Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
Discussion Forums

Jack Pine's Forum Activity | 5787 posts in 2 forums


Forum: General Discussion Mon, 21 Oct 2019
Topic: On Relationships and Conflict

Sean Hen wrote: I understand that Krishnamurti had a daily yoga routine. Did this help him to maintain the level of alertness and clarity that he displayed?

Sean, I don't know the answer to your question but I tend to doubt K's yoga practice had much to do with his level of alertness and clarity. He wasn't doing kundalini yoga but rather a yoga called Astanga yoga, known as the eight limbs of yoga. His instructor was BKS Iyengar. A man K referred to at least once as unduly arrogant.

From reading Mary Zimbalist's Memoires I gather that the yoga K did was part of his daily physical fitness regime which also included vigorous walks. Of course physical exercise can have a positive affect on your mental alertness.

The above information was taken from the afore mentioned Mary Z's Memoirs.

Forum: General Discussion Mon, 21 Oct 2019
Topic: On Relationships and Conflict

Gentlemen, I know "expanding of consciousness" has various popular meanings and I think I know what you, Sean and Dan, are referring to but it raises the question with respect to what K pointed out: Do we want to expand the consciousness or move beyond it? Maybe expanding awareness and freeing the mind of conditioning is what you were referring to?

Forum: General Discussion Mon, 21 Oct 2019
Topic: On Relationships and Conflict

idiot ? wrote: To me, the whole - K did yoga so I'll do it, too - is a little silly.

And who, pray tell, is saying this other than you? I haven't read where anyone else is even implying this.

idiot ? wrote: Are you going to wake up early, about 4 AM, sit up with the back straight in meditation every morning? He did.

Not according to Mary Z's Memoirs that closely documented the last 20 years of his life. I'm reading them now, am 75% done with them, the memoirs, detailed his daily life to the point of exhaustion. K didn't get up at 4 AM regularly to do anything according to the memoirs.

idiot ? wrote: Now at K centers there are yoga classes and programs. I've also seen people in Ojai carefully take walks on the same routes that K did, up into the mountains regularly.

I'm just curious. Can you name one of those routes, paths, that K regularly walked on? Actually there was one in particular that he mostly walked on that he could access from Pine Cottage fairly easily. Do you remember the name of that trail?

I live in Ojai for six months out of the year and regularly visit up there to the Pepper Tree Retreat (Arya Vihara) and Pine Cottage (K Library). There are still one or two people I knew from back in the 1970's who are still with the Krishnamurti Foundation of America and we have been friends for 40 years. I'm not aware of any official yoga classes or any yoga classes. They use to offer yoga classes years ago. They do have discussions on Saturdays I think at 4:00PM in the Library.

I'm not trying to "bust your chops" but I do question the veracity of your information.

Forum: General Discussion Tue, 22 Oct 2019
Topic: On Relationships and Conflict

idiot ? wrote: It's certainly possible, Jack Pine, that we have met in person and had a nice, friendly encounter. I wouldn't be at all surprised. Also, I have seen some fine carpentry work at the center. I don't know if you contributed to that but it's great.

Thanks for your above post. I appreciate it and I think it's time to stop this whatever is going on between us. And thanks for the compliment but I had nothing to do with the finish carpentry at any K property. I worked for Max Falk, the builder of Oak Grove School and redoing and adding on to the Pine Cottage, as a frame carpenter. He had a couple of really good lead carpenters working for him. And Max was no slough himself.

Horn Canyon Trail over by Thatcher School was the path K often took from the time he was a young man up into his senior years. In about an hour and a half you can get up to the top of, or at least close to, the Topa Topas. Personally I prefer the Cozy Dell Trail that begins over by Friends Ranch where they have the warehouse and you can buy oranges and other citrus fruit they raise. It's much closer to where I live and still gets you up into the mountains.

And, yes, we might know each other. We might even be or have been friends. That would be ironic wouldn't it? Peace.

Forum: General Discussion Thu, 24 Oct 2019
Topic: On Relationships and Conflict

Forget the snake analogy. What he was saying isn't about snakes it was about "hindrances" like nationalism, organized religion and other forms of conditioning that divide and separate, people that leads to conflict.

