A friend of mine here uses the word mechanical when talking about thought. Mechanical thought. K uses that word also, if I remember correctly. What do they mean by that word, used that way?
Don't they mean "machine-like" or "automatic" when useing that word? And if our minds are automatic and/or machine-like, what is freedom?

Being free from thought is the only way to freedom. Thought is influenced by centuries of tradition and animal feelings/instincts. Emotions are almost automatic and predictable in this type of set up.

Freedom means something else. It means watching, observing, learning. And not to mention, forgetting.

There is a certain beauty associated with conditioning.

Why do you say emotions are "almost" automatic?
Where did you get the information you just gave me, in a book?

From experience. Observation.

There is a certain beauty associated with conditioning.

But you see, accumulated experience, from observation, is an exercise in the exchange of knowledge. Like what goes on here, in the name of enquiry.
Are there any serious people who have said(other than religions, etc.) that knowledge is the path to "freedom'?
Did Krishnamurti ever say anything like that?

Sir no, everyone said self-knowledge is the path in Hindusim. Which is different from knowledge.

There is a certain beauty associated with conditioning.

Sir no, everyone said self-knowledge is the path in Hindusim. Which is different from knowledge.

There is a certain beauty associated with conditioning.

Keshni Sahni wrote:

Sir no, everyone said self-knowledge is the path in Hindusim. Which is different from knowledge.

Dear Randal,

It appears that Keshni has abandoned the dialogue ? he just took off, without any social grace. Please pardon his lack of manners which is not a civilized tradition of our culture. Allow me to take his place in this dialogue.

It also appears to me that you had not caught what he meant in his responses and ploughed on with your questions, and that must be the reason why he left. I reproduce an abbreviated form of your above dialogue with Keshni showing the salient parts below:

R.S: And if our minds are automatic and/or machine-like, what is freedom?

K.S.: Being free from thought is the only way to freedom. ...... Thought is influenced by centuries of tradition and animal feelings/instincts. Emotions are almost automatic and predictable in this type of set up.

R.S.: Why do you say emotions are "almost" automatic?

K.S.: From experience. Observation.

R.S.: But you see, accumulated experience, from observation, is an exercise in the exchange of knowledge.

K.S.: Sir no, everyone said self-knowledge is the path in Hindusim. Which is different from knowledge.

R.S. Is a deep, fundamental understanding of the nature of my self, therefore all other selves, the same as "self-knowledge"?

You asked what freedom is if mind is automatic. Keshni?s reply: freedom from thought.

And when you asked Keshni why he said that emotions are almost automatic, he told you that he (introspectively) observed it to be so from (direct) experiencing of emotions. But when you dismissed that as ?an exercise in the exchange of knowledge?, Keshni pointed out that such introspective self-knowledge (something commonly understood in India) is not the same as the kind of knowledge (that westerners know) you equated it with. He must have been exasperated and responded to your last question with the Buddha?s thundering silence reserved for the bhikkhu with the karma of a Brahma bull. (Words in parentheses are mine.)

Shall we continue with the dialogue? My response to your last question would be, yes. Self-knowledge is the understanding of the nature of the self. But, what do you mean by all other selves? If you mean Randal, Keshni, Sree, etc., then the understanding of the nature of one self reveals the nature of all selves.

Looking forward to hearing from you

Regards,

Sree

Sree Dharan wrote:

Dear Randal,

It appears that Keshni has abandoned the dialogue ? he just took off, without any social grace. Please pardon his lack of manners which is not a civilized tradition of our culture. Allow me to take his place in this dialogue.

It also appears to me that you had not caught what he meant in his responses and ploughed on with your questions, and that must be the reason why he left. I reproduce an abbreviated form of your above dialogue with Keshni showing the salient parts below:

R.S: And if our minds are automatic and/or machine-like, what is freedom?

K.S.: Being free from thought is the only way to freedom. ...... Thought is influenced by centuries of tradition and animal feelings/instincts. Emotions are almost automatic and predictable in this type of set up.

