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

The Known


Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 89 in total
Thu, 12 Jul 2012 #1
Thumb_stringio lidlo lady United States 4003 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

All K-believers know what Krishnamurti meant when he talked about "seeing", and how one could see partially without ever seeing completely. He also talked about "complete attention", how thought can be a distraction, and how urgent it is to be completely attentive. The believer accepts all this without testing it because it sounds plausible enough to just go with. But when you test it, you come to realize that consciousness is always the relationship between the known and the unknown, regardless of how complete or incomplete you may declare it. The relationship between the known and the unknown is never other than what it is. It can be a mess or it can be brilliant, but its always complete.

The relationship between the known and the unknown is what you are, your identity, fear, desire, hope, dread, what you call yourself. You are a body of knowledge trying to find its way in the unknown with a degree of confidence or a modicum of diffidence. You are a body of knowledge that swoons before a superior body, or that knows how to marvel without losing its mind. You are a mind that hasn't found itself for having found Somebody to be.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 12 Jul 2012 #2
Thumb_stringio Dean R. Smith Canada 1145 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

lidlo lady wrote:
the relationship between the known and the unknown

There's no such thing.

"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
Thu, 12 Jul 2012 #3
Thumb_stringio RICK LEIN United States 4436 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Dean R. Smith wrote:
There's no such thing.

:)

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 12 Jul 2012 #4
Thumb_baboon-9186 dave h United Kingdom 1165 posts in this forum Offline

Krishnamurti: This is meditation - you follow? This is real meditation, not all the phony stuff. To see whether the mind - with the brain which has evolved through time, which is the result of thousands of experiences, the brain that functions efficiently only in complete security - whether the mind can empty itself and yet have a brain that functions like a marvelous machine. And also it sees love is not pleasure; love is not desire. When there is love there is no image; but I don't know what that love is. But I only want love as pleasure, sex and all the rest of it. There must be a relationship between the emptying of consciousness and the thing called love; between the unknown and the known, which is the content of consciousness.

Needleman: I am following you. There must be this relationship.

Krishnamurti: The two must be in harmony. The emptying and love must be in harmony. And it may be only love that is necessary and nothing else.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 12 Jul 2012 #5
Thumb_stringio Dean R. Smith Canada 1145 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

The quote isn't known and that's the unknown he's talking about.

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

This post was last updated by Dean R. Smith (account deleted) Thu, 12 Jul 2012.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 2 readers
Back to Top
Thu, 12 Jul 2012 #6
Thumb_baboon-9186 dave h United Kingdom 1165 posts in this forum Offline

Dean R. Smith wrote:
The quote isn't known and that's the unknown he's talking about.

But maybe you're right and Krishnamurti is wrong? Maybe there is no such thing. I don't know.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 12 Jul 2012 #7
Thumb_stringio Dean R. Smith Canada 1145 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

dave humphrey wrote:
But maybe you're right and Krishnamurti is wrong? Maybe there is no such thing. I don't know.

There is no relationship between states that only exist in the others absence.

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

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Thu, 12 Jul 2012 #8
Thumb_stringio RICK LEIN United States 4436 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Dean R. Smith wrote:
There is no relationship between states that only exist in the others absence.

Thank you Dean! How the hell can there be? This is the tricks of the monkey[not you Dave] a way in which the the illusion of duality seeks continuity.

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 13 Jul 2012 #9
Thumb_stringio lidlo lady United States 4003 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

lidlo lady wrote:

the relationship between the known and the unknown

Dean R. Smith wrote:
There's no such thing.

Care to elaborate, or should we just accept the authority of your decree?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 13 Jul 2012 #10
Thumb_stringio lidlo lady United States 4003 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Dean R. Smith wrote:
The quote isn't known and that's the unknown he's talking about.

Huh?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 13 Jul 2012 #11
Thumb_stringio lidlo lady United States 4003 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Dean R. Smith wrote:
There is no relationship between states that only exist in the others absence.

Such as?

Are soundbites and snap judgments all you're capable of?

This post was last updated by lidlo lady (account deleted) Fri, 13 Jul 2012.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 13 Jul 2012 #12
Thumb_stringio Dean R. Smith Canada 1145 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

This thread had great promise. It really did. It's too bad that the inattentive dead head that started it, couldn't contain his vitriol.

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

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Fri, 13 Jul 2012 #13
Thumb_stringio lidlo lady United States 4003 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

You blurt statements you can't support with any substance, then blame others for your ineptitude.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 13 Jul 2012 #14
Thumb_stringio Dean R. Smith Canada 1145 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

You're a know nothing know it all cancer to this forum, Nick; a mean spirited, ill willed, frustrated and inattentive little man that doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground. You're so focused on finding fault with the finger that you can't see what it's pointing to and you project your own sorry state onto everyone else.

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

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Fri, 13 Jul 2012 #15
Thumb_img001 Sudhir Sharma India 1989 posts in this forum Offline

lidlo lady wrote:
The relationship between the known and the unknown is never other than what it is. It can be a mess or it can be brilliant, but its always complete.

The known and unknown both are in movement. The unknown has a relationship with known, but not so the other way around. This relationship is total from the side of unknown only. The known by its very nature is always incomplete.

FLOW WITH LIFE!

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 13 Jul 2012 #16
Thumb_stringio Dean R. Smith Canada 1145 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

The known is the past. There is no relationship between the past and the unknown and vice versa.

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

This post was last updated by Dean R. Smith (account deleted) Fri, 13 Jul 2012.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Fri, 13 Jul 2012 #17
Thumb_stringio lidlo lady United States 4003 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Dr.sudhir sharma wrote:
The known and unknown both are in movement. The unknown has a relationship with known, but not so the other way around. This relationship is total from the side of unknown only. The known by its very nature is always incomplete.

