Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
Discussion Forums

Venu Gopal's Forum Activity | 31 posts in 2 forums


Forum: The Sacred Mon, 15 Jun 2009
Topic: The sacred and profane

I think the sacred/profane dichotomy is an artificial create of a conditioned mind. In a perfect world, there is only the sacred.

Forum: K's teachings - new or old? Tue, 16 Jun 2009
Topic: New or old or strange&unique
Krishnan Srinivasan wrote:

JK`s teachings are new, can be identified in some parts as advaita and it is all strange and at the sametime unique in the sense it pokes the so-called-"individual"/"I".

Probably we are seeking the (assumed) stability of tradition in categorizing a new teaching among teachings that we feel have stood the test of time. Probably this is the very danger JK advises against. But I suppose in a forum of discussion on JK's teachings, the tendency to compare and categorize would surface - never mind JK often said comparison is odious.

Forum: K's teachings - new or old? Thu, 18 Jun 2009
Topic: New or old or strange&unique
Prasanna P wrote:

Basically, there are two components that make a teacher, or for that matter any human being. They are i) level of freedom and ii) expressions. The level of freedom could be put crudely in percentage. Expressions are combination of freedom and knowledge in memory.

As per levels of freedom, K could be compared with that of Buddha and Shankara. However, in expressions, K excelled all teachers of the world. His declarations to liberate everyone, displayed the upper limit of freedom of consciousness in mankind.

Sometimes I wonder if K belaboured in excess in giving key words in his expression of truth, like say love, meditation, freedom etc. meanings that defy attempts to define its meaning. He talked in abundance about meditation but we would be unable to define what meditation is in his parlance. Maybe this is the mystical element of K?s speeches and writings - so elusive to grasp yet the thrill of pursuing his logic would itself seem worth the adventure.

Forum: K's teachings - new or old? Thu, 18 Jun 2009
Topic: New or old or strange&unique
Krishnan Srinivasan wrote:

Jk said many things.Comparison is "measurement" and it leads to competition and striving to "become" Advaita is an age-old-tradition, in non-dual -state,so is Buddhism with its nothingness. Jk has some resemblances to these traditions and that may come across as an old wine in a new flask. Traditions and methods are not keys to open ones own mind and its complexities in relation to the GIGANTIC OUTER MIND,

JK's teaching is similar to Advaita teaching in the sense that both do not define what is but defines what is not. Advaita only says the ultimate is not dual. Probably it is because the jump from duality to non-duality causes the subject's wipe-out and nothing more can be said.

Forum: K's teachings - new or old? Fri, 19 Jun 2009
Topic: New or old or strange&unique
mike christani wrote:

In his book "Tradition and Revolution" K wanted to be challenged by the Indian mind, so to spreak- traditional approaches. I think also, his denial of the Atman was non- traditional, as well as any other supposition ('thou art that') that might take away from the 'what is'. At the same time, towards the end of his life, he seemed to embrace the Vedanta, in such that people were gathering his teachings as knowledge, and not breaking through. Vedanta made that jump, I think, from kowledge to freedom, putting all his teachings aside.

K's denial of the atma or soul is easy to understand. It is not as if atma is a substance that exists inside a person. Atma or soul simply means the essence of everything that is. It is a concept. Because it is a concept understood by the mind, the mind is capable of living the concept as a truth. Many thinkers posit that the atma is a substance separate in itself. Maybe such a position was never meant but due to the limitations of language appeared to be so. K brought in a great clarity of language, though, ironically, his logic appears to be elusive at times.

Forum: K's teachings - new or old? Fri, 19 Jun 2009
Topic: New or old or strange&unique
mike christani wrote:

<>

"Maybe this is the mystical element of K's speeches and writings"- Perhaps, rather, it is the mystical nature of life itself, that he tried so hard to put into words? Ie, take meditation, or freedom. States which are beyond consciousness- how would you describe them to consciousness? Is that what you mean?

Yes. Have you read Tony Parsons writings or heard his speeches? Speaking of the higher states in the language of the ordinary state is rather elusive. Though comparisons are odious, do you think Tony Parson is kind of taking off where K left off, if I may say so?

