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

Are we really "progressing" in our understanding?


Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 206 in total
Wed, 24 Apr 2019 #1
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5645 posts in this forum Offline

The quote below was taken from a Quiet Space post. It was written by the moderator for that forum and a poster named Dan. It's interesting because I think the quote from K that I posted in response points out what most of us have probably felt or thought about all the time we have spent reading or listening to K and what we have "gained" by studying and listening to K.

Dan McDermott wrote:

I'll be taking some time away from here Clive as others obviously have.
I've appreciated your and other's thoughtful posts and look forward to communicating again in the future. Very Best.

Clive wrote:
Yes Dan, it's been deeply meaningful to discuss with you. There is a feeling that there has been great learning and movement, change, over the last 2 1/2 years the forum has been in existence.

As I have no wish - well, not much :-) - to use this space for some sort of monologue, this may be the end of "A Quiet Space".

Quote Taken from: CAN HUMANITY CHANGE? J.Krishnamurti in Dialogue with Buddhists page 167.

Expecting a Result

QUESTIONER: After having listened eagerly to you for so many years, we find ourselves exactly where we were. Is this all we can expect?

KRISHNAMURTI: The difficulty in this problem is that we want a result to convince ourselves that we have progressed, that we have been transformed. We want to know that we have arrived. And a man who has arrived, a man who has listened and got a result, has obviously not listened at all. [laughter]. This is not a clever answer. The questioner says he has listened for many years. Now, has he listened with complete attention, or has he listened in order to arrive somewhere and be conscious of his arrival? It is like the man who practices humility. Can humility be practiced? Surely, to be conscious that you are humble is not to be humble. You want to know that you have arrived. This indicates--does it not?--that you are listening in order to achieve a particular state, a place where you will never be disturbed, where you will find everlasting happiness, permanent bliss

This post was last updated by Jack Pine Wed, 24 Apr 2019.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 2 readers
Back to Top
Wed, 24 Apr 2019 #2
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 1373 posts in this forum Offline

Are we really "progressing" in our understanding?

If that is our drive to continue it seems to me not, but at the same time when looking back and seeing how different the reactions towards society etc are one could fall in the trap of giving yourself a pat on the back, which is giving energy to the self, Isn't it ?

Truth will unfold itself to those who enquire their own actions.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 24 Apr 2019 #3
Thumb_001 Sean Hen Spain 854 posts in this forum Offline

Jack Pine wrote:
The quote below was taken from a Quiet Space post. It was written by the moderator for that forum and a poster named Dan. It's interesting because I think the quote from K that I posted in response points out what most of us have probably felt or thought about all the time we have spent reading or listening to K and what we have "gained" by studying and listening to K.

Thanks for starting this interesting thread Jack. I suppose we all think in terms of "making progress" with K's teachings from time to time. We can easily set up a mindset that considers getting closer to "transformation" as the ultimate goal. As K points out in the quote you posted, we simply may not be listening most of the time. Does it all come down to paying more attention?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 25 Apr 2019 #4
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5645 posts in this forum Offline

Sean Hen wrote:
Does it all come down to paying more attention?

I don't know. I think everyone has to look at that for themselves.

One mistake most of us make with the facts K spoke of during his life like the response above about goals, progressing, transforming and so on is that we conceptualize what we read or hear from K. Along with seeing and understanding what he is saying we file the information away in our memory to be pulled out later as a response or as a guide to our own behavior. But do we see all of the nuances of what was said originally or do we just accept what K has said as a fact, the truth and lump it into an easy phrase or sentence or two?

For example, we all probably accept that thinking is conditioned. Do we see, understand, what that means beyond just accepting the statement? Do we see that thought is based on memory; knowledge and experience? So what thought sees now, in the present, is filtered through the memory. Do we ever see something without thought analyzing it? Do we just see what is without judgement or response?

Another example of what was a fact for K and is conceptualized by most of the rest of us is that the self, the center, is the invention of thought. What does that mean? Do we see that by identifying with our material possessions, relationships, ideas, physical appearance and what not we form this image of a person who is all of this in our thoughts. We become the personification of everything we have done in our life that we have identified with. I hope that's clear.

K has pointed this out so many times before and did a much better job of explaining it than what you are reading in this post. The point is do we see these things fresh as if for the first time or are they just concepts, images, things we believe are true and just repeat?

