Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
Discussion Forums

Paul Lanzon's Forum Activity | 55 posts in 5 forums


Forum: Insights Tue, 25 Aug 2009
Topic: ALL OF US

hello Jim, I don't know what I'm doing from one minute to the next, and as for reasons I've never been able to find any of those either. It's like being non-existent but conscious. Nothing is the weirdest word there is because, I think, there is nothing that corresponds with it (unless you count my brain). Nothing has never been encoutered actually because if it were it would be a thing, a 'something'. It can only exist as a concept - but isn't a concept a thing? OK, then nothing is something. Is there anything more devious than the human brain when it's gone off onto some rusty old railtracks into a bizarre and pretty hazardous landscape. At the moment I'm trying to apply some 'nothing' to my sciatic nerve which is causing me to end here. Welcome to kinfonet.

Forum: Awareness in our world today Fri, 28 Aug 2009
Topic: Organization per se is not the answer to human problems

Hallo Krishnan & Monic, When I hear the word 'organization' I shiver. I'm sure, however, that there are organizations that work really well, but they are not those that deal with the welfare of people. There is something of a lottery about large organizations which aim at doing 'good'. The education systems, for example in uk, are experts in spreading ignorance and boredom. I spent 21years teaching art (or trying to) in state education and not once did I come across a teacher with even a glimmer of awareness of the issues K discussed. I encountered only 'closed off' mentalities. Yes, there were those with 'good intentions', as usual, and genuinely dedicated and enthusiastic in their own way, but they invariably lacked that insight that makes 'right education' possible. Organizations are certainly not the answer to human problems; they are the result of human problems. The main problem being the misplacing of thought as the primary, most important factor in life, when it is only a secondary mechanism whose function it is to implement the insights of Intelligence and Compassion, and of course, to construct things that are useful to mankind.

Forum: Insights Sat, 29 Aug 2009
Topic: Can one's mind be totally empty of ideas?

We have to be clear first of all what is meant by 'the mind'. On one level the mind stores everything it has ever absorbed and this cannot be erased (except by surgery!). But this does not have to interfere with direct perception of 'what is'. A person is able to use ideas or concepts when and if they are useful in a practical sense, e.g. to design something, without them clouding his perception. But concepts that block true perception, like preconceptions about the nature of things, can only be overcome by constant attention to the physical and mental states, and a complete realization that the word is not the thing. Ideas can be harmful or useful, or neutral. They will take their proper place when the mind becomes quiet - no need to repress or discard them - they will go of their own accord when your mind is 'right', i.e. when you attend to 'what is' and not what should be. It all sounds so easy when put into words; it's neither easy nor difficult, because effort of any kind would be self-defeating. Sorry if this sounds like a sermon -

Forum: Insights Sun, 30 Aug 2009
Topic: Can one's mind be totally empty of ideas?

-Randal, have you ever had to design anything? - a house for example where certain restrictive conditions posed problems (practical problems) for the designer and called for ingenuity and imagination. Why this hostility to thought? - constructive thought, not psychological thought. Thought comes from the same source as insight, and 'right thought' is always guided by insight. Do you think the computer you use was designed without thought? Not that insight was involved in that...

Forum: Insights Mon, 31 Aug 2009
Topic: Can one's mind be totally empty of ideas?

Randal Shacklett wrote: No hostility, to thought , or anything else. If I design something I already know about, do I need to think about it? Isn't it when I need to learn something new, that I actually need to think?

If you mean that when you know something so well you kind of do it without thinking, like driving a car, then I suppose that's true; but a good designer is dancing with ideas and often takes apparently crazy risks, like Brunel, or Wren with the dome of St Paul's. Even when it seems you are working without thoughts I guess there is often some kind of unconscious directive at work, a sort of non-verbal thought, if that is possible. I don't think you could design anything if your were in a state of samadhi. I'm not sure whether you were still referring to this design thing in your last sentence, but if you were, then that's surely true that you need thought; it's also true that you need the ability to put aside what you know so that it doesn't obstruct the new 'material'. Sorry if I've gone off down some dusty side road, somewhat away from the main question; but maybe this has some bearing on the subject.

Forum: Insights Fri, 04 Sep 2009
Topic: Can one's mind be totally empty of ideas?

