Whenever we enjoy some thing beautiful, we always feel to share it with some one we love. It must be a natural instinct like I think when some one is in trouble we extend our hands for help. when some people if they change their attitude we feel how wonderful it is. In spite of it when i see somuch in it and the other if they dont understand what could be the reason, I have always wondered. Shall we discuss those factors which prevent people from understanding JK.

We are watching, not waiting, not expecting anything to happen but watching without end. JK

This post was last updated by ganesan balachandran Fri, 16 Oct 2009.

All humans are restricted in their understanding. No one, men or women, are able to enquire seriously. If I am restricted, why be concerened what others are, or are not, doing?

Some look upon this as a wonder, another describes it as wonderful, and others hear of it as a wonder.
Even after hearing about it very few people (no one)know what it is.
gb

We are watching, not waiting, not expecting anything to happen but watching without end. JK

ganesan balachandran wrote:
What I mentioned was a pure observation

Yes, well, purity of observation, is an interesting phenomenon, indeed.

Thoughts:( A hymn for thoughts)

Of all that was of old and of all that is new, of all that
rises from the soul and all that seeks expression they are the
impellers. They stand in the upper and the lower and the middle
heaven; they have descended from the highest supreme. They are
born of the Truth; they are luminous leaders of the mind; they
shall drink the sweet wine of delight and give us the supreme
inspirations. The Woman, the Divine is with them who shall put
away from us hurt and thirst and desire and refashion man?s
mind in the form of the godhead. Lo, these are knowers of the
Truth, seers whom the Truth inspires, vast in expression, vast in
diffusion, young for ever and immortal.

Appears that there is a connection with the topic, thought inspite of this has got limitation.
gb

We are watching, not waiting, not expecting anything to happen but watching without end. JK

ganesan balachandran wrote:
Is there any restriction in women which prevents them from going deeply in to JK's writtings. I find many of them take it as a fashion to dicuss on Jk Rather than giving it a serious concern. This is just an observation and iam not trying to bring in any conflict. besides see many religious teachers are men only? dont say they were denied freedom. for all our questions now there is an answer? gb

Yes, there are restrictions of oppression and ignorance of the eastern societies. It does not allow women the individual right of freedom to express who they truly are, rather, who they "should be" . This was the main theme of Krishnamurti's teachings......you are what you are, not what you should be.

And why not say, "they are denied freedom"? is that not the truth? I feel sorry for those women who are born into such societies. And you sir, if you don't recognize the fact that women are denied freedom than you are blind, or just choose not to acknowledge this fact. (not trying to be rude at all, for that is not my nature).

the superficiality of existence is thriving

This post was last updated by Monic Devi Sat, 12 Sep 2009.

Monic Devi wrote:
individual right of freedom to express who they truly are

I am afraid you are very mistaken if you are suggesting Krishnamurti advocated the individual right to express anything, by men or women. He pointed out very clearly that Individual self expression was the cause of societies ills. People in the west are simply expressing their collective insanity, which is not freedom at all. On a personal level, I agree with your observations of the oppression of women. But it is the mind responsible for that, and we all have one. Therefore, we are all responsible for it.

This post was last updated by Randal Shacklett (account deleted) Thu, 10 Sep 2009.

Randal Shacklett wrote:
He pointed out very clearly that Individual self expression was the cause of societies ills.

Sir, the machinery of the mind has to be used by all of us whenever we have to communicate with others.When I express myself under the influence of pleasure/pain orsuccess/failure duality, then that expression becomes the cause of society's ills.

But when silence is at the root of my self expression/action, then love is operating, a different kind of intelligence is operating.Then we have freedom,not from something,but freedom which is dynamic and in which virtue flourishes.Sure, we all have a mind and it is the responsibility of each to discover this freedom.

Regards.

FLOW WITH LIFE!

Monic Devi wrote:
It does not allow women the individual right of freedom to express who they truly are, rather, who they "should be"

Who you truly are? Can one ever find out? If you find the answer to the first question, then won't that answer become what they should be?

Freedom from ssomething can be denied to any individual (man or woman ) but was K reffering to this kind of freedom in his teaching?

Regards.

FLOW WITH LIFE!

Dr.sudhir sharma wrote:
silence is at the root of my self expression

Sorry doc, but silence and self, expressed or unexpressed, are mutually exclusive.
Regards

ganesan balachandran wrote:
.... is there any physiological or biological restriction.....generally we only create problem for ourself whether it is a women or men...sorry if i have offended you. gb

gb: you did not offend me so there is no need for an apology.

By the usage of this phrase, "freedom of expression" I do not mean the artificial, idealogical expression which I find is self delusional. I speak of the fundamental freedom from ones conditioning at the roots, the core of the being.

