Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
General Discussion | moderated by Dev Singh

Sat. Aug. 27 K Quote


Displaying posts 31 - 60 of 85 in total
Mon, 29 Aug 2011 #31
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

dhirendra singh wrote:
From my view, interest of reading books, one by one, is an entertainment.

The best you can say here, Dhirendra, is that for you it would be entertainment. But if you say that it must therefore only amount to entertainment for others, you are judging others without being in a position to do so. You cannot know whether or not it is mere entertainment for others. I say that for me it is not entertainmant. Are you saying I am mistaken?

So I am asking you to understand where you are talking about your own process and own experience and where you are making sweeping judgements which apply more broadly. If you make this clear it would help, I feel.

"The ego is first and foremost a body ego." S. Freud

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 29 Aug 2011 #32
Thumb_man_question_mark dhirendra singh India 2984 posts in this forum Offline

Paul Davidson wrote:
In the line I quoted from you, above, it appears you tell the world one book is enough

Sense is one has to look, why he run after books, one by another.I am not telling world, what should do or not, I am just questioning why we need books, more and more.I think because we are not ready to understand.

I don't know

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Mon, 29 Aug 2011 #33
Thumb_man_question_mark dhirendra singh India 2984 posts in this forum Offline

Paul Davidson wrote:
The best you can say here, Dhirendra, is that for you it would be entertainment. But if you say that it must therefore only amount to entertainment for others

I have said, in my view, in my opinion, :)

I don't know

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Mon, 29 Aug 2011 #34
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

dhirendra singh wrote:
Please point out the changes in teachings, if any one exactly know it.

dhirendra singh wrote:
If time allow, can you give some basic points where K looked conditioned in his early teaching?

I have also asked this of Patricia, in the past. It would be interesting to pursue an exchange with Patricia on this, if she cares to. She recently mentioned that in the later teachings K offered no hope. And I asked myself where, in the early teachings, he did so.

For me there is no early and late teaching. It is one flow. It would be good to discuss, as Dhi says, with some reference points.

"The ego is first and foremost a body ego." S. Freud

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 29 Aug 2011 #35
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

dhirendra singh wrote:
I have said, in my view, in my opinion

Yes, Dhi, but you did not make clear whether your view that reading books is entertainment applies to you or if you apply it to others, so I will ask the question more simply.

Are you saying that, in your view, if I or others read more than one K book, it is mere entertainment?

Or are you saying that you, yourself, stopped reading books because any more reading, for you, would add nothing substantial?

Either statement would be 'in your view', but they do differ, substantially.

"The ego is first and foremost a body ego." S. Freud

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 29 Aug 2011 #36
Thumb_man_question_mark dhirendra singh India 2984 posts in this forum Offline

Paul Davidson wrote:
I say that for me it is not entertainmant. Are you saying I am mistaken?

So I am asking you to understand where you are talking about your own process and own experience and where you are making sweeping judgements which apply more broadly. If you make this clear it would help, I feel.

Paul, If I am not quoting other's name, then I am expressing my opinions.Please read them as opinions, not judgements.

I don't know

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Mon, 29 Aug 2011 #37
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

dhirendra singh wrote:
why he run after books, one by another

What leads you to believe that people who read books are 'running after them?' I ask myself, do I run after books? It is clear to me that I do not. I think you are suggesting a psychological addiction to book-reading. Is this so?

This may have been what happened to you in the past, Dhi, but your experience with books may be particular to you. Personally I can read or not read. I do not have withdrawal symptoms. As long as I am interested, that interest inclines me to read.

It may be like saying, if one has seen one tree and understood it, then there is no need to run after trees, except for entertainment. It is a stark picture of life, Dhi.

If I go to the forest I am in the world of trees. If I go to the library I am in the world of books. It is a different thing, but all essential part of my world. I love tree and I love books. It is simply a pity that one has to be sacrificed to create the other (but now we have i-Pad!!)

"The ego is first and foremost a body ego." S. Freud

This post was last updated by Paul Davidson (account deleted) Mon, 29 Aug 2011.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 29 Aug 2011 #38
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

dhirendra singh wrote:
Paul, If I am not quoting other's name, then I am expressing my opinions.Please read them as opinions, not judgements.

