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

The Hollow Core of Krishnamurti's Teaching


Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 46 in total
Fri, 13 Jul 2012 #1
Thumb_stringio lidlo lady United States 4003 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

"The intelligent man is the summation of intelligence; his is an absolute, direct perception without twists and perversions which result when memory functions."

Nothing Krishnamurti said is as worthy of examination as this statement. It is the core of his teaching. If perception without memory is possible, the human brain has been limping along for eons and can, in a flash, be transformed into something astonishing. If perception without memory is possible, human beings are unawakened supermen and superwomen, capable of seeing The Truth immediately, irrespective of memory. Is it possible? Believers say it is, but they can’t explain how they know its possible. They're just convinced that it is. Is it possible that all they know is how desperately they want it to be possible?

The notion of perception without memory can’t honestly be considered a real possibility without any plausible explanation as to how. There’s just no way to explain how the brain can perceive what it has no knowledge or experience of. All we know is the response of memory, so to jump to the conclusion that memory can be bypassed is to bypass reason and go directly to magical thinking.

This post was last updated by lidlo lady (account deleted) Sun, 15 Jul 2012.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 13 Jul 2012 #2
Thumb_stringio Dean R. Smith Canada 1145 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

lidlo lady wrote:
The notion of perception without memory can’t honestly be considered a real possibility without any plausible explanation as to how.

Explain how consciousness is thought.

lidlo lady wrote:
Consciousness is thought

"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 #3
Thumb_baboon-9186 dave h United Kingdom 1165 posts in this forum Offline

lidlo lady wrote:
Nothing Krishnamurti said is as worthy of examination as this statement. It is the core of his teaching. If perception without memory is possible, the human brain has been limping along for eons and can, in a flash, be transformed into something astonishing. If perception without memory is possible, human beings are unawakened supermen and superwomen, capable of seeing The Truth immediately, irrespective of memory. Is it possible? Believers say it is, but they can’t explain how they know its possible. They're just convinced that it is. Is it possible that all they know is how desperately they want it to be possible?

Lidlo, he meant memory as in belief though right? And by time he meant psychological time? I don't think he meant it happens in an instant by the clock. It is a potentially confusing use of the word memory.

This post was last updated by dave h Fri, 13 Jul 2012.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 13 Jul 2012 #4
Thumb_stringio lidlo lady United States 4003 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Dean R. Smith wrote:
Explain how consciousness is thought.

Consciousness is the response of memory to sense stimuli, and "thought" is K's word for the response of memory, so when I say, "Consciousness is thought" to those who think in K-isms, it's to make the point that there's no alternative to thought, no matter how dearly they believe there is. I would never say, "Consciousness is thought" to someone who could think for himself.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 13 Jul 2012 #5
Thumb_stringio lidlo lady United States 4003 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

dave humphrey wrote:
Lidlo, he meant memory as in belief though right? And by time he meant psychological time? I

Can you find out for yourself what he meant, or will you interpret him according to your need for something to believe in?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 13 Jul 2012 #6
Thumb_baboon-9186 dave h United Kingdom 1165 posts in this forum Offline

lidlo lady wrote:
Can you find out for yourself what he meant,

I have no idea.

or will you interpret him according to your need for something to believe in?

I've really no interest in that. There's nothing more comical or tragic than someone who believes in Krishnamurti.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 13 Jul 2012 #7
Thumb_stringio RICK LEIN United States 4436 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

dave humphrey wrote:
There's nothing more comical or tragic than someone who believes in Krishnamurti.

Wanna bet...:)

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 2 readers
Back to Top
Fri, 13 Jul 2012 #8
Thumb_stringio Dean R. Smith Canada 1145 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

re: Explain how consciousness is thought.

lidlo lady wrote:
Consciousness is the response of memory to sense stimuli, and "thought" is K's word for the response of memory, so when I say, "Consciousness is thought" to those who think in K-isms, it's to make the point that there's no alternative to thought, no matter how dearly they believe there is. I would never say, "Consciousness is thought" to someone who could think for himself.

Nothing you said is an explanation of how thought is consciousness. This is something you've said many times, both as lidlo and Nick on this forum and also over at K-net with whatever member name you used there. Regardless of who you said it to and your proposed excuse for saying it and regardless of whether or not it's the reality of your existence; explain how consciousness is thought, please.

