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

The Teaching


Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 85 in total
Sun, 31 Mar 2013 #1
Thumb_stringio Arthur Landon United States 146 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Is Krishnamurti's teaching food for thought, or is it an argument for not thinking? A cardinal precept of his teaching is that intelligence is beyond, above, and prior to thought; that thought is rudimentary and limited, whereas intelligence is infinitely complex and boundless. He taught that the limited process of thought, the stream of consciousness which he called "the stream of sorrow", is always inadequate to the task of rising to the occasion and meeting the present because it is the past, and the mind must be fresh and innocent every moment, not weighed down by the burden of experience.

Who can argue with that? Of course the mind must be able to look and listen with eyes and ears unsullied by the pain of grief or righteous indignation! How else can the mind maintain the equanimity required to come to honest terms with what-is if not by purging itself of what-should-be? The mind is either an accurate map and a reliable set of reminders, or it is misleading and misinformed. If one is to be alert and attentive, all presuppositions must be provisional, subject to revision according to demonstrable fact and incontrovertible evidence. One cannot afford to be ill-informed or misinformed.

But how did Krishnamurti address this fact? How, according to the Teaching, is one to be free of all that which alters and distorts perception? What, for that matter, is perception? Krishnamurti referred to it as "the response of memory", which it most surely is, but he said that memory's response is faulty and inadequate, that the brain must perceive "directly", unmediated by the past, if perception is to be true to what actually is.

Since there's no possible explanation for how the brain can do such a thing, Krishnamurti taught that the brain must undergo a radical transformation. Purportedly, his brain underwent this transformation, enabling him to speak authoritatively of "direct perception". Such was his testimony, but until the student of The Teaching has undergone this transformation, it is all conjecture at best and myth at worst. And, should the student feel that he or she has undergone this transformation, he or she can do nothing but testify to it because it cannot be tested or demonstrated.

So is direct perception real or imagined? If you feel you presently have or may suddenly acquire this ability, you pooh-pooh the question. "Of course it's real, of course it's possible!", you indignantly insist. "Why else would Krishnamurti have taken it upon himself to passionately and fervently bear witness to it?" But that's just another question you don't really want to go into.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 2 readers
Back to Top
Sun, 31 Mar 2013 #2
Thumb_rao kamarajugadda Mallik ArjunaRao India 903 posts in this forum Offline

Arthur Landon wrote:
So is direct perception real or imagined? If you feel you presently have or may suddenly acquire this ability, you pooh-pooh the question.

For a honest enquirer into these questions is, certainly the answer is "I do not know". Then one might ask 'how long one would take to find the answer?' . It depends on how deeply one could probe into the nature of thought, that much long it would take. One is caught in time. It reduces to purely to a problem of patients of the enquirer.

nothing

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 31 Mar 2013 #3
Thumb_stringio randal patrick United States 3155 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Arthur Landon wrote:
A cardinal precept of his teaching is that intelligence is beyond, above, and prior to thought; that thought is rudimentary and limited, whereas intelligence is infinitely complex and boundless.

Ok Nick, let's see here, in only one sentence you have managed to mis-represent Mr. K at least 4 or 5 times. Where does K talk about intelligence being 'above" or "prior" to thought? he never says intelligence is complex, in fact generally just the opposite, that thought is overly complex whereas intelligence is basic/fundamental/rudimentary.

What you should have said was that you believe, or your opinion is that Krishnamurti's teaching says or is this or that.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 31 Mar 2013 #4
Thumb_stringio randal patrick United States 3155 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Arthur Landon wrote:
because it cannot be tested or demonstrated.

Why, other than that you don't possess the Key (the answers to the test) or have no basis to compare what has been demonstrated, do you say this?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 31 Mar 2013 #5
Thumb_stringio Arthur Landon United States 146 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

randal patrick wrote:
Why, other than that you don't possess the Key (the answers to the test) or have no basis to compare what has been demonstrated, do you say this?