Yes, but you seem to be avoiding my question, Dhi. Is your opinion applicable only to yourself or do you apply it to others?

It is the last time I will ask the question. I do ask you to take it seriously, otherwise I lose all interest.

"The ego is first and foremost a body ego." S. Freud

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 29 Aug 2011 #39
Thumb_man_question_mark dhirendra singh India 2984 posts in this forum Offline

Paul Davidson wrote:
so I will ask the question more simply.

Are you saying that, in your view, if I or others read more than one K book, it is mere entertainment?

Thank you for your kindness, I try to answer in simpler way.

You may read one or thousand books, but at any point do you ask, why do you read books?What are you searching?Will you find that in books.

I don't think every one read for entertainment.But once you understand the pointer, the message, then you may apply it or may ignore it, but in any case, if you continue to read books, then it is time pass.

I don't know

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Mon, 29 Aug 2011 #40
Thumb_man_question_mark dhirendra singh India 2984 posts in this forum Offline

Paul Davidson wrote:
Dhi. Is your opinion applicable only to yourself or do you apply it to others?

Paul, it's applicable to me, and may be applicable to many others, but not for every one.

Other's have to ask themselves, why are they reading?

My opinion is not important, what you feel yourself is important.

I don't know

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 29 Aug 2011 #41
Thumb_man_question_mark dhirendra singh India 2984 posts in this forum Offline

Paul Davidson wrote:
I do ask you to take it seriously,

Well, my suggestion is, I, D, is not authority,I am not speaker of universal truth, I am just expressing my understanding, which may be intellectual only.

Whatever we express through words is incomplete.

I don't know

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Mon, 29 Aug 2011 #42
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Dhirendra. my experience is like this. I read books, all sorts of books. It is a fact that sometimes I read for entertainment. But even in this it is not so clear. For example, K read for entertainment, which he did not think was bad. He read detective novels and humorous books such as the Jeeves series, things that have no interest for me, entertanemnt or otherwise.

When I look at the fiction I read it seems that I like books that provoke me to question, provoke me to shake away the complacency that builds up due to the workings of thought and the pursuit of comfort. Even with this fiction, which is in any case minimal, there is a questing and a questioning and a grappling.

But mostly I read things that have more substance in terms of condensed probing into this existence we share. Maybe I could stop reading and go into a cave for six months or six years to meditate on life, but I do not feel that my sole questioning will be more valid that reading other people's teachings. I am not intoxicated by writings or by teachings. I am nether addicted nor dependent. But while it appears productive, in terms of self-knowing, my interest in it is maintained and I follow that.

My life is varied, Dhirendra. Today I was laying flooring in an apartment and trying to deal with a burglary. I am about to cook some dahl and rice. Next month I go to Brazil again.

I find that, for me, a dedicated attitude is useful in reading K. I find that one book is not enough. I find that questions come up that lead me to probe further in order to get a better sense of his life-work. I know that I do not understand in the sense that it has transformed me. So either I have to delve more deeply, or maybe I am inherently incapable in this life of changing, or perhaps K and all his like are delusional conmen. I do not know. In any case I continue with it.

"The ego is first and foremost a body ego." S. Freud

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 29 Aug 2011 #43
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

dhirendra singh wrote:
I am not speaker of universal truth

We are all capable of speaking some universal truth, Dhirendra, to the extent we can disentangle ourselves from it!!

"The ego is first and foremost a body ego." S. Freud

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 29 Aug 2011 #44
Thumb_stringio RICK LEIN United States 4436 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Ravi Seth wrote:
Have to ask the expert.Patricia!! Where are you?

Ravi..do the work..Rick is lazy..you apparently are not..let's put the shoe on the other foot..if we may...find something that refutes the original statement..can there be relationship between images?:)

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 29 Aug 2011 #45
Thumb_stringio RICK LEIN United States 4436 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Kapila Kulasinghe wrote:
If I can recollect rightly he said it in a dialogue he had with Br.David Bohm.

Yes that may be it..some of that is included in the awakening of itellegence..thanks Rav..look there..my friend!:)

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 30 Aug 2011 #46
Thumb_patricia_may_2014_reduced_ Patricia Hemingway Australia 1929 posts in this forum Offline

dhirendra singh wrote:
If time allow, can you give some basic points where K looked conditioned in his early teaching?