But then you know how those "Indian Gurus" and snake charmers are. Sitting there in their turbans with their flute and cobra in a basket...…….

Forum: General Discussion Thu, 24 Oct 2019
Topic: What is the true function of the brain? Taken from A Quiet Space

So what, in all this, is a relevant question? Perhaps one is: “how can we enquire into the true potential of the brain?”.

Clive asked this question after a long and interesting recital on the immensity of the Universe, evolution and the human brain.

Idiot? posted a very relevant quote from K which not only answered the above question but discussed the question of "what should the brain and/or thinking be? This is part of the K quote that idiot? posted:

With what are our minds occupied - actually, not ideologically? With trivialities, are they not? With how one looks, with ambition, with greed, with envy, with gossip, with cruelty. The mind lives in a world of trivialities and a trivial mind creating a noble pattern is still trivial, is it not? The question is not with what should the mind be occupied but can the mind free itself from trivialities?

Exactly.

Forum: General Discussion Thu, 24 Oct 2019
Topic: What is the true function of the brain? Taken from A Quiet Space

idiot ? wrote: Wait. You approve of one of my postings? That's too funny.

Well of this one anyway. It was more of a situation where you picked a very appropriate response to what appeared to me to be another inane question.

With regard to the original post and ending question I think Clive was asking if the brain, which is conditioned, limited, the past could go into itself and understand eternity. That's my phrasing not his. There have been any number of discussions started this way without any hope of getting anywhere with finding out anything significant.

It's my understanding, and I may be wrong, but it is not thinking real hard that is going to lead to "truth". But rather it is the mind becoming quiet without seeking anything that may open it (the mind) to seeing.

Forum: General Discussion Fri, 25 Oct 2019
Topic: What is the true function of the brain? Taken from A Quiet Space

Dan McDermott wrote: First it has to realize its own "triviality", doesn't it? Without that happening, it will always find a 'hiding place' in itself that it feels is not trivial.

Dan, neither idiot? nor I brought up "triviality" K did in the quote. K didn't seem to think this was a problem or he probably would have gone into it don't you think? Are we creating a problem that really isn't there?

Dan McDermott wrote: Investigating, inquiring, experimenting is not "thinking real hard" (though it could be) but when someone tries to share those questions, insights,etc., using words, it might sound like that. And also this idea of something or other "leading" to the truth needs to be questioned in oneself doesn't it?

Dan, I think it is important to ask questions. What I see as a mistake is verbally/intellectually pondering over these questions. We all know, or have accepted intellectually, that thought is limited. Thought is conditioned, the past. Can we agree on that? If we can then what role does thought have in understanding the questions being asked?

Ask the question and then let the mind go quiet, observe. But what use is it to come to conclusion after conclusion based on knowledge that we may agree is limited? Is the past, not new.

Forum: General Discussion Fri, 08 Nov 2019
Topic: Can fear actually, really, end in me? From Quiet Space

Contrary to the way it may seem I don't scour the "Quiet Space" (QS) to finds things to criticize. If I did I would be on here night and day typing away. Like idiot?, I can find better things to do with my time than spend huge amounts of it on this forum.

That said, the above title of this thread, which originally appeared on a thread post started by Clive on the QS Forum, shows a remarkable lack of understanding of what K tirelessly pointed out throughout his life: No Clive, fear can never end in "me". The me, the ego, the center has the same root as fear. Which is, of course, thought. The fear is part of the "me". Fear is an image of thought and so is the me. "Me" can never exist without fear for the above stated reasons.

Forum: General Discussion Fri, 08 Nov 2019
Topic: Can fear actually, really, end in me? From Quiet Space

Thought is the past. Thought is based on knowledge and experience. The past. Fear is psychological and there is physical fear. You're walking in the mountains and you round the corner and there is a mountain lion in the middle of the path. Physical fear. The present. Fear of loosing someone you love. Psychological fear. The present. The person you love may die in the future before you do but the fear is now, present based on thought which is the past. That's clear right? Fear is thought, consciousness is thought. The "me" and "fear" are both part of consciousness which is the accumulation of the past. This is by Jack Pine who admits he doesn't know too much but this much is clear anyway, right? Now if you care to read the following long post it is a very interesting and clear discussion of fear by K and some people at one of the Saanen Talks.

