Yes, that too is a K´s finding. For him it was crystal clear and he is the most practical guy I´ve met in this realm of so-called spirituality. Funny he to be considered as someone mainly for intellectual people.
1 Like
Within youtube search for: krishnamurti bohm 1975 and you get the whole serie of 12
1 Like
I may seems odd but it didn’t come out. It did only when I typed: Perceiving without the perceiver" and not “observing without the observer” as found in your list.
Thank you anyhow.
Though we compile and discuss intricate details of the teachings, how are we living in the present?
1 Like
That is the point: he didn’t know why he wasn’t conditioned. And he could not be a mirror to the others because he could not know whether they had the possibility to become like him. One could assume that: “he found out what this believe is ” just because he was in a special position.
It could be like that or it could be not… how can you be sure? One can only presume, suppose he was like that, but logically it doesn’t rest on anything, unless one is believing it on the basis of authority. He could have been overoptimistic about the possibility normal people had to be free of conditioning. Just his compassion could have made him overoptimistic.
He could also have been a freak, a mutant (as you know many people made this hypothesis and K discussed this topic with Bohm) and in this case he had no possibility to know whether a normal person could do what he asked to do.
In the case of Buddha Sakyamuni, for instance, things were quite different: he was a normal human being, without any special power, and he found out the way to free himself. Therefore he could rightly say: you can do it too. This is logical.
The other possibility is that he was a superhuman being, a divine entity which came to help humanity in distress – as you know it’s an ancient theory – but this can be accepted only on the basis of belief, which is just something he strongly objected.
Are you a believer Anonimity? 
As far as I know, no, he didn´t but I have heard only two, including 6, of the twelve dialogues, I´ll try to get time to listen to all of them this weekend.
That´s what I see in his talks that are mainly enquires as following them: a clear reflection of consciousness, its movement and functioning. I hadn´t seen this before, usually we are given by so called sages only instructions to follow.
To me it´s obvious, what can I say?
I´m not so interested as K seemed to be in mutations. If understanding brings about a mutation in the brain´s cells, unties knots, cleans cerebral grooves up or whatever , so be it. If not, fine too.
Have re-read what I wrote and can´t see in any of it what might have made you think that. I stop here.
To me K´s teachings are valuable by themselves and anyone really interested can apply them regardless of the results, if the value you gave to them was based in a belief or assumption of yours that now you are finding to be just that, I can understand your frustration but do not throw it on me. There are many people in this site who are plenty of beliefs and assumptions becoming quite aggressive when these are challenged. Thank you and kind regards.
You took my wisecrack too seriously Anonimity, (and I put the smile just to underline it was a wisecrack). There was no intention to be agressive with you and actually I wasn’t. I was just exercising logic, and logic tells that the theory of Maitreya can only be accepted as a mere belief. That is very simple and that’s all.
I value a lot K’s techings because they make sense to me but K’s statement that there was no tranformation in him has no sense. It does not fit with the basis of his teaching which deal with perception. So I said that he was not a reliable witness of himself. He knew it and for that reason he asked Mary Lutyens to write his biography. In the dialogue with Bohm he could say in good faith that there was no tranformation in him, because his mind was out of time (in “truth” as he called it), so no trace of the past in him. It’s just as simple as that. And it’s not a statement which is of any use to us.
I really don’t understand why your resented my analysis of that issue.
Yes, those dialogues are very interesting and I’m going to listen to them all too. And it will take time to digest them! 
Yes, that is the same impression I had. K is looking at what he sees inside himself and probe into it and just express what he is seeing. Not so easy at times to grasp…
We can only express our points of view. I don’t have a fixed point of view, I haven’t reached a conclusion, but I thought it could be useful to consider the various possibilities, trying to be as logical as possible.
My initial answer to WimOpdam was:
K didn’t mean that, and also the people who considered him to be a mutant didn’t mean he became a mutant because of his understanding but that he was born a mutant, he was born without being conditioned by thought, ect. so there was no necessity for him to undergo a tranformation. He was already “transformed” the moment he came to life. My whole reasoning about the impossibility for him to be a mirror for us is based on that.
Is the claim that he was unconditioned correct?
Is the impression he didn’t transformed corect?
Or are this problems we’re creating by focusing on details which has nothing to do with the clearness of the teaching?
How can you determine it is correct?
What impression? And whose? K affirmed in the dialogue you quoted that there was no tranformation.
We (or I) are not creating any problem. There is a problem we all share (you may see it or not) which is to understand correctly what K is saying there, and this has some importance about the clearness of the teachings.
These questions did not ask for answers, let alone conclusions.
Whereas the simple question of all the teachings is: examine the workings of our own mind and that during our lives.
And what is the point of doing that? Why not just live, get as much comfort and happiness as you can and die when it’s your time? Is it in that following this or that ‘teaching’ gives one a sense of purpose, importance, direction?
Perhaps it is a coincidence, but all my life I have been warned that I am too serious in life.
I cannot speak for others.
K himself acknowledges in these dialogues that what he is telling about himself can´t be proved so, it is a matter of belief unlike what he claims about the observer being the observed and that once this is seen only awareness is left which can be tested by anyone interested in doing so. Discarding what is said or shared because of who says or shares it, it is up to us. Anyway, funny to see how some people try to take the limelight off this issue, same with the expensive tastes, adultery, keeping a public image and so on and on. The man was a true assortment of contradictions but it sounds much better if it is named as “mystery”, even though in the end, that´s what we all are, a mystery dealing with it the best we can, aren´t we?
2 Likes
It touched me deeply that he lamented the possibility that we would live and die without having come into contact with the “immensity”!
1 Like
Recently I came up an interesting booklet : Nitya: A Tale of Two Brothers this is from the introducton written by Scott Forbes.
“For twenty-three years, only a few copies of this manuscript existed. While they might have been valued privately, it was only in the spring of 2019 that this remarkable work was really studied, appreciated, and viewed as worthy of a wider audience. Nitya: A Tale of Two Brothers is not concerned with the Teachings of Krishnamurti, which may disappoint some readers, but that was not the intention of Mahesh Kishore. Mahesh was interested in the young lives of Krishnamurti and his younger brother Nitya before those Teachings appeared—variously said to have begun in 1929 or 1933. As Nitya died in 1925, he was never exposed to those Teachings, but most intriguingly, Mahesh postulates that Nitya’s life and death had an enormous impact on Krishnamurti, his development, and, consequently, the Teachings. Mahesh meticulously researched and assembled his findings over a period of ten years. His position as the last secretary of the Krishnamurti Foundation of India to be personally appointed by Krishnamurti provided him with access to the three Foundation archives in India, America, and England. He also clearly had significant access to the Theosophical Society archives at its headquarters in Adyar, India.”
Probably better to continue this in a new topic.
Must have been a small boat…