Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
Experimenter's Corner | moderated by John Raica

Back to Basics


Displaying all 29 posts
Page 1 of 1
Tue, 16 May 2017 #1
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 583 posts in this forum Offline

It may be the right moment to have a fresh look at the basic terms used by K when refering to the everyday functioning of the human brain : thought, time, consciousness, the 'observer', conflict, sorrow, intelligence, etc.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 16 May 2017 #2
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 583 posts in this forum Offline

I would begin with a widely used term used by K: 'thought' -not to mention that we are also 'thinking' practically all the time.
K's most common definition for 'thought' was 'the response of memory' and he's sometimes suplying the example of someone asking you a question : if you are very familiar with the subject, the answer comes almost instantly. If the question implies a more elaborate memory search, it takes a longer time to answer and if no data regarding that specific 'fact' has been previosly recorded, your honest answer is 'I don't know'. As simple as that !

However, the actual 'thinking' process is far more sophisticated, so the 'simple' exemple given above, which even the proverbial 'poor peasant' or 'simple mind' could easily grasp, can often be 'misleading' since there are a lot of missing parts of this 'Thought Puzzle' which are implicitly left for us to find out for... homework. So, while the simplicity of our enquiry is definitely a 'must' we should perhaps consider the aphorism of the last century mathematician, Von Neuman who said "In Mathematics everything should be expressed in the simplest form possible. But...not 'simpler'"

This post was last updated by John Raica Tue, 16 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 16 May 2017 #3
Thumb_hot-sale-font-b-cool-b-font-cat-animal-poster-custom-font-b-wallpaper-b-font Jan Kasol Czech Republic 19 posts in this forum Offline

IMHO, the only difficult term of the above is intelligence. It is notoriously difficult to define even in the ordinary sense (are octopi intelligent?), but K uses it to describe the intelligence, that comes into being after you fully comprehend and thus transcend the self. K's definition of thought as a reaction of memory to some external or internal challenge is good. I would only add two remarks: there are different levels of thought and emotional reactions are thought too. The more general term (used in science) is cognition

Brain is build hiearchically - spine, brainstem, middle brain, hemispheres. The more primitive parts of the brain we share with other mammals/animals - brainstem or limbic system. The neocortex is most developed in humans and is responsible for higher thought such as abstract thinking. I guess (I may be projecting this onto you, so appology if I do) that many of you understand thought as the higher abstract thinking, which is responsible for verbal thought, theories, beliefs etc., but you are unaware or insufficiently aware of the deeper thought. This deeper thought is more emotional, possibly even non-verbal. Animals think in this nonverbal manner. And so it happens, that you feel anxiety or inner tension and you are unaware where it comes from, so you search with your intellect. This anxiety is the deeper thought, a deeper emotional reaction to some unconscious thought. What K says is that you first have to silence the intellect to be able to listen to these deeper levels of thought. What happens here on the forum and elswhere is that people are living in the intellect, so they just scratch the surface and thus will never get anywhere. You can explain, and explain, and explain, but until you become aware of the deeper layers of your mind, of your unconscious fears, reactions, desires, feelings of insufficiency, guilt, shame, inferiority, you will not move forward. Then you can endlessly argue about duality, God, effort, thought, but if you are unaware of yourself, of your deeper motives, emotions, reactions, all your activity will be just beating a dead horse.

So, to emphasize it again, thought is not just the intellect, that is just the surface. There are deeper layers of thought (cognition). Thought needs not to be just verbal. You can watch this fascinating documentary to convince yourself what the human brain is capable of.

To quote Krishnamurti

"We must begin to be self-conscious, which most of us are not; in bringing the hidden into the open, into the light, we discover the various causes of disharmony, of suffering. This alone will help to bring about a life of fulfilment and intelligent happiness. Without this liberation from the hidden, the concealed, our efforts must lead us to delusions. Until we discover, through experiment, our subtle and deep limitations, with their reactions, and so free ourselves from them, we shall lead a life of confusion and strife. For these limitations prevent the pliability of mind-emotion, making it incapable of true adjustment to the movement of life. This lack of pliability is the source of our egotistic competition, fear and the pursuit of security, leading to many comforting illusions. Though we may think we have found truth, bliss, and objectify the abstract idea of God, yet, while we remain unconscious of the hidden springs of our whole being, there cannot be the realization of truth. The mouthing of such words as truth, God, perfection, can have no deep significance and import."

