Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
Discussion Forums

Rasmus Tinning's Forum Activity | 132 posts in 3 forums


25 posts  |  Page 1 of 1
Forum: Insights Thu, 19 Nov 2009
Topic: Seriousness

rajaratnam retnajothy wrote: I had been following K for about 60 years.But I am still struggling.There are so many obstacles.

I think this is a very brave and honest statement. This establises us more or less on the same level. We know a lot about the teachings but we don't fully understand them.

One typical way of dealing with the problem of changing one's consciousness is to find a philosophy that offers a satisfactory explanation of things and thereby creates a certain intellectual order. If you are challenged, you can come up with the right answer. It may help you to manage your pain and confusion, but it is mechanistic and doesn?t lead to liberation.

How can one really change? All the traditional approaches to the problem of changing consciousness involve some kind of dualistic action. The observer tries to change the observed. K exposes the basic fallacy of the whole dualistic outlook.

Instead he says that self-knowledge is the foundation of liberation. I am very interested in this. Why should self-knowledge liberate you?

Forum: Insights Thu, 19 Nov 2009
Topic: Seriousness

Randal Shacklett wrote: Everyone here, claims to not understand K, then goes on to explain their personal interpretations about it.

Many of us are not satisfied with a purely intellectual or ideological undertanding of K because it is not transformative. We do not fully undertand what K is saying, but with this in mind we still try interpret what he is saying. The interpretation can only be personal, but there is nothing to do about, except stop talking :)

Forum: Insights Thu, 19 Nov 2009
Topic: Seriousness

Hermann Janzen wrote: It could be misleading to say that self-knowledge is the foundation of liberation. For the word 'self-knowledge' - the way it's used here - has a strongly dualistic echo.

Ok, I agree. I only used this word, because K uses it. It doesn't mean static accumulation. What does it mean?

Hermann Janzen wrote: Watchfulness, alertness, sensitivity to the operation of the self - these seem to me imprtant aspects.

Yes, watchfulness in order to learn the the truth about one's life. I just came home from work. It has been of those days where I navigate in corporate waters fraught with conflict. Finally at home I can escape and temporarily forget all about it, or can study the turmoil of my mind.

Forum: Insights Fri, 20 Nov 2009
Topic: Seriousness

Anastasia Kovas wrote: Watchfulness reinforces this identity. vigilance over one's place in the job, the world, sustains the turmoil

Ok, ?watchfulness? may connote ?being on one?s guard?, but what we mean is awareness of the operations of the mind.

During the day you have to navigate in a social environment. You don?t want to quarrel with people, but you don?t want to be their slave either, and so on. For Krishnamurti it is exactly here in the close relationships that the foundation can be laid, not only for a better world, but for a happier personal life. It is not a matter of developing the skill to manage other people, but of using the relationships as a mirror in which you can understand yourself.

Most people rank their relationships according to quality, but if you look closely at any relationship, it is invariably somewhat malfunctioning. That creates the world as we know it, and is also the cause of our tortured minds. Even when we are alone, our minds ?chatter? in an attempt to solve the problems. The end result is sorrow.

Forum: Insights Fri, 20 Nov 2009
Topic: Seriousness

ganesan balachandran wrote: iam suggesting veda and only those who who have gone through JK can easily understand them .it is not different but it touches upon certein things beyond our mind symbolically and allegorically without any dos and donts.

It is probably true that K?s teachings have some affinity to the Vedas. He is clearly an oriental phenomenon. But what I am trying to say is that the very security and satisfaction of intellectual understanding can be a sleeping-pill. Personally I?m not so interested in the right ideas and answers, but in going beyond the verbal level. The verbal level is necessary to begin with, but ultimately it is ashes.

Forum: Insights Sun, 22 Nov 2009
Topic: Seriousness

The area where K is really interesting is the connection between daily relationships, the state of your mind, religion and the sacred.

In the organized religions the connection between religion and conduct is often that if you don?t behave, God will punish you. But that role is being taken over by the judicial system. In the new age movement you could make lots of money and get cosmic ecstasy at the same time. There was no contradiction. Enlightenment was pure technique. If you had the money, you could get it.

K proposes that the connection between our daily relationship and the sacred is of a psychological nature. If our relationships are bad, we bar ourselves from happiness. Not because God punishes us, but because there is a psychological law that says that only the innocent of heart can know joy. I think it would be interesting to discuss the connection between relationship and the sacred more in deatail.

