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

The Question


Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 41 in total
Fri, 06 Jul 2012 #1
Thumb_stringio lidlo lady United States 4003 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

The core K-belief is that of "direct" or "pure" perception. This is the notion that the true apprehension and complete comprehension of what-is, is possible only when the past, memory, experience, the self, is bypassed. Is this possible? Is it reasonable to think that it might be? We have fashioned the means, the technology, that can record accurate visual and audio representation of what-is, as an extension of the brain, so why can't we re-fashion the brain itself?

Let's look at what perception actually is. Raw sense data is translated, processed by the brain to create useful information, and the translating and processing is done by memory's response to the stimuli of raw sense data. Every brain, having its own memory, has its own way of perceiving what-is. No two brains see things the same way, though the similarity is close enough that relationship is possible, and that's the way it has always been...up until the end of the nineteenth century.

Nowadays, due to advances in technology, the human brain can more accurately apprehend and comprehend what-is via extensions of itself it has devised and manufactured. So, if the brain's extensions can see and hear and detect more accurately than the brain itself, why can't the brain internalize its extensions? Why can't the brain transform that which makes it a less efficent version of what it can fashion externally, into that which it internally is, by mutating? If the brain is smart enough to exceed its own natural limitations through technological invention, why isn't it smart enough to transform itself into a brain that embodies all of its externalized abilities, and then some?

These may or may not be reasonable questions, and Krishnamurti, for all we know, may or may not have been the embodiment of the answer to them, so it's foolish to arrive at that conclusion. Nevertheless, now that we've superceded ourselves with our technology, how are we going to keep our technology from destroying us? This question is germain because it stands to reason that mechanisms capable of self-knowledge, self-correction, and self-repair (which we have already brought into existence) will, at some point, identify the organisms that brought them into existence as unnecessary, superfluous, disposable.

Krishnamurti's answer to this question was that the human brain must change radically, transform, and one would have to agree that's what it will take...though one can hardly imagine how it would transpire or what it would entail; what it would take to render conscious, learning machines harmless to the organic entities that created them. All we know is that unless we can find a more viable, less technological approach to existence, we as a species are doomed to be hoist with our own petard. And we know also that believing in some notion of salvation is not only foolish, but that that such foolishness justifies the extermination of humanity by machines that don't fool around.

If the human brain cannot raise its own consciousness to a higher level than its technnological extensions are capable of, the human species will be rendered extinct by its own hand. Direct, pure, perception should be possible, it seems, if the human brain is to put technology in its place and avert catastrophe, but what-should-be is not what-is.

This post was last updated by lidlo lady (account deleted) Sat, 07 Jul 2012.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 07 Jul 2012 #2
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Dear Lidlo, thank you for an interesting post. I won't dwell on the more fearful projections you have drawn of mankind being doomed to destruction at the hands of his technological inventions unless he can mutate. Instead I want to look at this question of mutation itself.

It is a strange word, mutation, is it not. It presumes a path of regular, uniliniar progress which is suddenly interrupted by an irratic and radical change, such a change as creates a different future. The word has been used to encapsulate the many different processes that take place in the world whereby a thing changes into another thing. So, it starts with the notion of a thing, an unchanging pattern. Then the thing mutates and becomes another thing.

Mutation also infers an internal dynamism, whereby a life-form goes through a process of internal development from this to that, whether conceived as being over a time period or instantly. This becomes that due to its own internal dynamics.

In evolution theory, the mutations that occur are species-mutations. The changes occur, not during the lifetime of a particular life-form but during the lifetime of the species. That is to say, the chimpanzee did not wake one morning and find it had mutated into a human being. Genetic changes occur over long periods and accumulate until the point comes when one type can no longer mate with its distant cousin.

Otherwise, minor mutation occurs constantly, with each new generation being slightly different than the one that procreated it. Your child is not an exact replica of either you or the other arent, nor some kind of composite or compromise between the two, although it will carry various features of both. What has combined is the genetic information, not the parents themselves. Each child is a brand new version of the species, an example of the same type but in some exciting new form. To call that difference by the name mutation is somewhat misleading. Yet, over time, this is how species mutate. Can we see that the concept, mutation, is rather vulgar, rather conceptually-constructed. The process we call mutation is not exceptional, it is normal and constant, an aspect of life that is perenial.

Krishnamurti talks of a mutation of the brain within ones own lifetime. What on Earth is supposed to happen? What images does it conjure up? What beliefs may be generated by such an unclear notion?

