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

The Future Of Humanity


Displaying posts 31 - 60 of 130 in total
Sun, 09 Jun 2019 #31
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 1129 posts in this forum Offline

Just finished reading the first chapter on Think on these things about what is education. Krishnamurti was ahead of his time by 100 years. At the time that there was no internet he gave awareness of things that people had no clue of. Today a lot of people know that universities are corrupt and only think of their own profit and so on. It is good to read the whole chapter rather than pull quotes to impress . When you read the whole chapter it effects the mind. But if you merely read quotes your mind becomes more intellectual and not understanding. Again many thanks to idiot for the links. We can read chapter by chapter and question what matters together. Not questioning each other which is a form of aggression and disrespect but things that matters in the world.

This post was last updated by One Self Sun, 09 Jun 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 10 Jun 2019 #32
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5551 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
I've talked with many people interested in Krishnamurti and some of them really do investigate meditation, but many, many, many do not: "You mean, sit like Buddhists for hours on end? No thank you, that sounds dreadful." And then they might claim that K said that you can't deliberately do meditation, that it must be spontaneous, and then they wonder why after reading a mountain of K books that meditation doesn't spontaneously happen.

I hope you reassured these people that no, the meditation that K talked about was nothing like "sitting like Buddhists for hours, etc". Nothing like repeating mantras or intoning OM and all that other rubbish. Once I heard K refer to Transcendental Meditation and "Transcendental Trash" (1st Talk, April 1, 1978, Ojai, CA). He abhorred the hustlers who came from the East during the 1970"s to successfully exploit so many naïve people in the West.

For K meditation was constant self awareness in whatever one was doing. Meditation was not directed toward any end or achievement or apart from one's life. See the quote in the next post. Please don't make something of meditation that it's not. It's not a technique to achieve anything.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 10 Jun 2019 #33
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5551 posts in this forum Offline

Book of Life, December 23 MEDITATION

I am going step by step into what is meditation. Please don’t wait till the end, hoping to have a complete description of how to meditate. What we are doing now is part of meditation.

Now, what one has to do is to be aware of the thinker, and not try to resolve the contradiction and bring about an integration between thought and the thinker. The thinker is the psychological entity who has accumulated experience as knowledge; he is the time-bound center that is the result of ever-changing environmental influence, and from this center he looks, he listens, he experiences. As long as one does not understand the structure and the anatomy of this center, there must always be conflict, and a mind in conflict cannot possibly understand the depth and the beauty of meditation.

In meditation there can be no thinker, which means that thought must come to an end—the thought which is urged forward by the desire to achieve a result. Meditation has nothing to do with achieving a result. It is not a matter of breathing in a particular way, or looking at your nose, or awakening the power to perform certain tricks, or any of the rest of that immature nonsense. ... Meditation is not something apart from life. When you are driving a car or sitting in a bus, when you are chatting aimlessly, when you are walking by yourself in a wood or watching a butterfly being carried along by the wind—to be choicelessly aware of all that is part of meditation.

This post was last updated by Jack Pine Mon, 10 Jun 2019.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Mon, 10 Jun 2019 #34
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 585 posts in this forum Offline

I specifically stated in post #25, "Not that meditation is a means."

I never said meditation is about achieving a result. In fact, I said the exact opposite.

Jack Pine wrote:
For K meditation was constant self awareness in whatever one was doing.

It's very presumptuous to say what meditation was for K.

Krishnamurti:
In meditation there can be no thinker, which means that thought must come to an end...

If there is no thinker, there's no self to be aware of. Therefore, meditation in which thought is silent is not awareness of a self that is not existing. So it's not self awareness.

Krishnamurti:
to be choicelessly aware of all that is part of meditation

Part, not all.