Please, tell us all about "the key". I seem to have missed this part of The Teaching.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 31 Mar 2013 #6
Thumb_beautiful-nature-wallpaper pavani rao India 541 posts in this forum Offline

Arthur Landon wrote:
Krishnamurti's teaching food for thought, or is it an argument for not thinking? A cardinal precept of his teaching is that intelligence is beyond, above, and prior to thought; that thought is rudimentary and limited

What is the problem ? Arthur 

It's neither K nor the direct perception or some other thing about the teaching is the  problem .. Isn't it ? 

Let me be a bit direct and do some crystal gazing and tell you about the problem . 

Neither we have simplicity to look at ourselves and our lives  nor do we have humility to accept our limitations ... the absolute limitations of a human being in the vast space of this creation and the creator ...

When  we lack energy, will and conviction  to see things as they are,  we tend to invent all kinds of escapes ..

Well if your post sounds very repetitive to me I think mine also might be looking like one to you . But I do feel there might be some ring of truth in there ... may be direct perception ! One more reality if I can share we get but one life time ... What / why are we afraid  of ?           

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 31 Mar 2013 #7
Thumb_stringio randal patrick United States 3155 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Arthur Landon wrote:
Please, tell us all about "the key". I seem to have missed this part of The Teaching.

I was refering to your post, where you say that what Krishnamurti says, can't be tested. In order to give a test, one must have the answers (the key), which you don't.

many at Kinfonet think they are "testing", yet they have no basis for comparing what is demonstrated (other than to compare what they believe krishnamurti means when he says this or that).

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 31 Mar 2013 #8
Thumb_forum_koala Victor Blackbird Australia 97 posts in this forum Offline

Hi Patrick,

I've been attracted by your post on this thread.
You've written over 2 thousands messages here which shows your interest in the K's teaching so I'd like to talk to you.

randal patrick wrote:
Where does K talk about intelligence being 'above" or "prior" to thought?

Maybe it's a matter of verbal interpretation which brings up the confusion and mutual misunderstanding, but it's the essence of K. teaching saying that the truth, love, immeasurable, timeless, or whatever you want to call it, is the upper intelligence absolutely superior to the human dimension of thought we, human beings, are living in, isn't it?
Provided of course, that it exists at all. As K. said we don't have to believe him, but rather to take under doubt everything he is speaking about and prove the right and wrong of everything on our own.

So how could you explain you deny it?

nosce te ipsum

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 01 Apr 2013 #9
Thumb_patricia_may_2014_reduced_ Patricia Hemingway Australia 1930 posts in this forum Offline

Arthur Landon eh!

The leopard may constantly change his name - even change his sex. But the rut he is stuck in remains strictly the same.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Mon, 01 Apr 2013 #10
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5801 posts in this forum Offline

Victor Blackbird wrote:
You've written over 2 thousands messages here which shows your interest in the K's teaching so I'd like to talk to you.

Yes, that could be true. Or it could be that Patrick is simply long winded and delusional. Posting often is not necessarily synonomous with posting intelligently.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Mon, 01 Apr 2013 #11
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5801 posts in this forum Offline

Patricia Hemingway wrote:
Arthur Landon eh!

The leopard may constantly change his name - even change his sex. But the rut he is stuck in remains strictly the same.

Let me tell you something that many readers may not know. There was a politician who ran for president of the US against Franklin Roosevelt in 1936. His name was Alf Landon. He lost by a huge margin. Arthur is not Alf but it's close. Also, at that time there was a fictional detective protrayed in books call Nick Carter. Later, in the early 1940's, there were serial movies made of this character that played in cinema matinees. I think our relentless friend is pulling some of his ficticious names from an era that he hopes most of us are not familiar with.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Mon, 01 Apr 2013 #12
Thumb_forum_koala Victor Blackbird Australia 97 posts in this forum Offline

Jack Pine wrote:
Yes, that could be true. Or it could be that Patrick is simply long winded and delusional. Posting often is not necessarily synonomous with posting intelligently.

No, no, of course not.

