In today's Quote, K asked, "...without humility how can there be understanding?"

One might also ask how there can be understanding without humility. Are the two separate? Does one bring about the other?

This post was last updated by nick carter Mon, 19 Oct 2009.

In today's Quote of the Day, K asked, "...without humility how can there be understanding?". One might also ask how there can be understanding without humility. Are the two separate? Does one bring about the other?

Understanding in the K sense implies insight. In order for the energy of insight to operate, there has to be room for it. There is no room for it when
consciousness is totally dominated by beliefs, conclusions, opinions, theories, etc. because there is no true exporation. Exploration requires that we admit the fact that we don't know. Only then does the thinking mind get very still and open so there is room for an attention of a different order.

The benediction is where you are

Yes, we know this, but it doesn't directly address the question.

I'm wondering what went through K's mind when he said the above because it could imply a linear process, and I don't think he meant it to.

Yes, we know this, but it doesn't directly address the question.
I'm wondering what went through K's mind when he said the above because it could imply a linear process, and I don't think he meant it to

gv: look at it in terms of a particular problem, e.g. some form of suffering.
Suffering is the fact. How do we approach the fact? Generally people don't understand or have much insight into a problem. Yet they go ahead and try to impose a solution (desire for success) through some kind of effort or goal-oriented practice. The answer to a problem is in the understanding of the nature of the problem. Understanding requires observation that is open to discovery of something new (humility).

The benediction is where you are

Still, you're not addressing my question. Does humility come before understanding, is it vice-versa, or are humility and understanding the same thing?

Still, you're not addressing my question. Does humility come before understanding, is it vice-versa, or are humility and understanding the same thing.

gv: Understanding as to what? The answer is in the question.

The benediction is where you are

nick carter wrote:
Still, you're not addressing my question. Does humility come before understanding, is it vice-versa, or are humility and understanding the same thing

lets say humility is the quality of having gotten over yourself, so that youre open to others in a way that is completely disarming so that they give themselves away because there is something about you that says, im not important, you can tell me anything... then you can be more understanding because there is more to understand, so humility is like a quality that inspires trust and trust builds understanding

as far as i can tell love is nothing but trust between

Health care is everyone's job, not just in treating illness but in promoting healthy living. We must take personal responsibility, engaging our minds and hands in meaningful work - all essential components of healthy, secure lifestyles and communities.

Therese Okamoto wrote:
lets say humility is the quality of having gotten over yourself

Isn't "getting over yourself" understanding?

"Humility" and "understanding" are two words for the same thing. Humility being what it looks like from the outside, and understanding, what it feels like on the inside.

In today's Quote of the Day, K assures us that, "a life of choiceless action" is possible.

How is one who knows nothing but choice to process this statement? Assuming, for the sake of argument, that it is possible, what would it mean in actual terms? If I'm not choosing to act, yet acting nonetheless, do I know what I'm doing as I'm doing it, or does it become clear afterward? If I'm not doing it by choice, how much judgement am I exercising in the doing of it? How much knowledge? What impels me to do it if not the usual incentives?

This post was last updated by nick carter Fri, 23 Oct 2009.

lets say humility is the quality of having gotten over yourself, so that youre open to others in a way that is completely disarming so that they give themselves away because there is something about you that says, im not important, you can tell me anything... then you can be more understanding because there is more to understand, so humility is like a quality that inspires trust and trust builds understanding

gv: yes, that points to how humility is openness in human relationship that promotes mutual understanding. "Gotten over yourself" I take to mean not occupied with self in terms of image and motive.

How do you see that to be connected to K's saying that the desire for success prevents humility which in turn prevents understanding? I don't know the context of the quote but desire for success seems to relate to solving a problem. I suppose the problem may be conflict in human relationship or it could be the fact of inward disorder and turmoil.

The benediction is where you are

Isn't "getting over yourself" understanding?
"Humility" and "understanding" are two words for the same thing. Humility being what it looks like from the outside, and understanding, what it feels like on the inside.

gv: K seems to be using the term understanding in a dynamic sense, as a verb, rather than as a static noun. To understand what is occurring which is always changing, it is necessary to clearly perceive what is occurring. The mind that is focused on thought of what will be (the desired success or result) is unable to perceive in a penetrating way 'what is.' This relates to choiceless awareness. Choice implies desire for result.

The benediction is where you are

How is one who knows nothing but choice to process this statement? Assuming, for the sake of argument, that it is possible, what would it mean in actual terms? If I'm not choosing to act, yet acting nonetheless, do I know what I'm doing as I'm doing it, or does it become clear afterward? If I'm not doing it by choice, how much judgement am I exercising in the doing of it? How much knowledge? What impels me to do it if not the usual incentives?

Alright, now I'll brace myself for the usual barrage of answers from the biggest know-it-alls.

gv: one must come upon the answers (i.e insights) directly because the answer is always in the understanding of the question. What is choiceless action? What is not? What is the problem with activity that is not choiceless? When is it confusion? What is the impetus of choiceless action?

The verbalization of an insight is not the insight.