Forum: K's teachings - new or old? Fri, 19 Jun 2009
Topic: New or old or strange&unique
Krishnan Srinivasan wrote:

In practical life, it is difficult for individuals to identify with Advaita, so in India ,many have taken the course of VISISTADVITA & MADVAS teachings.JK becomes a puzzle to many to follow in practice.Though many go a long way in going together with him in exploring the SELF, MIND,LOVE,FREEDOM, TRUTH and other subjects, one is easily lost in a total perspective. So even a simpleton can follow the BHAKTHI cults abounding in India without much mental /intellectual effort. The result is entrenched RELIGIONS!

Walking the whole length with JK involves unconditioning ourselves totally. This is tricky work. Bhakthi is at the emotional level. It is easier to emote than still the mind. But it should never be a question of mind or heart - while calming the mind the heart should be allowed to play itself out.

Forum: K's teachings - new or old? Sat, 20 Jun 2009
Topic: New or old or strange&unique
mike christani wrote:

Venu- never heard of Tony Parsons, but personally I have a deep doubt of persons taking over where K left off! Very deep doubt...

Dear Mike, "Taking off from where K left" was said in a manner of speaking. I would have nothing to show for it except where K often referred to himself as the speaker, Tony Parsons says something like - there's no speaker, there is no audience, there's just the is-ness!

Forum: The Sacred Sat, 20 Jun 2009
Topic: The sacred and profane
jean-m girard wrote:

In a perfect world if we wanted something, would we have to pay for it ? :-)

Thanks for this comment. I need to elaborate. "Pay for it" also has the meaning "suffer". Like, you'll pay for your follies. Therefore, if you want something you will have to suffer - nay, all wanting is suffering. Why do we want something (apart from the wants of pure physical subsistence)? Because we have a sense of lack. Why do we have a sense of lack? Because we have not discovered ourselves. When we do, all sense of lack disappears and we would be in a perfect world. There would then be no suffering on account of wants. I hope this clarifies my ?proverb?.

Forum: The Sacred Sat, 20 Jun 2009
Topic: The sacred and profane
nick carter wrote:

In a perfect world you wouldn't want anything.

Yep. That's it!

Forum: The Sacred Sat, 20 Jun 2009
Topic: The sacred and profane
jean-m girard wrote:

Yes I agree with you, not wanting anything is very liberators I have experiment with it. Wanting is to be attached isn?t it?

In our pristine state where we live by the light that comes from within, the mind would have no sense of lack. Then why would it want anything? It is only when we seek the external for our psychological sustenance that we would ever suffer from a sense of lack. However much we attach ourselves to anything external, the nature of the external being ephemeral, it would prove elusive and our sense of lack would continue.

Forum: The Sacred Sat, 20 Jun 2009
Topic: The sacred and profane
T N Padmanabhan wrote:

why wanting should be an act of attachment? can not one want out of compassion?

You mean wanting for the sake of others? Only a person who has no wants (psychological wants) would have that compassion that makes him ever ready to be a tool for the sake of others. Otherwise we would have people who claim to work for others but are actually fattening themselves - the politicians, to wit.

Forum: The Sacred Sat, 20 Jun 2009
Topic: The sacred and profane
jean-m girard wrote:

Yes I can see what you are saying. I could want peace for all, I could want freedom for all people and this wanting would not be attachment it would be out of compassion? Wanting something is still a goal, a destination, and idealization, aiming to reach isn?t it When K is talking about want, he is not really distinguishing good and bad want, he pointing out that in wanting we narrow our vision, wanting this or that is still focusing, also we have inclination to attach our self to our goal, our hope, to our objective, they can become our raison to live.

To me wanting out of compassion does not makes sense because compassion is understanding of, in the now. It is like wanting something out of love, is it love? One want it but the fact is that if we want something it is still and indication that we have and image of what it supposed to be, this is also call conditioning. Now K is saying that love is the unknown, is infinite, it wouldn?t be love if it would limited by conditioning, if we experiment with this idea, I find that we don?t focus as much, we enlarge our vision, it is more inclusive.

I entirely agree with you.