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Thu, 18 May 2017 #4
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 583 posts in this forum Offline

MIND- The New Perceptive Instrument

It is probably the most vaguely described term (or...'the best kept secret' ?) ever raised by Krishnamurti. And 'experientally' it makes a lot of sense: only after the self-centred consciousness is being emptied of its all ' psycho-residual content' one may be able to describe its qualities and/or to trace a notoriously 'pathless' trail to it. And the reciprocal statement is also true: as long as the egotistic process of thought is in command , the 'mind' is just the faithful display of the psychological content. The latest post in the What are the Teachings ?' thread does offer a few 'negative' clues to its experiential aproach

This post was last updated by John Raica Thu, 18 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 18 May 2017 #5
Thumb_hot-sale-font-b-cool-b-font-cat-animal-poster-custom-font-b-wallpaper-b-font Jan Kasol Czech Republic 19 posts in this forum Offline

I think K differentiated 2 kinds of mind: the individual mind and universal mind (his words from early talks) or the progressive self and the eternal self (his words from the early talks). The individual/progressive mind is created by thought, by conditioning, by material process in the brain - it is the mind we are all too familiar with. For the universal mind, K used many synonyms - intelligence, pure being, emptiness, nothingness, silence.
I have told here several times the analogy with the mirror. Is is not my analogy, exactly the same analogy was used by Rumi, by K, by Meister Eckhart, by zen. If the mirror is stained by the ego process and its attachments, its egotism, it is not pure and there is distortion. If you clean the mirror (= purify your mind, heart, = silence your mind, = empty your mind etc), then the mirror is clean and it is the pure being, the universal mind, the intelligence. From the discussions with Bohm, you can clearly see, that K believed that this universal mind is no more material, is no more a product of thought. This universal mind is the mind of everyone and everything. I described it in #2 as pure being. Either study Krishnamurtis early talks, where he is much more open about these things, or study his dialogues with Bohm, where he is again more open, for example here they talk about 2 kinds of mind.
http://jkrishnamurti.org/krishnamurti-teachings...

This post was last updated by Jan Kasol Thu, 18 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 18 May 2017 #6
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 136 posts in this forum Offline

Jan Kasol wrote:
If the mirror is stained by the ego process and its attachments, its egotism, it is not pure and there is distortion.

Regarding the 'mirror' analogy, I don't see it as being "stained by the ego" etc. Either 'what is' is reflected in the 'mirror' or it is not. The 'mirror', pure 'being', pure 'perception' is incorruptible, it simply sees what is there or it doesn't. So 'cleansing' the 'mirror'(purifying mind and heart etc.) brings in time, i.e."I am not this or that 'yet' but when I am then something will take place...." If the 'mirror is there, (attention?), it will 'reflect what is there: fear, confusion, 'confidence' laziness etc., the attempt to 'change' what is reflected to something other than what is 'seen', is where the "quickness" is needed to detect that conflict-causing process.

K.: So where there is a ( mentality of 'self-?) becoming' you must have psychological time. That 'becoming' is illusory. The 'fact' is what you are at the moment: your anger, your reactions, your fears, look at it. So ( thinking of oneself in terms of ?) time is a major factor of fear.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Thu, 18 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 18 May 2017 #7
Thumb_hot-sale-font-b-cool-b-font-cat-animal-poster-custom-font-b-wallpaper-b-font Jan Kasol Czech Republic 19 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
If the 'mirror is there, (attention?), it will 'reflect what is there: fear, confusion, 'confidence' laziness etc., the attempt to 'change' what is reflected to something other than what is 'seen', is where the "quickness" is needed to detect that conflict-causing process.