"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 #9
Thumb_snapshot_20130606 john Campbell Canada 535 posts in this forum Offline

lidlo lady wrote
The notion of perception without memory can’t honestly be considered a real possibility without any plausible explanation as to how

I say that Kman had to mean that you observe without the past interfering and influencing your perception,which means total concentration which it seems some people are capable of,and this of course goes into your memory bank at another level and so each time you start anew.Like an artist will see something differently each time he looks at the objective.No big deal for some people.Madame Currie I think had this ability and many more of this calibre.
Some yoga gurus can actually alter their brain circuitry,quite a thing,and claim to leave their body but this can be duplicated in a lab by mechanical means,and this,as far as we know,makes this an illusion.Was Kman doing something like this? My guess would be(I don't think that he told anyone exactly what he meant) is that he was able to concentrate on something,new or old,freshly each time that he decided to approche it totally.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 14 Jul 2012 #10
Thumb_stringio B Teulada Portugal 700 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

dave humphrey wrote:
I've really no interest in that. There's nothing more comical or tragic than someone who believes in Krishnamurti.

'believing' (in) Krishnamurti is an oxymoron, something he himself strenuously opposed; the possibility of 'belief' (in) Krishnamurti only arises in the mind of those who have failed to understand.

Incidentally, understanding and believing are two mutually exclusive things.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 2 readers
Back to Top
Sat, 14 Jul 2012 #11
Thumb_stringio B Teulada Portugal 700 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

john Campbell wrote:
My guess would be(I don't think that he told anyone exactly what he meant) is that he was able to concentrate on something,new or old,freshly each time that he decided to approach it totally.

not only that but I feel also that, if you and i have an argument, the next time i see you i may consciously, willingly and intentionally, choose to bring the argument with me in my new encounter with you - and then the accumulation starts between us - or choose to leave the argument aside.

This is something that you can choose to do (and do it now). and when you start doing it eventually it is incorporated in the way you function. i mean, this is verifiable. you can do it right now, LL can do it right now. i have done it. it simply frigging works!!. there's no two ways about it.

and who knows once we start doing it on a daily basis you just keep doing it, you assimilate it into the way you function, and maybe others will do it too... you know what I mean?

some people hold on to arguments, they cherish the hate, pain, wrongdoings, grievances inflicted by others. They really hold on, they cherish that feeling. Eventually revenge (in all its forms) becomes a sweet thing, a twisted, pleasurable poison. We know it is so; we all have done it some time or other. Eventually it becomes who we are. Just look at it and you will know it is so. It's not like we need to think about it forever.

Plus, love plays such an important part in this, but people on K forums get completely lost in the intellectual, speculative aspect of things and seem to totally forget that the man was really, fundamentally talking about love.

Love carries no past. that would make it a dead thing.

It can only live in the present.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Sat, 14 Jul 2012 #12
Thumb_baboon-9186 dave h United Kingdom 1165 posts in this forum Offline

B Teulada wrote:
the possibility of 'belief' (in) Krishnamurti only arises in the mind of those who have failed to understand.

I agree.
I mean it's ironic if someone believes in teachings which are asking if you can be free of belief.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Sat, 14 Jul 2012 #13
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

I'm not sure why Dean is bringing in 'consciousness is thought,' but I imagine he is asking if consciousness is only thought or if there can be consciousness without thought such as would allow for a direct perception without memory.

Of course there can be a conscious, direct perception of a type, but from the moment data enters the thallamus and passes to the neo-cortex a certain intelligent sorting takes place, so that meaning can be guaged. Without the associative images, either of thought or emotion, sensation has no meaning: one is left, as with the earthworm, with only two choices to any stimulus, either go back or continue.

Mind is built up from the senses, from the nervous system. It involves a rarification of sensoral data, a 'heightening' of experience. It allows a broadening of the scope for various responses. The earthworm, relying only on direct perception from its (limited) senses and some inate instinctual programming, knows only two types of responses to any stimulus, either go backwards or forwards, attraction or repulsion, opening up or closing in.

Direct perception by the senses is dualism at its most basic level.

Humans are different only in their responsiveness, which is in accord with the development of the body and brain of the human being. It is the human's being-nature that s/he responds 'creatively' to various situations, in a highly flexible way. It is exactly because the human being is empowered by thought that s/he is able to escape the instinctual programming and learn newly from each situation and also, is able to consider each situation newly, to set aside the programming of memory.

This ability of the human to set aside past memory and see a situation newly is not in spite of thought but is because of it. All other species of animal either act from memorised response (the Pavlovian learning) or from blind instinct. In the 'higher' mammals, there is both memory of emotion and memory of thought. Animals emote and think. But they do so at a much more basic level than the human. The human can consciously manipulate his or her memory due to the power of introspection. We see inside ourselves. Our problem is not thought per se but our almost total lack of practice at conscious introspection or, as Bohm put it, the proprioception of thought and emotion.