The individual self is a product of their environment, culture, tradition, and society. This makes up the individual self, biologically, psychologically and physiologically. Our bodies, and consequently our minds are subject to modification by this external environment, culture, traditions, societies, etc. Every action we take, every choice we make seems to be determined by the circumstances of our heredity and our environment. The individual born in a society which allows very strick, controlled thinking, manner of conduct and fundamental beliefs, where the individual has no right to think on their own but what is imposed upon them by society, this type of destructive conditioning is ultimately fatal to the individual and their evolutionary process.

the superficiality of existence is thriving

Randal Shacklett wrote:
Sorry doc, but silence and self, expressed or unexpressed, are mutually exclusive. Regards

Sir, will you be kind enough to explain the relationship between the ability of a mirror (which is at its core empty )to form images and images themselves?Would you consider them mutually exclusive? Or later activity is possible because of the former Quality?What would happen if the mirror got attached to one of the images formed when the real object is no more in front of it?
(Our hypothetical mirror has memory of what it has seen in the past)

If possible co-relate this with silence and self discussion.

Regards.

FLOW WITH LIFE!

Dr.sudhir sharma wrote:
form images and images themselve

The mirror has no ability to form anything.
Don't you think that inventing non-existant scenierios to prove or disprove a point, is a form of insanity?

My poor man, it seems that you have trouble understanding women and there you are trying to understand even more complicated spiritual and philosophical matters. You are not alone, men tend to do that. As you know, religion is not the only domain that men prefer to keep for themselves. There is also politics, science, economics, hunting, warfare...some say that all those things which by the way are precisely what we have come to blame for the mess we are all in...all those nasty things are men's response to the unconscious terror they feel towards women and their inherent superiority...you know, the fact that women bleed every month, that they go through pregnancy and childbirth and live longer,etc. Since the beginning of times, men have been suspicious of the powers that nature seems to have bestowed on women and men have strived ever since to control the forces of nature by controling women. If you were to ever expereance what it is like to be a woman even for just one day, you sir, would see the futility of all those things that seem to be so important for men, theories, temples, dominions, etc.
I for one, have never read a single Krishnamurti book, though I have a good idea what he is all about and yes I don't take him too sereously, (nor any man), how can I when after watching several videos of him it occured to me that the man used "spray net" to keep his hair in such a way as to hide his baldness...and I too do not wish to offend, its just amusing. As for you my dear man, I appreciate your contributions of poetry, and proverbs and the like and I wish you would do more of that, like the joke in another topic about the three friends meditating, now that was funny and very instructive.

In case it is not clear, my preveous post was for M. Ganesan...not you, Randal...

I sometimes catch myself sillily wondering if Ekhart Tolle is the ladies version of JK in a way?

Firstly, the male/female ratio of K students seems to be like 10-1 for the guys, whereas it seems like I see many more women than men study Tolle (and I'm pulling these figures out of my ass, have no idea really. Just the impression I get.) In any case, many more women seem to be involved in NewAge type movements: many of the leaders of such movements are in fact women.

Secondly the approaches of K and Tolle, though to me in some ways compatible, are distinctly different. K seems to focus heavily on Freedom through passively-aware Understanding, witnessing as it were, which in turn creates sensitivity and compassion in action. He also talks heavily about such things as Aloneness, emptiness, etc. Tolle seems to begin more with feeling, sensing, emoting as a means to further understanding. He talks about what he calls the "pain body," and delves into emotions and all that. Even says that the suppression of "the female side" accounts for much of the wars and conflicts and competitiveness and all that that we see throughout history, and probably to a large extent this is correct, relativistically anyway.

Keep in mind that the two are not on the opposing "extremes." Both, especially K, seems to me to be quite balanced. Don't know all that much about Tolle. And in any case Truth is not confined in any way to one gender or another. It just seems like there are different directions which people gravitate towards. I'm sure there are many ladies that study K, and vice- verca.

(Oh, theories and speculations like this one are fun... and utterly pointless. And in any case it shouldn't be in our case to compare people; in reality the two are probably unrelated.. anyways...)

Charlie Brown wrote:
(and I'm pulling these figures out of my ass, have no idea really. Just the impression I get.)

Ahhhh, a fresh breath of brutal honesty! Now, if only everyone else, could get on board that train.

Charlie brown: He talks about what he calls the "pain body," and delves into emotions and all that. Even says that the suppression of "the female side" accounts for much of the wars and conflicts and competitiveness and all that that we see throughout history, and probably to a large extent this is correct, relativistically anyway.

Charlie Brown, Just wanted to say that a friend once said, that, when you are deeply sensitive, you can feel this "pain body" of those around you, someone whom I knew well, who was extremely sensitive to the "pain body's" and said she could see them, feel them. Feel the deep, deep pain of the pain bodies. I thought how unfortunate, how not beautiful, who wants to be able to see the pain bodies of others? And I jokingly asked, "do you also see, feel the joy bodies?". She turned around to look at me, and din't say a word. But, I kinda knew the answer, weird and strange as it seems. I understood and was clearly seeing what was meant by the "pain body". But it makes me wonder then, how does one handle to live with such sensitivity?
I really don't know. I bet it's something natural to see,feel the pain of others. She said most often we entangle ourselves and are heavily influenced by the pain bodies of those whom we come in contact with. Thought it was interesting.:-)

Samatha Reddy wrote:
Charlie Brown, Just wanted to say

Are you and Chuck, friends? In any case, thanks for sharing.

