Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
Discussion Forums

Jack Pine's Forum Activity | 5792 posts in 2 forums


Forum: General Discussion Tue, 15 Oct 2019
Topic: On Relationships and Conflict

idiot?: Wouldn't it just be a lot simpler to answer the direct question I asked instead of digging up something K said about criticism? It's your judgement that I'm criticizing.

This is not a criticism it's a question. You recently wrote on another forum in another post the following: idiot? wrote: When the truth is clearly seen there is transformation.

idiot?, are you transformed? If not then how do you know what you wrote in the above statement?

Forum: General Discussion Tue, 15 Oct 2019
Topic: Who is qualifiied to either edit or claim to live what K pointed out?

On John Raica's forum he has decided that some or all of what K spoke or wrote needs to be edited. He is doing this for us on part of his forum. To quote John, "I will try in this new thread to paste in a few essential K texts, usually rather difficult to follow, reducing them to the bare essentials, just to see exactly what he was talking about." He went on to say that it would be "an experientially friendly edit". Whatever that means.

John, K not infrequently warned about others who felt they could interpret what he, K, wrote or said. Is your understanding of K so complete, so much beyond what the rest of us may understand or not? Isn't there a certain amount of arrogance involved is assuming that position?

Forum: General Discussion Tue, 15 Oct 2019
Topic: Who is qualifiied to either edit or claim to live what K pointed out?

All I'm saying with the above post and the recent ones to idiot is do you understand what K was pointing out to the extent that you now think you can instruct the rest of us on it? Because this is what several people on Kinfonet seem to be implying with their posts.

I am questioning the veracity of these posts

Forum: General Discussion Tue, 15 Oct 2019
Topic: On Relationships and Conflict

Sean Hen wrote: Jack's post above was followed by some posts talking about criticism.

Hi Sean. Thanks for stepping in here and trying to mitigate a situation where things were starting to get confused. And no I was not criticizing. You were correct. I see that in idiot's response he quoted something from me from an entirely different post trying to prove his point that I was being critical. This quote was not part of the one where I asked the simple question; Are you transformed?

Sean, you're a nice person, obviously and were doing something to disarm a situation. I appreciate that. But Sean I'm not sure I agree with your definition applies to why I was asking idiot is he/she transformed. A statement was made, without clarification, stating that if you do this, whatever it may be, then that is transformation. What I question is how does one know something leads to transformation unless one has seen for him/herself what transformation is. That is why I asked a simple question. There was no criticism. It was a question.

Forum: General Discussion Tue, 15 Oct 2019
Topic: On Relationships and Conflict

idiot ? wrote: Krishnamurti, The First and Last Freedom, On Transformation: Seeing the false as the false and the true as the true is transformation, because when you see something very clearly as the truth, that truth liberates.

Idiot I'm asking for your response not a quote from K. Just because K said it doesn't mean you understand it or are that yourself. I suggest you quit running to K as your authority and answer questions from your own understanding. Anyone can quote somebody. Sometimes a quote is relative or pertinent. But the way you frequently use these quotes from K they are more like a club.

And yes I stand by what I said about enlightenment. You were the one who introduced the word transformed. Not me. I was just asking if you were. All you had to do was say yes or no. Why make a big deal out of it?

Forum: General Discussion Tue, 15 Oct 2019
Topic: On Relationships and Conflict

idiot ? wrote: I see. That is why you immediately started a new thread criticizing John Raica.

Is it criticizing to question whether or not someone is qualified to edit, interpret or explain what Krishnamurti pointed out? That is what I'm asking John Raica. Is he qualified to "edit" K's words? You can spin it any way you want.

The fact remains that there are people on this site and else where who appear to be setting themselves up as experts on K. I question that. K predicted that there would be interpreters, self appointed experts on what he pointed out. It even happened a couple of times before he died. He approached one guy directly about his attempt to interpret K. It didn't go well for the guy.

We all should be aware of people trying to interpret K. This is how religions begin. Self anointed high priests as K once called them. See Chapters covering 1976 in Mary Zimbalist's Memoires of K.

Forum: General Discussion Tue, 15 Oct 2019
Topic: On Relationships and Conflict

idiot ? wrote: You're not trying to mold people in any way.

