J.Krishnamurti discussion.

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths. What can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
Saengnapha
Posts: 1023
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am

Re: J.Krishnamurti discussion.

Post by Saengnapha » Wed Apr 04, 2018 3:29 am

chownah wrote:
Wed Apr 04, 2018 2:21 am
auto wrote:
Tue Apr 03, 2018 11:08 am
http://jkrishnamurti.org/krishnamurti-t ... meditation
We must go into this very carefully because we are trying to understand why human beings live perpetually in conflict, why there is a contradiction - I am, I should be; I am violent, I must become non-violent. The non-violence is an idea, is a concept, is not an actuality, because I am violent. This is a fact, an actuality. The other is non-fact, but we think the pursuit of non-violence will help us to become non-violent, that we will be free from violence. Let us understand the content of that word. What does violence mean? There is physical violence. You shoot with a gun, or you hit, or you throw a bomb, you slap, you injure. That is physical violence. What is psychological violence? - the inward anger, hatred, wanting to dominate people, not only physical domination, but the domination of ideas. I know, you don't know; I will tell you, and you will obey. That is domination. ........
He is assuming what he is trying to prove. He assumes that violence is fact and non-violence is non-fact.
"I am an organic farmer". Certainly this is not physical violence. So, is it physchological violence?...is it inward anger, hatred, wanting to dominate people, is it wanting to dominate ideas?
I can't see it. Maybe you fabricate that I am inwardly angry, filled with hatred, wanting to dominate people, or wanting to dominate ideas.....but that is what is in you. Maybe JK was so full of inner violence that it just popped out whenever anyone said anything....I don't know....
The idea that all labeling is violence and can not be otherwise is (as far as I can tell) complete and utter nonsense.
chownah
Trying to prove your point can be a form of inner violence. Only you can determine if any of this is true in your case. Calling JK's comments complete and utter nonsense is a kind of silly dismissal. I can't think of another teacher where 'complete and utter nonsense' is not applicable. For some reason, you are taking this very personally. What does being an organic farmer have to do with any of this? Did anyone say this was violent?

Saengnapha
Posts: 1023
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am

Re: J.Krishnamurti discussion.

Post by Saengnapha » Wed Apr 04, 2018 4:21 am

Here is JK's reply to a questioner about the process of JK's mind when he replies to questions.

Question: Will you please explain the process of your mind when you are actually speaking here. If you have not gathered knowledge, and if you have no store of experience and memory, from where do you get your wisdom? How do you manage to cultivate it? (Pause)

Krishnamurti: I am hesitating because I have not seen the questions before. I shall answer spontaneously, so you also will have to follow spontaneously and not think along traditional lines. The question, then, is how my mind works, and how I have gathered wisdom. "If you have no store of experience and memory, from where do you get your wisdom? How do you manage to cultivate it?" First of all, how do you know that what I am saying is wisdom? (Laughter) Sirs, do not laugh. It is easy to laugh and pass it by. How do you know that what I am saying is true? By what measurement, by what yardstick do you measure? Is there a measurement for wisdom? Can you say this is wisdom and that is not? Is sensation wisdom, or is the response to sensation wisdom? Sir, you do not know what wisdom is; therefore, you cannot say I am speaking wisdom. Wisdom is not that which you experience, nor is it to be found in a book. Wisdom is not something that you can experience at all, that you can gather, accumulate. On the contrary, wisdom is a state of being in which there is no accumulation of any kind; you cannot gather wisdom.
The questioner wants to know how my mind works. If I may go into it a little, I will show you. There is no center from which it is acting, there is no memory from which it is responding. There is memory of the road which I took just now, of the road where I live, there is the recognition of people, of incidents, but there is no accumulating process, no mechanical process of gradual gathering, from which comes response. If I did not know the usage of English or some other language, I would not be able to speak. Communication on the verbal level is necessary in order to understand each other, but it is what is said, how it is said, from where it is said, that is important. Now, when a question is put, if the answer is the response of a mind which has accumulated experiences and memories, then it is merely reaction, and therefore it is not reasoning; but when there is no accumulation, which means no response, then there is no frustration, no effort, no struggle. The accumulating process, the accumulating center, is like a deep-rooted tree in a stream which gathers debris around itself, and thought, sitting on the top of that tree, imagines it is thinking, living. Such a mind is only accumulating, and the mind which accumulates - whether knowledge, money, or experience - is obviously not living. It is only when the mind moves, flows, that there is living.
The questioner wants to know how wisdom is come by, and how to cultivate it. You cannot cultivate wisdom; you can cultivate knowledge, information, but you cannot cultivate wisdom because wisdom is not a thing that can be accumulated. The moment you begin to accumulate, it becomes mere information, knowledge, which is not wisdom. The entity that cultivates wisdom is still part of thought, and thought is merely a response, a reaction to challenge. Therefore, thought is merely the accumulation of memory, of experience, of knowledge, and so thought can never find wisdom. Only when there is a cessation of thinking is there wisdom, and there can be cessation of thinking only when there is an end to the process of accumulation - which is the recognition of the 'me' and the 'mine'. While the mind functions within the field of 'me' and the 'mine', which is merely reaction, there cannot be wisdom. Wisdom is a state of spontaneity which has no center, which has no accumulating entity. As I am talking, I am aware of the words I am using, but I am not reacting from a center to the question. To find out the truth of a question, of a problem, the process of thinking - which is mechanical and which we know - must come to an end. Therefore, it means there must be complete inward silence, and then only will you know that creativeness which is not mechanical, which is not merely reaction. So, silence is the beginning of wisdom. Look, sirs, it is fairly simple. When you have a problem, your first response is to think about it, to resist it, to deny it, to accept it, or to explain it away, is it not? Watch yourself and you will see. Take any problem that arises, and you will see that the immediate response is to resist or to accept it; or, if you do not do either of those things, you justify it, or you explain it away. So, when a question is asked, your mind is immediately set into motion; like a machine, it immediately responds. But if you will solve the problem, the immediate response is silence, not thinking. When this question was asked, my response was silence, complete silence, and being silent, I saw immediately that where there is accumulation, there cannot be wisdom. Wisdom is spontaneity, and there can be no spontaneity or freedom as long as there is accumulation as knowledge, memory. So, a man of experience can never be a wise man nor a simple man, but the man who is free from the process of accumulation is wise; he knows what silence is, and whatever comes from that silence is true. That silence is not a thing to be cultivated; it has no means, there is no path to it, there is no "how." To ask "how" means cultivating; it is merely a reaction, a response of the desire to accumulate silence. But when you understand the whole process of accumulating, which is the process of thinking, then you will know that silence from which springs action which is not reaction, and one can live in that silence all the time; it is not a gift, a capacity - it has nothing to do with capacity. It comes into being only when you closely observe every reaction, every thought, every feeling; when you are aware of the fact without explanation, without resistance, without acceptance or justification; and when you see the fact very clearly without intervening blocks and screens, then the very perception of the fact dissolves the fact, and the mind is quiet. It is only when the mind is very quiet, not making an effort to be quiet, that it is free. Sir, it is only the free mind that is wise, and to be free the mind must be silent.

