Look honestly at the workings of your own mind every second. It is quite simple. Words confuse (K's or anybody elses). Words cannot be used to describe anything. Words are only for convenience and they do an exceedingly poor job even describing a rock. Stand without words and you will see there is only the now. All else is imagined. Dont worry about the world, there is nothing wrong with it. There is also nothing wrong with you or anything that happens to you. Do you see that?

submitted by: Srini        Friday, April 25, 2008

After reading all of the comments posted so far, I wonder if what we are relaying to others is opinion or is it fact. Yes maybe Krishnamurti’s words shouldn’t try to be interpreted by the author, but what is most important, is what do the words that K has spoken, mean to you. Do they interest you intellectually? Do they make you want to change your philosophy or lifestyle? Are you challenged by them, to motivate you to unlock the bonds of thought? Is it even possible to know what a quiet mind is? If it is a state projected by thought, then it isn’t real, it is only an image, and a goal to be achieved cleverly by thought itself. Our whole life is controlled by thought, and perhaps unfortunately, the entire world is controlled by thought. I do not mean nature, but the presence of man, who forms governments, religions, prejudices, and division; simply by the use of thought. I don’t think this is an opinion, it is reality. If something is opinion, it needs defending, observation is not opinion. It is the key to seeing what man has created and continues to create. Man has created wonderful technology, but at the same time, division and hatred. He says we must have peace through the use of force, and it is accepted, never questioned. Man must always be right, and he will argue to the death to prove it. Is this what we maintain as sanity? Our world is not changing; we must see that as fact, for man believes that in time he can change the mind. This belief that time will change us, is what prevents change, for thought is the facilitator. One must honestly and truly care to discover if change is possible; otherwise it becomes simply a play toy, just used to pass the time.

submitted by: K Martin        Monday, March 03, 2008

Human Beings are the first one in the chain of evolution who have been bestowed with total freedom as far as activities of brain are concerned. Nature continues to keep the control on the format and functions of physiological aspects of human beings. Nature, on the other hand, had set the operating system of the brain totally free in every individual human beings. This is the difference between the human beings and the life forms just earlier. In case of earlier human beings the operating systems of the brains are nature controlled. Just probe into the question of why people enjoy the pets! I invite all to give a thought to this observation. I expect that it will be clear that present human sufferings are all due to wrongful usage of the operating system of our brains. Each individual choses his own choice of the operating system and therefore there is no unison in the output of the brain amongst the human beings. This causes conflicts and therefore the human sufferings. When we clean something, like a floor or utensils, we donot actually adopt a process which defines a cleaning proceedure. All we do is removing the dirt and soil. Similarly if we do not engage our respective brain in wrongful direction, then what it operates on, is a clean platform! So let us learn to understand repeat understand, first the dirt and soil of our brain's product- mix. Such understanding will, in turn, help our brains to keep the dity ones "inoperative". When soil and dirt are inoperative, what remains is a pure goodness! The output of a good operating systm need not be verbalized here.

submitted by: RK Murthy        Saturday, March 01, 2008

basically, i think that that state that we all are seeking is something not attainable by our selves but is a kind of grace that falls onto us from a higher power, seemingly from out of no-where and always unexpectedly. all we can do is prepare the field as best we can by clearing out our thoughts through meditation and thereby invite a spontaneous happening. K was wrong about Zen mind control, calling it a kind of hypnosis. my experience has taught me otherwise. please, people, don't take K's words as a "gospel". i know he wouldn't want you to.

submitted by: mark        Tuesday, February 26, 2008

In the 18th century Kant also introduced the concept of movement of the mind, the "a priori principles", as he called. He claimed that as Copernicus had explained the apparent movements of the stars in the sky as partly the outcome of the own movement of the observer, so Kant stated that the mind applies its a priori principles to objects: in knowing, it is not the mind that conforms to things but instead things that conform to the mind.

