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

The Future Of Humanity


Displaying posts 91 - 120 of 318 in total
Tue, 18 Jun 2019 #91
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 661 posts in this forum Offline

Jack Pine wrote:
you have, once again, completely misunderstood what K actually said.

Here is exactly what they said:

The Future of Hunanity:

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

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

DB: Yes, well do you want to say that there is one consciousness of mankind?

K: It is all one.

DB: It is all one. That is important because whether it is many or one is a crucial question.

JK: Yes, yes.

DB: Now it could be many which are then communicating and building up the larger unit. Or you think from the very beginning it is all one?

JK: From the very beginning it is all one.

DB: And the sense of separateness is an illusion - right?

JK: That is what I am saying over and over again.

If I stub my toe and you don't feel it and being a long distance away you don't even know it happened, then there must be a separateness between us since I feel it and you don't.

So I am saying, yes, we may share many general feelings and experiences in life, but we are not the same consciousness. You don't feel or know about my distant toe stub. In that sense, separateness is real and not an illusion. I think we agree about this.

What we disagree about is what K said. You think I am taking him literally in a way he did not mean to be taken literally. I think he said what he said. And what DB said and K agreed to is that "there is one consciousness of mankind" and "the sense of separateness is an illusion."

At the very least, K is saying this in a way to make us question if there is a separate self. What I am saying is that there is a separate self in the toe stub situation. You and I agree there is, yes? Would K? I don't know.

This post was last updated by idiot ? Tue, 18 Jun 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 18 Jun 2019 #92
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1440 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
At the very least, K is saying this in a way to make us question if there is a separate self. What I am saying is that there is a separate self in the toe stub situation.

I don't see that. There is an 'illusion' of a separate self who is saying: "'I' stubbed 'my' toe and 'I' feel the pain, etc. But that is the illusory duality that K. is so generously pointing out: 'you' and 'I', the 'me' and 'my' don't exist. If that is correct and we are in fact 'illusions', then the difference between your brain's illusion of 'self' and mine is beside the point: we are illusions. There is no fundamental difference in 'illusions'...they (we) are all false.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Tue, 18 Jun 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 18 Jun 2019 #93
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 661 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
There is an 'illusion' of a separate self who is saying: "'I' stubbed 'my' toe and 'I' feel the pain, etc. But that is the illusory duality that K. is so generously pointing out: 'you' and 'I', the 'me' and 'my' don't exist.

K and DB said in The Future of Humanity that we do have separate bodies and those bodies are real. So my big toe is real but my feeling the pain when I stub it is not real? It sure feels real and hurts like hell!

This post was last updated by idiot ? Tue, 18 Jun 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 18 Jun 2019 #94
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1440 posts in this forum Offline

The toe is real, the pain is real but...'you' are not.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 18 Jun 2019 #95
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 661 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
The toe is real, the pain is real but...'you' are not.

Okay, so the toe is real and the pain is a signal traveling from nerves in the toe up to a brain where there is registration of that pain in consciousness, yes? But that consciousness is not mine because there is no me. That consciousness is the consciousness of mankind? Why does only one human seem to register that pain? Why not all of humanity?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 18 Jun 2019 #96
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5723 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
So I am saying, yes, we may share many general feelings and experiences in life, but we are not the same consciousness. You don't feel or know about my distant toe stub. In that sense, separateness is real and not an illusion. I think we agree about this.

Jesus H Christ. You WERE serious. I can't believe anyone is that dense. You have, single handedly (well you and one self), lowered the over all Intelligence Quotient of this discussion forum to a low I thought it would never reach. You certainly picked the right handle for yourself.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 18 Jun 2019 #97
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 661 posts in this forum Offline

Jack Pine wrote:
Jesus H Christ. You WERE serious. I can't believe anyone is that dense.

Yes, I am serious. You can call me names or you can help us understand the issue together.