Forum: The Sacred Sat, 20 Jun 2009
Topic: The sacred and profane
Minna Martini wrote:
jean-m girard wrote:

Yes I can see what you are saying. I could want peace for all, I could want freedom for all people and this wanting would not be attachment it would be out of compassion? Wanting something is still a goal, a destination, and idealization, aiming to reach isn?t it When K is talking about want, he is not really distinguishing good and bad want, he pointing out that in wanting we narrow our vision, wanting this or that is still focusing, also we have inclination to attach our self to our goal, our hope, to our objective, they can become our raison to live.

To me wanting out of compassion does not makes sense because compassion is understanding of, in the now. It is like wanting something out of love, is it love? One want it but the fact is that if we want something it is still and indication that we have and image of what it supposed to be, this is also call conditioning. Now K is saying that love is the unknown, is infinite, it wouldn?t be love if it would limited by conditioning, if we experiment with this idea, I find that we don?t focus as much, we enlarge our vision, it is more inclusive.

Dear Jean,

Yes, I would say that desire/wanting is another synonym of the self/observer/thinker. Based on choice between fragments of knowledge, it is in itself always contradictory and limited. (creating all pairs of opposites like sacred/profane for example). So, there is only a relative difference between wanting peace or a new pair of trousers for example, between various objects of desire. What is of importance instead, is to understand this whole movement of desire.

Ironically enough, it is not even possible to 'want peace in the world' as an action of thought, because desire itself is the root of all contradiction/violence in the world that we are. The only way to create true peace in the world is to be it ourselves. And this is seen to happen when there is constant ending of desire/thought within. In other words it is the ending of the distance between the observer and the observed, or the distance between the peace in myself and the peace of the world. There is then nothing left to "want", since there is no thought/image of how anything "should be'.One may still "want to do this or that, like i wanted to clean the bath today, but wanting is not a good word to describe action which happens without any psychological time/attachment and which is not motivated by self-interest/desire. -Interesting, while cleaning the bath i felt clearly how cleaning is taking place for the sake of cleanliness itself, no distance there either..and that everything one does in this way serves a greater order from which one is a part...

K's techings are 100 per cent practical, since they are about the ending of conceptual reality,about the ending of idenrtification with image. There is nothing theoretical in it, it is about pure action. Saying this because if i remember correctly, you said somewhere that "you like the practical approach to K's teaching' or something alike...(put me right if i unintentionally have distorted your words)But what else is the teaching about but absolute practicability?

Mina

Here's another post I agree with in its entirety. Action is always with motive, though spontaneous action or rather response is of a different order. To spontaneously seek to help someone in distress is what we would do because our very nature preordains it. But when we become an artificial person because we are taught that we are essentially sinners, then our natural self is clouded and we would tend to help someone in distress while all the time calculating what our gain would be from the altruistic-seeming act. In short, our true nature is divine and we turn artificial if we imagine we are sinners.

Forum: K's teachings - new or old? Sat, 20 Jun 2009
Topic: New or old or strange&unique
mike christani wrote:

What is advaita? I have heard the term, but...?

Vedas are ancient scriptures of the Hindus. One portion of the Vedas is called Vedanta, which contains philosophical discussions between Masters and disciples. The highest flight of these philosophical discussions is called Advaita, where the conclusion is that the essence of reality or truth is non-dual (Advaita = not two).These Advaitic teachings say that man has the capacity to experience the non-dual state and it is this experience or understanding that will bring him the true fruits of freedom. All religions appear to have its esoteric teachings and these teachings, it is said, point to the way of the non-dual. Sufism in Islam, for example. Today there is much writing and inquiry in the West on non-duality and a google search of ?non-duality? would throw up an amazing number of writers on the subject. Those of us, incorrigible, who like to compare teachings and slot teachings, often say K teachings are Advaitic in nature. But of course, you will have your own take on this.

Forum: K's teachings - new or old? Sat, 20 Jun 2009
Topic: New or old or strange&unique
mike christani wrote:

No, relatively, I don't see what's wrong with comparing. Practically, though, I have found K's teachings much more "powerful"- potent, simple and effective, than reading the small amount i have of the Upanisads, the Gita, despite their similarities. The other point, though, is that he came like summer rain, wiping away the dust of centuries, millennia even. Sorry to try and be poetic-. I just mean all the translation, commentary, catagorizing, stale meanings, repititions and sayings, all that. I guess that's the major question, whether that comparison hurts, or aids, and it's probably a subjective thing. Personally, reading those old Hindu texts, or Buddhism, I think it's thrilling to come across something that still rings true after 2500, 3000 years. But I rarely anymore read those older texts, when the fresh ones are right here..

