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

Are we really "progressing" in our understanding?


Displaying posts 61 - 90 of 206 in total
Wed, 01 May 2019 #61
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 1123 posts in this forum Offline

As one-self said words are concepts. We communicate with concepts. We can never communicate the actual . We make an image of something and talk about it(I am talking about here in the chat-room) . For example Jack makes an image or a concept about one-self and he expands that conceptual perception. He calls it truth which in reality is false. To him it is the truth... It is indeed very complicated...
There is always conflict in concepts because they are made of images.
The question is that can one have no image or concept?

Can anybody relate to my question?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 01 May 2019 #62
Thumb_pd Paul Dimmock United Kingdom 210 posts in this forum Offline

Dan: If thought is totally absent, in that moment there could be no fear. But why should it be totally? Psychological thought is fear. Is it not? Though fear may not be present there is the knowledge that there are images, remembrances, experiences in memory below the surface that contain fear.

Look, are we without fear both at the surface and at the root? We are not, are we? Therefore, why are we telling ourselves that thought is fear as well as all the other things we are saying? The moment we say to one another, 'I am afraid,' that is the awakening of intelligence. Do you follow what I mean? Rather than hypnotise ourselves with various warnings and theories, we can deal with this directly from the start.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 01 May 2019 #63
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5546 posts in this forum Offline

Patricia Hemingway wrote:
ack - words are a means of communication, nothing more. Words can communicate truth or untruth, fact or non-fact - but either way they are just communication - they are NEVER the thing.

Yes, that is what I have tried to point out to one self after he posted that words are concepts. Words are the means to express the concept, the idea the truth, whatever. What he was trying to do was post a nasty reply about something, he once again, didn't understand. And that is that we tend to conceptualize what we may learn from what K pointed out instead of seeing it fresh. In the present.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 01 May 2019 #64
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1390 posts in this forum Offline

Paul Dimmock wrote:
why are we telling ourselves that thought is fear as well as all the other things we are saying?

I don't see that "we are telling ourselves that thought is fear"...Thought is fear (among other things) that has been seen. That is the truth. So when and if psychological fear arises, having seen what it is, the intelligent action is none, no reaction, understanding that any reaction is escape and continuation.

Paul Dimmock wrote:
The moment we say to one another, 'I am afraid,' that is the awakening of intelligence.

But to say that "I am afraid" wouldn't be the truth. That is why it is important to realize that it is the image-making activity of thought and when those images are negative, that that is what is known as 'fear', 'dread', 'worry', sorrow, etc. and the opposite when the projected images are positive or favorable. If you see that as hypnotizing oneself, then that is how you see it. I think that if I were to say that "I am nothing", that would be nearer the whole truth than the statement by the fragment saying "I am afraid". I don't know if you agree.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 01 May 2019 #65
Thumb_pd Paul Dimmock United Kingdom 210 posts in this forum Offline

Dan: ...when and if psychological fear arises, having seen what it is, the intelligent action is none, no reaction, understanding that any reaction is escape and continuation.. ... But to say that "I am afraid" wouldn't be the truth.

Why not? Isn't this a scary world? Isn’t there plenty to be afraid of? Surely it is more of a truth than pretending we understand all about thought and fear. After all, we are questioning whether this kind of understanding has any value. It is our own fear and thought that has put such understanding together in the first place. Even though I may understand that any reaction is an escape, I may still react when fear arises. In other words, the very understanding of the nature of fear is just another form of reaction. But to go to the very root of fear, to meet the actuality of it, may require no understanding at all because there is then no distance between me and fear. But when there is this gap we then fill it with our understanding, our formulae, our patterns which protect us.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 01 May 2019 #66
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1390 posts in this forum Offline

Paul Dimmock wrote:
Why not? Isn't this a scary world? Isn’t there plenty to be afraid of? Surely it is more of a truth than pretending we understand all about thought and fear. After all, we are questioning whether this kind of understanding has any value.

You are questioning that, I'm not. I'd say it has every value to understand the source of these "misplaced sensations"(?) You seem to have made the conclusion that all this is 'pretending'... so do you have something in mind that you think is not pretense? Are you saying that everyone must be afraid? Because it's a "scary world"? I am fortunate to be surrounded by Nature. I don't see the creatures around me here going around in 'fear'. Even the smallest birds, squirrels,..live on their own, alert to be sure but not 'fearful', I don't see or hear that...That seems to be Man's burden. What have you found for yourself regarding 'fear'?

