In my opinion we people are lacking love ( including me) in our conditioning, I think it is showing its affect in a different way (which is perception). 
Now we had to experiment on ourselves, having a motive to suppress the mind while perceiving things around us.
James it is just my opinion maybe I don’t have answers if you start questioning me.
Which is usually defined as : being in a state of internal conflict.
However, if it is clear that we are always in a state of conflict with what is, and that it isn’t always useful, we may be able to be free of the conflict
Okay, Mac.
Hope you understood my intent.
Can you break down the above statements in another way? ,such that I can say something about it.
The human brain can be viewed as a problem solving machine that is constantly functioning (switched on) - but, at least sometimes, there are no problems that need solving - and it has difficulty solving the problem of itself (namely the “problem soving machine” problem)
I got what you said after a few moments. I am sure (belief) that Jiddu and Buddhist teachings will bring some love to people and free the mind from conflict.
Yeah, it has become like that to most of us.
It’s all actual…
On the level of relative (conventional) truth, causality seems pretty baked in. (Though Hume might have disagreed.) On the level of absolute (ultimate) truth, there is no causality, because there are no real existents, no billiard balls bouncing off each other. (Merci, Nagarjuna.)
Back to the levels: Ultimately there are no facts, relatively they’re unravelable imo, they can be systematically taken apart (with one possible exception: my present qualia) until all that’s left is a:
‘To know’ means something very idiosyncratic in Krishnamurti’s view, or more accurately my view of his view. Knowing things in the normal sense is, for Krishnamurti, mechanical and lifeless, withered fruit of the withered past. It’ll do for everyday things, but it’s soulless, loveless. To know in the Krishnamurti vital-knowing sense is to observe/experience/attend to the present moment without any intrusion of thought, time, division.
If I might return to my obsession of this thread: Where and what is a ‘fact’ in the context of the present moment? Nowhere, nothing.
Hii, Rick
Why knowing is idiosyncratic? I am not able to see what you are seeing
Usually ‘knowing’ draws upon memory. For Krishnamurti this kind of knowing is useful for the practical world, technological advances, but is not useful for psychology, spirituality, meaning. For Krishnamurti knowing seems to draw upon awareness, observation, and being in the moment. The past is not invited.
I disagree. Have you never heard Krishnamurti share a random scientific or historical fact someone has told him about, about which he becomes excited, passionate? Just a few examples: When he spoke about computers; when he spoke about how scientists are able to put a camera inside the body to film it; when he spoke about the ancient Hebrew, Egyptian, Hindu and Greek cultures; when he spoke about watches; when he spoke about the piston engine and the jet engine.
Knowledge has its place, for Krishnamurti, although the priority is, as you say, direct observation -
Nevertheless, Krishnamurti often encouraged those around him to pursue their deep interests, and many of his friends and acquaintances were scientists. One gets a sense of his attitude from a meeting (with K) recollected by Fritjof Capra in the late 1960s, when he (Capra) was just beginning his scientific career.
‘How can I be a scientist,” I asked, ‘‘and still follow your advice of stopping thought and attaining freedom from the known?”
Krishnamurti did not hesitate for a moment. He answered my question in ten seconds, in a way that completely solved my problem.
“First you are a human being,” he said; “then you are a scientist. First you have to become free, and this freedom cannot be achieved through thought. It is achieved through meditation—the understanding of the totality of life in which every form of fragmentation has ceased.”
Once I had reached this understanding of life as a whole, he told me, I would be able to specialize and work as a scientist without any problems. And, of course, there was no question of abolishing science. Switching to French Krishnamurti added, “J’adore la science. C’est merveilleux!”’
As you yourself have admitted, you are mixing levels here.
Three questions for you:
Does the fact that I ‘know’ (through science) that the atoms in my hand never touch the atoms in the glass of water I am holding, mean that I let the glass of water slip from my grasp? Does the fact that I ‘know’ (through science) that the table (on which I place the glass of water) is almost entirely empty space, mean that I am worried the glass might fall straight through?
No.
Similarly, does the fact that I ‘know’ (through Nagarjuna, Hume, or Krishnamurti) that there is ultimately no causality mean that I neglect to water the plants in the garden?
Is this ‘knowledge’ one has (from Nagarjuna, Hume or Krishnamurti) about the ultimate causeless-ness of things, something we ourselves have seen directly, or is it just a speculation based on logic or hearsay?
A so-called fact is just a tool for us, for the user. It has little to do with absolute truth. When we talk about the laws of nature, we are talking about what we understand by that term ‘law’, about certain regularities we perceive that help us to make sense of certain natural processes. But nature itself has no laws, it just acts.
Human beings, like all other animals, have evolved to very capably (though imperfectly) perceive the existence of medium dry goods. It is what we are designed by natural selection to do - we can’t help it. If a lion escaped from a local zoo and you saw it walking towards you from the end of the street, would you not take action?
Of course you would.
So you know what facts are. Facts are not the absolute truth; so who is saying that they are?
Ok. Last question.
Esse is percipi (“to be is to be perceived”)? Is this what you are saying?
It is indeed an opinion strangely prevailing amongst men, that houses, mountains, rivers, and in a word all sensible objects have an existence natural or real, distinct from their being perceived by the understanding. But with how great an assurance and acquiescence soever this principle may be entertained in the world; yet whoever shall find in his heart to call it in question, may, if I mistake not, perceive it to involve a manifest contradiction. For what are the forementioned objects but the things we perceive by sense, and what do we perceive besides our own ideas or sensations? (Bishop Berkeley)
However, what is perception or qualia ultimately a perception or qualia of?