Forum: Insights Sun, 22 Nov 2009
Topic: Seriousness

I see what you mean. But it seems to be difficult to get a discussion about self-knowledge going, at least as a first hand inquiry. It is not clear why self-inquiry is important. And if something is not logically clear, it is difficult to go on.

Forum: Insights Tue, 24 Nov 2009
Topic: Seriousness

Life is a struggle for existence. That is why our consciousness has been conditioned to duality, to isolation and resistance, to greed and conflict. Most people are basically like lions round a kill. They don?t feel the least embarrassed when they push somebody else away. To be callous and acquisitive is an advantage in any society.

Krishnamurti turns the whole thing upside down. If you want to have a chance of coming upon the immeasurable, you must lay a foundation of innocence. Other religious teachers say something similar, but K substantiates it psychologically. He brings it from the realm of mysticism into the realm of recognizable everyday psychology.

Krishnamurti proposes that I bring about order by being aware of my daily activities.

I have discovered that I escape direct awareness. I could use various problematic relationships as a mirror, but I instantly blame the other. I could face what is, but I am always in the future or I escape into art and entertainment. I am beginning to see all this fairly clearly. But here I am in winter darkness, facing days and days of boring work and then old age and death. Is it really possible to absolutely naked to that awful reality?

Forum: Insights Wed, 25 Nov 2009
Topic: Seriousness

rajaratnam retnajothy wrote: But I will not give any excuses for being conditioned.Why analyse the reason for it.Analysis is a waste of time.

I hesitantly try to understand what K is saying and try to apply it actually. I don?t write anything that I don?t see.

Is it an analysis to realize that one escapes? I have met hundreds of people who were interested in K, but after many years of reading K, they would still habitually blame their pain and misfortune on others. They would still escape truth in a thousand ways. So, I am saying that understanding K on an intellectual and ideological level is not transformative. It is no better that any other ideology. One has to observe the escapes directly.

rajaratnam retnajothy wrote: Krishnamurti is not suggesting any method such as psychological or any such things.He only wants that we see the truth.

I?m not saying the teachings are a psychological method, but that K observes the psychological impediments to perceiving the truth.

rajaratnam retnajothy wrote: I am conditioned is a fact.So I know my vision is distorted.So I know I will have to be vigilant.

If you have seen this so clearly, why have you not transformed? Or is it that you know K says so, but you have not really seen it?

Forum: Insights Sat, 28 Nov 2009
Topic: Seriousness

rajaratnam retnajothy wrote: We know that we are conditioned.Don't you know sir?And hence we know that our vision is distorted

Sir, what is really the problem? Is it that we have perfectly understood the teachings, but we don?t seem to able to live according to them? We know that we are conditioned, but somehow it doesn?t have a transformative effect?

Or is the problem the quality of our understanding? We may be able to indirectly quote the teachings, but it is only an intellectual affair. And the irony of it is that this knowledge may actually be an impediment to understanding the truth. It is not being naked to the truth. It is a mechanical response that is the very denial of truth.

Of course one has to understand the teachings verbally before one can go deeper. But K says, put everything in its right place, and it is obvious that the intellectual level has a very limited significance. In my opinion we can only approach the truth if we place intellectual understanding in its right place and admit that we don?t really understand the teachings. We may ?know? that we are conditioned, but do we understand it as a fact?

Forum: Insights Sun, 29 Nov 2009
Topic: Seriousness

rajaratnam retnajothy wrote: I do not understand when you say we may know that we are conditioned and then asking "but do we understand it as a fact'.

I see that you don't get my point.

K often says "seeing is action". It is not that one sees and then try to find out how to live according to that insight. Seeing means change. There is no interval. Saying "we know we are conditioned" is not the same as seeing it in a creative, transformative way.

I'm very interested in what kind of seriousness it takes to actually give life to such a statement, so that it is transformative.

Forum: Insights Sun, 29 Nov 2009
Topic: Seriousness

nick carter wrote: As much as we'd like to believe that we are not necessarily bound and determined by our conditioning, as much as we'd like to believe we can be free of the effects of the past, we really don't know if it's possible, and believing and hoping that it is, is the conditioned response that keeps discussion forums like this going.

I see your point, but I think you are too categorical.

Personally I don?t see with any certainty that a climate change is taking place. But the scientists are making it plausible.