The benediction is where you are

In today's Quote, K says, "Consciously or unconsciously we refuse to see the essentiality of being passively aware because we do not really want to let go of our problems"

Seeing as how problems and solutions are all we know, it's no wonder we don't "let go". To do so would be to cease to exist in one's own mind; to obliterate oneself. Certainly, only the most unbearable suffering could provoke such a radical departure. So is our problem that we're not suffering enough, or is it that we're too insensitive to sense just how much we are suffering?

This post was last updated by nick carter Fri, 23 Oct 2009.

nc: Seeing as how problems and solutions are all we know, it's no wonder we don't "let go". To do so would be to cease to exist in one's own mind; to obliterate oneself. Certainly, only the most unbearable suffering could provoke such a radical departure. So is our problem that we're not suffering enough, or is it that we're too insensitive to sense just how much we are suffering?

gv: it depends what you mean by a problem. What is wrong with not letting go? Why is that a problem? It is a problem globally because it is a form of confusion that promotes suffering inwardly and in effect, outwardly in relationship. If understanding is only conceptual, nothing changes fundamentally so conceptual knowledge is not a really a solution at all.

What is lacking is not knowledge as to what should be but insight into what is. It is not my insight but rather insight into the me. The energy of seeing is not me or mine, i.e. it is not a response of memory as the background. We know on some level that this is so or we would not be interested in these matters.

So where do our strong allegiances lie? Do they lie in seeking what we want? Or do they lie in being open to and sensitive to the energy of insight which
is not of time? Are you (thought) the master or are you the servant of unconditioned intelligence? Letting go means thought and intelligence are aligned, i.e. thought-feeling stays quietly in its proper place as a servant or tool of intelligence.

The benediction is where you are

Thanks for the catalog of K-cliches.

The more we cling to illusion, the more we suffer. Nothing real can be obliterated. Nothing unreal ever existed. If you would rather rule in hell
than serve in heaven, why complain about the heat?

The benediction is where you are

My only complaint is with your banality.

Is the egoic mind personal? Or is that illusion?

The benediction is where you are

In today's Quote, K said, "We are going to find out together what is true, and that requires an open mind, an intelligent mind, an enquiring mind, an alert mind"

That eliminates just about everybody, doesn't it? If an intelligent, enquiring, alert mind were to come upon the teachings of Krishnamurti, how much time would such a mind take to digest them and move on? One can only imagine. Most of the people in "the K world" have been in it for decades and will probably die in it. How intelligent, enquiring, and alert can a mind be if it identifies with a teaching...especially one that advocates freedom?

This post was last updated by nick carter Fri, 23 Oct 2009.

"We are going to find out together what is true, and that requires an open mind, an intelligent mind, an enquiring mind, an alert mind. That eliminates just about everybody, doesn't it?

gv: its best to digest what you can from K's works, leave them alone for a while, learn on your own, and later come back to them and digest some more. The real learning is not in reading books but in meeting life with an open, alert, inquiring mind. What is unfortunate is that some people make
K into an authority, despite his repeated requests not to do so.

Some have criticized K for starting from too high a place for most of his listeners. He tries to teach a 'graduate' course to people who can not
receive it. They simply are not inwardly ready for it. K's answer to that
was: who am I to decide who is ready and who is not? This makes sense
when we realize that the teachings come not from the conditioned mind
of K but from from the unconditioned.

The benediction is where you are

Today's Quote: "what we are really seeking is not clarity, is not the understanding of the actual state of mind, but rather we are searching for ways and means to escape from ourselves."

If that's true, then why don't we just admit it?

If K knew he was talking to pathological liars, what did he expect from them?

If his listeners thought he was offering them the means of escaping themselves, they must have thought he had escaped himself.

When he tells them they are, in effect, a bunch of liars, do they believe it?

This post was last updated by nick carter Fri, 23 Oct 2009.

nick carter wrote:
Today's Quote: "what we are really seeking is not clarity, is not the understanding of the actual state of mind, but rather we are searching for ways and means to escape from ourselves."
If that's true, then why don't we just admit it?

gv: is it true? Have we really looked at what motivates us to become different
or better by moving toward what we think we want to be? Why introduce the ideal K asks. Does anyone ask that? Or is the virtue of acting according to ideals unquestioned for the most part? Why ask for a means to a desired inner change instead of understanding what it is that we are now?

If K knew he was talking to pathological liars, what did he expect from them? If his listeners thought he was offering them the means of escaping themselves, they must have thought he had escaped himself. When he tells them they are, in effect, a bunch of liars, do they believe it?

gv: It is the other way around. K says people for the most part seek to escape themselves, i.e. avoid the discomfort of seeing what they are in terms of their conditioning. We prefer to find comfort in various forms of escape and avoid the hard work of self-examination. We seek security in all sorts of illusions. These are undeniable facts are they not? It is not a matter of belief. Why is there no urgency for change? We are in denial. It is not a little personal matter. It is a tremendous problem; human disorder.

