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

Knowledge?


Displaying posts 31 - 59 of 59 in total
Thu, 22 Sep 2011 #31
Thumb_img001 Sudhir Sharma India 1989 posts in this forum Offline

Paul Davidson wrote:
How does one know when one is genuinely awake?

Awareness in outer world is clarity and depth of perception. This is very obvious to the individual, Paul.

Awareness in the inner world is more complicated. Thoughts arising in darkness keep on producing a chain of thoughts and this includes the thought (illusion) that one is awake.

Then one may suddenly become aware that one was not attentive towards the origin and ending of thoughts and this is a proof that awareness was missing. As I said before touching 'silence/emptiness' before and after every thought is the factor that determines the genuiness of state of being awake. And one will 'know' it if it is happening.

FLOW WITH LIFE!

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 2 readers
Back to Top
Thu, 22 Sep 2011 #32
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Dr.sudhir sharma wrote:
As I said before touching 'silence/emptiness' before and after every thought

And, how does one keep up this level of attentiveness, without attempting to adopt some sort of 'practice?' Is it a matter of chance, whether one has the attention or not? Can one 'do' something. Is one to experiment with it, see how far and for how long the attention spans? Does one work at it? Does one 'remember' to attend?

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 23 Sep 2011 #33
Thumb_tampura ganesan balachandran India 2204 posts in this forum Offline

Paul Davidson wrote:
Dr.sudhir sharma wrote:

As I said before touching 'silence/emptiness' before and after every thought

Paul Davidson wrote:

And, how does one keep up this level of attentiveness,

I fled because I feared the the role of the oblation- giver, so that the gods would not harness to it. My bodies entered various places; I, Agni have ceased to consider this task.

Paul Davidson wrote:

without attempting to adopt some sort of 'practice?'

' We will make your life span free of old age, O Agni, knower of all areatures, so that you will not be harmed when you have been harnessed. Then you will carry the portion of the offering to the gods with a willing heart, O well_ born one.'

Paul Davidson wrote:

Can one 'do' something.Is one to experiment with it, see how far and for how long the attention spans? Does one work at it?

'Give me alone the pre_sacrifices and post_ sacrifices, the nourishing parts of the offering; and the clarified butter out of the waters and the Man out of the plants. And let the life_span of Agni be long.

Paul Davidson wrote:

Does one 'remember' to attend?

' The pre sacrifices and the post sacrifices will be for you alone, the nourishing parts of the offering. This whole sacrifice will be for you, Agni; the four quarters of the sky will bow to you.'

gb

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

This post was last updated by ganesan balachandran Fri, 23 Sep 2011.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 23 Sep 2011 #34
Thumb_man_question_mark dhirendra singh India 2984 posts in this forum Offline

Paul Davidson wrote:
What is knowledge?

What is 'not knowledge'?

I don't know

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 23 Sep 2011 #35
Thumb_img001 Sudhir Sharma India 1989 posts in this forum Offline

Paul Davidson wrote:
And, how does one keep up this level of attentiveness, without attempting to adopt some sort of 'practice?'

There is no 'how', dear Paul.:-)

On more sincere note, the 'movements' play significant role in our inner world. The movement of observing a thought covers observation
of reactions too. When one is seeing the arising and ending of thought without any motive (which practically means the total attention moving moment to moment), then a new movement in different dimension starts. This movemen can not be produced by practice. Now, the thoughts emerge from silence and end in it too. Also, if awareness moves in to outer world, then clarity and depth of perception is the rule right from the beginning.

Paul Davidson wrote:
Is it a matter of chance, whether one has the attention or not? Can one 'do' something. Is one to experiment with it, see how far and for how long the attention spans? Does one work at it? Does one 'remember' to attend?

Such questions arise at very superficial level in our mind, Paul. They need not be answered as no answer will prove satisfactory. What is required to be done is to see the origin and ending of these questions in one's own mind. Once, one has the taste of movement in silence/emptiness, then such questions fall away. These are not clever words, dear friend.

FLOW WITH LIFE!