I don?t know whether it is possible to uncondition myself. But K is one of the most perceptive and clear observers of human life that I have come across. He has a great empathy, but he is also very logical. Sometimes he arrives at the border of the known, but he wisely downplays the description of what is beyond.

His statements make a lot of sense to me, so I have adopted his teachings as a kind of working hypothesis. And I am not so interested in whether I can be totally unconditioned, but whether unconditioning can take place and whether a process of unconditioning can be started. I tend to think that it can. The first step is to see that human beings are conditioned and then go on to watch it in yourself as it happens.

I definitely don?t believe in K in the way people believe in a religion. But I believe that the existential problem that his insights relate to is of the highest importance and that he is the best inspiration there is.

Forum: Insights Mon, 30 Nov 2009
Topic: Seriousness

phillip philips wrote: It is the absolute realisation that all in existence is Now.

Ok, the future is projection of what I am now. It is what I imagine the future to be like based on what I already know.

But I would go even further. Because we are the past, we look at the now with tainted eyes. Actually, there is no now, there is only an interpretation based on the past. That is what brain is mostly doing. Earlier on in this discussion we talked about what was meant be ?the first step is the last step?.

K says there is no psychological future. Which ? according to my understanding ? means that touching the truth does not involve any time or movement. There is no path to the truth, and there is no arrival.

The idea of going by a path and arriving is an escape, something false you hold on to in the darkness. If we don?t escape what is there? There is the machinery that interprets the now into the past through recognition and association. It is very interesting whether that can be negated. But only if it is not only ideas?

Forum: Insights Mon, 30 Nov 2009
Topic: Seriousness

nick carter wrote: Is this the same first step that is also the last step?

No, I was just referring to the way you would probably discover conditioning in the first place. We all know that we have cultural and personal backgrounds that influence our actions. In the religious and political field people identify with their conditioning and never question it. But educationalists, psychologists, artists and others, who work with the mind, try to influence or reprogram it in a deliberate way.

K and others point out that conditioning constitutes a limitation, a darkness or ignorance. We may even see this fairly clearly. But seeing it clearly when it takes place in ourselves seems to be incredibly difficult.

Forum: Insights Tue, 01 Dec 2009
Topic: Seriousness

nick carter wrote: But with seeing one's own conditioning, we haven't done it and we don't really know if it can be done, so rather than call it "difficult", let's admit that not only do we not see it, but we don't even know if it can be seen.

Ok, we haven?t done it and we don?t know whether it can be done. But again you are a bit categorical.

I observe myself a lot in relationship and that is where conditioning is most clearly seen. The sense of conflict, of like and dislike, the instant categorization of new people and so on. I don?t like to hurt other people, because I am somewhat empathically aware of myself and of them, which is the same thing. But then there is a conditioning that says, you mustn?t too kind, because then other people take advantage of you. Especially people are naturally unkind and universally disliked seem to be great adherents of this tenet. Human life is right under our noses.

What seems to make it so impossible ? if you like ? to observe oneself clearly is the fact that the observer is observing itself in a highly active but essentially biased way. It never declares itself disqualified and stops this activity.

Forum: Insights Fri, 04 Dec 2009
Topic: Seriousness

nick carter wrote: Yes, any effort, it seems, to see one's conditioned response is futile because, at best, you'll see it after the fact.

Do you mean to say that it is impossible to see what is going on inside your head as it is happening? There is a popular book called ?Emotional intelligence?. It has some interesting case stories about people who don?t know what mood they are in. The author ascribes this phenomenon to some physical defect in the brain.

Most of us have some perception of our emotional state. But we have learnt to manage it. If we have a conflict with somebody, we instantly blame it on the other. If we think of something frightening, we move away by suppressing it or rationalizing it and so on. We don?t learn anything from these immature reactions.

To observe very simple things is the beginning of learning. But we are not interested. If you are interested in spiritual matters, it is probably because you are dissatisfied with your consciousness. You want the miraculous. It goes against your grain to look at yourself, when you want to escape from your consciousness.

When you rationalize your conflict, you don?t understand it. It crystallizes and becomes much harder to solve. Conflict canalizes energy into certain kinds of unintelligent actions, which become your life. A life in which there is no silence.

I think all that can be observed.