I don't know if you have ever read about Richard Feynman's investigation of the space shuttle Challenger's explosion. Feynman, one of the foremost physicists of the twentieth century, met with NASA scientists and asked very basic questions about the shuttle. Some may have thought he was an idiot. But asking questions and challenging their assumptions, he was able to zero in on the cause of the shuttle's explosion that they had missed: the O rings lost their flexibility in cold temperatures thus breaking their seal and allowing rocket fuel to escape. It ignited and blew up the Challenger and the astronauts onboard.

This post was last updated by idiot ? Tue, 18 Jun 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 18 Jun 2019 #98
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1440 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
Why does only one human seem to register that pain? Why not all of humanity?

It might help to look at it this way: All life is in essence 'awareness', not mine not yours but behind all manifest life is this 'awareness' ("naked", "unadorned awareness", as K. has been reported to have described it) When you "stub your toe", you say or feel that 'you' are aware of the pain but it's more correct to say, "there is an awareness of pain". And the awareness of that pain of the stubbed toe is the same awareness that is present in every other 'sensate' being in that same moment to some degree or another....The bodies are separate entities but the awareness is One. As is human consciousness.

K. "It is all one."

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Tue, 18 Jun 2019 #99
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5723 posts in this forum Offline

idiot, by your reasoning if someone stubs their toe you should feel the pain because we have a shared consciousness, because there is only one consciousness then it would follow that if one person dies we all die. You see the problem there?

Another thing that is keeping you from seeing what K and Bohm are pointing out is that you don't understand what they mean by "consciousness". That's clearly evident by your comments. And I didn't call you any names. You called yourself one I was just agreeing it was a viable pick.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 18 Jun 2019 #100
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 661 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
When you "stub your toe", you say or feel that 'you' are aware of the pain but it's more correct to say, "there is an awareness of pain". And the awareness of that pain of the stubbed toe is the same awareness that is present in every other 'sensate' being in that same moment to some degree or another.

The particular sensation of toe pain is localized, isn't it? It is not universally felt by all sentient beings. Is this not so?

Also, you say that the awareness present in one being is the same as that in another, but what evidence is there for this? And what exactly does it mean? It can mean that my eyeball works the same as yours does. Or it can mean that I see exactly what you see. We must not confuse these two meanings.

It can also mean that seeing happens. But again that does not mean that we see the same thing.

This post was last updated by idiot ? Tue, 18 Jun 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 18 Jun 2019 #101
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 661 posts in this forum Offline

Jack Pine wrote:
by your reasoning if someone stubs their toe you should feel the pain because we have a shared consciousness, because there is only one consciousness then it would follow that if one person dies we all die. You see the problem there?

Yes, that is my point. My point is that we do NOT have a shared consciousness with respect to stubbed toes and physically dying. We have separate consciousnesses. And the question is how does this square with K saying there is only one consciousness of mankind and separate consciousnesses are an illusion?

Jack Pine wrote:
Another thing that is keeping you from seeing what K and Bohm are pointing out is that you don't understand what they mean by "consciousness"

We already went over this earlier in the thread. K says that consciousness is the me. And consciousness is not different from its content.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 18 Jun 2019 #102
Thumb_leaping_fire_frog_by_sirenofchaos natarajan shivan India 87 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
But they also have individual particulars. You may be able to paint masterpieces and my drawings look childish. I may be an entomologist and you may know nothing about bugs. And so on. We're all unique. We all have particulars. I refuse to deny that part of reality.

I think we need to question whether there is anything in the individual particulars that is not having an emotional reaction of suffering as a trigger for its gradual manifestation. As an example, I remember Dr Gabor Mate saying he chose to be a workaholic doctor because that’s the way his brain compensated for being neglected in his childhood, i.e. by being ‘needed’ by the world all the time as a doctor. An individual in that sense along with his or her particulars are a result of the gradual reaction to the environment in one way or the other. K asks Dr Alan Anderson to start his class by admitting that he’s hurt as much as the students.

