Robert Michael wrote:
"If your parents really loved you, they would see to it that you had no cause for fear, that you were healthy, happy human beings; they would see to it that there was no war, no poverty in the world, that society did not DESTROY YOU or anyone around you, whether the villagers, or the people in the towns, or the animals. It is because parents do not truly love their children that there are wars, that there are the rich and the poor." (J. K. - TOTT') So I feel that that "intelligence" K often spoke of is more simply and correctly LOVE. Were I to write a book I would title it, 'The Awakening of Love', wherein it would get right to the nitty-gritty of just how this takes place,

Ok, Bob, I think I used the words..."cut to the chase." Wrtie your book here. But go slowly so the reviewers can get in their two cents and please dont bother with what is wrong with not loving as we all know this. As we know Nidal Hassan was not obviously loved properly by his mother and his Islam religion.

First, I would like for you to define "love" and if you can please distinquish its biological component. It is not dopamine as that is the "love" chemical based on pleasure which can involve sex and that would be feeling and K said "Love is not a feeling."

phil K wrote:
"If your parents really loved you, they would see to it that you had no cause for fear, that you were healthy, happy human beings; they would see to it that there was no war, no poverty in the world, that society did not DESTROY YOU or anyone around you,......... - K.

Phil, in the light of the extreme behaviors of mankind, this quote may be studied in to. On the one hand, we have Gandhiji like effortful and renunciating peace messengers and on the other we also have Hitler like reformers through force or violence in the whole world. And both types and even other in-betweens have followers undoubtedly, leading to a lot of confusion among the young.

Perhaps K meant that if parents responded naturally (i.e., not in extremes) towards children, then the nascent minds also would grow naturally. That would give rise to natural minds in the children, who in turn would also behave naturally or normally or without conflicts throughout their lives.

In other words, if one really loved children, one won't cause a permanent damage to children. For example, restricting a child's movement within the 4 side panels isn't causing any permanent damage to the intelligence during the growing years of the brain. Whereas punishing the child, when it pulls down a table cloth along with plates and dishes amounts to one extreme. Later again pampering it when parents are unable to withstand its cries, amount to another extreme, perhaps resulting in some unnatural interaction. This is my understanding, I don't know how others see it.

Unless Advanced, K's Teachings May Remain As Ineffective As of Now

Phil,

"First, I would like for you to define "love" and if you can please distinquish its biological component."

The definition of "love" isn't love, of course, and I wonder if we have the mechanical capability (words; knowledge) to actually describe and define love.

Carl Sagan said that "Love seems to be an invention of the mammals," and ascribes it to altruistic behavior apparently sited in the limbic system. ("The Dragons of Eden")

Is this the sum of what love might be, just a biological result or function?

max

This post was last updated by max greene Wed, 11 Nov 2009.

Phil Sir, defining "love" is not an easy task as people proclaim their love for so many things.e.g car,house,food,physical appearance, mental attributes, sexual attraction, the work of art, a place,the work they do, their hobby,the family, mother nature, universe etc. and finally "love" for their own interpretation of God.
So, how to define the all-encompassing "love"? Can it ever be done with words? How about undertaking a journey in your forum to discover first hand various dimensions of "love"?

Regards !

P.S - I assure you that this time I will be taking very keen interest in this new topic.

FLOW WITH LIFE!

Are we talking 'love' as the opposite to 'hate'? Because it would seem that this opposition-type 'love' is all that human beings have any ability at all to touch upon.

Is it that one can only speculate about what may be termed 'universal love' - which cannot be owned?

What are we talking about when we claim 'love'?

Patricia Hemingway wrote:
What are we talking about when we claim 'love'?

I think it was Kierkegaard I was reading on Love in the Christian context, there are 2 gospel truths, 1. love the Lord and 2. love your neighbor as yourself, and so it is presumed that Love is the way we feel about ourselves because there is no need for a great commandment to Love ourselves... it is what we do and i was thinking that all the selfishness in the world is not Love of ourselves, its just a fear of being considered stupid

ive also been translating Hume and he pointed out that people arent really bad, only that a few badduns can really louse things up for the many, and i agree, e.g., how many of you have been arrested? see, the laws arent written for you

human unhappiness is becoming more sophisticated in no small part due to technology which has increased the destructiveness of the few, nevertheless, at the same time, here we are using technology to discuss Love, so perhaps it has a chance of Love gaining the place in the world that it has always held in our hearts, and speaking of heart, the idea of having heart (not the pump) is first last and always the Love function, even the cold heart has somehow been frozen from its heartedness

and another off the wall thing here is just that this idea of unconditional love is, to me, redundant, anything less than unconditional isnt Love at all, its holding a heart hostage i.e., If you __________, then I will Love you. It doesnt matter what you fill in the blank, what you get in return is definitely not Love. Love is not a reward. (K would probably like the negative construct of this idea, to guess what Love is not)

still there is a whole lot of room for a whole lot of liking, like I like you Patricia, its hard for me to Love humanity (I dont know those people!) but I believe that human nature is a Loving nature and while I have a great deal of evidence to support this presumptuous belief, I know I cant prove it

all I can say that I never met a baby I didnt love, perhaps deep down inside I know we're all big babys

and one last thought: If all of our feelings point to values, and they do, then Love is not a feeling, it is the default value. Love is letting people be who they really are.

Health care is everyone's job, not just in treating illness but in promoting healthy living. We must take personal responsibility, engaging our minds and hands in meaningful work - all essential components of healthy, secure lifestyles and communities.