chownah
Posts: 7306
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: J.Krishnamurti discussion.

Post by chownah » Wed Apr 04, 2018 10:16 am

Saengnapha wrote:
Wed Apr 04, 2018 3:29 am
chownah wrote:
Wed Apr 04, 2018 2:21 am
He is assuming what he is trying to prove. He assumes that violence is fact and non-violence is non-fact.
"I am an organic farmer". Certainly this is not physical violence. So, is it physchological violence?...is it inward anger, hatred, wanting to dominate people, is it wanting to dominate ideas?
I can't see it. Maybe you fabricate that I am inwardly angry, filled with hatred, wanting to dominate people, or wanting to dominate ideas.....but that is what is in you. Maybe JK was so full of inner violence that it just popped out whenever anyone said anything....I don't know....
The idea that all labeling is violence and can not be otherwise is (as far as I can tell) complete and utter nonsense.
chownah
Trying to prove your point can be a form of inner violence. Only you can determine if any of this is true in your case. Calling JK's comments complete and utter nonsense is a kind of silly dismissal. I can't think of another teacher where 'complete and utter nonsense' is not applicable. For some reason, you are taking this very personally. What does being an organic farmer have to do with any of this? Did anyone say this was violent?
INdeed trying to prove your point can be a form of inner violence and also defending your point when it is questioned can yield the arising of inner violence.....and also indeed only you can determine if any of this is true in your case just like jk is the only one who could determine if any of this is true in his case.....seems like we are in agreement with this.....but this is not the point being discussed.
I don't recall calling jk's comments compete and utter nonsense....I think what I expressed was that to claim that labeling one self IS violence is utter nonsense. It seems that his is what he claims when he said "when you call yourself an indian or a muslim or a christian or a european, OR ANTHING ELSE, you are being violent." I think that this declaration is total nonsense. I call myself an organic farmer.....he claims that in doing so I am being violent.....this is nonsense as far as I can tell. Labeling ones self is not violence. I suppose that there are cases where people self label in connection with some violent attitude or subtext but to out right declare that all self labeling is violence is nonsense.
He continues on "Do you see why this is so ? Because you are seperating yourself from the rest of mankind." This too is nonsense. Seperating yourself from the rest of mankind is not violence...there are recluses who seperate themselves from mankind for long periods of times and often they are venerated and I have never heard of anyone claiming that what they are doing is violent.
He continues "when you seperate yourself by belief, by nationality, by tradition, it breeds violence." This too is nonsense. It may be that violent people do so in the guise of belief, nationality, or tradition but that does not mean that seperating oneself in these ways is necessarily violent.
He goes too far. I think he is trying to make his views more urgent so he labels anything else as being violence which polarizes the discussion and this pushes some people farther into his teachings.
chownah

Saengnapha
Posts: 1023
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am

Re: J.Krishnamurti discussion.

