, this is an extremely difficult thing to do, but by discussing this question together we may be able to become more aware of the whole mechanism of anger in our day to day lives.

Forum: General Discussion Thu, 19 Feb 2015
Topic: A very delicate point,,,(to Jean/Jack/all)

Here's a quote from Krishnamurti (from Think on These Things) where he uses the word "love" as both a a verb and a noun:

Questioner: Why do we love our mothers so much?

Krishnamurti: Do you love your mother if you hate your father? Listen carefully. When you love somebody very much, do you exclude others from that love? If you really love your mother, don't you also love your father, your aunt, your neighbour, your servant? Don't you have the feeling of love first, and then the love of someone in particular? When you say, "I love my mother very much", are you not being considerate of her? Can you then give her a lot of meaningless trouble? And if you are considerate of your mother, are you not also considerate of your brother, your sister, your neighbour? Otherwise you don't really love your mother; it is just a word, a convenience.

Forum: General Discussion Thu, 19 Feb 2015
Topic: A very delicate point,,,(to Jean/Jack/all)

Pavil Davidov wrote: The problem with the verb being put first is that it is likely to become a method, a practice

Thanks for this Pavil. Krishnamutrti refers to this in the same dialogue:

Krishnamurti: No one can teach you how to love. If people could be taught how to love the world problem would be very simple, would it not? If we could learn how to love from a book as we learn mathematics, this would be a marvellous world; there would be no hate, no exploitation, no wars, no division of rich and poor, and we would all be really friendly with each other. But love is not so easily come by. It is easy to hate, and hate brings people together after a fashion; it creates all kinds of fantasies, it brings about various types of co-operation, as in war. But love is much more difficult. You cannot learn how to love, but what you can do is to observe hate and put it gently aside. Don't battle against hate, don't say how terrible it is to hate people, but see hate for what it is and let it drop away; brush it aside, it is not important. What is important is not to let hate take root in your mind. Do you understand? Your mind is like rich soil, and if given sufficient time any problem that comes along takes root like a weed, and then you have the trouble of pulling it out; but if you do not give the problem sufficient time to take root then it has no place to grow and it will wither away. If you encourage hate, give it time to take root, to grow, to mature, it becomes an enormous problem. But if each time hate arises you let it go by, then you will find that your mind becomes very sensitive without being sentimental; therefore it will know love.

Forum: General Discussion Tue, 24 Feb 2015
Topic: The teaching of K died with him........

Patricia Hemingway wrote: All the K discussion and 'dialogue' groups occurring around the world, the internet forums like this one and others we have probably all visited - all that happens there (and here) is that ideas are regurgitated, argued about, made-over, integrated, attacked, and occasionally agreed upon.

I get the impression that quite a few people who visit forums like this one find them disappointing.

Krishnamuri wrote "We are the world. The world is you and me, the world is not separate from you and me. We have created this world - the world of violence, the world of wars, the world of religious divisions, sex, anxieties, the utter lack of communication with each other, with no sense of compassion, consideration for another."

Is there a "lack of communication with each other, with no sense of compassion, consideration for another" on this forum? If so, should we find this surprising? Or would it be reasonable to expect considration, compassion and communication here?

Forum: General Discussion Tue, 24 Feb 2015
Topic: The teaching of K died with him........

Hello Jean,

Thanks for reading and commenting on my post

Krishnamuri wrote "We are the world. The world is you and me, the world is not separate from you and me. We have created this world - the world of violence, the world of wars, the world of religious divisions, sex, anxieties, the utter lack of communication with each other, with no sense of compassion, consideration for another."

Given the quote above, can I ask you Jean if you think that it is importat to show a sense of compassion and consideration for others when we post on this forum? This is a genuine question as I am really not sure if this is something which is valued here or how pople feel about this.

Forum: General Discussion Tue, 24 Feb 2015
Topic: The teaching of K died with him........

Jean Gatti wrote: I was just wondering why you have put the word 'sex' just next to 'wars' and 'religious divisions' ... what is exactly the problem you see with 'sex' ? Do you mean sexual addictions or violence or maybe something else ?

Hi Jean,

I think you're confused here. I was quoting Krishnamurti so he's the only one who could have answered your question. The full quote is:

Krishnamurti said, "We are the world. The world is you and me, the world is not separate from you and me. We have created this world - the world of violence, the world of wars, the world of religious divisions, sex, anxieties, the utter lack of communication with each other, with no sense of compassion, consideration for another..."

Forum: General Discussion Tue, 24 Feb 2015
Topic: The teaching of K died with him........

Wim Opdam wrote: From your posts I saw a question about an experiment and also something about how clear minded you are.