Either the mirror reflects your own projections, or when you become as nothing, it will reflect something else. The word "what is" is problematic. Because "what is" appears different to a selfless mind and to an egotistic mind. What is the relationship of the observer to "what is"?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 18 May 2017 #8
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 136 posts in this forum Offline

Jan Kasol wrote:
What is the relationship of the observer to "what is"?

I would say that the observer is 'what is'.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 18 May 2017 #9
Thumb_hot-sale-font-b-cool-b-font-cat-animal-poster-custom-font-b-wallpaper-b-font Jan Kasol Czech Republic 19 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
I would say that the observer is 'what is'.

and what is the relationship of this insight to freedom?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 20 May 2017 #10
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 583 posts in this forum Offline

Just a sensible proposition on the experiential aspect of the 'mind vs brain' issue:

According to K , our consciousness ('as we know it'...) 'is' (indissolubly related to) its 'content'. Which is implicitly meaning that in the absence of its 'ego-centric' content , this 'emptied' consciousness would be an (universally) intelligent 'mind', which then would act in the light of 'insight' ( academically the problem is ...solved) The major experiential issue involved is this 'emptying' of the psychological content, which appears to many as a highly unlikely 'psychological action' -something very similar to throwing away the 'baby' with the dirty bathing water. Same issue with the 'psychological ending' of the self - not only 'who' will end it, since it is a thought projected virtual entity, what is there to...terminate?
Just a mental 'illusion' ?

And here we're reaching one of Dr Bohm major conundrums in his 'Ending of Time' dialogues with K - if the 'self is just an 'illusion'...how come that it has such an enormous vitality & resilience ? And K's sybillinic answer that 'Illusions have an enormous vitality' didn't clarify the issue either...

Now this does certainly represent a 'dead end' for any earnest & sincere psy-inquirer since the very possibility of a practical solution seems to vaporize in thin air. I would therefore introduce ( just for exploratory purposes ) the action-verb 'dis-engaging' ( rather than the traditional term 'detachment'- the natural opposite of 'attachment')
So then the new proposition to be checked out experientially would be: the intelligent 'mind' ( the non-material support of human consciousness) can dis-engage (or disentangle) itself from its intricate temporal 'engagements'. There's no need for any knowledgeable 'rationale' in this - since it is either seen as absolute necessity for an authentic inner freedom or... not.

I believe that K did actually speak of this very issue in terms of 'non-action' (as the highest form of action) - but again this is putting even the most earnest thinking brain on a loop- since one can eventually agree on the idea of a silent 'non-action' , but then...what does one 'do' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 20 May 2017 #11
Thumb_hot-sale-font-b-cool-b-font-cat-animal-poster-custom-font-b-wallpaper-b-font Jan Kasol Czech Republic 19 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
So be it. Maybe Jan will elaborate on how he sees the "relationship".

I think that there is no relationship. The observer is the center of illusion and all he ever observes are the projections of his conditioning, after which he is constantly chasing. The observer (=will) is effort, resistance, which is driven by fear or desire. There is no observer without effort. And the observer can be ended by an integral insight of the mind into the process of will, fear, desire, effort and time. The observer is the will, fear, desire, effort and time. When the observer is not, there is freedom.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 20 May 2017 #12
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 136 posts in this forum Offline

Jan Kasol wrote:
. The observer is the will, fear, desire, effort and time.

Agreed and in that 1928 talk you posted, K breaks 'desire' into two: the desire for the non-essential and for the essential (the realization of our true being), an important distinction for me since I had thought of it, as it manifests in the 'psychological', as being a 'problem' and not the creative life force that it is with the potential to 'burn through' the non-essential, (sense of separateness, fear of death, self-centeredness, one's improper conduct, etc.)

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sat, 20 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 20 May 2017 #13
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 3 posts in this forum Offline

John Perkins. wrote:
never attempt to ensure for themselves their own continuity. They take food when they're hungry for example, as opposed to amassing surplus against contingency.