The benediction is where you are

nick carter wrote:
"Humility" and "understanding" are two words for the same thing. Humility being what it looks like from the outside, and understanding, what it feels like on the inside.

i agree, as soon as you claim humility it becomes pride

Greg Van Tongeren wrote:
the desire for success prevents humility which in turn prevents understanding?

an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of flesh

Greg Van Tongeren wrote:
gv: K seems to be using the term understanding in a dynamic sense, as a verb, rather than as a static noun. To understand what is occurring which is always changing, it is necessary to clearly perceive what is occurring. The mind that is focused on thought of what will be (the desired success or result) is unable to perceive in a penetrating way 'what is.' This relates to choiceless awareness. Choice implies desire for result.

greg it seems to me you are in agreement but you dont know it, understanding is what you do yes, if and only if you are truly humble, yes, which you cannot be aware of because you cannot choose to be humble

nick carter wrote:
"Consciously or unconsciously we refuse to see the essentiality of being passively aware because we do not really want to let go of our problems"

this is cause/effect? im unconscious because im not passive

Greg Van Tongeren wrote:
To do so would be to cease to exist in one's own mind; to obliterate oneself

i spy another buddhist... which is to say im fairly certain youre not referring to suicide

krishnamurti said:>"We are going to find out together what is true, and that requires an open mind, an intelligent mind, an enquiring mind, an alert mind"

are these the characteristics of humility?

nick carter wrote:That eliminates just about everybody, doesn't it?

you dont know any open intelligent inquiring alert people!

Greg Van Tongeren wrote:
who am I to decide who is ready and who is not?

i find truly humble people exude trust

nick carter wrote:
If K knew he was talking to pathological liars, what did he expect from them?

if i knew i was talking to pathological liars, i would expect deception which is not the same as being deceived

Greg Van Tongeren wrote:
It is the other way around. K says people for the most part seek to escape themselves, i.e. avoid the discomfort of seeing what they are in terms of their conditioning. We prefer to find comfort in various forms of escape and avoid the hard work of self-examination.

so, the other way around is either unable to understand because they dont recognize humility... or unwilling to understand, because they deliberately misunderstand for some benefit to maintain or advantage gained - two different things, one is a failure and the other is a phony... and yet, i still think youre on the same page here though for some reason you claim to be the devils advocate

Health care is everyone's job, not just in treating illness but in promoting healthy living. We must take personal responsibility, engaging our minds and hands in meaningful work - all essential components of healthy, secure lifestyles and communities.

Today's Quote: "Meditation is like the breeze that comes in when you leave the window open;"

Assuming your window is not a gun portal.

This post was last updated by nick carter Fri, 23 Oct 2009.

Today's Quote: "I think it is very necessary that you and I should not merely either accept or refute anything I am going to suggest."

To take Krishnamurti seriously is to explore the possibility that he might have been speaking truthfully; not to conclude that he was or was not. And that exploration begins with the discovery of one's resistance to, or eager acceptance of, what K said.

This post was last updated by nick carter Mon, 19 Oct 2009.

Today's Quote: "Breaking through is not a matter of time"

When something must be done without knowing what, "breakthrough" is the doing of it without knowing how

This post was last updated by nick carter Fri, 23 Oct 2009.

Todays Quote:"the explanation is never that thing which is explained. That is, the word is never the thing."

We are sentenced to life in the prison of time. At some point in the course of carrying out our life sentence, we are told that in no time at all one can be free. It is explained to us that, although we do exist biologically, continuously in chronological time, we do not actually exist as the continuing, developing personalities we think ourselves to be. It is further explained that this sense of personal continuity is just the effect of continuous thinking; that "I" is nothing but an unbroken train of thought.

Naturally, the only thing to do is to test this explanation and find out if there's any truth to it, i.e., stop the train of thought. Easier said than done, it turns out, because one finds oneself to be a runaway train. But discouraging as this discovery is, it actually validates the explanation. How? The shock of realizing you're out of control and unstoppable invalidates the idea of being a supervisory intelligence, and indicates that one is nothing but an animal with a malfunctioning brain.

This post was last updated by nick carter Sat, 10 Oct 2009.

Today's Quote: "Thought shattering itself against its own nothingness is the explosion of meditation."

Since when is thought "nothingness"? Thought, according to K is the whole problem. One has to see what thought has wrought, how it goes about making mischief, how confused and deranged one is due to its activity. But seeing as how he's talking about "the explosion of meditation", I won't press the point, especially since I know nothing about nothingness or inward explosions.

nick carter wrote:
Today's Quote: "Thought shattering itself against its own nothingness is the explosion of meditation."
Since when is thought "nothingness"? Thought, according to K is the whole problem. One has to see what thought has wrought, how it goes about making mischief, how confused and deranged one is due to its activity. But seeing as how he's talking about "the explosion of meditation", I won't press the point, especially since I know nothing about nothingness or inward explosions

gv: the nothingness of thought (identity structured in images) refers to the fact that it has no ground. The explosion refers to a breaking up of the 'me' which means an infusion of being.

Being is empty of identification with content. It seems strange to say but our true ground in being is empty. There is no-thing there to be defended, fearful, hurt, or in conflict with what is occurring.

The benediction is where you are

Today's Quote: "When you realize the truth that it is only the quiet mind that sees, then the mind becomes extraordinarily quiet."

Can noise realize anything?