R.S.: Why do you say emotions are "almost" automatic?

K.S.: From experience. Observation.

R.S.: But you see, accumulated experience, from observation, is an exercise in the exchange of knowledge.

K.S.: Sir no, everyone said self-knowledge is the path in Hindusim. Which is different from knowledge.

R.S. Is a deep, fundamental understanding of the nature of my self, therefore all other selves, the same as "self-knowledge"?

You asked what freedom is if mind is automatic. Keshni?s reply: freedom from thought.

And when you asked Keshni why he said that emotions are almost automatic, he told you that he (introspectively) observed it to be so from (direct) experiencing of emotions. But when you dismissed that as ?an exercise in the exchange of knowledge?, Keshni pointed out that such introspective self-knowledge (something commonly understood in India) is not the same as the kind of knowledge (that westerners know) you equated it with. He must have been exasperated and responded to your last question with the Buddha?s thundering silence reserved for the bhikkhu with the karma of a Brahma bull. (Words in parentheses are mine.)

Shall we continue with the dialogue? My response to your last question would be, yes. Self-knowledge is the understanding of the nature of the self. But, what do you mean by all other selves? If you mean Randal, Keshni, Sree, etc., then the understanding of the nature of one self reveals the nature of all selves.

Looking forward to hearing from you

Regards,

Sree

I do understand that we have cultural and traditional "differences", Kheshni, you and I. But I think that the issues we are talking about, cut across those boundries. My intent, was not to "dismiss" what Keshni the person, was saying. But rather to point out that, as far as the human mind is currently operating, there is no other "relationship" between people, other than this "exchange of information". That is simply another way of saying that humanity is caught in the bondage of knowledge. When we use words like "self_knowledge", in a Krishnamurti discussion forum, I just like to clarify terms.
I do hope you and Keshni will continue to help me, to find ways to move our looking at/exploring this question, forward. If you or he feels like I have not addressed your concerns adequatly, please feel free to point that out.

Randal Shacklett wrote:
But rather to point out that, as far as the human mind is currently operating, there is no other "relationship" between people, other than this "exchange of information".

Dear Randal,

This is generally true. We do use thought to communicate by talking and writing to each other. Is there really no other form of relationship except the verbalized one?

That is simply another way of saying that humanity is caught in the bondage of knowledge.

True, if talking or writing is the only way to relate. Even though the tool of communication (i.e. thought) is mechanical in nature, the use of that tool may not necessarily be mechanical unless we are all housewives mindlessly yakking in a beauty parlor.

When we use words like "self_knowledge", in a Krishnamurti discussion forum, I just like to clarify terms.

Again, I maintain that self-knowledge (as Keshni said) is not informational knowledge. An example would be the self-knowledge acquired by the Buddha in his pursuit of the deathless state (timelessness, as expounded by Krishnamurti). The Buddha, through introspective inquiry discovered that the self is an illusion. Even though I can tell you that in words (probably in the same manner the Buddha told others of his discovery), no self-knowledge is either transferred or transferable through those words. This is because self-knowledge is not informational knowledge transmittable through the use of mecahnical thought.

Please pardon me if I sound like a preacher trying to teach. I prefer to see this as an exciting attempt by two guys in a garage attempting to fix a race car.

Regards,

Sree

I see this dilemma you are discussing in many such discussions. It is like I am trying to unify the fragmented self into an undivided self, while depending on the divided self to acknowledge the division.

Sree Dharan wrote:

Randal Shacklett wrote:
But rather to point out that, as far as the human mind is currently operating, there is no other "relationship" between people, other than this "exchange of information".

Dear Randal,

This is generally true. We do use thought to communicate by talking and writing to each other. Is there really no other form of relationship except the verbalized one?

That is simply another way of saying that humanity is caught in the bondage of knowledge.

