Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
Discussion Forums

Thomas Fürniß's Forum Activity | 34 posts in 1 forum


29 posts  |  Page 1 of 1
Forum: Insights Sat, 04 Jul 2009
Topic: You are the world

Topic: You are the world

Keshni Sahni wrote: One must not only be aware of the inner but also the outer. How can we change the world we are living in, through inward change?

Isn't it obvious, that to change the world outside, we need to change the inward world of ourselves? Isn't the outer world not the result of the inner world? Or is there, at the same time, an influence of the outer world toward the inner world? - It is easy to say the outer world is influencing the inner world (we would have a cause, an explanation for our situation inwardly) and is it not easy as well, to say the inner world only can change the outer world? If one takes a close look at the world, one sees and feels, that there is no at all an outer world or inner world, at least that there is no border between world, that there is no separation between worlds of whatever degree. The structure of a world one sees is just the result of its own illusion, an illusion, nothing actually real. And this is what the "world" is fighting for, for illusions, again illusions, one against another, one world against another. The inward world is not contrary to the outward world, there is simply no separation, these two "worlds" are itself non-existing, not real, they are illusions. Of course, as long as there is separation and illusion, there must be an inward and an outward world, but acually they are one, and as one they are not existing, not real, there is only nothingness. As long as one tries to change something, one will get that something changed in another form, but persisting as before, as some illusion of this or that kind. The attempt to change something, is the attempt fight that which is, but which need to be understood, instead of changed. One can not change that which is. The attempt to change must cease, must be ended, must come to an end, one must die to the changing impulse in oneself. And one can only die to the changing impulse, when one understands that very illusion, the non-existing existence, that changing impulse, that attempt itself. And one finds, that there is not really anything to understand, that there is no something to observe, to understand, to look at. To die to change, to die to the attempt to change something, is the change that leaves everything as it is, that is a change of changelessness. And one can not bring about that change of changelessness, it is all there, it is still realized, still exsting, is the always and always already exsting no-thingness, that is the foundation of all worlds in all worlds. All worlds coming to that dying of the attempt to change something, realize that no-thingness, that change of changelessness, that is not a goal and not a source of anything, that is simply that which is.

Forum: Insights Sat, 18 Jul 2009
Topic: Theory of Everything
Mittarkumar Khera wrote:

Even if Theory of Everything is found by the scientists ,in due course of time , Man will still remain as far from the ultimate reality (or turth) as he is today.

Do you believe that a scientific theory of everything (we talk about the physics of everything, the physics of matter and things, not about the suggested scientific theory of everything by philosopher and Zen-Buddhist Ken Wilber) will ever be discovered or developed? A final physical theory of everything would imply that this theory is full and complete, that nothing needs to be added to understand the physical universe/kosmos. But the notion of a physical universe/kosmos is a partial view of the whole universe/kosmos. Since the universe/kosmos is infinite, as physical science is postulating, a part of infinity is still resulting in infinity. It is, more to say, that physical science will, for as long as it exists in this present form, be discovering and developing something new, but which will give scientists only a partial view of the whole. A partial view results in a partial view. A partial view of infinity resulta in a partial view of infinity. A partial-view-science will have partial-view-results and partial-view-theories. Isn't it?

What is more important and more interesting is the following: What are the motivations, what is the background, what is the psychology, what is the motiv of scientists to search for a theory of everything? What is the impetus, the inner drive, the inner, psychological situation of scientists in searching (for a theory of everything)? - It is obvious: they suffer, since searching is suffering, and organized searching is organized suffering. Physical science is holding on to suffering and organizing its work to holding on to suffering.

And since they suffer they produce more and more suffering. This means that the look at the results of science in the past view centuries as a progress is simply half the truth. All manifestation, all scientific-technological coming-out, is simply a dualistic matter. And as a dualistic matter, there is always suffering, confusion, sorrow and destruction.