The consciousness an individual holds (with a particular history to it and continuing to contribute to the environment) is nothing but a part of the stream of the human experiences which are borne out of a reaction to the environment.

As to why what affects individual consciousness is not spread across the whole consciousness of mankind, that’s because you are conflating conscious experience with consciousness, conscious experience of physical pain as I understand it, involves an interpretation happening at some higher levels of the brain. But consciousness with pain as something implicit in it, can only be as a part of experience as in memory, we as human beings give collective meaning to experiences which are organized in certain way and in that sense it’s the same.

Consciousness is the same in the process of understanding itself though differentiated in experiencing itself.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 18 Jun 2019 #103
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 661 posts in this forum Offline

natarajan shivan wrote:
As to why what affects individual consciousness is not spread across the whole consciousness of mankind, that’s because you are conflating conscious experience with consciousness.

Actually that is exactly what I am NOT doing. I am saying we have separate conscious experiences. You do not feel my toe stub.

K is saying there is one consciousness of mankind and separate consciousnesses are an illusion. K is saying that consciousness is its content. And I am trying to clarify exactly how this is true and not true.

This post was last updated by idiot ? Tue, 18 Jun 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 18 Jun 2019 #104
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5723 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
Yes, that is my point. My point is that we do NOT have a shared consciousness with respect to stubbed toes and physically dying. We have separate consciousnesses. And the question is how does this square with K saying there is only one consciousness of mankind and separate consciousnesses are an illusion?

Well that's easily answered. First of all you are wrong on all counts. You don't understand what K means when he uses the word "consciousness" and further more you don't want to know. You are not trying to learn as you suggested when you asked me or others to tell you how you are wrong. You want to defend what you already think you know.

You're trolling this forum, aren't you? You want to show us all how right you are and how wrong K was. What K pointed out challenges your whole life of conditioning. And rather than let that go you have to prove K wrong.

Also, as I pointed out before, not only are you a TROLL but you and "one self" are the same person.

I don't know what others are going to do but I'm not wasting any more time with you. Why don't you find some place else and go play? OK?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 18 Jun 2019 #105
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 1228 posts in this forum Offline

First, we cannot assume that everything that K is saying is right. We must actually see things for our selves.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 18 Jun 2019 #106
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 661 posts in this forum Offline

Peter Kesting wrote:
we cannot assume that everything that K is saying is right. We must actually see things for our selves.

Exactly. And that's what K says, too.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 18 Jun 2019 #107
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 661 posts in this forum Offline

Jack Pine wrote:
I'm not wasting any more time with you.

Okay. Have a nice day.

Jack Pine wrote:
Why don't you find some place else and go play?

Because I'm serious about what K said and interested in exploring it with people.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 18 Jun 2019 #108
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 1228 posts in this forum Offline

As seen here there is no separation. Everything is connected.

Let's suppose there is a something which is not connected. Something that is separate.

To be separate it would have to have not only no contact in the present, but it will have to have had no contact ever in the past. It will also have to come to have no contact ever in the future.

I think we must say that such a separate something is in our reality a void, non-existent.

So we can say that everything is related, Everything is connected. There is no division

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Thu, 20 Jun 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 18 Jun 2019 #109
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 1395 posts in this forum Offline

If k by consciousness means the me then why do we keep using the word consciousness and not the me. Is it because we are ashamed of the me and the word consciousness makes it more sufisticated and worth looking at? If consciousness is the "me" as k said why do we avoid this "me" that is in all of us. I think it is because the word consciousness is not only respectable but it also implies something outside of us. K says remove the word or the symbol and then you can see the real. So to me the word consciousness is a cover up of our insufficiency that we can't understand.(I am not reacting to anyone in particular as Jack pine always does.) . I do think that we cover up our insufficiency with big words like Democrat or Republican or liberal and so on.