But I thought it must be a reason for someone to post so long on the forum and deny the essence of the teaching.
So I'm asking.

Especially that it seems, I can remember the nickname 'randal' even from the old Kinfonet.

nosce te ipsum

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 01 Apr 2013 #13
Thumb_stringio randal patrick United States 3155 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Victor Blackbird wrote:
is the upper intelligence absolutely superior to the human dimension of thought we, human beings, are living in, isn't it?

Well, I just don't think he's saying anything like that at all.

He just seems to be pointing out that mis-applied thinking, can and frequently does cause the human mind to suffer unintended consequenses (pain or fear) for it's chosen course/mode of operation (pleasure thinking).

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 01 Apr 2013 #14
Thumb_stringio randal patrick United States 3155 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Victor Blackbird wrote:
But I thought it must be a reason for someone to post so long on the forum and deny the essence of the teaching.

The only thing I am denying, is your interpretation of the "essence of the teaching".

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 01 Apr 2013 #15
Thumb_stringio randal patrick United States 3155 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Victor Blackbird wrote:
Especially that it seems, I can remember the nickname 'randal' even from the old Kinfonet.

Long time, yes.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 01 Apr 2013 #16
Thumb_stringio randal patrick United States 3155 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Victor Blackbird wrote:
No, no, of course not.

But I thought it must be a reason for someone to post so long on the forum and deny the essence of the teaching.
So I'm asking.

Especially that it seems, I can remember the nickname 'randal' even from the old Kinfonet.

You know victor, you don't sound aussie.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 01 Apr 2013 #17
Thumb_forum_koala Victor Blackbird Australia 97 posts in this forum Offline

randal patrick wrote:
Well, I just don't think he's saying anything like that at all.

Well, but that's just a matter of reading him.
Anything he is talking about comes up to this point eventually, one way or another.

To get beyond the thought to get experience of real Truth and Love; if not that -- there is no teaching at all.

randal patrick wrote:
He just seems to be pointing out that mis-applied thinking, can and frequently does cause the human mind to suffer unintended consequenses (pain or fear) for it's chosen course/mode of operation (pleasure thinking).

The 'mis-applied' thinking is the thinking of a mind who doesn't know themselves.
In other words, without self-knowledge any thinking goes inevitably 'mis-applied' -- inadequate -- and causes further confusion, woes, mischiefs and sufferings.

Can we see it practically in ourselves without believing to someone including Krishnamurti?

nosce te ipsum

This post was last updated by Victor Blackbird Mon, 01 Apr 2013.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 01 Apr 2013 #18
Thumb_forum_koala Victor Blackbird Australia 97 posts in this forum Offline

randal patrick wrote:
The only thing I am denying, is your interpretation of the "essence of the teaching".

Alright, so what do you think is the essence, the main point of this teaching?

nosce te ipsum

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 01 Apr 2013 #19
Thumb_forum_koala Victor Blackbird Australia 97 posts in this forum Offline

randal patrick wrote:
Long time, yes.

So I wasn't wrong remembering you

nosce te ipsum

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 01 Apr 2013 #20
Thumb_forum_koala Victor Blackbird Australia 97 posts in this forum Offline

randal patrick wrote:
You know victor, you don't sound aussie.

Well, I cannot help it. I'm just living in Australia, that's all.

But I don't think it matters very much today, at the time we all are getting global, does it?

nosce te ipsum

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 01 Apr 2013 #21
Thumb_snapshot_20130606 john Campbell Canada 535 posts in this forum Offline

k Pine wrote:
Posting often is not necessarily synonomous with posting intelligently.

Hey Randal,free laughs on April Fools Day.:-)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 01 Apr 2013 #22
Thumb_stringio Arthur Landon United States 146 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

randal patrick wrote:
Well, I just don't think he's saying anything like that at all.

Then what do you think he was saying, randal? I ask because your comments never reflect any thinking at all - just knee-jerk reaction to what others say.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 01 Apr 2013 #23
Thumb_stringio Arthur Landon United States 146 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

pavani rao wrote:
What is the problem ? Arthur 

It's neither K nor the direct perception or some other thing about the teaching is the  problem .. Isn't it ? 