This post was last updated by Trees Palin (account deleted) Thu, 12 Nov 2009.

wow...what a bunch of great statements. I would love to respond but this was put up as a repsonse to Bob and I need a response from him first. I think I have already read the statement , though, that defines it best for me and I think is right along with K. Where to go after the definition is the thing though that should bring us to some agreement how to pursue love in our own lives if that is even possible to do with intention.

phil K wrote:
Where to go after the definition is the thing though that should bring us to some agreement how to pursue love in our own lives if that is even possible to do with intention.

As far as the idea that Love is Intelligence, our earliest intelligence is not necessarily of Love. I can appreciate the correlation since both are passive principles, allowing the world to work on us. Love is a trusting principle as opposed to intelligence which questions everything, and rightly so. I wrote in another thread that Love is listening. Intelligence is more like the willingness to attend. Perhaps the heart informs the mind with Love whereas the mind informs the heart with what it has intelligence of.

My personal opinion is that children are way more intelligent than adults because a learning mind is the epitome of the unconditioned mind. We should be consulting with them instead of controlling them. When my Thee & Thou were fighting, I would make them find a way to resolve it in dialogue and adoreably they never once decided to solve the problem in the way I would have dictated, but it ended the conflict!

Institutional education is a disgrace. When I was 19 I studied Yoga and the relaxation techniques I learned there have made it possible for me to dispel all cramping for the rest of my life. This is a useful, practical tool that a second grader could learn, why dont we teach them something they wont figure out for themselves, like this, instead of say color. Its an insult to teach children colors, not only because they dont need to be taught them but much worse because they believe, since the big people they love make such a deal out of it, that colors must be incredibly important and you get "I want the blue one! the pink one! the purple one!" willful, then we punish them for being so demanding. Children have an instinct for justice and equality. They are never bigoted before the age of reason (about 6 years old) they demand fairness and if they ruled the world I have a feeling Life might just be fair after all. All is fair in Love, Nothing is fair in War.

I may have a cultural bias, but as opposed to the biblical tenet to "spare the rod & spoil the child" the Japanese dont believe that babys need punishment, ever, because they have no sense of wrongness and it can't be explained to them, punishment only makes them feel bad about themselves and worse because it is buried deep in their prememory consciousness, and just imagine if you had nothing but acceptance and kind guidance until you reach the age of reason (about 6 years old) then the rest of your life inside of you, your very sense of self would be built on a foundation of well being and good will. As I see it, the transformation JK encourages will come when we unlearn punishment and return to the learning mind. The gospels says, unless you are like a little child, (i.e., trusting) you will not enter the kingdom, its much the same idea.

Health care is everyone's job, not just in treating illness but in promoting healthy living. We must take personal responsibility, engaging our minds and hands in meaningful work - all essential components of healthy, secure lifestyles and communities.

Phil: Write your book here. But go slowly so the reviewers can get in their two cents and please don't bother with what is wrong with not loving as we all know this.

Bob: Phil, I never said I want to write a book. What I said was if I were to write a book I would title it 'The Awakening of Love'. However, it's not in the cards for me to write a book. Instead, my path ahead is to focus primarily on forming a body of people who are capable of making the return to love. Along with continuing to perfect myself in the ways of love and Truth, since they go hand in hand, and the effective communication of these spirit liberating things. And participation herein continues to be of benefit in this process, even though I feel that perhaps it's only a fruitful adventure for myself. And rather than others getting their "two cents in", I feel it's vital that people undergo a radical shift which will manifest more readily when the mind is quiet, still, listening, suffering, and deeply longing for something beyond.

Phil: As we know Nidal Hasan was not obviously loved properly by his mother and his Islam religion.

Bob: What makes you so sure of this, Phil? It's been said that what is done out of love takes place beyond good and evil. Though those with minds that are small, narrow, malformed, fragmented, biased, full of conclusions, self-centered, greedy, and are thereby naturally unloving will never understand such things at all. Instead, they will go on blindly and discompassionately judging and condemning people and situations largely out of fear, ignorance, and arrogance. Along with lacking the capacity for forgiveness while constantly casting stones and looking for and pointing out the terrorists, evil, and other negative or bad people, places, or things out there or over there, while being totally oblivious of the deceitfulness, violence, and wickedness that dwells deep in their own minds and hearts which will never know love. Unless the radical shift and the purification process takes place in them. And if a man cannot love his enemies just as he does his friends, he doesn't know love at all.

Phil: First, I would like for you to define "love" and if you can please distinquish its biological component.

Bob: Attempting to define "Love" is very much like trying to define God. I might say here that to Love is to see God everywhere, to be able to see the world through the eyes of a child, to live in a state of radiantly enlightened "choiceless awareness" and ACTION, to feel perfectly at home regardless of wherever one happens to be, or to meet a stranger and engage with him or her as if you were the best of friends your entire lives; but none of these things will have little, if any at all, meaning to most people. K tried valiantly over his many years to define love and truth, only to eventually come to realize the futility of his efforts.

http://www.katinkahesselink.net/kr/love.html

Though, for certain, I find personally that there can be no true and enduring love, given that a sound foundation of it does in fact exist in a person, without the shift and keen and unending self-critical awareness and rigorous self-discipline. Which is to also say that one must be built for love, if it is to ever genuinely and fully flower in him. And, as K alluded, the discovery (or re-discovery, since again it has to be there in the first place) of love is made largely by the discovery of what is not love. The process of which is not an adventure of the mind, or certainly not one of the mind alone, but rather one of trial and error that utilizes primarily awakening and re-enlivened feelings that were essentially dead for years, along with residual rememberances of lost or repressed, but not totally forgotten, past experiences of feelings and love. And of course those too which were not of love.

