Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
Discussion Forums

Mittarkumar Khera's Forum Activity | 57 posts in 5 forums


20 posts  |  Page 1 of 1
Forum: Insights Fri, 21 Aug 2009
Topic: Future is Now

Future and Now are mutually exclusive- an invention of thought. Now is totally unknown, scientificaly and also otherwise.

Forum: My Favorite Krishnamurti One-Liners Fri, 11 Dec 2009
Topic: The fear is never an actuality

It exists before the present moment or after the active present. That is what "K" says. I have seen the truth of this a couple of times. One may be free of it but it requirs complete attention all the time whiich is not possible. So one always lives with fear. How far it is an abstraction- I do not know. Miar Kumar Khera

Forum: My Favorite Krishnamurti One-Liners Mon, 14 Dec 2009
Topic: The fear is never an actuality

RICK LEIN wrote: Hi Mittarkumar, It seems K addressed fear as being of two types,one being instinctual,the other being,of thought.AS far as the second type one could say that fear is born of and sustained by thought in time.One way of seeing this is to see that fear in thought equates to False Expectations Appearing Real.

RICK LEIN wrote: Hi Mittarkumar, It seems K addressed fear as being of two types,one being instinctual,the other being,of thought.AS far as the second type one could say that fear is born of and sustained by thought in time.One way of seeing this is to see that fear in thought equates to False Expectations Appearing Real.

Forum: My Favorite Krishnamurti One-Liners Mon, 14 Dec 2009
Topic: The fear is never an actuality

If one oberves it closely one may find that there is no such thing as instinctive fear. If one comes across a snake one suddenly steps aside.
After a split second thought process sets in and fear appears. In the instinctive action there is no fear.

Forum: My Favorite Krishnamurti One-Liners Mon, 14 Dec 2009
Topic: The observer is the observed

ganesan balachandran wrote: If observer is observed and if it is true then everyone should see the same.

ganesan balachandran wrote: If observer is observed and if it is true then everyone should see the same.

Forum: My Favorite Krishnamurti One-Liners Mon, 14 Dec 2009
Topic: The observer is the observed

ganesan balachandran wrote: If observer is observed and if it is true then everyone should see the same.

ganesan balachandran wrote: If observer is observed and if it is true then everyone should see the same.

Forum: My Favorite Krishnamurti One-Liners Mon, 14 Dec 2009
Topic: The observer is the observed

ganesan balachandran wrote: If observer is observed and if it is true then everyone should see the same.

ganesan balachandran wrote: If observer is observed and if it is true then everyone should see the same.

Forum: My Favorite Krishnamurti One-Liners Mon, 14 Dec 2009
Topic: The observer is the observed

Mittarkumar Khera wrote: ganesan balachandran wrote: If observer is observed and if it is true then everyone should see the same. ganesan balachandran wrote: If observer is observed and if it is true then everyone should see the same.

Why evryone shoud see the same? Everyone being an observer is a conditioned entity and every entity is differently conditioned and therefore must observe differently.

Forum: Insights Tue, 15 Dec 2009
Topic: The Past

nick carter wrote: Now we have to define "fact". Is the immediate present not factuality? Or do you mean factual information needed to give meaning to the immediate present?

Can fact be ever defined? What is defined is nvever a fact but only a definition. May be one can say that "what is" at a given momnt is the fact. Again, present is completely unknown entity, scientifically and otherwise. When we look at the present we look with the eyes of the past, the background and therefore we nver look at the present. e do not know wha it is. Mittar Kumar Khera

Forum: Insights Wed, 16 Dec 2009
Topic: what is to be free from the mind.

nick carter wrote: Now, if you got the import of that statement, the question then is when 'the observer' is 'the observed' is there observation?

As long as an observer exists, the observer is always the obseved, whether the observer is watching a sunset, a tree, a mountain, a river or any other object living or non-living. This is because the obsever is a conditioned entity and there the observation is always partial, never omplete. When the observer is absent, then there is only an oservation which os complete seeing. In that case observer can never be the observed. Mittar Kumar Khera.

Forum: My Favorite Krishnamurti One-Liners Thu, 17 Dec 2009
Topic: The observer is the observed

Krishnan Srinivasan wrote: It is heart warming to see our friend Prof M.Khera participate again...( he was ill)hope he has recovered and I wish him good health for many years to come.. with warm feelings of regard...Krishnan

Thank you very much for your kind words and your good wishes. I am still seriously ill but right now my codition is fairly stable and so I am back here.It is a nice feeling to be greeted the way you have done. M.K. Khera (Mittar Kumar Khera)

Forum: My Favorite Krishnamurti One-Liners Thu, 17 Dec 2009
Topic: The observer is the observed

ganesan balachandran wrote: If what is observed is true....? gb

I guess, it is true if one observes with complete attention.

Forum: K's teachings - new or old? Fri, 18 Dec 2009
Topic: New or old or strange&unique

ganesan balachandran wrote: why dont we try to throw away everything, even the job, wealth and all that which gives so called security. That time we can percieve everything... gb

Is it not important to find out why we should perceive everything? Why this urge? Why should we try anything? Can we perceive everything without trying to do so ? M.K. Khera (Mittar Kumar Khera)

Forum: Insights Fri, 18 Dec 2009
Topic: Violence

nick carter wrote: For most, if not all of us, the present moment is never untouched,

Do you mean to say that the present moment is never touched? or Untouched? If you really mean "never untouched" then I may question it. May be you do not mean it literally. Scientifically and therwise too the present moment is eterna and unknown. Mitta Kumar Khera

Forum: My Favorite Krishnamurti One-Liners Sun, 20 Dec 2009
Topic: The burning of the known isthe action of theunknown.