I am not going to correct constant errors and mischaracterizations. It takes too much time. Suffice it to say that much of what you say about others here, Jack Pine, is in error. A few months ago, Ken very patiently corrected three errors you made in statements about him. To me, they were all obviously false before he corrected them. I don't have Ken's patience. So if you are writing about me, Jack Pine, you can assume that I consider it mistaken, since it very often is.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 10 Jun 2019 #35
Thumb_001 Sean Hen Spain 821 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
Read the article Meeting Krishnamurti, available right here on kinfonet:

I found the interview with Larry Rosenberg fascinating on a number of levels. Thanks for posting the link. Can I ask you if you've ever met Larry Rosenberg?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 10 Jun 2019 #36
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 585 posts in this forum Offline

Besides talking about meditation, what did K do? Did he sit quietly in stillness? Yes, he awoke very early in the morning, before dawn, and sat up in bed with his back straight. That is how he would begin most mornings.

Just before "the process" started in 1922, he began to "get his touch back" with meditation. He was doing more quiet sitting, including under the pepper tree in Ojai, and within a few weeks or so the "the process" started.

Is meditation just quiet sitting? No. It can be in any posture or in motion, in any situation. But nearly everyone begins clarifying meditation with stillness of the body and attention to the mind. That means quiet sitting. K did a lot of it in his life and throughout his life.

From quiet sitting, attention readily moves into daily activity, into motion, during relationship, etc. Of course, meditation is not restricted to quiet sitting. But there is something to simplifying, especially at first, so that distractions and concerns are at a minimum.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 10 Jun 2019 #37
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 585 posts in this forum Offline

Sean Hen wrote:
Can I ask you if you've ever met Larry Rosenberg?

No. I just serendipitously discovered his interview a few days ago.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 10 Jun 2019 #38
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5551 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
me, they were all obviously false before he corrected them. I don't have Ken's patience. So if you are writing about me, Jack Pine, you can assume that I consider it mistaken, since it very often is.

You come up with your own interpretations for nearly everything including what I have written. I don't agree with your interpretation for the most part. I suggest you stop drawing conclusions about what K was trying to point out. Which this and other thread started by you are absolutely full of. We don't need your interpretations of what K was trying to point out.

idiot ? wrote:
If there is no thinker, there's no self to be aware of. Therefore, meditation in which thought is silent is not awareness of a self that is not existing. So it's not self awareness.

Once again you seem blinded by your own interpretations of what K and others are trying to point out. Here is what K said in the above quote:

When you are driving a car or sitting in a bus, when you are chatting aimlessly, when you are walking by yourself in a wood or watching a butterfly being carried along by the wind—to be choicelessly aware of all that is part of meditation.

K used the pronoun "you". That's what I meant when I wrote, "constant self-awareness". It works. "You", "self" same thing. You have to use certain words to express things. Often you take things too literally. I offer into evidence your first couple of posts that begin this thread.

And when you wrote in your post, it takes too much time to constantly correct someone else's errors, this is exactly how I feel about most of what you and the pompous one self spew on this site. Interpretation based on your particular conditioning and misunderstanding is not understanding K. You do understand, don't you, that all your interpretations and translations of K are based on thought and we all know, it's even become a cliché on this site, that thought is limited, conditioned and so on. Please consider that fact before you continue to regale us with unlimited opinions about what K meant.

This post was last updated by Jack Pine Mon, 10 Jun 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 10 Jun 2019 #39
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5551 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
Jack Pine wrote:
For K meditation was constant self awareness in whatever one was doing.

It's very presumptuous to say what meditation was for K.

Oh for Christ's sake. I didn't mean how meditation was for K personally. Rather I was referring to what K meant by meditation. Worry about your own presumptuousness in your constant interpretations of what K was saying and what he meant.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 10 Jun 2019 #40
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 1129 posts in this forum Offline

Jack Pine wrote:
That's what I meant when I wrote, "constant self-awareness".

You can mean whatever you want ,it has no value because" self- awareness" is never constant. That is a fallacy.
When someone is mere intellectual and verbal he will make a lot of error in what he writes.
Meditation is something that a man with an image would never know because he cannot go beyond words.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 10 Jun 2019 #41
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5551 posts in this forum Offline

One Self wrote:
You can mean whatever you want ,it has no value because" self- awareness" is never constant. That is a fallacy.

What can I say? You're just knit-picking at words and making up yet more rules in your mind because you really have nothing else to say, do you?