This post was last updated by One Self Tue, 18 Jun 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 18 Jun 2019 #110
Thumb_fuzzy6 Ken D United States 43 posts in this forum Offline

Krishnamurti With Buddhist Scholars - On Death - 1979

I'm reluctant to link to this video, because sparks tend to fly over it. It is a fascinating discussion on the subject of the stream of human suffering; if it is possible for a person to step out of that stream and what is the source of the insight that makes this possible.

The most interesting part starts at around 14 minutes in and carries forward to about 50 minutes. Mary Zimbalist is the first participant to point out a logical problem with what Krishnamurti is asserting, and you can take it from there. It's most interesting as I think it is relevant to the discussion of consciousness and its content.

https://youtu.be/np57tASzQyc

"Sow the seed of freedom, which is to awaken intelligence; for with that intelligence you can tackle all the problems of life." Krishnamurti

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 18 Jun 2019 #111
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 661 posts in this forum Offline

Thanks, Ken, for the video recommendation. It's a long one so it will take me a while to get through it. It is definitely relevant. Already K grants that the "body" and the "name" are aspects of separate human beings. I am saying that certain particulars of experience are also, like stubbing your toe. In general, we all obviously experience similar "sorrow, fear, etc." No one disagrees with that. If that's all "you are the world means" then sure, it's true. But I'm saying the particulars on which we differ are also real. And that is precisely where K seems to blur things, de-emphasizing any validity to the separate self. I will continue to watch in bursts when I can.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 18 Jun 2019 #112
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 661 posts in this forum Offline

I continue to watch the video. I'm at about 40 minutes in.

And K is talking about someone he calls "A." A is a manifestation of the stream, the suffering we all share. (K pulls out the aspect of suffering as an example.) A is the stream. A realizes he suffers. A looks at suffering, examines it. A has insight into suffering. A is free of suffering with this insight. A steps out of the stream. A is unique and stands alone.

People discussing with K keep pointing out the difficulties here. Is A a separate individual? No, A is the stream. Then how can the stream step out of the stream? And so on.

There's a mixed up blur of separateness and oneness in describing A. Not to mention even the question of becoming. Is there a factor of time in the movement of A from being the stream to stepping out of the stream? K seems to speak from experience but does not seem to really deal with the separateness/oneness blur.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 18 Jun 2019 #113
Thumb_leaping_fire_frog_by_sirenofchaos natarajan shivan India 87 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
K seems to speak from experience but does not seem to really deal with the separateness/oneness blur.

Further later, he speaks about how the quality of observation enables one to step out of it instantly. Stream as it is, is not complete in itself, it is subject to the dynamics of relationship through observation. Though K appear to struggle with his logic, it appears to me that there is an unmistakable sense of authenticity behind his words.

At 1:35:26 he says ‘there may be a centre in awareness’, which could be thought of as acknowledging a sense of individual self though incapable of choice, but he speaks about it together with ‘attention’ where there isn’t any centre and therefore division. I would suggest that it’s improper to pull out phrases from his talk, say like ‘consciousness IS it’s content’ and then proceed with dissecting or limiting it as a definition. A sense of blur is likely because we can’t yet understand the full import of the message.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 18 Jun 2019 #114
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 661 posts in this forum Offline

Now I'm at about 55 minutes. And the Buddhist scholar is saying you can listen to what the Buddha said and examine and see for yourself if it is true. K says no. True insight is not accepting any religious authority. You must reject them all, Buddhist, Hindu, Christian, because they can taint your investigation and you must investigate these matters for yourself. There must be freedom from the known. I wonder if K realizes that means that we should reject him and not listen to anything he says! We need to investigate for ourselves and not be tainted by anything K says?! As soon as we hear him say this, if we find it to be true, we must immediately stop investigating what K says to see if it is true and start investigating for ourselves from scratch!

This post was last updated by idiot ? Tue, 18 Jun 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 18 Jun 2019 #115
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 661 posts in this forum Offline

natarajan shivan wrote:
A sense of blur is likely because we can’t yet understand the full import of the message.

