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

The "What Is"


Displaying all 19 posts
Page 1 of 1
Wed, 09 Aug 2017 #1
Thumb_de4 Dan McDermott United States 1213 posts in this forum Offline

Anyone interested in sharing how they have interpreted this? Quotes from K. very welcome.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Wed, 09 Aug 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 15 Aug 2017 #2
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 209 posts in this forum Offline

What is "what is"? It is. What?

If there is one thing that "what is" is not, it is interpretation. Most of us run reality through the filter of our thoughts. We color what is with interpretation. Therefore we are not at all in touch with what is. We are in touch with our interpretation.

So how can we cut through interpretation and get to "what is"? As usual, there is no how. Because how is more interpretation. But there is a how in self knowledge. I can notice my thoughts. I can see my reaction in relationship. My reaction is what is. My self centered response to relationship and my ego boosting is what is. Or perhaps my ego bashing, my self condemnation, which only adds internal conflict onto existing conflict, is what is. My endless internal dialogue is what is.

As I attend to my self centered thoughts, as I watch their relentlessness, their twisting deviousness in sustaining themselves, their constant conflict, then maybe, just maybe something changes. Maybe they grow quieter and quieter. Maybe if I sit with them for a very long time, they give up, surrender. Maybe the reality of this moment, the vitality of tree and sky and bird rushes in and engulfs. Maybe opening is.

But maybe not. Only you can discover what is. What someone else describes is only a description. Only you can look, inwardly and outwardly, if there is a difference, and listen with your whole being.

This post was last updated by idiot ? Tue, 15 Aug 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 21 Aug 2017 #3
Thumb_001 Sean Hen Spain 574 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
I can notice my thoughts. I can see my reaction in relationship. My reaction is what is. My self centered response to relationship and my ego boosting is what is. Or perhaps my ego bashing, my self condemnation, which only adds internal conflict onto existing conflict, is what is. My endless internal dialogue is what is.

Maybe we all have moments when we can look on from the outside at ourselves and observe how we are behaving. Some people seem to be better at this than others. There doesn't really seem to be a way to work on this but exploring it here surely has some value.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 26 Aug 2017 #4
Thumb_3740 richard head United States 169 posts in this forum Offline

Sean Hen wrote:
Some people seem to be better at this than others.

Not "better" or worse, but rather, more and less lazy.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 01 Sep 2017 #5
Thumb_001 Sean Hen Spain 574 posts in this forum Offline

richard head wrote:
Not "better" or worse, but rather, more and less lazy.

Hi Richard and all. Yes, perhaps laziness is an important factor regarding our ability to observe internally and externally. If "what is" is there all the time but we aren't usually aware of it then I think there's more to it than laziness though. What makes us sensitive? If we're sensitive to "what is" then surely we'll observe it more clearly. Krishnamurti had experiences which we all have. He suffered, for example, but he seemed to have the ability to learn and understand from going through these experiences. Negative experiences probably make people more closed and bitter rather than open and understanding.

Some people do seem to have a certain sensitivity to what's going on inside and around them but how do they develop this? Having said this, I think everybody can have moments or times when that sensitivity is switched off and we are completely oblivious as to how we are behaving and what's happening around us.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 05 Sep 2017 #6
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 1038 posts in this forum Offline

Sean Hen wrote:
If "what is" is there all the time but we aren't usually aware of it then I think there's more to it than laziness though.

Hi Sean,

Found the word "if" very out of order here.

This weekend searching for something on the internet I found by coincidence
" David Bohm society" with this unpublished work.

"THE NEGATIVE APPROACH TO THE MEANING OF LANGUAGE
David Bohm

Words and their meanings are never more than abstractions, which cannot substitute for that to which they refer n(e.g. using the word for “dinner” and thinking about what it means to us cannot provide the kind of nourishment that comes from actually eating a meal ). Moreover, words cannot abstract all that is to be known about any given thing. Indeed, they do not even abstract all that is essential to the function of that thing
(e.g. the word “chair” abstracts what is essential for the function of supporting a person who sits on it,
but not what is essential to its functioning at the atomic or nuclear level). So, it is necessary to recognize that all language has essentially negative and partial relationship to that to which it refers.
A. Korsybski has put this relationship very succinctly in the assertion: “Whatever we say it is, it isn’t .”

This statement is not a metaphysical assertion about the basic nature of “ what is.“
Rather, it is a very deep challenge to the entire structure of our communications,
both external and internal ( which latter are called “thought”).

To understand this challenge, let us begin with the fact: “ We are always talking about it “ ( “ It “ refers to anything whatsoever). When we read Korsybski’s statement, our first response is to see that we have already begun to say something about “it” (whatever “it” may happen to be). And than, noticing that “it” is not
what we say, and that what we say is at most incomplete abstraction even from what is to be known,
we assume that “it” must be something else, as well as something more.
But “something else” and “something more” are also what we say “it” is.
As we do this for a while , we begin to be struck by the absurdity of the whole procedure.
For whatever we say it is it isn’t.

What is the appropriate response to such situation ?
Evidently, one has to stop saying anything at all, not merely outwardly, but also inwardly.
It is suggested here that if all the “chatter” of thought can really stop, then something new can happen.
But even to say this much may be going too far.
For if this means that “it” is will be something new, “ then the novelty that we say “it” is will be what “it” is not.
The paradox with which the reader has to be left is
“ What is it when there is no saying at all, neither outwardly nor inwardly ?”

