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

The Future Of Humanity


Displaying posts 121 - 150 of 318 in total
Wed, 19 Jun 2019 #121
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 641 posts in this forum Offline

Ken D wrote:
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.

K says that someone who has completely changed does affect mankind. But then, as I asked earlier in this thread, why does humanity continue in violence, suffering, fear, etc.? I find it hard to believe that K would say that a complete change in one would mean only a partial change for humanity. So I agree with you, Ken, that it is problematic, but in a somewhat different way.

The Ending of Time:

DB: I think that even if ten or fifteen people were undivided they would exert a force that has never been seen in our history.

K: Tremendous! That's right.

DB: Because I don't think it has ever happened, that ten people have been undivided.

K: That is X's job in life. He says that is the only thing. A group of those ten X's will bring a totally different kind of revolution.

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 19 Jun 2019 #122
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 1186 posts in this forum Offline

To be a human is not merely having two legs and be able to speak. That word human means much more. So going back to the video it is very dull from the audience there to talk about beyond humanity when they don't even know what that word humanity means or signifies..

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 19 Jun 2019 #123
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 1186 posts in this forum Offline

I don't know why I post in here. If there was no krishnamurti the world would have ended by now. It is the effect of people like krishnamurti and Enstien and realistic people like them that we are still alive today I say.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 19 Jun 2019 #124
Thumb_001 Sean Hen Spain 842 posts in this forum Offline

Ken D wrote:
True, but Krishnamurti also implied that a change in one's consciousness has an effect on the whole of human consciousness. That is quite a stretch.

I may be wrong about this, but I understand the following - if just one person can look very closely at, say attachment, observe it, understand it and go beyond it, be free of it, then they open the door for everybody else to do the same.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 19 Jun 2019 #125
Thumb_em3 Ken D United States 29 posts in this forum Offline

One Self wrote:
If there was no krishnamurti the world would have ended by now. It is the effect of people like krishnamurti and Enstien and realistic people like them that we are still alive today I say.

No, the world existed before Krishnamurti and it still does today, and nothing has changed dramatically. Hardly anyone on planet earth has heard of Krishnamurti, even with the advent of the internet and free access to his every word. Sorry. Einstein had a far greater impact on science and our understanding of the physical universe.

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 19 Jun 2019 #126
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 641 posts in this forum Offline

One Self wrote:
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".

Underwear: You are the fashion world. Can we go into this question?

Shirt: Yes.

Underwear: I wonder if we have ever really looked at clothing. It is like a vast stream of fabric. Of course, we each have our own laundry label. But essentially we all share thread, the weaving of that thread into fabric. We may differ outwardly in color, in stripes or polkadots, and all the rest of it. But we are fabric. We are cloth, are we not?

Shirt: Yes, I can see that we all share cloth. We are all similar.

Underwear: Not similar! We are cloth. Each of us is this vast stream of fabric flowing on and on relentlessly.

Shirt: Can we say we are all cut by slave wage workers in third world countries?

Underwear: No, sir. You are the cloth. Let's stay with that. Now what happens when you are thrown away? You understand? What happens when you end up in a pile at the Goodwill donation center? Does this vast stream, does this relentless flow of fabric end?

Shirt: No, sir. It goes on!

Underwear: Precisely. Although one item reaches the landfill, the vast stream of fabric continues, with its garish colors, its hideous greens, its dreadful oranges.

Shirt: But sir, am I not also an individual? My sleeves may be like thousands of other shirts, but I've got this little tear under the arm...

Underwear: Yes, you have your rip just as thousands of shirts and pants and dresses do. We think so highly of our little flaws. We think they make us unique. But no, sir. You are just another piece of clothing, smelly, with food stains, and God knows what other kinds of stains, desperately needing to be laundered, and all the rest of it.

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

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Wed, 19 Jun 2019 #127
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 1186 posts in this forum Offline

Ken D wrote:
Hardly anyone on planet earth has heard of Krishnamurti, even with the advent of the internet and free access to his every word.

The human consciousness is one thing and k has effected it. Me and you can't effect it because we are mediocre and we live in it. History has shown that real revolution has taken place by the minorities.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 20 Jun 2019 #128
Thumb_patricia_1_2016_copy Patricia Hemingway Australia 1924 posts in this forum Offline

Sean Hen wrote:
if just one person can look very closely at, say attachment, observe it, understand it and go beyond it, be free of it, then they open the door for everybody else to do the same.

One Self wrote:
If there was no krishnamurti the world would have ended by now.