It must clearly wisely be said, with soft voice, strong heart and open mind: The modern materialistic scientific path is simply a wrong path, since it is a partial view of existence and as that incapable of understanding the totality that is there. Rational mind, which is the tool for physical science, is making the same mistake, is simply succumbing to the same hubris, that once the rational mind fighted against for discovering truth, as Galileo, Kepler, Giordano Bruno and somewhat later Newton did "against" the katholic church of their time. Rational mind is the tool for a physcial theory of everything to be discovered, but it will not be successful, since rational mind is working on a limited - and not infinite - plane and level, since it uses limited words and definitions, which are by themselves limited and can not be other. There will never be a rational scientific physical theory of everything to explain and understand the physcial universe, since its view is partial and therefore its results always partial and therefore never complete, never full, never whole and holy.

Forum: Insights Sat, 18 Jul 2009
Topic: Why are you here?

What are your motives to come here and join this international "group"? Not, what are your hopes that you can find here, that you can do here, not your wishes for communication and exchange of insights. What is "your" suffering that brings you here to meet others?

And: What is your deep motive for life? What is it? What is life itself that is "doing you" - Is there something at all?

Forum: Insights Mon, 20 Jul 2009
Topic: Why are you here?

Rasmus Tinning wrote: Thomas, I think this is a very relevant question. If the Teachings are the answer, what is the problem?

The problem is, Rasmus, that the Teachings are not the answer. As long as someone thinks he/she holds an answer in her/his "hand" and mind, he/she is lost in a kind of dogmatism. This person is making a tradition out of his/her findings, the person thinks he found something worthy, but is he/she separated form that origin or is he by himself able to bring about "something" new, as that which he hold in his hand and mind and heart?

The problem is, as I see it, that there is no answer, and that as long as one is thinking and feeling that there should be an answer, this person is lost in answers, instead of questioning the whole. The Teachings can not be the answer, since this would mean an end of discussion sooner or later, and obviously there is no end at all, since there seems to be no beginning. Isn't it?

Forum: Insights Mon, 20 Jul 2009
Topic: Why are you here?

Chafia ABDI wrote:

Thomas Fürniß wrote: What is "your" suffering that brings you here to meet others? The feeling that the world's chaos is one's chaos and mess is so huge and at the same time so real. But the burning question is what can I do? Coming here is an impulse with a deep sense of humility that one day someone can speak of this "unknowable immensity" It may change the world?

This must be read:

Thomas Fürniß wrote: What is "your" suffering that brings you here to meet others?

Chafia ABDI wrote: The feeling that the world's chaos is one's chaos and mess is so huge and at the same time so real. But the burning question is what can I do? Coming here is an impulse with a deep sense of humility that one day someone can speak of this "unknowable immensity" It may change the world?

Forum: Insights Mon, 20 Jul 2009
Topic: Why are you here?

Up to this, thank you all for your openness to this sensitive thing, that is called ones own suffering. I think, that we should be aware, not just to limit ourselves to the K-Teachings, they are - as well as other Teachings of other wise people - a mere gift, a wonderful present, and not an answer to our suffering, not a remedy for our suffering. Me must be open to all as much as possible, so we can not limit ourselves in our and with our own suffering, our own searching.

To make (rational or irrational) theories and believes out of this wordy gift of a Teaching, is the path of suffering, and so we need to be open to every moment, every little wink, that is coming within our reach. We need to look for the whole and not just the part, and the Teaching - of whatever person - is simply a part, isn't it?

For me, it is fun to be here, it is fun to be with people who seriously want to find out something true about life and that which is called existence. It is fun, to see what the present brings to me, and therefore others. You must have this fun too, do you "have" it? Fun is openness and love for the moment, an insecure security, a moment where nothing is holding you, and therefore a freedom in heard and mind.

I hope we can proceed with exploring and discovering this present, this special gift of a Teaching which is the very Now, layer by layer, infinitely.