Post by Saengnapha » Wed Apr 04, 2018 11:23 am

chownah wrote:
Wed Apr 04, 2018 10:16 am
Saengnapha wrote:
Wed Apr 04, 2018 3:29 am
chownah wrote:
Wed Apr 04, 2018 2:21 am

He is assuming what he is trying to prove. He assumes that violence is fact and non-violence is non-fact.
"I am an organic farmer". Certainly this is not physical violence. So, is it physchological violence?...is it inward anger, hatred, wanting to dominate people, is it wanting to dominate ideas?
I can't see it. Maybe you fabricate that I am inwardly angry, filled with hatred, wanting to dominate people, or wanting to dominate ideas.....but that is what is in you. Maybe JK was so full of inner violence that it just popped out whenever anyone said anything....I don't know....
The idea that all labeling is violence and can not be otherwise is (as far as I can tell) complete and utter nonsense.
chownah
Trying to prove your point can be a form of inner violence. Only you can determine if any of this is true in your case. Calling JK's comments complete and utter nonsense is a kind of silly dismissal. I can't think of another teacher where 'complete and utter nonsense' is not applicable. For some reason, you are taking this very personally. What does being an organic farmer have to do with any of this? Did anyone say this was violent?
INdeed trying to prove your point can be a form of inner violence and also defending your point when it is questioned can yield the arising of inner violence.....and also indeed only you can determine if any of this is true in your case just like jk is the only one who could determine if any of this is true in his case.....seems like we are in agreement with this.....but this is not the point being discussed.
I don't recall calling jk's comments compete and utter nonsense....I think what I expressed was that to claim that labeling one self IS violence is utter nonsense. It seems that his is what he claims when he said "when you call yourself an indian or a muslim or a christian or a european, OR ANTHING ELSE, you are being violent." I think that this declaration is total nonsense. I call myself an organic farmer.....he claims that in doing so I am being violent.....this is nonsense as far as I can tell. Labeling ones self is not violence. I suppose that there are cases where people self label in connection with some violent attitude or subtext but to out right declare that all self labeling is violence is nonsense.
He continues on "Do you see why this is so ? Because you are seperating yourself from the rest of mankind." This too is nonsense. Seperating yourself from the rest of mankind is not violence...there are recluses who seperate themselves from mankind for long periods of times and often they are venerated and I have never heard of anyone claiming that what they are doing is violent.
He continues "when you seperate yourself by belief, by nationality, by tradition, it breeds violence." This too is nonsense. It may be that violent people do so in the guise of belief, nationality, or tradition but that does not mean that seperating oneself in these ways is necessarily violent.
He goes too far. I think he is trying to make his views more urgent so he labels anything else as being violence which polarizes the discussion and this pushes some people farther into his teachings.
chownah
Seems like he is talking about the process of self-identification and its separative qualities. You don't think identifying with being an American and not with being a human being is separative? How about identifying with a self? Seems pretty violent to me.

chownah
Posts: 7306
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: J.Krishnamurti discussion.

Post by chownah » Wed Apr 04, 2018 12:28 pm

Saengnapha wrote:
Wed Apr 04, 2018 11:23 am
chownah wrote:
Wed Apr 04, 2018 10:16 am
Saengnapha wrote:
Wed Apr 04, 2018 3:29 am