I don't know how you're using these terms, but as I see it, the unknown is the whole, the universe, the cosmos, everything. The known is memory and its response to the unknown. Mr Smith says there's no relationship; that the two are mutually exclusive, and you're saying there is a relationship, but it's one-sided, yet neither of you have said anything to support your assertions.

The universe, the cosmos, the whole, the totality, is unknown, and the brain attempts to know and understand it. This attempt results in "the known", knowledge, which is part of the unknown, not separate or separable. This much is clear. But now you're saying that this relationship is one-sided, and this isn't clear.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 13 Jul 2012 #18
Thumb_stringio lidlo lady United States 4003 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Dean R. Smith wrote:
The known is the past. There is no relationship between the past and the unknown and vice versa.

Another soundbite. Can't wait for the next one.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 13 Jul 2012 #19
Thumb_stringio Dean R. Smith Canada 1145 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

lidlo lady wrote:
Another soundbite. Can't wait for the next one.

Okay, brainiac, put your money where your very stupid and unusually foul mouth is. Explain how there can be a relationship between two states that only exist in each others absence.

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

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Fri, 13 Jul 2012 #20
Thumb_img001 Sudhir Sharma India 1989 posts in this forum Offline

lidlo lady wrote:
The universe, the cosmos, the whole, the totality, is unknown, and the brain attempts to know and understand it. This attempt results in "the known", knowledge, which is part of the unknown, not separate or separable. This much is clear. But now you're saying that this relationship is one-sided, and this isn't clear.

The attempt of brain fails in producing the desired result. In this way the known has no factual relationship with unknown. (One can say that the two never meet to be introduced to eachother.)

Like all other actions, the attempt by the brain is also happening in the unknown, so there is a relationship here of which only the later is/can be aware.

FLOW WITH LIFE!

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 13 Jul 2012 #21
Thumb_stringio B Teulada Portugal 700 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

dave humphrey wrote:
I don't know.

my favourite starting point ...

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Fri, 13 Jul 2012 #22
Thumb_stringio lidlo lady United States 4003 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Dean R. Smith wrote:
Okay, brainiac, put your money where your very stupid and unusually foul mouth is. Explain how there can be a relationship between two states that only exist in each others absence.

The only foul thing I've said is your name.

Explain how it is that the known is not part of the unknown.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 13 Jul 2012 #23
Thumb_stringio lidlo lady United States 4003 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Dr.sudhir sharma wrote:
The attempt of brain fails in producing the desired result. In this way the known has no factual relationship with unknown. (One can say that the two never meet to be introduced to eachother.)

How has it failed? We're communicating, transmitting knowledge via words over the internet. This is success.

Knowledge works. The known has value. It's limited of course, but calling this intrinsic limitation failure is nonsense.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 2 readers
Back to Top
Fri, 13 Jul 2012 #24
Thumb_stringio Dean R. Smith Canada 1145 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

re: Okay, brainiac, put your money where your very stupid and unusually foul mouth is. Explain how there can be a relationship between two states that only exist in each others absence.

lidlo lady wrote:
The only foul thing I've said is your name.

Coming from an ill willed and frustrated little man who is pretending to be a female. You are a sorry piece of work, dudette. :)

lidlo lady wrote:
Explain how it is that the known is not part of the unknown.

In other words, you can't explain how there can be a relationship between two states that only exist in each others absence. What a surprise! :)

"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
Fri, 13 Jul 2012 #25
Thumb_stringio lidlo lady United States 4003 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Dean R. Smith wrote:
In other words, you can't explain how there can be a relationship between two states that only exist in each others absence. What a surprise! :)

Now you're repeating yourself.

What you're doing is keeping the discussion on the semantic level. The words "known" and "unknown" are antonyms, one is not the other, and that's the basis and total extent of what you're saying. But the words signify realities, and you can't address the realities because you have nothing to say about them...except to repeat yourself...in bold type, probably...followed by an emoticon.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 13 Jul 2012 #26
Thumb_stringio lidlo lady United States 4003 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Dean R. Smith wrote:
You're a know nothing know it all cancer to this forum, Nick; a mean spirited, ill willed, frustrated and inattentive little man that doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground. You're so focused on finding fault with the finger that you can't see what it's pointing to and you project your own sorry state onto everyone else.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 13 Jul 2012 #27
Thumb_avatar Ravi Seth India 1573 posts in this forum Offline

lidlo lady wrote:
What you're doing is keeping the discussion on the semantic level. The words "known" and "unknown" are antonyms, one is not the other, and that's the basis and total extent of what you're saying.

No, Dean isn't saying this.He is saying, for example,Love is not antoynym for hate. But you take them as antonyms.

Not that i am supporting Dean or you, but this is interesting to listen what you or Dean has to say about it without getting personal about it.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 13 Jul 2012 #28
Thumb_avatar Ravi Seth India 1573 posts in this forum Offline

Ravi Seth wrote:
Not that i am supporting Dean or you, but this is interesting to listen what you or Dean has to say about it without getting personal about it.

.... unless anyone of you consider there is any thing personal.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Fri, 13 Jul 2012 #29
Thumb_stringio RICK LEIN United States 4436 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

lidlo lady wrote:
Explain how it is that the known is not part of the unknown.

Sorry..but what part of [UN]known escapes you..my brother?:)

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 13 Jul 2012 #30
Thumb_stringio Dean R. Smith Canada 1145 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

re: You're a know nothing know it all cancer to this forum, Nick; a mean spirited, ill willed, frustrated and inattentive little man that doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground. You're so focused on finding fault with the finger that you can't see what it's pointing to and you project your own sorry state onto everyone else.

lidlo lady wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Is it the truth of the statement that you find unpalatable?
When you respond civilly, you'll get a civil response.

"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 89 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.)