Not quite so, as with squirrels, for example. Then again, you don;t see many billionaire squirrels. But look at it more roundly, when a cat secures its territory it is precisely doing what you say animals don't do, amassing, but in this case it is land which holds its bounty, not the bounty itself. These tendencies exist strongly in many animals but are contained by the natural order of things, as they are. In humankind, they have the capacity to run rampant for two reasons, man's physical capacity to harness nature and his mental capacity to do so. Put simply, nature never evolved the stop button to its processes.

John Perkins. wrote:
But pre the arrival of self consciousness there were no 'inner needs'.

Again, I get the point but it is only partly right in its expression. Animals do have inner needs, for the feelings of security and so on, but they tend to lessen with maturity. You must know that elephants cry when they lose their laved ones, birds pine, dogs wail and so on. The emotional template was established before humankind evolved its current brain. When animals physical needs are not met they experience a psychic or psychological disturbance which propels them to try to meet their needs. For every outer need there is the essential inner disturbance which leads towards its satisfaction.

It's not intelligence that leads the horse to water (though that is involved) but thirst, which is a subjective state of inner need. What seems to be different in humankind is that its needs become displaced, the objects of their satisfaction can be changed, exalted by thought, abstracted beyond recognition and in short, made totally neurotic. The key factor in this is the emergence of complex thought.

I think I'm not differing with you on this, John, just making some additional and relevant observations. Self-consciousness is an accelerator of the processes but the key factor is thought itself, the larger part of which is not generally self-conscious.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 21 May 2017 #14
Thumb_hot-sale-font-b-cool-b-font-cat-animal-poster-custom-font-b-wallpaper-b-font Jan Kasol Czech Republic 19 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Agreed and in that 1928 talk you posted, K breaks 'desire' into two: the desire for the non-essential and for the essential (the realization of our true being), an important distinction for me since I had thought of it, as it manifests in the 'psychological', as being a 'problem' and not the creative life force that it is with the potential to 'burn through' the non-essential

K's attributed different meanings to the words essential and non-essential at different times. Here he (probably) means essential is the effort which leads to liberation and non-essential everything else. At other times, he uses it in the context of opposites and choice. Thought creates opposites, measures, and then chooses the essential and avoids the non-essential and this is the process of ignorance.

Pure being cannot be arrived at by any effort, because every effort is becoming. But I believe that effort is necessary for liberation nevertheless - effort to understand yourself, effort to pierce through the many layers of ignorance, effort to know yourself, effort to reveal all the tricks of the mind to yourself. But in the final stage, all effort has to cease, when there is an integral perception of the whole process of ignorance. How to arrive at this integral perception is the real question. K thought that he would server as a mirror to the people and they would know themselves through him, he advised that relationships should serve as our mirror in which we would know ourselves. The "essential" thing is: we should know ourselves.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 06 Jun 2017 #15
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 583 posts in this forum Offline

Just a quick observation regarding K's indiscriminate use of the generic term 'thought':

In his earlier period K was far more 'psychologically' tolerant: 'thinking - feeling' , then (intelligent) thinking contrasted with thought, then 'mind-in- the heart', then...only 'thought' . Now, given that an overwhelming part of his 'live audiences' were...natural 'thinkers' his latter lopsided choice could have been intended either as a 'frontal challenge' to his 'thought addicted' audience or simply a 'rhetorical' choice. Now, since we are on a 'back to basics' thread, perhaps we can differentiate more clearly this apparent confusion :

For starters we can regard 'thought'- the mechanical (memory related) function of the brain - as an 'onboard computer like those installed on the more sophisticated cars - instant warnings for 'doors not closed properly', 'seat belt not buckled', 'low gas level' and so on & on. The next level of our everyday thinking is not so strictly mechanical since it requires a decision based on some intelligent choice - what is the best course of action in order to optimise for -energy, money, risks, or simply 'troubles' ?
The uppermost, prioritary level of this thinking process is that of the 'decision maker' or 'thinker', ' optimiser', etc, and the brain is taking good care to secure for it a continuity in time - as safe as the surrounding conditions allow.