One Self wrote:
Me and you can't effect it because we are mediocre and we live in it.

The 'mediocrity' that affects humanity at a very deep level is to always be looking for cause and effect.

Is it not possible to discover the truth of humanity's disorder first-hand, and just stay with the fact of it without all the 'ifs' and 'buts' and 'opening the door for everyone else'?

This post was last updated by Patricia Hemingway Thu, 20 Jun 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 20 Jun 2019 #129
Thumb_001 Sean Hen Spain 842 posts in this forum Offline

Patricia Hemingway wrote:
The 'mediocrity' that affects humanity at a very deep level is to always be looking for cause and effect.

Is it not possible to discover the truth of humanity's disorder first-hand, and just stay with the fact of it without all the 'ifs' and 'buts' and 'opening the door for everyone else'?

Hello Patricia. You have quoted One Self twice and me once. Your second paragraph underneath the three quotes is replying to my point. I'm not sure if your first paragraph is commenting on what I wrote, what One Self wrote or both. Making multiple quotes then replying underneath can cause confusion. The quote from me was in reply to the following:

Ken D wrote:

True, but Krishnamurti also implied that a change in one's consciousness has an effect on the whole of human consciousness. That is quite a stretch.

So the context of what you quoted from me was a reply to what Ken had written. Now you are talking about discovering "the truth of humanity's disorder first hand". Well, I'm not sure if this is going off the topic of this thread but surely the only way to do this is through observation. When I spoke about Krishnamurti "opening the door for everybody" I meant that Krishnamurti pointed the way for others in his talks and writing. For example, after listening to Krishnamurti talking about anger, I do sometimes find my observation of my own anger being sharper. I am quicker on to it as it arises. So discovering humanity's disorder at first hand surely comes down to observing the disorder within ourselves from moment to moment.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 20 Jun 2019 #130
Thumb_em3 Ken D United States 29 posts in this forum Offline

jamie f wrote:
Take that glass of seawater and desalinate it - take all the salt out - and then pour it back into the sea. You have now physically changed the ocean by making it less salty. Only a little bit perhaps, but, after all, this is only an analogy and not real. However, it remains a fact that you have changed an ocean with one glass of water.

That may be so, but in regards to the video, the person who steps out of the stream of conditioning...who is desalinating that person? A third party?

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 20 Jun 2019 #131
Thumb_em3 Ken D United States 29 posts in this forum Offline

jamie f wrote:
If there is anything in what Krishnamurti said, then we have already been affected by the Pepper Tree incident.

No, I doubt it. In fact, this notion bears a scary similarity to the Atonement doctrine in Christianity. One man's life erases the residue of original sin for all humankind.

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 20 Jun 2019 #132
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5608 posts in this forum Offline

I don't know if any one knows how many people have heard or seen or read K. But the basis of much of what he pointed out has been heard by millions without a great many of them realizing it has anything to do with K.

For example, some years back the singer and song writer, John Lennon, came to visit and talk to K in Ojai. I think it was on more than one occasion. Later Lennon wrote the song "IMAGINE". See the words below. It's K put to music.

IMAGINE: by John Lennon

Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today (ah ah ah)

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion, too

Imagine all the people
Living life in peace
You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man

Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world
You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 20 Jun 2019 #133
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 539 posts in this forum Offline

Ken D wrote at 120:
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.

As I see it, the seeming difficulty K had understanding the various questions put to him in this talk and his refusal to respond to this question of Forbes, indicate inattention, inner conflict, contradiction, division. K himself has put the same kinds of questions in other talks (see the next post below for an example). It seemed to me that he was just jumping to conclusions as to what questioners meant and not listening attentively.

At 1:16:20 a young man (you inform us that he is Scott Forbes) asked:

Young Man: For the man who has stepped out of the stream and is no longer a manifestation of the stream, there is something else which is operating. Could we say something about the nature of that thing?
K answers: Which is intelligence. Intelligence is love. Intelligence is compassion.
YM: And from many things you’ve said in the past, that seems to have an independent existence.
K: Obviously.
YM: Even before, or without it manifesting in him.
K: If A’s consciousness is no longer of the stream, his consciousness is entirely different. It’s a different dimension altogether.
YM: And that consciousness existed before he stepped out of the stream, so to speak.
K: Ah, now you are speculating.
YM: Yes, I am.
K: I won’t play with you.