Klaus M. wrote: should be?? Can there be unclouded direct perception of what is? Can it do that when I have one single little idea about myself? Or has the mind to be completely empty of these ideas to be quiet, right, attentive, clear?

Sorry Klaus, I missed your reply. Yes, that is so: there cannot be that perception when there is any idea or image of self - but it is the attachment to these images that is the problem, for, they rest upon that attachment, or identification, and without it they would whither away. I think, perhaps, the question here might have been, "Can one's mind be totally free from ATTACHMENT to ideas?" And by ideas don't we mean identication with an image or concept, and the duality that makes the illusion of a self function?

Forum: Insights Sat, 05 Sep 2009
Topic: Can one's mind be totally empty of ideas?

Klaus M. wrote: So what then is the difference between the idea or image of myself and my attachment or identification with it?

Any notion of 'myself' is an attachment. There is no fundamental difference; the image embodies the attachment, if you'd prefer to put it that way. But when there is no attachment per se then the image would not arise. Attachment is a more fundamental problem than the image which is a secondary factor.

Klaus M. wrote: So what then is the difference between the idea or image of myself and my attachment or identification with it?

Forum: Insights Sun, 06 Sep 2009
Topic: Can one's mind be totally empty of ideas?

Klaus M. wrote: Then who or what is attached to the image?

A series of memories, impulses, desires, values, thoughts,etc., is what is attached, better known as the 'me'.

Forum: Insights Mon, 07 Sep 2009
Topic: Can one's mind be totally empty of ideas?

Klaus M. wrote: A series of images and ideas is attached to the images and ideas, right? And attachment itself? Is it an idea or image, too?

An image is attached to an image; that is the absurdity of the abnormal brain. If one is holding on to an image of oneself, that is a fact, though it is irrational since both images are illusory.

Klaus M. wrote: A series of images and ideas is attached to the images and ideas, right? And attachment itself? Is it an idea or image, too?

Forum: Insights Wed, 09 Sep 2009
Topic: Can one's mind be totally empty of ideas?

Klaus M. wrote: Yes, it may be a fact, but does the attached mind see this fact? Does it see any fact at all? Or is "attachment" just one more idea or image the mind is attached to? What does the attached mind really know about itself?

Of course the attached mind doesn't see this fact. We must be clear that observed attachment is not confounded with attachment as concept or image. The attached mind is unaware that it is attached (maybe dimly aware at times) and therefore the question of the attachment as another image does not figure. Another point may be, is there a mind at all? Nothing is more tiresome than words.

Klaus M. wrote: Yes, it may be a fact, but does the attached mind see this fact? Does it see any fact at all? Or is "attachment" just one more idea or image the mind is attached to? What does the attached mind really know about itself?

Forum: Insights Fri, 18 Sep 2009
Topic: Dreams

Linda & all,

Hallo dreamers, may I chip in here? I don't know whether this is of any use to your conversation, but I once knew someone who was convinced he had never dreamed in his life. Then one day he told me he had been abruptly woken up by a loud noise in the early hours of the morning - and guess what? Yes, he had been in the middle of a dream. My point is how can one be certain one is not dreaming if the dreams are forgotten on waking in the morning? However, I know that it is possible to maintain awareness even in sleep, if the mind is well acclimatized to ( ). Perhaps K has a good reason for seeming so indifferent to dreams. You may well be able to learn from some of the very weird symbolism of dreams, if you can unravel it. But it will most likely not amount to very much in relation to the central problem of overcoming the dualistic mind and the belief in a false self...

Forum: Insights Sat, 19 Sep 2009
Topic: Dreams

Prasanna P wrote: Paul Lanzon wrote: However, I know that it is possible to maintain awareness even in sleep, if the mind is well acclimatized to ( ). Paul, I would thank you to elaborate on this.

Hi, Prasanna, that '( )'. mark was just an indication that I couldn't find an appropriate word for a samadhi-like state of awareness. But there is another quite different 'experience' of being aware in a dream whereby one can actually determine the direction the dream will take, by force of will. I discovered this as an eleven-year old schoolboy who was getting fed up with being pursued by malificent beings, being pushed into cold black bottomless pools, and numerous other terrifying or menacing situations. For a period of about a year or more I could actually 'direct' the dreams like a movie director - but not entirely - it was not always possible to change certain things, but if it got too threatening I could easily wake up - and sometimes could re-enter the dream again with a more definite plan of action; but that was sometimes difficult and fairly infrequent. It sounds loopy, but I began to look forward to dreaming instead of hating it and wondering what torments would be in store.