Now, technically speaking al these 'pyramidal' levels of thought can be modelled and programmed into the 'artificial intelligence' of any modern super-computer that would correctly predict 95% ( or more) of the average human behaviour, with the same accuracy as the reliable weather forecasts. So much for our 'brave new world'... And this would probably justify - in the eyes of any ET - the generic term of 'thought' used by K almost by default (hmmm...could this choice of words have been 'mechanical' too ?)

Now from here we all know (less or more) in what direction is going K's ('thoughtful' ?) situational analysis - a total awareness (attention, observer-free observation) of this mechanistic, self-perpetrating thought process can bring it to an 'end of game' situation, from where the actual possibility for the human brain to reconsider its core activity in terms of direct perception and 'insight'.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 06 Jun 2017 #16
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 136 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
Now from here we all know (less or more) in what direction is going K's ('thoughtful' ?) situational analysis - a total awareness (attention, observer-free observation) of this mechanistic, self-perpetrating thought process can bring it to an 'end of game' situation, from where the actual possibility for the human brain to reconsider its core activity in terms of direct perception and 'insight'.

And this K. seemed to 'take for granted' that anyone interested in what he was saying could actually 'do' this. When he said, "be aware of every thought, every feeling during the day" etc, I saw the 'impossibility' of it as far as I was concerned and wondered if others could actually do this... I 'was' my thought, who was it that could also be 'aware' of it at the same time? Now 'over time' there has arisen a different understanding of the different 'levels' of thinking. 'Freedom' it seems to me can only lie in the 'stage' you describe, quoted above.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 08 Jun 2017 #17
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 583 posts in this forum Offline

In trying to 'unzip' the krishnamurtian concept of 'time', we should -perhaps only for starters - consider the 'temporal constraints' of our everyday self-centred thinking: if we want to keep as is, or even upgrade our comfortable material & psychological 'status quo' there are a few ( or a lot ?) of points to be constantly kept under control (in terms of family matters, job, taxes, etc) .

Our self-centred ( or rather self identified ???) thinking process starts from the basic assumption that it must continue in a rather uncertain 'tomorrow' and for this it has to anticipate most - if not all- of the possible factors that can endanger this continuity- for ourselves, our family, community, country or...planet.
And obviously, the more we think about it, the more 'points where things can go wrong' -real or imaginary - will be anticipated . And the more rigorous our analysis , the more expensive & sophisticated the preventive measures ( see the 'trump-wall') .

Now, given that the average human brain is not at all good in differentiating the 'actual' factors from the 'imaginary' ones, we can see that this 'average human brain' is creating for its own security a long list of 'temporal constraints' - various projected 'trains of thought' prospecting the future . And the priorities vary according to our area of specialisation, and accordingly a lot of potentially disrupting (real or imaginary) factors are placed on a waiting list, and so on & on. The result is obviously a very busy brain, constantly struggling to anticipate & priorities his future actions

Now in the 'holistic' K terminology this would be the process of 'thought-time' - which -if we want to live a conflict-free life - has to come to an end ... A 'psychological' challenge pretty much amounting to 'breaking through an (invisble ?) blank wall'. However, seeing the true nature and dimension of his challenge... could be of some help

This post was last updated by John Raica Thu, 08 Jun 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 08 Jun 2017 #18
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 136 posts in this forum Offline

The new perceptive 'instrument', as I see it, comes about through the realization that thought-time has developed from a 'misplacement' of technical thought. Thought-time has created a duality (as well as 'time') within itself, a 'thinker' apart which reacts to 'its own' thoughts. It is the source of conflict. Awareness of the process by itself without "acceptance, denial or comparison" is necessary. This is K. speaking about it in 1944. (this also reminded me of some of Jess' recent comments):

" But if you are aware even for a brief period you will see that that short, sharp awareness, however fleeting it be, begins to awaken a new feeling which is not the result of craving, but a faculty which is free from all personal limitations and tendencies. This faculty, this feeling, will gather momentum as you become more deeply and widely aware so that you are aware even in spite of your attention being given to other matters. Though you are occupied with necessary duties and give your attention to daily existence, inward awareness continues; it is as a sensitive Photographic plate on which every impression, every thought-feeling is being imprinted to be studied, assimilated and understood. This faculty, this new feeling is of the utmost importance for it will reveal that which is eternal."