Forum: Insights Sat, 05 Dec 2009
Topic: Seriousness

Hermann Janzen wrote: My guess is that there is an area of resistance that refuses inspection. For me at least that seems to be the case. A certain portion of my self refuses to be inspected. I'm in one of those moods now and what I used to do in those moods is to take a small toke of pot and that gets rid of that stolid feeling.

You guessed right. In my case it is like an archaeological excavation where you find a black box. As you dig, it becomes more and more exposed, but the box itself seems impenetrable. It may be some deep fear.

I think you most approach it in a holistic way. You may have drawn a conclusion that this is where the problem is. But that conclusion may be part of you defense mechanism. If you are too focused on some inner phenomenon, it may strengthen the resistance.

Perhaps there is an intelligence in you that knows what the problem is. That ?stolid? feeling may not even be the problem, but a symptom. The motivation is to get rid of it. But it is actually valuable information. The import thing is to let the symptom tell its own story. Not analyze it, because then you activate all the self-defense reactions. This is where ?choiceless awareness? comes in. You don?t do anything, but let consciousness tell its story. Maybe this intelligence is not interested in the stolid feeling, but something else.

All this is not advice. I?m obviously not in a position to give advice. It may even be totally irrelevant for you, but it is an example of the way I think these days.

By the way, I had a cup of pot chai once and it was probably the most meaningful experience of my life :). I never repeated the experience, though, because the price was too high as you say.

Forum: Insights Sat, 05 Dec 2009
Topic: Seriousness

nick carter wrote: You "think"? Where there is observation there is no question, no opinion.

K sometimes suggests that we become aware of peopleĀ“s dresses, the shape of the room and so on. I am saying that I think we shouldn?t make awareness into something very mysterious to begin with. The type of awareness that I was talking about in the post is not beyond what most people can do. But they don?t have the motivation. They don?t see the meaning of awareness.

When I use the word think, it is because I don't know whether I am right. I could be totally deluded.

Forum: Insights Mon, 07 Dec 2009
Topic: Seriousness

I think that being satisfied with clear thinking is a sort of habit. That is all we know. We have been brought up to think the intellect is king. But thinking, moving about in memory and creating ideas, is not transformative. It is just like a schoolboy or a computer that comes up with the right answers. We are all more or less like that. I think this is pretty obvious, and most of us probably agree about it.

If you are fairly calm and collected, you can watch yourself referring to memory. You can see yourself writing something that implies that you have gone very deeply into yourself. But you haven?t, so logically it is just ideas. It doesn?t require a lot of penetration to see this, but we have other motives.

If you are dissatisfied with your consciousness, either you escape into something man-made, like elegant thinking, or you become very urgent. Urgency can result in honesty and humility, because you see how lost you are, when you don?t refer to the authority that is implied in memory.

Forum: Insights Thu, 10 Dec 2009
Topic: Seriousness

Hermann Janzen wrote: Is there an urgency without searching, without impatience?

It is a very relevant question. I can fairly easily refer to my K learning and come up with an elegant or not elegant answer, but that is not truth. What I am really interested in is whether it is possible to answer this way in a way that is transformative.

Obviously, if I knew the answer no-verbally, in my heart, I would be a different person. So logically I don?t know the answer.

However, the question is so complex that we need to discuss it. We can logically trace out the implications of the question, which is legitimate as long as we don?t think we have solved anything by putting it into words.

The main thing is to observe what we can observe and not invent anything.

Logically urgency and impatience seem to go together...

Forum: Insights Thu, 10 Dec 2009
Topic: Seriousness

nick carter wrote: Thought that isn't interested in "elegant thinking" is shoddiness itself. Why should thought settle for anything less than elegance? Elegance is not cultivated behavior. It's the discovery of the simplest way to do things with the least expenditure of energy.

I quite agree - unless elegant thinking becomes the main thing. If you rephrase some "vulgar-Krishnamurtianism" in an elegant way (I'm not saying that you do), it doesn't make it any truer. But people may feel quite satisfied with such a statement, because they agree with it and because it sounds grand or sexy.

Forum: Insights Sat, 12 Dec 2009
Topic: Seriousness

Hermann Janzen wrote: What is urgency by itself? Does it come from seeing what is amiss? Why is there so little of it in my life? Is it that I just don't care? That I spend too much time seeking entertainment?

Maybe I can explain it in a different way.

Somebody is interested in enlightenment or the expansion of consciousness. He comes across K and feels that this is the real thing. If there is anything beyond ?this?, that man knows about it. K naturally becomes very important in your life. You are stuck with K because after him there is nowhere else to go.

