kamarajugadda Mallik ArjunaRao wrote: Is this due to the fact that thought is spliting itself for its own sake?

Good idea, dear Arjuna Rao

I think (...) it would be safe to consider thought as a very sophisticated network of mental safety devices. Basically, in the actual jungle or in the virtual jungle an office/ village, and so on, you want ( the brain wants) to feel safe, to have the feeling it is in control, not attacked. And the 'thinker' can be viewed as a mental protective device that overlooks all this, and accumulates experience about 'what works' or 'what does not work'. Now when you step out of the office this structure which you have identified with ( kind of an auto- pilot) is looking to all other facts of life with the same attitude: "is it a danger?" is it a safe relationship ?" "What can be done to optimise this or that relationship ?" . So, the initial cause, -the need for safety" slides into several subprocesses and the 'censor' or 'decider' is the one who establishes priorities. Sounds like a computer ? Well, thought is the creator of all computers...I guess it may be the subconscious identification with this observer/censor/coordinator/me/ I that is the 'weakest link' in a logic otherwise flawless. Questionong the reality of the 'me' presents a potential risk for the whole defensive protection. So, most people would zap to another channel...

Dr.sudhir sharma wrote: even when one is questioning the reality of 'me', the "me" is getting strengthened. One's honesty, sincerity and deep interest in this regard will not make any difference.

It seems , doctor, that thought, this 'false friend'of man, is once more playing a trick on us: The "I" or 'me' or 'self- centredness' has already some implicit condemnation in its very name ( since all seers told us it is an impediment in our spiritual quest) So we start with a bias, or an initial 'value judgement' which further on is taken by our deep rooted self-protection devices as a direct attack, so an inner conflict results , so what results strenghtening of the same initial safety devices. The solution is in the tool of observation itself: K talked endlessly of a 'choiceless awareness' and he really meant 'choiceless', that is no preferences, no prejudices, ...no 'naming names'. So it is a matter of having a proper perceptive instrument, since the instrument can and does interact and/or distort with perception itself ( same as in sub-atomic physics).

I guess this 'don't know' state was so natural for K that he often failed to mention it. So everybody has his own way of observing, depending of the initial content of his prejudiced mind. A 'textbook' example for the cause becoming effect and the effect becoming a ( new) cause. So, it may be not only wise, but also energy efficient to start from a 'don't know' platform, which in fact is an extremely safe position: you cannot 'fall' from a ladder if you are already on the ground level: so, nothing to achieve, and this frees our inborn perceptive quality

Dr.sudhir sharma wrote: this "don't know' does not guarantee the absence of knowledge already stored in the mind

It certainly doesn't doctor. The " I don't know" statement must be a major insight in the very first place: the psychic impact of this truth itself: that you don't know anything -first hand- of your own inner world. can and does create an interval of silence of thought. in that interval- a split second, 'you', the master of all thoughts become humble, so there is a pause from this endless causality of thought or mental agitation, in that there is a 'seeing' or an indepth understanding of the problem you are confronted with. Of course there is no guaranty that it will actually happen, but there are chances that it will, depending of our total sensitivity and the weight of psychic burden we are carying over- in K terms 'sorrow'. So, my point was that this stored knowledge may not react 'personally' or not react at all, while if it does respond it is always with the arogance of its own past experience . So, dealing with truth, doctor, is a very finicky business...

Dr.sudhir sharma wrote: , a man sees something and confidently says " It is so." Another man intellectually knows something and says with equal emphasis, "It is so." Is there any way to distinguish one from another?