It is important to mention, I think, that before I could do this I kept a kind of focus of will alive throughout the day with whatever intensity I could manage. It was the sheer joy of being able to more or less be the one who is in control and to determine events that kept the will focussed. Also I had a notion of wanting to turn the dreams into scripted dramas; but not surprisingly that was a total disappointment. Then it all ended - I don't remember whether it just stopped or gradually fizzled out; but I seemed to stop dreaming - or at least the 'monsters' certainly were permanently 'exorcised'. But maybe they continued without my conscious knowledge -who knows?

Prasanna P wrote: Paul Lanzon wrote: However, I know that it is possible to maintain awareness even in sleep, if the mind is well acclimatized to ( ). Paul, I would thank you to elaborate on this.

Forum: Insights Sun, 20 Sep 2009
Topic: Dreams

Hi prasanna, About this 'will': if my recollection is not too distorted, it was an absolute determination that I must at all cost master those dreams. And so I had to keep the intensity of that will, that thought, alive during the waking hours as much as I could; I felt that if I didn't do this the mind would become vulnerable and succumb to the 'demons' once I was asleep. This 'will' is really just a thought, a desire, but very intensified and persistent.

Maybe I should add that I've never tried to repeat the experiments of those juvenile days and at present I occasionally have truly fantastic dreams ( most of which are soon forgotten) though there is no desire to alter or get rid of them; to me they are not that important.

Forum: Awareness in our world today Sun, 20 Sep 2009
Topic: What is not based on truth and love will wither away....

Krishnan Srinivasan wrote: If truth and love are missing, harmony actually does not exist and hence the result of such interactivity would become failure and wither away. This appears to me the law of NATURE

Hi Krishnan, If by love you mean that which is totally unmotivated, comes from NOWHERE, but unites all things (dharmas), or maybe reveals that things have never been ununited, (except by thought) then there is nothing more to be said. But we will say more because we are such blabbermouths; love can make you want to communicate, or stay quiet.

Krishnan Srinivasan wrote: If truth and love are missing, harmony actually does not exist and hence the result of such interactivity would become failure and wither away. This appears to me the law of NATURE

Forum: Awareness in our world today Mon, 21 Sep 2009
Topic: What is not based on truth and love will wither away....

Peter Stephens wrote: i think it is a sentiment. I am questioning love is something i attain and make the world a better place.

Hi Peter, The problem seems to be that you are thinking of dualistic love, which, as krishnan pointed out, is merely the other side of hate, and has absolutely no relationship to unmotivated love. You cannot 'will' this love to happen - it is not the result of intention. You are passively 'activated' by it, like a run-down battery that's receiving a charge. It is totally inexplicable. And if it were more common there would be no need of organizations at all - cooperation between people would be second nature - you would not feel seperate from anything.

The big question is: Why is this love such a rare bird? For those who know only dualistic love (which is, as you rightly suggest, just sentiment) this 'rare bird' type will sound like an impossible ideal - and that would be natural since they've never caught even a glimpse of that rare bird. This bird can never flourish where thought dominates, where time is a preoccupation - its breeding habits are determined by a mind at ease in emptiness, unattached to emptiness and awake to the mystery of Being, (not the opposite of non-being).

Peter Stephens wrote: i think it is a sentiment. I am questioning love is something i attain and make the world a better place.

Forum: Awareness in our world today Fri, 16 Oct 2009
Topic: Under total awareness, fear changed into bravery&courage

Yes, when mind is right the body is light. It's funny in a way to speak of these two as though they were unacquainted with one another. Negative thoughts can harm the body and make it feel heavy; affirmative thoughts can revive it.

I don't know whether that girl acted from complete awareness or not, but it was certainly a very brave thing she did. Perhaps it was the response of outrage which temporarily overrides fear and gives a powerful boost of energy - perhaps she had a stronger survival instinct than usual - who knows.