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Fri, 23 Sep 2011 #36
Thumb_img001 Sudhir Sharma India 1989 posts in this forum Offline

dhirendra singh wrote:
What is 'not knowledge'?

A catch 22 kind of question.:-)

The 'answer' to this question may come to only those who (without intending to do so) refuse to move from 'seeing' this question till it evaporates in to nothingness!

FLOW WITH LIFE!

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 2 readers
Back to Top
Sat, 24 Sep 2011 #37
Thumb_tampura ganesan balachandran India 2204 posts in this forum Offline

Paul Davidson wrote:

What is knowledge?

Everything and Nothing.

dhirendra singh wrote:
What is 'not knowledge'
?

Nothing and everything
gb

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

This post was last updated by ganesan balachandran Sat, 24 Sep 2011.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 24 Sep 2011 #38
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

ganesan balachandran wrote:
Everything and Nothing.
Nothing and everything

But how about 'something?' You left out something.

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 24 Sep 2011 #39
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

OK. Is everything sensed, experience? Does everything that passes by the senses get absorbed? Is all that is absorbed stored? Is everything stored, stored as 'memory?' Is knowledge only memory? Is all that is remembered 'knowledge? My heart knows how to beat. Is that knowledge?

Actually, is everything knowledge? Or do we use that word in more specific context? Are we aware of the contextual meanings, the variety of forms in which we use the word to describe things and processes which may or may not be the same, or even directly related?

My guess, from the previous discussion, is that we do not take this plain fact into consideration. We fall into dispute mainly because the word use and its context is not clear. Some words are morphologically weighty, they carry multiple meanings.

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 24 Sep 2011 #40
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

One of the things alluded to in the previous discussion seemed to be the accumulation of factual knowledge through, for instance, information sources such as books.

I think the discussion got going when Max 'alleged' that I was very knowledgeable and he asked me if I have a team of researchers. (I do not). And I asked myself the question, Do I research? Am I aware that I research? And when I looked into it I found that I was not aware whether or not what I do could be called research.

It seems to me that I do read quite a bit, maybe a book a week. But my reading is not formed by any will or purpose to accumulate and reach conclusions. I am very relaxed about it. Books and themes seem to present themselves to me out of a blue sky (sorry). My attention is drawn rather than driven and seems to arrive at its foci. Mostly, to use Sudhir's phrase, my reading choices arise out of silence and arrive back at silence at the end. I rarely read for a purpose and when I do so I feel resistance and resentment about it. I was a lousy school student and had to leave at sixteen.

I will say something about the work I have been doing the last fifteen years. I have been working in construction, doing my own work. I am completely self-taught, which is a hard process and ridden with mistakes. But I learnt carpentry, plumbing, electrics, masonry, heating systems and much more. I do my own drawings, plans and arrange finance etc etc. This is how I move forward (in so far as it can be called such) in life, just by doing. I may or may not have accumulated much knowledge along the way. What importance should that be given, besides functional importance?

This last part was about practical skills, technical knowledge. But my intellectual knowledge or cultural knowledge has come about in no different way. I do not study, but I follow my interests, when they arise, into science, art, medicine, music, whatever.

And reading? Usually, when I read I find I am in a dialogue with the author, whatever the book is. It could be K or x, y, z. What I find fascinating in reading, for me, is that it is a process that leads me to question my assumptions about things. Left to my own devices I fins=d that conclusions do accrue from my limited experiences of the world. Crude working prejudices grow up naturally in the soil of experience. The thrill of reading, for me, is that these conclusions go through the mill of logical questioning and factual rigour. I am rarely not changed in my thought as a result.

If you do not open to information it does not mean you will be free of prejudice. It simply means that your prejudice will be home-grown. And that, in turn, implies that you probably have accepted what society has taught you. What we take to be common sense truth is no more than social consensus, collective hubris.

If books may put our knowledge 'to the question' so much the better.

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 24 Sep 2011 #41
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

Paul,

Thanks for your response to my question. It's just as I suspected -- you're a polymath, or at least a reasonable facsimile.