So thought is a movement from the past, the past being collected experience - innumerable experiences which have become knowledge; so knowledge is essentially the past. So thought is a movement from the past, modifies itself in the present and goes on to the future. Right? So, I have found out - you have found out, not me - you have found out for yourself that thought is a movement from the storehouse of the past. So thought is never free. Right? I wonder if you see this! Thought is a movement of the past, therefore of time, and as long as we operate - no, let me put it differently - we have to operate in thought - right? - where knowledge is necessary, we have to operate there - all the technological knowledge, riding a bicycle, this and that - where knowledge is essential, there thought operates. Is it possible for thought to remain there and not enter into other fields? You are following my question? That is, I realise I am afraid - fear; fear of not being, fear of loneliness, fear of not being loved, or fear of loving and losing, fear of death, fear of losing a job - you know, a dozen fears. But basically there is only one fear which expresses itself in multiple ways. So that fear is the movement of thought. Right? Now, in observing that movement, is the observer different from that, different from that which he observes? Are we meeting something together or not? My word! Because you see, please, if we can go into this one question completely and when you leave the tent, the marquee, you are free of fear - you understand? - it would be a marvellous thing. That will affect the whole consciousness of mankind if you are free. So, please share this thing together; don't let me talk about it but let us journey into the problem together. You're afraid of something, aren't you? Every human being is, apparently. Now is that fear different from you? Right? I am asking, is that fear different from you? Q: I hope so. K: You hope so. (Laughter) Oh lord! Or, that fear is you. Please do let us be a little serious, is that fear you? Of course. Like anger - is anger different from you or you are part of that? Obviously. So fear is part of you, but we have learnt or been educated to separate ourselves from fear, and therefore we say, I'll control it, I'll change it, I will run away from it, all the rest of it comes into being. But if the fear is you, what will you do? You understand the question now? Q: Yes Q: I feel that I have to tackle it. K: Yes, sir. Q: Are you saying that, or when I hear you say that I and fear is one... and this is my fear. Is that right? K: No sir, no. First, please, get this one thing clear, at least: as anger is not different from you - which is so obvious isn't it? - is not fear part of you? And if it is part of you, what will you do? We are used to separating fear from ourselves and therefore acting upon fear - suppress it, run away from it, all the rest of it. But when fear is you, action comes to an end. Right? This is very difficult for you to see, because we are so conditioned to this division - me different from fear, and therefore acting upon fear. But we are saying something entirely different - fear is you, therefore, you can't act. Then what happens? Q: Your talk in the morning is from the past. Q: We hear you... ought to be in the present? K: What ought to be implies that you are not looking at what is. Q: (Inaudible) K: Thought moves from the past through the present to the future. Thought modifies itself through the present to the future, so thought is still the past. It may modify itself, it may change itself, it may put on different coating, different clothing, whatever it is, colouring - it is still the past movement. Please, what is the time? Q: Twelve thirty. K: Half past twelve? Already? (Laughter) No, please, this is very important, I want to stick to this one thing this morning, if I may. As most human beings are afraid and they have accepted fear as part of their life, and therefore live in darkness, therefore live in a kind of paralytic state, and being afraid, all forms of neurotic habits, neurotic activities come, it's very important, if there is to be transformation in the human consciousness, that fear must be totally eliminated. And we say it is possible. It is only possible when conflict between the person who says, I am afraid and I will do something about fear, when that conflict comes to an end, that is when the division comes to an end. And that division is artificial, it's an illusion. What is actuality is, the fear is part of you, therefore you cannot do a thing about it - right? - psychologically. Therefore your whole attention undergoes a change. Before, attention was given to the conflict - suppressing, denying, running away. But now when your fear is you, your whole attention has undergone a change. That is, you have much greater energy to look at this fear. Before you ran away, you suppressed it, did all kinds of things to it; now, fear is part of you, therefore you observe it with a totally different attention. You get this? Please get this! Q: You can only look at fear if it is separate, surely. K: When you look at fear, the gentleman says, then it's apart from you. When fear is you what are you looking at? Do please watch it. Don't answer me. Do look at it. When fear is you what are you looking at? You are not looking at fear, you are that. So, your attention has changed. Q: (Inaudible) K: We are coming to that. Attention has changed. Right? Please see that simple thing. Q: Who is looking at me? K: I am not looking at you, sir; I am looking at fear. (Laughter) Oh, Jesus - waste of time. Q: But wouldn't it be eliminating a part of me? K: Yes, you are eliminating part of you - which you are afraid of. Part of you is fear. Right? With all the complications of fear. Part of you is pleasure - with all the varieties of pleasure. Part of you is sorrow - different types of sorrow. So, all that is you; you are not different from