This post was last updated by Jack Pine Thu, 25 Apr 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 25 Apr 2019 #5
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 1373 posts in this forum Offline

Jack Pine wrote:
The point is do we see these things fresh as if for the first time or are they just concepts, images, things we believe are true and just repeat?

Jack, Isn't this a question one can't answer with words ?

in other words, the proof lies in doing and the drive to do so.

Truth will unfold itself to those who enquire their own actions.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 25 Apr 2019 #6
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 1373 posts in this forum Offline

Krishnamurti Quote of the Day, April 25, 2019

Bombay, India | 3rd Public Talk, 26th February 1967

You know what it is to listen? You listen, not in order to learn. Do not listen to learn, but listen with self-abandonment so that you see for yourself the true or the false.

It means that you neither accept nor reject. It does not mean that you have an open mind like a sieve in which everything can be poured and nothing remains. On the contrary, because you are listening, you are highly sensitive and therefore highly critical - not the criticism based on your opinion as opposed to another opinion; that is the process of thought. Please listen as you listen to those crows, without like or dislike. Just listen to the sound of that boy hammering at something, without getting irritated, without losing your attention. When you listen so completely, you will find that you have nothing more to do. It is only the man who is standing on the banks of the river that speculates about the beauty of the current.
When he has left the bank and is in the current, then there is no speculation, then there is no thought; there is only movement

Truth will unfold itself to those who enquire their own actions.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 2 readers
Back to Top
Thu, 25 Apr 2019 #7
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5645 posts in this forum Offline

Jack Pine wrote:
The point is do we see these things fresh as if for the first time or are they just concepts, images, things we believe are true and just repeat?

Wim wrote:

Jack, Isn't this a question one can't answer with words ?

in other words, the proof lies in doing and the drive to do so.

Yes, I'm not expecting anyone to answer. I question the use of the word "drive". Sounds like a desire for a goal.

What I was trying to point out is can we see how we identify with all these things in our life as they occur? The accumulation of which is this image of our self. Instead it seems that most of us have just made a concept of this which we store in our memory, part of our knowledge, without really seeing it any more. Assuming we saw it in the first place.

This post was last updated by Jack Pine Thu, 25 Apr 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 25 Apr 2019 #8
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 1267 posts in this forum Offline

ken wrote:
"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.".

Every time I see the cat and Krishnamurti I can't stop laughing.:-)

This post was last updated by One Self Thu, 25 Apr 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 26 Apr 2019 #9
Thumb_001 Sean Hen Spain 854 posts in this forum Offline

Ken D wrote:
"It has occurred to me, brother, that wisdom may not be the end of everything. Goodness and kindliness are, perhaps, beyond wisdom." James Stephens

Surely this is wisdom itself seeing the importance of goodness and kindness. If one does not see this, is one truly wise?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 26 Apr 2019 #10
Thumb_001 Sean Hen Spain 854 posts in this forum Offline

Jack Pine wrote:
Another example of what was a fact for K and is conceptualized by most of the rest of us is that the self, the center, is the invention of thought. What does that mean? Do we see that by identifying with our material possessions, relationships, ideas, physical appearance and what not we form this image of a person who is all of this in our thoughts. We become the personification of everything we have done in our life that we have identified with. I hope that's clear.

It's clear and it's not clear. For almost everybody, it is just too huge a step to suddenly not identify with all the things you listed Jack. We have been reading and listening to K for many years. We probably realise, at least to some extent, that nothing is permanent. Perhaps we realise this on more than an intellectual level. But is it really clear?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 26 Apr 2019 #11
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1430 posts in this forum Offline

Sean Hen wrote:
it is just too huge a step to suddenly not identify with all the things you listed Jack.

I don't know Sean about that. It seems to boil down to actually something 'simple'. Too simple I think K once said. What Jack was getting at earlier it seemed to me is that our 'conditioning' is total. There is no part of us that is not conditioned (no freedom)...So our reactions are also always conditioned. They always involve the 'thinker', the 'chooser', the 'seeker', etc. And that's thought's trick to always pop out an 'entity' that feels like it is separate, the 'me', and that can look on objectively and assess every situation...but it can't, it is just the conditioned self-image that is based and constructed from the past (the 'wall'?). No? So when all this is seen as a "huge step", that is the 'reaction' of the conditioned self to the way it understands all this. Is it not?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sat, 27 Apr 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 26 Apr 2019 #12
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5645 posts in this forum Offline

Sean Hen wrote:
For almost everybody, it is just too huge a step to suddenly not identify with all the things you listed Jack.