Why does K introduce “an entirely different consciousness, a different dimension altogether” and then refuses to answer a question which, as a result, arose for YM - Scott Forbes - about that new dimension? Scott’s question is the question I myself would have wanted to ask. Obviously, IN the stream that is the self, there is no “altogether different dimension”. I don’t see Scott’s question as speculation at all. Scott numbly agreed that, yes, he was speculating but I don’t think he WAS speculating. He was asking, wanting to understand what K was saying. I think he was shocked, too shocked to challenge K about speculating.

Then another young man says:

YM2: Perhaps another way to say it would be: is there intelligence without the intelligent person?

K: ... Let’s put it another way. Wars have created a great deal of misery. Right? And that misery remains, in the air. Goodness has been also part of man, trying to be good. There’s also that enormous reservoir of both. One doesn’t contribute to that goodness, but one is always contributing to the other.

MZ: Are you saying the other exists only in the human psyche but goodness exists apart from humanity?

K: Let’s put it this way. There is not only A suffering, there is this whole suffering of mankind.

MZ: Or more than mankind. There is suffering.

K: There is suffering. Of course.

Out of the blue, K drops this very fruitful (to me) exchange and turns to one of the Buddhist scholar to talk about meditation.

K: Sir, would you kindly explain what is Buddhist meditation.

The rest of the talk is wasted on K challenging the scholar about meditation. As I see it, he was also inattentive here. K was being what I can only call competitive, petty, conceited aggressive and controlling as he tried to push the Buddhist to say that there is a method to HIS (the Buddhist) meditation.

This is NOT to say that I discard everything K has said. I do not. K is not perfect and K is not infallible and I don’t begrudge him being imperfect and fallible. It does not make less truthful the truths that he pointed out, as I see it. It means that I must be vigilant and see things for myself, not be like a politician who strives to make everything fit a personal “vision”, personal desires, and so on.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 20 Jun 2019 #134
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 539 posts in this forum Offline

The following extracts are what I referenced in the first paragraph of my previous post. Transcribed by me (with ellipses) from https://jkrishnamurti.org/content/stepping-out-....

Dialogue with Alain Naudé, Malibu, January 26, 1972:

At 5:30 Alain Naudé says there must arise for every man the question: "One MUST come to ask a question: is there another dimension....?"

(6:13) K: I wonder if you would ask that question ... Your first question would be: ... How am I to step out of this misery, this terrible chaos, shallowness and all the rest of it. And is it possible? If I was in the stream, that’s the only question I would ask. Not whether gods exist, don’t exist … If I was in the stream ... I would say to myself, “Is there in me a place where there is no corruption, where there is real absolute peace, order? I would like to get at that, in spite of all the misery … my concern would be, Is there in this chaos, which is me … a place where the mind is completely quiet, full of beauty and the rest of it? I think I would ask that question.

(12:48) Then my next question is, "Is there something in ME - not invented, not supposed, not self-created myth - is there in me a peace, a silence, a beauty that is not corruptible, that doesn’t belong to the vulgar stream, that is not an illusion? … Is there something real when I have discarded the whole human culture … out of myself, is there something … real, unadulterated peace? I ask the question whether there is - when I have thrown out the whole invention of man …. is there a state of mind that’s really timeless? … Now how do I find out? A strange thing happens, because you have thrown out everything, your mind instantly has a different quality.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 20 Jun 2019 #135
Thumb_leaping_fire_frog_by_sirenofchaos natarajan shivan India 87 posts in this forum Offline

Ken D wrote:
That may be so, but in regards to the video, the person who steps out of the stream of conditioning...who is desalinating that person? A third party?

In not attempting to verbally bring a third party and resolve the logical struggle throughout the dialogue, K is refusing to reduce a living reality (of the real time dialogue) to a description which will instantly turn the whole affair into a myth (of individual soul or of the possibility of changing the total consciousness) for everyone involved and effectively ending the communication. He was continually fighting within and without against such a reduction until silence takes over. Such is the paradox between separateness and oneness, between possibility and impossibility, that it can get resolved only in real time. Such is the nature of freedom that it can be whatever it wants to be without giving an inch away in responsibility.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 20 Jun 2019 #136
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 1186 posts in this forum Offline

K says in the video that one suffers . Suffering is the main part of the river and one asks "why suffer?" . Through questioning and doubting one discovers the causes of suffering (and by eliminating the causes of suffering one is free ). In other words one has stepped out of the streem of consciousness (or The "Me"). Unfortunately people in that room are more interested in results as Mr Huguette also is . They are not concerned with ending suffering or sorrow. They want to know what takes place when they step out of the river! And k sees what they want, which is nothing but more escapes from suffering. Merry wants to know if part of the river is spiritual and k says nothing in the river is spiritual. The Buddhist wants to believe that there is intelligence in the river and k says no There isn't . They want to play word game with k and k knows it and refuses to play their game (obviously).

