Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
Discussion Forums

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


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

Dan McDermott wrote: Here is the way I 'think' about my/our situation: We each live in our own "field of reality", we don't realise this, because it has always been so.

Hello Dan. In my humble opinion, you have hit the nail on the head here.

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

Aseem Kumar wrote: The understanding of 'free' here is this:

Hello Aseem. I'm not really sure as I found your answer a little confusing, but you seem to be saying that you have gone through some process and are now free of thought. Is that right? You are now trying to help the rest of us who, in your opinion, are deluded to some extent (for example, my own case when I spoke about observing thought from the outside). Would you say that is accurate?

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

George Lanroh wrote: Hello Sean, Aseem and all.

I hope you don't mind if I jump in and say something here. Over the years I have observed a road block here at Kinfonet and other locations of enquiry regarding who or what is free of the known. Often though it is not the case here and now, someone who has given the impression of freedom is met with jealousy and or attack and last deserved skepticism.

Hello George, thanks for reading and commenting and of course I don't mind at all your "jumping in" here.

You talk about "someone who has given the impression of freedom". I wonder if you would like to elaborate on that? How does one give that impression? I know that reading or listening to Krishnamurti I certanly had a strong impression of freedom. I found that what he had to say was very communicative and had a certain quality of newness, freshness that is difficult to describe but which I felt very strongly.

Jealousy and attack are certainly negative. Is perhaps a certain level of sceptecism not a healthy thing? We are all here to learn and understand (I think) so a certain amount of questioning may help understanding if it does not lead to offence. Would you agree with that?

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

Aseem Kumar wrote: What is it in my post that gave you the impression that I am trying to eradicate 'delusion' in anyone?

Hello again Aseem. I hope I haven't offended you as that was not my intention. We seem to differ in our conclusions, based on our mutual observations, about how to experiment with being free from knowledge and "the known". Quite simply, I do sometimes, often very fleetingly, become silent and simply observe. In this silence there is, I feel, a possibility of observing without the "me" being present. I may be wrong but I got the impression that you felt that this wasn't valid.

Forum: General Discussion Wed, 26 Aug 2015
Topic: Breaking Through The "Duality"

Wim Opdam wrote: When there is Silence, there is no you.

Hello Wim. Yes, that is my, er, conclusion as well :)

Forum: General Discussion Wed, 26 Aug 2015
Topic: Breaking Through The "Duality"

George Lanroh wrote: I sense one gives the impression that one is not a captive of psychological time when that speaker is using time instead of what commonly happens time is using the speaker. Time for the purpose of our talk can only use a solid object :) Time uses our assumptions about ourselves

Hello again George. Thanks for giving such a comprehensive reply to the question I asked you. I need to reflect on what you wrote.

Forum: General Discussion Wed, 26 Aug 2015
Topic: Breaking Through The "Duality"

George Lanroh wrote: Completely, what becomes difficult is when a speaker or a listener which should alternate, if one or both become unconscious of their intentions and the intentions become a witch hunt performed by unconscious ego identifications or a speaker forgets to be a listener and also becomes unconscious of ego identifications, then it becomes a slumber party :)

Hi again George, thanks for replying. I had to look up "slumber party" in the dictionary and it made me laugh. But yes, I agree with everything you said and let's hope we can avoid all this here as it's no laughing matter.

Forum: General Discussion Wed, 26 Aug 2015
Topic: Breaking Through The "Duality"

Aseem Kumar wrote: It will do no harm if one were to look at this not from the angle of "silence", but from "thought itself inducing a state of being still for certain moments" and then labeling that state as 'silence'.

If that is what you believe Aseem, that is your truth. I stick with silence. Silence is silence. No thought.

Forum: General Discussion Wed, 26 Aug 2015
Topic: Breaking Through The "Duality"

Aseem Kumar wrote: It will do no harm if one were to look at this not from the angle of "silence", but from "thought itself inducing a state of being still for certain moments" and then labeling that state as 'silence'.