That may be. Or it may be that K is blurring separateness and oneness. Or it may be that separateness is oneness! Which, by the way, is what some Buddhists say.

In any case, K himself says that it's not good enough to just take it on faith what he is saying and feel that we don't fully understand his message. He says we must put energy into the question and see for ourself what is true, with insight.

And I can see that A is simultaneously the stream, not apart from the stream, and simultaneously free of the stream, with insight. Logically that is oneness and separateness. But K does not address that.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 18 Jun 2019 #116
Thumb_leaping_fire_frog_by_sirenofchaos natarajan shivan India 87 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
Logically that is oneness and separateness.

Nope, logically it is either/or, better word is paradox which get's resolved only in real time.

This post was last updated by natarajan shivan Wed, 19 Jun 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 19 Jun 2019 #117
Thumb_fuzzy6 Ken D United States 43 posts in this forum Offline

I think the analogy with the stream is a fascinating analogy, and sometimes a good analogy can reveal all sorts of issues. Sometimes, though, it may be inappropriate.

The discussion is problematic for a number of reasons. First of all, Mary (who's the brightest one in the bunch) asks if there is anything in the person which is not of the stream? Krishnamurti says no, nothing. No Atman, no soul, etc.

The stream is deterministic, conditioned, and binding. And apparently the insight and intelligence to see this conditioning is neither in the stream, nor in the one enquiring. So from where does this insight come? K provides no answer.

A far deeper problem is this. The person who steps out of this stream and is no longer caught in the current has actually moved away from humanity, but he hasn't brought humanity with him. And the rest of humanity remains locked in the current. So that free person has not affected humanity at all. In fact, the moment he breaks away by stepping out of the stream, his connection with those left in the stream is severed.

Toward the very end, Scott Forbes again raises the issue of where this intelligence comes from but Krishnamurti says he won't play that game any longer.

"Sow the seed of freedom, which is to awaken intelligence; for with that intelligence you can tackle all the problems of life." Krishnamurti

This post was last updated by Ken D Wed, 19 Jun 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 19 Jun 2019 #118
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1440 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
I wonder if K realizes that means that we should reject him and not listen to anything he says! We need to investigate for ourselves and not be tainted by anything K says?! As soon as we hear him say this, if we find it to be true, we must immediately stop investigating what K says to see if it is true and start investigating for ourselves from scratch!

Yes that is, as I see it, the message: reject it all if you want to find the truth. Will you do that? His answer was that you probably won't because that would mean cutting your ties to all that you have become attached to, you'll "put up" with what ever in order to keep them ... and go on. Picking and choosing that which suits you, avoiding that which doesn't. Why pretend differently? That's what we are. That's what we do.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 19 Jun 2019 #119
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 1395 posts in this forum Offline

Watched the video until k says ( about40 minute) that one suffers and one asks why suffer and through investigation and questioning one becomes free of suffering. He calls the investigation insight. K in this video is very clear by what he means by "human consciousness is one". I think idiot is giving wrong importance to superficial differences. You have to be a deep person to relate to what k says about "you are the world".
What is striking by what k says is that he keeps saying the river is there as if it is moving in that room. He says even if the body dies the river goes on manifesting itself in A or B or Z . Indeed we are the manifestation of the river. The river is the whole consciousness of humans which manifests itself in us.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 19 Jun 2019 #120
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 661 posts in this forum Offline

It's a great video, partly because people are really challenging K. Ken, you also found the video where the man stood up in the back of the crowd and started really challenging K. We challenge each other here in this forum and I very much appreciate that. I like seeing K challenged, too. Sometimes the people dialoging with him are so deferential, sycophantic that they don't dig in deep enough. But in this video they are respectful but also questioning sharply.

This post was last updated by idiot ? Wed, 19 Jun 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 91 - 120 of 318 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.)