Forum: Insights Mon, 20 Jul 2009
Topic: Theory of Everything

Paul, you don't seem to be a numbskull, I take it as your way of self-humor. These brilliant chaps seem to suffer, suffering in mind and heart, like the whole world is suffering. Hope is what their work is driving on, hope and believe in their theories and rational-mathematical systems, which brilliantly succeed in explaining observation. A lack of humility and the urge to continue their own tradition, their own private past, to follow their own decisions, their own path. Science is a materialistic method, a materialistic technique, coming out of a dualistic perception of the world and universe. We can say: a wrong awareness of the whole. But once established in society, once organized in universities education, once found to produce usefull results to be used for societies comfort, once found to deliver weapons to defend the nation, the values, be it democracy, communism, or religious convictions,.. once found to defend their freedom, to accumulate wealth and so on, they simply use materialistic science to fullfil their dualistic interests.

What is this suffering, not just this suffering of scientists following their scientific theories, hopes, believes, their flighting the whole, what is suffering itself, that which has all men and women, of all professions, in common? To separate oneself from scientist searching for a physical Theory of Everything, is itself suffering, we should not blame them for what they do, they do not get the joke of this whole existence, o.k., but some of them have fun in doing what they do and they are nice and open. So, what is this suffering, that we all share? I think this should be the question, since that is what we all have in common, a what can be overcome.

Forum: Insights Tue, 21 Jul 2009
Topic: Theory of Everything
Mittarkumar Khera wrote:

What I was trying to say that even if a T.O.E is developed to explain everything.the man will always be as far from the ultimate reality as he is today. Science moves from one fact to another, thus it goes on replacing the older knowledge by the new and superior knowledge. The basic point that I was trying to make is that truth is rooted in perception while a scientific theory may have emerged from some perception but when perception is translated in terms of knowledge the truth disappears. Peraps you are also is trying to say the same thing in a different way. Thanks Prof. Mittar Kumar Khera

Yes. One can ask if truth really disappears when perception is translated in terms of knowledge. Is truth something that can change, that can disappear? You seem to make a difference between "perception of truth" and "some perception" (scientific perception), don't you? And another question could be: Why does there seem to be the need to translate truth, or to translate that which seemed to be seen? Why translate? (Because it's fun?)

Forum: Insights Tue, 21 Jul 2009
Topic: Theory of Everything

Yes, one wants recognition, one wants to be loved and accepted, one wants a peaceful and secure life, and one wants to survive in society, in the world, one wants to life, one does not want to be isolated from others, one wants to be in the "middle" of society and life. Everyone wants that, like you say - and therefore the world is in a mess, chaos, is at war. Something must be wrong with that "wanting".

Human beings are bound to words, and there is the need to communicate with others, if one want to life in society. But if we want to be recognized by others, want to be loved by others, accepted and so on, this means, that we are somewhat dependent on others, since we do not really recognize ourselves, we do not love ourselves. If we want something, then there must be a lack of something. And on the way to get that something, we follow a certain path, that we believe will give us, sooner or later, what we want. And on that path, we produce and try to dissolve problems that come in our way. And as a sideeffect we produce that mess in the world. Can we be independent form others, without separating, isolating us form others?

If there is a hunger for truth, one needs right food - there is then no need to translate truth, since that truth is absent, since there is simply the hunger for it. The one who gives the "right" food, can not really give the "right" food, since translated truth is not truth - at least as I see it - and there is always a translation present when communicating with another. Can one really give truth/food? I don't think so. What one gives, is the translation of truth, that which can be grasped (the words, the formulars E=mc2 etc.).

The perception of Newton and other scientist are simply partial perceptions, aren't they? These scientists focus their mind on a certain matter - as you might very well know - neglecting the whole of other things on no-things, they make assumptions to make thinking about the matter easier and possible at all. These perceptions exclude love and compassion for others. Its mind-based perception, and their heart, are dependent to the result they want, to something that they want to find out, and these are mere means to bring egoitistic need of reputation and security, comfort and fame. The partial view and perception comes form the partial and therefore egotistic need to fulfill their dreams and saving them form their fears to die in society. Scientific perception of the parts is different from holy perception of the whole. Isn't it? Scientific perception of truth is scientific perception of partial truth, which is not the whole, complete, full and non-dual truth of existence. Isn't it? And, in addition, the scientist is, like the priest, bound to the tradition of its subject, bound to the methods of its subject. Does this binding influence its perception of the whole?