"I wonder if you have ever walked along a crowded street, or a lonely road, and just looked at things without thought? There is a state of observation without the interference of thought. Though you are aware of everything about you, and you recognize the person, the mountain, the tree, or the oncoming car, yet the mind is not functioning in the usual pattern of thought. I don't know if this has ever happened to you. Do try it sometime when you are driving or walking. Just look without thought; observe without the reaction which breeds thought. Though you recognize color and form, though you see the stream, the car, the goat, the bus, there is no reaction, but merely negative observation; and that very state of so-called negative observation is action. Such a mind can utilize knowledge in carrying out what it has to do, but it is free of thought in the sense that it is not functioning in terms of reaction. With such a mind, a mind that is attentive without reaction,you can go to the office, and all the rest of it."

Krishnamurti, Collected Works, Vol. XIV,205,Choiceless Awareness

Forum: General Discussion Wed, 26 Aug 2015
Topic: Breaking Through The "Duality"

Aseem Kumar wrote: I am ok with this.

Ok, thanks Aseem. I've enjoyed the discussion we've had.

Forum: General Discussion Thu, 27 Aug 2015
Topic: Has it worked then?

Brian Smith wrote: Anyway, still I'd like to ask, has anyone had anything they would define as a transformation from their study of Krishnamurti?

Hello Brian. I don't know if anyone has had a transformation or not. Surely the fact that millions of people have access to the teachings means that there is hope of such transformation. Perhaps there is a certain element of "inward flowering" taking place with some people who are in contact with the teachings. Krishnamurti talked about inward flowering in the following way:

"Krishnamurti: I think it would be good if we could talk over together this morning 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? Could we go into that?

We should ask, I think, not only now as students at Brockwood, but also as educators, whether we are inwardly and perhaps also outwardly - they are really related - whether we are growing, not physically taller or stronger, but inwardly, psychologically, flowering.

I mean by that word flowering that nothing hinders us, nothing blocks or prevents us from actually growing deeply, inwardly. Most of us hardly ever flower, grow, bloom. Something happens in the course of our life which stultifies us, deadens us, so that there is no deep inward nourishment."

J. Krishnamurti Inward Flowering Dialogue with Students and Staff Brockwood Park 1976

Forum: General Discussion Sat, 29 Aug 2015
Topic: Has it worked then?

aub b wrote: Look, Brian, Jack, instead of throwing accusations, suppositions or images on each other, why not finding out what transformation is or means, together ? I don't know. Let's find out, if you wish...

Hello Aub. I hope you don't mind me jumping in here to respond to a comment that you addressed to Brian and Jack. What you say here about finding out together seems to make a lot of sense. I wonder if we can actually explore what transformation is together. Can one actually enquire, together with others, with an open mind and an open heart? Or is this simply too difficult?

Forum: General Discussion Sat, 29 Aug 2015
Topic: Has it worked then?

Pavil Davidov wrote: We know no more about transformation than we do about unicorns, Sean. When approaching something we do not know in any shape or form, but have only heard talk of, what does it mean to "discuss together?"

Hello Pavil. Doesn't what you state above constitute discussing transformation together? Related to this, Krishnamurti talked about "Inward flowering" in the following way:

Krishnamurti: I think it would be good if we could talk over together this morning the question of whether here, in this community, each one of us is flowering, and growing inwardly. (J. Krishnamurti Inward Flowering Dialogue with Students and Staff Brockwood Park 1976)

I think it would be interesting to discuss the question above.

Forum: General Discussion Sat, 29 Aug 2015
Topic: Has it worked then?

Jack Pine wrote: What question? What is the question you want to discuss and what is there to discuss? Either you are flowering inwardly or you're not. What is there to discuss? Why do you want to discuss something like that? Are you bored and looking for entertainment or what?

Hello Jack. You sound quite angry but I night be wrong. The question is this - are you flowering inwardly? As to the "why ask this question?", I suppose it's this - many of us here spend a great deal of time reading and listening to Krishnamurti. I think it's useful to reflect together on to what extent this is having a positive impact on our lives.

Forum: General Discussion Sat, 29 Aug 2015
Topic: Has it worked then?

Jack Pine wrote: Ask yourself this question. Don't ask anyone else if they are or not because it's irrelevant to you and only relevant to them.

Hello again Jack. Yes, I do ask myself this question from time to time. On a Krishnamurti forum like this, I find sharing experiences with others who are interested in the teachings helpful sometimes. If you don't like the question you are, of course, free to ignore it but it seems to me like a perfectly valid question to discuss here.

Forum: General Discussion Sat, 29 Aug 2015
Topic: Has it worked then?