Yes, by their direct impact within your own inner world. A true statement has a different quality of reverberation- if your inner perceptive instrument is sensitive and de-polarised of its personal distortions . K said once that the difference between these two is like 'between cheese and chalk', one you can eat, the other may even look better ...but is non-edible. In fact in our modern times we can widely see this global confusion of values, people choose 'what is looking better'. As I see it, K was the speaker of a Primary Source of spiritual Truth, while many of today's 'bestsellers' in this very field of spirituality are, at best honest artizans, but more often mere opportunists. And, what did K think of it? In one intimate talk with an old friend and ex-theosophist, who asked him : " How come that the Masters are not talking too much lately? " K answered: " There is no need now, since the Lord is here"

Dr.sudhir sharma wrote: does it mean that if I react to a statement made by another positively or negatively, it is not the right response

The fact, doctor, is that we are all starting from a massive conditioning, layer after layer of mental and psychosomatic habits. Usually these habits become the core of our judgements for each new situation. The inherent tendency is to discern the danger or the possible profit and make an optimising decision. This approach works pretty well for solving material problems. but in parallel with this materially oriented behaviour, we begin to gather anxieties, worries, fears and so on. Now the very same mental structure are trying to 'solve' these psychological problems and usually fail, since their level is subtler than the materialistic 'observer'. At best, such a person becomes good at cheating on himself and on others. Now, when it comes to truth, to the actual 'what is' or 'factuality' of our inner existence, our pewrceptive capacity is rather dim: in fact we can easily see other people's innewr flaws, but our own are too close to be seen properly since they did become part of our defensive/protective mechanisms. So, not being able to directly perceive the facts of our own life, we look over the shoulder of others; masters, gurus,saints, 'enlightened' people who pretend to know or to have found the true answers to everything. Our very starting position is a weak one, even if we have the feeling that we can discern the truth or the false from their teachings. And we may have such a critical capacity. But these are 'their' answers to the problem, not ours, their truth or their illusions. So, what would actually matter would be an awakening of our own inner awareness in order to properly see our own facts of life. At this point we are usually faced with our own 'dullness' or lack of perceptive clarity. So we come face to face with our own conditioning. From this point on, the teachings given voice by K, can become practical, with the condition that there is an authentic intention of letting go our own past. Now this implies also letting go our psy protective devices...so there is a certain period of 'indetermination' in which we are vulnerable and fragile inwardly. K did not deal with this transition since he was alike to 'a doctor that has never been sick'. Other spiritual entities took care of his inner cleansing, although later on he had to 'keep the room clean' of the daily debris and polluting factors: simply this was his job as 'speaker' to keep the mind vessel empty in order to 'receive' properly.

And seen from a different angle,there are truths that apply to the 'outer ' or to material facts, and they take the ego as a 'newtonian' atom- don't ask don't tell what is it made of, and the 'sub-ego' truths which are based on the dynamics from within the self-consciousness. So, a brief empirical recognition: all those methods who promise a better situation for your ego/self if you do such and such things are part of the outer truths, part of our material evolution in time. Their truth is reative since the 'I' structure is itself relative. And the other ones, the 'sub-I' ( similar to sub-atomic) truths are based on the instant perceptions since , as in sub-atomic physics, things are changing and moving all the time ( K has put it as 'the cause becoming the effect and the effect,( in its turn), becoming (another) cause). So, it is a very different line of truth, more universal, but also more intimate and very dynamic. At this deeper level, the main forces have been detailed by K in rather poetic terms : Death (ending, destroying of the past structures) Love and Creation. All three in one timeless action. We can see now that in the later line of truths, opinions and value judgements do not count anymore.

As far as I can see, only K and the ancient creators of the Upanishad dared to speak of these inner truths, mostly in poetical terms. The others are ego-improvers, and often ego-manipulators and it seems that it is still a very lucrative business .

dhirendra singh wrote: There are billions human being living in self centered, conflicted shallow life.So is there a distance between a transformed and and rest of humanity?

Hi, Dhirendra. I believe that we can look at this vast unsolved issue in this manner: in our times, as in the past times, the human brain is/was dominated by the instinct of survival, which gives birth almost naturally to the psychological desire to continue, to accumulate and to protect whatever was gained. So the brain gets trapped in its own desire for continuity which gets infinitely complicated by our social interactions, rules and so on. This has become the generally accepted way of life, it is not even questioned, every phylosophy or psychology or other humanistic science takes it for granted But it is just a partial/fragmentary mode or way of living. As for the 'transformed'( but where are they ?) it may be a defragmanted mode of the same human brain. It is all a matter of unconditioning our mind-brain system. My humble guess of why so few 'made it', is that we are so easily trapped in the practice of it, too often looking over the shoulder to what K or other 'realised' people did and said. We simply fail to understand that such transformation has to take place strictly between ' us and ourselves'

dhirendra singh wrote: when K finish, there may be few individual for whom suffering may have ended, but rest of world remain as it is.