Paul: In other words, the very understanding of the nature of fear is just another form of reaction. But to go to the very root of fear, to meet the actuality of it, may require no understanding at all because there is then no distance between me and fear.

Dan: I think we understand 'understanding' differently. To me 'understanding only can be in the moment i.e. 'to stand under'. It is not knowledge or a concept to be brought out as a reaction or escape...
It means to 'be with'... so a false understanding (theory, ideal, conclusion, belief etc.) does create a "distance" between the 'thinker' and the 'thought' or as you say 'me' and my 'fear'. Understanding in the way I see it is no judgement, no condemnation,...an 'awareness'.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Wed, 01 May 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 02 May 2019 #67
Thumb_pd Paul Dimmock United Kingdom 210 posts in this forum Offline

Dan: I think we understand 'understanding' differently. To me understanding only can be in the moment...

Agreed. It is in the moment; that is where it belongs. Therefore it doesn't carry over; and yet we are always trying to carry it over. This is precisely where we started out. So how are we to understand fear so that we are finished with it forever? Have we ever met the entirety of fear? Or, having met it partially in the past we merely prepare the best way to meet it again in the future, using whatever understanding we may have. But have we ever met the entirety of fear? Then, understanding won’t even play a part in it. Do you follow what I’m saying?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 02 May 2019 #68
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1390 posts in this forum Offline

Paul Dimmock wrote:
Agreed. It (Understanding) is in the moment; that is where it belongs. Therefore it doesn't carry over; and yet we are always trying to carry it over.

'Understanding' as awareness can't be "carried over". You are carrying it over as theory, concept, belief, etc. as knowledge, a means to keep from coming into contact with the sensation/energy of 'fear', 'anger', 'greed' in yourself because you 'think/feel' that those feelings or sensations 'shouldn't' be in you... that you have to "finish with it forever". There is a kind of violence in that, isn't there? A bravado...an overcoming? That is not understanding as I see it. You can only truly 'understand',it seems to me, fear/greed/anger/loneliness/sorrow/etc. by not approaching it as something to be got rid of, something you have judged should not be. Any judgement about what is seen creates the distance between the judge, the evaluator and what is being judged. So these are the "traps" of the 'I/me' process (the me/non-me illusion) that have to be seen, aren't they?. And understand (be attentive to?) 'why' it is doing what it does.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Thu, 02 May 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 03 May 2019 #69
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 1123 posts in this forum Offline

Paul Dimmock wrote:
Look, are we without fear both at the surface and at the root? We are not, are we?

Don't we all seek a way out of fear and pain? Is fear to be avoided ? Don't we make everything into a concept or an idea? Don't We say that the ideal man is the one who has no fear. We have an image of K that he had no fear. We don't know that. He discussed how fear comes into being and how it destroys everything and so on. Fear is to be understood not make it so that one doesn't have fear for the rest of his life. That is continuity which is thought.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 03 May 2019 #70
Thumb_pd Paul Dimmock United Kingdom 210 posts in this forum Offline

Dan: You can only truly understand... fear... by not approaching it as something to be got rid of, something you have judged should not be.

One Self: Don't we all seek a way out of fear and pain?

We are not doing that. We are not seeking to avoid or escape from fear. Quite the opposite. We are asking: have we met the entirety of fear?

One Self: Fear is to be understood not make it so that one doesn't have fear for the rest of his life. That is continuity which is thought.

Let's do it and find out. It may be that we have to put up with fear until the day we die. Or it may not be that way at all. But first we have to meet the whole of fear, don't we? Then we will find out.

This post was last updated by Paul Dimmock Fri, 03 May 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 04 May 2019 #71
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 1123 posts in this forum Offline

Fear is "what if?". What if l lose. What If there is another war? If causes fear. Thought breeds fear through projecting into the future an event that is painful like war. .

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 04 May 2019 #72
Thumb_pd Paul Dimmock United Kingdom 210 posts in this forum Offline

One Self: Thought breeds fear through projecting into the future an event that is painful...

