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

Online Forums?


Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 54 in total
Sat, 10 Jun 2017 #1
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1272 posts in this forum Offline

What do you see as the benefits of discussing these ideas, insights,questions etc. in an online forum rather than a group setting where you are in contact physically with others? In thinking about this this morning, I realized that I liked the anonymous aspect of it. I've been in group settings (not K.) and unfailingly a hierarchy emerges according to the personality types involved. Those who are intellectually gifted are best in this setting though somewhat daunting for ones like myself who aren't that adept. There's always the 'alpha' males sparring with one another. Also the physical appearance becomes a factor, how one dresses, tone of voice, charisma etc. Not to mention one's background, famous or a total unknown? Articulate or inarticulate? Also there's the 'prestige' aspect there of just 'rubbing elbows' with the spiritual 'elite'. And of course the 'sexual' element. It can be quite a 'circus. Not to mention the 'fear factor', the keeping quiet so as not to come across as a fool... Really so different than what we have here,... just words and sentences to go by (except for Ken B and M. Snerd )...none of the 'knowing' looks, the slight sneer, the look of approval, disapproval. the cliques, the gossip, etc. In a way, so unencumbered with all of that?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sun, 11 Jun 2017.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Sat, 10 Jun 2017 #2
Thumb_nolet Rich Nolet Canada 267 posts in this forum Offline

Hi Dan. In the beggining, I remember, with the arrival of internet , I was wandering if there is anybody out there, who knew about Krishnamurti; and that it could be interesting to share the impact of his talk and writing in someone else life. I was excited by those lecture, it open my eyes on many things that were hidden , and all the rest of it.

And then came Kinfonet. And I thought: wow ! We can share now. This was, if I remember, in the '90. When I saw, and still see how it turned out, I figured that , no matter what is our understanding or no understanding at all or misunderstanding leave us, the only place that it will make a difference is in our life itself. And you know what I think ? No amount of discussion, of group setting will change anything. It is our daily lives that is our reality. And it is the only place that something great can happen. K. did his job. Will it have a repercussion on human consciousness ? Anybody can answer that. And as I said, everything that is happening , that you have enumerate so well,in here or in any group setting is just but the continuity of the old. Any amount of concessus or explanation etc. will help. The man spoke, and I think that's it. This is it. Now we have to live, live our live, not merely talk. If one have questions, then one should go to the sources, if what have been said is of any value or interest. The understanding doesn't depend on consensus or discussion. All discussions here haven't help, apparently, anyone. Anyone can help anyone.

Our understanding , if there is any, express itself in our behaviours. At the end, it is the only single thing that is of importance. If there is any teaching is for each one of us to answer that for oneself, and most of all , if there is, to live it. I think that understanding express itself in action a lot more then in words.

This post was last updated by Rich Nolet Sat, 10 Jun 2017.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Sat, 10 Jun 2017 #3
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1272 posts in this forum Offline

Hi Rich. Yes I agree totally with what you've said. The 'study' can only take place in our own psyche. For myself I find that K. was speaking from a place of 'freedom' that I only sometimes glimpse. One thing about the internet forum that I didn't mention was the opportunity it gives some people to 'act' as if they have understood it all. They simply repeat k. sentences as if they had 'experienced' what he was saying...that would be harder to do in a group where you had to look someone in the eye. But what surprises me a bit is the small number of people who participate here. Years ago it was much more 'active', sort of a free-for-all for egos! Why do you think that is? They're not interested in exchanging with others about their own experiences around K.'s work, or they do meet in groups and prefer that environment to what is going on here in the three forums?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sat, 10 Jun 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 11 Jun 2017 #4
Thumb_nolet Rich Nolet Canada 267 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
One thing about the internet forum that I didn't mention was the opportunity it gives some people to 'act' as if they have understood it all. They simply repeat k. sentences as if they had 'experienced' what he was saying...that would be harder to do in a group where you had to look someone in the eye.

Wy should we do that ? Whether here in the forum or in any group setting ? I'm not sure I even understand the why, the purpose of those group setting.

Dan McDermott wrote:
But what surprises me a bit is the small number of people who participate here. Years ago it was much more 'active', sort of a free-for-all for egos! Why do you think that is?

What is the interest in that ? The propagendists are not different I think then the battle of the self about ideas and concepts, which is just a motive for self agrandissment, which is so vain . The forum seems to be a good place for that. Maybe some have understand that, and have seen the futility of it.

Dan McDermott wrote:
They're not interested in exchanging with others about their own experiences around K.'s work?

Again, why should we do that ? What difference would it make ?

This post was last updated by Rich Nolet Sun, 11 Jun 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 11 Jun 2017 #5
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1272 posts in this forum Offline

Rich Nolet wrote:
What difference would it make ?