all that, are you? Or you might think you are god. If you think you are not all that, then you are something different from all that, and being 'different' you are something super-human. This is the old Hindu philosophy that says, 'I am not that. We are the soul, we have something precious inside, we are part of the divine, we are part of the perfect, we are part of the archetype' - you know, all that. So, I personally refuse to accept all that. We must begin with doubt. Right? And when you begin with doubt, completely begin with that, then you end up with complete certainty. But we begin with certainties and end up in nothing. (Laughter) Please give your attention to this question. As long as there is division between you and fear, then there is conflict, there is wastage of energy - by suppressing it, running away from it, talking about it, going to the analysts and so on and on and on and on. But whereas, when you see the truth that you are that fear, your whole energy is gathered in this attention to look at that thing. Now what is that thing which we call fear? Is it a word which has brought fear, or is it independent of the word? You are following this? If it is the word, the word being the associations with the past - I recognise it because I have had fear before. You understand? I look at that fear though it is part of me because I name it, and I name it because I have known it to happen before. So, by naming it I have strengthened it. I wonder if you see this. So, is it possible to observe without naming it? If you name it, it's already in the past, right? If you don't name it, it's something entirely different, isn't it? So is it possible not to name that thing which you have called 'fear' , therefore free of the past so that you can look. You cannot look if you are prejudiced. If I am prejudiced against you, I can't look at you, I am looking at my prejudice. So is it possible not to name the thing at all? And then if you do not name it, is it fear? Or has it undergone a change, because you have given all your attention to it. You understand? I wonder if you get it. When you name it you are not giving attention to it, when you try to suppress it you are not giving your attention to it, when you try to run away from it you are not giving your attention to it - whereas when you observe that fear is you, and not name it - what takes place? What takes place? You are doing it now. What takes place? Q: It's an emotion. K: Wait, it is a sensation, isn't it? A feeling which is sensation. Please watch it, it's a sensation, isn't it? All feelings are sensations. I put a pin in there, and all the rest of it. So it's a sensation. What's wrong with sensation? Nothing is wrong with sensation, is it? But when sensation plus thought, which becomes desire with its images, then the trouble begins. I wonder if you understand all this! This is too much probably in the morning. (Laughter) You know, this is part of meditation. You understand? This is really part of meditation. Not to sit under a tree and just think about something or other, or try to concentrate, or try to repeat some mantra or some word - Coca Cola - or something or other (laughter) - but this is really meditation because you are enquiring very, very, very deeply into yourself. And you can enquire very deeply only when you are really without any motive, when you are free to look. And you cannot look if you separate yourself from that which you are looking at. Then you have complete energy to look. It is only when there is no attention that fear comes into being. You understand? When there is complete attention which is complete, total energy then there is no fear, is there? It's only the inattentive person that is afraid, not the person who is completely attentive at the moment when that feeling arises. That feeling is a part of sensation. Sensation is normal, natural. It's like looking at a tree, looking at people, you know - sensation. But when sensation plus thought, which is desire with its images, then begins all our problems. You understand? This is simple. Right? Now can you look at your fear - be serious for five minutes! Can you look at your fear, whatever it is; not separate yourself from that fear, but you are that fear, and therefore you give your total attention to that fear. Then is there fear? Q: No. K: Then walk out of this tent without fear. Don't say no and then go outside full of fears. Do you want to ask questions about this? Q: Sir, I did not grasp, in the beginning you said it is more our responsibility than yours. What did you mean by it? K: Sir, the word 'responsibility' - what does it mean to be responsible. To respond adequately, isn't it? The word 'responsibility' comes from the root 'respond', to respond. Now, do you respond adequately to this question of fear? Or, do you respond with all your tradition, with your culture, you follow? - all that conditioning and therefore which prevents you from responding fully to this question? As we said, this is part of meditation. You don't know what meditation is, but this is part of it. When the mind is not afraid then only is it capable of entering into something totally different, but being afraid, to try to meditate only leads to illusion, to all kinds of deceptive experiences. So meditation is the investigation into your consciousness, into yourself; and see if there can be freedom from that, from the fear, and to understand the nature and the structure of pleasure, because we all want pleasure. To understand it, to go into it, to find out what is accurate in pleasure, what is right in pleasure - enjoyment, joy. And also to enquire into the whole problem of fear, not only your particular fear, sorrow, but the sorrow of mankind. All that is involved in meditation which is to discover the truth in yourself, to discover the truth which is a light to yourself so that you don't follow anybody. That's enough for today, isn't it? Is that enough for today?