Painful for whom?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 04 May 2019 #73
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 1123 posts in this forum Offline

Paul Dimmock wrote:
Painful for whom?

Does it matter whom? Mr X. I thought you talked about the totality of fear. What do you mean by totality of fear?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 05 May 2019 #74
Thumb_pd Paul Dimmock United Kingdom 210 posts in this forum Offline

Look, we are finding out about it together. For whom is fear painful? Whom does it threaten? Is it that fear affects me now or is it only that fear may affect me tomorrow? In other words, is it painful for the present me or only for the future me? The future me doesn’t exist. But when the present me imagines what might or might not happen to the future me, that’s where fear begins. It is right there the start of it. Which means fear is the desire for continuity as the ‘me’. As long as I continue, there will be fear. I am not meeting fear now; I am thinking about meeting it tomorrow. So fear, thought and time are all tied up in this one bundle called ‘me.’ This is what lies behind the statement, ‘I am afraid,’ in respect of anything that is deemed to be threatening.

This post was last updated by Paul Dimmock Sun, 05 May 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 05 May 2019 #75
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1390 posts in this forum Offline

Paul Dimmock wrote:
Which means fear is the desire for continuity as the ‘me’. As long as I continue, there will be fear.

Yes. We're talking about psychological 'fear', of course...physical fear, me facing a tiger i.e., that fear is necessary and 'natural' , it triggers the 'fight or flight' reaction along with adrenaline. The struggle to persist and survive seems to be present in every living thing, in every cell of the body, the rose making its way through the cement etc. But somewhere along our way this 'struggle to survive' became its psychological counterpart, the "desire for continuity as the 'me'" At the root of this 'wrong turn' was the brain's need for security as K.has pointed out many times, but what was the reason for the creation of the 'me', the "I process"? Can it be clearly seen why that happened? Why did the brain see the 'I' , the duality of thinker/thought,as a kind of 'security'? Just a mistake? Because with the creation of an 'I' or a 'center' there had to follow all the accumulation to protect and enhance it. The arising of the 'me and non-me'. The attachments: the spouse, the beliefs, the status, the material trappings etc. (moving beyond the needs for survival and comfort of the body but now, and more 'importantly', for the 'security' (and pleasures and amusements) of the 'self'. (The "me and the mine").

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sun, 05 May 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 05 May 2019 #76
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 1123 posts in this forum Offline

Paul Dimmock wrote:
So fear, thought and time are all tied up in this one bundle called ‘me.’.

We see that fear and "the me" go together, right. The next question(that comes into my mind) is that what is "the me"? "The me" is the memory of the past pleasures and pains. When the past dictates the present there has to be conflict and friction between that which is always moving and changing and that which is fixated and predetermined by the past.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 06 May 2019 #77
Thumb_pd Paul Dimmock United Kingdom 210 posts in this forum Offline

Dan: ...somewhere along our way this struggle to survive became its psychological counterpart, the desire for continuity as the 'me'. At the root of this wrong turn was the brain's need for security... but what was the reason for the creation of the 'me', the 'I' process? Can it be clearly seen why that happened?

One Self: What is the 'me'?

I think we can answer both these questions fairly quickly if we ask ourselves another question, yet a really personal question: why do I want to continue?

This post was last updated by Paul Dimmock Mon, 06 May 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 06 May 2019 #78
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1390 posts in this forum Offline

Paul Dimmock wrote:
if we ask ourselves another question, yet a really personal question: why do I want to continue?

That's easy isn't it to answer for anyone not contemplating suicide? I want to continue, among other things, to see how this all 'turns out'. To watch how the young grow. To have 'experiences', 'pleasures', the joys and beauty of nature. What is the alternative to "continuing"? Death, darkness, not being? Not being here on earth? Not seeing another sunrise...not singing another song...?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 06 May 2019 #79
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 1123 posts in this forum Offline

Paul Dimmock wrote:
: why do I want to continue?

May be that is the only thing that thought can do,continue. If one is concerned with the emptiness of the mind one has to live with death and death denies the continuity of thought which is 'the me and the mine'. But most of us are not interested in the emptiness of the mind.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 07 May 2019 #80
Thumb_pd Paul Dimmock United Kingdom 210 posts in this forum Offline

Dan: I want to continue, among other things, to see how this all 'turns out'. To watch how the young grow. To have 'experiences', 'pleasures', the joys and beauty of nature. What is the alternative to "continuing"? Death, darkness, not being? Not being here on earth? Not seeing another sunrise...not singing another song...?