submitted by: Josep M. Tubau        Monday, February 25, 2008

I feel that there is a danger in saying, even in small degrees, what K means; and, in the writings on the Kinfonet home page, someone (the author isn't even specified) goes on to tell us what K means by certain things. I thought that he maintained that he did not want to have translators of his work; but people go on doing it anyway, unfortunately. For instance, on the Kinfonet homepage in the From Light to Darkness section, it is stated that: "Krishnamurti suggests that attention, being devoid of the need for self-expression, takes an 'inactive' role in perception and as such, reality is allowed to imprint on consciousness in almost camera-like fashion." Well, I do not feel that true "attention" is "inactive"; on the contrary, to me it is a vitally alive energy... and it does not merely allow "reality" (or anything), or any forms of any kind, to merely imprint patterns on consciousness (in a mechanical camera-like fashion). In deep attention, I feel, there is great activity, tremendous energy; during that magnificent energy... no recording need take place (imprinting upon the brain). Attention may be beyond the confines of reality; in such supreme energy, the brain need not be influenced by forms, patterns, and images of the past. Please do not go spewing out stuff about what K meant. Leave what he said alone. Tell people what you think about things, but do not, please, interpret K.

submitted by: Thomas Pietruszka        Friday, February 22, 2008

CALLED _______________ Called to the still* Called to the quiet* By a unknown thought* To a unknown place* By a unknown heart* To a unknown mystery* *** blessings ***

submitted by: bob knab        Friday, February 22, 2008

no comment...

submitted by: uffe nagel        Friday, February 22, 2008

I'd like to commend the writer for these explanations but feel a little stifled by the fact that a thank you contradicts what he's saying to a degree. I mean it places the writing or writing on a pedastal, removed from direct perception. But I notice that that stifled feeling only pops up because I don't want to see my self operating as so brilliantly described. I don't want to see myself stupidly "thanking him" like a two-bit spectator. Why am I, for instance, expressing myself on this page? The tendency is to feel foolish and then to stifle this response before I have to see how dang egotistic the whole exercise is. But I'm going to continue because there's something even more important I'd like to flesh out. I notice that the stifled feeling is also a subtle repression of thought based on the presumption that I am separate from my conditioning and can clean my self of this junk. A false sense of superiority and separateness causes me to want to hide under a leaf and not reveal my hand. It's so wonderfully radical to recognize that this is not possible. I think the great challenge for people who glimpse the truth in what Krishnamurti is talking about is that sense that one "shouldn't repress" one's ego, which is a form of unconscious ego repression, stiflement (if that's word) and even self hatred. The fun part is running with this stuff, letting it run. Somehow we're not letting it run its course freely but are holding "The Teaching" like precious crystal. And do we criticize such a reaction in our selves? Or do we say "shame" for criticizing this reaction? The reacting, the stifling, the criticizing and this stupid note, is all part of the program, as so nicely noted, and can be enjoyed. I'm saying that the danger of this wonderful explanation -- and I do not mean to imply that he or she "shouldn't" write these explanations, please DO -- but the danger is that they're so dang good they'll tempt us into applying what is said. In that way we'll forget how to enjoy our stupidity, which is probably more important than understanding the intricacies of thought's deceptions. I felt the need to acknowledge this interesting reaction of feeling stifled because it seems to be a common pattern that goes unobserved among Krishnamurti readers most of the time. Maybe I'm being presumptuous in seeing this among others as well, but there isn't enough play in K readers in my stinking opinion. There's too much hand-wringing and awe. And a subtle tendency to look down on the ego and conditioning. This editorial wonderfully pointed out that we can't talk of the ego as if we were something separate from it. We can't feel superior or inferior to what is happening in our heads. A perception of conditioning is never limiting or stifling -- it tends to invite a feeling of warmth and play towards what is revealed.

submitted by: Jeff Shampnois        Friday, February 22, 2008

It seems that I am being drawn into a Krishnamurti congregation/parish. Before saying Hallelujah or something of that sort I have admit that Krishnamurti's talks have made me if not confused quite restless. I feel conditioned by Jiddu K., he speaks so differently from what any of the many philosophers, scientists etc. have talked. How to get rid of this conditioning? Hit on the pathless country of truth (what a beautiful expression) without any crutches. Do I have the courage for that? "I"?

submitted by: Kaarlo Voionmaa        Friday, February 22, 2008

Reality does always seem to be right out of reach. "I" always make another appearance on the stage to condition and mute the knowledge of the real. In fact, I have only experienced the dissolution of the ego once, and that for only about an hour, before I came to "myself" again. What a pity! To lose oneself is to find that life is pure and beautiful, far beyond the capability of words to decribe! So, why is it so difficult, even to get a glimpse? I think the answer is that we aren't ready yet, so we must be patient. I look forward to the day, when humankind, may all step forward together, into that immense reality, which stands just out of our reach!

submitted by: Jane Anderson        Friday, February 22, 2008