But Sean, no one said to stop identifying with all those things that make us who we are. It's enough, isn't it, to just observe the act of identification as it occurs? To do anything else is a reaction which is an escape from what is.

This post was last updated by Jack Pine Sun, 28 Apr 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 26 Apr 2019 #13
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5645 posts in this forum Offline

Dan I think what you are saying in your post #12 is what is actually takes place.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 27 Apr 2019 #14
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1430 posts in this forum Offline

Jack Pine wrote:
to just observe the act of identification as it occurs? To do anything else is a reaction which is an escape from what is happening.

Yes that was what I was trying to communicate with the word "total", that our 'conditioning' is 'total'. I would say that "progress" then has a place in the sense of making something work better or more efficiently in the practical realm of course, but that it has no place in the 'psyche'. In the psyche, the notion of 'becoming' better, wiser, freer, etc., introduces 'time', a future when 'I' will become these things, attain these goals, etc...in a word: 'suffering'?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sat, 27 Apr 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 27 Apr 2019 #15
Thumb_001 Sean Hen Spain 854 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
I don't know Sean about that. It seems to boil down to actually something 'simple'. Too simple I think K once said. What Jack was getting at earlier it seemed to me is that our 'conditioning' is total. There is no part of us that is not conditioned (no freedom)...So our reactions are also always conditioned. They always involve the 'thinker', the 'chooser', the 'seeker', etc. And that's thought's trick to always pop out an 'entity' that feels like it is separate, the 'me', and that can look on objectively and assess every situation...but it can't, it is just the conditioned self-image that is based and constructed from the past (the 'wall'?). No? So when all this is seen as a "huge step", that is the 'reaction' of the conditioned self to the way it understands all this. Is it not?

Hi Dan. I think you've made a good point about a "huge step" being a conditioned response. I'm not really sure what you mean by our conditioning being total though. For example, surely you aren't saying that what you have written above is a product of your conditioning, are you?

I don't know if conditioning is "total" but it seems to be accumulative. I mean, as we have more experiences we seem to accumulate more conditioning. However, conditioning doesn't seem to affect everybody equally. Some people accumulate a great deal of experiences and seem, perhaps, less affected by this than others who have had fewer experiences. K himself since childhood seemed to be "vacant" and experience left little or no mark on him. What is going on with people like that? If conditioning involves accumulating, is there some sort of emptying going on here? If we explore together and there is real, new discovery, are we operating from our conditioning or something else? Is this type of exploring together which Krishnamurti talked of even possible here?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 27 Apr 2019 #16
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1430 posts in this forum Offline

Sean Hen wrote:
. I'm not really sure what you mean by our conditioning being total though. For example, surely you aren't saying that what you have written above is a product of your conditioning, are you?

No I would say that it is a combination of hearing K.(and others) point it out and then an 'insight' into the truth of it. But when I first heard him speak of the 'totality' of the "prison" that we were in, it made intellectual sense. We 'think' that we have freedom, that we are individuals etc. but it is a sort of illusion. An illusory reality. This analogy occurred to me when thinking about your question and may or not be applicable: Before science, before astronomy, the 'fact' right in front of your eyes was that the sun rose, crossed the sky and then disappeared, only to be 'born' again the next morning...no one knew 'where' it 'went' and then how it became reborn. You could speculate, create scenarios, etc. but you could not doubt the 'fact' that the sun was 'moving' across the sky. Then someone comes along and points out the illusion and causes a great upheaval among people who have something invested in their 'belief' that it is the sun that is moving and not otherwise, that we are the 'center' i.e...Is our psychological 'conditioning' like that?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sat, 27 Apr 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 28 Apr 2019 #17
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 649 posts in this forum Offline

Jack Pine wrote:
It's enough, isn't it, to just observe the act of identification as it occurs? To do anything else is a reaction which is an escape from what is happening.

No, this is wrong. A deep misunderstanding of Krishnamurti. K teaches transformation. K does NOT teach being aware without changing, continuing forever to be a violent, conflicted self.

Kirshnamurti, Public Talk 2, Brockwood Park, England, 10 September 1972:
If you, who are listening, who are trying to learn... who are learning, if you don't change your conscious now, you don't change radically, how can you expect what the future will be? It will go on what it has been. And if you, as a human being, change the whole content of your consciousness you may create a totally different kind of culture.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 28 Apr 2019 #18
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5645 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
No, this is wrong. A deep misunderstanding of Krishnamurti. K teaches transformation. K does NOT teach being aware without changing, continuing forever to be a violent, conflicted self.