If you insist on a biological or a scientific componet of love, Phil, I suggest you examine the book 'The Biology of Love' by Arthur Janov. Wherein he initially makes it clear, as does J. C. Pearce, that, "if a trauma or lack of love happened to us during a critical period, nothing in adult life can change it because the changes that took place at the time were inprinted in the neurobiologic system permanently." Yet, instead of fully accepting this fact and keeping things simple, he goes on to suggest there are still solutions in spite of this, along with getting mired in chasing after various essentially scientifically grounded ideas, theories, therapies, and other complications.

Phil: It is not dopamine as that is the "love" chemical based on pleasure which can involve sex and that would be feeling and K said "Love is not a feeling."

Bob: "Love is not a feeling" (K). If this is true, how was K able to sense or perceive that "super energy" or that "immense energy, immense intelligence" that he said had been using his body for 70 years? Or how did he sense or perceive the joys he said came with true impersonal love? Through thought? Through the intellect? Through knowledge? Or through feelings? Or perhaps through a combination of them all (within a finely formed and tuned body or organism)?

In the early years he placed an emphasis on the need to "feel", and said that an intellectual conception was not enough, that "passionate feeling was essential", a burning energy which he could only compare with falling in love. And that it was this power to fall in love, to give oneself completely, that he found so lacking, and particularly in older people. (K: 'The Years of Awakening' - Lutyens) Yet, as some of his friends too sensed, as time went on, K seemed to have lost a lot of the joy of living and love that he had so much of in his earlier years. Which I feel was largely due to his falling away from doing the perfect will of love ("Love and do as you will and there'll be right action" - K) and associating with and engaging in primarily intellectual or scientifically rooted dialogues and discussions with Bohm and other like-minded people. People who, contrary to K, had no real heart-knowledge or experiences of truly feeling and harmoniously flowing with the genuine joys and passionate energy, intelligence, and language of love.

Lastly, the reason I place so much emphasis on the absolute need for a revolutionary shift to take place in a person if he'd to ever enter into the Kingdom of Love is beacuse it's been my own personal experience (and also that of K's and others) and it also clearly reflects, and with deep understanding, Christ's dictum that "unless a man be born again he can not see the Kingdom of God." The fact of which organized Christianity has become totally oblivious to, rendering it everywhere totally impotent and ineffective in the true salvation or the moral and spiritual regeneration or resurrection of men, women, and children.

And my final thought here is that I continue to remain in full agreement with K's observation, that he made near the end of his days, that, "probably love has totally disappeared from this world." ('K to Himself: His Last Journal' - 1983) While remaining ever-hopeful that I can be truly instrumental in bringing the Light of Love and Understanding into our dark and decaying world.

Bob M.

"Very soon a man shall appear who will finally dispell the universal darkness from our world." (Bob M.)

This post was last updated by Robert Michael (account deleted) Thu, 12 Nov 2009.

Robert Michael wrote:
forming a body of people who are capable of making the return to love... I might say here that to Love is to see God everywhere

hows that working out for you? it seems a strange place to declare such an intention since this forum is constitutionally unwilling to join any so-called body of people because we know that all people are capable of making a return to love and the very idea of group think is not loving at all

it seems to me, holiness, is to see God everywhere, the Love of God is not the same as the Love of Humanity... Do you consider yourself a more holy man than JK was?

Health care is everyone's job, not just in treating illness but in promoting healthy living. We must take personal responsibility, engaging our minds and hands in meaningful work - all essential components of healthy, secure lifestyles and communities.

This post was last updated by Trees Palin (account deleted) Thu, 12 Nov 2009.

Robert Michael wrote:
And my final thought here is that I continue to remain in full agreement with K's observation, that he made near the end of his days, that, "probably love has totally disappeared from this world." ('K to Himself: His Last Journal' - 1983).

Yes, and please remain so consistently at least for some time. Further, K's works have to be taken in totality, and not the often tongue in cheek statements that he made.

While remaining ever-hopeful that I can be truly instrumental in bringing the Light of Love and Understanding into our dark and decaying world.

Yes. Bob, the 'I' in you can be truly instrumental, only if it can get rid of its oscillations and become poised and stoic.

Unless Advanced, K's Teachings May Remain As Ineffective As of Now

Oh my, I am almost afraid to post as for sounding inadequate after reading all of your responses. So I must try. Let me take the two definitions I have to agree with. Max's I quote in total. Therese' I quote as pretty much nailing the definition in my view.

max greene wrote:
The definition of "love" isn't love, of course, and I wonder if we have the mechanical capability (words; knowledge) to actually describe and define love.

This is the rest of Max's quote but the quote box messed up:

Carl Sagan said that "Love seems to be an invention of the mammals," and ascribes it to altruistic behavior apparently sited in the limbic system. ("The Dragons of Eden")
Is this the sum of what love might be, just a biological result or function?

Therese Okamoto wrote:
and one last thought: If all of our feelings point to values, and they do, then Love is not a feeling, it is the default value. Love is letting people be who they really are.

Love is the default program. K said this by using negation. Love is not this or that, but when you finish negating everything, you have love. This negation process should mean the negating and ending of conditioning. As long as this goes on in the mind, you are not experiencing love in the moment. Do we at times all experience love? Yes, of course, but how quickly is the experience committed to thought and feeling thereby denigrating the experience to something that we might try to repeat, but love is not repeatable. It is ?what is? at the moment of experiencing and then it is gone. If in that moment there is feeling because of proprioception that is not the feeling of thought. If it is an experience of the senses in the moment, can it be ended at that or does thought and desire come in and create memory which then wants to repeat the good feeling.