Trying to prove your point can be a form of inner violence. Only you can determine if any of this is true in your case. Calling JK's comments complete and utter nonsense is a kind of silly dismissal. I can't think of another teacher where 'complete and utter nonsense' is not applicable. For some reason, you are taking this very personally. What does being an organic farmer have to do with any of this? Did anyone say this was violent?
INdeed trying to prove your point can be a form of inner violence and also defending your point when it is questioned can yield the arising of inner violence.....and also indeed only you can determine if any of this is true in your case just like jk is the only one who could determine if any of this is true in his case.....seems like we are in agreement with this.....but this is not the point being discussed.
I don't recall calling jk's comments compete and utter nonsense....I think what I expressed was that to claim that labeling one self IS violence is utter nonsense. It seems that his is what he claims when he said "when you call yourself an indian or a muslim or a christian or a european, OR ANTHING ELSE, you are being violent." I think that this declaration is total nonsense. I call myself an organic farmer.....he claims that in doing so I am being violent.....this is nonsense as far as I can tell. Labeling ones self is not violence. I suppose that there are cases where people self label in connection with some violent attitude or subtext but to out right declare that all self labeling is violence is nonsense.
He continues on "Do you see why this is so ? Because you are seperating yourself from the rest of mankind." This too is nonsense. Seperating yourself from the rest of mankind is not violence...there are recluses who seperate themselves from mankind for long periods of times and often they are venerated and I have never heard of anyone claiming that what they are doing is violent.
He continues "when you seperate yourself by belief, by nationality, by tradition, it breeds violence." This too is nonsense. It may be that violent people do so in the guise of belief, nationality, or tradition but that does not mean that seperating oneself in these ways is necessarily violent.
He goes too far. I think he is trying to make his views more urgent so he labels anything else as being violence which polarizes the discussion and this pushes some people farther into his teachings.
chownah
Seems like he is talking about the process of self-identification and its separative qualities. You don't think identifying with being an American and not with being a human being is separative? How about identifying with a self? Seems pretty violent to me.
I think that you very well may be correct about his point but I don't know for sure. Self identification when taken in a theravada context is about seperation of the subject and object.....but it really seems like he is approaching this from a much more worldly view in his mention of belief, nationality, and tradition.....I think if he is thinking of seperative qualities I think it is not from the theravadan perspective of self identification....I have read almost nothing of what he produced but the scant amount I have read seems to stay firmly in the realm of worldly attachments as oppose to the doctrine of anatta.....this is not surprising in that his audience is not theravadans I think.

Aside from that.....if you experience identifying with a self as being violent then I accept that...it does not however even approach a justification that all self labeling is violent much less violence itself as jk seems to be claiming.

Also, identifying with nationality may in many instance be seperative but that again does not even approach a justification that all self labeling is violent much less violence itself as jk seems to be claiming. Why not stick with "I am an organic farmer"?....probably because the unstated subtext of organic farming does not easily support violent/violence....why ask about identifying as being an american?...probably because the unstated subtext of "america" can easily support fabricating the association with violent/violence.

chownah

Saengnapha
Posts: 1023
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am

Re: J.Krishnamurti discussion.

Post by Saengnapha » Wed Apr 04, 2018 1:18 pm

chownah wrote:
Wed Apr 04, 2018 12:28 pm
Saengnapha wrote:
Wed Apr 04, 2018 11:23 am
chownah wrote:
Wed Apr 04, 2018 10:16 am

INdeed trying to prove your point can be a form of inner violence and also defending your point when it is questioned can yield the arising of inner violence.....and also indeed only you can determine if any of this is true in your case just like jk is the only one who could determine if any of this is true in his case.....seems like we are in agreement with this.....but this is not the point being discussed.
I don't recall calling jk's comments compete and utter nonsense....I think what I expressed was that to claim that labeling one self IS violence is utter nonsense. It seems that his is what he claims when he said "when you call yourself an indian or a muslim or a christian or a european, OR ANTHING ELSE, you are being violent." I think that this declaration is total nonsense. I call myself an organic farmer.....he claims that in doing so I am being violent.....this is nonsense as far as I can tell. Labeling ones self is not violence. I suppose that there are cases where people self label in connection with some violent attitude or subtext but to out right declare that all self labeling is violence is nonsense.
He continues on "Do you see why this is so ? Because you are seperating yourself from the rest of mankind." This too is nonsense. Seperating yourself from the rest of mankind is not violence...there are recluses who seperate themselves from mankind for long periods of times and often they are venerated and I have never heard of anyone claiming that what they are doing is violent.
He continues "when you seperate yourself by belief, by nationality, by tradition, it breeds violence." This too is nonsense. It may be that violent people do so in the guise of belief, nationality, or tradition but that does not mean that seperating oneself in these ways is necessarily violent.
He goes too far. I think he is trying to make his views more urgent so he labels anything else as being violence which polarizes the discussion and this pushes some people farther into his teachings.
chownah
Seems like he is talking about the process of self-identification and its separative qualities. You don't think identifying with being an American and not with being a human being is separative? How about identifying with a self? Seems pretty violent to me.
I think that you very well may be correct about his point but I don't know for sure. Self identification when taken in a theravada context is about seperation of the subject and object.....but it really seems like he is approaching this from a much more worldly view in his mention of belief, nationality, and tradition.....I think if he is thinking of seperative qualities I think it is not from the theravadan perspective of self identification....I have read almost nothing of what he produced but the scant amount I have read seems to stay firmly in the realm of worldly attachments as oppose to the doctrine of anatta.....this is not surprising in that his audience is not theravadans I think.

Aside from that.....if you experience identifying with a self as being violent then I accept that...it does not however even approach a justification that all self labeling is violent much less violence itself as jk seems to be claiming.