Forum: Insights Tue, 21 Jul 2009
Topic: Theory of Everything

Paul Lanzon wrote: Isn't suffering self-created and self-generated?

This is what many say, that (psychological) suffering is self/ego-created. - What do you do with that?

Forum: Insights Tue, 21 Jul 2009
Topic: About intention
Mina Martini wrote:

No matter how 'good' the intention, it is an act coming from limited motivated thought , so there is never absolute goodness in it.

In other words: To label an intention as "good" is itself a result of intention. Limited motivated thought is what labels intention as "good" or "bad". Isn't it?

Is there intention that is not an act coming form limited motivated thought? So there might be absolute goodness "existing" in intention that is neither "good" nor "bad". Beyond believe, I think there is intention that is neither "good" nor "bad".

Forum: Insights Tue, 21 Jul 2009
Topic: May we discuss the relationship of science with religion?

What would you say is the common character of the true religious spirit and the true scientific spirit?

Forum: Insights Wed, 22 Jul 2009
Topic: Why are you here?
Therese Okamoto wrote:

where am i?

There is no-where.

Forum: Insights Wed, 22 Jul 2009
Topic: About intention
Manoj SachDeva wrote:

K schools are fruits of some intention. All talks and series of dialogues, prservation of teachings in all formats... was there not some intention behind them? Any thoughts?

The intention to organize what needed to be organized to held the Teachings available for others, like the baker baking his breads for people.

Forum: Insights Wed, 22 Jul 2009
Topic: About intention
david sharma wrote:

Intension is another name for desire that springs from the mind, under different guise.

I do not make intention synonymous to desire.

Forum: Insights Thu, 23 Jul 2009
Topic: About intention

Dear Mina,

do we "agree", that all words are in itself (in form) limited and incomplete work? and (in essence) empty and meaningless?

This would imply that you can give words meaning like one wants to. "Intention" to me means, the underlying force of timeless presence. "Intention" has no goal to achieve, since its "goal" is itself, the timeless presence, it does not seek for something, not for an other, not for itself, it is just what it is. To me this is intention without the view for the future, it is also not the view for itself, it is not in itself shattered, it is whole and all and nothing. It is, like you say too, the pure act of timeless presence.

Forum: Insights Thu, 23 Jul 2009
Topic: Why are you here?

No-where is every-where

Forum: Insights Thu, 23 Jul 2009
Topic: May we discuss the relationship of science with religion?

What relationship has "seeking/searching" with the true scientific mind?
What relationship has "seeking/searching" with the true religious mind?
Has "seeking/searching" place in both equally?

Forum: Insights Sat, 25 Jul 2009
Topic: About intention

Dear Mina,

to put a question: Is "identification" a mere idea? Is there at all something - identification - that is ending? Is this not just the attempt to explain the unexplainable? To explain that something happens, that something changes (from identification to non-identification), where, in reality, nothing changes? To give the suffering and hoping "soul" merely another hope, maybe a real hope, that there is a life beyond his suffering, a paradox life of freedom, love and non-egotistic intention - The intention, and need, to identify, is the hindrance, the resistence. Is there at all intention and need?

Forum: Insights Sat, 25 Jul 2009
Topic: May we discuss the relationship of science with religion?

Yes, I agree, that seeking/searching is present with the scientific mind and that the relgious mind is not seeking/searching anymore. So, what the true scientifc mind and the true religious mind have in common, can not be the true scientific mind, can't it?

The scientific mind moves from fact to fact, I agree, using the facts of his theories/observations. But a really new theory, an absolute new conceptual discovery, is not the result of the movement from fact to fact. Isn't it?

The religious mind says, that the facts used by science, are not really facts, they are theories, concepts, ideas, pictures, illusions, images - maps, they are not the landscape itself, they are mere maps. The facts of scientific mind are already translated into the limited language of science itself. But the fact (singular!) of the true religious mind is a living presence and is not translated to be understood, but which is understood without the need of a tool, without the need of a limited language, like the mathematical language of science and the scientific mind. The fact of the true religious mind is independently understood of language.