We are fortunate fresh texts are always available. Texts in valid contexts, shall I say, speaking the same eternal truths. Finally, the truth of the pudding is in eating it. Have we been transformed, are we living the truth? Only we can be the true judges of our progress.

Forum: K's teachings - new or old? Tue, 23 Jun 2009
Topic: New or old or strange&unique
Prasanna P wrote:I think, K wanted to set mankind free, not to sit there merely appreciating him! ;-)

This is a great point. Recently at a group discussion, one of the speakers pointedly asked the participants, "Are we here to understand ourselves our understand K?" No doubt we gather at such meetings to understand K's teaching which in turn would help us understand ourselves better. But often we relegate ourselves to being just academicians seeking to understand K for its own sake. Then probably we miss K's whole point.

Forum: K's teachings - new or old? Wed, 24 Jun 2009
Topic: New or old or strange&unique

K's whole point, if I may be presumptuous enough to say so, is to be able to see without prejudice.

Forum: K's teachings - new or old? Wed, 24 Jun 2009
Topic: New or old or strange&unique
Manoj SachDeva wrote:

Will it be Ok to say that awareness of prejudice (being unaware) is the the critical step? - and it helps us to live ''differently''.

From awareness of prejudice to awareness without prejudice - that's the leap.

Forum: K's teachings - new or old? Wed, 24 Jun 2009
Topic: New or old or strange&unique
Prasanna P wrote:

Undoubtedly, there are instances, when we become aware of our prejudices. But that is not enough. Only when the awareness is complete in itself, there can't arise any prejudice at all. That is the state of consciousness, you can call it as meditatable state. Then we would definitely live differently.

Yes indeed!

Forum: K's teachings - new or old? Thu, 25 Jun 2009
Topic: New or old or strange&unique
Manoj SachDeva wrote:

When one becomes aware of ''something'', observer is on the scene. Awareness of past (observer) operating upon "what is" is its own action.

Let us see what is in and behind this demand that awareness should be complete in itself so that no prejudice can arise at all...

That's it. The other possibility is that I the observer always exists but without the limitation of the ego - where I know, ergo Brahman exists.

Forum: K's teachings - new or old? Thu, 25 Jun 2009
Topic: New or old or strange&unique
Manoj SachDeva wrote:

I - the observer - is the movement of past acting on and modifying ''what is'' in ''its tradition'' (past)...

Can't there be an I who is not encumbered by the past but is ever fresh in the present without being in a state of amnesia?

Forum: K's teachings - new or old? Thu, 25 Jun 2009
Topic: New or old or strange&unique
Prasanna P wrote:

If I can answer, it is like this. To be fully in the present is to be fully free from or not using the memory. Amnesia is loss of memory, i.e., engaging memory, but not able to get the desired data. Meditation is like keeping the hand set ready, i.e., either you can make or receive a call, but not engaged in anything.

In short, our memory is intact but it neither is a burden nor colours (prejudices) our seeing. Therefore could I say that K's teaching is not about getting rid of our memory, but being free of its intrusive nature?

Forum: K's teachings - new or old? Thu, 25 Jun 2009
Topic: New or old or strange&unique
Manoj SachDeva wrote:

Yes, Whole (the presence) can use the fragment (memory/thought). Not the other way round.

Wow, that's a superb insight and very well put. And very conclusive too.

Forum: K's teachings - new or old? Thu, 25 Jun 2009
Topic: New or old or strange&unique
Prasanna P wrote:

Venu Gopal wrote: In short, our memory is intact but it neither is a burden nor colours (prejudices) our seeing. Therefore could I say that K's teaching is not about getting rid of our memory, but being free of its intrusive nature?