The true answer to your question, Dhirendra, may be contained in the " You are the world"- K statement, later on vulgarised by successful pop singers and...many others. The consciousness of humanity is one, a whole, yet our contribution/participation to it is at best fragmentary and at worst...abusive. Personally I see it as a 'new house', available for each and everyone. It may be only our collective and personal ignorance that is preventing us to benefit from this total consciousness. So, yes, our school teachers and parents coaxed us along the line of fragmentary mode of existence, this being the mainstream of collective thought, and there is no peace, love or any true universality along this line- only conditional survival and conformity. But then, nobody is preventing us to 'step aside' from this stream. So, as I said, the liberating solution is within and not outside ourselves. And I am afraid that everyone of the 7 billions of us will have to do it individually. The collective offer is a pleasurable ( at first) and sorrowful (in the end) dull, mechanical existence. It is an open choice for everyone.

dhirendra singh wrote: this shows that oneness is not reality

For people like K, all-oneness was a fact, personally I believe it is a deep truth. He also pointed out that we have to go through our personal loneliness and isolation to get to the actuality of this oneness. But this inner passage seems to go through integration and this is our 'entry ticket'. I know that there was some 'wishful thinking' implied even in K's private dialogues,namely that if ' a few of us' would reach that undivided consciousness things could trigger even for the consciousness of the billions who are doing nothing along this line ( and most of them have a very good excuse: they simply want to survive decently and enjoy a few moments of happiness), but somehow this new consciousness has to be 'earned' by an earnest (non-)effort to transcend our inheritance.

dhirendra singh wrote: if oneness is fact in K, there should be complete transformation of humanity, how a particular transformation is possible?

Hi, Dhirendra, this is what I really think...but do not quote me on that... The spiritual mutation that took place in J Krishnamurti might have been generated, triggered and even energetically supported by spiritual entities out of this world. Later on, K took charge of this 'cosmic gift' and tried to establish a communication bridge with common human beings. The priciple of this provoked mutation is elementary: if you trigger a mutation- namely freeing the consciousness of a single human being of its deep conditioning, you also open up a possibility of change for the whole species; if you remember the bios, at a certain point the young K said: ' they are burning me from the inside' and it looked like a very a painful and lenghty operation . ( I was not there but this is my understanding from the many rather bizarre accounts given in both biographies- Lutyens and Jayakar) . So, certain zones of the consciousness of mankind - or rather of its matrix of life-energy or morphic field-have also been cleansed,purified, re-energised. This may explain K's statement " You do not have to be Edisons, you simply can turn on the switch". For him it seemed a totally feasible shift,and seemed rather upset at the very end of his life that"no one he had seen did completely change".

Back to our common starting position, even if this 'spiritual surgery' was successfully performed - and K' s life was a living proof that the mutation was actually working- we are actualy starting from the within of a very powerful stream of the existing collective consciousness, where such factors as greed, fear, time, search for pleasure and safety; are given life and so, regenerated, on an instant by instant basis by practically each and everyone of the 7 billion inhabitants of planet Earth, of course in various degrees of consciousness, some more humane than others. So, it is like a new space of consciousness open for all,but there is no one to take us into it. We have to let go first - on our own initiative - our own attachments to te past. Of course...if one looks at any ' K congregation' it feels a little depressing, most participants wanting to prove for himself/herself and for others, that he/she is right ( and this usually boils down to ...proving that the others are wrong) . So, to conclude,the benefits of the K-mutation are available for everybody, on a...timeless basis, but let us say that there are very few 'serious buyers' for this 'new consciousness'. It seems so much easier to be hugged by a 'world mother', to practice within a solid system of meditation...or simply to follow the ways of the world.

dhirendra singh wrote: Darkness, illusion or centered consciousness exist as a fact.

