If you have the patience to watch and listen to yourself, you know you're conditioned, bound by your values, your standards, your beliefs, and that what you think of as freedom is the so-called freedom to choose between this or that. But the very idea of being completely bound and virtually gagged is unthinkable to most people, so they pretend that there is a part of them that is unconditioned. Or worse yet, that they're no longer conditioned at all. But that's beside the point.

The point is that Krishnamurti comes along and says that although you are completely conditioned, hopelessly bound and tethered to your self-image, world-view, and near total dependency on knowledge, you can be free. It's a message of hope, a promise of liberation, something to take seriously, ponder, examine, explore. But what does it mean to take it seriously? If you accept any of it on its face as true, this is not being serious. When K says, "The observer is the observed" and your response is not bafflement but mindless acceptance, you're not serious. Likewise, when you blandly accept the idea that "choiceless awareness" is not yours or mine or anyone's, or that "observation" is impersonal, objective, you're not serious. You're just gulping down what K dished out, and you end up regurgitating in forums like this.

If it was K's intention for you to do that, then K wasn't serious and we can dismiss him as a crackpot or a charlatan. But if one gives him the benefit of the doubt and allows for the possibility that he said what he said because there was no other way to say it, there's a possibility of finding out what he was talking about. If, however, one just accepts everything he said as true, identifies with it and parrots it, there's little or no possibility of ever finding out, and K's work was not only in vain, but is made a mockery of.

This post was last updated by nick carter Wed, 15 Sep 2010.

Krishnamurti pointed. You either look at what he pointed to or you don't. Everything you said above is in the 'don't' category.

"See thought arising; watch it. Without that, all else is illusion and becoming."

Dean R. Smith wrote:
Krishnamurti pointed. You either look at what he pointed to or you don't. Everything you said above is in the 'don't' category.

Looking is one thing but seeing is everything.

nick carter wrote:
Looking is one thing but seeing is everything.

You say that because your 'looking' is in the 'don't' category. If you look, there is seeing.

"See thought arising; watch it. Without that, all else is illusion and becoming."

nick carter wrote:
If, however, one just accepts everything he said as true, identifies with it and parrots it,

seeing it actually points out something true,then...

When you understand something totally in yourself, when you have completely understood , then there is no problem any more .
gb

We are watching, not waiting, not expecting anything to happen but watching without end. JK

This post was last updated by ganesan balachandran Wed, 15 Sep 2010.

ganesan balachandran wrote:
When you understand something totally in yourself, when you have completely understood , then there is no problem any more . gb

This is the kind of statement one comes across constantly in this forum. It's like saying, "When you have X-ray vision you can see through walls". If you have nothing to say, say nothing.

nick carter wrote:
If, however, one just accepts everything he said as true, identifies with it and parrots it, there's little or no possibility of ever finding out, and K's work was not only in vain, but is made a mockery of.

Yes, parroting what K said is of no use. This is the trap in which all followers will fall. But there is another kind of similar conditioned response one should watch for.

Pointing out to others their ignorance and shortcomings can also become an automatic habit. This involves looking at what is written by others with a critical, comparing eye to notice faults.

Is this reaction any different from parroting, Nick ? Can one compare and criticise without pre conceived notions of right and wrong ? What is one to do to not fall in to this trap which is more subtle and ego satisfying ?

FLOW WITH LIFE!

nick carter wrote:
If you have nothing to say, say nothing.

I wonder if there is any one who have nothing to say!!

Don't need K or any, do yourself

Soham netti wrote:
I wonder if there is any one who have nothing to say!!

:)

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

Dr.sudhir sharma wrote:
Pointing out to others their ignorance and shortcomings can also become an automatic habit. This involves looking at what is written by others with a critical, comparing eye to notice faults.
Is this reaction any different from parroting, Nick ? Can one compare and criticise without pre conceived notions of right and wrong ? What is one to do to not fall in to this trap which is more subtle and ego satisfying ?

Fortunately for you I ignore more faults than I comment on.

nick carter wrote:
Fortunately for you I ignore more faults than I comment on.

By your comments, how is my fortune going to get affected ?:-)

My question still remains - ' Are the comments on others' faults (including that of K) conditioned reactions or not ?'

FLOW WITH LIFE!

nick carter wrote:
Dr.sudhir sharma wrote: Pointing out to others their ignorance and shortcomings can also become an automatic habit. This involves looking at what is written by others with a critical, comparing eye to notice faults. Is this reaction any different from parroting, Nick ? Can one compare and criticise without pre conceived notions of right and wrong ??

This is a good question sir,can one compare,and criticize WITHOUT PRECONCEIVED NOTIONS of right and wrong,by this one would ask please look at your responses in the thread on offense sir,no offense intended sir,but it seems like a contradiction to what you,yourself have posted?

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

Dr.sudhir sharma wrote:
My question still remains - ' Are the comments on others' faults (including that of K) conditioned reactions or not ?'

Everything that goes on in this forum is a conditioned reaction.

nick carter wrote:
Everything that goes on in this forum is a conditioned reaction.

Like water is wet! But not really news.

But, having accepted what you say, what next? We are all monkeys in the same cage and some like to posture as keepers, due to their tremendous imitative skills.

What are you waiting for?