J. Krishnamurti Talk and Dialogues Saanen 1967 1st Public Talk 9th July 1967

Forum: General Discussion Sat, 09 Nov 2019
Topic: Can fear actually, really, end in me? From Quiet Space

This quote from K was taken from the above referenced quote: This is for those you are either too lazy or are otherwise unable to simply drop their beliefs and read what K says in the above long quote.

K: Thought moves from the past through the present to the future. Thought modifies itself through the present to the future, so thought is still the past. It may modify itself, it may change itself, it may put on different coating, different clothing, whatever it is, coloring - it is still the past movement. Fear is not separate from thinking just as the "me" is not separate from thinking.

Forum: General Discussion Sat, 09 Nov 2019
Topic: Suggestion for One Self

I have an idea. Why don't you stick to your usual rambling, confused diatribes that have nothing to do with what K pointed out and not critique what others write on here? You're no good at it to begin with. And by the way "marage" is spelled marriage. Your spelling is a fairly accurate gauge for your general understanding: Grossly incorrect.

You've pretty much destroyed this forum with your ridiculous posts that no one replies to. Isn't that enough?

Forum: General Discussion Sat, 09 Nov 2019
Topic: Family and marage are the beginning of division and conflict in the society .

Is this the real reason behind your anger and often hateful comments to others? You have been jilted by someone, you are alone and you need to rationalize that aloneness as something K wanted you to do?

Instead of being falsely concerned with other's imagined mental illness look at your own. Look at the hateful diatribes that you post on here and of how others avoid getting pulled into them.

As I have already pointed out you have pretty much destroyed the General Forum with your confused, illiterate, angry posts that show a rather deep misunderstanding of what K pointed out.

Forum: General Discussion Sat, 09 Nov 2019
Topic: Jealousy

One Self wrote: We know that criticism according to k is a negative thing. I always thought that we escape from our utter loneliness through criticism of others in so many fields and so on and on

But all you ever do on here is criticize. Why can't you see that you are consistently doing what you see as false and evil in others?

Forum: General Discussion Sat, 09 Nov 2019
Topic: Jealousy

One Self wrote: What is love according to K? Love according to me doesn't exist at all.

Oh yeah, you've been dumped. You really need to come to terms with that. It appears to be eating you up, making you an angry, hateful person. Let it go.

Forum: General Discussion Sun, 10 Nov 2019
Topic: Can fear actually, really, end in me? From Quiet Space

One Self wrote: Jack,your illness cannot be cured by Krishnamurti as it hasn't for the past fifty years. Go and see a psychologist . He may be able to help you with medications. Words have become poisonous to you. Give it up.

What a strange way to reply to a quote by K regarding thought that I posted in post #3. And you talk about others needing mental help? Oh and by the way, another thing you are ignorant about is that psychologists are not medical doctors and, therefore, cannot prescribe medicines. Psychiatrists are medical doctors and they can prescribe medicines.