This post was last updated by One Self Thu, 20 Jun 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 20 Jun 2019 #137
Thumb_em3 Ken D United States 29 posts in this forum Offline

One Self wrote:
Merry wants to know if part of the river is spiritual and k says nothing in the river is spiritual. The Buddhist wants to believe that there is intelligence in the river and k says no . They want to play word game with k and k knows it(obviously).

But he does not tell us how this intelligence appears as he has already defined the person as nothing but the stream of suffering and conditioning.

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 20 Jun 2019 #138
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 641 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
...K was being what I can only call competitive, petty, conceited aggressive and controlling...

I haven't reached the parts of the video that you refer to yet to know whether or not I agree with you. But at the parts I have seen, K looks a bit tired and like he didn't get enough sleep. Of course, I cannot know but that's my impression.

I must say it is refreshing to read someone questioning K like you are doing, Huguette. To me it is a mark of maturity. Some here give lip service to not taking K as an authority but nevertheless invariably and inevitably accept what he says as authoritative. It is possible to have been profoundly and deeply touched by K and still keep a questioning, even skeptical, investigating attitude.

This post was last updated by idiot ? Thu, 20 Jun 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 20 Jun 2019 #139
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 641 posts in this forum Offline

natarajan shivan wrote:
K is refusing to reduce a living reality (of the real time dialogue) to a description which will instantly turn the whole affair into a myth (of individual soul or of the possibility of changing the total consciousness) for everyone involved and effectively ending the communication. He was continually fighting within and without against such a reduction until silence takes over. Such is the paradox between separateness and oneness, between possibility and impossibility, that it can get resolved only in real time.

I very much appreciate what you are saying here, natarajan shivan. It does feel that K struggles to take what for him is a felt, non-verbal reality and bring it into the discussion in a way that is true to it and also communicates. He is reaching to bring what is beyond words and thought into communication.

But he is using the metaphor and image of "the stream" and it's only going to go so far. If am the stream and the stream is me, then how do I jump out of myself? The stream is jumping out of the stream? The imagery and logic break down.

This is why we have to be clear, crystal clear, on what is being represented and how. We have to watch all the nuance of what is and is not a separate human being, the whole of mankind, and the outside of time. These are all quite different things. And they are all inseparable. As you say it's "paradoxical," not reachable by the thinking brain. But at the same time great care must be taken. It is all too easy for assumption and misunderstanding to come in, and the inexpressible is no excuse for that.

This post was last updated by idiot ? Thu, 20 Jun 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 20 Jun 2019 #140
Thumb_leaping_fire_frog_by_sirenofchaos natarajan shivan India 87 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
at the same time great care must be taken. It is all too easy for assumption and misunderstanding to come in, and the inexpressible is no excuse for that.

Is it so? What if it’s a real time commentary on exactly what’s happening outside of the discussion and within the total situation? What if a pause is made by the listeners to grasp the message instead of try tying together the logic? What if it’s an outright refusal to help them help themselves, and in doing that,not only intending but making the opposite concrete? K is a teacher.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 20 Jun 2019 #141
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 641 posts in this forum Offline

All I'm saying is that if something is beyond thought, that won't stop people from ascribing all kinds of ideas to it. I am not implying that anyone in particular is doing that. I'm just saying we have to be careful about that.

This post was last updated by idiot ? Thu, 20 Jun 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 21 Jun 2019 #142
Thumb_001 Sean Hen Spain 842 posts in this forum Offline

I've just watched a 14 minute video of Krishnamurti talking about the common consciousness. At minute 11 of this video, K talks about group consciousness in certain animals and how these animals now learn much more quickly. If you're interested, you can watch the video here.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 21 Jun 2019 #143
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 1186 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Like all the religions, esoteric or not, they are all "inventions" to explain our presence here. And they all may derive from, have their origin in that "other dimension" that K. didn't want to go into.

