Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
Discussion Forums

Sean Hen's Forum Activity | 610 posts in 1 forum


Forum: General Discussion Thu, 25 Oct 2012
Topic: I was just wondering...

Hello everybody,

I'm quite new to this forum. Although I haven't posted before, I have read quite a few messages on different message threads over the past few years. If I may, I'd like to share a few thoughts.

I haven't read or listened to Krishnamurti for a long time, but there was a time when I read many of his books and listened to him speak on recordings and DVDs. I also stayed for three days at Brockwood Park about 25 years ago. I have to say that I found Krishnamurti very communicative a lot of the time. What he was saying seemed deeply relevant and a sense of freshness or newness came across to me. I had the feeling that he "lived" his teachings and wasn't just explaining a complex theory. My impression of him was of a person who was extremely aware and acutely observant, Sometimes after reading or listening to him, I would find my own mind a little sharper, observing things more clearly.

I was wondering if it would be possible to have a similar quality of communication here on this forum. Perhaps this already exists. What I mean is a situation where we all approach a subject with an open mind and explore together to see if we can come across something fresh, new. I think that this kind of communication would be very worthwhile.

I'd be grateful to hear your views on this.

Forum: General Discussion Fri, 26 Oct 2012
Topic: I was just wondering...

Hi everybody,

Thanks a lot B.T. and Per for those messages which I found really interesting.

One subject that seems to have come up in this Forum quite a lot is whether reading Krishnamurti can help free us from our conditioning or if it simply adds another layer of conditioning to confuse us even more. I think this is an interesting area.

As we've already commented, it seems that there was something about Krishnamurti's whole demeanour, not just what he said, that led a lot of us to conclude that he had actually managed to leave his conditioning behind and live completely in the present moment. In many of the dialogues which I've read, he keeps pulling the focus of the exchange back to the here and now when the discussion becomes "intellectual" and theoretical. As Per and B.T. said, something is probably missing when we're not talking face-to-face but I still wonder if it's possible for us to move away from "the known" and have a discussion which has the same quality of freshness to it as when Krishnamurti was talking to people.

I'd be interested in reading any thoughts on this.

Forum: General Discussion Sat, 27 Oct 2012
Topic: I was just wondering...

Hi everybody,

Many thanks to all of you who have contributed to this message thread which I started.

We were talking about two points - firstly, whether our contact with K’s teachings had changed us or not and secondly if it were possible to have the same kind of open and fresh communication here in this forum which many of us found when reading K’s work.

As regards the first question, it seems there are three possibilities: 1. Reading K’s work has had no effect upon us. 2. Our contact with K’s work has changed us in a positive way. 3. Our contact with the teachings has had a negative effect on us.

If possibility number two is true, it would seem fair to assume that we are more sensitive and aware and approach life with a more open heart and mind. If possibility number three is true, and we have become even more conditioned and narrow than before by having another layer of conditioning added to the little envelope which is “me”, then perhaps we believe “I know but you do not know” or “I have understood the teachings but you have not”.

I must say that I agree with Nick’s friend who said “The proof of the pudding is in the eating”. There is surely a big difference between theory and doing. However, this is related to the second point I brought up. I was wondering if it were possible to “eat pudding” here in this forum. I mean, not just to exchange theories or things we know, but to communicate in a way which has a quality of freshness and shared discovery about it.

Forum: General Discussion Sat, 27 Oct 2012
Topic: I was just wondering...

Dear Rick,

Sorry, I called you "Nick" in my last message.

Yes, good point about being too full to eat pudding - food for "thought". :)

Forum: General Discussion Sat, 27 Oct 2012
Topic: I was just wondering...

Hi again Rick,

RICK LEIN wrote: Actually Sean,Nick and Rick are not that close! LOL...Neither is the person from whom Rick borrowed that quote close to Nick!:)

Thanks for pointing out the degrees of closeness/separation between Nick, Rick and Rick's friend.