Ok, so much for my definition of love, and I think everyone posting is pretty much on the same page in this. Where do we go now? Bob says that he hopes he can bring light in to this world and Therese thinks that group think is not too hot and Prasanna thinks Bob needs to control his ?I? a little to accomplish his goal. I think we all don't want to end up like K and have no effect on the world in general and maybe die frustrated as he must have.

I wonder why we come here and talk to each other? I think now it is a civil group of people talking in dialogue. I have run dialogues and participated in dialogues in Ojai and they never end up very civil. This is an intelligent group of people and I think sincere. Now we have the advantage of not being a cult because we have no clue who each one of is and that is just fine. This is all just words and thoughts popping up in our heads. Some thoughts organized a little more than others and some thoughts reflecting knowledge of K more than others and some thoughts coming from maybe personal points of view. But it is all good input. I am learning from all the words here and let me tell you, that is a new experience for me. It's been pretty lonely out here talking to people and to blank faces or people who react to the things I say. Two days ago I said something to the preacher of the largest and most prosperous church in Oklahoma City which has sometimes two churches a block, and the man, who knows me, was shocked and got up and left. I doubt he will talk to me again.

So let me throw this out. There has been a lot of talk about babies, children and the innocence of the child. I do like the biblical statement...be yea as children in order to enter the kingdom of god...I take this as a statement of innocence of conditioning and not one of religion, of course. So if this has any truth and we have to remember that in progressive society, children do need to be potty trained and we have to extend that to learning a career, then how do we who are conditioned in varying degrees rear a child to be free from conditioning. Maybe this is the wrong question and the question is how do we help the child end the conditionings after he learns them? If we can answer this, then we might be on the road to figuring out how to end our own conditionings. And I would have to say, and I have been trying to put this in as a response to what Prasanna, the psychologist in our midst, that I doubt one who is conditioned can rear a child of any age without passing that conditioning on to the child who uses imitation as a method of learning.

This post was last updated by phil K Fri, 13 Nov 2009.

Phil, your posting is encouraging and appears to be promising to bring out better revelations from other participants, if there is no rigidity on anybody's part.

phil K wrote:
I think we all don't want to end up like K and have no effect on the world in general and maybe die frustrated as he must have.

If I may, I would like to say that K didn't die frustrated, as he had no misery or sorrow. He merely expressed his disappointment intellectually, about others becoming like him, during his life time. All great teachers including K had the same natural or free state of mind, but failed in their expressions to liberate mankind. Of course, K was much better than others in intellectual expression.

Just because K failed in his expressions and also expressed his disappointment, we can't say, we don't want to be like him. It could still be great. Because, in that state, we would all be normal, though we would be doing our best to save the world and mankind just like K. One may not be able to free others, unless one is free. Isn't it so ?

Then we may realize, what is needed is the understanding that the human brain is nothing more than a biological machine. As every machine, it has its principles for its effortless and optimum functioning. When the unraveling of it is done, it is obvious that the mind has returned to its normal state and all its characteristics can be termed as love, affection, responsibility, understanding et all.

I think only those, who become free by volition, can prepare an intellectual road map for the protection of freedom in children and returning to normal state by adults. Those who became free suddenly or without asking for it, may not be able to do much for others. Perhaps K too didn't have any idea of freedom, before he became free. What do you think?

Let every one give their point of view on the subject, rather than condemning the message or the messenger.

Phil: we have to remember that in progressive society, children do need to be potty trained and we have to extend that to learning a career, then how do we who are conditioned in varying degrees rear a child to be free from conditioning.

Phil, if you ponder on this point, you would see that the problem is with the user or 'I', and not the knowledge. Merely, if the 'I' in children is left to grow on its own, without external extreme handling, the stability of 'I' naturally remains.

Haven't we seen reasonably stable individuals amongst us and outside ? If we come to know what could be the error in upbringing responsible for conditioning, then elders can easily avoid that error.

Elders' conditionings don't pass on to children either genetically or by imitation. Conditioning is merely an intellectual escape from staying with reality.

Unless Advanced, K's Teachings May Remain As Ineffective As of Now

Therese: How's that working out for you? It seems a strange place to declare such an intention since this forum is constitutionally unwilling to join any so-called body of people.

Bob: When and as my 'self' totally dissolves it will work out just fine, Therese. And the depth and magnitude of compassionately and lovingly dispersed Truth within this loose-knit organization or body of people will cause it to automatically be an esoteric and ever-fully integral adventure. One that will operate on a close, intimate, person to person basis rather than an impersonal medium of communication or communion such as this, which I continue to feel is not at all conducive to the genuine rebirth, redevelopment, and flowering of love in human beings. Love in all it's fullness and glory can only truly be reborn in solitude or among people who have sincerely embarked upon this "road less traveled". And with unending and total abandonment of the conditioned self and all of the insane, cut-throat, dog-eat-dog consumerism, exploitation, and physical and psychological violence that's been created by our fallen and near totally self-centered, self-absorbed, and fear-filled human world. And just as no one understood K, no one will understand the group, though its light and radiance will be undeniable, as was his much of the time.

Therese: Because we know that all people are capable of making a return to love.

Bob: I find this is mere wishful thinking rather than the tragic truth of the matter. Severely fragmented or damaged minds will not find love or wholeness of being under even the very best of circumstances, nor in the whole of a lifetime. K realized this fact early on, but as time went on and the world wore him down and got the better of him, he left go of his grip on this sad fact.

Therese: And the very idea of group think is not loving at all.