It surprises me that even though we think we understand k we are still attached to the superstition and falsehood of religions. When are we going to wake up? Religion and politics are the same and always been the same. Let's not be fooled by them. There is no other dimension that religions have their origin in. There is only this mess that we are in. More wars and destructions due to religions and politic which are all created by cunning minds.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 21 Jun 2019 #144
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 641 posts in this forum Offline

Sean Hen wrote:
a 14 minute video of Krishnamurti talking about the common consciousness (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKW7cHrAIqI)

I didn't find this highly edited video to add anything new to what we are discussing. In it, K talks about the common consciousness of mankind, how you are that group consciousness, and how that means that you are not an individual as you think you are. Those are all issues we have been discussing. And I for one have been questioning: Just because we share so much, that doesn't make us the same. And it doesn't negate parts of us that are individual. By contrast, K says it means, "You are no longer an individual." (near the end of this video)

This post was last updated by idiot ? Fri, 21 Jun 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 21 Jun 2019 #145
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1425 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Why does K introduce “an entirely different consciousness, a different dimension altogether” and then refuses to answer a question which, as a result, arose for YM - Scott Forbes - about that new dimension? Scott’s question is the question I myself would have wanted to ask. Obviously, IN the stream that is the self, there is no “altogether different dimension”. I don’t see Scott’s question as speculation at all.

No but any 'answer' about 'it' isn't going to 'be' it and as I think someone said will just become another myth. I was looking at all this this morning as 'energy', finer energy and coarser energy ... I saw 'thought', the 'word' as the coarser trying to 'embrace' the finer. But it can't can it? The word isn't the thing period. The 'stream' isn't the stream. He was saying that all the explanations about who we are, why we're here and where are we headed are just "inventions" in the 'stream' (which is another invention!) But I agree that he did bring it up and that it was right to ask him to elaborate but he wouldn't and my guess is that 'it' is indescribable and 'thought' will take and run with it. But I don't doubt that he has 'seen' some thing quite clearly... and I think "the house is on fire" is a direct advisory from that 'other dimension'.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 21 Jun 2019 #146
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 539 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
But he is using the metaphor and image of "the stream" and it's only going to go so far. If am the stream and the stream is me, then how do I jump out of myself? The stream is jumping out of the stream? The imagery and logic break down.

idiot ? wrote:
It is all too easy for assumption and misunderstanding to come in...

Idiot,

Are you sure that assumption has not “come in” when you say the logic of the stream breaks down? Any metaphor obviously only goes so far. Beyond a certain point, the intellect and reason must drop the metaphor. Beyond a certain point, everything that is known must be dropped. It is when one becomes attached to the metaphor itself, or attached to the desire to prove the metaphor wrong, etc., that assumption and misunderstanding come in, isn’t it? What is important is to understand oneself, not the metaphor. I think the importance of the metaphor of the stream of self is that it illustrates how the mind is carried or driven by pressures and currents which it is not aware of and does not understand. This powerful current is seen in mobs, in society, in politics, religion, education, fashion, entertainment, and so on. The “self” (the fragment) who is so carried or driven thinks that “he or she” is in control, thinks that he is acting out of his own intelligent choices, convictions or morality, and so on.

When I am “in” the stream, “I am” the self. That state of self-ignorance obstructs or blocks intelligence and love. Self is ignorance. The stream of consciousness, of self, of conditioning, of ignorance clouds the entire mind. It does not destroy intelligence; it clouds intelligence. But the ignorance of the stream or the self is NOT the totality of mind. Intelligence, love, compassion, are not OF or IN the stream. The total mind is thought and time, also intelligence, beauty, love, compassion, which are one indivisible quality, not a personal quality, not a quality of self. And without intelligence, there can be no understanding of relationship. So there can be no understanding IN the stream. “Stepping out” of the stream of suffering means the ending of ignorance, the freeing of the mind, as I see it.

There is a darkness in the wholeness of the mind which is self - which is put together by thought. But self is not the whole of thought and not the whole of the human being. The darkness invades, occupies, takes over, commandeers the human being, the human mind. This darkness is this stream, this powerful current, which has flowed through the generations, inwardly as self and outwardly as society. In the stream, there is nothing no love, no intelligence, nothing that is not put together by thought. So this is the “me” which is the stream.

And there is the “me” which is the whole human being - love, intelligence, compassion, thought or intellect, and so on - the “me” which observes, which needs to communicate in relationship. The whole human being needs (so far) a functional or utilitarian “me” in order to communicate.