If anyone is trying to mold someone it's people who are claiming to know more about K than others or know what leads to transformation.

All you are doing is swinging your arms about crazily (figuratively speaking) making unfounded accusations. May I suggest that you stick to what I'm actually saying instead of trying to interpret what you think I'm trying to say. That seems to be a habit with you on this forum and not with just me.

Forum: General Discussion Wed, 16 Oct 2019
Topic: On Relationships and Conflict

Idiot, all your posts are doing is what you are accusing me of doing. Criticizing others. Not only that you spin things to fit your own opinions which often don't match what I actually said. And why not, you're doing that with what you think K said too.

I really don't care what you think. When I read what people write who are interpreting K or claiming to be this or that, transformed or whatever I'm going to question that. Get used to it.

I don't want to see what Krishnamurti pointed out turned into a religion which may be almost inevitable. I know Krishnamurti was concerned enough about that he mentioned it in several talks I attend, both public and private, in 1978 and 1979 at Pine Cottage and the Oak Grove. These concerns are also being mentioned in Mary Zimbalist's Memoirs.

In the situation with you that resulted in me asking you if you were transformed you said that if you do this then transformation follows. You did not indicate you were quoting K but rather you had seen that for yourself. So it was a natural question to ask since the only way you could know what leads to transformation is for you to be transformed. Transformation was the word you introduced, not me.

Forum: General Discussion Wed, 16 Oct 2019
Topic: On Relationships and Conflict

idiot ? wrote: Or does K teach transformation, which means clearly seeing what is true in the moment and real change happening by that seeing?

And no, K didn't teach transformation. Another one of your misperceptions. He pointed out what he saw as fact about human behavior. But he never taught transformation which would mean he was encouraging us to strive for something. Understand yourself without trying to gain or become something.

Forum: General Discussion Wed, 16 Oct 2019
Topic: On Relationships and Conflict

If you would have actually read your own quote or understood it if you did read it you would have seen this:

From your quote of K above: Transformation is not an end, a result. Transformation is not a result. Result implies residue, a cause and an effect. Where there is causation, there is bound to be effect.

This is what I was saying #36 above. There is no end, no goal. There is understanding yourself which is what the above quote is talking about.

From above K quote:

Transformation is not in the future, can never be in the future. It can only be now, from moment to moment. So what do we mean by transformation? Surely it is very simple: seeing the false as the false and the true as the true. Seeing the truth in the false and seeing the false in that which has been accepted as the truth. Seeing the false as the false and the true as the true is transformation, because when you see something very clearly as the truth, that truth liberates.

As I said above, K pointed to understanding ourselves, our thinking, our conditioning which may result in transformation but he was not teaching transformation as and end in itself apart from understanding. Maybe it's just a matter of semantics but I stick to what I wrote. K was not teaching transformation but understanding which may lead to transformation.

Forum: General Discussion Wed, 16 Oct 2019
Topic: On Relationships and Conflict

idiot ? wrote: First of all, "transformed" is past tense, as One Self pointed out. K never uses "transformation" in the past but rather says that it is from "moment to moment."

Now we're getting into semantics. Don't lecture me on what K meant because you don't know. And also I understand what the past tense is in English. Once more, you made an emphatic statement about transformation. Like you knew what transformation is. When posing a question to someone to find out if they know transformation, are transformed, it is grammatically correct to use the past tense. This doesn't say anything about how transformation works, past or present. It's just posing a question. You're trying to spin this which is a bunch of BS and you know it.

Lastly, and of not much importance almost no one responds to posts by "one self". Most of them aren't rational and many leap to completely irrelevant conclusions. Also they are the most ludicrous, asinine posts on here and most everyone just ignores her. Just as Patricia recently did when one self became nearly completely irrational mumbling about nationality and English.

Forum: General Discussion Wed, 16 Oct 2019
Topic: On Relationships and Conflict

Dan McDermott wrote: and enlightenment has existed since time immemorial and has been used as a means, in the case of 'religious' beliefs, to exploit and to confuse. Especially in the sense that : "if you do this, you'll get that"...