I disagree with you saying, that the religious mind is not asking for the origin of matter, the universe and man. The religious mind is not making a theory out of his "findings" of these questions. The relgious mind is definetely understanding the origin of matter, the universe and man. It knows that no concept, no theory, no idea, no scientific discovery can understand these questions, for this the question itself needs to be understood.

Forum: Insights Sat, 25 Jul 2009
Topic: Why are you here?

Dear Paul, yes, what kind of fun is it? What kind of joy? The fun to be part of a world-wide group and community? The fun to be not lonely with oneself and this brutal world? Is it the fun of pleasure and entertainment? - Yes, as you said, it is fun, not in the sense of relieving boredom? So there must be real interest, real openness, real compassion, real love, real wisdom.

If this all is present, why then to be here? Do you "have" "your own" sangha, to perform your own satsang? Are we strong enough to stand alone in public, get critisized by others who do not know K-teachings, get hurt, get isolated, etc. For us who have read this or the other book of K, it is relatively easy to communicate. But to stand for your own in this world, means, to have courage, strongness and real self-confidence. Do you have it that strong to start you own spiritual "company", your own thing?

Forum: Insights Sat, 25 Jul 2009
Topic: Is there an ending to search?
Mittarkumar Khera wrote:

The questioner must find out why is he/she is concerned with the ending of the search. Is this a problem or it is just an intellectual question?

Yes. The concern with the ending of the search is itself a search.

What do you mean by "intellecutal question"? You make a difference between "a problem" and "an intellectual question"? Why?

Forum: Insights Sun, 26 Jul 2009
Topic: About intention
Mina Martini wrote:

No matter how 'good' the intention, it is an act coming from limited motivated thought , so there is never absolute goodness in it.

Dear Mina, to come back to the starting point of this topic: In saying "there is never absolute goodness in limited motivated thought" you are saying: limited motivated thought is not good. Don't you? - Or are you saying, that there is no absolute good intention?

Forum: Insights Sun, 26 Jul 2009
Topic: May we discuss the relationship of science with religion?

Dear Sir,

we seem to like to go into it, thank you. We should leave K's saying about science and religion beside our concern, he was not a scientist. You are a scientist and I studied several semesters theoretical physics in germany, so we have a common base to talk about it (and religion), nevertheless you are more professional than I am concering science, and I respect that honestly.

What interests me/us is to repeat an earlier question: What does the true scientific mind and the true religious mind have in common? You said: the scientific mind is the common ground of both, and you take K who might have said, that the scientific mind is a prerequisite to the religious mind. And that the scientific mind goes from fact to fact, and on this path discovering new facts, with the slightly small impact on present theories or deeper and revolutionary impact on present theories, all depeding on the depth of perception. (I just repeat what you were saying).

I understand the scientific mind as a seeking/searching mind, which means, as I unterstand seeking/searching, suffering. Is this, for you, a too simple notion of the scientific mind? Is the scientific mind, for you, a suffering mind? I "expect" you saying: "no". Then we would be on two opposite sides of understanding.

You said:

When we accept that religious mind sees that science moves from fact to fact then to say that religious mind does not think that scientific fact is a fact - is it not contradictory?

Just using your words here, they imply a contradictory, I see. But they imply also a certain notion of the word "fact". But this is not what we have already talked about. So, we could ask: what is (a) fact? A scientific fact? A religious fact? Would this be the "path" to go further? - And: who said that scientific fact is not a fact? Me? No. This must have been a misunderstanding, I do not see "me" in these words.

Forum: Insights Sat, 15 Aug 2009
Topic: May we discuss the relationship of science with religion?

I am sorry in responding late, since Ínternet was not available to me for these last 2 weeks, sorry. Hope you are well and the doctors did their brilliant work.