Hi Wim,

I'm afraid I have no idea what you are talking about here.

Forum: General Discussion Tue, 24 Feb 2015
Topic: The teaching of K died with him........

Patricia Hemingway wrote: It is preferable to embrace - and LIVE - the WHOLE of the teaching of K. That is the true challenge.

The easy way is to take one small statement as you have, and preach that.

Hi Patricia,

Thanks for taking the time to read and comment on my post.

I wasn't aware that I was actually preaching anything. I thought I had asked a question. Just to give some context, I quoted Krshnamurti (full quote at end of message) where he talks about the lack of communication we have with each other, the lack of compassion and consideration. My question wasn't inteded to offend anyone or to put anybody down. I agree with you Patricia that it's important to live the whole of the teaching of K. I would think that compassion and consideraion for others come into this whole.

My question was (to Jean) "do you think it is important to show a sense of compassion and consideration for others when we post on this forum?" I do think it's a reasonable question. I'm not sure what you think about this Patricia. From your earlier reply, it seems tha you wouldn't really consider this so important. Is that right?

The full quote from Krishnamurti is "We are the world. The world is you and me, the world is not separate from you and me. We have created this world - the world of violence, the world of wars, the world of religious divisions, sex, anxieties, the utter lack of communication with each other, with no sense of compassion, consideration for another."

Forum: General Discussion Tue, 24 Feb 2015
Topic: The teaching of K died with him........

Patricia Hemingway wrote: It depends upon what you see 'compassion and consideration of others' to mean Sean.

Does it mean that you cannot speak of human disorder because someone who does not believe that exists might be unsettled by the very idea of it? (Sorry Sean - that was a private joke, and I really am smiling).

Hi Paticia,

Thanks for the reply and good to see you smiling there!

I think it's quite valid to talk about human disorder or almost anything on a Krishnamurti forum. We might all unsettle each other from time to time but if we're learning together we'll probably come back for more!

Forum: General Discussion Thu, 26 Feb 2015
Topic: The teaching of K died with him........

Wim Opdam wrote: From your posts I saw a question about an experiment and also something about how clear minded you are.

Hi again Wim,

Just to be clear, I have no knowledge of a question about an experiment. I have no knowledge of any posts talking about how clear minded I am. I think you may be confusing me with someone else.

Forum: General Discussion Fri, 06 Mar 2015
Topic: Does reading books help to see what is?

The question was "Does reading books help to see what is?"

In my humble opinion I would say that this depends on the book and the reader. If by reading the book we simply add another layer to our past experience and we experience the present through the eyes of the past, then the reading will probably not help us to see "what is".

I suppose the question is really if we can experience the present without the filter of past experience influencing and distorting our seeing. Am I writing this message from past knowledge or am I free from it? Are you reading this message with new eyes or is the past coming in saying "what nonsense is this guy coming out with now?".

These are my thoughts, if one can use that word, on this interesting quetion.

Forum: General Discussion Fri, 06 Mar 2015
Topic: Does reading books help to see what is?

Jack Pine wrote: These books are a block to seeing what is because they add to the load of conditioning we are already which filters the present through the past.

Hello Jack,

It appears to me that you are making a generalisation here. If any book, whether written by Krishnamurti or not, actually helps us to be more aware of our conditioning and helps us see how our conditioning pollutes our experience of the present, then I think this is valid. I mean, if you read a book and after reading this book you are more awake to inattention, quicker to see a thought arise which distracts you from being in contact with what is going on around you, then this is actually helping you to "see". Obviously, if the book merely adds on another layer of conditioning then it is not going to help, but rather dull the sharpness of the mind in perceiving what is going on around it.

Forum: General Discussion Sat, 07 Mar 2015
Topic: Does reading books help to see what is?

Jack Pine wrote: Sean, I suspect we may be saying the same thing: That books can only take you so far. The rest is up to each of us to see for ourselves.

Hello again Jack,

Yes, I can see that we do indeed seem to agree on this. Thanks for clearing this up.

Forum: General Discussion Sat, 07 Mar 2015
Topic: Does reading books help to see what is?

randall merryman wrote: That's a very big "if" Sean. "if" it helps us to be awake once or twice a week, in our spare time, for a moment or two, is it valid?

Hello Randall,

I would say that being awake once or twice a week is probably better than nothing. Perhaps any moment that we are fully awake may lead to more extended moments of complete attention. Having the clarity to see a thought arise and watch it from the outside obviously requires great attention.

randall merryman wrote: If on the other hand it is a way of life, done when the situation requires it(not necessarily 24/7) then we might say it is an adequate action.