Well because we are humans together interested and facing the same 'problem'? It is the same for all of us as I see it. Maybe you find something in yourself that I have not seen. "The house is burning" K. has said.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 11 Jun 2017 #6
Thumb_stringio richard head United States 332 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Dan McDermott wrote:
we are humans together interested and facing the same 'problem'?

I will just respectfully suggest Dan, that what is very seriously important/significant in this point being discussed, is that we really find out (within ourselves) whether that is the real reason for being here (humans together....interested, etc..) discussing Krishnamurti. Or whether we are hypnotized by the idea that this is why we are here, or whether there is some other, underlying, motivation (psychological comfort/security, etc..).

Whatever the case may be, I am in no way suggesting that people should not post and discuss Krishnamurti on this site.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 11 Jun 2017 #7
Thumb_me_3_reduced_copy Patricia Hemingway Australia 1867 posts in this forum Offline

The importance of open discussion regarding what K pointed out is only about one thing - not comparing notes, not matching experiences, not venturing opinions, not repeating K's words, not making a truth out of cliches - BUT establishing a ground where thought as technical thinking is logically in place and active, and this can only happen by clarification of the language and how it operates as behavioural conditioned responses.

Yes one can only observe the movement of thought within one's own brain, BUT there is only one brain, which opens out the ground for objective discussion.

It is about establishing the ground and clarifying it - this is never even discussed.

Which probably indicates that very few go there within their own internal inquiry.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 11 Jun 2017 #8
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1272 posts in this forum Offline

Patricia Hemingway wrote:
Yes one can only observe the movement of thought within one's own brain, BUT there is only one brain, which opens out the ground for objective discussion.

It is about establishing the ground and clarifying it - this is never even discussed.

Which probably indicates that very few go there within their own internal inquiry.

Hi Patricia,
I'd be interested if you could say more about this.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 11 Jun 2017 #9
Thumb_me_3_reduced_copy Patricia Hemingway Australia 1867 posts in this forum Offline

Hi Dan -

The conditioning of self and its psychological disorder as psychological time is universal amongst humans, which means that there is one consciousness and therefore one brain - which is deluded into believing each brain is psychologically unique and individual when it is not.

This is the ground which is never clarified and it includes the myth of emotions, what is meant by technical and psychological thinking, what is perception and how it differs from self, and what isn't insight - just to begin.

And what isn't love?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 11 Jun 2017 #10
Thumb_me_3_reduced_copy Patricia Hemingway Australia 1867 posts in this forum Offline

For example: Feeling is a tactile sense and not a psychological state of assumed empathy, which actually turns feeling into an emotion when it is not!

So what isn't empathy? It isn't a feeling! Neither is love! :)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 11 Jun 2017 #11
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1272 posts in this forum Offline

Patricia Hemingway wrote:
This is the ground which is never clarified and it includes the myth of emotions,

Let's start there. I once a while back posted a remark by Shri Anirvan that 'emotion' was just a misplaced sensation. That was of interest to you, I recall. I don't really understand that. I took it that something going on in my stomach, say, is 'translated' into a feeling or mood? Why do you say the "myth of emotions"? That as we are not 'capable' of love, empathy,etc., we aren't capable of 'real' emotion? (the 'self' isn't)

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sun, 11 Jun 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 11 Jun 2017 #12
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1272 posts in this forum Offline

richard head wrote:
what is very seriously important/significant in this point being discussed, is that we really find out (within ourselves) whether that is the real reason for being here (humans together....interested, etc..) discussing Krishnamurti. Or whether we are hypnotized by the idea that this is why we are here, or whether there is some other, underlying, motivation (psychological comfort/security, etc..).

Hi Richard. Yes we have to discover to whatever depth we are able, interested, what our true motivations are. That to me is 'self-knowledge'. I take it as a given the 'self' or 'ego' is the product of 'fear'. That to me is the basic motive (as well as 'escape') for all my 'attachments'. Instead of 'follow the money', follow the 'cravings'.

K."And to know myself is an enormous task requiring constant observation, meditative awareness."

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sun, 11 Jun 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 11 Jun 2017 #13
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3122 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Well because we are humans together interested and facing the same 'problem'? It is the same for all of us as I see it.

True enough....same fear, anger, worry, desire, pleasure, conflict. In their generic form, perhaps we could say? Patricia touched on this in #8.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 11 Jun 2017 #14
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1272 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
In their generic form

Hi Tom. Yes we all have our own 'brand' of anger or whatever it is and think it is unique to us. To even think that it is something completely common to all of us opens a door to a new way of looking at ourselves and others. Especially for me but not exclusively, the feeling of fear...not the fear when a tiger is right behind you and gaining,(the real thing) but that pall that comes over you and the world turns dark. That feels so 'exclusively' your own, so isolating...to remember that is what we all 'feel' at different times, seems to give it, that sensation, a chance to develop to "flower" to 'dissolve on its own, rather than to run from it immediately...

