Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
Discussion Forums

Sudhir Sharma's Forum Posts

Forum: General Discussion

Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 1989 in total
Topic: Going Fri, 25 Mar 2016

Best Wishes and Good Luck, Paul Davidson!

Topic: Can you look... Mon, 29 Feb 2016

Dan McDermott wrote: You 'lose' it and you pick it up again...

And also not have any motive behind losing and picking up again...an almost impossible condition to meet...and this could mean a wasted life time effort/energy!

Topic: Knowledge Mon, 29 Feb 2016

m christani wrote: I thought it might be interesting to go into what we know.

knowledge of actions/interactions, events, happenings, prevailing circumstances/conditions and of objects in our environment is useful, productive and helpful.

The other kind of knowledge comes to us from culture, tradition and man made social values. This is to be understood in its totality so that it is no longer capable of interfering with and distorting the former kind of knowledge.

Topic: The essential Mon, 29 Feb 2016

Tom Paine wrote: Pursuing the ideal state of non violence (or any ideal state) is an obstacle to understanding the fact of what we are...angry..violent. Is this what you're saying, Sudhir?

The self/me wants to be free from violence and will make efforts to achieve the projected goal. If the goal is achieved, then what will self/me do?

The self does not actually want a solution to the problem of violence as then it would lose its hold/control on the state of affairs. Just to keep itself active/alive, it will continue to find violence and continue to make efforts to get rid of it...the ending of this cycle is not ever in the interest of the continuity of self/me, Tom...so, it never happens!

Topic: The Watcher. Mon, 29 Feb 2016

Anyone who is violently in conflict with any aspect of culture/tradition existing in society is certain to be living in conflict within oneself. There can not be any exception to this.

The assertion as the opposition to what is happening in society are normally just reactions based on some different authority/ideas and not of wisdom that is borne out of understanding the workings of one's own mind (self knowledge). Such wisdom understands the working of society and does not clash with its psychological value system as there is understanding that society's mode of working/functioning can not be otherwise.

Ideas do influence/guide society as does the opposition to them. They are two sides of the same coin. The opposition to ideas by having another set of ideas usually come from desire to gain power, name, fame or just attention...Or it could be the result of an intoxicated state of mind enjoying the arguments for the sake of having an argument.

Such voices of opposition usually have to be loud, vulgar, discourteous, insulting and aggressive, otherwise they may get ignored and go unnoticed.

Topic: The essential Mon, 29 Feb 2016

Voco . wrote: post #114, but in general, many of them. Is it only to me seems so? Perhaps. But I really find it very superficial, distorting, and bogus.

That is alright with me, Voco. Your name be there in my posts in response to your post, but you are at liberty to ignore them. I am used to talking to myself. :)

Topic: The Watcher. Mon, 29 Feb 2016

Voco . wrote: Why unfortunately? What do you want from other people? That they would feel what you feel? See what you see? That they would behave like you? Do you want to change people, change the world? Why don't you live them alone? Do you want to live in a world according to your vision? When you realize all your efforts are useless you are saying "unfortunately". It is you who comes and brings this "unfortunate", all the gurus, all the teachers, saints are responsible for this, they have created an ideal, "another way of life" so to say, and when you listen to them you start to think how petty is your life, because what they are telling seems so innocent, so beautiful and you are a disgusting, violent, brutal, aggressive, petty bustard (human being ?) who lives in his own little world, who only cares about himself and his future.

This is quite a convincing description of the relationship of a teacher/guru out o exploit his followers, Voco.

Voco . wrote: But, all this has no importance at all.

No importance at all in what sense?

Topic: The Watcher. Mon, 29 Feb 2016

Voco . wrote: But let us think logically. An observer is there, you are an observer. It is not an idea that you are an observer, it is a feeling that you can observe the environment, from this feeling comes thought that you are clearly no that environment which you observe, hence the feeling of separateness between observer and observed.

So far the logic holds, Voco.

Voco . wrote: That however does not means that observation of observer is different from observed.

This is a jump that is almost always made intellectually and is not the direct understanding that transforms the relationship of observer with observed. This can be explained logically an appears to be understood by almost all, yet it will not bring the attachments/identification of observer with observed to an end. The observer continues to suffer in the duality of pain/pleasure.