It is also a fact that the human being has instinctual programming, in spite of the later development of the human neo-cortex. Neurology has shown that data also goes directly from the thallamus to the amygdala at the base of te brain where the fight or flight response can kick in much quicker than thought can consider, rationalise and conclude a response. This is why we are often caught up in an emotive response before we have time to think. This is why we fly into rages, cry, laugh etc etc. You do not think, "Now I must laugh," it is an instinctive response that operates directly to stimulus, including stimulus from thought.

Everything you say or do is bound up in these cerebral processes. There is nothing, no magic hand, not higher level, no Masters etc etc that can intercede. The laws that govern who and what you are, are material, mechanical, but also, and it should never be forgotten, they are living. We are life-forms and everything w do is living. Thought and memory are life-forces, as are instinct, emotion and movement. Time is embodied in everything you are, everything you do and everything you can possibly be. There is no escape from the fact.

"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, 14 Jul 2012 #14
Thumb_img001 Sudhir Sharma India 1989 posts in this forum Offline

lidlo lady wrote:
"The intelligent man is the summation of intelligence; his is an absolute, direct perception without twists and perversions which result when memory functions."

Memory is also of one's likes/dislikes, pleasure/pain, success/failure and so on. A small part of this is stored at conscious level and rest is unconscious. One can only take up the issue of possibility of 'absolute, direct perception' for dicussion only when one has understood the role of this self-centered conscious/unconscious memory in relation to quality of perception. The discussion can also be about finding out the truth of this relationship, but then one can not start from a conclusion that 'direct, absolute perception' is not possible.

One either understands this relationship of self-centered memory with perception through and through or else whatever one says in response to this K-quote is based on one's pre-conceived ideas/knowledge/experiences. Which is it in your case, lidlo?

FLOW WITH LIFE!

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 14 Jul 2012 #15
Thumb_stringio RICK LEIN United States 4436 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

B Teulada wrote:
the possibility of 'belief' (in) Krishnamurti only arises in the mind of those who have failed to understand.

BINGO!:)

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 14 Jul 2012 #16
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Dear Sudhir,

It is not being said that direct perception is not possible, either abosute, whatever meaning you may bestow on that word, or partial. It is being said that direct perception is raw data and has no meaning unless and until it has been sorted according to instinctua; knowledge and learnt experience. You do not have a meaningful engagement with actuality without thought/emotion providing a guage of meaning based uon previous experience or instinct.

Then you backtrack from discussing memory and introduce something you call 'self-centred memory.'That's OK. It makes more sense to me to start from there but first you have to clarigy what you mean by self-centred memory, as against memory per se. My understanding is that Lidlo is fairly clear about self-centeredness, at least as clear as you. If it is self-centredness that is the problem and not memory per se, then we should make this clear, should we not?

Then what sort of self-centredness are we concerned with? Does it include the intelligent life-instinct? Does it include the sense of having a personal significance and/or personal responsibility for one's actions and relationships? Does it include having some idea about what this body has become habituated to either like or dislike? Does it include a valuing or even a knowledge of one's own personal history?

My feeling is that in grasping the emotional feeling of K's philosophy we are doing little more than finding a spiritual explanation for our genuine and legitimate concerns with others, our empathy with the suffering of humanity and our caution against unbridled egoism, hedonism and narcisism. We probably all learn much from K, about compassion and about the range of negative states such as fear, greed and so on. It is the organisation of all this into a so-called teaching and the belief in that teaching being somehow 'truth'and of K having been somehow 'enlightened' to bestow this truth that is being questioned, not the value of K's many useful and effective pronouncements themselves.

Patricia has called this independent valuation of K a pic and mix aproach, but that is because she imagines the taaching to be holistic and true in and of itself rather than the thoughts and feeings of an exceptional human being who may be and was in some cases plain wrong.

"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, 14 Jul 2012 #17
Thumb_tampura ganesan balachandran India 2204 posts in this forum Offline

Sun Hand wrote:
an exceptional human being who may be and was in some cases plain wrong.

your post#13 is very good. when it comes to understanding veda, it is his teaching only work.I feel amazed.perhaps with that his teaching becomes complete.(and continues)
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, 14 Jul 2012.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 14 Jul 2012 #18
Thumb_patricia_may_2014_reduced_ Patricia Hemingway Australia 1930 posts in this forum Offline

Sun Hand wrote:
Patricia has called this independent valuation of K a pic and mix aproach, but that is because she imagines the taaching to be holistic and true in and of itself rather than the thoughts and feeings of an exceptional human being who may be and was in some cases plain wrong.

The teaching is holistic in that it is a journey into understanding the human condition.

It is never a question of 'following' K - but of going into that human condition (which is within every one of us, including K) and discovering the disorder inherent within - firsthand.