If you're going to play psychiatrist, Pavani, you'll have to do a lot better than this.

pavani rao wrote:
Neither we have simplicity to look at ourselves and our lives  nor do we have humility to accept our limitations ...

How can you know this is true if you don't have the simplicity and humility "to look at our lives"? Or when you say "we", do you mean everyone but you?

pavani rao wrote:
the absolute limitations of a human being in the vast space of this creation and the creator ...

Do you know what those "absolute limitations" are?

pavani rao wrote:
When we lack energy, will and conviction to see things as they are, we tend to invent all kinds of escapes ..

If you know this is true, don't say "we" because presumably you know what it is "to see things as they are".

Plato said that the unexamined life is not worth living, but you seem to be disproving him, Pavani.

This post was last updated by Arthur Landon (account deleted) Tue, 02 Apr 2013.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 02 Apr 2013 #24
Thumb_stringio randal patrick United States 3155 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Victor Blackbird wrote:
In other words, without self-knowledge any thinking goes inevitably 'mis-applied' -- inadequate -- and causes further confusion, woes, mischiefs and sufferings.

Which is the essence of the teaching. But the teaching is NOT about trying to go beyond.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Tue, 02 Apr 2013 #25
Thumb_stringio randal patrick United States 3155 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Victor Blackbird wrote:
Alright, so what do you think is the essence, the main point of this teaching?

Well, it sure isn't to believe or interperate or wish we understood it.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 02 Apr 2013 #26
Thumb_stringio randal patrick United States 3155 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Arthur Landon wrote:
your comments never reflect any thinking at all - just knee-jerk reaction to what others say.

Agreed, I don't have to think, to see what to post. And rather, it is an adequate response (not reaction).

Did you notice how you did not respond directly to what I posted? Instead, you posted according to your "knee-jerk" reaction of frustration and anger at me.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Tue, 02 Apr 2013 #27
Thumb_stringio randal patrick United States 3155 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

john Campbell wrote:
Hey Randal,free laughs on April Fools Day.:-)

I only laugh at things which are funny.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 02 Apr 2013 #28
Thumb_snapshot_20130606 john Campbell Canada 535 posts in this forum Offline

randal patrick wrote:
I only laugh at things which are funny.

Hey,>>synonomous=synonymous = at least a snort. Esp.in context used.

He who laughs,lasts.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 02 Apr 2013 #29
Thumb_stringio Arthur Landon United States 146 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

randal patrick wrote:
you posted according to your "knee-jerk" reaction of frustration and anger at me.

You overestimate yourself. You're too tiresome to frustrate or anger anyone.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 02 Apr 2013 #30
Thumb_forum_koala Victor Blackbird Australia 97 posts in this forum Offline

randal patrick wrote:
Victor Blackbird wrote:

In other words, without self-knowledge any thinking goes inevitably 'mis-applied' -- inadequate -- and causes further confusion, woes, mischiefs and sufferings.

randal patrick wrote:
Which is the essence of the teaching. But the teaching is NOT about trying to go beyond.

Well, this is a great step ahead in our mutual understanding.
So, just to confirm before we can try another one. Previously you said:

randal patrick wrote:
He just seems to be pointing out that mis-applied thinking, can and frequently does cause the human mind to suffer unintended consequenses (pain or fear) for it's chosen course/mode of operation (pleasure thinking).

Now we agree that without self-knowledge ANY thinking is inadequate and mis-applied independently on its course or mode of operation.

This way the self-knowledge becomes to a factor of greatest importance in our life.
It's number one importance, otherwise we are always inadequate, always in confusion creating havoc both inside of us and all around.

If you confirm this point I would gladly go ahead with you.

nosce te ipsum

This post was last updated by Victor Blackbird Tue, 02 Apr 2013.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 85 in total
To quote a portion of this post in your reply, first select the text and then click this "Quote" link.

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