Dan you have mostly been reasonable in your replies. I think you know what I was driving at when I asked idiot if he was transformed. He keeps trying to slip out of it by spinning what was written and all manner of other evasions. I've gone as far as I can with him. He simply won't or can't understand what I write.

Also, I used to think that the poster "one self" was just a sycophant of idiot's but now I'm really beginning to wonder if idiot doesn't have two identities on this forum. I can't prove it one way or the other so I may as well drop it.

The whole point of all of this discussion is that there are people on this forum, and certainly people I have first met more than 40 years ago at K talks, who were confusing K with Jesus. We have all been heavily conditioned in this society by Christianity and other organized religion, but especially Christianity in this country. So it is not surprising that some people would tend to replace the Jesus myth with one where K takes his place in their minds.

When I pointed out that K's aim wasn't to give us transformation but rather that we need to understand ourselves: Our conditioning, how thought works, how the mind works, etc. But to just say K's was trying to transform us is just not correct because it by-passes the understanding of the center, consciousness which is essential. Forget about transformation and focus on the moment by moment understanding of what is now.

And then there is this: Who is it that transforms? K pointed out that the psychological self is an illusion. There is a physical body which uses our name but there is nothing else according to K. I don't know if that is an actual fact or not. I think most of us understand what K is pointing out but is it an actual reality for us as it apparently was for K?

Forum: General Discussion Wed, 16 Oct 2019
Topic: On Relationships and Conflict

Sean Hen wrote: Anyway, I don't think this alters what we are all saying about transformation. I think the key point is this - When someone says, "When the truth is clearly seen there is transformation.", there is an implication that the speaker has clearly seen the truth. It's all very well for Krishnamurti to say this, but if someone else says it, what does it imply? I don't know the answer to this question.

I don't either that's why I asked the person who said was he/she transformed. By the way, thank you very much for your brilliant explanation of English grammar which was absolutely correct. I'm struck by the irony that someone for whom English is a second language had to explain this to two people whose first language is English. The past tense remark was never a valid point anyway.

Forum: General Discussion Thu, 17 Oct 2019
Topic: On Relationships and Conflict

Dan McDermott wrote: I question using K. as a model for what we ordinary humans are capable of. I see him as a very special case. A child who somehow escaped being conditioned and then was treated by those around him in a very unique manner.

So who is using K as a model? idiot keeps posting long quotes from K to somehow try to bolster his defense of why he didn't just answer a simple question.

Once again. Here's the point: When someone who has read K makes the emphatic statement that: "When the truth is clearly seen there is transformation.", this begs for the person saying this to answer whether they see the truth clearly and are they transformed. I settled for one question and still didn't receive an answer.

Dan McDermott wrote: because as someone pointed out here, that is already in the past and transformation, as the truth, can only be found can only exist, in the moment

Come on Dan. The above comment was always a non-starter and makes no sense as Sean kindly pointed out for us. It was not only nit-picking but showed a remarkable misunderstanding of what the adults were talking about. And it wasn't the first time, unfortunately.

Forum: General Discussion Thu, 17 Oct 2019
Topic: On Relationships and Conflict

I still maintain that when the statement is made, "When the truth is clearly seen there is transformation.", how do you know this is a fact unless you, yourself, have seen the truth and are transformed by it? Just because K may have said it doesn't mean that we know it and have realized it.

K also said, for example, that the psychological center is thought. When thought ends then the center, the ego ends. I think this was a fact for K. I understand it intellectually and I accept that this was true for K and would be true for humanity in general.

I, myself, have not understood it to the point where thought has ended for me and my psychological center has been vanquished. This is the difference I have been trying to point out. Accepting something intellectually and understanding it to the point where a radical change has come about are two very different things.

I don't know about the rest of you but I'm more than ready to move on. Ciao.

Forum: General Discussion Thu, 17 Oct 2019
Topic: On Relationships and Conflict

Dan, Your post #54 is extremely interesting. I have no time today but I have both comments and questions about the content of your post.

Forum: General Discussion Thu, 17 Oct 2019
Topic: On Relationships and Conflict

Ken, Henry Kissinger once said "Truth is not important. What is important is the perception of truth". Well, what the hell. What do you expect from a war criminal?