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Thu, 08 Jun 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 08 Jun 2017 #19
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 136 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
It surely sounds most inspiring Dan,

Well what is "inspiring" is that through ones 'work' one's 'meditation' one finds oneself understanding a description because one has 'experienced' it in oneself. It is not theoretical, it is now: "ah yes, that is a good description of it". Of course there are 'layers', "hidden variables" etc., but so what? You do what you can, that is all you can do. You discover as you go along, it is a journey without a map and most importantly, without a 'destination'. Why worry if what you are doing, where you are 'heading' is 'right'? Who are you going to ask to 'set you straight'? Only you can know yourself and how much or little is absolutely, only, up to each of us. (our karma? our energy?). I will not post what I have not discovered (verified) in myself and if you read it and feel that I am fooling myself and wish to impart that in a polite manner, it may or may not be 'helpful' in the sense that It will cause me to 'look' again, but, it would of course be welcome.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Thu, 08 Jun 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 08 Jun 2017 #20
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 136 posts in this forum Offline

John Perkins. wrote:
Dan, with the greatest respect, you say that - as you see it - 'it comes about through...' etc., but are you personally aware of anybody, or have you ever known anybody, apart from K, to whom this has actually happened?

Yes. This is what is being 'developed' and I'm sure in others here also: The new perceptive 'instrument'.(Maybe 'new' isn't right...a way of seeing oneself that has not been in 'use'. Dormant?)

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Thu, 08 Jun 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 08 Jun 2017 #21
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 136 posts in this forum Offline

John Perkins. wrote:
K is something of a guiding light to us, right? I have put it to you that if the teachings are true then there must be others. There must be something, amongst the 7 billion, of a constant trickle or at least a 'drip' of them. But yet, despite the internet, neither you nor it seems anybody here, has spotted an additional single one. Doesn't that represent, to your mind (as it certainly would to mine) something of an anomaly?

No. I don't know how others have gone about their 'inner work' and what discoveries they may or may not have made. Many claim that they have 'realized', been 'transformed' etc. I am not interested. My 'work' has nothing to do with all that. It has nothing to do with anyone else but me. There is no 'goal'. Regarding, K. as a 'guiding light', yes, he was that for me (among others) but at some point, you have to be that for yourself or else it all remains second-hand.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Thu, 08 Jun 2017.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Sat, 10 Jun 2017 #22
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 136 posts in this forum Offline

Be thankful, not for the friend's kindness,

but for his treachery.

So the arrogant beauty in you,

can become a lover that weeps.

Rumi

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 10 Jun 2017 #23
Thumb_hot-sale-font-b-cool-b-font-cat-animal-poster-custom-font-b-wallpaper-b-font Jan Kasol Czech Republic 19 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
Perhaps, Jan, you should also mail a copy of this diagnostic to Mr Trump and his 'merry folks'

yes, Trump is a textbook case. It is a rare opportunity to observe the dynamics of the disorder in the open and possibly raise pubic awareness about the disorder. Do you feel any sympathy, any pity for Trump? Because there is no doubt, that the man is not happy and that he is completely clueless. He was happy when the crowds were cheering at his meetings because he had his admiration. But when there is criticism, he is incapable of self-reflection, but defends himself by calling the media "fake". I do not think that he does it consciously, he is protecting his self-image no matter the cost. He is, in fact, mentally ill. The real problem is not Trump, but the deep corruption of the Republican party who in their greed for power allowed this to happen, and also the moral corruption of a fraction of the american public, who did not see the red flags during the campaign - the vulgar behavior, the lack of respect, the lying. But are we capable of compassion, even to Trump and his "deplorable" voters?