Maybe you could all come together and share some pudding one day :)

Forum: General Discussion Tue, 30 Oct 2012
Topic: Letter to Lidlolady

Hi everybody,

I'm quite new to this forum and not fully aware of the history of this site. However, lidlo lady wrote:

The parameters of this discussion forum do not include the far-fetched possibility that Krishnamurti's teaching might be fundamentally unsound, inexplicable to the uninitiated, impracticable, and fantastic.

Is this a fact? As someone who is interested in K's teachings, I would have thought that it was a good thing to debate the soundness of what K said. In challenging the teachings, there is surely an opportunity to learn and establish more clarity.

The tone of the exchanges in a debate are, of course, very important. Challenging ideas (or whatever you want to call them) can often be interpreted as a personal attack. Surely if we can maintain a civil tone and a certain degree of mutual respect, we will be capable of debating, as Lidlo Lady put it, "the far-fetched possibility that Krishnamurti's teaching might be fundamentally unsound, inexplicable to the uninitiated, impracticable, and fantastic."

Forum: General Discussion Thu, 01 Nov 2012
Topic: Letter to Lidlolady

Hi everybody,

It's difficult to keep up with all the posts in this debate. However, I think I've read most of them. After Lidlo Lady's challenging letter, we seem to be discussing the truth or not of K's teachings.

How do we know if anything is true or not? Some things can be scientifically proven but how can we "prove" that the teachings are in fact true? Can we do this? I can only give my own impressions and state why I am interested in K's teachings. Some people may think that this is in itself "wrong".

From the first time I heard K speak, in an interview on British TV with Bernard Levin, I felt that what he was saying was deeply relevant and a sense of freshness or newness came across to me. I had the feeling that he "lived" his teachings and wasn't just explaining a complex theory. This seemed apparent to me in his whole manner, not just the words he spoke. This was a "gut feeling". Of course this is not very scientific. My impression of him was of a person who was extremely aware and acutely observant. Sometimes after reading or listening to him, I would find my own mind a little sharper, observing things more clearly. (I wrote most of this on an earlier post on another thread but it sums up why I am interested in the teachings and why I come to this forum)

Am I deluding myself here or can I trust my instincts? Can I experiment with what K said and see if it is true or not? Has my contact with the teachings helped open my mind or has it merely confused me? More questions than answers I'm afraid.

Forum: General Discussion Fri, 02 Nov 2012
Topic: Letter to Lidlolady

Inglish Man wrote:

Sean Hen wrote:

Can I experiment with what K said and see if it is true or not?

What do you mean/understand by "experimenting with what K said"? How do you intend to proceed?

Hello Inglish Man. An example of what I mean by "experimenting with what K said" is the following:

I was sitting on the underground/subway train today just observing the faces of other passengers. The old woman reading her book, the young man wearing headphones and playing a game on his mobile phone, the young family speaking German and their three children smiling, playing with toys. I was aware of the sounds around me and the smells and how my attention drifted off as I thought about something and how attention came back when I became aware of the thoughts and I began to observe again.

I don't know how I will proceed.

Did I do something terribly wrong? :)

Forum: General Discussion Fri, 02 Nov 2012
Topic: Letter to Lidlolady

Lidlo Lady wrote:

Sean Hen wrote: Am I deluding myself here or can I trust my instincts? Can I experiment with what K said and see if it is true or not?

Start with the self. What is it? Is it real or imagined or an illusory effect of consciousness? In this forum there is no agreement as to what the self is, though most here equate it with the Devil. They've said it must be dealt with by some inexplicable means sometimes referred to as "dropping it", "negating" it, "seeing" it, and having it "dissolve", but at no time has the self been clearly defined, nor has it been explained how you can know when you're "selfless".

Hi Lidlo Lady. You've mentioned before how important you think it is to define "the self". I think you said you started a thread but it didn't really get anywhere. Rather than debate the question of "the self" now, I'd be happy to discuss this if you decide to start a new thread. To be honest, I've never really contemplated this question in any depth before.

Forum: General Discussion Fri, 02 Nov 2012
Topic: Letter to Lidlolady

Inglish Man wrote: Observing whatever is going on in one's life is one thing and doing so because K has pointed out doing so is another. One can't remain natural and stress free if an ideal has already been projected before one. Then the ideal takes more time and space in one's mind then the actual observation. What do you say to this?