In so far as the brain is learning it is in a constant state of mutation. Thought is itself mutation. No thought is ever a replica of its progenerator. K talks of the utter destruction of the psychological structure and the arising, like a Phoenix from the ashes, of a new, non-structured, super-intelligent mind. No one has ever attested to such a change and K was no exception. I say, for me, there is no such thing.

"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
Sat, 07 Jul 2012 #3
Thumb_stringio lidlo lady United States 4003 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Sun Hand wrote:
K talks of the utter destruction of the psychological structure and the arising, like a Phoenix from the ashes, of a new, non-structured, super-intelligent mind. No one has ever attested to such a change and K was no exception. I say, for me, there is no such thing.

And any honest brain would agree, but this being the Church of K...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 07 Jul 2012 #4
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

lidlo lady wrote:
but this being the Church of K...

. . . people are inclined to wait for miracles . . . and they're so awfully patient about it. It is the Kirk of the Way of No Way.

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 07 Jul 2012 #5
Thumb_stringio lidlo lady United States 4003 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Sun Hand wrote:
It is the Kirk of the Way of No Way.

If this is a reference to something, its lost on me. I googled it to no avail.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 07 Jul 2012 #6
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

lidlo lady wrote:
If this is a reference to something, its lost on me. I googled it to no avail.

The word, Kirk, means church in Scotland. Its main or only value here is that it begins with a K.

The Way of No Way refers to the fact that K is always telling people to "do it" yet gives no hint either what to do or how to do it. It is a basic contradiction in the so-called teaching without a teaching by the speaker who gave no speeches.

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 07 Jul 2012 #7
Thumb_stringio lidlo lady United States 4003 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Sun Hand wrote:
teaching without a teaching by the speaker who gave no speeches.

"We are here to talk things over together..."

Yeah, right.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 08 Jul 2012 #8
Thumb_stringio B Teulada Portugal 700 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Sun Hand wrote:
K is always telling people to "do it" yet gives no hint either what to do or how to do it.

K's 'just do it' is never out of context (as you seem to imply). all it means is, instead of beating around the collective bushes all our lives with invented hopes, projections, expectations, rules, resolutions, plans, projects, organisations, foundations, associations, parties, leader and taxpayers to fund the entire enchilada,let's just drop playing around with our own time, future and energies and just do it (as opposed to talk ourselves into inaction).

For instance instead of talking endlessly about famine, war, pollution and creating billions of institutions every year (with their respective budgets of course, AND chairmen AND presidents ... ) for a zillion purposes which we all know damn well we will never achieve just stop overspending, polluting, being selfish, leave the three family cars in the garage, recycle, think about future generations.
in earnest.
JUST DO IT SIRS !

What's so difficult to understand about it Sun Hand, unless you do not want to understand, because it is not comfortable?

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 3 readers
Back to Top
Sun, 08 Jul 2012 #9
Thumb_stringio RICK LEIN United States 4436 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

B Teulada wrote:
What's so difficult to understand about it Sun Hand, unless you do not want to understand, because it is not comfortable?

Bingo!:)

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 08 Jul 2012 #10
Thumb_stringio Dean R. Smith Canada 1145 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Sun Hand wrote:
The Way of No Way refers to the fact that K is always telling people to "do it" yet gives no hint either what to do or how to do it. It is a basic contradiction in the so-called teaching without a teaching by the speaker who gave no speeches.

What you say, has been read and heard a thousand times. Krishnamurti pointed. You can either look at what he pointed to, or be lost in the 'how do I look?'

"See thought arising; watch it. Without that, all else is illusion and becoming."

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 2 readers
Back to Top
Sun, 08 Jul 2012 #11
Thumb_stringio RICK LEIN United States 4436 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Dean R. Smith wrote:
You can either look at what he pointed to, or be lost in the 'how do I look?'

:)...

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 08 Jul 2012 #12
Thumb_stringio lidlo lady United States 4003 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

B Teulada wrote:
For instance instead of talking endlessly about famine, war, pollution and creating billions of institutions every year (with their respective budgets of course, AND chairmen AND presidents ... ) for a zillion purposes which we all know damn well we will never achieve just stop overspending, polluting, being selfish, leave the three family cars in the garage, recycle, think about future generations.
in earnest.
JUST DO IT SIRS !

Anyone can say "Just do it!", and Nike did, quite profitably, but K's saying it (though it profitted him) changed nothing. His followers just kept coming back to be told to "do it" over and over again, and they're still around, doing nothing but defending and justifying their mindless devotion to his words.

This post was last updated by lidlo lady (account deleted) Sun, 08 Jul 2012.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 08 Jul 2012 #13
Thumb_stringio B Teulada Portugal 700 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

lidlo lady wrote:
Anyone can say "Just do it!", and Nike did, quite profitably, but K's saying it (though it profitted him) changed nothing. His followers just kept coming back to be told to "do it" over and over again, and they're still around, doing nothing but defending and justifying their mindless devotion to his words.