Bob: Actually our entire world lives, acts, and reacts according to "group think" or what one might call a world mind. One that is highly infectious and spirit destroying. As a result our world is everywhere void of love, harmony, and true brotherhood. The goal of this new body of people, who "will become the flame" (as per K), will be to rise completely above and beyond all of this essentially violent and alienating group think or world mind and will learn to think and act primarily from their hearts, or according to their feelings, rather than their heads.

Therese: It seems to me, holiness, is to see God everywhere.

Bob: Agreed, though in keeping things a little less divine and more practical or down-to-earth, I would equate "holiness" with being in possession of a pure or right-functioning mind and heart or organism. One must always be careful here not to become so heavenly-bound, holy, or saintly that he's no earthly good.

Therese: The Love of God is not the same as the Love of Humanity.

Bob: Care to explain the difference here, Therese? I really don't see any.

Therese: Do you consider yourself a more holy man than JK was?

Bob: Do I consider myself more wholly than K? Yes, I believe that is so. Surely I feel I'm more deeply self knowing/understanding and self-reliant, along with having explored the abyss more deeply, thoroughly, and fearlessly than he did. And I would add that I also feel I'm far more open to the advice, suggestions, views, and criticism of others and various fundamental religious principles and truths than he was.

Bob M.

"Very soon a man shall appear who will finally dispell the universal darkness from our world." (Bob M.)

Prasanna: Yes, and please remain so consistently at least for some time. Further, K's works have to be taken in totality, and not the often tongue in cheek statements that he made.

Bob: Yes, and I do know K in totality, psychologically speaking, Prasanna. And better than he knew himself. And this is only because I know myself totally, or let's say, near-totally. Which is where all understanding must begin; by assuming full self-responsibility and then growing in rigorously honest self-knowledge and change.

Prasanna: Bob, the 'I' in you can be truly instrumental, only if it can get rid of its oscillations and become poised and stoic.

Bob: You're exactly right here, Prasanna, and more and more I'm becoming keenly aware of this, earnestly continuing the fine-tuning, and becoming more perfectly free of all the lingering remnants of the bad conditioning. How's that for a new approach? We talk much about conditioning, while blindly assuming it's all of a negative, bad, or corrupt nature, while often failing to realize that we were also subjected to good conditioning (thank God!). And that the purification or spiritual restoration process or journey is a matter of becoming clearly aware of this fact and then sorting it all out. Yet, and once again, without that all-important shift or rebirth first taking place in a person this will have no meaning or effect and at best he'll be little more than perhaps a good psychologist, though he'll never set foot in that wondrous mystical dimension of being that K once referred to as the "Kingdom of Happiness". Which is reserved only for those who have been gifted with pure minds and hearts. Ones that are full of passion, energy, and the desire to know and live in the Light of Truth at all costs.

"I would ask you to look at my point of view; I would ask you to come and look through my window, which will show you my Heaven, which will show you my garden and my abode. Then you will see that what matters is not what you do, what you read, what any person says you are or are not, but that you should have that intense desire to enter into that abode where Truth dwells." (J. K. - early talk, 1926 - 'Years of Awakening' - Lutyens)

And to paraphrase Keats here: Truth is beauty and beauty is truth, and that is all ye need to know.

Bob M.

"Very soon a man shall appear who will finally dispell the universal darkness from our world." (Bob M.)

This post was last updated by Robert Michael (account deleted) Sun, 15 Nov 2009.

Robert Michael wrote:
We talk much about conditioning, while blindly assuming it's all of a negative, bad, or corrupt nature, while often failing to realize that we were also subjected to good conditioning (thank God!).

I would like to know what you consider "good" conditioning. It is my view that all conditioning whether culture decides it is bad or good is not necessary. By this I am using the definition of conditioning as the learned response that is attached to emotion instead of to the actual fact of the thing. I distinguish this from using the word to mean just simple learning. I don't consider potty training for example to be conditioning yet parents can condition it by using punishment and reward; thereby, attaching the body function to the emotion of fear or pleasure instead of the practical elimination of the waste matter. Now, I am just using this example since I mentioned it earlier so I dont think we need to belabor the subject of potty training itself.

I am only bringing this up, Bob, because of the fact that my conditioning subtopic has been moved a little bit over to here as seen by Rick who is a new poster's response to your statement about conditioning. I dont think you posted on the conditioning topic. I would prefer moving this over to the conditioning subtopic if you want to respond over there. I am going to put this response over there too.

Therese Okamoto wrote:
As I see it, the transformation JK encourages will come when we unlearn punishment and return to the learning mind.

I liked it. Is it also not important to know, how physical hurts affect the mind ?

Unless Advanced, K's Teachings May Remain As Ineffective As of Now

phil K wrote:
How do we who are conditioned in varying degrees rear a child to be free from conditioning?

My view is that it is virtually impossible for even the best of parents to raise a child who is totally free of conditioning. And especially in these times, due to the collective insanity or the fallen nature of the species. However, I feel it is still possible, though it's very rare, to raise a child who, not so much intentionally but by the luck of the draw, so to speak, will have the necessary solid foundation of love and truth, or a finely-formed conscience or neurological makeup along with having a deep insightfulness into discerning authentic human actions and behaviors, like K had; which may then allow him to fully overcome his conditioning at a later time in life. Though even with an adequate foundation there's still no guarantee that a radical breakthrough will take place and the conditioning will in fact be overcome. Nor will it be overcome without great suffering, struggles, and change.