I'm really not sure what you're saying here Inglish Man. One can observe with a still mind and see what happens, nothing more. Of course, this is much easier said than done as the mind is almost never still and is always wandering all over the place. Where will this go? I have absolutely no idea - maybe nowhere. You said "an ideal has already been projected before one". Can you tell me what this ideal is?

Forum: General Discussion Fri, 02 Nov 2012
Topic: Letter to Lidlolady

mine field wrote: You can't see clearly if there is a projection that 'still mind is necessary to do so'. There may be a different kind of stillness in observing the wandering mind.

This sounds like a theory. How do you know this? Is this based on your personal experience of observation?. Who observes with a projection "still mind is necessary to do so"? Do you do this, or are you speculating that others do this?

Forum: General Discussion Tue, 06 Nov 2012
Topic: An Other Instrument?

Hi everybody,

lidlo lady wrote: I've made myself perfectly clear, but for your sake, I'll repeat myself: Krishnamurti's teaching is religion; it has no scientific validity.

I can't see how K's teachings can be validated scientifically. Well, perhaps there is a way but I am certainly unaware of it. My understanding of the teachings was that K invited us to find out for ourselves. I understood that he invited us to "look through the window" as it were and that we might discover something if we did. However, we seem to be unable to look through the window (I include myself here). We can speculate about what we might discover, theorise about the window or K himself, but we are, for some reason, unable to look clearly and discover.

This is my understanding.

Forum: General Discussion Thu, 08 Nov 2012
Topic: An Other Instrument?

lidlo lady wrote: If there is a window, you don't need to be invited to look through it. If your attention needs to be directed to it, you may be too distractable to look at anything. If there is a window, you'll look through it. But if the "window" is The Teaching, you're not looking at anything but oration and text to which you attach your own meaning and significance.

Thanks for this response to my message Lidlo Lady.

To be honest, I don't really see what you're getting at here. I understand that the situation is like this: K points out that we can't actually see a tree because we are conditioned. We see the tree through past experience, thought, all the images and knowledge we have built up over time of the tree. K suggests that it is possible to free ourselves of our conditioning by stepping outside of ourselves and becoming aware, observing thought as it arises (I'm sure some people will dispute my simplification of all this). We listen to K and think "this seems to make sense". Lidlo Lady, you seem to be saying that because we have listened to what K says, we become distracted and focus on our interpretation of the oration rather than on observing what is actually going on. Is that right?

My question is, what is this conclusion based on? Is it based on your own experimentation with this, on observing others or something else? Obviously, you can't know what goes on in an individual's head when they observe their own thoughts. Surely the fact that we have listened to the teachings does not preclude our becoming aware in the way which K talked about.

Forum: General Discussion Thu, 08 Nov 2012
Topic: An Other Instrument?

lidlo lady wrote: The people in this forum who vehemently insist that Krishnamurti spoke the truth and was infallible are no more "aware" than you are...

Hi lidlo lady. With respect, you have no idea how aware I am. Well, I still haven't been put off this debate.

Forum: General Discussion Fri, 09 Nov 2012
Topic: An Other Instrument?

lidlo lady wrote: Awareness isn't the issue - self-knowledge is. Anyone with any self-knowledge and a little honesty knows when he's following a leader instead of putting him to the test. You can join the ranks of the K-followers who will defend their right to follow by calling it freedom, or you can ask yourself why, if they're so free, they're so attached to their master.

Ok. Despite the fact that there is a clear implication that I am lacking in self-knowledge and honesty, I'm happy to continue with this debate as I think it raises some very important points. I will reflect and get back to you on this Lidlo Lady soon (if that is acceptable and not simply a lame following of "The Master" again).

Forum: General Discussion Fri, 09 Nov 2012
Topic: An Other Instrument?

lidlo lady wrote: There may be no such thing as "becoming aware in the way which K talked about". You can't know whether there is any truth in what K said until you've tested it and found out.