True, if talking or writing is the only way to relate. Even though the tool of communication (i.e. thought) is mechanical in nature, the use of that tool may not necessarily be mechanical unless we are all housewives mindlessly yakking in a beauty parlor.

When we use words like "self_knowledge", in a Krishnamurti discussion forum, I just like to clarify terms.

Again, I maintain that self-knowledge (as Keshni said) is not informational knowledge. An example would be the self-knowledge acquired by the Buddha in his pursuit of the deathless state (timelessness, as expounded by Krishnamurti). The Buddha, through introspective inquiry discovered that the self is an illusion. Even though I can tell you that in words (probably in the same manner the Buddha told others of his discovery), no self-knowledge is either transferred or transferable through those words. This is because self-knowledge is not informational knowledge transmittable through the use of mecahnical thought.

Please pardon me if I sound like a preacher trying to teach. I prefer to see this as an exciting attempt by two guys in a garage attempting to fix a race car.

Regards,

Sree

By "machine like" or "automatic"< I don't mean like housewives(or husbands) mindlessly yakking. I mean like when a mind takes in information, compares it to all that came before(memory) and from that gives a response. Like What Keshni did. Although I don't mean it personally to him, when I point that out.
As to what the Buddah might or might not have done, I refuse to speculate or accept someone elses speculations, sorry.
And besides, what if the buddah did come to an insightful realization, what has that to do with Keshni, you and I?
We can only discuss what we have, right? Which is automatic response, like a machine.

Randal Shacklett wrote:
We can only discuss what we have, right? Which is automatic response, like a machine.

Dear Randal,

You could be right. We could be nothing more than the mechanical movement of thought. I was playing chess the other day with a game software called "Chessmaster". It was uncanny and rather scary. I could have sworn that the computer was anticipating my moves. I guess I am refusing to accept your realization that we are actually not "alive", no more alive than a computer program.

Let's say that you are right. I am a mechanical mental robot just like you are. Is our ability to see that also mechanical? Let me put this another way. Imagine you are a talking toy in a toy shop. When the clock strikes twelve at midnight, all the toys comes "alive" and start moving. You walk up and down the shelf saying, "I am a dead thing. I am a dead thing." And I am another talking toy walking beside you up and down the shelf saying, "You are right, Randal. I am dead too. I am dead like you."

Is that what you are saying, Randal? Tick tock tick tock...Randal, is that what you are saayying....(change batteries, please).

Regaaards,

Sreee

Dear Randal,

I was quite tickled by my post to you (above) last night. I couldn't help laughing to myself after logging off. I was still trying to stifle my laughter while brushing my teeth and sprayed the mirror with toothpaste foam from my mouth. That's sure to piss my girlfriend off no matter how much I cleaned up the mess. In bed, that tickle was still there. "What's the matter with you?" My girlfriend turned and wanted to know. "Are you dreaming or crazy?" she asked. I said, "I am dead." She slammed her pillow on my head, got up, stormed out and slammed the bedroom door. Guess I will be sleeping in my own place tonight.

You are wrecking my love life, Randal. I am bartending again tonight. Let's hope you don't mess up my job too.

See you later,

Sree

Sree Dharan wrote:

Dear Randal,

I was quite tickled by my post to you (above) last night. I couldn't help laughing to myself after logging off. I was still trying to stifle my laughter while brushing my teeth and sprayed the mirror with toothpaste foam from my mouth. That's sure to piss my girlfriend off no matter how much I cleaned up the mess. In bed, that tickle was still there. "What's the matter with you?" My girlfriend turned and wanted to know. "Are you dreaming or crazy?" she asked. I said, "I am dead." She slammed her pillow on my head, got up, stormed out and slammed the bedroom door. Guess I will be sleeping in my own place tonight.

You are wrecking my love life, Randal. I am bartending again tonight. Let's hope you don't mess up my job too.

See you later,

Sree

What if we are mearly automatic monkey's, who think we are god? What then?
If it is not so, we can all laugh and barter sex with our wives(pursue pleasure).