Concerning John P, I do not know his "diagnosis", if he has any. To diagnose things like personality disorders, some psychogical testing is necessary. But there is little doubt that he has interpersonal conflicts and that he attributes false causes to the origination of those conflicts.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 10 Jun 2017 #24
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 136 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
A little too 'sentimental' to my taste, Dan, but this reminds me a more straightforward statement along the same line: " You cannot really know what is in a man's heart until you challenge his mind "

Be thankful, not for the friend's kindness,

but for his treachery.

So the arrogant beauty in you,

can become a lover that weeps.

Rumi

This poem was written out and handed to me by a friend at a gathering many years ago. It has always stayed with me and became a reminder at different times. It seemed appropriate to bring in here for different reasons. For me the poet is saying, we forge our attachments as strongly and as deeply as we can throughout our life. Most of us will continue that way until death. But for some and for whatever reason, they hear a call to something different. The poem is a reminder for them/us.

There is another 'stage' to life, apart from the safe and secure one we have tried to maintain. When life's circumstances 'tear' one apart from a loved one, from one's children, friends, possessions, health etc., only then do we become aware of our total dependance on them. And only through that 'betrayal', that loss, can we see how firmly 'attached' we are. That conceit of our 'individuality' that led us to believe that we were secure,and safe is shown to have been an illusion. We see our 'beloved' attachments are really a 'prison'. So there is sorrow, utter despair... and to be "thankful" at that moment of mourning for our losses, is to remember to not 'escape' but to stay and be motionless in the face of our weeping "arrogant beauty".

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sat, 10 Jun 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 10 Jun 2017 #25
Thumb_hot-sale-font-b-cool-b-font-cat-animal-poster-custom-font-b-wallpaper-b-font Jan Kasol Czech Republic 19 posts in this forum Offline

John Perkins. wrote:
I wonder if we might do this, Jan? I recognise the possibility of a difficulty if we both remain as entrenched in our 'positions' as would currently appear, but who knows, some flexibility may be gained one way or another and a discussion might be rewarding.

Hi John, nice to see that you are not offended too much. I am not entrenched in any position. I think it was Dan who once told you "why don't you let this go"? I think it was well meaning but you misunderstood it then. You cling to these past hurts, to why you have been banned from some forum etc, and you will not let go of things, of these personal hurts. And even if the discussion gets uncomfortable, you seem to persevere in continuing it. You don't seem to know when to let go of certain things and not come back to them again. Simply leave all the hurts and perceived injustices in the past.

The general rule of thumb is, that if you are offended by something or someone, the problem is in you. You can be angry, that the others are not behaving as you would expect them to behave, or that they are doing things that you consider immoral etc. But everybody is a free person. If you are offended, it means that you are not free, but are trapped in some problem of yours, in some self-righteousness. It is always the ego, who is hurt, offended. So, Dan's advice to let things go is a really good one. What is there to discuss? Just let things go, and switch your inner attitude from "knowing" to "learning". If you already "know", you can never learn anything new. You must leave you entrenched position, which is the ego-prison, and only then can you really learn anything new. The ego is always the old. The ego "knows", "remembers the hurts", is "self-righteous". So let go of your old self, and start learning about yourself. Because that is what all of us are doing, learning about ourselves. And the contradictions of others are really not our concern. I do not care for your contradictions and anyone's elses contraditions, because they are your problems, not mine. Unless of course I want to prove my superiority over you, that I am more clever, and that I have fewer contradictions than you, or that I am more advanced than you, which is childish. I care only for my own contradictions, because they are the causes of my suffering. And my suffering is my only concern. Intellectual discussions of K teachings lead nowhere, they scratch the surface. It is really the deep emotions, the hurts, the fears, the secret wishes, the frustrations, the suffering, that we have to understand. And no verbal theory is going to understand that.