Yes and no. It is true that K's teaching doesn't advocate getting rid of memory.
Being free of its intrusive nature ? Memory is nothing more than a collection of life less recordings. It doesn't have any motive power to intrude anywhere. For diversion from its own state of fragmentation or misery, the consciousness itself is thinking or replaying the memory. When fragmentation ceases, the involuntary thinking ceases.

Drawing on memory as a diversion from our state of fragmentation or misery is an awful situation. But to roam the foothills and ascend the peaks of memory need not be a freedom we deny ourselves. For the world of memory has its own charms and allurement, nostalgia and emotion - a world, though manufactured by our mind, as true as any that our senses would inform us of.

Forum: K's teachings - new or old? Fri, 26 Jun 2009
Topic: New or old or strange&unique
Prasanna P wrote:

All emotions are undesirable since they have their opposites. The fear or withdrawal and other negative emotions are first direct experiences of consciousness of its own fragmentation. Positive emotions of pleasure and such others are actually diversions created by the errors of elders in upbringing. If there are no pleasures, there can't be sorrow, but only wonder and creativity,

I understand what you are saying and would tend to agree with you. But I think the most disastrous dichotomy we have is the like-dislike dichotomy. Being emotional to the extent of sinking into it is of course undesirable. But emotions as they come up in us as a consequence of our involvement in living ought to be allowed to run its gamut without our being swept away by its current. Would it not then be an enrichment of our living? K said, "To live is to be vulnerable."

Forum: K's teachings - new or old? Fri, 26 Jun 2009
Topic: New or old or strange&unique
Prasanna P wrote:

Venu Gopal wrote: K said, "To live is to be vulnerable."

These quotes, without contexts can create havoc. Please let me know, when where K has said this. Other day, one of my friends came to me and said throw away all books and theories, because K has said it !!! ;--(

I remember reading it in Luis S.R.Vas's famous "The Mind of J. Krishnamurthi?. In the section "Aphorisms", he had collected this saying. Hence, I shall not be able to tell you the context as it is a stand-alone quotation. I take what K. meant by vulnerable was sensitive and not weakness.

K would have typically said to throw away all books but only in the context of going beyond books - not in the fashion of an iconoclast who burnt down the library at Alexandria because he thought that the Quran having come, no other books were necessary!

Forum: K's teachings - new or old? Fri, 26 Jun 2009
Topic: New or old or strange&unique
Prasanna P wrote:

Hi Venu, Yes. What you say is right. The context matters. Btw, have you seen some new questions for interview, put forth by the kinfonet team ? Amazing and extra ordinary, I would say the open mindedness of the kinfonet team. Perhaps the time has come to take what is most important and essential from K and to advance it for the benefit of mankind. K had stated his objective, and it is left for the rest of us to carry his mission of liberating unconditionally free.

I want to work on them. If you too can give your brief answers, it helps everyone in this kinfonet community to understand one another well. The link is on the right hand side mentioned as Kinfonet note pad, below the book store column.

Dear Prasannaji, That an amazing team is involved in spreading K's teaching is obvious if you see the quality of The Link Magazine. I think as the years go on, the phenomenon called Jiddu Krishnamurthi will subtly and unobtrusively influence the world to a greater sensitivity in living.

I have answered some questions in the interview and would plod through more questions in due course. How do I ask some questions of my own?

Forum: The Sacred Wed, 01 Jul 2009
Topic: The sacred and profane
Eve Goodmon wrote:

To all, Funny many said that K was not practical because they found what he said impossible to do, or put into action. After sixty years of speaking what he says maybe simple and practical, and yet why is it that so many of us find it impossible to live the teachings?

Can you encapsulate what K's core teaching is? It would be helpful in revealing why many of us might find his teaching elusive.

Forum: The Sacred Sat, 11 Jul 2009
Topic: The sacred and profane
kenny rich wrote:

Hi all...kind of new here...the word "Sacred" caught my eye...for a while now I've pondered that word...finally came up with something I felt was truly sacred. After that decison I decided to go and ask people to define the word for me out of curiosity. It was truly amazing to see so many people struggle trying to define it...I think it was a good exercise...not to see people struggle but to see them pause and look at something they took for granted...to question is a good thing...No?

To take something for granted is to see it with yesterday's mind. Seeing the same thing afresh would bring the freshness of the thing anew to us.