Greg Van Tongeren wrote: The energy of insight (the action of the unknown) being unconditioned vibrates at a far greater intensity.

Yes, the energy of the insight may be the energy (or action) of the unknown. One can not invite it. It is not at one's command. It brings clarity and in clarity all doubts disappear and one never ask questions. Mittar Kumar Khera

Forum: Insights Tue, 22 Dec 2009
Topic: Future is Now

daniel moru wrote: before the big Bang

The question, what was there before the 'bg bang' is an "unscientific question". To overcome this the authors may have introduced a notion of"imaginary time" and discussed the consequence. One could also proceed by saying that before the big bang there was "absolute Silence" (another theory). Out of this silence 'Creation' is pouring in. The origin of the whole existance of matter is that "silence" and so on. The noise of the universe is rooted in the Silence and it is not "Noise" but should be called "Order of the universe". This silence comes about when the mind is absolutely still (go to K for further discussion and that is what he was trying to tell Prof. Bohm). The basic fact is that theories are (whether valid or not valid) cannot be subsitute for the actual "Prception". When that happens to a person, he will never ask questions,like the origin of matter, the nature of 'god', the prupose of life, etc etc etc. M.K. Khera

Forum: K's teachings - new or old? Thu, 24 Dec 2009
Topic: New or old or strange&unique

ganesan balachandran wrote: my contention is that knowledge is not necessary even for practical purposes.

It is not clear what do you mean by "knoledge not necessary even for practical purposes". How will your reach home if you are outside of it?

Forum: General Discussion Mon, 28 Dec 2009
Topic: The transformation

Elizabeth A. wrote: rom what I can gather from what I have read of K.'s writings he remained in this state for the rest of his life. In my experience this three-level state is transitional and one is not meant to stay in it. It feels quite unnatural and inherently unstable. If one completes the transformation what happens is the three levels of consciousness resolve into one thing which is something and nothing.

Before discussing anything in details, I would like to mention, at the outset, the following three points: 1. K never divided consciusness into various levels. Levels imply measurement of consciouness. 2. K never practised 'meditation' or for that matter he never practised anything. 3. The transformation that K spoke about was so complete as to involve the mutation in the brain cells as well.

Forum: General Discussion Tue, 29 Dec 2009
Topic: The transformation

Elizabeth A. wrote: He said that he didn't meditate in the ordinary sense, but that he woke up meditating. So he was in some kind of state where he was continually meditating. He believed meditation was extremely important and that the universe may be in a state of meditation. In the resolved state, where thought is no longer operating separately, I'm not even sure it would be possible to meditate. I don't really see how it would be possible and I am very suspicious that K.'s practice of meditation prevented his consciousness from ever resolving. I know there are grand traditions of meditation but to me it is an artificial practice that I don't believe anything real can be gained from and my advice to anyone who undertakes this transformation is: don't meditate. Don't do anything artificial to try to control or engineer what is taking place

In continuation of my earlier comments I would like to bring to your notice the flowing excerpts on "Meditation" by "K". I am taking this liberty because you said that you are not expert on K. I aplogise before hand, in case you have already gone through all these. "Meditation is not a means to an end, no arrival; it is a movement in time and out of time. Every system, method, binds thought to time but choiceless awareness of every thought and feeling, unerstanding their motives, their mechanism, allowing them to blossom is the beginning of meditation."

"Meditation is not a play of imagination. Every form of image, word, symbol must come to an end for the flowering of medition. The mind must lose its slavery to words and their reaction. Thought is time, and symbol, however ancientand signficant must lose its grip on thought. Thoughtthen has no continuity; it is then only from moment to moment and so loses it mechanical insistency; thoughtthen does not shape the mind and enclose it within the frame of ideas and codition to to culture, to the society, in which it lives....."

"Meditation is th compolete ad total emptying of the mind, not in order to receive, to gain, to arrive, but a denudation witout motive; it is reall emptying the mind of the known. conscious and uconscious, of very xperience, thought and feeling......" "Meditation without a set formula, without a cause and reason, without end and purpose is an incredible phenomenon. It is not only a great explosion which purifies but also it is death, that has no tomrrow. Its purity devastates, leavingno hidden corner where thought can lurk in its own dark shadows....."

I shall write toyou similar excerpts on concsiousness and mutation in brain cells if you so desire. Thanks MKK

Forum: General Discussion Wed, 30 Dec 2009
Topic: The transformation

Elizabeth A. wrote: he is describing something that is fundamentally irrelevant. No-one needs to meditate. Meditation has nothing to do with transformation and may even harm it. I

Meditation is not something of which one knows anything about. To meditate in order to find out 'what is meditation' is Meditation. That is the meaning f the word meditation. One may also put it that awareness of "what is" is meditation, because in awareness self does not exist and therefore question of harm simply does not arise. There is no one to be 'harmed'. MKK

20 posts  |  Page 1 of 1