One can better understand what I'm trying to point out here by carefully examining what is known and documented in regards to K's early years. Just what made him such a unique and outstanding human being, though unfortunately he, himself, never came to grips with or appreciated just what made him so. Some of which follow here. His parent's marriage was said to be a very happy one, which I feel is one of the greatest blessings a child can have. He had an extraordinarily close bond with his mother. His being the 8th child, who in the Hindu tradition is considered to be an incarnation of Krishna, caused his mother to treat his birth and upbringing as very special because of this. His many early illnesses which caused him to miss much school (once for whole year) afforded him much time with his mother. Which also provided him an extra amount of sheltering and protection from the crowd, so to speak. An astrologer predicted that he would be a very great man, which too must have made the bond and care even greater between him and his parents. Both he and his mother were clairvoyant and saw visions and the auras of people, they being the only ones in the family with such abilities, which is a clear sign of an extraordinary sensitivity. It's also said that K showed a religious vein, as did his mother, along with a keen interest or curiousity in mechanical things from his earliest days.

So, in light of the above circumstances of K's early development along with having similar parallels and extraordinary or special care and circumstances take place in my early development, I can clearly understand why the conditioning never took hold in either of us, or certainly not in such a way that it could not eventually and ultimately be fully overcome. Which is not the case with the vast majority of people. Or where there could be a full return to a childlike state of purity or innocence. Likewise there are several other outstanding men, whose early lives especially I've examined, who have had very similar experiences. And while the details of their early days are often sketchy and limited, I have a keen intuitive sense of just what made them what they were. An extraordinarily loving and caring mother generally being their good fortune. Along with an awareness that most of them also underwent, as did both K and myself, revolutionary 'self'-shattering rebirth, dark night, or kundalini awakening experiences later on in life.

Also important here is the fact that while societies, generally speaking, were never without a good deal of conflict, ignorance, and violence, K was most surely born in a far saner time and place, such of which no longer exist anywhere anymore, and especially in these last days. And for this reason (the total spiritual and moral bankruptcy of the world) even the most well-intention attempts to parentally train up children in the ways they should go or to build schools, etc. for the happy and harmonious development of children are doomed to fail. And because of this ongoing generational deterioration it has become quite clear to me that my 3 grown sons, ages 41 - 47, while being considerably intelligent, responsible, and successful individuals, they are lacking in having the keen organismal sensitivity that their father has and as a result I doubt very much that they will ever overcome their conditioning or attain to full and total self-knowing or full and authentic being. And while my own shortcomings and failings (due to my then not yet overcome defective conditioning) certainly contributed to their lack of sensitivity, the societal moral and spiritual deterioration that took place in just the single generation that separates us also played a large hand in their desensitization. Of course there are other factors involved here which I've closely examined and weighed over the years of trying to get to the root of the exact nature of the fallen human condition, its effects on me, and how I became a part of it.

These observations and revelations, which certainly hit close to home and were often very painfully realized, serve to thoroughly convince me that this species of life we call human has fallen or deteriorated to a point whereby it has become so deeply and irreparably dehumanized that only a few individuals will be capable of rediscovering and making the return to their full and authentic human nature. And then, and again, not without undergoing a time or times of great "fear and trembling". The return to sanity can not be successfully made without first going deeply into and then rising fully above the tragic and horrific nature of human life, and the role we played, or were conditioned to play in it, or had to play in it for our very own survival.

"Most mothers are capable of giving "milk", but only a minority of giving "honey" too. A mother must not only be a "good mother", but 'a happy person' - and this aim is not achieved by many. The effect on the child can hardly be exaggerated. Mother's love for life is as infectious as her anxiety is. Both attitudes have a deep effect on the child's whole personality; one can distinguish indeed, among children - and adults - those who got only "milk" and those who got "milk and honey". (Erich Fromm - 'The Art of Loving')

"Most of us are no longer really human, we have been deprived of our humanity. We have been dehumanized by the process of conditioning, upbringing, and socialization. We are no longer the organized human self which we were once capable of being.....What we are born for is to live as if to live and love were one. Unless we learn that lesson 'the goose is cooked' as it were." (Ashley Montagu)

Bob M.

"Very soon a man shall appear who will finally dispell the universal darkness from our world." (Bob M.)

This post was last updated by Robert Michael (account deleted) Mon, 16 Nov 2009.

Prasanna P wrote:
All great teachers including K had the same natural or free state of mind, but failed in their expressions to liberate mankind. Of course, K was much better than others in intellectual expression.

This is because they failed to deeply understand the root of the problem from which the realization comes that only a very small portion of humanity can ever attain to a "natural or free state of mind" and the reason for this fact. And then develop an approach and a manner of teaching accordingly. One that will effectively liberate a few individuals, and, unlike K, will not backslide, deteriorate, or be sucked by others into a dead intellectually grounded one.

"Man is born as a freak of nature, being within nature and yet transcending it. He has to find principles of action and decision making which replace the principles of instincts. he has to have a frame of orientation which permits him to organize a consistent picture of the world as a condition for consistent actions. He has to fight not only against the dangers of dying, starving, and being hurt, but also against another danger which is specifically human: that of becoming insane. In other words, he has to protect himself not only against the danger of losing his life but also against the danger of losing his mind." (Erich Fromm)

Fromm's view here parallels mine in that most of us have in fact lost our minds as the result of the natural development or evolution of the species. Though I feel there's still hope for mankind in that a few of us who are capable of making the return to sanity or sound-mindedness can find each other and then create that "good society", "new civilization", or "new world" that K often spoke of, or we might well say he foresaw, envisioned or dreamed of. Though it is also my view, and contrary to K's and other's, that it will definitely have to be developed away from the beaten path, away from all the "rotten, corrupt, mad, decaying" [K] societies that have been produced by the natural and necessary fall of man. His long fall into narrow, lifeless and loveless, and overly analytical, rational, logical, or self-protective thought-mode, which are the products of a damaged mind or brain. A brain which is not at all aware that it is damaged nor of making a return to sanity.