I would agree with you here Randall but actually doing this seems to be a great challenge.

Forum: General Discussion Thu, 26 Mar 2015
Topic: What is one's motive for change?

mike c wrote: I think it's a good, honest and fundamental question perhaps to ask- what is one's motive for change?

Hi Mike,

I agree with your statement completely and would say that this is a very good question.

As a reply, I would say that when we observe the chaos which surrounds us both externally and internally, we can perhaps see that change is necessary. If we were satisfied with what is going on in the world and in ourselves, I assume we wouldn't really be interested in change. Isn't that why all of here spend so much time and energy reading Krishnamurti's teachings and debating on this forum? Perhaps there are other motives. Do we wish to attain something, seem insightful, impress other people?

Forum: General Discussion Thu, 20 Aug 2015
Topic: Breaking Through The "Duality"

Aseem Kumar wrote: The problem always is the interest in giving answers (which can originate only from memory/knowledge/experience and so, are secondhand) and not in questioning...not in doubting all answers.

Hello Aseem

In my humble opinion, what you say here is very true. I understand enquiry as a process of discovering together, step by step. Giving an answer seems to stop this process. When an answer is given, there seems to be a certain sense of "I know and you don't know" which blocks further discovering together.

Forum: General Discussion Fri, 21 Aug 2015
Topic: Breaking Through The "Duality"

Aseem Kumar wrote: Giving an answer comes quickly and naturally to us. Do/can we discover nothing when giving an answer, Sean?

Hello again, Aseem.

To answer your question, I think whether or not we can discover anything by giving an answer depends on the question. If we are talking about something as complex as "breaking through the duality" I would suggest that we don't know the answer to this and the only way to progress is by exploring together. The answer to questions as complex as this one surely can't come from what we know already, can it? I think it's possible to throw light on complex questions by discussion which includes asking and answering questions. However, the moment we start answering question in the "I know but you don't know" style we cease to explore together and are back with exchanging information which comes from "the known". Any thoughts on this?

Forum: General Discussion Sat, 22 Aug 2015
Topic: Breaking Through The "Duality"

Aseem Kumar wrote: Is this not knowledge disguised as a question?

I really don't know Aseem. It might be. I suppose we could say this for all questions though. When does a question come from genuine enquiry and when is it "knowledge disguised as a question"? Where does the question without previous knowledge actually spring from? Are we aware of when we are tapping into previous knowledge to ask a question or give an answer? Is it even possible not to do this?

Forum: General Discussion Sat, 22 Aug 2015
Topic: Breaking Through The "Duality"

Aseem Kumar wrote: The suggestion here is to first explore to the very limit how deep and wide the roots of knowledge as 'answers we know' go in one's psyche .

Thanks you for his reply Aseem which I agree with. As far as I can see, the problem is this: Krishnamurti says that we must be free from the known (please correct me if I'm wrong here). We have read this and so it becomes part of our knowledge. We can now repeat this as a truth, even if we have not really undersood it. We might do this all the time. Alternatively, we can consider that Krishnamurti seems to have a ery good point when he says that we must be free from the known and we can experiment with it. We can, perhaps, in our everday lives, actually see the truth of Krishnamurti's point about the known always being limited. Perhaps if we can see the truth of a statement like this in everyday life, then there is the possibility of being free from the constant limits of knowledge.

Forum: General Discussion Sat, 22 Aug 2015
Topic: Breaking Through The "Duality"

Aseem Kumar wrote: (When) Can you 'see' that any 'truth/understanding' reached by 'experimenting' within this background will never result in any 'freedom from constant limits of knowledge'?

Hello again Aseem. Thanks for your latest reply. To be honest, I'm not really sure what you mean here. Perhaps I can make what I'm saying a little clearer.

Krishnamurti said (I understand) that to be free of the "the known", the past, we must be free of thought. To simplify, I believe that he said that to be free of thought we must become aware of thought as it arises. I know all this because I am fimiliar with Krishnamurti's teachings. This is knowledge. The next step would seem to be to actually put this into practice. Instead of theorising, can we actually "step outside" of ourselves and observe a thought as it arises? Can we look on at ourselves and observe what we are doing, how we are behaving? That is what I mean by "experimenting" with Krishnamurti's teachings.

Forum: General Discussion Sat, 22 Aug 2015
Topic: Breaking Through The "Duality"

max greene wrote: There is no "we" who can step outside of ourselves. "We" are thought, the psychological, a manufacture of the physical brain, and nothing more.

Thought cannot understand thought. There has to be an awareness of this.

Hello Max. Thanks for reading my message and commenting on it. Is what you are saying here the product of thought? Or is it something different? I have certainly heard the words "we are thought" repeated many times. That does not mean it's not true, of course.