Do you know a politician who doesn't think this way, aside from Bernie, of course.

Forum: General Discussion Fri, 18 Oct 2019
Topic: On Relationships and Conflict

Sean Hen wrote: As I said, this is my understanding. Please correct me if I am wrong. Just a final thought - when grammatical truth is seen clearly, is there transformation?

Sean Hen wrote: I suppose it's the sentence without context that I find open to misinterpretation.

Sean, first of all the person who challenged your correct explanation of grammar doesn't know a past participle from a hole in the ground so you are wasting your time debating English grammar with her. Secondly, what you said about context of the statement in question, or lack thereof, is a very good point and one that has occurred to me.

There are these sudden proclamations out of thin air without....well, context. It leaves the reader feeling a sense that the assertion is being repeated as an intellectual acceptance of something rather than of a deeply understood and felt truth. We all do this at one time or another.

Forum: General Discussion Fri, 18 Oct 2019
Topic: On Relationships and Conflict

Dan Wrote: That under the psilocybin the brain made more connections within itself. There was a side by side of a before and after brain scan photos and there was this dramatic increase in connections after the drug.

This brings up some fascinating possibilities. Does the taking of certain drugs, psychedelic drugs, increase the awareness of the brain? Are some people born with significantly more of these neurological connections? Was K an example of this? Or is it that most of us start out with more neurological connections and then loose these for various reasons? And can these connections be retrieved and retained through certain drugs? Below is just a sampling of an article I found on the internet when I put in neurological connections.

Neural Connections: Some You Use, Some You Lose By John Bruer Over 20 years ago, neuroscientists discovered that humans and other animals experience a rapid increase in brain connectivity - an exuberant burst of synapse formation - early in development. They have studied this process most carefully in the brain's outer layer, or cortex, which is essentially our gray matter. In these studies, neuroscientists have documented that over our life spans the number of synapses per unit area or unit volume of cortical tissue changes, as does the number of synapses per neuron. Neuroscientists refer to the number of synapses per unit of cortical tissue as the brain's synaptic density. Over our lifetimes, our brain's synaptic density changes in an interesting, patterned way. This pattern of synaptic change and what it might mean is the first neurobiological strand of the Myth of the First Three Years. (The second strand of the Myth deals with the notion of critical periods, and the third takes up the matter of "enriched," or complex, environments.) Popular discussions of the new brain science trade heavily on what happens to synapses during infancy and childhood. Magazine articles often begin with colorful metaphors suggesting that what parents do with their infant has a powerful, lifelong impact on their baby's brain that determines the child's adult intelligence, temperament, and personality. This article was taken from the James S. McDonnell Foundation

Forum: General Discussion Fri, 18 Oct 2019
Topic: On Relationships and Conflict

Sean Hen wrote: If we are to discuss something as complex as "Why haven't we changed?" in a serious manner on an online forum we need to communicate with each other using words. I try to be precise as possible in my use of words in order to convey meaning clearly and accurately. Of course, sometimes I fail.

Sean, you didn't fail at anything. Your explanation of grammar was correct and your pointing out that we have to use words to communicate is obviously correct. But when you have people who are mainly interested in spinning what people write to fit their own needs, purposely refusing to understand what is being said, then you are wasting your time, I believe, trying to educate them.

For my own part I thank you for your efforts on behalf of everyone on this forum who is interested in communicating with each other and who are trying to understand each other.

Forum: General Discussion Fri, 18 Oct 2019
Topic: On Relationships and Conflict

idiot ? wrote: When I posted "When the truth is clearly seen, there is transformation," I did so in the Quiet Space forum, not here. Jack Pine pulled it off of a longer post in that forum and posted it here.

This statement is irrelevant and frankly sounds a bit whinny. We can take any statement from any forum and post it on any other forum. What do you care if I post it on another forum? One you have access to?

idiot ? wrote: He clearly didn't like the statement, found it arrogant, and wanted to challenge me.

