Even a conditioned brain has the potential to sort out what is polluting our minds to start working with others towards creating a different kind of mind space in this digital age recognizing that we are living in our own neurological extension, able to use our own faculties more creatively as to constantly raise our intellect and not continue discussing dead end religious topics but add some of the revolutionary spirit of thinking still to be found among some today … lol 
Could you explain what you mean here?
1 Like
Also this, the “revolutionary spirit of thinking”?
1 Like
Most people have very little understanding of how to seriously work with themselves to gain a better integration of mind and body, very seldom even trying to convert some of their own psycho-dynamic energy into insights and opportunities of mind development and intellectual progress … which ultimately helps to get a better grasp of reality, especially over the mind space we are taking part in, shaping it in part, but also being influenced by it … that mind space reaches far past the physical limitations of our own brain and into the digital dimensions of human communication extending our own and shared neurology …
That’s what I have been discovering lately, in very practical terms!
One of the more revolutionary thinkers today, who is building on and extending Krishnamurti’s ideas is Peter Joseph and the Zeitgeist Movement …
I went to the link posted…a snippet from a Krishnamurti talk to which has been added a catchy tune played on a xylophone, or a simulation of one.
As for Peter Joseph, if I thought I could build on and extend Krishnamurti’s “ideas”, I would be using Krishnamurti for my self-aggrandizement.
K speaks. A person, thinking that they are listening, converts what is heard into ‘ideas’ and then thinks there is understanding of what K said. Is there?
Bob if I’m ‘hearing’ you correctly, you are implying that there is a form of listening that doesn’t convert what someone says into ‘ideas’. Since converting into ideas seems ‘effortless’, what effort is called for to not do that?
Does it seem effortless because it is a habit? a habit of thought? Is thinking listening? Or is it a search in memory to find a match for what is heard? Isn’t memory made up of ideas, concepts, conclusions and the like?
Listening requires no effort. Thinking requires effort. Thinking is a division between the speaker and the one who thinks they are listening.
Probably so. We have never been asked to question how we listen.
Some may think they actually understand but in discussing the topic a bit further, quite a few may benefit from a bit more explanation while others never even grasp the real issue for discussion …
Why would you want to try and stipulate some totally abstract parameters of how some may be able to understand or not?
Doesn’t it all come out at your own level, what ever that may be?
If you speak to me in a language I don’t know, I will just hear the sound; there will be no search in memory because it’s known there is no memory there. Are you saying that this same kind of listening can take place if you speak to me in my language whose words have long ago been ‘memorized’?
Are you singling out Krisnamurti here, that he spoke in a way that required the type of ‘listening’ that you are pointing to? A listening without reference to one’s knowledge?
What’s abstract about “effortless” or "choiceless? No exertion, no effort and no choice are not abstractions.
Doesn’t it all come out at your own level, what ever that may be?
Yes, and that’s the problem…one’s conditioning is the determining factor. Each one’s conditioned response is their “own level”, and its always a distorted view of something instead of the actual thing.
… so developing a permanent and ever lasting hangup about this highly abstract concept is going to help solve all other much more pertinent REAL WORLD problems for you, or what?
Can you talk about how you are making out reducing the daily mind pollution intake and restoring your stifled and conditioned mind to deal with REAL ISSUES instead?
What “highly abstract concept”?
Can you talk about how you are making out reducing the daily mind pollution intake and restoring your stifled and conditioned mind to deal with REAL ISSUES instead?
Can you put aside your confidence for a moment and consider the possibility that you may be driven and directed by a desperate need to be somebody doing something meaningful?
When my thoughts are an interpretation of what the speaker is saying, that is not the kind of listening K was talking about, but why call it a “division”? Why not call it a distortion or a misunderstanding?
But the question is whether the conditioned brain is capable of the kind of listening K was talking about. Many K students seem to think that the conditioned brain, limited to the rudimentary process that it is, can, on occasion, be free, unlimited, able to see and listen without the observer/interpreter.
We know this seems to happen with psychedelic substances, but who can say for sure if it ever happens at all? What is freedom if it always returns to its cage?
Thoughts can only be an interpretation as the one who is listening has removed themselves from contact with the speaker to access memory in search of something relevant to what was heard. However long that takes there is division. There may also be distortion or misunderstanding.
I have zero interest in referencing K.
To never have questioned. Isn’t that stunning?
Maybe it is Bob but you haven’t described what this kind of listening you’re talking about is. You have brought it up in the past, please explain.
Recognizing a word or words is the same as recognizing your name. I know my name. I wouldn’t say I have knowledge of my name. That knowing of words is different from one’s knowledge of a topic. So, yes, listening is without reference to one’s knowledge. That is not how we were conditioned to listen, so it is no wonder that there is no transformation. There is very likely to be nothing more than adding knowledge, in this case K knowledge, to one’s memory.
1 Like