One Self wrote:
When someone is mere intellectual and verbal he will make a lot of error in what he writes.
Meditation is something that a man with an image would never know because he cannot go beyond words.

You ought to know, Buddy. Because you are The Poster Child for your above comment.

This post was last updated by Jack Pine Mon, 10 Jun 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 11 Jun 2019 #42
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5551 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
Now the first word out K's mouth is...

"I"

The second word is...

"thought"

You may not see any irony in that, but I do.

"I thought we were going to talk about the future of man."

Actually there is no irony. You have made and ideal out of there not being a self and not using pro nouns and so on. When K and Bohm used language to facilitate a discussion you, seemingly, became perplexed by the use of simply, everyday words. Perhaps if you hadn't had a preconceived idea of what they were going to talk about and how they were going to discuss it you wouldn't have been confused.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 11 Jun 2019 #43
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 1129 posts in this forum Offline

Jack Pine wrote:
You ought to know, Buddy. Because you are The Poster Child for your above comment.

For a man who has constantly advocated for himself in this discussion forum and those unfortunate members who accepted his image( that he lives in Ojai and he goes to KFA frequently and he is an important person there. I feel sorry for you all.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 12 Jun 2019 #44
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5551 posts in this forum Offline

One Self wrote:
For a man who has constantly advocated for himself in this discussion forum and those unfortunate members who accepted his image( that he lives in Ojai and he goes to KFA frequently and he is an important person there. I feel sorry for you all.

"one self" you remind me so much of Trump. You make things up, you lie, you are obviously narcissistic and your pretentious frequent avoidance of using pronouns is, well, ridiculous. Do you think that removes your "center", "ego" when you don't use pronouns?

My wife and I do live in Ojai half the year. I do frequently go up to Arya Vihara, or what they now call the Pepper Tree Retreat and walk around. And I do go to Pine Cottage which is just back of Arya Vihara on occasion where the K library is located. I used to live up there forty years ago and I find it still to be very peaceful. My wife's kids, by a previous marriage, went to Oak Grove school which is close to where we live now in Meiners Oaks. And we often walk on the 500 acres of grassland and California Live Oaks that are part of the original Oak Grove and still owned by the KFA. Anyone is welcome to go to any of these places. In your mind I guess going to these places makes "one" important. But, of course, that's ridiculous. Do you have some sort of special problem that limits your ability to think? It frequently seems that way. If you don't have anything to say it's much better to remain silent than to make things up like a petulant child.

This post was last updated by Jack Pine Wed, 12 Jun 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 13 Jun 2019 #45
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 585 posts in this forum Offline

Back to The Future of Humanity, for those of us interested in actually discussing it.

DB: I think that it will not be clear to people immediately that the consciousness of mankind is one inseparable whole.


This is a really key point. K and DB agree that we all have separate, individual bodies, but K is saying that because we all share "fear, sorrow, pain, anxiety, loneliness, and all the human travail" that there is only one, whole consciousness for all of mankind! K is saying that our having separate individual consciousnesses is an illusion.

I question this. Sure, most of share fear, sorrow, etc. Perhaps not all of us do. For example, the psychopath may have no empathy, may not share in the empathy that most of mankind has to some degree.

But consciousness comes from the individual body. Science doesn't exactly understand how consciousness works. But it's pretty clear that by and large the biochemical and electrical processes of the brain and its interconnected neurons gives rise to consciousness. And that is an individual process happening in separate bodies.

Obviously we can interact in relationship. So my consciousness can have an effect on yours and vice versa.

But K is saying no. The consciousness of mankind is one inseparable whole.

Please discuss this with me. Perhaps you are clear on what K is saying and can help me understand it. How does the fact that we share certain similar experiences make us an inseparable whole?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 13 Jun 2019 #46
Thumb_father-jack jamie f United Kingdom 8 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
How does the fact that we share certain similar experiences make us an inseparable whole?

There is a line in the Tao Te Ching. It depends on the translation but it goes something like this:

"The wise man has no mind of his own. He takes as his own the mind of the people."

Bohm and Krishnamurti are talking about what Lao Tzu calls "the mind of the people".