Prime example is "At the feet of the Master". Theosophical gobble-di-gook! Or even his dissolution of the Order of the Star speech - where he promises to set mankind free. That was nothing more than carrying on his mandate from the theosophists.

As the teaching went on, he made it quite clear at all times that he was only a passer-by who pointed, and it is up to each person to discover the truth ALONE. Bit of a change to being the hero who would set everyone free, isn't it? And some people never forgave him for letting them down. But eventually the truth manifested and all the bullshit disappeared. Thankfully.

But look how many 'followers' cling only to the very early texts, and claim that K 'lost it' later in his life. He did not - he found it!

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 3 readers
Back to Top
Tue, 30 Aug 2011 #47
Thumb_tampura ganesan balachandran India 2204 posts in this forum Offline

Beautiful! Patricia
thank you.
gb

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

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 2 readers
Back to Top
Tue, 30 Aug 2011 #48
Thumb_avatar Ravi Seth India 1573 posts in this forum Offline

Patricia Hemingway wrote:
But look how many 'followers' cling only to the very early texts, and claim that K 'lost it' later in his life. He did not - he found it!

He also said somewhere that his books should be read , starting from the present to past ( chronologically).He also mentioned "ending of time' to start with.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 2 readers
Back to Top
Tue, 30 Aug 2011 #49
Thumb_patricia_may_2014_reduced_ Patricia Hemingway Australia 1929 posts in this forum Offline

Yes Ravi - it is important to study the teaching as a whole entity - from beginning to end - if the journey of K is to be comprehended and not misjudged.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Tue, 30 Aug 2011 #50
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

RICK LEIN wrote:
Yes that may be it..some of that is included in the awakening of itellegence..thanks Rav..look there..my friend!:)

I already found the quote from Wholeness of Life Part 111 and have posted it on a separate thread, Rick. Please read, if you care to.

"The ego is first and foremost a body ego." S. Freud

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 30 Aug 2011 #51
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Patricia Hemingway wrote:
Prime example is "At the feet of the Master". Theosophical gobble-di-gook! Or even his dissolution of the Order of the Star speech - where he promises to set mankind free. That was nothing more than carrying on his mandate from the theosophists.

At The Feet Of The Master was a text written in K's first days with Leadbetter around 1910 as a 14 year old boy. Many say Leadbetter wrote it himself as K had little or no knowledge of English. K later refuted the content as pure fantasy and said he had no recollection of writing it. It never was part of the teaching, which began with the Dissolution speach in 1929, twenty years later.

The Dissolution Of The Order Of The Star speach contained no promises at all. He specifically spoke against promises, against the idea that one person could set another free and against paths to freedom. It marked not an extention of the mandate of Theosophy but the completion of K's break with that mandate. Here are some of the things he said in that speach:

"Truth, being limitless, unconditioned, unapproachable by any path whatsoever, cannot be organised; nor should any organisation be formed to lead or coerce people along any particular path"

"Truth cannot be brought down, rather the individual must make the effort to ascend to it."

"I am concerning myself with only one essential thing: to set man free. I desire to free him from all cages, from all fears, and not to found religions, new sects, nor to establish new theories and new philosophies"

"Because I am free, unconditioned, whole, not the part, not the relative, but the whole Truth that is eternal, I desire those, who seek to understand me, to be free, not to follow me, not to make out of me a cage which will become a religion, a sect. Rather should they be free from all fears - from the fear of religion, from the fear of salvation, from the fear of spirituality, from the fear of love, from the fear of death, from the fear of life itself."

"You think and hope that another can, by his extraordinary powers - a miracle - transport you to this realm of eternal freedom which is Happiness. Your whole outlook on life is based on that authority."

"For eighteen years you have organised, you have looked for someone who would give a new delight to your hearts and minds, who would transform your whole life, who would give you a new understanding; for someone who would raise you to a new plane of life, who would give you new encouragement, who would set you free - and now look what is happening!"

"You are all depending for your spirituality on someone else, for your happiness on someone else, for your enlightenment on someone else.... when I say look within yourselves for the enlightenment, for the glory, for the purification, and for the incorruptibility of the self, not one of you is willing to do it."