Agreed, Dhirendra. Another way to look at this whole issue is that the holistic principle ' you are the world and the world is (in) you' is working both ways. Once we have 'unlocked'/opened up/ our self-enclosed consciousness, there is a 2 way interaction between one's consciousness and the resulting consciousness of mankind, which,as you say,and K said it too, is still 'working in darkness'. As a result... we feel the sorrow of the 'present state of the world', no matter that it is the 'high anxiety' of world financeers and political leaders ( they actually have something to loose), or the bleak (no future) daily living of the billions of poor. It is a very strong undercurrent of selfishness. But it all seems to make sense, even logically: you are given a new freedom of consciousness, well, it comes with a new responsability. You cannot fix all the problems of the world by a magician's trick, but you can bring a little light and compassion in your close surrounding. Now this takes care, in the first place, of the depressing feeling of not being able to do anything for the present state of the world; in fact we can bring a change,be it only infinitesimal, within our immediate surrounding.

dhirendra singh wrote: it indicates the possibility that consciousness is one and so it's possible to transform whole consciousness, it is possible to make it free from all centers

Or, rather, from its self-centered tendency. But it seems to exist a major loop due to the actual needs for survival in an unjust world. We can see it also in the animal world, each one is out for himself, just the example of the birds; once they had enough to eat and the weather is clement, they can sing, chatter, and enjoy the freedom of flying. As for Krishnamurti's vision about changing the course of world consciousness, it may be a little too optimistic...His role was mainly that of a speaker- as in the countless talks throughout the world- and...any public speaker can get a little (if not a lot) carried over by the sheer enthusiasm of the message- and the message was truly universal. If I remember well, in the Mary Lutyens biography, she asks K rather personally about what he was actually thinking about the future of the Teachings. And K's casual answer was " It might well all go" . Obviously not as optimistic as " If a few of us would radically change we could change the world". So, I would rather stick to the 'one individual at a time' kind of change, I still do believe that spiritual freedom is a great gift from vast Universal Compassion/ Unknown, and that it has to be deserved or worked for individually. In fact the so called 'masses' or crowds, might be made of people that are ignoring their spiritual individuality. They can be momentarily be 'saved' by greater spiritual beings, but such miracles usually...do not last. Somehow, some 'invisible' strings/attachments/ are pulling them back exactly where they were before, as soon as the 'saviour' is gone ( see the history of any organised religion)

Dan Mohad Dib wrote: The truth is in the problem , the conflict, not in the flight away from it through my will....

Well, dear Dan Mohad Dib, (and also welcome back to our 'corner' of free expression), this is all very true, except that our usual tool of perception and exploration is , shall we call it 'tainted' or shall we use the blunt K term 'conditioned' ? If we look at our inner conflict with a mind partly or totally enmeshed in...conflict, then what we are 'seeing' is a 'conflictually tainted' picture, which indeed becomes self-perpetrated. So, (but...could this be just another hidden 'neo-con' trick ?) a 'letting go' could be the first thing to be done, our mental tool is inadequate and I do not have any other tool available. This interval-pause ?- of non-action might be salutary...since it can prompt or gather the energy for a true perception or insight, of the total kind.

Dan Mohad Dib wrote: , but the doing which is needed , which up to a point could or should be said , convey , transmitted up to the possible transmittable limit ish to a child before he himself joins the "normality" of the last 10 000 years..what is this "doing" ?

So, Dan-with-a- blue-Van, the doing here is in the removal of the false; namely of the conflicting attitude with whatever we see within and without. I believe that this is the first step, and even the modern generation of young people ( who got a very small attention span due to a flood of divertissments- a non negligeable handicap) could grasp it easily if it were properly explained on an individual basis . We cannot but hope that the many K schools are doing that, rather than playing the common 'school game', artistically seasoned. So before getting to the 'observer is (not divided from) the observer' truth, we have to clean up first a huge amount of psycho- debris which...are hidden in the details of modern, outer/sensory/ oriented living .