As I see it, the human being who suffers, who has been observing his mind and has a certain understanding, has insight into the nature of self, into the root of suffering and into the fact that there is NOTHING he can do to escape suffering or end self. That suffering human can divest himself of his attachment to anger and fear and all their tributaries. So that he can observe them but not be led to action by the conflict that he “should” do something about them. He is not tethered to them, not compelled by them. He simply observes, learns, finds out about life beyond self. That is stepping out of the stream, to me.

http://jiddu-krishnamurti.net/en/awakening-of-i...:

So, to find that reality one must understand oneself, the structure and the nature of the self; and the structure and the nature of oneself is measurable by thought. It is measurable in the sense that thought can perceive its own activities, thought can see what it has created, what it has denied, what it has accepted; and when one realizes the limitations of thought, then perhaps one can go into that which lies beyond thought.

The thought which "can perceive its own activities" is not the self which is a fragment of thought. It is the unfragmented intellect, as I see it.

But I depart from K when he says "to find that reality". I think that self-understanding is not “to find that reality” as K says. Above all, one simply hungers for understanding on its own … not “in order to...”. No?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 21 Jun 2019 #147
Thumb_001 Sean Hen Spain 842 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
I didn't find this highly edited video to add anything new to what we are discussing.

Yes, the part where he goes to the root of the complex question of toe stubbing was probably edited out as was his observations on the commonality of shirts and underwear. Pity about that.

However, at minute 11 on the video he does give a concrete example of how the common consciousness of a group of rats changed dramatically in experiments. His passion when he says, "..there is the group consciousness that is operating. You understand this? I hope you understand this" seems to transmit the importance that he gives to this point being grasped.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 21 Jun 2019 #148
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 539 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote at #145:
But I agree that he did bring it up and that it was right to ask him to elaborate but he wouldn't and my guess is that 'it' is indescribable and 'thought' will take and run with it.

Dan,

You might be right but I don't think Scott WAS asking for a description of the indescribable when he asked "And that consciousness existed before he stepped out of the stream, so to speak."

In the bits of conversation with Alain Naude quoted above, K said:

How am I to step out of this misery, this terrible chaos, shallowness and all the rest of it. And is it possible? If I was in the stream, that’s the only question I would ask.

Is this "how" a search for a method? Is this "is it possible" speculation? Obviously not.

It seemed to me that K was eager to leave the exchange with Scott and others in order to challenge the Buddhist scholar on meditation. I could be wrong.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 21 Jun 2019 #149
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 641 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Any metaphor obviously only goes so far. Beyond a certain point, the intellect and reason must drop the metaphor.

Of course, that was my point.

Huguette . wrote:
Beyond a certain point, everything that is known must be dropped.

Yes, in subsequent posts we discussed the beyond words and thought.

Huguette . wrote:
In the stream, there is nothing no love, no intelligence, nothing that is not put together by thought. So this is the “me” which is the stream.

And there is the “me” which is the whole human being - love, intelligence, compassion, thought or intellect, and so on - the “me” which observes, which needs to communicate in relationship.

Now here you go further than K is willing to. Is love, intelligence inherent in the whole human being or is it "the other?" When K says to look into things for yourself, he is implying that within you is the unknown, love, intelligence, that is not of the stream. On the other hand, K talks about "the other" and in The Future of Humanity, part 2, K contrasts "the mind" with "the brain." "The brain" is subject to conditioning and is basically "the stream" and "the me." By contrast, "the mind," which K says is different than "the brain," may or may not be part of the whole human being. It may be "universal" as K reluctantly agrees with DB in calling it.

Of course, if the outer is the inner, this is a distinction without a difference. Is love in the whole self? Is love outside of and beyond self? Perhaps, yes and yes. K generally hedges on this, and if anything leans towards "other" rather than "self."

Entire schools of Buddhism are divided over whether enlightenment is reached by "self power" or "other power." And of course, there is the view that these are not different.

But this question definitely gets at what it felt like K was avoiding in the long video. He doesn't want to say there is a "how" to get out of the stream. He doesn't want to say there is something in the human that can step out of the stream. He doesn't want to say there is something "other" that must operate for there to be stepping out of the stream. He doesn't want to freeze the unsayable truth into a verbal understanding.

This post was last updated by idiot ? Fri, 21 Jun 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 21 Jun 2019 #150
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3169 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
K talks about the common consciousness of mankind, how you are that group consciousness, and how that means that you are not an individual as you think you are. Those are all issues we have been discussing. And I for one have been questioning: Just because we share so much, that doesn't make us the same.

Functionally our consciousness is the same...whether we are an atheist or a Fundamentalist Christian or Hindu. We all have beliefs, ideals, conclusions, ambitions, fears, attachments, desires, hopes, assumptions. Functionally we are the same in that sense. And that’s the sense K is talking of, as I see it.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 121 - 150 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.)