This post was last updated by jamie f Thu, 13 Jun 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 13 Jun 2019 #47
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 1129 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
I question this. Sure, most of share fear, sorrow, etc. Perhaps not all of us do. For example, the psychopath may have no empathy, may not share in the empathy that most of mankind has to some degree.

First of all k speaks generally. A psychopath is an exception. Most people are not psychopath.
I am not sure if k said that human consciousness is whole . Consciousness as it is is fragmented. I am Russian and you are German. But we both identify with a nation for security reasons so we are essentially the same psychologically . The root of it is fear which all humans share. As long as I identify with something I must be fragmentary and divisive.
Maybe a transformed consciousness is whole and doesn't divide but we don't know that until we are there.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 14 Jun 2019 #48
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5551 posts in this forum Offline

So we are going to ask the nature of our consciousness. Our consciousness is what you are: your belief, your ideals, your gods, your violence, fear, myths, romantic concepts, your pleasure, your sorrow, and the fear of death, and the everlasting question of man which has been from time immemorial, whether there is something sacred beyond all this. That is your consciousness. That is what your are. You are not different from your consciousness. So we are asking whether the content of that consciousness can be totally changed.

First, your consciousness is not yours. Your consciousness is the consciousness of all humanity, because what you think, your beliefs, your sensations, your reactions, your pain, your sorrow, your insecurity, your gods and so on is shared by all humanity. Go to America, go to England, Europe or Russia, China, human beings suffer; they are frightened of death, they have beliefs, they have ideals, they speak a particular language but the thinking, the feelings, the reactions, the responses generally is shared by all human beings. This is a fact, not merely the invention or speculation of the speaker. This is a fact that you suffer; your neighbor suffers; that neighbor may be thousands of miles away, he suffers. He is insecure, as you are. You may have a lot of money, but inwardly there is insecurity. So is a rich man in America or the man in power, they all go through this pain, anxiety, loneliness, despair. So your consciousness is not yours any more than your thinking is not individual thinking. Thinking is common, is general, from the poorest man, the most uneducated, unsophisticated man in a little tiny village to the most sophisticated brain, the great scientist, they all think. They may think differently. Their thinking may be more complex, but thinking is general, shared by all human beings. Therefore it is not your individual thinking. This is rather difficult to see and recognise the truth of it, because we are so conditioned as individuals.

Public Talk 1, Calcutta (Kockata), India 20 Nov 1982

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 14 Jun 2019 #49
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5551 posts in this forum Offline

This fact that all of humanity shares a consciousness is not a complex issue. It comes up often in K's talks. But it becomes very complex when it clashes with what we think we know about what K is saying. It becomes complex when it clashes with the ideals we invent and attribute to what we think K is saying.

For example, there is no fragmentation of consciousness when one person identifies as an American and another person identifies as being French. The bottom line here is that both identify with nationalism. Which nationalism you identify with is completely immaterial. You both are still nationalist.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 14 Jun 2019 #50
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 585 posts in this forum Offline

jamie f wrote:
There is a line in the Tao Te Ching.

I don't see how that helps me to understand if the consciousness of mankind is one whole or if it is a separate thing in each human being.

Either Lao Tzu, in chapter 49 of the Tao Te Ching, was talking about the same thing as K, or he wasn't. K always questioned traditions and he likely would have questioned a Taoist book and tradition, too. It just brings in all kinds of additional Taoist things and we have to ask if they are true, too. Do yin and yang exist? What do they mean? And so on.

Whether or not Lao Tzu got what K is saying is not going to help us. We have to investigate it ourselves and see if it's true.

This post was last updated by idiot ? Fri, 14 Jun 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 14 Jun 2019 #51
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 585 posts in this forum Offline

One Self wrote:
I am not sure if k said that human consciousness is whole . Consciousness as it is is fragmented. I am Russian and you are German. But we both identify with a nation for security reasons so we are essentially the same psychologically . The root of it is fear which all humans share. As long as I identify with something I must be fragmentary and divisive.