Randal Shacklett wrote:
What if it is so? What if we have no free will, but can only respond according to our program(conditioning)?
What if we are mearly automatic monkey's, who think we are god? What then? If it is not so, we can all laugh and barter sex with our wives(pursue pleasure).

Dear Randal,

What if we have free will? What difference does that make? We live like maximum security prisoners anyway. Or worse still, like trains moving on laid out tracks. If you have a job, that's 8 to 10 hours working to rules. If you run your own dinky business, that's 12 to 16 hours hard labor just to stay afloat. The rest of the time, if you are not sleeping, there is the wife and the government telling you what to do.

The only way we can find out if we are truly automatic monkeys is to jump off our tracks: give up our jobs and our families, the way the Buddha did. Only then, can we seriously inquire into freedom. Until then, it is just talk. Krishnamurti told us about a guy in India who came to the park on his bicycle every evening without fail to meditate on freedom. "But he is just a clerk," said K.

"If you want to find the Kingdom of Heaven," Jesus asked, "then, give up everything and follow me."

Can you give up everything to find out if there is this thing called freedom, Randal? The Buddhist monk calls that jumping off the cliff with both hands free.
I am 27 and have no committments to God, wife or country. My hands are free. What about you, Randal? Are you also free even at this mundane level?

Regards,

Sree

No, what if we don't?

Sree Dharan wrote:

Randal Shacklett wrote:
What if it is so? What if we have no free will, but can only respond according to our program(conditioning)?
What if we are mearly automatic monkey's, who think we are god? What then? If it is not so, we can all laugh and barter sex with our wives(pursue pleasure).

Dear Randal,

What if we have free will? What difference does that make? We live like maximum security prisoners anyway. Or worse still, like trains moving on laid out tracks. If you have a job, that's 8 to 10 hours working to rules. If you run your own dinky business, that's 12 to 16 hours hard labor just to stay afloat. The rest of the time, if you are not sleeping, there is the wife and the government telling you what to do.

The only way we can find out if we are truly automatic monkeys is to jump off our tracks: give up our jobs and our families, the way the Buddha did. Only then, can we seriously inquire into freedom. Until then, it is just talk. Krishnamurti told us about a guy in India who came to the park on his bicycle every evening without fail to meditate on freedom. "But he is just a clerk," said K.

"If you want to find the Kingdom of Heaven," Jesus asked, "then, give up everything and follow me."

Can you give up everything to find out if there is this thing called freedom, Randal? The Buddhist monk calls that jumping off the cliff with both hands free.
I am 27 and have no committments to God, wife or country. My hands are free. What about you, Randal? Are you also free even at this mundane level?

Regards,

Sree

Randal Shacklett wrote:
I'm 52, I have no cell phone, no credit card, no job, no wife, or children, no need for Jesus, or Buddah, Or Krishnamurti, or Love, or happiness, I have no hunger to find anything or lose anything. But all of that, plus$2.00, gets me a hot cup of coffee.

Dear Randal,

Quite true. Someone needs to drive this fact into those ascetics of ours in India. Those vagrants have become a tourist industry that has also sucked in westerners coming to India in search of enlightenment.

Anyway, there is a hell of a lot of difference between (A) - not having anything in life as a matter of choice and (B) - as a result of being a loser. Being a loser doesn't count. So, unless you are homeless, locked away in a mental asylum or (God forbid) in prison (all these three situations are those of a loser), you need to have a job to buy food, clothing and shelter not to mention the computer you are using. So, what do you use for money that enables you to live without a job?

You see, Randal, this is the catch. We all need money to live on like our body needs air. None of us can talk about freedom not because of the mechanicalness of mind but because the devil has his hand tightly clasped around our throats. And he doles out the money - dollar by dollar, cent by cent - as long as each one of us, without exception, trots around and jumps through hoops, the way he wants; and he doesn't give a rat's ass whether we do it like the automatic monkeys in India or the free spirits in America.