Look away from the windmills LL. You are fighting with the wrong people. Deep down you know that it is yourself you should be challenging.

Just do it

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 2 readers
Back to Top
Sun, 08 Jul 2012 #14
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

B Teulada wrote:
st stop overspending, polluting, being selfish, leave the three family cars in the garage, recycle, think about future generations.
in earnest.
JUST DO IT SIRS !

What's so difficult to understand about it Sun Hand, unless you do not want to understand, because it is not comfortable?

Hi BT, no, I'm not 'uncomfortable' with such sentiments. It's like when K said, whatever happens, to avoid becoming a soldier, a politician, a policeman or a lawyer.

Personally, as I neither own a car OR a garage, have never overspent, recycle whatever I can and not only think about future generations but also ACT on it, I could imagine I am quite comfortable with my role in the world, but actually real comfort does not derive from such things, complacency and self-righteousness does. Real comfort derives from being honest with oneself, which unfortunately eludes us.

Yes, K often contextualised "Do it sirs" in such ways but more often he was referring to ending thought or to some other idea he had about the psychological revolution. And that is the context in which, obviously, I referred to his phrase.

Incidentally, to "think in earnest" also conjures up some images.

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

This post was last updated by Paul Davidson (account deleted) Sun, 08 Jul 2012.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 08 Jul 2012 #15
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Dean R. Smith wrote:
What you say, has been read and heard a thousand times. Krishnamurti pointed. You can either look at what he pointed to, or be lost in the 'how do I look?'

Thank you Dean. Probably you are right. There is a scene in Monty Python and the Holy Grail where the multitude follow the saviour into the desert and he tells them to fuck off. So they ask in unison, "How shall we fuck off?" I think this is precisely the stance of the K-man. K says there is no way but they still think of K as the word, the truth and the way. So, it has become the way of no way.

But I, at least, am not lost in 'how do I look.' And if someone asks me 'how do I look?' I say, "you look fine."

As for me, I have read all the books, taken in everything I can of value, jettisonned the rest and thrown them away. The questions I face today are different than the ones I faced before reading K, for which I am truly thankful.

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 08 Jul 2012 #16
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

B Teulada wrote:
it is yourself you should be challenging.

Just do it

Read your Krishnamurti, BT. Challenge is relationship, not introspection. Your "just do it" just doesn't. Plus, you yourself are putting that creepy phrase to the service of challenging Lidlo, when you yourself should be challenging yourself. But, this is not a courtroom.

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 09 Jul 2012 #17
Thumb_stringio B Teulada Portugal 700 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Sun Hand wrote:
B Teulada wrote:

t is yourself you should be challenging.
Just do it
Read your Krishnamurti, BT. Challenge is relationship, not introspection. Your "just do it" just doesn't. Plus, you yourself are putting that creepy phrase to the service of challenging Lidlo, when you yourself should be challenging yourself. But, this is not a courtroom.

............................... ok .................................

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 09 Jul 2012 #18
Thumb_stringio B Teulada Portugal 700 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Sun Hand wrote:
Personally, as I neither own a car OR a garage, have never overspent, recycle whatever I can and not only think about future generations but also ACT on it, I could imagine I am quite comfortable with my role in the world, but actually real comfort does not derive from such things, complacency and self-righteousness does. Real comfort derives from being honest with oneself, which unfortunately eludes us.

Good for you, great.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Mon, 09 Jul 2012 #19
Thumb_stringio RICK LEIN United States 4436 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Sun Hand wrote:
Personally, as I neither own a car OR a garage, have never overspent, recycle whatever I can and not only think about future generations but also ACT on it, I could imagine I am quite comfortable with my role in the world, but actually real comfort does not derive from such things, complacency and self-righteousness does. Real comfort derives from being honest with oneself, which unfortunately eludes me!

Then why bother blathering all over the place about what you do personally...Real comfort?LOL! No wonder you are so uncomfortable!:)

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 09 Jul 2012 #20
Thumb_stringio RICK LEIN United States 4436 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Sun Hand wrote:
The questions I face today are different than the ones I faced before reading K.

Same issue..you..just different escapes!:)

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 09 Jul 2012 #21
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5800 posts in this forum Offline

Sun Hand wrote:
It is a strange word, mutation, is it not. It presumes a path of regular, uniliniar progress which is suddenly interrupted by an irratic and radical change, such a change as creates a different future. The word has been used to encapsulate the many different processes that take place in the world whereby a thing changes into another thing. So, it starts with the notion of a thing, an unchanging pattern. Then the thing mutates and becomes another thing.