Just a thought: would K have commended this action? Or, like Buddha and Christ would he turn the other cheek? This is a tremendous problem for some; not many have the capacity to turn the other cheek - that takes even greater courage than to face an armed enemy - that takes complete fearlessness, which may be just a by-product of Love, Metta in its highest manifestation. But then, I have to ask, if you would protect another from harm why would you not do the same for yourself since you are another and he is you. Oh dear, words are so easy, so delusive - so seemingly brave. It's so true, most of us lack courage.

Forum: Awareness in our world today Sat, 17 Oct 2009
Topic: Under total awareness, fear changed into bravery&courage

Prasanna P wrote: All great men tried to liberate mankind from misery, but not from death or pain. Misery happens to be unnatural and avoidable and obviously when one is free from sorrow, one can easily face not only pain or death but any situation, because a fearless mind is a single mind. Most of us lack courage, because of fragmentation.

This is all very true and well-said. But I wonder why misery, sorrow etc., are unnatural; aren't they the logical outcome of fragmentation? When something is not functioning properly certain bizarre things happen, but they are natural in relation to the malfunction. True they are unnatural in relation to the unfragmented mind. Just a very trivial nit-picking point.

Prasanna P wrote: All great men tried to liberate mankind from misery, but not from death or pain. Misery happens to be unnatural and avoidable and obviously when one is free from sorrow, one can easily face not only pain or death but any situation, because a fearless mind is a single mind. Most of us lack courage, because of fragmentation.

Forum: Awareness in our world today Sun, 18 Oct 2009
Topic: Under total awareness, fear changed into bravery&courage

Prasanna P wrote: True. But does this conclusion end the misery ? The fact is not only the misery, but also that the unfragmented consciousness is generally aware of its bondage to something. Hence, it is trying to become free from the influence and domination of that fragmented part. What do you think?

I wasn't intending to make any conclusion there. Doesn't the misery rest upon the belief and identification with the ego? which is a kind of perpetual hunger to become. I am not sure that the unfragmented consciousness could be in bondage. Perhaps to a very minor extent, but then that would be only a partially unfragmented mind. Do you mean in moments of insight you see the bondage? I guess that would be true, but the insight must be all-embracing. And that habit-energy is not going to disappear without persistent attention - but no strained effort.

The effort to free oneself from the fragmentation is only to strenthen it - it would be better to stay with the fragmentation and just be aware of the processes going on - not to be too concerned about any outcome.

Forum: Awareness in our world today Mon, 19 Oct 2009
Topic: Under total awareness, fear changed into bravery&courage

Prasanna P wrote: My observations at some places could appear to be slightly different from that of K. He generalised that people are either completely free or not at all free and there is nothing in between. It is like 'all or none' principle. This won't explain, why there is such a vast difference in levels of understanding in various people.

Yes, I understand what you mean; I think he was sometimes a little too absolute about some things, and too general in others; but perhaps this was the result of his intense and passionate nature which knew no compromise. And also - perhaps it might be relevant - K's way of exposition was like that of a skilled artist or musician in his delivery of a talk. I often felt, after a talk, as though I'd just heard a masterwork. And this may give some hint as to why some of his 'themes' were uncompromising. There is a certain lack of tolerance, sometimes, but I believe K didn't have much time for that particular concept, as with most others.

Ultimately I have to say that I have not myself witnessed such a vast difference in understanding in the various people I have encountered throughout my years. Yes, certainly in degrees of intellectual understanding, but not in the 'big matter' that was the theme of K's talks. I have met one person who had apparently swallowed all of K's books and videos and knew more about his teaching than k himself. But the moment he opened his mouth I could see he had considerably less insight than my neighbour's cat.

Forum: Awareness in our world today Thu, 05 Nov 2009
Topic: Nobel prize for peace to Sri.JK

ganesan balachandran wrote: Thank you Patricia for the information. There is a need to understand JK with ourselves first and also we have a comitment to inseminate his teachings or propagate. This will become easier if he is awarded nobel prize, and if you can suggest some thing else in lieu of it , it is most welcome

Hallo Ganesan,

Hope it's ok to chip in here. I must agree with Patricia in this matter; after all, what is the point of reducing K's significance by putting him on the same level as, for example, Willem De Klerk, The Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change, or The International Atomic Energy Agency? If K were to become known through this prize do you really think people would seriously look at his teachings?