I suppose I feel strongly about a freedom that comes through self-knowledge in the same way you are certain about your take on the mechanical mind as an all encompassing determinant in life. I am open to the possibility of being proven wrong. If you are similarly disposed, then answer my question: how are you able to live without a job?

Regards,

Sree

Sree Dharan wrote:

Randal Shacklett wrote:
I'm 52, I have no cell phone, no credit card, no job, no wife, or children, no need for Jesus, or Buddah, Or Krishnamurti, or Love, or happiness, I have no hunger to find anything or lose anything. But all of that, plus$2.00, gets me a hot cup of coffee.

Dear Randal,

Quite true. Someone needs to drive this fact into those ascetics of ours in India. Those vagrants have become a tourist industry that has also sucked in westerners coming to India in search of enlightenment.

Anyway, there is a hell of a lot of difference between (A) - not having anything in life as a matter of choice and (B) - as a result of being a loser. Being a loser doesn't count. So, unless you are homeless, locked away in a mental asylum or (God forbid) in prison (all these three situations are those of a loser), you need to have a job to buy food, clothing and shelter not to mention the computer you are using. So, what do you use for money that enables you to live without a job?

You see, Randal, this is the catch. We all need money to live on like our body needs air. None of us can talk about freedom not because of the mechanicalness of mind but because the devil has his hand tightly clasped around our throats. And he doles out the money - dollar by dollar, cent by cent - as long as each one of us, without exception, trots around and jumps through hoops, the way he wants; and he doesn't give a rat's ass whether we do it like the automatic monkeys in India or the free spirits in America.

I suppose I feel strongly about a freedom that comes through self-knowledge in the same way you are certain about your take on the mechanical mind as an all encompassing determinant in life. I am open to the possibility of being proven wrong. If you are similarly disposed, then answer my question: how are you able to live without a job?

Regards,

Sree

Winners and losers, yes, a mechanical way of looking at life.
What I am saying has nothing to do with "right" or "wrong".
I am not telling you anything that requires acceptance or rejection.
I simply don't care about your arguement, I have said I am not here to be convinced or exchange opinions/beliefs.

Dear Randal,

Randal Shacklett wrote:
I live on the charity of others.

Charity? What the hell is that? The (mechanical) dictionary defines that as aid to the needy and helpless. The others who confer aid to you must believe that you are needy and helpless even though you have declared that you don?t need a damn thing. And yours is not the kind of declaration a helpless person would make either. Yet, you would live off those generous suckers. That makes you a crook. You said you don't have a job. Never mind about the immorality, but don't you see that cheating for a living is also a job?

Winners and losers, yes, a mechanical way of looking at life.

Did I mention ?winners?? I sure can spot a loser but what on earth is a winner? Krishnamurti pointed out that violence is a fact but non-violence is a non-fact. Similarly, a loser is a fact but a winner is a non-fact?doesn?t exist, not to me. Since it was you who used the word ?winner?, could you tell me what it is?

What I am saying has nothing to do with "right" or "wrong".

Ok, so I didn?t use the appropriate word. In this politically correct world today, I do need to address the sensitivities of people who simply object to being judgmental. Let me rephrase it in another way. I am open to being proven that I am full of shit; and I hope you are similarly disposed. Ok?

I am not telling you anything that requires acceptance or rejection. I simply don't care about your arguement, I have said I am not here to be convinced or exchange opinions/beliefs.

So, what the heck are we doing here? You may not care about my argument but I certainly do care about yours even though it is mechanical. And as moderator, you are obligated to conduct this forum in line with the intent of this Krishnamurti website. Since you are hogging one of its 15 forums with others like me on the waiting list to make thoughtful contributions, you should at least pay your share for this great website's upkeep. If you can't afford to because you are on welfare, you really should give up your forum to others like me who can and have paid their dues.

This is about questioning authority, your authority, Randal. How am I doing?

Regards,

Sree

Sree Dharan wrote:

Dear Randal,

Randal Shacklett wrote:
I live on the charity of others.