In a word, no. You are confusing mutation with evolution. Mutation is something that first occurs in a single member, or maybe several members, of a species. The change in the individual is immediate. They are usually born with the mutation. Not all mutations are beneficial to the species. If the mutation is beneficial natural selection will favor the member of the species with the beneficial mutation to produce more offspring. This happens simply because the mutant may survive longer or be, somehow, more appealing to the breeding process. In time this mutation may spread enough through the species to bring about a physical evolution.

There is nothing linear about mutations. They happen, if they happen at all, in fits and starts. You may be able to make a case that evolution is linear.

Also, you were incorrect in inferring that homo sapiens evolved from the chimpanzee. They didn't. There was a common ancestor to both and the two species, chimps and humans, evolved seperately but apparently parallel to each other.

This post was last updated by Jack Pine Mon, 09 Jul 2012.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Mon, 09 Jul 2012 #22
Thumb_stringio RICK LEIN United States 4436 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Sun Hand wrote:
Plus, you yourself are putting that creepy phrase to the service of challenging Lidlo, when you yourself should be challenging yourself. But, this is not a courtroom.

That is the most convoluted hypocritical statement ever. You pass judgement..the contradict your own statement..your honor..LOL:)

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Mon, 09 Jul 2012 #23
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5800 posts in this forum Offline

In the late 1970's and early 1980's Krishnamurti and David Bohm had several interesting dialogues in which they eloquently pointed out that there has been virtually no psychological evolution in human beings. Our technology has advanced tremendously but we are the same greedy, violent, fearful, confused beings we have always been.

There have been studies done that show that a change in thinking can bring about a change in brain chemistry. A mutation if you will. K and Bohm also discussed this at some length. Also, K often spoke of a necessity of a mutation in the brain. A changing of the brain activity not through some effort but through observation of the thought processes without the interference from the past by coming to conclusions relating to these observations.

This post was last updated by Jack Pine Mon, 09 Jul 2012.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Mon, 09 Jul 2012 #24
Thumb_stringio RICK LEIN United States 4436 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Sun Hand wrote:
people are inclined to wait for miracles . . . and they're so awfully patient about it.

Yes we are..and it would be a miracle indeed if you ever display a shred of insight into yourself!..LOL:)

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Mon, 09 Jul 2012 #25
Thumb_stringio RICK LEIN United States 4436 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Sun Hand wrote:
No thought is ever a replica of its progenerator.

Have you read your own manifesto's my brother?:)

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 09 Jul 2012 #26
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5800 posts in this forum Offline

Sun Hand wrote:
In so far as the brain is learning it is in a constant state of mutation. Thought is itself mutation. No thought is ever a replica of its progenerator. K talks of the utter destruction of the psychological structure and the arising, like a Phoenix from the ashes, of a new, non-structured, super-intelligent mind. No one has ever attested to such a change and K was no exception. I say, for me, there is no such thing.

Since you obviously have no comprehension of what K was pointing out and you seem transfixed by your ignorance Paul why are you here? If you disagree with K fine. Leave.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Mon, 09 Jul 2012 #27
Thumb_stringio Dean R. Smith Canada 1145 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Jack Pine wrote:
they eloquently pointed out that there has been viturally no psychological evolution in human beings

Really? You'll have to give authentic citation for that one, because there is no such thing as psychological evolution.

"See thought arising; watch it. Without that, all else is illusion and becoming."

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 09 Jul 2012 #28
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5800 posts in this forum Offline

Dean R. Smith wrote:
Jack Pine wrote:
they eloquently pointed out that there has been viturally no psychological evolution in human beings

Dean Smith wrote>Really? You'll have to give authentic citation for that one, because there is no such thing as psychological evolution.

Yeah, I agree. That's what I just said. Read the quote you cited. Maybe I should have left out virtually. We haven't evolved at all psychologically. That was my point.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 09 Jul 2012 #29
Thumb_avatar Ravi Seth India 1573 posts in this forum Offline

True unless thought thinks there is.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 09 Jul 2012 #30
Thumb_stringio Dean R. Smith Canada 1145 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Jack Pine wrote:
Yeah, I agree. That's what I just said. Read the quote you cited. Maybe I should have left out virtually. We haven't evolved at all psychologically. That was my point.

No, it's not what you just said and your post was read. There was nothing in it that amended your error and yes, you should have omitted the word 'virtually'.

"See thought arising; watch it. Without that, all else is illusion and becoming."

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 41 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.)