Also, identifying with nationality may in many instance be seperative but that again does not even approach a justification that all self labeling is violent much less violence itself as jk seems to be claiming. Why not stick with "I am an organic farmer"?....probably because the unstated subtext of organic farming does not easily support violent/violence....why ask about identifying as being an american?...probably because the unstated subtext of "america" can easily support fabricating the association with violent/violence.

chownah
If you haven't really delved into the talks and books of JK, he covers both aspects of self-identification in a worldly perspective and a contempletive one. In fact, JK is often said to be re-vivifying Buddhist doctrine in a non-religious way. Many Buddhist scholars and teachers had gone to talk with him over the years. If you want to comment on his statements, it would be much better for everyone if you had familiarity with what he was all about. If you're simply not interested, that is fine, too.

chownah
Posts: 7306
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: J.Krishnamurti discussion.

Post by chownah » Wed Apr 04, 2018 1:50 pm

Saengnapha wrote:
Wed Apr 04, 2018 1:18 pm
chownah wrote:
Wed Apr 04, 2018 12:28 pm
Saengnapha wrote:
Wed Apr 04, 2018 11:23 am

Seems like he is talking about the process of self-identification and its separative qualities. You don't think identifying with being an American and not with being a human being is separative? How about identifying with a self? Seems pretty violent to me.
I think that you very well may be correct about his point but I don't know for sure. Self identification when taken in a theravada context is about seperation of the subject and object.....but it really seems like he is approaching this from a much more worldly view in his mention of belief, nationality, and tradition.....I think if he is thinking of seperative qualities I think it is not from the theravadan perspective of self identification....I have read almost nothing of what he produced but the scant amount I have read seems to stay firmly in the realm of worldly attachments as oppose to the doctrine of anatta.....this is not surprising in that his audience is not theravadans I think.

Aside from that.....if you experience identifying with a self as being violent then I accept that...it does not however even approach a justification that all self labeling is violent much less violence itself as jk seems to be claiming.

Also, identifying with nationality may in many instance be seperative but that again does not even approach a justification that all self labeling is violent much less violence itself as jk seems to be claiming. Why not stick with "I am an organic farmer"?....probably because the unstated subtext of organic farming does not easily support violent/violence....why ask about identifying as being an american?...probably because the unstated subtext of "america" can easily support fabricating the association with violent/violence.

chownah
If you haven't really delved into the talks and books of JK, he covers both aspects of self-identification in a worldly perspective and a contempletive one. In fact, JK is often said to be re-vivifying Buddhist doctrine in a non-religious way. Many Buddhist scholars and teachers had gone to talk with him over the years. If you want to comment on his statements, it would be much better for everyone if you had familiarity with what he was all about. If you're simply not interested, that is fine, too.
I'm here discussing what he is reported to have said. I have so far not heard anything which indicates that to declare self labeling being violence itself makes sense as a position to hold. If "what he was all about" can somehow make this position tenable and if there are people here who claim to know "what he was all about" then I would be very glad to hear what he says that clarifies his stated position which I find to be nonsense. Please be clear that I am not asking for someone to take what he said and then fabricate some position but rather I am interested in what he himself said which someone in the know thinks clarifies labeling as violence.
chownah

auto
Posts: 183
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:02 pm

Re: J.Krishnamurti discussion.

Post by auto » Wed Apr 04, 2018 1:55 pm

Crazy cloud wrote:
Tue Apr 03, 2018 12:08 pm
auto wrote:
Tue Apr 03, 2018 11:21 am
Now i pretty much got satisfying text. Did have to dig it out myself.
We all have to dig it out of our listening heart, but first the heart must be rid of noise from in my case "Crazy Cloud", and then all of different "The Teacher" shines bright enough for enlightening us

It makes me happy, and that is one important aspect of Brahma vihara, so now we actually make truth of being kalyana mitta's online

pretty fantastic for us both :namaste:
heart is mind's base. <--that type of sentences i expect. I think in terms of wires, all is connected somehow even if it is some unknown type of wire..heart is an input output system, an organ and it works and responds.

if JK is teaching how to get access to body wires, then its cool. But if he doesn't get further than empting of 6th consciousness, heart mind, then he doesn't go further than that.
You need decide willingly to start study and accumulate knowledge so you have some kind of perspective, like doctors at least have to know that their subjects have a spleen, heart, blood vessels etc before they know to cut the gut wide open, if you don't know about existence of these organs you won't look there and do nothing about that front.

auto
Posts: 183
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:02 pm

Re: J.Krishnamurti discussion.

Post by auto » Wed Apr 04, 2018 2:04 pm

Saengnapha wrote:
Tue Apr 03, 2018 1:11 pm
Crazy cloud wrote:
Tue Apr 03, 2018 12:08 pm
auto wrote:
Tue Apr 03, 2018 11:21 am
Now i pretty much got satisfying text. Did have to dig it out myself.
We all have to dig it out of our listening heart, but first the heart must be rid of noise from in my case "Crazy Cloud", and then all of different "The Teacher" shines bright enough for enlightening us

It makes me happy, and that is one important aspect of Brahma vihara, so now we actually make truth of being kalyana mitta's online

pretty fantastic for us both :namaste:
That is how it began, in my case. Allowing myself to hear what he was talking about and then digging it out for myself. When it clicked for the first time, it was an ecstatic moment that was the most joyous I had ever known. Glad to see others 'digging it'. :toast:
Same thing can happen if someone yells at you and you later realize yep i deserved it i am pretty dumb.