K did say that the consciousness of mankind is whole. He says it in The Future of Humanity. He said it in Public Talk 1, Calcutta (Kockata), India 20 Nov 1982 that Jack Pine appropriately quoted. He said it when he discussed, "You are the world," which is basically dealing with the same thing.

He also said that this consciousness is fragmentary. Thought divides. And it puts us in conflict. Conditioning and memory are rubbing against, in conflict with the actual now.

So K says both. The consciousness of mankind is a single whole, with separate, individual consciousnesses being an illusion. And the consciousness of mankind is fragmentary, conflictual, divided.

One Self wrote:
Maybe a transformed consciousness is whole and doesn't divide but we don't know that until we are there.

In part two of The Future of Humanity, K talks about "mind" as distinct from "brain." DB wants to call this "universal mind," indicating that it is in fact one whole. K is a little hesitant with "universal" but seems to sort of go along with it. In any case, K says that this "mind" is not touchable by the "brain" if it is still bound up in thought, in conditioning.

Let's say we accept that there is a whole, universal mind. Really this another very important question to go into. But if we accept that there is a universal mind, it is much easier to see that it is whole, undivided. It is much harder to see that the fragmentary, thinking mind of mankind is whole.

Perhaps the only way for the fragmentary mind of mankind to be seen as a single whole is for it to be looked at with universal mind. This is logical. But applying logic is thought. Therefore it is only speculation.

The only way to really get at the question I am asking is ending the thought and conditioning in the brain, touching the unconditioned mind, and seeing what is true. Is this not so?

That seems to be what K is saying. But until and unless we actually do it, this too is speculation, yes?

This post was last updated by idiot ? Fri, 14 Jun 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 14 Jun 2019 #52
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 585 posts in this forum Offline

Jack Pine wrote:
This fact that all of humanity shares a consciousness is not a complex issue.

I am glad it is not complex for you but it is for me.

Jack Pine wrote:
For example, there is no fragmentation of consciousness when one person identifies as an American and another person identifies as being French. The bottom line here is that both identify with nationalism. Which nationalism you identify with is completely immaterial. You both are still nationalist.

So we are talking about the general and the particular. The two people have their particular countries that they identify with, one America and the other France. But in general they are both nationalistic. And even people who are not nationalistic at all may divide themselves in some other way, for example by political party.

Yes, it is easy to see that humanity shares divisiveness in general that manifests in particular ways in each person. But K goes further, doesn't he? He says that there is only a single whole consciousness of mankind, yes? He says that separate consciousnesses are an illusion, yes?

The Future of Humanity page 19:

DB: Now the feeling is that the consciousness is individual and that it is communicated....

JK: I think that is an illusion, because we are sticking to something that is not true.

DB: Do you want to say that there is one consciousness of mankind?

JK: It is all one.

It is quite a jump from mankind sharing similar feelings and experiences to there being only a single whole consciousness for mankind. At the very least, that denies or reduces the importance of the particular and asserts or emphasizes the general.

This post was last updated by idiot ? Fri, 14 Jun 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 14 Jun 2019 #53
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 585 posts in this forum Offline

Speaking of nationalism...

K traveled a lot from country to country. Which means he must have had a passport. Which means he must have had citizenship in some country. Which means that he had, on a practical level, to be a member of a country.

So even if he was completely free of nationalism, on a practical level he had to accept certain divisions of nationality. Many passport applications require signing some kind of oath of allegiance to the country.

This post was last updated by idiot ? Fri, 14 Jun 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 14 Jun 2019 #54
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3167 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
It is quite a jump from mankind sharing similar feelings and experiences to there being only a single whole consciousness for mankind. At the very least, that denies or reduces the importance of the particular and asserts or emphasizes the general.

Yes, quite a jump. This ties in with his statement that if one person changes totally, it affects the whole of mankind.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 14 Jun 2019 #55
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5551 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
It is quite a jump from mankind sharing similar feelings and experiences to there being only a single whole consciousness for mankind. At the very least, that denies or reduces the importance of the particular and asserts or emphasizes the general.

idiot ? wrote:
So even if he was completely free of nationalism, on a practical level he had to accept certain divisions of nationality. Many passport applications require signing some kind of pledge of allegiance to the country.