Pure speculation with more than just a touch of paranoia on your part. I asked you if you were transformed. PERIOD! Instead of refusing to answer directly or answering "Yes" or "No" you started this long, ridiculous dance about my motives. Which you clearly are not privy to.

idiot ? wrote: It's just me saying in my own words what K says transformation is, based on K's chapter On Transformation that I later posted in its entirety in post #37 of this thread. In that chapter K says, "So what do we mean by transformation? Surely it is very simple: seeing the false as the false and the true as the true." That's pretty close to my statement: "When the truth is clearly seen, there is transformation."

Yes, K said it but I don't question whether he was transformed or not. Just because K said and you read it and repeated it, that doesn't mean squat. That certainly doesn't mean you understood what K said. So once again, K was transformed but I was asking you if you were. Can you understand this simple little fact? Just because we read something that K wrote and repeat it doesn't mean we understood it. ┬┐Comprendes?

idiot ? wrote: No one in the Quiet Space forum where I posted the statement within a larger post had anything to say about it. But here, my brief sentence has cost me many, many words.

As far as I have read no one in the Quiet Space questions anything anyone says. People can and often do make the most extravagant statements without one shred of context. It's common there. I hope it doesn't become common here.

Listen, idiot. If you didn't like the question I asked, if you questioned my motives for asking it why didn't you just ignore it? You talk about avoiding conflict but when it comes down to doing it you perpetuate it as much as anyone else. You go on and on about why you did or didn't do or say something. Why do you care what I think? Do you have a delicate image to protect? Are you insecure in other ways that keep you from feeling confident about what you write and just let it go at that? I'm really curious. I am also curious why you, instead of answering my question or ignoring it you blew it up into a few pages of this conflict that you won't end. And it's not just with me. Now it's with Sean. Do you feel you have to explain yourself to him too?

Forum: General Discussion Fri, 18 Oct 2019
Topic: On Relationships and Conflict

idiot ? wrote: To me, transformation is no different than insight.

Have you experienced both transformation and insight? A "yes" or "no" answer will do find. Thanks

Oh, whoops, sorry! Are you experiencing both transformation and insight? This last sentence doesn't really sound right does it.

Forum: General Discussion Fri, 18 Oct 2019
Topic: On Relationships and Conflict

idiot ? wrote: Jack Pine, I think you have a good heart and care deeply about K. But you say a lot of false and mistaken things. For example, in post #36, you said, "And no, K didn't teach transformation." Obviously, that is simply false.

No actually' in the literal sense, what I wrote about transformation and K is true. K was not teaching anyone HOW to transform. He was showing us his discoveries about the self, thought, consciousness and other things. Understanding these things, as K did, mostly likely be transformation. But he wasn't teaching us how to transform. There is no technique for that. I think you can agree with that can't you?

idiot ? wrote: I did ignore it. I posted K's talk on criticism. That was all I intended to do. But then Sean Hen asked for clarification. So I have spent a lot of time trying to make things clear.

Regardless of the reasons you are claiming, the fact is that you still did drag it out. Just as you are doing now.

Forum: General Discussion Fri, 18 Oct 2019
Topic: On Relationships and Conflict

One Self wrote: I see similarity between Jack's way of thinking and those aggressive and ruthless communists in the seventies. I may be wrong.

Has it occurred to you yet that your posts are absolutely idiotic? No one responds to them because they don't make sense. Now you say I'm like the communists in the 1970's. Two things you know nothing about. Make that three things you know nothing about. You don't know me at all. Once again, how old are you and do your parents know you post hateful, idiotic things on Kinfonet?

Forum: General Discussion Sat, 19 Oct 2019
Topic: On Relationships and Conflict

Sean Hen wrote: However, what if Fred says, "Happiness is a timeless state". Here Fred's statement seems to be true according to Krishnamurti. But has Fred worked this out for himself or is he just repeating something he doesn't really understand? Does it matter? Well, I think it does. If we just repeat truths that we don't understand then the original truth of the statement is diminished, surely.

Clearly and succinctly put. I think this has always been the heart of the discussion. Or should have been if we hadn't of been distracted with several quotes from K and other attempts to cloud the real issue behind my simple question: Are you transformed? And my other question idiot? is, Do you see truth?