You took the quote out of context, gave it your own spin and then added your own, seemingly, hateful interpretation

Are you saying that YOU deeply understand Krishnamurti? And does K teach transformation? He shows us what keeps us as we are, for example, our conditioning which the schools we went to have instilled us with since the first day. Schools trained us to see the world in a way acceptable to the powers that be, to accept organized religion and nationalism as two great goods. We were trained to become a "productive" member of a society that is wholly corrupt. I remember in grade school having to say the Pledge of Allegiance and the Lord's Prayer everyday. And this was public school.

K's speaking is negative in that he tells us what is blocking us from seeing, what is not understanding, not seeing, not being alive. But when does he teach us to transform which is change? Which implies that we should become someone or something else. Is transformation a goal to be attained, to be sought after? Isn't transformation what is left when illusion is removed and intelligence remains?

This post was last updated by Jack Pine Sun, 28 Apr 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 28 Apr 2019 #19
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 649 posts in this forum Offline

Here's a video called What Will Make a Human Being Change?

https://jkrishnamurti.org/content/what-will-mak...

Here's what K says at 12:30 in the video: "This is very important after the question of the gentleman yesterday. He said, 'I've listened to you for so many years. And I've not changed. I am where I started out.' You know? To hear such a statement, you cry inwardly."

This is amazing to me. K in this video is saying that he heard the statement of someone who listened to him for years and years and didn't change. And he says it made him cry inwardly! When have you ever heard K say anything like that? Ever!

But isn't that us? Vaguely aware but still violent selves. Not transformed. Not free. And that makes one cry inwardly.

This post was last updated by idiot ? Sun, 28 Apr 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 28 Apr 2019 #20
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 1267 posts in this forum Offline

If you find a deadly snake in your bed next to you do you tell yourself that I am just going to be aware of the snake and have no reaction? No. You immediately do something. In the same way if you see nationalism as dangerous as a deadly snake you will do something. You don't say that I am going to be nationalistic and just observe it without any reaction. .

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 28 Apr 2019 #21
Thumb_patricia_may_2014_reduced_ Patricia Hemingway Australia 1924 posts in this forum Offline

One Self wrote:
If you find a deadly snake in your bed next to you do you tell yourself that I am just going to be aware of the snake and have no reaction?

But you ARE the snake.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Sun, 28 Apr 2019 #22
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1430 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
K teaches transformation. K does NOT teach being aware without changing, continuing forever to be a violent, conflicted self.

I don't see that 'transformation' can be "taught". He says it is a possibility for us, a possibility of 'flowering' when the 'impediments' to that flowering are seen and understood: fear, violence, becoming, craving psychological security, etc. When they, those elements that constitute our consciousness are 'seen' as false, they dissipate on their own...the 'wall' building can end. There is no 'doer' is there? No 'remover' or 'changer' only the seeing without choice. How do you see it differently than that?

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Sun, 28 Apr 2019 #23
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1430 posts in this forum Offline

One Self wrote:
In the same way if you see nationalism as dangerous as a deadly snake you will do something.

Not quite. When the inherited tribal instincts that have continued in us to separate ourselves into groups with different names and different cultures, languages, religions, traditions, rituals, etc. when that is seen clearly what devastating effects this heritage and division has caused ...it will 'drop away' on its own. And as a result of that seeing, and understanding the falseness of the need for such divisions among us...'you' will no longer be 'nationalistic'. But that will be because seeing the falseness allowed it to 'drop away', or dissipate... not something that you have 'done'. As has been said: "the seeing is the doing". (and in this case the 'un-doing') Right?

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Sun, 28 Apr 2019 #24
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 1267 posts in this forum Offline

Well, we all have read Krishnamurti for years and nationalism and divisions have not been so called "dropped". It is like a doctor who knows that smoking cigarettes causes cancer and yet smokes it. Knowledge by itself doesn't bring about the transformation of man . We have lost the natural sensitivity to danger. If the house goes on fire we sit and discuss it endlessly because we have become merely intellectual humans. That is the problem.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 28 Apr 2019 #25
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 649 posts in this forum Offline

K, Public Talk 14, Ojai, California, 28 August 1949:
To go into this question of self-knowledge and not be caught in self-consciousness, to go ever more deeply, more profoundly so that the mind is completely quiet that is true religion. Then the mind is capable of receiving that which is eternal.

