I guess I wasn’t clear. I was asking the questions to generate some exploration. Just answering the questions comes from knowledge and that’s the end of it.
I guess I wasn’t clear. I was asking the questions to generate some exploration. Just answering the questions comes from knowledge and that’s the end of it.
Good guess.
I was asking the questions to generate some exploration.
Because you assumed we haven’t already explored these questions…
Oh and there is no more to explore there. Okay, I didn’t realize you had explored all there is to explore on these questions. So all is resolved, then. That’s good. Nothing like being free is there.
1 Like
I wouldn’t know.
But I’d like to hear about your further explorations of the questions you asked and we answered to our satisfaction.
No you wouldn’t. You’re already satisfied.
1 Like
Shall we explore this presumptuous statement?
Maybe it was the use of “you” instead of “we” in the questions
Would you say I accepted your invitation to a deeper exploration by using the words “addict” and “addiction,” and what is implied between the two, in my response?
I agree that simply answering a question that has been asked, not to find an answer, but to stimulate one’s own mind and that of others to go further in exploration is to end the exploration itself, if that is what you mean.
Let’s go deeper then.
This is the comment by Twocents that I responded to with the questions.
To say that there is desire/fear there must be a moment of attentiveness when that is clear. In chronological time it is after the fact. Doesn’t that attentiveness give one the opportunity to see the process of thought/emotion/ sensation that created desire/fear?
Ok, so if I understand Krishnamurti correctly, the mere concept of ‘teachings’ is false. He actively rejected the notion of providing any teachings or being a teacher or Guru, in other words an authority.
The problem we often have with understanding K is that he is forced to use language, which has developed to augment and compliment the way human civilization has been conditined to think. That thought and language inevitably encompass the flaw that leads us to following authority (religion, national identity, the mirage of self identity). It is merely impossible to use that same language to shake off these built-in concepts.
K therefore takes the root of encouraging his audiences to simply explore the self through meditative intentional and deep observation. He believes neither he nor anyone else can teach you how to arrive at your insight, but for self exploration and observation.
I am sure K would likewise say it is impossible for anyone external to know whether you have reached the enlightenment or not. It is an internal process. I seriously doubt the claim ‘no one got it’ would make any sense to K.
It ismy impression that K would have been advocating against mysticism. He wants the explorer to arrive at a point of enlightement as simply and straightforwardly as possible. Once you see through the obstruction of instilled authority, your self dies and there is no further need for thought, or mysticism, those are things we use in our old world, pre-enlightement. They are part of the distraction.
Howdy - (thought experiment) : imagine someone who has studied and had insight into double-entry bookkeeping, would they be able to tell (at least somewhat) whether I have any understanding of the subject?
Now what about someone forced to face what they are, and who has had an insight into the whole movement of self - would they be able to asses my level of clarity on the subject (by discussing the subject with me)?
This is the first time I have read or heard these comments. I can only conclude that K’s body reverted to pre-enlightend state, as it contradicts the very messages and approach he has conveyed in his day.
The very fact that he is talking in the voice of his body and out of that point of view tells one that he is firmly embeded in the authority patterns of his self identity, and not a transcendent universal consciousness.
He did however warn that nobody should follow him but follow their own parh and direct insights.
It is sad if his old brain caused him to lose his previous stste of enlightenment, if he had ever reached it. It would not be surprising though, our brain is an impefect tool, and though it is capable of transcending, it is also capable of breaking our consciousness.
I’m wondering what conclusions might form if you happened to read about what K called his “process” - a kind of painful experience that he went went through on and off for a few years that correlated with some kind change in his being.
Our opinions and worldview affect our conclusions - we could say what we believe determines our further beliefs.
And maybe worst of all our image of the speaker affects how we integrate whats being said.
They could assess whether your language and words matched their understanding or seemed to clash.
However, it is conceivable that some were able to convey their understanding in ways that would at least appear to match his view, at least on the surface. I expect that was likely the case as he was conversing with some extraordinary intellects.
I think just as language seems insufficient to convey K’s experience and internal enlightenment, it is likewise insufficient to ascertain if someone has reached that enlightenment but through their conveyance something was lost in translation.
Then the question is, could someone who has arguably transcended past their physically separate identity, and was able to experience all of reality directly, be able to determine who has or has not reached that state of enlightenment as well?
Perhaps. If they were all-knowing. It is more likely though that the same filter that separates us from the whole, also obscures the view into our individual minds. Why would we assume that consciousness works as a one-way mirror, and not as an opaque barrier?
Agreed - however the self process goes deeper than culture - even we (as normal folk focussed on concepts, symbols and images) can pick up cues, from the person we are talking to that might point to their relationship with their self image, that are non-verbal nor purely based on semantics.
Once we have clearly seen what this whole business of relating to the world via this human consciousness is all about - then we have seen what it like for all humans with a human consciousness.
No need for any magical all knowing or even any special consciousness of space time/physicality or whatever - just that by seeing what it is to be me, we see what it is to be you.
1 Like
Our ‘we-ness’ lies not in the contents of our consciousness ( you can be sane and I insane) but in the potential our brains have to be free, empty, silent….Then as K described it: “the brain IS Mind”. For ‘Mind’, the observer is the observed and there is no division. In Mind, we are the world and the world is us.
If any of that is true, the mistake we have made and continue to make, is to take the contents of consciousness as being what we Are. The possible discovery to be made is that we are the world.
1 Like
What do we really know?
We don’t really know if Krishnamurti was who/what we like to think he was because we can only believe, or, knowing that believing is self-deceiving, can’t believe without tongue in cheek or fingers crossed.
Krishnamurti said one has to be a light to oneself. If that’s true, and there is no “how”, no path to self-enlightenment, he was telling us to quit being the liars we are, to find out who/what one is by seeing one’s dishonesty as it plays out in one’s behavior and stream of consciousness.
Clearly, few, if any of us care to do that.
I think so. Not because someone “who has possibly transcended…” has mental x-rays penetrating you to know, but through a simple dialogue with you. You spoke earlier of “some extraordinary intellects” with whom Krishnamurti had spoken. Now, have you noticed their resistance to what K was saying in those conversations (despite their “extraordinary intellects”)?
On the other hand, it is my feeling that in his famous last words, Krishnamurti was referring to the fact that he never found that friend he continually spoke of in his talks, with whom to walk and observe life as it is (or if you prefer, as he saw it), together. As I said, he always found resistance to what he said. We have all those videos and audios of his talks to observe this very clearly.
This is only one side of the coin. The other side being that of those who reaffirm themselves by denying any possibility that there could be anyone other than Krishnamurti to whom this could happen. Simply because they feel it is impossible for them, and therefore it should also be impossible for others.
In short, if we cannot really know who Krishnamurti was or his realizations, we must admit that we cannot really know who or what are the realizations of anyone living in this world (including all forum members – both those who actively participate and those who are silent and just listen).