I have a grandson who had eidetic memory as a child to such an extent that as well as reciting words he copied facial expressions, speech intonations, gestures -- the whole works -- after anyone read something to him. He's now in his teens and still has some of this ability, but eidetic memory gradually disappears with age.

max

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 24 Sep 2011 #42
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

max greene wrote:
you're a polymath

'auto-didact' would be more appropriate in that context, Max.

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

This post was last updated by Paul Davidson (account deleted) Sat, 24 Sep 2011.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 24 Sep 2011 #43
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

max greene wrote:
but eidetic memory gradually disappears with age.

oh shit . . . just as well I never had that EITHER (or eider)

Actually I have a terrible recall ability when I am trying to remember something in particular, especially names Clive. But some sort of associative power allows things to place themselves before me, quite oddly often.

For example it occurred to me in my sleep that all the derogatory terms Jack uses (or the most of them) begin with the letter 'b.' I have not checked it out factually. But it would be interesting to know if there was a dominating male in his background whose name began with that letter. It seems to be tied into some pain.

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

This post was last updated by Paul Davidson (account deleted) Sat, 24 Sep 2011.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 24 Sep 2011 #44
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Dr.sudhir sharma wrote:
Awareness in outer world is clarity and depth of perception. This is very obvious to the individual, Paul.

I had a friend at one time who was a 'lucid dreamer.' Her dreams were so clear and she was so present in them that she told me that she could not sometimes know if she was awake or asleep. She told me of two tests. First one is to jump in the air. If you fall back to Earth as per normal this is a good sign you are awake, but it is not infallible (please excuse the pun). The other one is less prone to conscious control. You read something, such as the spine of a book. Then you turn away and turn back to read it again. If you are dreaming, the words (apparently) will have changed. This may not work with Kinfonet postings which are prone to re-editing.

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 25 Sep 2011 #45
Thumb_img001 Sudhir Sharma India 1989 posts in this forum Offline

Paul Davidson wrote:
I had a friend at one time who was a 'lucid dreamer.' Her dreams were so clear and she was so present in them that she told me that she could not sometimes know if she was awake or asleep. She told me of two tests.

Interesting story about your friend, Paul. People tend to go in to day dreaming in uninteresting company!:-)

Dr.sudhir sharma wrote:
Awareness in outer world is clarity and depth of perception. This is very obvious to the individual, Paul.

Are you trying to say in your reply that clarity and depth of perception in awareness is something one dreams?

FLOW WITH LIFE!

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 25 Sep 2011 #46
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Dr.sudhir sharma wrote:
Are you trying to say in your reply that clarity and depth of perception in awareness is something one dreams?

No, that idea seems to have little traction, Sudhir. I was not mentioning 'clarity of depth and perception in awareness.' But I suggested that we may often think or believe we are seeing/perceiving clearly and directly when we are operating through a filter or a distorted mirror. I was also suggesting that even sleep-states can be mistaken for wakeful ones. In that particular context I referred to real sleep and real dreams, not day-dreaming.

What I was trying to ASK was the following: How do we KNOW that we are perceiving directly, with clarity? Mind fools itself easily, but is there a feeling or some knowledge of right-seeing or are we always in this ultimate state of unknowing with regard to the veracity of our own perceptions?

It if we cannot say, for ourselves, then WE cannot KNOW that what K taught was no more than the product of his own imagination. I am not here questioning K (I cannot) but my own knowledge.

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 25 Sep 2011 #47
Thumb_img001 Sudhir Sharma India 1989 posts in this forum Offline

Paul Davidson wrote:
But I suggested that we may often think or believe we are seeing/perceiving clearly and directly when we are operating through a filter or a distorted mirror.

This is an important point, Paul. One is not seeing/perceiving clearly and directly if this does not include seeing/perceiving the operation of filter or distorted mirror.

Paul Davidson wrote:
Mind fools itself easily, but is there a feeling or some knowledge of right-seeing or are we always in this ultimate state of unknowing

The state of unknowing is not empty, but full and rich, Paul. The unknowing is from the angle of thought/recognition/experience/knowledge.

FLOW WITH LIFE!