"Thought has become conditioned over the ages, partly by heredity, and partly through tradition, culture, and environment. It has been conditioned to self-deception, to falsify, to distort. And this is in the material structure of the brain. In one sense this conditioning constitutes a subtle kind of brain damage. Conditioning gives great importance to thought, to the self and to the center. It overloads, it distorts and gradually damages the brain.....There is real physical, chemical damage to the brain cells and those damaged brain cells will produce thought that is inherently distorted. Therefore, as thought tries to correct that damage, it does so from a distorted brain." (David Bohm)

Bob M.

"Very soon a man shall appear who will finally dispell the universal darkness from our world." (Bob M.)

This post was last updated by Robert Michael (account deleted) Tue, 17 Nov 2009.

Indisputably, K overtook all other great teachers, when he narrowed down his search for truth and concluded that it is the human mind that is in 'problem'. Undoubtedly it was a great leap for mankind, when he identified the real aberration as the 'vagaries of thoughts'.

However, when he unwittingly began blaming 'thought' as the origin of human problems, all his serious readers were unknowingly put on a wrong track, thereby losing their first invaluable chance to successfully conclude or wrap up the great human search for truth. Blaming the 'thought' was like catching a puppet by leaving the master mind behind it to go scotfree. This, according to me, unfortunately hindered all readers to understand K's teachings as well as the process of the mind itself.

Thought is no more than a fleeting volatile image, which the 'I' constantly produces as well as experiences. Same thought can reappear continuously, since each thought can't last more than a moment.

It is the 'I' that is conditioned that too merely intellectually, yet neither always, nor in all intellectual areas. It is conditioned in specific intellectual areas only, wherein it can't easily change to a new, contesting or a challenging idea or thought, even if it is real or factual. For instance, generally one can't deny, question or change one's god, religion, guru or any concept, when one is conditioned or taking pleasure or diversion from it.

Unless Advanced, K's Teachings May Remain As Ineffective As of Now

I am not sure I got out of K that he blamed thought for all the problems. I do know that this is what many many K readers blame, but for some reason I never saw this in my understanding of K. If I am missing some quotes, then I would be glad to read them. It seems that K lived more in the right brain world of non thought, but his abilities to communicate was all left brain thought which he was a master of.

I do agree the misinterpretation by the general public of what he was saying did cause great problems. My mother tonight, in fact, asked me to tell her a little bit of what K was about and I did. Her immediate response was the typical response of reaction to what I said with her own interpretation and using her own words to throw out the statements I made. I dropped it as not to cause consternation in a person who has enough problems just staying alive.

Prasanna P wrote:
Indisputably, K overtook all other great teachers, when he narrowed down his search for truth and concluded that it is the human mind that is in 'problem'. he unwittingly began blaming 'thought' as the origin of human problems ...

Phil: If I am missing some quotes, then I would be glad to read them.

Hope Bob will kindly help us locate K's thoughts on 'thought'

Phil: I do agree the misinterpretation by the general public of what he was saying did cause great problems.

I would like to see some such instances.

Phil: It seems that K lived more in the right brain world of non thought, but his abilities to communicate was all left brain thought which he was a master of.

Wasn't it enough for K? Can you also tell whether there is an exact proportion in which one should live between the left and the right brains to have the right balance in life ? ;-)

I dropped it as not to cause consternation in a person who has enough problems just staying alive.

I think, You did the right thing.

Btw, do you know where i can see the text of Burton's speech at KFA ? Did your friend post it on ning?

As an aside, recently I had an opportunity to be at one of the celebrations of a national science academy, where some distinguished scientists of other countries also made their presentations. Most scientists had gone so very deep into their subject, that they seemed to have almost lost touch with the non-intellectual world.

Finally, the great humanist and ex BBC india bureau chief, Sir Mark Tully in his valedictory address caused a sort of anti climax stating "Do not dismiss religion and believe in the traditional wisdom of science. ...." He further added, "scientists believe that the problems created by climate change can be solved. But if we only believe in science, it will lead to imbalance in the world." He muttered that Science limits human perception.

According to me, Science is the collection of perceptions of the hidden and unknown secrets of nature that are reasonable, provable, verifiable and even replicable. Whereas Religions are primarily collections of stories of extreme and comparative behaviors of people coupled with advices to imitate and practice the morals from those lessons. However unwittingly, as almost always, religion had won over science, that too conspicuously on the latter's home pitch.

Unless Advanced, K's Teachings May Remain As Ineffective As of Now

phil K wrote:
I am not sure I got out of K that he blamed thought for all the problems. I do know that this is what many many K readers blame, but for some reason I never saw this in my understanding of K. If I am missing some quotes, then I would be glad to read them. It seems that K lived more in the right brain world of non thought, but his abilities to communicate was all left brain thought which he was a master of.
I do agree the misinterpretation by the general public of what he was saying did cause great problems. My mother tonight, in fact, asked me to tell her a little bit of what K was about and I did. Her immediate response was the typical response of reaction to what I said with her own interpretation and using her own words to throw out the statements I made. I dropped it as not to cause consternation in a person who has enough problems just staying alive.

Phil Sir, the topic was started to discuss 'love' and in your last post the word 'love' has not come even once. I will request you to take charge and turn this in proper direction.

Regards !

FLOW WITH LIFE!