Dan Mohad Dib wrote: .........I assure you, when there is complete nakedness, utter hopelessness, then in that moment of vital insecurity there is born the flame of supreme intelligence

Hi, Dan Mohad Dib. Could it be another flaming K quote from the ...swinging 30-s? Sounds great and totally inspiring...but in fact he can 'assure us' only of what you are detailing above; that there will be an acute sensitivity to our imemorial psycho inheritance, sorrow being the gist of it. In fact he seems to have missed to add that the link between supreme intelligence and our daily existence burdened with sorrow, could be a real 'dessert crossing' and even iff you will ever find your way out, there is nobody to guarantee that, including a seasoned and resourceful 'world teacher'. In fact the whole collective and individual karma cannot be so easily by-passed, your lenghtly comments are a living proof. I mentioned several times that K's particular transition, actually a 'huge leap forward' could have been triggered and sustained by vast logistical efforts from higher Intelligences - the official bios contain more than sufficient proof of this. So, this, let us call it Intelligence of the Unknown made a 'pass' on our planet, and left it soon after K's death. We are left, spiritually speaking, with the aftermaths of its passage (or... was it an explosion?). For you, Dan the Man, the present it brought was...sorrow. Incidentally, K told once his close disciples " Be grateful that you have been given sorrow". I can only infer that this is the only way to start an inner Journey, or a crossing to the other side of the river/ strem of collective thought/. Our only problem is...that sorrow, by its own nature, hurts, the direct simili to a physical wound. The whole mankind had wounded and seriously damaged its natural Consciousness through a history of greed, pleasure, wars, up to the modern media manipulations on the planetary scale- not all necessary engineered by lucrative neo-cons(ervative) think- tanks. This accumulated evil can manifest itself...even under the disguise of your very decent looking next door neighbours ( not necessarily aware of it, either). So, many of us act uncounsciously driven by this collective accumulations of what we- as humanity- did in the past ( shall we call them karmic ?) the only differnce between 'us' and 'them' is that we acutely feel the pain of it, while 'they' - a different part of 'us' too- act under its pressure:like, "make more money, become more safely insured,get more properties and so on and on).

So where would be the true response to all these countless and spiralling issues? This is the 'trick' I've 'stolen' from K and later confirmed by my own inner experience ( believe me, it works ): let it lie there and have a New start; no amount of hardwork in trying to clean up this huge 'garbage heap' inherited from our previous generations will help. Abadon it without looking back and start anew. This past will certain follow you, closer than your shadow, but if you are aware of its potential intrusion even in the most banal thoughts... well there is a chance that you can stay one step ahead of sorrow... on an 'one instant at a time' basis...and I guess that this is how we are actually learning about the advantages and also about the actual responsabilities of spiritual freedom.

ganesan balachandran wrote: remaining in the state of not knowing. is that not contradictory to today's quote?

The way I am seeing it, Ganesan, is that at the time when K was making this statement he might not have been fully aware of the psychological state of his audience, like a high level teacher for whom everything is clear and easy, might not fully realise that he is speaking to a class of otherwise handicapped students. In fact their actual handicap may be...that they think they know, or they know too much. So; the K statement is true for the level he is at, but it may not be practical for students heavily loaden with knowledge; gathering, organising and using knowledge goes in one direction, while dropping the past may go in the opposite one. But telling people already aboard on a train speeding to 'more of everything' about starting in a totally another direction...you have the gist of the quote of this day.

Nothing really personal here...just an impression about today's quote, Dec 27. So, to recap it: 1. We ( or is it me ?) have invented a system called "religion' 2. Through our (collective ?) demand for security. 3. Has become so powerful that 4. very few free themselves of the weight of crushing tradition and authority.....