Jack Pine wrote: If you do flower inwardly you will be the last person to know it.

That's a very interesting point.

Forum: General Discussion Mon, 31 Aug 2015
Topic: Has it worked then?

Jack Pine wrote: But when he held a discussion, or a gathering as it used to be called, it was like he rediscovered whatever it was that he was discussing all over again. I suppose you would have to see to appreciate it.

I think this quality of "rediscovering .... all over again" comes across very strongly when one hears Krishnamurti speak or if one reads dialogues which he was involved in. It appears that when someone is in this state (free of thought if you want to call it that) it is very noticeable to others. The "newness" of what is being said is very communicative.

Forum: General Discussion Mon, 31 Aug 2015
Topic: Has it worked then?

Wim Opdam wrote: Hi Sean, this "newness", it seems to me, is not as much in what he said (the words) but together with all this non-verball attributes and if attentive that's where the real comunication takes place.

Hi Wim, yes, I agree. The non-verbal aspect of Krishnamurti did indeed seem very communicative to me.

Forum: General Discussion Mon, 31 Aug 2015
Topic: Has it worked then?

Pavil Davidov wrote: I am not saying K was not speaking from truth, I am asking, how would we know that? From a feeling?

I think we all have a sense of when something "rings true" with us. We all have a sense of what is real and what is false in our lives. I can only say that the more aware we are, the sharper our observation is, the more able we will be to distinguish truth from falsehood. That is my humble opinion.

Forum: General Discussion Mon, 31 Aug 2015
Topic: Has it worked then?

Pavil Davidov wrote: And this is the problem, Sean, we are besotted with the results of our own awareness, never knowing where it comes from and what it represents but trusting it implicitly for it's all we have.

Hi Pavil, thanks for reading and commenting on my post. If we can't trust our own awareness, then what exactly can we trust? We can certainly doubt and question but, as you say, it's (our awareness) is all we have.

Forum: General Discussion Mon, 31 Aug 2015
Topic: Has it worked then?

Pavil Davidov wrote: Yes, and the German people listened to Hitler and knew he was right.

Many German people stood up to and fought against Hitler and paid a very high price for doing so!

Forum: General Discussion Mon, 31 Aug 2015
Topic: Has it worked then?

Pavil Davidov wrote: K said especially to doubt our feelings.

Yes, Krishnamurti certainly stressed the importance of doubt:

"Doubt is an extraordinarily important thing, not scepticism. To observe every experience that one has, to doubt that very experience, doubt that very thought, doubt that very feeling, so the brain becomes extraordinarily cleansed of all our accumulated experiences, tradition and so on. This is what we are going to do during all these talks. This is no personal, or personality cult. Please understand this. We all want to cling or worship, or feel near some one person. We are accustomed to that. And we are saying this is not a personality cult at all. So please don't build an image about him, the speaker. The speaker is not very valuable. What is valuable, what has significance, is what he is saying. And to understand what he is saying you must question, not accept a thing. Which means you have to observe, one has to observe one's own reactions, one's own attitudes, justifications, defences and so on. Then it is possible for both of us to communicate with each other, not theoretically, not in abstraction but actually."

Saanen 1st Public Talk 8th July 1984

Forum: General Discussion Fri, 18 Sep 2015
Topic: Sobering environmental news

mike c wrote: 'Populations of marine mammals, birds, reptiles and fish have dropped by about half in the past four decades, with fish critical to human food suffering some of the greatest declines, WWF warned Wednesday.

Yes, damage to the environment seems to have reached an absolutely critical stage. Well, it's a beautiful day here and the onset of autumn sees birds migrate in huge numbers to Africa with many species of raptors easily visible as they fly south. I think I'll go out and take my dogma for a walk ......

Forum: General Discussion Wed, 23 Sep 2015
Topic: WOOBUSTERS

Pavil Davidov wrote: And that's what we're discussing here, the human capacity to trick itself.

I would say that it is extremely difficult to really understand what is going on most of the time so tricking oneself is easy to do. Our view of most issues will depend on where we get our information from. For example, if we want to know what is happening in the world we will get very different interpretations depending on the news channel we watch or the newspaper which we read. The reality which the news channel presents may become our reality even though it is pure fiction. Very complex issues such a war in a certain place may have complex causes but these are simplified in terms of good and evil in certain newspapers. Anecdotal information from people we know may influence what we think about many things. The only way to be reasonably well informed on any issue is to do one's own research and to go to a variety of reliable sources for information. Having the time and energy to do reasearch along with constant questioning of infornmation which is presented as true may also help.