It isn't rocket science. It isn't even difficult to understand.

Put quite simply - it is NOT where the self DESIRES to go because it means total relinquishing of all the the self IS.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 6 readers
Back to Top
Sat, 14 Jul 2012 #19
Thumb_stringio Dean R. Smith Canada 1145 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Sun Hand wrote:
I'm not sure why Dean is bringing in 'consciousness is thought,'

So, it's not obvious, eh? :) Nick called 'perception without memory' an idea and said it couldn't be considered a real possibility without any plausible explanation as to how. He was prompted to explain the 'how' of something that he has said time and time again; something that might just be an intellectual appreciation or the reality of his existence. You didn't see an explanation and you won't. That doesn't mean that consciousness isn't thought. Do you understand the raison d'etre for 'explain how consciousness is thought', now? :)

"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
Sat, 14 Jul 2012 #20
Thumb_stringio RICK LEIN United States 4436 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Patricia Hemingway wrote:
It isn't rocket science. It isn't even difficult to understand.

LOL:) Bingo!

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Sat, 14 Jul 2012 #21
Thumb_stringio lidlo lady United States 4003 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Dr.sudhir sharma wrote:
One either understands this relationship of self-centered memory with perception through and through or else whatever one says in response to this K-quote is based on one's pre-conceived ideas/knowledge/experiences. Which is it in your case, lidlo?

You're over-simplifying and creating a false either-or situation.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 14 Jul 2012 #22
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Patricia Hemingway wrote:
Put quite simply - it is NOT where the self DESIRES to go because it means total relinquishing of all the the self IS.

Can you relinquish the self? Have you done it? Is it a belief or a fact? I have read K as you have and I have read such statements as the above, but unless I have shown myself, proved to myself IN FACT and not merely in logic that it is possible, then I can have nothing to do with such a statement except generate a belief about it.

I see that you have received 4 recommendations for your post so at least five of you share this belief. Yet not one of you will say, yes, I have relinquished the self and all it stands for. You are all still selves. Is that not true?

You have relinquished self in words but not in practice. The undisputable truth of it is that your self has played a trick on you. It is your self that finds comfort in repeating such phrases but adds a caveat that reports of its own death have been somewhat exaggerated. So, what have you actually relinquished? The truth, maybe?

"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
Sat, 14 Jul 2012 #23
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Dean R. Smith wrote:
Do you understand the raison d'etre for 'explain how consciousness is thought', now? :)

No Dean, your reasoning is opaque. It just sounds like an angry mood.

"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
Sat, 14 Jul 2012 #24
Thumb_stringio Dean R. Smith Canada 1145 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Sun Hand wrote:
No Dean, your reasoning is opaque.

You're thick.

Sun Hand wrote:
It just sounds like an angry mood.

You're sick. :)

"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
Sat, 14 Jul 2012 #25
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Dean. All this thick and sick type comment is more akin to a kindergaten yard than a serious forum. That's OK though, it's just your stunted ego giving you gip.

"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, 14 Jul 2012 #26
Thumb_stringio Dean R. Smith Canada 1145 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Sun Hand wrote:
Dean. All this thick and sick type comment is more akin to a kindergaten yard than a serious forum. That's OK though, it's just your stunted ego giving you gip.

But the words rhymed, though. :) Anyone who would project anger onto a post like that is sick and anyone that doesn't grasp the implicit of it, is thick, thick as a brick. It's no wonder you don't have a clue what Krishnamurti was talking about.

"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
Sat, 14 Jul 2012 #27
Thumb_stringio RICK LEIN United States 4436 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Sun Hand wrote:
I see that you have received 4 recommendations

Now now..comparison breeds conflict Paul/Ping/Kali?paul/hand.Why measure yourself against anything? You say you have studied K for 7 years..so what..perhaps you might have spent the time looking at the smallness and pettiness of your self absorption!perhaps your mind is so warped in it's desire for certainty you just couldn't handle what K said:)

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 14 Jul 2012 #28
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Dean R. Smith wrote:
It's no wonder you don't have a clue what Krishnamurti was talking about.

That's correct. Lucky me that I spotted it.

"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, 14 Jul 2012 #29
Thumb_stringio Paul Davidson United Kingdom 3659 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

RICK LEIN wrote:
Why measure yourself against anything?

Why indeed?

"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, 14 Jul 2012 #30
Thumb_stringio RICK LEIN United States 4436 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

dave humphrey wrote:
There's nothing more comical or tragic than someone who believes in Krishnamurti.

Really..let me introduce you to Paul davidson..the resident embodiment of comic/tragic!:)

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 46 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.)