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 25 Sep 2011 #48
Thumb_img001 Sudhir Sharma India 1989 posts in this forum Offline

Paul Davidson wrote:
Also, is there any 'knowing' that need not be questioned? Even that which we call our 'understanding?'

Questioning can not be stopped/controlled for any kind of knowing, but there certainly is a 'knowing' where seeking an answer for the question will instantly bring about the end of knowing.

FLOW WITH LIFE!

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 25 Sep 2011 #49
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5770 posts in this forum Offline

Dr.sudhir sharma wrote:
Are you saying that psychological knowledge is not included in 'what is'?

Of course that's what I'm saying. Psychological knowledge is the past and "what is" or the "now" is the eternal present, is life. This is not my discovery but what K was pointing out for over sixty years. Here's a quote that appeared on JKrishnamurti.org a few months ago which I personally find fascinating in it's simplicity and clearsness and in the challenge it presents to the reader.

ONLY EXERCISE THOUGHT WHEN IT IS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY

Thought must exist, for our lives to function. But inwardly, psychologically as thought breeds pain, sorrow and this constant drive for pleasure - bringing its own frustrations, disappointments, anger, jealousy and envy - thought has no place at all in that dimension, at that level. If one could actually do this: only exercise thought when it is absolutely necessary, and the rest of the time, abserve, look. So that thought which is always old, which now prevents the actual experience of looking, could drop away and it would be possible to live totally in that moment, which is always the 'now'.

Talks with American Students (This is the name of a Book, 1970)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 25 Sep 2011 #50
Thumb_deleted_user_med Muad dhib Ireland 175 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Jack Pine wrote:
in the challenge it presents to the reader.

hello , I personally have a problem with the word challenge , the world of today caught in competition keeps repeating this word too..

I would rather used problems to adequately and entirely solve now, as challenge had definitively joint the dark side....:)

Dan.....

This post was last updated by Muad dhib (account deleted) Sun, 25 Sep 2011.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 25 Sep 2011 #51
Thumb_img001 Sudhir Sharma India 1989 posts in this forum Offline

Jack Pine wrote:
Of course that's what I'm saying. Psychological knowledge is the past and "what is" or the "now" is the eternal present, is life.

Psychological knowledge is of the past and also gets projected in to future, but does it not surface in the present moment?

If this is right statement for you, then it becomes part of 'what is' as eternal present is all inclusive, isn't it?

FLOW WITH LIFE!

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 26 Sep 2011 #52
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5770 posts in this forum Offline

Dr.sudhir sharma wrote:
If this is right statement for you, then it becomes part of 'what is' as eternal present is all inclusive, isn't it?

Is it? I could give you my opinion but how will that help you? I may be right or wrong. To answer the question go into it, Dr Sudhir, deeply and seriously and find out if it's true or not.

I am not your Mentor when it comes to understanding what K pointed out and you are not mine. We all must find out on our own. That's the hell of it. (The last sentence is an American figure of speech. Don't take it literally.)

This post was last updated by Jack Pine Mon, 26 Sep 2011.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Thu, 29 Sep 2011 #53
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 1228 posts in this forum Offline

Hello Paul and Dr sudhir,

I'm new to this kind of thing. A bit shy. I noticed a quote here somewhere, K talking critically to someone about "These people going around helping people". K was asked "but isn't that what you are doing?" K's reply was "but I'm not doing it on purpose." (these quotes are probably not accurate) Anyway hopefully what I'm doing here will in a like way be not on purpose

I've read K extensively and seen him talk in Ojai for a number of years when he was alive . And I love him deeply.

But i dont take anything he says as true by authority.

This discussion is about the question "what is knowledge".

It is possible to question almost everything. Almost everything we take as known is actually assumption only.
I'm assuming that there is actually a you there to read this. I am able to question this but for the moment I am makeing that assumption.

I am assuming there are a number of us, there is a we.
Were I questioning this at this moment I woold not be writing. Together we assume that there is a real material world. When we examine this material world we find that the discoveries in the field of science seem to best describe what happens in this field of matter.