When it comes to Krishnamurti, it is certainly my "impression" that he was very much in contact with reality and that what he said was highly sane. Am I fooling myself when I say this? This is a possibility.

Forum: General Discussion Thu, 24 Sep 2015
Topic: WOOBUSTERS

Pavil Davidov wrote: For example, you may not have seen "the ground." But if you go on to talk knowingly about it or speculate on it as if the speculation is worth something, then you are in the woo.

Hello Pavil, I can now see your point about "woo" related to Krishnamurti and his teachings. We could say that I have not seen a tree in the same way as Krishnamurti did, without separation. I completely agree that if I were to talk knowingly about the seeing of the tree or speculating on what it might be like to see the tree without separation, this would constitute "woo".

I will leave someone else to ask the following: "Could it be that we can't see the woo for the trees?" (Sorry, couldn't resist that).

Forum: General Discussion Fri, 25 Sep 2015
Topic: WOOBUSTERS

Dan McDermott wrote: But IF you haven't 'found' this state of 'nothingness', this 'freedom' from the 'self', the "thinker" is the "thought, observer is the observed" etc., they need to be seen as just theory that may or may not be 'possible'.

Hello Dan. Yes, I agree. Perhaps all we can do is be open to the possibility of this and, perhaps, fimd out for ourselves.

Forum: General Discussion Fri, 25 Sep 2015
Topic: WOOBUSTERS

Pavil Davidov wrote: I can "find out for myself" if the Earth is flat by taking a plane ride, Sean. How do I "find out for myself" if there is a state of perpetual nothingness after the brain mutates?

I have no idea what a state of perpetual nothingness is. Best not to speculate on what happens after the brain mutates if you ask me. When I spoke about "finding out for myself" I was referring to Krishnamurti's teachings in general (freedom from the self etc which Dan was speaking about) but I think this really applies to most things. One has to find out for oneself and not rely on what others have said or written.

"Can't see the woo for the treatise" was pretty good I thought.

Forum: General Discussion Fri, 25 Sep 2015
Topic: WOOBUSTERS

Pavil Davidov wrote: That's fine. Some things K says I can find out for myself by quieting the mind of its reactions to what it sees in itself, anger etc, and looking at the anger without the reaction. I see how this is possible and I have done it, to some extent.

Yes, this is what I meant by "finding out for ourselves". I think observing anger in oneself is a good example and this is something I have also experimented with and try to do on a daily basis with varying degrees of success.

Forum: General Discussion Fri, 25 Sep 2015
Topic: WOOBUSTERS

max greene wrote: It seems that you and Sean are saying that there is an entity, a self, that "finds out." Any entity is fictitious, the result of thinking. The belief in the reality of an "I" other than the physical body is a serious mistake.

Hello Max. You seem to be making things over-complicated here if you don't mind me saying.

My experience is that one can observe anger or anything else. Anger exists, and it is possible to observe it. Sometimes the observation is clearer than at other times. Sometimes the mind is sharper than at other times. If the mind is quiet, one observes more clearly. The constant chatter of thought results in a lessening of observation. However, it is extremely difficult to have the clarity and sharpness of mind to see thought as it arises and not end up with it wandering all over the place. This does not mean I believe in the reality of an "I" or any of the rest of it. Surely it's useful to stick to reality, if that is possible, and put belief in things aside.

Krishnamurti said "First of all, you cannot depend on others, you cannot expect somebody to give you freedom and order - whether it is your father, your mother, your husband, your teacher. You have to bring it about in yourself." - Krishnamurti on Education (Page 32)

Forum: General Discussion Sat, 26 Sep 2015
Topic: WOOBUSTERS

max greene wrote: Those who listened to Krishnamurti, and those who now read and listen to what he said and wrote, do not realize the mistake of personalizing his message.

I really don't understand what you are saying here Max. What do you mean by "personalizing his message"? We were talking about anger. We were talking about observing anger. Are you saying that one should not observe anger? One should not observe?