Sounds pretty non-conformistic for the spiritually conformistic 1930's but frankly who cares today, in 2011 about the structures of organised religion with the exception of those still making a living out of them ? ( won't name names). K is adressing...a lot of dead people ( literally) So, are we still sharing such ideas with the dead ? Or is it just a computer fluke? Which raises the question: are such sayings eternally true or do they have an expiry date ( Best before DD, MM, YYYY). And last but not the least, they are adressed to whom? Is it an injunction for the collective consciousness of last century, or does it apply to a modern individual consciousness ? If so, then should we remind each and everyone that things are changing, even in the stream of collective thought, even great systems of belief, concepts, paradigms and ideas can (and do) get old ? I'll leave these unanswered questions for those 'activistically inclined' who took the initiative of publishing such quotes

Dan Mohad Dib wrote: I wonder if taking the path of disturbance is not the only one

Not sure Dan, As its name says, it could lead to more disturbance. Even if 'our man K'is often encouraging it...he was not living along these lines , his mind was fully ( ?) envelopped in an aura of heavenly peace and love ( this is my lucky guess) . Some may even call it a 'very special gift'. So, if our goal is inner peace...we might as well start putting some foundations of peace and serenity. Some may ask how ? For starters, how about dropping off a lot of inner conflicts and other mental activities which we usually believe they will be learning opportunities ? The conflictual learning about oneself can lead to a painfully acquired volume of knowledge. With it we can write a book or two...and become 'champions of ego - psychology', but will this dissipate our inner disturbances ?

Dan Mohad Dib wrote: as long as disturbance is not free to do its job

That, Dan would be the hypothesis that the patient is basically healthy and the symptoms and a few disturbances such as fever and back aches will point to their cause, namely some kind of flu or other. But this hypothesis that 'man is basically healthy' may not be 100% correct in terms of the human psyche. Having decided to live within the gilded prison of the known might have been a great idea for the Neanderthal people, living amidst so much danger it might have been the only option, a safe defensive attitude. Since then, this forgotten choice for safety within the known has dragged behind itself a lot of other causes and effects leading to todays isolative , self-centred consciousness. A lot of ongoing disturbances going on there, emphasised by the disturbances caused by outer factors. So...I am afraid that even if we would let all these 'tell their story' we would need more years than we can afford to live. Again, it may be a matter of choice or preferences but personally I would rather go for starting inner peace and harmony now, even with all the disturbing background going on. Even logically it makes sense, the right ends deserve the right means.

Dan Mohad Dib wrote: ....Please to keep the talk; as I find it interesting...

All the best for the new year for everybody, and I would like to thank each and everyone who participated to this rather non-conformistic and...iconoclastic 'corner'. Just in case (expect the best but be prepared for the worst!)...my only valid excuse is that these teachings are based on negation as the most positive action ( I did not say it, it was K....)

Dan Mohad Dib wrote: but only the same old pattern

Indeed Dan, I've sleeped through it without absolutely any regrets.

Just an impression about K's answer to the quote of the day question : "Do you believe in reincarnation?". In fact, in an exquisitely friendly, nice, polite and logical way, he dismantles all the possible arguments pro and con. And I remember myself being deeply disappointed by such answers, decades ago. In fact he is dismasntling all the premises of the common self-consciousness. If I am not mistaking there are proofs that it does continue -at least for a while- after the physical death, except that it is some kind of a 'frozen continuity': what you 'think you are' is continuing ( in a world of thoughts), but K is not at all considering this line of continuity. In fact I believe he said that it all returns to a collective stream of thought, like a stick carried away by the swift waters of a river, and whether it reincarnates or not...'it is a totally different question'. But, educationally enough, K is turning the whole issue around , pointing to the 'present' opportunity to achieve ( a spiritual) immortality. Which is great, except that there is a 'price tag' on it which says ...'only after a dissolution of the ego-consciousness'. And even if he is assuring us that it is a 'simple' endeavour and the essential thing to be done , the pill seems too large to swallow. At this point, some throw away the K books, others go to purchase new ones or new videos to see if they didn't miss something. Since I was in the second category I would like to assure our fine readers that there is nothing more K said about it- even if an intimate dialogue with Mrs Zimbalist ( is it on the KFA site ?) he is saying some dis-jointed things that seem to cancel each other . He acts exactly as he said, as a pointer, and he leaves it there, the ball is now within your court. Could he have done more ? Not if he wanted the Teachings to stand the proof of time. Did he know more ? Certainly yes. Did all this satisfy the huge gatherings of people in Rio de Janerio, Saanen or Madras ? ( almost) certainly not.

ganesan balachandran wrote: Now I say there is immortality, to me it is a personal experience;