"No man from outside can make you free"

"Again, you have the idea that only certain people hold the key to the Kingdom of Happiness. No one holds it. No one has the authority to hold that key. That key is your own self"

"But those who really desire to understand, who are looking to find that which is eternal, without a beginning and without an end, will walk together with greater intensity, will be a danger to everything that is unessential, to unrealities, to shadows. And they will concentrate, they will become the flame, because they understand. Such a body we must create, and that is my purpose."

"With that I am not concerned, nor with creating new cages, new decorations for those cages. My only concern is to set men absolutely, unconditionally free."

For me, K stuck to those concerns during his entire teaching. They are the unalterable core of what he stood for.

"The ego is first and foremost a body ego." S. Freud

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 2 readers
Back to Top
Tue, 30 Aug 2011 #52
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

There is an unquestionable difference between on the one hand being concerned and having an intention, and on the other with making a promise and setting a goal. K was against promises and goals. He was never against being concerned and having intentions.

"The ego is first and foremost a body ego." S. Freud

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Tue, 30 Aug 2011 #53
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Patricia Hemingway wrote:
As the teaching went on, he made it quite clear at all times that he was only a passer-by who pointed, and it is up to each person to discover the truth ALONE.

. . . which was precisely his stress in the Dissolution speach. This concern was the core of his break with Theosophy. It did not develop in time 'as the teaching went on' but was there at the start. Freedom was there at the beginning.

But K never said he was 'only a passer-by.' Please either find a quote or withdraw that remark as inaccurate and unfounded. He was never only a passer-by. Oh for heaven's sake! Please be real!

"The ego is first and foremost a body ego." S. Freud

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Tue, 30 Aug 2011 #54
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Patricia Hemingway wrote:
But look how many 'followers' cling only to the very early texts, and claim that K 'lost it' later in his life

Can you be more specific, Patricia. I have never met anyone or read anyone who has claimed such a thing. Where have you heard this? Who has said it? Which 'followers?' Where?

You ask us to look, but in which direction? Where are they?

"The ego is first and foremost a body ego." S. Freud

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 30 Aug 2011 #55
Thumb_tampura ganesan balachandran India 2204 posts in this forum Offline

Paul Davidson wrote:
Which 'followers?' Where?

Not followers, but who find deliberately contradictions in JK.
gb

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 30 Aug 2011 #56
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Actually only the Theosophists claimed K had lost the plot. They hounded him for years, precisely during the early years of his teaching. They left off hounding him in the 1940's. But if you read the earlier talks and the questions you will find that he was hounded at that time, accused of betrayal and much more.

They were followers of Theosophy, not of K. They hounded him because he broke their hearts, their dreams. Besant foragave but the followers never did.

"The ego is first and foremost a body ego." S. Freud

This post was last updated by Paul Davidson (account deleted) Tue, 30 Aug 2011.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 30 Aug 2011 #57
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

ganesan balachandran wrote:
What Paul. can i add sir.

No need to add or to subtract, dear Ganesan. Patricia will guide us.

"The ego is first and foremost a body ego." S. Freud

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 30 Aug 2011 #58
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

ganesan balachandran wrote:
Not followers, but who find deliberately contradictions in JK.

Yes indeed. The sentiment this thread started from was Jack's statement that the teaching did not fundamentally change. And with this I concur. It always seemed to me pointless to set the tail against the nose. It is one dog!

"The ego is first and foremost a body ego." S. Freud

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 30 Aug 2011 #59
Thumb_stringio RICK LEIN United States 4436 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Paul Davidson wrote:
But it is an avoidable error to put that opinion, which may be right for you, as a recipe for others.

Interesting..something perhaps We ALL should look at before we speak or write with a should attitude...huh Paul?:)

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 30 Aug 2011 #60
Thumb_patricia_may_2014_reduced_ Patricia Hemingway Australia 1929 posts in this forum Offline

Paul Davidson wrote:
Patricia will guide us.

Well - somebody has to! :) But not this little black duck!

If open access to all K had to say over a fifty year period is not a guide - forget it!

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 3 readers
Back to Top
Displaying posts 31 - 60 of 85 in total
To quote a portion of this post in your reply, first select the text and then click this "Quote" link.

(N.B. Be sure to insert an empty line between the quoted text and your reply.)