Hello again Lidlo, if I may so bold as to call you that. I have reflected and find that I agree with what you said above. So, my question to you is this: have you "tested it and found out" as it were? You seem to be the one with all the answers in this debate we're having. I don't know if there's any truth in the teachings or not. I'm just a poor schmuck with little self-knowledge and not much honesty. You seem fairly sure that the teachings are flawed so I'd like you to tell me a little about how you "tested and found out". Or have I done something wrong again?

Forum: General Discussion Fri, 09 Nov 2012
Topic: The Mistakes of Krishnamurti

B Teulada wrote: ah, should i resent that? not sure any more. are you serious Jack? what you call flirty i'd call friendly

As a relatively new boy myself, I interpreted B as friendly - a very nice quality. Mind you, she didn't invite me to Portugal. :)

Forum: General Discussion Fri, 09 Nov 2012
Topic: The Mistakes of Krishnamurti

Eric Mixi wrote: I like lidlo lady too.

Well, lidlo did imply that I had little self-knowledge and was not very honest. Still, I do find him humourous. By the way, shouldn't we be talking about ending thought or something like that?

Forum: General Discussion Sat, 10 Nov 2012
Topic: An Other Instrument?

lidlo lady wrote: An honest, self-knowing statement.

It appears that, despite maintaining a certain schmuckish quality, I have gone from being an individual who has little self-knowledge and honesty to becoming one who is capable of producing statements which display both honesty and self-knowledge. Interestingly, this change has come about in the space of a day or so. Lidlo, surely this is the proof you've been looking for that a rapid transformation is really possible!

Forum: General Discussion Sat, 10 Nov 2012
Topic: An Other Instrument?

lidlo lady wrote: I'm saying there's no explanation for how perception can be anything but conditioned response and no evidence that it has ever been anything else; that to believe it's possible is wishful thinking. People who insist that it's possible, or that they're doing it, can't demonstrate it. All they can do is angrily and arrogantly insist.

I suppose the "evidence" that many of us here would offer is that K himself seemed to undergo a transformation and that he apparently had a quality of perception that was free of conditioned response. I'm assuming Lidlo Lady, that you would not agree with this.

As for people who "insist they're doing it", I can only say that I was never sure if anyone actually claimed this or not. I have at times had the impression, reading between the lines, that people have implied this in previous debates on this forum. I would agree that this would be very difficult to demonstrate.

lidlo lady wrote: Selflessness, transformation, and "direct perception" are all, as far as I can tell, fantasies. But in my thread, "Krishnamurti's Proposition", I give it all the benefit of the doubt.

The quote above suggests that you are open to the possibility that these things are possible. The thing that I find surprising is when people state that they actually have answers for these questions. As far as I can see, we can't possibly know but we can question, debate, and hopefully learn.

Forum: General Discussion Sat, 10 Nov 2012
Topic: An Other Instrument?

lidlo lady wrote: I'm sorry you missed the import of what I said. The person who says he's dishonest and stupid is less so than the one who denies it.

You assume I missed the "import" there I see. Well, I don't think I've ever denied being dishonest and stupid but I think you implied that I was. How do you qualify the person who implies that others are dishonest and stupid?

By the way, I enjoyed your "dentine" quip on the other thread.

Forum: General Discussion Sun, 11 Nov 2012
Topic: An Other Instrument?

lidlo lady wrote: Where's the evidence? I know of none.

I'm not aware of any real evidence that exists. What we're left with are gut feelings or a sense of something "ringing true". For many of us, K made a great impression and seemed to be really living the teachings rather than postulating some clever theory. He certainly came across as extremely aware and observant. What about your own impressions of K, Lidlo? Did you not feel that what he was saying seemed to make a lot of sense?

Forum: General Discussion Sun, 11 Nov 2012
Topic: An Other Instrument?

lidlo lady wrote: This forum is all about the teaching of "that person", but it's divided between those who accept The Teaching as esoteric and exempt from the test of scientific validity, and those who feel it should be subjected to that test.