Sounds to me like 'being there' , Ganesan. Obviously this is not a common experience, but rather 'he's been shown' from higher planes. So you know it for fact ( in the heart of hearts) but you have no 'material proof'. So, in any court of law...it would be a lost case. In short, material knowledge like about building houses and computers, is one thing, a direct by product of human past and present experience. Spiritual knowledge is obtained mostly bt revelation: by an act of grace truth is revealed to you, you 'see' it but there is some non-material 'light' that makes your seeing possible. It is my educated guess that K avoided telling it straight due to the vast diversity of his followers, many of them ... very skilled and successful on the material levels of existence, but...spiritually dull. So they either believe or reject, since they can not 'see' directly. In fact some even went from fully supporting him to being openly antagonistic. In fact the 'rubber elastic' of their ancestral conditioning is pulling them back if they do not find the 'K solution' workable in their daily life

kamarajugadda Mallik ArjunaRao wrote: So where do we sight the "reincarnation"?

In fact K is speaking of 'immortality' , which, in my humble understanding, refers to that part of the psyche that never dies. As Buddha put it too, previously, such tendencies as greed, envy, selfishness, the pleasure seeking and so on, do 'reincarnate' . K once had a slip of the tongue when asked if the Buddha would ever reincarnate, and he answered " How could he ?". As for entering the dimmension of the eternal present...it may be quite another ( and very serious) matter.

Amber Cinquini wrote: I find it interesting that he does not answer the question do spirits exist. He is addressing the reasons why people search the spirit world for answers.

Right, Amber, he is turning the question around. There is absolutely no 'positive' statement in K's educational approach- with the exception perhaps of the " I don't know" staple. My feeling is that he knew far more than he said in public, but his goal might have been to trigger an awakening process in his many followers and casual listeners. So his long term educational vision could be that once you awaken, you will be able to tackle yourself such issues , while if you do not... 'what you don't know won't kill you' principle does still apply. As for the core of your question, just three casual 'slips of the tongue' picked up from verious books written by some of his friends . ( we are still anxiously waiting for the publishing of Mrs Zimbalist memoirs, due in no more than 75 years... ) . First incident, K has a a walk on a beach and an old friend asks him if the fairies and pixies stories have some truth; and K answered casually, "Of course, this beach is full of them", Second, and a more profound one, some other friend asked K why the Masters ( of the theosophical hierarchy) are not talking anymore, and he answered also...casually " There is no need now, since the Lord is here" And a... third one, just after mrs Gandhi death, he told to a friend who was intensely trying to contact her.." Don't hold her back, let her go". And a still weirdest answer ( teachings wise) to a question asked by a close friend before a public talk " What are you going to talk about today ?" to which he answered on the usual casual note " This is not my problem "

Dan Mohad Dib wrote: ...When the mind is utterly free from the many hindrances and limitations created through self-protectiveness,

It looks far too restrictive, until you do this and that...and this...utterly'...by the time you check it out...you could be totally finished . Now certainly K did perceive it this way or this might have been the message from a higher spiritual authority, but I am afraid that it is not a sustainable position. This conditioning of self protectiveness is both our collective and our individual karma. And only a miracle could wipe it out completely and definitively. But, as we can see in this real world of ours, such miracles happen rarely, and even if they occur, they do not last long. So, it makes a most powerful and inspired figure of speech, but in my humble view it may be a matter of starting a live learning process, a voyage on uncharted seas. And in all such trips, you know where you start but cannot know if and where it will end.

Peter Kesting wrote: Is this a correct quote?

As correct as this older friend of mine could recall hearing it from the horse's mouth

K. Kennedy wrote: Do you see/ realise that you are making Krishnamurti a personality cult?

Quite the contrary, dear friend, this is possibly one of the most 'un- K cult' space of all. Everything K said (or we said) is exposed to everyone; not for accepting but for questioning.

Dan Mohad Dib wrote: can you then tell more about " starting a life learning process " if you don't mind?