I still think that autonomous response, synesthesya, compassion etc are sensations what already has the JK teaching included.

Saengnapha
Posts: 1023
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am

Re: J.Krishnamurti discussion.

Post by Saengnapha » Thu Apr 05, 2018 4:39 am

auto wrote:
Wed Apr 04, 2018 1:55 pm
You need decide willingly to start study and accumulate knowledge so you have some kind of perspective, like doctors at least have to know that their subjects have a spleen, heart, blood vessels etc before they know to cut the gut wide open, if you don't know about existence of these organs you won't look there and do nothing about that front.
There is a fine line between practical knowledge/information used for tasks and knowledge that is based on time, that create past, present, & future. This is psychological knowledge which is the conditioned state of mind that we struggle with. We don't struggle with facts.

Here is an excerpt from JK's meeting with Rahula Walpola, a very famous Buddhist scholar.

Krishnamurti: Does knowledge actually condition the human being? Let’s put it that way. The word “knowledge” all of us surely take to mean accumulation of information, of experience, of various facts, theories and principles, the past and present, all that bundle we call knowledge. Does, then, the past help? Because knowledge is the past.
Rahula: All that past, all that knowledge, disappears the moment you see the truth.
Krishnamurti: But can a mind that is burdened with knowledge see truth?
Rahula: Of course, if the mind is burdened, crowded, and covered with knowledge...
Krishnamurti: It is, generally it is. Most minds are filled and crippled with knowledge. I am using the word “crippled” in the sense of weighed down. Can such a mind perceive what is truth? Or must it be free from knowledge?
Rahula: To see the truth the mind must be free from all knowledge.
Krishnamurti: Yes, so why should one accumulate knowledge and then abandon it, and then seek truth? You follow what I am saying?

I think this is a point that often goes misunderstood. Looking through the veil of 'knowledge', conditions the seer, the knower, into believing that this knowledge/information is the way. It seems that the letting go of this is the way, the opposite of what most believe in.

auto
Posts: 183
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:02 pm

Re: J.Krishnamurti discussion.

Post by auto » Thu Apr 05, 2018 12:29 pm

Saengnapha wrote:
Thu Apr 05, 2018 4:39 am
auto wrote:
Wed Apr 04, 2018 1:55 pm
You need decide willingly to start study and accumulate knowledge so you have some kind of perspective, like doctors at least have to know that their subjects have a spleen, heart, blood vessels etc before they know to cut the gut wide open, if you don't know about existence of these organs you won't look there and do nothing about that front.
There is a fine line between practical knowledge/information used for tasks and knowledge that is based on time, that create past, present, & future. This is psychological knowledge which is the conditioned state of mind that we struggle with. We don't struggle with facts.

Here is an excerpt from JK's meeting with Rahula Walpola, a very famous Buddhist scholar.

Krishnamurti: Does knowledge actually condition the human being? Let’s put it that way. The word “knowledge” all of us surely take to mean accumulation of information, of experience, of various facts, theories and principles, the past and present, all that bundle we call knowledge. Does, then, the past help? Because knowledge is the past.
Rahula: All that past, all that knowledge, disappears the moment you see the truth.
Krishnamurti: But can a mind that is burdened with knowledge see truth?
Rahula: Of course, if the mind is burdened, crowded, and covered with knowledge...
Krishnamurti: It is, generally it is. Most minds are filled and crippled with knowledge. I am using the word “crippled” in the sense of weighed down. Can such a mind perceive what is truth? Or must it be free from knowledge?
Rahula: To see the truth the mind must be free from all knowledge.
Krishnamurti: Yes, so why should one accumulate knowledge and then abandon it, and then seek truth? You follow what I am saying?

I think this is a point that often goes misunderstood. Looking through the veil of 'knowledge', conditions the seer, the knower, into believing that this knowledge/information is the way. It seems that the letting go of this is the way, the opposite of what most believe in.
There are people who have read thousands of books. There is something what affect the information, if that is different you see information differently. So you don't really have to read thousands of books but one page long text or less is enough to trigger seeing impermanence of sense base information and that it is subject to something greater.

Whatever you try to do is a subject to something else. So indeed letting go and doing nothing is the option unless you know about it that what you are looking is subject. That is correct seeing or whatever 8 fold path part.

chownah
Posts: 7306
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: J.Krishnamurti discussion.

Post by chownah » Thu Apr 05, 2018 1:02 pm

The truth is knowledge.
chownah

Saengnapha
Posts: 1023
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am

Re: J.Krishnamurti discussion.