You are the most ignorant person I think that has ever been on this forum. Almost everything you write is confused, erroneous drivel.

Your bitterness, anger and hatred are probably dissolving what brain you may have left.

Forum: General Discussion Sun, 10 Nov 2019
Topic: Jealousy

So really, what happened to make you such a man-hater? Did you get jilted, dumped? Why do you hate so much? Why are you so bitter toward everything and everyone?

One Self wrote: Studying K's teachings has to be done everyday of one's life . Otherwise it evaporates .

What do you think you have to do everyday to keep "K's teachings" from evaporating? And which is more important; K's teachings or your own understanding of yourself?

Forum: General Discussion Tue, 26 Nov 2019
Topic: The Face Hallucination

idiot ? wrote: Here he describes seeing a face, that apparently no one else saw. What does it mean? Was it his face? Someone else's? Does that matter? Was it a hallucination? Was K in touch with a reality that you and I are not? Or did he just have some nutty peculiarities?

I can't answer any of these questions, not surprisingly. But one thing I think we need to be clear on is that Pupul was far from being the objective observer. Being Indian she was heavily conditioned in all phases of religious belief. K once remarked in Michael Krohnen's book, Kitchen Chronicles, that the Hindus worship about 200,000 gods. Indians appear to be deeply conditioned by religion whether it is Muslim, Hindu or whatever. Much more even than the average American who appears to be deeply conditioned by Christianity especially.

In another book, Mary Z's memoirs, it came out that at least one published book of a K talk in India was based solely on someone's memory of the talk. No notes were taken and there was no recording. The point is that at least some Indians involved with K don't have that sense of objectivity or dedication to fact that is required when reporting factually on a talk.

Can you take anything that has been written by Pupul too seriously or factually?

Forum: General Discussion Wed, 27 Nov 2019
Topic: The Face Hallucination

idiot ? wrote: When he spoke on a personal level with people close to him, it could be quite different.

This is an accurate and relevant observation that I would like to discuss a little here. If K were here today and I could ask him a question I would ask him this: Is reincarnation an actuality or is it an invention of the mind, of thought?

The reason I ask this is that I seem to remember that K said there wasn't any such thing as reincarnation. That when we are dead that's it. The body dies and the consciousness, which is a collection of knowledge and experience, fades away. In a way our consciousness may be carried forth for awhile in the memories of those who were close to us and knew us well. They remember things we said or did, how we felt about big and small things in our life but, eventually, those people die too.

So what is the status, the reality, of beings like the Maitreya Bodhisattva, Master KH and the Buddha that K has visions of and speaks about?

Are they examples of re-incarnation or are they remnants of the heavy conditioning that K was exposed to when he was very young and being "educated" by Mrs Besant, CW Leadbeater and others in the Theosophist Society? If K, or those who were close to him, are claiming the former then it appears we may have a possible contradiction here.

Is there or is there not reincarnation? Were the faces K say delusions or the manifestations of re-incarnated beings?

Forum: General Discussion Fri, 29 Nov 2019
Topic: The Face Hallucination

Sean Hen wrote: You can watch a short video of Krishnamurti talking about re-incarnation here.

Any thoughts on what he says?

Hi Sean. I have tried a few times to listen to the video you recommended I watch. Unfortunately due to my damaged hearing and K's soft, fuzzy voice and the relatively poor quality of the video itself and no closed captions, I can't understand what k is saying. I tried looking it up at K online and I did find part of that question and answer. But the written transcript was just the first few paragraphs. It ends with the young man talking to Death....and it didn't even finish that dialogue.

But what I was able to read is basically what I recall K saying about reincarnation. What reincarnates? If there is something in particular you wanted me to hear would you mind writing it out on here?

Forum: General Discussion Fri, 29 Nov 2019
Topic: The Face Hallucination

I think part of what K has pointed out about reincarnation is that it is an escape for some. A hope for a second chance perhaps.

I remember during one question and answer meeting I attended in the late '70s or early '80s someone asking about reincarnation. K replied, "Incarnate now!" This drew applause from the attendees which seems to repel K. He didn't like emotional responses.