I have tried to keep things on topic as if you go back, I moved an entire post over but people have questions that may be off topic and I would think it rude not to answser it. I have to depend on others to stay on topic a little bit but Kinfonet posters dont adhere to this anywhere that I have seen, and I cant use spanking as a conditioning.

Prasanna, people have had nervous breakdowns trying to look at thought. I have seen it in person. I have no clue how to balance or what the balance should be and I dont think that is an issue. Notice my avatar and make it bigger. It shows my struggle. I am almost totally left brain but would "love" to play golf all the time. Last. Troy from the foundation will post the talks on Kning and I will be notified by someone who follows Kning and I will post a link as soon as it is up. Now Prasanna, please talk about "love" on this topic.

There, Sudhir...I used the word "love" twice in this post...lol

Therese Okamoto wrote:
As I see it, the transformation JK encourages will come when we unlearn punishment and return to the learning mind.
Prasanna P wrote:I liked it. Is it also not important to know, how physical hurts affect the mind ?

hurt hurts and it doesnt have to be physical either

Health care is everyone's job, not just in treating illness but in promoting healthy living. We must take personal responsibility, engaging our minds and hands in meaningful work - all essential components of healthy, secure lifestyles and communities.

phil K wrote:
There, Sudhir...I used the word "love" twice in this post...lol

To be fully attentive on anything is to love it, irrespective of using the word 'love' often to show it.

Unless Advanced, K's Teachings May Remain As Ineffective As of Now

This post was last updated by Prasanna P Thu, 19 Nov 2009.

Therese Okamoto wrote:
hurt hurts and it doesnt have to be physical either

Do you mean to say that both hurts are same ?

Unless Advanced, K's Teachings May Remain As Ineffective As of Now

Prasanna P wrote:
Prasanna P wrote:
Indisputably, K overtook all other great teachers, when he narrowed down his search for truth and concluded that it is the human mind that is in 'problem'. he unwittingly began blaming 'thought' as the origin of human problems ...
Phil: If I am missing some quotes, then I would be glad to read them.
Hope Bob will kindly help us locate K's thoughts on 'thought'

Phil wrote:
Phil wrote:Phil: I do agree the misinterpretation by the general public of what he was saying did cause great problems.

Below is David Shainberg's view on the "dilemmas" of K and his 'teachings', which I feel is a rather accurate assessment. I've transcribed it (to the best of my ability) from the DVD entitled 'Krishnamurti: With a Silent Mind'. Personally, I feel as time went on K's mind broke down and he developed and then got lost himself in a totally wrong, false, and unfruitful Path. One that was based primarily in thought, the intellect, analogies, reason, and logic, which his organizations, followers, and adherents continue to blindly promote everywhere. So as K once said, that "probably love has totally disappeared from this world", most certainly the love ("that perfume that can never die" - K) has totally disappeared, (or in fact did die) from the 'teachings', at least as they are carried forward by those who claim to understand K or live the 'teachings'. I think largely ignoring K's pre-1933 talks, etc. or considering them not yet fully mature by the Foundations also does a great injustice to both the teacher and the teachings. In any case, all teachings, religions, therapies, counseling, 'programs of recovery', etc. that have lost the perfume of love and its redevelopment as their ultimate focus and concern serve only to continue to increase and perpetuate the darkness and the chaos in our world.

"Love is the missing factor, there is a lack of affection, of warmth in relationship; and because we lack that love, that tenderness, that generosity, that mercy in relationship, we escape into mass action, which produces further misery. We fill our hearts with blueprints for reform and do not look to that one missing factor, which is love." (J. K. - 'The Book of Life' - Mar. 19)

"The problem with K's teachings, often times the problem with K, and the problem for the people involved with him, the trap that they fall into, was that the whole thing was so much constructed in thought, that it was talking about thought, but very often it was, the speeches were so much about thought, the intricacies of analysis was thought, the, ah....., dilemmas of thought, that very often it was a little bit an instant of its own, ah....., complaint. And as a result, people thought they could think their way to this understanding, and left alone, very often, they would, ah....., simply become more and more involved in, well thought is not good, I should not be thinking, and they would become obsessed with that, or they would think it's not good to think and therefore they weren't thinking because they thought is was not good to be thinking. I think that one of the dilemmas of the whole thing with K, and why so many people had a lot of difficulties with it, and why a lot of people didn't like it, and why a lot of people who have been involved with it have imagined themselves to be, ah....., so to speak, enlightened or they know what's happening. And very often the impression was that they had put their lives on ice, they had put their feelings on ice, they had put their, ah....., existences, their sexuality, their, ah....., the dynamic joy of existence, the fun, all of the things that were really the rich potpourri of life, ah....., they had lost. And I think unfortunately toward the end of K's life he had lost some of that, and earlier in life he was having a lot more fun." (David Shainberg, M.D.)

Bob M.

"Very soon a man shall appear who will finally dispell the universal darkness from our world." (Bob M.)

This post was last updated by Robert Michael (account deleted) Thu, 19 Nov 2009.

phil K wrote:
Do we at times all experience love? Yes, of course

I would say, no, Love is not an experience, it is a value.

Health care is everyone's job, not just in treating illness but in promoting healthy living. We must take personal responsibility, engaging our minds and hands in meaningful work - all essential components of healthy, secure lifestyles and communities.

Prasanna P wrote:
Do you mean to say that both hurts are same ?

every hurt is as painful as it is, idnit?

Health care is everyone's job, not just in treating illness but in promoting healthy living. We must take personal responsibility, engaging our minds and hands in meaningful work - all essential components of healthy, secure lifestyles and communities.