Post by Saengnapha » Thu Apr 05, 2018 3:39 pm

chownah wrote:
Thu Apr 05, 2018 1:02 pm
The truth is knowledge.
chownah
No, chownah. The truth is not knowledge. If you've been following the dialog, it is quite clear that truth has nothing to do with knowledge as knowledge is conditioned. The unconditioned is never the same as knowledge. Even the Buddhist scholar Walpola agrees with this.

User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 1715
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: J.Krishnamurti discussion.

Post by Coëmgenu » Thu Apr 05, 2018 4:40 pm

Saengnapha wrote:
Thu Apr 05, 2018 3:39 pm
chownah wrote:
Thu Apr 05, 2018 1:02 pm
The truth is knowledge.
chownah
No, chownah. The truth is not knowledge. If you've been following the dialog, it is quite clear that truth has nothing to do with knowledge as knowledge is conditioned. The unconditioned is never the same as knowledge. Even the Buddhist scholar Walpola agrees with this.
At the same time, though, knowledge was simply declared conditioned. No why.

Anything can be conditioned. And anything can be unconditioned. If whys aren't super necessary.

I am unconditioned.

There.
世尊在靈山會上拈華示眾眾皆默然唯迦葉破顏微笑世尊云
The Lord dwelt at the Vulture Peak with the assembly and plucked a flower as a teaching. The myriad totality were silent, save for Kāśyapa, whose face cracked in a faint smile. The Lord spoke.

吾有正法眼藏涅槃妙心實相無相微妙法門不立文字教外別傳付囑摩訶迦葉。
I have the treasure of the true dharma eye, I have nirvāṇa as wondrous citta, I know signless dharmatā, the subtle dharma-gate, which is not standing on written word, which is external to scriptures, which is a special dispensation, which is entrusted to Mahākāśyapa.

User avatar
aflatun
Posts: 812
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2016 2:40 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA

Re: J.Krishnamurti discussion.

Post by aflatun » Thu Apr 05, 2018 5:48 pm

Coëmgenu wrote:
Thu Apr 05, 2018 4:40 pm
Saengnapha wrote:
Thu Apr 05, 2018 3:39 pm
chownah wrote:
Thu Apr 05, 2018 1:02 pm
The truth is knowledge.
chownah
No, chownah. The truth is not knowledge. If you've been following the dialog, it is quite clear that truth has nothing to do with knowledge as knowledge is conditioned. The unconditioned is never the same as knowledge. Even the Buddhist scholar Walpola agrees with this.
At the same time, though, knowledge was simply declared conditioned. No why.

Anything can be conditioned. And anything can be unconditioned. If whys aren't super necessary.

I am unconditioned.

There.
You are, actually ;)
"People often get too quick to say 'there's no self. There's no self...no self...no self.' There is self, there is focal point, its not yours. That's what not self is."

Ninoslav Ñāṇamoli
Senses and the Thought-1, 42:53

"Those who create constructs about the Buddha,
Who is beyond construction and without exhaustion,
Are thereby damaged by their constructs;
They fail to see the Thus-Gone.

That which is the nature of the Thus-Gone
Is also the nature of this world.
There is no nature of the Thus-Gone.
There is no nature of the world."

Nagarjuna
MMK XXII.15-16

User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 1715
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: J.Krishnamurti discussion.

Post by Coëmgenu » Thu Apr 05, 2018 5:54 pm

aflatun wrote:
Thu Apr 05, 2018 5:48 pm
Coëmgenu wrote:
Thu Apr 05, 2018 4:40 pm
Saengnapha wrote:
Thu Apr 05, 2018 3:39 pm


No, chownah. The truth is not knowledge. If you've been following the dialog, it is quite clear that truth has nothing to do with knowledge as knowledge is conditioned. The unconditioned is never the same as knowledge. Even the Buddhist scholar Walpola agrees with this.
At the same time, though, knowledge was simply declared conditioned. No why.

Anything can be conditioned. And anything can be unconditioned. If whys aren't super necessary.

I am unconditioned.

There.
You are, actually ;)
Actually I find that when we set ourselves apart and call ourselves "unconditioned", or perhaps even "conditioned" people, we are doing an act of violence, and so I am a violent person. Just remember that I am not a violent person.

:sage:
世尊在靈山會上拈華示眾眾皆默然唯迦葉破顏微笑世尊云
The Lord dwelt at the Vulture Peak with the assembly and plucked a flower as a teaching. The myriad totality were silent, save for Kāśyapa, whose face cracked in a faint smile. The Lord spoke.

吾有正法眼藏涅槃妙心實相無相微妙法門不立文字教外別傳付囑摩訶迦葉。
I have the treasure of the true dharma eye, I have nirvāṇa as wondrous citta, I know signless dharmatā, the subtle dharma-gate, which is not standing on written word, which is external to scriptures, which is a special dispensation, which is entrusted to Mahākāśyapa.