Forum: General Discussion Sat, 19 Oct 2019
Topic: On Relationships and Conflict

I asked a simple question to someone who made a fairly extravagant statement wondering if he/she was merely repeating what K had said or whether that person have made a break through of being able to "see the truth which leads to transformation". I have been met with a string of false equivalencies and dodges. Anything to avoid answering the question.

The answer, by the way, was NO. The same answer the rest of us would give if we were being honest. I really hope this ends it.

Forum: General Discussion Sat, 19 Oct 2019
Topic: On Relationships and Conflict

So Dan, if you have time away from your other pursuits on this thread do you have any comment to the information you posted about neuro-connections and my response to it. I thought it was a fairly interesting subject to inquire into a bit further. What do you think?

Forum: General Discussion Sun, 20 Oct 2019
Topic: On Relationships and Conflict

Dan McDermott wrote: Can we go into this as first-hand 'owners of these three organs: the reptilian, the animal, and the neo-cortex, (intellectual) brains? And leave the scientific work of the 'experts' out?

Well we can certainly try. When asking questions of a scientific nature it has long been my response to include studies and I am not quite sure how to proceed otherwise. Also, my background is not in the biological sciences but rather the physical sciences. Geology was my undergrad study and hydrogeology was my graduate study. So I have no background in studying the function of the brain.

I'm presently reading Mary Zimbalist's Memoirs on K. A bit repetitious but interesting. In it she again points out that K was sheltered from a fairly young age and the main source of possible conditioning was from the Theosophists. K apparently remained unaffected by that conditioning. The point is that the way we were raised most likely has a great deal to do with by what and by how much we were conditioned.

How do you think we should start this discussion. And should we move it to another thread and not intrude on Sean's thread?

Forum: General Discussion Sun, 20 Oct 2019
Topic: On Relationships and Conflict

Dan McDermott wrote: .but can we question it? Can we look at the whole situation in a different light?... That we, each of us, have settled for these tiny 'prisons' we inhabit and perpetuate and live out our lives in.

I don't see why we can't question anything we want. The way I see it we, don't we need to see how our brains were conditioned beginning back when we were children? First I draw your attention to part of today's quote: If we can know for ourselves that which is false in our thinking, then we shall know naturally, without imposition, what is the true.

Can I give you some examples of how I was conditioned at a very early age by the public school system I attended? I was raised in a fairly conservative state in the US. By the second or third grade we were required to stand up in class every single morning and recite both the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag and the Lord's Prayer.

Even though we had many Jewish classmates Christianity was still being forced on us by the public school system and therefore the government of this state. If you asked my parents if they were Christian they probably would have said yes. But as far as I can remember they never, ever stepped inside a church unless it was a funeral they were attending. They never recited any of the Christian propaganda and so on. Yet the public school system was making me, all of us, participate in the dominant religion by saying a Christian prayer.

I soon grew tired of repeating these meaningless words every day and I started to change some of the words as children will do. In the Lord's Prayer during the part where it says...." our Father who art in heaven...." I added and "f" and an "s" to the beginning and end, respectively, of the word "art". It made me feel better and also gave me and those close around me a little laugh. I changed words in the Pledge too that were seriously anti patriotic.

Then there were the lessons in school itself. All the utterly false history lessons like little George Washington chopping down a cherry tree, which never happened, and all the rest of the "legends" about our great national heroes which were mostly crap.

Here's my point, Dan. Can we be aware of the things we had hammered into our brains both in and out of school? And then move from there through-out our lives becoming acutely aware of those things that conditioned us? The TV shows, movies, books, traditions, ceremonies, national beliefs and so on?

Forum: General Discussion Sun, 20 Oct 2019
Topic: On Relationships and Conflict

idiot ? wrote: You can try. But it's the past.

Of course it's the past, idiot. All thinking/conditioning is the past. To understand conditioning you have to deal with the past and the influences of that past which conditioned the way we see the world.

We are all living in the past because we are our thinking. We don't exist psychologically without thinking. Listen, idiot, I don't have time or the inclination to educate you on conditioning/thinking and the past.

Dan, if we're going to discuss this then let's discuss this without constant interruptions of inane comments. OK?