Not an expert of this, Dan, but we have life as a 'moving or arriving to a goal' and no matter how high is this goal placed, it is basically a process (of thinking) in time. The opposite of this is 'going nowhere or getting nowhere', which is the same process but stalled, or frozen in time- still time- our thinking in terms of continuity is either stuck or 'ordered to stop' because of a a higher expectation/reward or discovering the impossibility to continue along this traject ( life, illness, etc says Stop) . And 'life as learning' somehow is freeing the mind from this longitudinal axis of self projected time. So, it is a choice of life , probably with a different set of problems and other possible solutions. By no means a 'heaven', but it has its own dynamic of freedom. As I see it it is like a new version of our brain's Operating system, and it is downwards compatible, which cannot be said about its 'temporal' version.

This being said, I'm off to Cannes.

Dan Mohad Dib wrote: What can be done then ?

Hi, Dan, it looks like, 50 years ago, K anticipated the wider implications of your question, again in his Notebook that went totally ignored by the world intelligentzia, doubtlessly busy doing other things. Here are a few of his pointers , worth considering at any age

" The subtle interrelationship of the mind ( Mind ?), the brain and the body is the complicated play of life. There is misery when one predominates over the other , and the mind cannot dominate the brain or the physical organism, when there is harmony between the two, then the mind can consent to abide with them; ( but) it is not a plaything of either. The whole can contain the particular, but the little, the part cannot formulate the whole. It is incredibly subtle for the two to live together in complete harmony, without one or the other forcing, choosing, dominating. The intellect ( as an activity of the brain) can and does destroy the body, and the body with its dullness, insensitivity can pervert, bring about the deterrioration of the intellect. The neglect of thye body with its indulgent and demanding tastes, with its appetites, can make the body heavy and insensitive and so make dull thought. And also thought, becoming more refined, more cunning can and does neglect the demands of the body, which then sets about to pervert thought. A fat, gross body does interfere with the soubtleties of thought, and thought, escaping from the conflicts and problems it has bred, does make the body a perverse thing.

The body and the brain have to be sensitive and in harmony to be with the incredible subtility of the mind, which is ever explosive and destructive. This mind is not a plaything of the brain, whose function is mechanical. When the absolute necessity of complete harmony between the brain and body is seen, then the brain will watch over the body, not dominating it, and this very watching sharpens the brain and makes the body sensitive. The seeing is ( being in communion with) the fact, and with facts there is no bargaining; it can be put aside, denied, avoided, but it still remains a fact. The understanding of the fact(s) is essential and not the evaluation of the fact(s). When this fact( of the absolute necessity of harmony btw brain and body) is seen, then the brain is watchful of the habits, of the degenerating factors of the body. then thought does not (have to) impose a discipline on the body nor control it; for (such) discipline and control makes for insensitivity ( dullness) and every form of insensitivity is deterioration, a withering away."

The first observation here is K's use of the term 'mind' Oviously, it is not the mental, since this he calls 'intellect'. so I took the liberty to give it a capital M...as in Mind. The second observation is that it is by no means something 'easy', since, like begginer golfers, we start with a serious handicap

Dan Mohad Dib wrote: this brings me back to why do I seek, what(are) is the fact(s) behind the curtain of what I do ?

Good question Dan. I would say that one of those defining facts is the isolation that both the brain and our culture brought about. In fact the very process of thought is based on the assumption of inner isolation, so old and acceped by everyone that we do not even notice it. K did not really have to deal with this fact, given the vast spiritual support for his mission of 'speaker' of an Intelligence beyond this world. But this did not change our facts, they are the same, only that we are now able to look at them. Now, from looking to seeing there is still a certain gap to be bridged. And, if I may say so, our lack of humbleness...does not make the task any easier.

Dan Mohad Dib wrote: And I say that intellectual understanding of it brings nearly nothing , or too little, but as k mentioned we may start from what is very close,very near..obvious.

Agreed, Dan. now as to what did K exactly mean by a fact, do please check-out the other line of Notebook quotes, worth a thousand books ( K books included). Agreed, thinking about it does no help; You see it or you don't. If you don't there will be still another opportunity to look again,( as in 'Better luck next time') since these 'facts' are notoriously perrenial.