Topic: The essential Mon, 29 Feb 2016

Voco . wrote: Sudhir, excuse me, but you are talking nonsense.

Which post?

Topic: The essential Mon, 29 Feb 2016

Jean Gatti wrote: about our own violence maybe we can look at it and find its roots ?

Why would you want to do so in relation to violence, Jean?

Topic: The essential Mon, 29 Feb 2016

Voco . wrote: That's so, but then why there is K schools around the world? That is, my question is, how can one bring about change within from outside?

Do you object to the existence of such school? How intense is your objection, Voco?

Topic: The essential Mon, 29 Feb 2016

Tom Paine wrote: Can we accept this violent world as well as our own violence/anger as the norm and just do nothing?

The verbal acceptance or rejection/condemnation of the world as it is is not going to make any difference to the present state of affairs, Tom. If one is violent within oneself, then it would only add to sum total of violence. Moreover, a violent person going out in the world to reduce violence will obviously fail.

So, it comes back to understanding the factors of one's being violent in oneself and that may affect the overall situation in one's life at least.

Tom Paine wrote: Lots of serious minded folks are very intent on getting to the root of human disorder and suffering, but apparently most are not succeeding.

Yes, they/we are not succeeding because basically they/we don't want to be free of violence. Their/our interest is in being free of pain and consequences of disturbing retaliation that the violence brings in life. Most (or all?) would continue to be violent only if they could be free of pain or retaliation.

Those who, somehow, get honestly interested in being free of violence lack direct understanding of self or self knowledge that could do the job.

Very few, if at all, ever understand the significance of pursuing "being free from violence" as the major obstacle in achieving their goal.

Topic: Can you look... Sun, 28 Feb 2016

Voco . wrote:

When I see a bird I might think of God, or when I see woman I might think of sex with her immediately,or simply thinking can be a cloud for perception, when one is completely absorbed into it, there is no sensitivity. Yes, it happens like this...But when we understand that it happens like this, then where is the distraction?

Voco . wrote:

But, thought is not necessarily a distraction if it as close to reality. Yes, functional thoughts aid in action/functioning.

What is thought not close to reality? What is the cause/stimulus of/for its origin?

Topic: The essential Sun, 28 Feb 2016

Voco . wrote: What do you mean? Do you mean there is no difference between response of anger and response of joy, or pain, for example?

Can you know the difference without recognition/labeling?

Voco . wrote: If you burned yourself, there is a response of pain, what past experience or knowledge is involved in that?

Voco, all labeling is done by knowledge/experience. The actual sensation that is being felt has no label. This is what I am saying.

Physical sensations have a different life span and history once they are labeled.

Topic: The essential Sun, 28 Feb 2016

Voco . wrote: No, anger is a response to what is.

I will make it clearer.

A particular type of response to 'what is' is labeled as 'anger' from memory. Without the label, it is just a response like any other response, isn't it?

Voco . wrote: Reaction is a response.

There is a difference.

Reaction to a stimulus is controlled by past experience/knowledge while response uses them. What do you say?

Topic: The essential Sun, 28 Feb 2016

Voco . wrote: Anger is a reaction, a response, yes, but not necessarily a response to someone's anger, it might be a response to any situation.

Response is response not 'anger', isn't it?

Doesn't 'anger' arise with a reaction to response?

Topic: Can you look... Sun, 28 Feb 2016

Voco . wrote: To apprehending.

Apprehend | Define Apprehend at Dictionary.com dictionary.reference.com/browse/apprehend 2. to grasp the meaning of; understand, especially intuitively; perceive.

Voco, why should thought movement be a distraction in apprehending? I mean thought has come and perceiving is finished. That is it...finished. Where is the distraction except in insisting/desiring that perceiving should have continued?

What is the origin of such desire in oneself?

Topic: Can you look... Sun, 28 Feb 2016

Voco . wrote: thought may be a distraction.

Distraction to/in what, Voco?

Topic: The essential Sun, 28 Feb 2016

Voco . wrote: Do we?

yes...and sooner than later!

Is there 'anger' unless one is reacting?

Topic: The essential Sun, 28 Feb 2016

Tom Paine wrote: Can you rephrase this Sudhir? It's not clear what you're getting at in that last sentence.

One can reduce pain/disturbances produced by anger either by getting rid of habit or reducing the frequency/intensity of anger or by justifying the anger or by becoming insensitive to the pain caused in another or in oneself. Interest is generated in whatever one is doing to reduce pain produced by anger.