Anyhow, the whole business of awards (or rewards) is a part of that dualistic delerium which is at the root of all our problems. You award some and punish others. Nothing could be more absurd than a prize for peace; it reveals the incurability of human vanity. Sorry to sound so unhelpful.

Forum: Awareness in our world today Mon, 09 Nov 2009
Topic: Can we consider Krishnamurti as continuity of Budha

Yes indeed, Madhav, I believe we can consider K as another Buddha. He was profoundly impressed by the Buddha's teaching in his ealier days and anyone who has studied Buddhism deeply can see all through K's teaching an unmistakable parallel.

Unfortunately, few people today, either in the west or the east, have anything but a superficial understanding of Buddhism. It takes much patience and humility, as well as intelligence, to fully grasp this immensely subtle teaching -which seems so simple on its surface, and which shallow minds stupidly conclude is easy to understand - of course they only see it intellectually. The Buddha, like K, was eager to clear every vestige of emotional and intellectual garbage from the mind of man. They were like great and skilfull physicians wanting to restore complete health, wholeness, to their patients.

But, as you are probably aware, there are many variations of Buddhism and there have been many more than just one Buddha. The Dzogchen teaching of Tibet in its essence is identical with the central point of K's teaching. And anyone who has studied the Ch'an masters of T'ang dynasty China will know that 'Buddhahood' was not always such a rare state. But K was undoubtedly his own man, even though he is, to my mind, a continuation of that great indian tradition from the vedas and upanisads to Buddha, to Nagarjuna, Vasubandhu, Asanga, etc.

Forum: Awareness in our world today Mon, 09 Nov 2009
Topic: Can we consider Krishnamurti as continuity of Budha

Patricia Hemingway wrote: And that is what happened in that talk with Buddhists. So busy were they - trying to 'fit K in' - they missed altogether what he was saying. And so it continues.......

You're right about comparisons. But because someone dons a robe and takes some vows doesn't make them 'Buddhas' - most so-called Buddhists are not much more 'enlightened' than most Christians, although they may have a better intellectual understanding of certain principles. We should only be considering those who actually embody, but also go beyond, the teachings, because all teachings have limits.

And if these 'Buddhists' were trying to fit K 'in' then that proves they were acting out of keeping with the true spirit of Buddhism (which is shown at its best in K's work).

Forum: Awareness in our world today Tue, 10 Nov 2009
Topic: Can we consider Krishnamurti as continuity of Budha

Patricia Hemingway wrote: K made it very clear that the only manner in which to approach the teaching is with an empty and clear mind.

If you have an empty and clear mind then why should you need to approach any teaching? K negated Buddhist belief (and all other belief) but he couldn't negate what is at the heart of Buddha's teaching because he was 'that'. Buddha didn't teach anything that required belief. Strangely I've never encountered any K 'enthusiast' who has ever actually studied any kind of Buddhism, yet they always seem ready to make slashing generalizations. Could their minds be too full of K 'ism' ?

I don't wish to be taking a position for or against either Buddhism or k but simply to 'see' them without the labels. I don't identify with the teachings of Buddha or K but I revere them both as great seers - and yet I see that ultimately they have spoken not one single word, and that is as it should be.

Forum: Awareness in our world today Tue, 10 Nov 2009
Topic: Can we consider Krishnamurti as continuity of Budha

ganesan balachandran wrote: I can point out many differences with Buddhas teachings and JK's. gb

I'm sure you are right, Ganesan. But maybe they are not very significant differences -perhaps you think they are. Both teachers wanted above all to free mankind from (self-inflicted) suffering, and the tyranny of conceptaul thinking. And both put the highest importance on compassion and wisdom (prajna).

I suppose there are bound to be differences as they lived in such different times and conditions. Buddha went from material security and wealth to almost the opposite, whilst with K it happened around the other way. It goes to show that external circumstances don't count for much where insight is concerned.

Forum: Awareness in our world today Tue, 10 Nov 2009
Topic: Can we consider Krishnamurti as continuity of Budha

ganesan balachandran wrote: I can point out many differences with Buddhas teachings and JK's. gb

I'm sure you are right, Ganesan. But maybe they are not very significant differences -perhaps you think they are. Both teachers wanted above all to free mankind from (self-inflicted) suffering, and the tyranny of conceptaul thinking. And both put the highest importance on compassion and wisdom (prajna).