I don't think any of us would argue that thought can understand thought. The key point seems to be this awareness that allows "us" to see and understand what thought is. I maintain that all we can really do is experiment with this through observation. Would you agree that when Krishnamurti spoke, there did indeed seem to be a tremendous freshness or newness about what he said? Would you say that both what he said and how he said it gave the impression that he actually did live the teachings?

Forum: General Discussion Sat, 22 Aug 2015
Topic: Breaking Through The "Duality"

Hello Max. Sorry, I went back and edited my last message a little.

max greene wrote: Try it. Can you step outside your thinking? Is it a theory that you are thinking and thought?

I agree, we can only really "try it". Experimenting with this is really all we can do.

max greene wrote: And would you say that thought can understand itself?

I really don't think anyone here would argue that thought can understand itself.

max greene wrote: Doesn't the seeing of all of the above require awareness?

Yes, I would say that seeing all of what you said requires an awareness that is very often beyond us most of the time. It seems to require an acute sharpness of mind and great clarity.

Forum: General Discussion Sun, 23 Aug 2015
Topic: Breaking Through The "Duality"

max greene wrote: Awareness is not beyond any of us, because awareness is life itself. Wherever there is life, there you will find awareness to the extent of the organism's complexity and capacity -- i.e., its sensitivity.

I'm not going to dig out a quote but I seem to remember Krishnamurti speaking about the "danger" of thought and how it arises. I think he spoke about it being like the danger we feel when we are at the edge of a cliff. The problem is that, in general, "we" do not see clearly that thought is a danger to our perception and "we" live constantly in thought. It does seem to take great awareness to be aware of thought. That is what I meant about this being beyond us. Max, are you saying that you find it easy to be aware of thought and free of it?

Forum: General Discussion Sun, 23 Aug 2015
Topic: Breaking Through The "Duality"

Wim Opdam wrote: Does one need K. Teaching to observe a fact?

Hello Wim. I think the problem here is that your facts and my facts might well be different. Don't you feel that we have all our different versions of the truth? Of course, there are facts like the sun rising in the morning. However, is it possible to observe something without thought coming along and making its own interpretation of these facts? Krishnamurti's teachings may well help one to observe, help one to become more aware. This is my modest opinion.

Forum: General Discussion Mon, 24 Aug 2015
Topic: Breaking Through The "Duality"

Wim Opdam wrote: So, don't make it your or mine fact and see the fact that this makes a fact into an interpretation of the fact!

Hi Wim. Yes, this is what Krishnamurti stated and it has been repeated in this forum many, many times. The problem seems to be actually putting this into practice.

Forum: General Discussion Mon, 24 Aug 2015
Topic: Breaking Through The "Duality"

Wim Opdam wrote: It's a fact on itself not because K. stated it and that's why it's not a theory, a structure but a fact.

Hello again Wim. I wouldn't dispute that it's a fact.

Wim Opdam wrote: One only can exchange words on this forum and not the facts.;-)

Yes, I hope we continue to exchange words here!

Forum: General Discussion Mon, 24 Aug 2015
Topic: Breaking Through The "Duality"

Aseem Kumar wrote: And "I" is the 'questioner/observer/looker' too here...and will take credit for any "stepping outside' of itself. Self thrives on projected goals and desires to be fulfilled.

Aseem, is this knowledge talking here? Or is it something else? As far as I can see, you are stating somethimg that you believe to be true. Is this a theory of yours?

Forum: General Discussion Mon, 24 Aug 2015
Topic: Breaking Through The "Duality"

Aseem Kumar wrote: No theory, but simple observation...

Is it the questioner who ask question regarding the issues of relationships or

is it the question that creates questioner or

do they always come into existence together in the same instant?

I have no idea. Surely it's good to ask questions though. Are you suggesting that questions shouldn't be asked? The problem seems to be that you already know something.

Forum: General Discussion Tue, 25 Aug 2015
Topic: Breaking Through The "Duality"

Aseem Kumar wrote: One is capable of observing the arising of thought, but only as 'thinker' who, in turn, acts on thought to produce a chain reaction of one thought following another. The main problem in becoming free of this 'chain' is that one has to come to an end as 'thinker' which means "I/you" entity coming to an end, but who is ready and willing for this? :)

Hello again Aseem. From what you've written, you seem to be implying that you have gone through this whole process. If not, this is just a theory. Are you saying that you are free of thought, of the known? (The "you" here is a subject pronoun which is necessary for constructing grammatically correct sentences in English and should not be taken as implying that the existence of a "you" means the existence of thought or anything else)