Does any kind of interest actually help in the matter?

Topic: The essential Sun, 28 Feb 2016

Voco . wrote: Then, are we saying that we cannot do anything with anger?

No...the fact is that we always react to anger.

Voco . wrote: That is, should we do anything with it at all is the wrong question.

Actually it is an answer to the question "should we do anything at all with anger?"...An answer that is going to give continuity to the question. :)

Topic: Can you look... Sun, 28 Feb 2016

Dan McDermott wrote: a "lack" of maybe 'quiet'?

Which will create a demand to find back 'quiet/tuning/harmony', won't it?

And next time you are in the same serene neighbourhood, this demand or the demand to recapture previous 'good' experience will be already in place...No need to point out the consequences of such demands.

Why does one consider thought movement a distraction and not the sound of birds chirping?

Topic: The essential Sun, 28 Feb 2016

Tom Paine wrote: I think we're interested simply because we see the disasterous effects of anger outwardly.

This is only one half of the story, Tom. Seeing the disastrous effects, one wants either not to get angry anymore or, failing that, justifies the anger and tries to become insensitive to negative consequences. One's interest is then in second half.

Topic: The essential Sun, 28 Feb 2016

Voco . wrote: I myself can tell, that sometimes I am angry and aggressive and violent.

Now please tell what more is there to understand with respect to anger as you mentioned previously.

Topic: The essential Sun, 28 Feb 2016

Voco . wrote: At least one should see if it's necessary or not. That is, will it change anything?

More goals are appearing here, Voco.

Ideas as goals have a tendency to never get attained/accomplished in psychological matters. The pattern of projecting a goal as idea and pursuing it again and again never stops...or can it? What do you/anyone say?

Voco . wrote: Sudhir, do you mean you are doing that or anyone who is angry?

Question not clear, Voco.

Topic: The essential Sun, 28 Feb 2016

Huguette . wrote: I don't want to convince or influence anyone

same here and that is why (mostly) the questions are asked, Huguette. May be you will have another look at the questions and respond.

Huguette . wrote: This interest is a flame that burns without "me" wanting it.

There is nothing wrong even if "me" gets interested in this...invariably at the beginning it is 'me' that gets interested in this journey.

Why do you say that "This interest is a flame that burns without "me" wanting it."? What has happened to 'me'?

Topic: The essential Sun, 28 Feb 2016

Huguette . wrote: My understanding of anger is not just that anger signfies that one is against something but that there is some form of fear underlying the anger. Can I simply observe not only the thing that makes me angry but my response to it? What makes me angry about it? Is it necessary to be angry about it? Why am I against something? Can I see the movement of anger as it flowers within, without justifying it?

What you are suggesting above, where does this process of observation/movement of thought reacting to thought end?

One is doing what is outlined above every time one is angry...is this even possible/practical?

Topic: The essential Sun, 28 Feb 2016

Voco . wrote: I agree, that anger must be understood, but to live with an idea that "you must not be angry" is already to be angry.

What is there to understand about anger? What will one do to gain such understanding?

"Anger must be understood" and "you must not be angry"...both are goal oriented ideas, the later is obviously so while former is subtle.

Topic: Can you look... Sun, 28 Feb 2016

Dan McDermott wrote: The sound goes through me and I turn from it and begin to 'think'... this morning it seems that the story of mankind has been and still is" 'nothing' trying to become 'something'.

Dan, what kind of complaint/annoyance do you have about "begin to think"?

Do you feel that "begin to think" is somehow your fault...lack of something in you?

Topic: Thought Becoming Aware of Itself... Thu, 11 Feb 2016

Dan McDermott wrote: These conclusions may all be true and are all part of knowledge. But what is being asked here is to try to see if thoughts, the thought itself can be aware of itself, not an 'observer' or a thinker separate from his thoughts 'watching', 'aware' of 'his/her' thinking. If you try it, it might be interesting to share with others who are interested, what was found.

That is what is being pointed out, Dan. If one finds anything to share, then thinker was in existence. If thought movement makes any sense, then thinker is operating.

To be aware of thought movement without the thinker can only be when words are just meaningless sound imprint arising from memory and dissolving instantly.

Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 1989 in total