Why bring the factor of suffering here? - Isn't there so much suffering in the world, in human beings of all kind, of all sort of profession? So, scientists can not exclude their own suffering from their work, they can, if they want to understand, look at suffering, and at the question what suffering itself really is. Without going now deeper in this, what I see as suffering, I say, that scientists do their work in a state of constant suffering, psychological suffering, and there is a immanent factor of suffering connected with the scientific method itself, since the so called scientific mind is itself a suffering mind, a mind of searching, and not just exploring or investigating their matter and special questions. Your definition or description of the scientific mind excludes suffering from it, as I understood you right. You say that searching is scientific mind's sole purpose. We could discuss what dynamic and structure, psychological structure and dynamic "searching" has, could'nt we?

What is a "religious fact"? - I do not define this phrase. But it seems to me, that there is a difference between that what is called a scientific fact and a religious fact. The scientific fact is (an) image, (a) picture, (a) form. Whereas a "religious fact" is neither image nor picture nor form. The scientific fact can be expressed a printed in mathematical formulars, whereas a religious fact can not be expressed by any symbols, images etc. The scientific fact is not reality itself, it is a mere map. The religious fact is a living a vivid reality for the human being in "contact" with it. The scientific fact can be discovered an therefore touched by the scientific mind. The religious fact can neither be discovered by methods nor touched by mind itself, but the religious fact is touching the human being.

Forum: Insights Mon, 17 Aug 2009
Topic: May we discuss the relationship of science with religion?

Science is seeking and searching for a useful "result" in which science finds some kind of certainty, partial certrainty (there is absolute certrainty in seeing the fundamental uncertainty of life. Life is a paradox, certainty too.) In science there is no absolute certainty, since science has always some questions left to answer, to explore, and to search for plausible answers/theories.

O.k, we have different views here: you say scientific spirit never suffers, I say the opposite. I think we could ask what suffering is, what we mean by suffering. Is (rational) thinking suffering?

Forum: Insights Sat, 05 Sep 2009
Topic: May we discuss the relationship of science with religion?

Yes, a theory can be used as a kind of dogma, but the true investigation has stopped then und there is neither the true scientific mind nor the true religious mind present.

If one has the ability to form hypothesis and form theories, then this is, as I understand it, not a sufficient argument for taking this as a flaw in scientific method. Scientific method needs the forming of hypothesis and forming of theories. But - you decide what you want to do with your life, you must find out what you are able to do and what you want to do. Science is not true religion, science is a form of religion, a relatively modern form of religion. But true religion is not science. We could ask, what true religion is, having in mind, that the expression "true" can be used dogmatically and exclusively. We should find an open and wide, but deep and precise expression of "true religion", not a formular, not a phrase, but an living expression, that opens heart and mind, and that is not limiting.

Forum: Insights Sat, 12 Sep 2009
Topic: Four Questions of One and the Same

1.) Is it sentimentality and illusion or reality and realism that is in our lives?

2.) Is it deception and conception or realization and insight that is what makes our life a touched and touching life?

3.) Do people feel bored by our words or touched by them to the heart?

4.) Can we live on our own without depending on concepts, ideas, thoughts, theories - do we stand on our own feet in our own unique house of mind and heart?

1.) Make your life a real and realistic life, without sentimentality and without illusion.

2.) Make your life an insightful life of real-god-realization, without self-deception and binding on concepts.

3.) Make yourself interessting by touching "others" with your words and heart, opening their heart, banishing heartlessness to infinity. Observe how rude you are, not because others are saying this, but because you discover your own rudeness.

4.) Make your heart full and touching and your mind alert and awake. Make it just by living the full and touching heart and by being aware of the alert and awake mind.

Topic closed: 2009 Okt 31

Forum: Insights Tue, 20 Oct 2009
Topic: Four Questions of One and the Same

Words cloud the mind, since (and as long) the mind is clouded. The aim to be precise is one thing, it's o.k., but nevertheless you will not get more out of such precise words as long the mind is clouded. The aim "to analize everything already" is the reaction to de-cloud the mind with (and because of) a clouded mind - impossible, in vain.

Why don't you honestly respond to the "four questions of one and the same"?

Thanks for replying already.

29 posts  |  Page 1 of 1