When one feels the pain of others, is a human being, when one sees him /her self as others is a being. Love in carnate.

When one feels the pain of others, is a human being, when one sees him /her self as others is a being. Love in carnate.

yes, do you mean to feel the pain, sorrow,despair of another as one's own, (and yet to not be identified to it) is to be human? Interesting. It doesn't matter who the other is, male or female. The gender ain't imp, only the content of consciousness?

Hi there Randal! :o)

Dr.sudhir sharma wrote:
Randal Shacklett wrote:
Sorry doc, but silence and self, expressed or unexpressed, are mutually exclusive. Regards
Sir, will you be kind enough to explain the relationship between the ability of a mirror (which is at its core empty )to form images and images themselves?Would you consider them mutually exclusive? Or later activity is possible because of the former Quality?What would happen if the mirror got attached to one of the images formed when the real object is no more in front of it? (Our hypothetical mirror has memory of what it has seen in the past)
If possible co-relate this with silence and self discussion.
Regards.

Randal Shacklett wrote:
Dr.sudhir sharma wrote:
form images and images themselve
The mirror has no ability to form anything. Don't you think that inventing non-existant scenierios to prove or disprove a point, is a form of insanity?

Sir,First I thought I will let the whole thing pass, but then finally decided to respond.

I had asked a few question in order to make something clearer from my point of view in the discussion.What I got in return reply from a learned man like you was a warning that insanity might be waiting for me round the corner.

I am very thankful to you for this early warning,Sir.Previousely I used to think that to avoid insanity one sould be careful about not being lonely or frustrated or deppressed or aggressive or have inflated ego about one's knowledge or possessions etc.

Those like me who blunder in our replies,sould we stop posting in this forum?Are we driving you insane,Sir?

My best wishes and Regards.

FLOW WITH LIFE!

Samatha Reddy wrote:
Hi there Randal! :o)

Hi there to you too, Sam! ;o)

Dr.sudhir sharma wrote:
Those like me who blunder in our replies,sould we stop posting in this forum?Are we driving you insane,Sir?
My best wishes and Regards.

Don't be afraid of me, I'm enlightened, I can't harm anyone. I am not driven insane by insane postings. An insane posting is a reflection of the common human insanity. It is the responsibility of us all to get to the core and finish it forever. Don't take information exchange so personally.
With the deepest and most sincere regards.

Samatha Reddy wrote:
to feel the pain, sorrow,despair of another as one's own

But it is common to all humanity, this pain/sorrow, you speak about. When we speculate about yours and my pain and whether what we feel his hers mine or ours, we lose touch with the reality of it, don't we? It then becomes something at arms leangth to be objectified, right?

Randal Shacklett wrote:
But it is common to all humanity, this pain/sorrow, you speak about. When we speculate about yours and my pain and whether what we feel his hers mine or ours, we lose touch with the reality of it, don't we? It then becomes something at arms leangth to be objectified, right?

Right, there is only pain, suffering, not your's or mine. But if your/my mind is filled with sorrow, suffering, hurt, pain, then how would you/i be able to feel the pain of 'another', be it your child's, your friends, or your bosses? To be able to see the beauty of a flower, or to feel the sorrow of that old man your mind ought to be free of all sorrow, resistance, literally empty to begin with. And such emptiness cannot be willed or acquired, right? It only comes about where there is real interest and intensity to find out. And only an empty which has ended it's own individual, personal sorrow,through deep insight and understanding is able to feel,see things as they are, no? When the heart and mind is filled with sorrow, hurt, prejudice, past, we can never see anyone, anything clearly. In that case everything perceived is muddied by our partial, limited perceptions. For one to see clearly, to listen to every sound and movement clearly, the mind must be empty, totally free of all and any kind of personal sorrow?

This post was last updated by S R (account deleted) Mon, 14 Sep 2009.

Just came to add that, a mind that has ended all it's personal sorrow isn't one that has turned numb and insensitive to the beauty and ugliness around. On the contrary, it is a mind that is highly sensitive to every movement of thought, every movement of pain and sorrow. It is a mind that is relentlessly questioning itself of it's own actions, reactions, responses...

Randal Shacklett wrote:
But it is common to all humanity, this pain/sorrow, you speak about. When we speculate about yours and my pain and whether what we feel his hers mine or ours, we lose touch with the reality of it, don't we? It then becomes something at arms leangth to be objectified, right?

What then is compassion?