As the Chinese Buddhist scholar Tsung-mi asked:
if there are no real things whatsoever, then on the basis of what are the illusions made to appear?… there has never been a case of the illusory things in the world before us being able to arise without being based on something real.
That is to say, perception is a something, even if it is completely deluded as to its object (i.e. an illusory perception).
Even Berkeley had to have recourse to something real ‘out there’ to be perceived: he said it was the ‘Mind of God’. Kant instead argued it was the ‘Thing in Itself’. Schopenhauer called it ‘Will’. Hume was simply agnostic about it (“all there are is sensations”).
For Nagarjuna ‘it’ cannot be positively stated, ‘it’ is completely ineffable. For Yogacarins ‘it’ is the alaya-vijnana (‘universal mind’). For Vedantins ‘it’ is brahman (‘universal energy’).
For modern science ‘it’ is the energy of the quantum vacuum.
For Krishnamurti ‘it’ is the energy of creation.
What is ‘it’ to you?
Yes, another example of this is when he speaks about having been in and observed nature. But, I could find dozens and dozens of examples where he treats ‘the past’ as dead, dangerous, the enemy, where he practically hisses when speaking of it, which makes sense since he saw it as the snake, ja?
Yes. Attentive observation hews closer to ‘the truth’ in his view. For you too?
What is happening inside us in the process of knowing? What kind of dynamic is that? Why does K feel it as life less? if so then why does K talks about investigating the unknown in one of his talks?
Anyone can answer these questions.
I am not able to understand, what you wanted to convey. I think you wanted to say something about meditation. Is there any other way that you could explain?
Yes.
All forms of ‘knowing’ (knowing in the broadest sense, i.e. the purely noetic quality of an experience-event) involves some kind of perceptual awareness:
perception through the intellect (as knowledge, science, memory)
perception through the body (as the senses, of touch, taste, smell, hearing, vision, proprioception, etc)
perception through the ‘mind’ (as awareness and attention, perhaps also love and ‘intelligence’ in K’s use of the term)
All perception - all perceptual-awareness, perceptual ‘knowing’ - is immediate, direct. It takes place ‘now’.
Whereas all knowledge is intrinsically mediated, indirect, and has its roots in the past.
As was mentioned in the post on Dignana and Dharmakirti, there is a big difference between the perception of an actual fire, and the mere description, image or memory of a fire.
This difference is doubly significant when it comes to inward psychological (and so-called “spiritual”) experience - which is why K emphasised perception and awareness over knowledge.
The danger in the case of religious experience is particularly acute, because religion makes claims about ultimate truth, absolute truth, insight, the totality, the sacred, etc. But truth cannot be a product of past knowledge.
Truth - if it exists at all - can only have a relationship with immediate perception.
[quote]
If so, shame on you! Poor plants!!
Logic, hearsay, and intuition/insight/intelligence, The Threefold Mystery.
Little or nothing? If little, what?
Even at the relative level, facts are slippery, though it might not appear so at first glance.
From the pov of the present moment, not a femtosecond past or future, there are no ‘facts.’
The arrow flies from bow to target. A fact, right? How could anyone doubt it, you’d have to be crazy! But, from the pov of the present moment, there is no movement, no arc, no flying. (That’s still the relative level, but say deep relative.)
Would you agree that: Facts are appearances, as the arrow appears to move from bow to target? Or better: shared appearances.
It is epistemology I’m on about, not ontology. I doubt I (anyone) can know anything in the “I’m 100% sure” sense of knowing. <And I doubt my doubting, because it doesn’t make sense to be 100% sure of no-one being 100% sure.> But I think the closest that I can get to 100% knowing is to know the feel/qualia of my current experience.
Noumena! The Mystery! Stuff!
How in tarnation is it possible to know this?!!
Stuff. The Mystery. this
You?
I admit i didn’t reed all the 218 posts of this thread. But the question remain: what is a fact? In science, there are a lot of admited facts by the science community; and a lot theories too, like about the univers. But what matter here, I think, on Kinfonet forum, isn’t it about our humanity ? In regard of Krishnamurti narratif, isn’t it the transformation of , a revolution of the human mind ? I would say that establishing a fact, in a dialogue , is the first step for a communication to happen. If one doesn’t see a fact together , there is no relation as a dialogue about any subject, is it? In fact, what happen is just and exchange of opinions and arguments. Take violence. Does I have to establish the fact of violence to see it happening inside or around me? I see violence. Do I have to say to myself: violence is a fact to see it ? It is just there in front of me. But if we have to discuss about violence, or anything, don’t we have to see the fact together first ? Isn’t the fact what is? So if one goes from one fact to another together, a communication is possible.
You said: a so-called fact is just a tool. A so-called fact is useless. But I agree that a fact is a tool. Without establishing a fact together, there can’t be no real communication, no real relation.
Yes. Fundamentally, the facts with which Krishnamurti was concerned were what we might call psychological facts, facts about our humanity.
The problem is that some of us (mentioning no names!) apparently doubt the existence or validity of any facts in general. This has led us into a much broader discussion about what we consider to be real, to exist, to have actuality.
For Krishnamurti, psychological facts - like suffering and violence - are self-evident, and do not require further justification. They are (as he called them in a dialogue with David Bohm) actualities in the field of reality. We do not doubt the fact of suffering when we are suffering.
Yes, I completely agree with this.