So simple and to the point and yet one realizes " this are only the words "

Truth will unfold itself for those who enquire their own actions and only to them and for them and to or for no one else.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 07 Sep 2017 #7
Thumb_001 Sean Hen Spain 574 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
Found the word "if" very out of order here.

This weekend searching for something on the internet I found by coincidence
" David Bohm society" with this unpublished work.

Hi Wim, thanks for the reply. Your quote from the David Bohm society about words was interesting. On this forum we only have words (and Ken B's images) and only written words at that, not spoken ones. Things like intonation and stress in spoken discourse often convey meaning and that is absent here. If you add to that the fact that English is not the first language of quite a few of the forum members, then it is inevitable that communication here will sometimes be clumsy and confusing. However, we only have written words here so all we can do is to try to use these skilfully to communicate with each other.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 07 Sep 2017 #8
Thumb_3740 richard head United States 169 posts in this forum Offline

Sean Hen wrote:
it is inevitable that communication here will sometimes be clumsy and confusing.

But Sean, even under optimum conditions, ideas/knowledge and their representatives, words, are inevitably confuseing and clumsy when used for a purpose that does not fit their capacity/capability.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 08 Sep 2017 #9
Thumb_001 Sean Hen Spain 574 posts in this forum Offline

richard head wrote:
But Sean, even under optimum conditions, ideas/knowledge and their representatives, words, are inevitably confuseing and clumsy when used for a purpose that does not fit their capacity/capability.

Hi Richard, I'm not sure what you mean about "using words or a purpose that does not fit their capacity/capability". Can you elaborate?

As for "the word is not the thing", I think we'd all agree on that. I mean, "choiceless awareness" is an adjective and a noun and perhaps we have many different ideas about what it is. Or perhaps we have explored this and discovered something of what Krishnamurti meant when he used this expression.

This post was last updated by Sean Hen Fri, 08 Sep 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 08 Sep 2017 #10
Thumb_3740 richard head United States 169 posts in this forum Offline

Sean Hen wrote:
I'm not sure what you mean about "using words or a purpose that does not fit their capacity/capability"

Well firstly Sean, what you quoted does not accurately represent what I posted.

In any case, it's not a secret that Belief/opinion/knowledge/information works sufficiently in certain aspects of the human experience and not so well in others.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 09 Sep 2017 #11
Thumb_001 Sean Hen Spain 574 posts in this forum Offline

richard head wrote:
In any case, it's not a secret that Belief/opinion/knowledge/information works sufficiently in certain aspects of the human experience and not so well in others.

Hi Richard. Yes, sorry. In my previous quote from what you wrote I missed an "f" and the word "for" became "or". I'm afraid you've lost me again in the quote above. Maybe it's just me but I don't understand what you mean. If you could give an example it might help.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 09 Sep 2017 #12
Thumb_3740 richard head United States 169 posts in this forum Offline

Sean Hen wrote:
If you could give an example it might help.

Seems pretty self evident Sean. Maybe if you put a little serious attention on it.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 10 Sep 2017 #13
Thumb_001 Sean Hen Spain 574 posts in this forum Offline

richard head wrote:
Seems pretty self evident Sean. Maybe if you put a little serious attention on it.

Is this an opinion or a belief Richard? Is it based on knowledge? Or information?

Seriously, it seems pretty self evident to me that there's no point in continuing our debate on this particular issue.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 11 Sep 2017 #14
Thumb_3740 richard head United States 169 posts in this forum Offline

Sean Hen wrote:
it seems pretty self evident to me that there's no point in continuing our debate on this particular issue.

We are not in debat Sean. We are simply stuck on the knowledge merry-go-round.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 12 Sep 2017 #15
Thumb_001 Sean Hen Spain 574 posts in this forum Offline

richard head wrote:
We are not in debat Sean. We are simply stuck on the knowledge merry-go-round.

I don't know if this is true Richard. I mean, if you go for a walk and look at a cloud and just look, without thought rushing in, you see something new. If your mind is silent and you just look there's no knowledge operating there. It's easy enough to try this out. Here on this forum we have to use words to communicate but does this mean our exchange has to be anchored in past knowledge? Is there no way that our communication can have some quality of freshness and newness about it?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 13 Sep 2017 #16
Thumb_3740 richard head United States 169 posts in this forum Offline

Sean Hen wrote:
Is there no way that our communication can have some quality of freshness and newness about it

But Sean, isn't this a little like asking if we can pound a square peg, into a round hole? Of course we probably can but all sorts of issues arise because of our action.

Seeing something clear and true, without the bias/distortion of the minds persistent activities, is not to be pursued through one of the minds persistent activities (communication). By definition, communication is biased and fundamentally unable to activate clear undistorted perception. I am sorry to be the one to have to point all this out.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 13 Sep 2017 #17
Thumb_3740 richard head United States 169 posts in this forum Offline

Sean Hen wrote:
If your mind is silent and you just look there's no knowledge operating there.

Quite. And if you pray, god will hear you and answer your prayers.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 15 Sep 2017 #18
Thumb_001 Sean Hen Spain 574 posts in this forum Offline

richard head wrote:
Quite. And if you pray, god will hear you and answer your prayers.

Richard, good luck with that.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 15 Sep 2017 #19
Thumb_001 Sean Hen Spain 574 posts in this forum Offline

richard head wrote:
I am sorry to be the one to have to point all this out.

Richard, you seem quite keen on this pointing out business. Sorry to have to point this out.

This post was last updated by Sean Hen Fri, 15 Sep 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying all 19 posts
Page 1 of 1
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.)