I see that my body is matter. I see that I have nerves and a brain. I discover that everything that I sense comes to me through nerves. But these sensations get to me only as impulses traveling on nerves. Likewise every thing I do is the result of nerve impulses traveling thru nerves to muscles. I am able to concieve of a being like me who consists of a brain only, connected to a computer at every nerve that enters and every nerve that exits its brain. If that computer were sufficiently advanced. It could simulate for that being a reality as real as the one I experiance by taking all of the outputs of outgoing nerves and doing the necessaru calculations and sending back to the brain the ingoing nerve impulses that would appear to that one to be a world as real to him or her as this that I experience. I cannot be sure that that is not the real nature of my world. If my world is this and has been so for all of my "life" I can now question the very existence of the brain itself and all of the material world and science. I can question the existence of the material.

I am left with quailia only. The redness of red for example. There is no red in the brain. Moreover everything, including thought itself the experiance of memory is quaiia only.

So what do I know?

This one thing is a certainty.

It is not the case that there is nothing.

I think all else may be assumption only.

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Thu, 29 Sep 2011.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 29 Sep 2011 #54
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Hi Peter and welcome. Even as a casual or a shy poster your contributions will be surely most welcome here.

On that quote. A suggestion: Perhaps K did not say (or mean) that he did not help 'on purpose' but that he did not help 'with a purpose.' I wonder if you can recollect if that is more accurate. Certainly it would make more sense to me, although he may have said the former., in a joking way.

You are very lucky to have heard him. I did not, coming across the teaching relatively recently. I think that to have been present in those talks would have made a qualitative difference to me, to be part of the wave that went through.

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 29 Sep 2011 #55
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

Dr. Sharma,

Your post #51, "Psychological knowledge is of the past and also gets projected in to future, but does it not surface in the present moment?"

Psychological knowledge is of the past, as you say. It is yesterday. Can yesterday, as memory, be brought into the present moment? I would say that it cannot, as the present moment, now, is timeless -- it cannot be captured or measured -- whereas the psychological, as well as the physical, is of sequence and time -- both the physical and the psychological are manifest; both are already created and on the road to their own ending.

I would say that psychological knowledge enters into the re-action and inertial movement of continuance and evolution, but it cannot reach forward to touch the timeless present moment.

max

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 30 Sep 2011 #56
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 1228 posts in this forum Offline

Paul,

The quote is in the first post in the seventh topic "so surprising this krishnamurti !!" in the lounge discussion forum.

Peter

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Fri, 30 Sep 2011.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 30 Sep 2011 #57
Thumb_avatar Dhanan Rao India 75 posts in this forum Offline

Peter Kesting wrote:
"These people going around helping people". K was asked "but isn't that what you are doing?"

I guess the only real/actual help one can do to 'others' is to remain free of inner conflict ourselves. And that is all K was doing.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Fri, 30 Sep 2011 #58
Thumb_tampura ganesan balachandran India 2204 posts in this forum Offline

Peter Kesting wrote:
K's reply was "but I'm not doing it on purpose."

Let the great cow give us milk in thousand of streams of milk, as if she were walking in meadow.
gb

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

This post was last updated by ganesan balachandran Fri, 30 Sep 2011.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 30 Sep 2011 #59
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Peter Kesting wrote:
Paul, The quote is in the first post in the seventh topic "so surprising this krishnamurti !!" in the lounge discussion forum. Peter

Thank you Peter. I just read it. Sorry for the time delay!! Yes, in context it makes more sense that he could have said such a thing. But "I didn't do it on purpose" sounds like a child whose been caught out at something, does it not? That's what caught me. Whereas K is saying, in effect, "I do not set out to help people, although it may happen, in spite of that."

I re-read your first comment here, as you have added much too it. I think the question of 'helping' was raised by Jack, in response to Sudhir. Anyhow, that is long past. You are writing well, Peter. I look forward to future postings from you, as you feel fit.

You have pointed out that all knowledge is based upon prior assumptions. It is built up, but not upon any fundamental reality that is not enmeshed in and filtered by our experience of it. The point is here well taken. It applies to everything we take to be fact, proven, obvious or true . . . as well as the rest which isn't!

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

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 31 - 59 of 59 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.)