You can accept this or not. I really don't care. And I say this without either sarcasm or rancor. You are your own worst enemy when it comes to understanding what K is pointing out. You keep wanted to form conclusions, ideals, ideas instead of just being aware of what K is saying. You have heard the term, "choiceless awareness" haven't you? What do you think that means? It doesn't mean accept without questioning but maybe observe without trying to align what you see and hear into the web of your existing conditioning. Can you see something that is new to you without your thought immediately trying to interpret it?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 14 Jun 2019 #56
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 585 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Yes, quite a jump. This ties in with his statement that if one person changes totally, it affects the whole of mankind.

Well, it even questions if there IS one person separate from the whole of mankind, able to change. Also, this brings up other questions:

Did K change totally? If he did, did mankind change totally? If mankind did, then why are we still in violence, conflict, suffering?

This post was last updated by idiot ? Fri, 14 Jun 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 14 Jun 2019 #57
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 585 posts in this forum Offline

Jack Pine wrote:
You are your own worst enemy when it comes to understanding what K is pointing out.

Of course. The same is true for you and for everyone. Obviously, the self, thought, conditioning is in the way of what K points out.

The question remains: K says the consciousness of mankind is all one, individual consciousnesses being an illusion. What does this mean? Is it true?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 14 Jun 2019 #58
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 585 posts in this forum Offline

The Future of Humanity, page 129:
JK: My thought has created that I am different from you, because my body is different from you, my face is different from you, so we carry that same - we extend that same thing into the psychological area.

Now maybe this can help us get at it. DB and K say that we have separate bodies. This is a scientific fact. So when K says that the consciousness of mankind is one, which is another way of talking about there being no self, is this in the psychological realm? Physically, we are separate selves, with separate bodies, according to DB and K. Psychologically?

Now part of the body is the brain. As best as science has figured out, the brain is where consciousness arises. Some people feel that there may be disembodied consciousness, without a brain, and it is unclear whether K is in that camp. But scientifically, which is pretty much from a materialist perspective, consciousness is a process of the brain, which is part of the body, and you and I have separate bodies. Therefore we have separate brains. Therefore we have separate consciousnesses arising out of the processes in those brains.

K doesn't say we have separate physical consciousnesses but I do, and so does current scientific understanding.

K says there is one consciousness of mankind. Often K speaks from the psychological perspective. Is that what he is doing here? Or is he even denying physical separate consciousnesses?

This post was last updated by idiot ? Fri, 14 Jun 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 14 Jun 2019 #59
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 523 posts in this forum Offline

Jack Pine wrote:
You are your own worst enemy when it comes to understanding what K is pointing out.

idiot ? wrote:
Of course. The same is true for you and for everyone.

Isn’t this the very essence or crux of the meaning of it - “the consciousness of mankind is one”? Every so-called individual views life and approaches life’s problems through the viewpoint of the illusory self-centre looking outwardly: I’m afraid, I get angry, I’m conceited, I’m aggressive, I’m deceitful, I hate myself, I love myself, I hate the world, I'm a victim, I'm a winner, I've been wronged, I look out for myself, and so on.

The individual narratives differ, the circumstances differ, the sophistication, crassness, style or polish of individual behaviour differs, the expressions and degrees of deceit, pretense, anger and fear vary, and so on. But every single “individual” approaches life and faces life’s challenges THIS WAY - through the illusory self. Isn’t it so? And isn't this approach to life responsible for all conflict, chaos, deterioration, danger, and so on? Isn’t the total consciousness of man as it presently is - one in this way?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 14 Jun 2019 #60
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 585 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Isn’t this the very essence or crux of the meaning of it - “the consciousness of mankind is one”? Every so-called individual views life and approaches life’s problems through the viewpoint of the illusory self-centre looking outwardly

I'm so glad you are joining the discussion, Huguette. I want to respond to your post #59 but I've already written a lot today and may be busy for a few days. If you get a chance, perhaps you can respond to post #58?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 31 - 60 of 130 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.)