I suppose there are bound to be differences as they lived in such different times and conditions. Buddha went from material security and wealth to almost the opposite, whilst with K it happened around the other way. It goes to show that external circumstances don't count for much where insight is concerned.

Forum: Awareness in our world today Tue, 10 Nov 2009
Topic: Can we consider Krishnamurti as continuity of Budha

ganesan balachandran wrote: I can point out many differences with Buddhas teachings and JK's. gb

I'm sure you are right, Ganesan. But maybe they are not very significant differences -perhaps you think they are. Both teachers wanted above all to free mankind from (self-inflicted) suffering, and the tyranny of conceptaul thinking. And both put the highest importance on compassion and wisdom (prajna).

I suppose there are bound to be differences as they lived in such different times and conditions. Buddha went from material security and wealth to almost the opposite, whilst with K it happened around the other way. It goes to show that external circumstances don't count for much where insight is concerned.

Forum: Awareness in our world today Tue, 10 Nov 2009
Topic: Can we consider Krishnamurti as continuity of Budha

ganesan balachandran wrote: I can point out many differences with Buddhas teachings and JK's. gb

I'm sure you are right, Ganesan. But maybe they are not very significant differences -perhaps you think they are. Both teachers wanted above all to free mankind from (self-inflicted) suffering, and the tyranny of conceptaul thinking. And both put the highest importance on compassion and wisdom (prajna).

I suppose there are bound to be differences as they lived in such different times and conditions. Buddha went from material security and wealth to almost the opposite, whilst with K it happened around the other way. It goes to show that external circumstances don't count for much where insight is concerned.

Forum: Awareness in our world today Wed, 11 Nov 2009
Topic: Can we consider Krishnamurti as continuity of Budha

ganesan balachandran wrote: i mean a fundamental difference.

I hope you will tell me of this fundamental difference. But do so only if you have studied Buddhism from the inside and not from a superficial hearsay of Hindu prejudice; that would be pointless.

Forum: Awareness in our world today Thu, 12 Nov 2009
Topic: Can we consider Krishnamurti as continuity of Budha

ganesan balachandran wrote: This is true and i too agree with this and I dont see the difference in the individuals. gb P.S:The dos and donts which Buddaha said also, iam of the opinion it is some body else quote.. Am I correct?

Thanks Ganesan. Well, about the dos and donts we really cannot say, as the scriptures were written down well after Buddha's time by his followers. So it is believed. Some of the Pali scriptures (I am no expert in Pali) do give the feeling of being authentic , but others not so much. But somebody must have had a deep insight into Shakyamuni's teaching for there is no doubt that, if you have patience enough, you will sense that unmistakable fragrance of Truth coming through these suttas.

Personally I think the scholars may be mistaken in thinking that nothing was written down in Buddha's time - can you believe that none of those disciples were tempted to make notes of what they had heard? I think that followers are usually more dogmatic than their teachers and can become fanatical, maybe this accounts for some of the doubtful passages in the Nikayas. We cannot be certain that we are hearing the actual words of Buddha - but, all the same, somehow I think the true spirit does come through these very dry, very prosaic and repetative works, to awaken the Mind (the One Mind) without attachment.

Forum: Awareness in our world today Sat, 14 Nov 2009
Topic: Is vegetarianism a must for saving the world and ourselves?

Prasanna P wrote: According to me, non-vegetarianism, population explosion and other innumerable problems of mankind are merely the results of a disorder in the mind. Instead of removing each problem, perhaps it is easier to focus on the disorder of the mind. What do you think?

Hi Prasanna, You have hit the nail on the head. People talk about these things as though it's a matter of choice between vegetarianism or meat. Anyone who has a natural compassion and reverence for life cannot possibly harm an animal, let alone kill one to eat. The idea of breeding animals for human consumption is criminal and definitely the sign of a mind that is in pieces.

I hesitate to judge the aboriginal people of Australia, who do eat animals - perhaps the terrain does not provide enough vegetation - but they seem to have a deep respect for the animals, and, anyhow, they would never kill more than they require. I was thinking of the appalling slaughter of the american bison by the white usurpers of that once harmonious land. The indiginous people revered the land and never took more than they needed - it was sacred to them. Along came Pale Face and the result was there for all to see: a masterpiece of chaos which is with us still.