Some time ago you started a thread about innocence. K talked about it, that it comes from Latin in-nocere, not to hurt. So innocence is a state of not being hurt and not hurting. And only a mind that has let go of the old, can be innocent. So can you let go of all these hurts? Have you ever asked yourself what in yourself is hurt anyway?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 10 Jun 2017 #26
Thumb_hot-sale-font-b-cool-b-font-cat-animal-poster-custom-font-b-wallpaper-b-font Jan Kasol Czech Republic 19 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
So there is sorrow, utter despair... and to be "thankful" at that moment of mourning for our losses, is to remember to not 'escape' but to stay and be motionless in the face of our weeping "arrogant beauty".

yes Dan, I agree with all that you have written. I would just add that an effort not to escape or an effort to "stay with what is" is again an escape, because it indicates that you still think that you are different from your suffering and that you can escape from it or stay with it or somehow operate on it. You cannot really do anything. You are the effort, you are the escape, which is the suffering. The will to hold, to protect, to gain, to escape etc. is the creator of darkness. And only if we let go of this will, which is the "known", the conditioning, can there be something new.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 10 Jun 2017 #27
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 136 posts in this forum Offline

Jan Kasol wrote:
And only if we let go of this will, which is the "known", the conditioning, can there be something new.

Juan put up a link on Clive's forum to a small meeting of K. and friends where he addressed this for me in a different way. K. was trying to get across the idea that life was "movement" as well as "non-movement. That life and death were one, a movement in and out...that there was a "gathering" and a letting go and that the 'self' was a "holding" on to what had been gathered rather than letting it go....for me I related it also to our breath, i.e. the 'taking in was 'life', the exhaling or letting out was 'death' Both simultaneously together...'you can't have one without the other'.
(Sorry, I don't know how to copy and transfer the link, it was #75 on the 'what can we do?' thread.)

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sat, 10 Jun 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 10 Jun 2017 #28
Thumb_hot-sale-font-b-cool-b-font-cat-animal-poster-custom-font-b-wallpaper-b-font Jan Kasol Czech Republic 19 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Juan put up a link on Clive's forum to a small meeting of K. and friends where he addressed this for me in a different way. He was trying to get across the idea that life was "movement" as well as "non-movement.

I found the link. It is a 2 hour discussion and I do not want to listen to it. But what I think K meant by this "movement in non-movement" is the "unmoved mover". Sometimes K spoke about movement, other times about the "eternal becoming" or about creation. It refers to that aspect of Life, that while with its roots Life is eternally umoved beyond space and time, yet it moves and creates within space and time. Forms (you, me, the bumblebees) are moving in and are moving out (of eternity), know life and know death. But Life is one, nobody is being born, and nobody dies, life and death are one in Life.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 10 Jun 2017 #29
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 136 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
From where the real necessity to create for ourselves an inwardly perceptive instrument, capable to operate in 'real time' (in the K terminology I guess this is called 'attention' or choiceless (non-personal ? awareness . If this natural capacity of undivided atention can be activated and given the place it truly deserves in the field of our relationsips, this would be the real benefit of 'listening' to these timeless K Teachings

Yes to "operate in real time"...that is what I found so interesting in that early quote of K.'s I posted, that he was saying that this "instrument" was something that could be developed over time with non-effort meditation (not an all-at-once breakthrough):

" But if you are aware even for a brief period you will see that that short, sharp awareness, however fleeting it be, begins to awaken a new feeling which is not the result of craving, but a faculty which is free from all personal limitations and tendencies. This faculty, this feeling, will gather momentum as you become more deeply and widely aware so that you are aware even in spite of your attention being given to other matters. Though you are occupied with necessary duties and give your attention to daily existence, inward awareness continues; it is as a sensitive Photographic plate on which every impression, every thought-feeling is being imprinted to be studied, assimilated and understood. This faculty, this new feeling is of the utmost importance for it will reveal that which is eternal."

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sat, 10 Jun 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying all 29 posts
Page 1 of 1
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.)