One Self: Maybe that is the only thing that thought can do, continue. If one is concerned with the emptiness of the mind one has to live with death and death denies the continuity of thought which is 'the me and the mine'. But most of us are not interested in the emptiness of the mind.

But are we putting the question so that the answer comes from the very depth of ourselves? In other words, it is not just about a quick, surface answer. Why do I want to continue? I am not so sure that we are ever really willing to pose this question in such a way as to get a complete answer. And I think it highlights the difficulty with which we began: that the process of understanding is a limited and limiting process with thought very much in control of it. Are we seeking to understand death? Or are we willing actually to meet death head-on? Which is it that we are doing?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 07 May 2019 #81
Thumb_pd Paul Dimmock United Kingdom 210 posts in this forum Offline

Jamie F: What do you mean by 'outside' and 'inner'?

I am simply saying that it is a verbal or an intellectual warning; and therefore it automatically triggers a verbal or an intellectual response.

Come to the question of meeting death; it relates directly to this question. We are happy to meet death intellectually. We are happy to say, ‘I understand all about death, how it is the product of fear, how thought distorts it,’ and all the rest of the things we might say. Or we say, ‘I don’t understand what it is; I will wait and see.’ So our understanding is tied to our intellectual approach. But can one meet death totally? That is, not to meet the voices that talk about death: the cultural voices that explain it, the expert voices who dissolve it with clever argumentation. That’s all from the outside; so it is never complete. At the end of it, we say, ‘Yes, I understand death,’ or, ‘No, I don’t understand death.’ They are both worthless statements.

Or, regardless of understanding, we meet death directly by listening only to the inner voice. Do you see the difference? There is only the inner voice which says, 'I will die.'

This post was last updated by Paul Dimmock Tue, 07 May 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 07 May 2019 #82
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 1123 posts in this forum Offline

We are not surely talking about the death of the organism . We are talking about death as ending. The ending of the psychological "me" and the "mine" which is the root of fear. Death means ending of the psychological " me".

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 08 May 2019 #83
Thumb_pd Paul Dimmock United Kingdom 210 posts in this forum Offline

One Self: We are not surely talking about the death of the organism. We are talking about death as ending. The ending of the psychological ‘me’ and the ‘mine’ which is the root of fear. Death means ending of the psychological ‘me’.

But that’s just an idea that has come about in an effort to make sense of the prospect of physical death. The physical organism is temporary and we know it. Why go any further than that? Death may come tomorrow in the form of accident or disease. Are we ready for it? Not ready for it with an idea or a plan, but ready for it in the sense that we have made all the preparations just as we would make preparations for a long journey across to the other side of the world. In other words, have we got a valid passport? Or are we still at the planning stage, leaving everything to the last minute?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 08 May 2019 #84
Thumb_pd Paul Dimmock United Kingdom 210 posts in this forum Offline

Jamie F: And isn't that the point of these dialogues? - To meet the 'outside' and share that 'inner voice' which is humanity? Otherwise we may as well shut ourselves up like a hermit and listen only to that inner voice.

Then let’s share it. Let’s listen to it together so that we hear the same song. We have heard merely the first few words of the first line.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 08 May 2019 #85
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 1123 posts in this forum Offline

One-self: We are not surely talking about the death of the organism .

Paul:The physical organism is temporary and we know it. Why go any further than that? Death may come tomorrow ...

We are obviously talking about different things. I don't think that we need to think about the physical organism coming to an end. Because we can't do anything about it.
The body is in the grip of thought. It is thought that needs to be transformed in order
for fear to come to an end.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 09 May 2019 #86
Thumb_001 Sean Hen Spain 819 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
If you're into reading that kind of thing, there is a lot in his journals: Krishnamurti To Himself, Krishnamurti's Journal, and a third one that I can't remember the name of right now. But as I said, what is important is your silent open heart, not his.

An open heart does seem to be central to Krishnamurti's teachings - at least that's what I understand. Some ordinary, modest people you meet who have received little in the way of a formal education seem to have open hearts. They treat children, other people and animals with affection, kindness and compassion while not expecting anything in return. Doesn't this show intelligence and an understanding that all living things are connected? How have they learned that I wonder.