Whether transformation can be taught is one question. Perhaps it cannot and must be discovered by each person. Perhaps it can be pointed to, as K does.

But is just being aware and yet stuck in the same self-centered ways what K teaches? And more importantly, is it how I want to live my life? Seeing my self-centeredness, my conflictual thought and violence inwardly and outwardly, but feeling that nothing can be done? Claiming that doing anything is just conditioned reaction?

So by explaining away that any reaction is necessarily conditioned, haven't I artificially relaxed the tension, made my myself comfortable with the mischief of my self? Let's be honest!

I'm screaming at my wife. But I'm aware of it. So it's fine.

Come on!

Real awareness is transformational. If I'm fully aware that I'm screaming at my wife, I immediately stop. There's no conditioned reaction, no ideal. She is a person I care about! What am I doing?

We have mentally excused our ongoing self-centered behavior. We say we are aware of it, but if that were deeply so, it would change. Moment to moment.

Awareness where there is transformation is what K talks about. Awareness where the self goes on bashing against reality, and oh, isn't it nice to watch it, is not what K talks about.

This post was last updated by idiot ? Sun, 28 Apr 2019.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Sun, 28 Apr 2019 #26
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1430 posts in this forum Offline

One Self wrote:
Well, we all have read Krishnamurti for years and nationalism and divisions have not been so called "dropped".

If you haven't, why not? I won't have anything to do with that 'feeling'.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Sun, 28 Apr 2019 #27
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5645 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
Seeing my self-centeredness, my conflictual thought and violence inwardly and outwardly, but feeling that nothing can be done? Claiming that doing anything is just conditioned reaction?

So by explaining away that any reaction is necessarily conditioned, haven't I artificially relaxed the tension, made my myself comfortable with the mischief of my self? Let's be honest!

OK, let's be honest. Beside you, who is saying this? I certainly wasn't. Have you considered the possibility that you have misunderstood what others have written?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 28 Apr 2019 #28
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5645 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
If you haven't, why not? I won't have anything to do with that 'feeling'.

This is a good question. Many people, some no doubt as a result of being exposed to K and others who have never heard of K, have dropped their support of both organized religion and nationalism. We have seen that both divide humans which inevitably leads to conflict-war.

If we are going to survive as a species on this planet, which is looking increasingly unlikely, we are going to have to start working together to end the wholesale destruction of our environment. Our life support systems.

And why not, indeed?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 28 Apr 2019 #29
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1430 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
We have mentally excused our ongoing self-centered behavior.

Is there 'someone' apart from the behavior that can "excuse" it, or 'accept' it. or condemn it, or justify it...or is it just the behavior itself and the so called 'thinker'? Or in this case is it the 'reformer'? I don't think that our understanding is far apart here. But the suggestion to be choicelessly aware of what is going on as really the only way to be free of conflict, hate, sorrow, etc. isn't a 'license' to indulge the self but an understanding that our conditioning is 'total' and any movement of thought to overlay violence,say, with non-violence does not face the actual violence in me, it is a temporary escape from it. Isn't it? Coming face to face with it without the the labeling of the disturbance "violence" is quite rare...the point here being made and I'm sure you understand it is a 'call' for the non-movement of thought in the face of a 'disturbance' i.e. conflict, hatred, loneliness, confusion, violence, anger, sorrow, etc. to face those emotions without the past labelings and comparisons with what has occurred before. To look at them as you would a "jewel". That as I see it is K.'s 'challenge' to those of us that are interested.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 28 Apr 2019 #30
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 649 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Is there 'someone' apart from the behavior that can "excuse" it, or 'accept' it. or condemn it, or justify it...or is it just the behavior itself and the so called 'thinker'?

Of course, "I" am the excuser, the accepter, the evaluator, the thinker in all its different disguises. So anything "I" do is just reactive thought. I can do nothing.

You see? We follow K up to this point and get stuck. I am thought, I am self, I am whatever problem. Since I am it, I can do nothing. Stay with it and be fully aware.

Now does K stop there? Does he say, "Great. Now just go on being a separate, conflicted self but with awareness?"

K does not stop there. He goes further. But do we?

To go further is to go into actuality. The actual is not stagnant. It is motion. Without the drag of memory, the cling of continuity. Moment to moment transformation. Moment to moment ending of the self. Moment to moment blossoming of love.

This post was last updated by idiot ? Sun, 28 Apr 2019.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 206 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.)