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sun, 11 Jun 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 11 Jun 2017 #15
Thumb_nolet Rich Nolet Canada 267 posts in this forum Offline

Patricia Hemingway wrote:
Yes one can only observe the movement of thought within one's own brain, BUT there is only one brain, which opens out the ground for objective discussion.

It is about establishing the ground and clarifying it - this is never even discussed.

A change then in one brain will affect the whole of it, isn't it ? Does any reunion or gathering of people will establish and clarify this ground ? As I see it, a drop of clarity in an ocean of darkness in our day to day life , in our day to day relationship will have its own effect. Isn't gathering of a group of peoples identify to some guru or concept or ideas an isolating process, as is the Jehovah's witness , as an example ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 11 Jun 2017 #16
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1272 posts in this forum Offline

Rich Nolet wrote:
Isn't a gathering of a group of people identified with some guru or concept or ideas an isolating process?

I guess the idea is that if you get people together round an ideology, a text, a guru etc. that that would bring about a 'uniformity', an 'order' that is considered 'good'...when actually it turns out to be divisive. Probably because what is being 'gathered around' is itself 'limited'? A group of 'egos' all with their own 'agendas' paying a kind of 'lip service' to some central theme or person... there is a feeling of security (safety in numbers?) in that but in order to actually 'think together' with another person(s), isn't the 'personal' aspect an impediment i.e.,my beliefs, my conclusions? I think on certain subjects, 'You don't know, I don't know, we don't know' is a good starting point. (Even though we might 'feel' as if we do;)

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sun, 11 Jun 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 11 Jun 2017 #17
Thumb_stringio richard head United States 332 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Dan McDermott wrote:
I take it as a given the 'self' or 'ego' is the product of 'fear'.

I should think that the only given, is that we cannot trust what we take as given.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 11 Jun 2017 #18
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1272 posts in this forum Offline

richard head wrote:
I should think that the only given, is that we cannot trust what we take as given.

Why do you think that that is the 'only given' Richard? Do you not "trust" anything you have discovered about your self?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Mon, 12 Jun 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 12 Jun 2017 #19
Thumb_stringio richard head United States 332 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Dan McDermott wrote:
Why do you think that that is the 'only given' Richard

What I think is hardly important. What might be important is how we determine if it is fact or non fact.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 12 Jun 2017 #20
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1272 posts in this forum Offline

richard head wrote:
What I think is hardly important. What might be important is how we determine if it is fact or non fact.

Yes I agree Richard. You have to do that for yourself. There is no one who can help you there.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 12 Jun 2017 #21
Thumb_stringio richard head United States 332 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Dan McDermott wrote:
Do you not "trust" anything you have discovered about your self?

What do you mean by the word "discovered"? For most minds it means simply accumulating opinion/information as a form of authority. Maybe you mean some other type of discovery?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 12 Jun 2017 #22
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1272 posts in this forum Offline

richard head wrote:
Maybe you mean some other type of discovery?

Yes through 'meditation' (without the 'meditator')

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 12 Jun 2017 #23
Thumb_stringio richard head United States 332 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Dan McDermott wrote:
You have to do that for yourself

But Dan, how can I do anything for myself, if my self, is simply a bundle/collection of other peoples psychological poop?

This post was last updated by richard head (account deleted) Mon, 12 Jun 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 12 Jun 2017 #24
Thumb_stringio richard head United States 332 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Dan McDermott wrote:
Yes through 'meditation' (without the 'meditator')

Sweet deal sir. Where can we get some of that?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 12 Jun 2017 #25
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1272 posts in this forum Offline

richard head wrote:
But Dan, how can I do anything form myself, if my self, is simply a bundle/collection of other peoples psychological poop?

Do you have another way?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 12 Jun 2017 #26
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1272 posts in this forum Offline

richard head wrote:
Sweet deal sir. Where can we get some of that?

It is a 'discovery' in itself. But the only 'way' as far as I can see.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 12 Jun 2017 #27
Thumb_stringio richard head United States 332 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Dan McDermott wrote:
Do you have another way?

Again, what I do or don't have, is hardly important sir. I am not implying/suggesting anything at all. Just asking questions.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 12 Jun 2017 #28
Thumb_stringio richard head United States 332 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Dan McDermott wrote:
But the only 'way' as far as I can see.

The human mind has been seeing this way/path (imagination) for many centuries and more. I am not criticizing you or what you say.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 12 Jun 2017 #29
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1272 posts in this forum Offline

richard head wrote:
The human mind has been seeing this way/path (imagination) for many centuries and more. I am not criticizing you or what you say.

Thank you...Criticism is probably best turned toward oneself.:)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 12 Jun 2017 #30
Thumb_stringio richard head United States 332 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Dan McDermott wrote:
...Criticism is probably best turned toward oneself

Quite, but you did not respond directly to what was posted, if you don't mind me saying so Dan. Which of course detours the discussion into a dead end.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 54 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.)