Unfortunately K?s teachings are not as intuitive as they might seem. The deeper meaning is elusive. Having read other gurus is not conducive to understanding him, on the contrary. So you haven?t really established a profitable dialogue with the teachings. After a while a certain tiredness sets in, because there don?t seem to be any long term changes. In the meantime you may have come to terms with life. The pain has somewhat abated.

Could it be that you have been projected a certain understanding onto the teachings and have been looking for certain results that have not materialized? According to K, the blessings of enlightenment are not a pursuit in itself, but a byproduct of a mind that is in total order. You cannot know order, because then it would be projection of what you are now ? which is disorder. But you can see the truth of your disorder anytime and anywhere and thereby give it order. If you spend too much time on entertainment ? which I suppose I do too ? then that is the truth. That is our responsibility, not why I don't have urgency.

Forum: Insights Mon, 14 Dec 2009
Topic: Seriousness

nick carter wrote: Rasmus Tinning wrote: You cannot know order, because then it would be projection of what you are now ? which is disorder. But you can see the truth of your disorder anytime and anywhere and thereby give it order.

nick carter wrote: Sorry, but this is a platitude. If "you can see the truth of your disorder anytime", that's the end of it. The truth is that we can't see it. The question is Why?

Ok, but in my defense I would say that there is a sentence before this, "According to K, the blessings of enlightenment are not a pursuit in itself, but a byproduct of a mind that is in total order. " In other words, I am summing up what I understand K to be saying. It is very imortant to understand his angle, if one wants to have a profitable dialogue with the teachings - which I think I have.

I'll go more into it in my next post.

Forum: Insights Mon, 14 Dec 2009
Topic: Seriousness

?Our job is not to pursue the unknowable but to understand the confusion, the turmoil, the misery, in ourselves; and then that thing darkly comes into being, in which there is joy. ?
Krisnamurti, First and last freedom

I think that most people who have read K throughout the ages have thought of ?enlightenment? or ?bliss? as a reward that they would get if they did or didn?t do something that K said. Choiceless awareness was a kind mental acrobatics you had to perform to get to the state where K was.

According to K, learning how to live and bringing order in your life are not a means to an end. But we always think of it in that way. That is why our interest in ?what is? is always rather artificial. We have an end in view and the ?what is? is only a bridge to that future. Our urgency and dissatisfaction arise from the fact that we don?t like what is, but we don?t seem to be able to go beyond to ?the other shore?. What happens when we begin to see that the pursuit of enlightenment as we have thought of it so far is rather meaningless?

There is no path, no direction, no method, no place to go, no arrival, no reward. Then the question arises, what do we do about ?what is??

The word at this point is perhaps not urgency, but infinite interest, and patience. Is there a motivation to understand life that arises from what is, not from the anticipation of what shall be?

Forum: Insights Tue, 15 Dec 2009
Topic: Seriousness

This discussion has been long one. But I think there has been a logical progression in spite of all the detours.

The original subject was seriousness. We suggested honesty and responsibility towards what is. We discussed ?the first step is the last step?. Liberation is not a movement towards something and an arrival. Time measurements like ?instantaneous? or ?all the time? are not relevant. It is the action of touching the truth that matters. But what is touching the truth?

Then we brought in urgency or rather the lack thereof. I raised the question if there is a motivation that comes from seeing ?what is? and not from anticipation of ?what shall be? ? as we had ruled out progression and arrival. Could that energy and motivation come from touching the truth?

I think am beginning to realize something interesting. We have been brought up to accept a certain reality. This limited reality is held together by our habitual understanding and response. When we have thought ?A? we naturally and logically think ?B?. All those rules make up our conditioning. And what is really a projection we see as solid outer and inner reality.

We see something. Then we recognize it. Then we identify it. Then we know how to put it in its right place. We know how to respond. We think we have understood.

This is all very well in limited technological situations. However, when we are talking about our whole existential situation, it is not good enough. We may explain everything, but we still don?t understand. Our situation is still absurd and sad. When you think ?A?, you habitually think ?B?, but there is no deep understanding. It is all within the framework of thought. If you touch that truth even for split second, there is a subtle negation of the compulsion of the known, and a release of energy.

It is a discovery, not something that can be imitated, not even by oneself. Then it is brought within the field of the known.

25 posts  |  Page 1 of 1