As far as I'm aware there is no real evidence that the teachings are valid (I already said this) and no way that they can be validated scientifically. I would imagine that there is quite a lot of agreement on that. If anyone can suggest how this could be done, I'd be interested in hearing about it.

Lidlo, your argument seems to boil down to this - that your observation is better, clearer than mine because you possess more self-knowledge and honesty than I do. Well, that opinion is, in my view, very difficult to verify scientifically. I would say that there is a fair amount of assumption involved in drawing the conclusion that anyone who is interested in K's teachings is lacking in self-knowledge. Is this what you're saying?

One thing seems to come across - you are the one with all the answers here. I've said from the beginning that I don't have any answers, that all I can do is question, debate and possibly learn. I'm not saying that you're not correct in what you say - you could be. Let the debate continue and we'll see if things become clearer.

Forum: General Discussion Mon, 12 Nov 2012
Topic: An Other Instrument?

lidlo lady wrote: What have you learned so far?

To answer that question, I would say that we all "know" that we must be free of conditioning to learn. This has been said a thousand times. In our debates so far, I am constantly reminded that conditioning includes the conditioning of K's teachings. It's clear that we must also put that aside if we are to learn anything new.

What have you learned so far Lidlo?

Forum: General Discussion Tue, 13 Nov 2012
Topic: Krishnamurti on Listening

Hi everybody,

B Teulada wrote: I don't know you, but this really gave me pause about these people, and for reasons totally unrelated to K: methinks getting off on negative reactions from fellow human beings is a dangerously slippery slope into violence and abuses of all kind.

I don't know if some contributors deliberately try to provoke angry reactions from fellow forum members. Is this really the case? If this is being done, is it to get a feeling of excitement? We need to hear from those who are being accused of this.

The angry reactions certainly detract from the quality of the debate. Max Green in post number 90 raised some interesting questions in response to Lidlo Lady's comments but it's easy to lose the thread of the debate when tempers rise. Of course, it is entertaining to read the posts when an online slanging match takes place but I do think this takes the focus off potentially very interesting debate.

Forum: General Discussion Tue, 13 Nov 2012
Topic: Krishnamurti on Listening

Hi B,

Sorry, my choice of word there (accused) might have been bad.

As for you being a certified parrot, I wouldn't worry too much about that - parrots are magnificent birds after all. :)

Forum: General Discussion Thu, 15 Nov 2012
Topic: lidlo lady never answers a real challenging post

Hi everybody,

Well there has been quite a lot of bad feeling in this thread. I haven't read all the posts, but, judging by the title of the thread, I'm sure Lidlo Lady has come in for a fair bit of criticism.

Just an observation - K talked a lot about freeing oneself of the past, of images one has built up over time etc. I'm wondering if the next time we read a post by Lidlo Lady we can put aside all the history, images and prior knowledge, read it with new eyes as if we're seeing it for the first time and engage in debate. Is this possible?

Forum: General Discussion Thu, 15 Nov 2012
Topic: lidlo lady never answers a real challenging post

lidlo lady wrote: It may be possible but it wouldn't be learning anything. Forum members have established identities that they can change at any time by examining their bias and prejudice and firmly held beliefs, thereby opening their minds to new information and possibilities.

I've read this over a few times but I can't understand what you're saying here. Could you explain?

Forum: General Discussion Thu, 15 Nov 2012
Topic: lidlo lady never answers a real challenging post

RICK LEIN wrote: So agin .. I ask you...perhaps this is a question suited for L.L.?:)

Hello Rick.

Lidlo, could you please answer this? (perhaps you already have)

Forum: General Discussion Fri, 16 Nov 2012
Topic: lidlo lady never answers a real challenging post

lidlo lady wrote: Is there anything you believe to be irrefutably, undeniably true? If there is, you can't learn anything that doesn't support or sustain that belief, which is to say, you can't really learn because your mind isn't open.

I'm assuming that the question at the top is rhetorical. If it isn't, my answer is "yes". I agree with everything you say here.

My questions are these:

  1. Is it a good idea to free ourselves of our own versions of the truth and open our minds?

  2. Is it possible for us to do this?