Charity? What the hell is that? The (mechanical) dictionary defines that as aid to the needy and helpless. The others who confer aid to you must believe that you are needy and helpless even though you have declared that you don?t need a damn thing. And yours is not the kind of declaration a helpless person would make either. Yet, you would live off those generous suckers. That makes you a crook. You said you don't have a job. Never mind about the immorality, but don't you see that cheating for a living is also a job?

Winners and losers, yes, a mechanical way of looking at life.

Did I mention ?winners?? I sure can spot a loser but what on earth is a winner? Krishnamurti pointed out that violence is a fact but non-violence is a non-fact. Similarly, a loser is a fact but a winner is a non-fact?doesn?t exist, not to me. Since it was you who used the word ?winner?, could you tell me what it is?

What I am saying has nothing to do with "right" or "wrong".

Ok, so I didn?t use the appropriate word. In this politically correct world today, I do need to address the sensitivities of people who simply object to being judgmental. Let me rephrase it in another way. I am open to being proven that I am full of shit; and I hope you are similarly disposed. Ok?

I am not telling you anything that requires acceptance or rejection. I simply don't care about your arguement, I have said I am not here to be convinced or exchange opinions/beliefs.

So, what the heck are we doing here? You may not care about my argument but I certainly do care about yours even though it is mechanical. And as moderator, you are obligated to conduct this forum in line with the intent of this Krishnamurti website. Since you are hogging one of its 15 forums with others like me on the waiting list to make thoughtful contributions, you should at least pay your share for this great website's upkeep. If you can't afford to because you are on welfare, you really should give up your forum to others like me who can and have paid their dues.

This is about questioning authority, your authority, Randal. How am I doing?

Regards,

Sree

I have no authority, but thanks anyway.
The opinions/beliefs you draw from the things I said, are quite remarkable really.
No, you don't need your own forum to make thoughtful contributions, you can do it anytime, try it.
Since you care for my "arguement" so much, what is it?

I am having fun with this discussion. Quite expressive and significant. I am learning a lot. Thanks both of you Randal & Sree.

Salut! Chafia, mon ami. Avez -vou amuse, pourquoi?

ha i really wonder how long that waiting-list has gotten already, all of us little authorities waiting desperately patient :) randal you're a winner.

Sree Dharan wrote:

Salut! Chafia, mon ami. Avez -vou amuse, pourquoi?

C'est mignon comment tu le dis en français. Eh bien tu sais, ça m'amuse de voir à quel point Randal est complètement détaché de tout ça et toi qui est tombé sérieusement dans ce jeu la tête devant. Tu n'a pas freiné à temps et tu as glissé. C'est tellement funny; Voilà! c'est tout.

kirsten zwijnenburg wrote:

ha i really wonder how long that waiting-list has gotten already, all of us little authorities waiting desperately patient :) randal you're a winner.

Chafia Abdi wrote:

Sree Dharan wrote:

Salut! Chafia, mon ami. Avez -vou amuse, pourquoi?

C'est mignon comment tu le dis en français. Eh bien tu sais, ça m'amuse de voir à quel point Randal est complètement détaché de tout ça et toi qui est tombé sérieusement dans ce jeu la tête devant. Tu n'a pas freiné à temps et tu as glissé. C'est tellement funny; Voilà! c'est tout.

Randal Shacklett wrote:

Chafia Abdi wrote:

Sree Dharan wrote:

Salut! Chafia, mon ami. Avez -vou amuse, pourquoi?

C'est mignon comment tu le dis en français. Eh bien tu sais, ça m'amuse de voir à quel point Randal est complètement détaché de tout ça et toi qui est tombé sérieusement dans ce jeu la tête devant. Tu n'a pas freiné à temps et tu as glissé. C'est tellement funny; Voilà! c'est tout.

You guy's talkin about my mama?

No, I just told Sree how funny it was, He didn't see that coming from you. That's all