User avatar
aflatun
Posts: 812
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2016 2:40 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA

Re: J.Krishnamurti discussion.

Post by aflatun » Thu Apr 05, 2018 7:15 pm

Coëmgenu wrote:
Thu Apr 05, 2018 5:54 pm
aflatun wrote:
Thu Apr 05, 2018 5:48 pm
Coëmgenu wrote:
Thu Apr 05, 2018 4:40 pm

At the same time, though, knowledge was simply declared conditioned. No why.

Anything can be conditioned. And anything can be unconditioned. If whys aren't super necessary.

I am unconditioned.

There.
You are, actually ;)
Actually I find that when we set ourselves apart and call ourselves "unconditioned", or perhaps even "conditioned" people, we are doing an act of violence, and so I am a violent person. Just remember that I am not a violent person.

:sage:
JK notwithstanding,you’re not only very well spoken and polite on forum but you’re also more importantly Canadian...you probably don’t even know what violence is ! :tongue:
"People often get too quick to say 'there's no self. There's no self...no self...no self.' There is self, there is focal point, its not yours. That's what not self is."

Ninoslav Ñāṇamoli
Senses and the Thought-1, 42:53

"Those who create constructs about the Buddha,
Who is beyond construction and without exhaustion,
Are thereby damaged by their constructs;
They fail to see the Thus-Gone.

That which is the nature of the Thus-Gone
Is also the nature of this world.
There is no nature of the Thus-Gone.
There is no nature of the world."

Nagarjuna
MMK XXII.15-16

Saengnapha
Posts: 1023
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am

Re: J.Krishnamurti discussion.

Post by Saengnapha » Fri Apr 06, 2018 5:03 am

Coëmgenu wrote:
Thu Apr 05, 2018 4:40 pm
At the same time, though, knowledge was simply declared conditioned. No why.

Anything can be conditioned. And anything can be unconditioned. If whys aren't super necessary.

I am unconditioned.

There.
Perhaps you missed the point that JK was making when he showed the accumulation of knowledge as being of the past. That is always conditioned. Furthermore, the accumulation of knowledge introduces Time. I was, I am, I will be. These are central points to JK and also to Buddhism. What doesn't get addressed in Theravada is this notion of accumulation and how it is supposed to help change you in the future. It doesn't work that way. It is a concept without substance. What is paramount is the cessation, the letting go of psychological time, which is perception, memory, and cognition of the conditioned 'mind'.

If you want to read the full conversation, which I suggest to anyone interested in either JK or Buddhism, it is here.

The book is called "Can Humanity Change", JK in dialogue with Buddhists.

chownah
Posts: 7306
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: J.Krishnamurti discussion.

Post by chownah » Fri Apr 06, 2018 9:21 am

Saengnapha wrote:
Thu Apr 05, 2018 3:39 pm
chownah wrote:
Thu Apr 05, 2018 1:02 pm
The truth is knowledge.
chownah
No, chownah. The truth is not knowledge. If you've been following the dialog, it is quite clear that truth has nothing to do with knowledge as knowledge is conditioned. The unconditioned is never the same as knowledge. Even the Buddhist scholar Walpola agrees with this.
Of course knowledge is conditioned....but also, truth is conditioned obviously because truth is (one kind of?) knowledge.

What walpola agrees with means very little to me.
chownah

User avatar
Crazy cloud
Posts: 441
Joined: Sun May 12, 2013 8:55 am

Re: J.Krishnamurti discussion.

Post by Crazy cloud » Fri Apr 06, 2018 10:55 am

rest in unknowing
The mind itself must become the unknown
To receive the unknown, the mind itself must become the unknown. The mind is the result of the thought process, the result of time, and this thought process must come to an end. The mind cannot think of that which is eternal, timeless; therefore, the mind must be free of time, the time process of the mind must be dissolved. Only when the mind is completely free from yesterday, and is therefore not using the present as a means to the future, is it capable of receiving the eternal. That which is known has no relationship with the unknown; therefore, you cannot pray to the unknown, you cannot concentrate on the unknown, you cannot be devoted to the unknown. All that has no meaning. What has meaning is to find out how the mind operates, it is to see yourself in action.
Therefore, our concern in meditation is to know oneself not only superficially, but the whole content of the inner, hidden consciousness. Without knowing all that and being free of its conditioning, you cannot possibly go beyond the mind's limits. That is why the thought process must cease and, for this cessation, there must be knowledge of oneself. Therefore, meditation is the beginning of wisdom, which is the understanding of one's own mind and heart.

Collected Works, Vol. V,165
If you didn't care
What happened to me
And I didn't care for you

We would zig-zag our way
Through the boredom and pain
Occasionally glancing up through the rain

Wondering which of the
Buggers to blame
And watching for pigs on the wing
- Roger Waters

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 42 guests