Dr.sudhir sharma wrote:
My question still remains - ' Are the comments on others' faults (including that of K) conditioned reactions or not ?'

All psychological reaction is conditioned surely?

Also, focusing and commenting on the faults of 'others' is a movement away from pure observation, and into the security of self-entertainment, one-up-man-ship, and blame, all promoting yet more self-satisfaction.

Isn't this obvious?

Patricia Hemingway wrote:
Also, focusing and commenting on the faults of 'others' is a movement away from pure observation, and into the security of self-entertainment, one-up-man-ship, and blame, all promoting yet more self-satisfaction.
Isn't this obvious?

Yes, no need to state the obvious. But let's face it, the most interesting thing about the people in this forum is their faultiness.
Now and then someone actually says something, but most of the time it's just flatulence.

Paul Davidson wrote:
But, having accepted what you say, what next? We are all monkeys in the same cage and some like to posture as keepers, due to their tremendous imitative skills.

In a cage, posturing is survival. If you could do any more than that, you'd be released.

nick carter wrote:
say nothing.

gb

We are watching, not waiting, not expecting anything to happen but watching without end. JK

Patricia Hemingway wrote:
All psychological reaction is conditioned surely?

Yes, all psychological reactions are conditioned. Now, the next question that arises is this - Is it possible for the mind to make an observation (critical observation too) that has no psychological element attached to it ?

FLOW WITH LIFE!

nick carter wrote:
In a cage, posturing is survival. If you could do any more than that, you'd be released.

When the cage is one's conditioning and by imitative posturing one stays in it, then is freedom/release going to come by doing something more ? If so, then what would that doing be ?

FLOW WITH LIFE!

nick carter wrote:
But let's face it, the most interesting thing about the people in this forum is their faultiness.

Faultiness of others, if reacted to in any manner and for any purpose, will pull the fault finder in to the net of faultiness, have you given this some thought, Nick ?

FLOW WITH LIFE!

Dr.sudhir sharma wrote:
Faultiness of others, if reacted to in any manner and for any purpose, will pull the fault finder in to the net of faultiness, have you given this some thought,

That may be a question most of us might ask ourselves.Defensiveness is another form of violence,it is still coming from conditioning.Thinking does not seem to be the answer here?

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

RICK LEIN wrote:
Thinking does not seem to be the answer here?

Then what is the answer here ?

FLOW WITH LIFE!

Dr.sudhir sharma wrote:
Yes, all psychological reactions are conditioned. Now, the next question that arises is this - Is it possible for the mind to make an observation (critical observation too) that has no psychological element attached to it ?

That is not something that can be theorized about. But while there is a 'judger' separate from the 'judged', there is necessarily a psychological element.

nick carter wrote:
Yes, no need to state the obvious.

Yes obvious, but nevertheless indulged in - constantly.

But let's face it, the most interesting thing about the people in this forum is their faultiness. Now and then someone actually says something, but most of the time it's just flatulence.

And why even bother to notice and judge as 'faultiness'? That is just another form of separation - a 'them' and 'me' statement - the invention of still more images.

Does such judgement help the overall problem of communication, or just make the 'judge' feel self-satisfaction and superiority all over again? In other words - further feed the ego?

All this attention to other people's shortcomings is surely a convenient movement away from observing one's own, is it not?

And where is compassion in all this?

This post was last updated by Patricia Hemingway Thu, 16 Sep 2010.

Patricia Hemingway wrote:
All this attention to other people's shortcomings is surely a convenient movement away from observing one's own, is it not?

And where is compassion in all this?

Excellent thank you!

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

Dr.sudhir sharma wrote:
Then what is the answer here ?

Seeing sir.

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

Dr.sudhir sharma wrote:
Is it possible for the mind to make an observation (critical observation too) that has no psychological element attached to it ?

Sir critical observation? Is there choice in choiceless observation? What does critical observation mean sir? Surely it implies choosing,choice,the weighing of one thing against another? Will more thinking end thinking sir? One would refer you sir to your post #7,you will find your answer in your question.It is in paragraph #2 sir.

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

This post was last updated by RICK LEIN Thu, 16 Sep 2010.

Patricia Hemingway wrote:
That is not something that can be theorized about. But while there is a 'judger' separate from the 'judged', there is necessarily a psychological element.

I feel that once right understanding is in place, then complicated states of working of the mind can be explained logically, rationally and in lay man's language.

When the judge separates from the judged, the purity of perception is compromised. This happens because the energy leaks from total attention and division is the result.

Is total attention an activity of such a part of brain which is incapable of producing thoughts that cause/result in division between observer and observed ? Could this area make a critical judgement while observing and still not have a psychological constituent attaced to thought ?

Is the division occuring because a different part of the brain gets activated where the mind is 'seeing' but still not seeing with clarity ?

Do share if you have made any discovery on these lines, please.

FLOW WITH LIFE!

This post was last updated by Dr.sudhir sharma Thu, 16 Sep 2010.

RICK LEIN wrote:
Sir critical observation? Is there choice in choiceless observation?

There is no choice in choiceless awareness and because of this fact a criticising statement will not be suppressed in this state. Kindly go through my post no. 29 and we will discuss this later.

FLOW WITH LIFE!