Forum: General Discussion Fri, 29 Nov 2019
Topic: The Face Hallucination

Id! I just read the second link you posted above. It is astoundingly relevant to this question of reincarnation and to living itself. The dialogue feels like it brings into sharp focus much of what K was pointing out during his life. I have never read this passage before. Thanks very much for posting it. The question of whether incarnation exists or doesn't has been brought into a context and focus which is very clear.

Forum: General Discussion Fri, 29 Nov 2019
Topic: The Face Hallucination

Naude talking to K:

"Dr. Besant's echo, for instance," he (K) said, "will go on for a long time, for she had a very strong personality." "Your viewpoint here is very similar to that of the Theosophists," I said. "With one important difference," he replied. "There is no permanent substance that survives the death of the body. Whether the ego lasts one year, ten thousand, or a million years, it must finally come to an end."

Taken from the Dialogue with K, Naude and Mary Z posted above by Id in the 2nd link, Post #10

Forum: General Discussion Sun, 01 Dec 2019
Topic: The Face Hallucination

Ken D wrote: Did Krishnamurti exist as an individual before he died?

As a physical body, yes. But apparently not as a discrete psychological entity with a separate consciousness.

PS Check you personal messages for an answer to your post to me about Rickles and Friar Club.

Forum: General Discussion Sun, 01 Dec 2019
Topic: The Face Hallucination

Sean Hen wrote: The central point seems to be him questioning how much John actually existed as an individual in life before he died. What exactly are we to make of this?

Well, as I pointed out above about K, John existed as physical body but only as a psychological entity. I mean he existed, like we all do, as an illusion. As a belief that our consciousness is somehow unique and separate from other consciousness. Most of us don't see that we all share a consciousness that varies slightly and insignificantly from culture to culture, nation to nation.

Sydney was close to his brother John and obviously missed him and felt that he was still there. Still in the room with him. This is not uncommon.

Recently, after having spent months together in the Rocky Mountains, my wife left ahead of me to go back to Ojai and get the place ready for our winter stay. After she was gone I would be sitting in the living room reading and I felt very strongly that she was still there in her chair reading. I would frequently look over to say something and then remember that she had left for Ojai.

The strength and familiarity of the personality of those close to us remains after they have gone. Whether they have left on a trip or died I think it is the same thing. I think that is what Sydney was feeling and what made him inquire about reincarnation.

Forum: General Discussion Tue, 03 Dec 2019
Topic: The Face Hallucination

Sean Hen wrote: Seriously, K talked about people not existing as individuals as they were part of the stream of common consciousness. It seems that K "stepped out of the stream" while he was alive. Does that mean he existed as an individual?

Yours is a good question and a lot more subtle than it first appears to be. The word "individual" means "un-divided", all one, "whole". It could accurately be said that what K pointed out was "un-divided", the wholeness of life.

Forum: General Discussion Mon, 09 Dec 2019
Topic: Are we really "progressing" in our understanding?

Alistair Melville wrote: We don't want to be without that safety net, that screen of the past, that would be much to threatening, we would feel vulnerable. Is it possible to listen without this screen of the past coming in ?

Hi Alistair. Do you think that it may be that we don't want to be without the "safety net" maybe because we are the safety net? I mean by that we are what we think (I know this has become a cliché). "We", the center, want to experience a "change" to be "enlightened" to be "transformed". Can there be any of this while the illusion of a center remains in thinking? Can there be a complete awareness that "we", "I" are nothing more than a collection of experiences and knowledge; memories, conditioning?

What we are now is a bunch of fragments; Americans, British, Kenyans, Christians, Muslims, Hebrews, white, black, yellow, red and so on. Can it be seen that these are all inventions of thought or simply superficial differences that separates humanity which eventually leads to conflict, hatred, war and ultimately the destruction of the earth?

Humanity, in it's present form, is like a virus, a cancer, that is destroying the earth and all life on it. Will we change in time to save the destruction of the earth?

One becomes discouraged by the reality of "leaders" like the pathological liar and malignant narcissist (and much worse) that is presently "leading" the United States.