Here on the forum we can see that we are not always kind and compassionate to each other. Of course, I include myself in this as we are a small community here and are all responsible for this. Is it contradictory for people who read the teachings of Krishnamurti to be in conflict with each other as much as we are? Or is this perhaps a natural state of affairs? We don't really discuss this much and it might be a little taboo but I think if we are talking about having an open heart that it's relevant to do so.

This post was last updated by Sean Hen Thu, 09 May 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 09 May 2019 #87
Thumb_kr2 Ken D United States 11 posts in this forum Offline

jamie f wrote:
Back in the day, there were plenty of characters about. Peter from Brazil, Peter from Manchester, Dano, George, Paul ter Beek from Holland, Mystry, m from Iran and, of course Ken the Merry Mailman. The names are different today but the posts are the same.

Follow the adventures of Ken and Dano and Kirsten on K Ning. Some of us are still around.

http://jkrishnamurti.ning.com/profile/Ken

You have to join. Oh, well.

"Whence should there be joy to a peaceless man?" Bhagavad Gita

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 09 May 2019 #88
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 562 posts in this forum Offline

Sean Hen wrote:
...Some ordinary, modest people you meet who have received little in the way of a formal education seem to have open hearts...Doesn't this show intelligence and an understanding that all living things are connected?

Absolutely.

Sean Hen wrote:
How have they learned that I wonder.

Of course, you'd have to ask them. But is it a matter of learning or of unlearning? Is being kind, caring, open hearted something that can be learned? If so, it is artifice, isn't it? But to be genuinely loving is to have clearly seen the harm of division, to have put it aside, and to be fully aware now, yes? When you are fully attentive and present, love is just natural, isn't it?

Sean Hen wrote:
Here on the forum we can see that we are not always kind and compassionate to each other.

Quite clearly so.

Sean Hen wrote:
Is it contradictory for people who read the teachings of Krishnamurti to be in conflict with each other as much as we are?

Of course, it is contradictory. Do we see it, look at it, examine it? And if we do, does it transform? And if it does not, why not?

Probably most of us here are aware of others causing conflict. But do we turn the microscope around 180 degrees and look at ourselves? How do I get challenged on this forum and take it personally as a threat? How do I retaliate? How is this building up of myself? How does it spread animosity? How do I feign freedom from self or other self deception? The self activities and the conflict can occur in large ways and small, gross and subtle.

The opportunity to follow myself in interaction is always now. Only by opening to that opportunity is transformation possible. And only through transformation, which is moment to moment self knowledge, which is freedom, does love have a chance to be born now.

This post was last updated by idiot ? Thu, 09 May 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 09 May 2019 #89
Thumb_pd Paul Dimmock United Kingdom 210 posts in this forum Offline

One Self: We are obviously talking about different things. I don't think that we need to think about the physical organism coming to an end. Because we can't do anything about it. The body is in the grip of thought. It is thought that needs to be transformed in order for fear to come to an end.

But this is just another thought imposed upon a lot of other thoughts: the transformation of thought. It is yet another obstacle to overcome. And while we are playing with all these thoughts, the clock of life is ticking away. The physical organism comes to an end. Who says you can’t do anything about it? That’s just a conclusion offered up to block a very real problem in all our lives, which is the problem of mortality. We are not meeting this problem.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 09 May 2019 #90
Thumb_pd Paul Dimmock United Kingdom 210 posts in this forum Offline

Jamie F: I've been doing this for nearly 20 years... Have I progressed in my understanding during that time? Of course. It's been a remarkable journey. Fascinating and hilarious at times, frightening and frustrating at other times. Have I changed fundamentally over the years? Of course not. Underneath it all, I am still exactly the same person I was all those years ago.

We are not talking about change, fundamental or otherwise. Are we listening to the same song? That’s all I’m asking. This may be the real change, the real shock: neither the movement of consciousness as it travels through life being fascinated, amused, scared and annoyed nor the ideal notion of some deep fundamental transformation; both of those changes are about what happens to me. This is about what happens to both of us as we listen to this song. But are we listening to the same song?

This post was last updated by Paul Dimmock Thu, 09 May 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 61 - 90 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.)