|
|
The Ending of TimeChaitanya said Feb 15, 2007, 8:53 AM: |
||
|
It seems to be the most important book for an in-depth exploration of the teachings. A philosopher and a modern scientist come face to face with each other and very deeply delve into some of the most profound issues of our time. |
|||
|
|
Questioning KrishnamurtiChaitanya said Feb 21, 2007, 10:56 AM: |
||
|
While Te Ending of Time has dialogues between K and David Bohm only, Questioning Krishnamurti: J. Krishnamurti in dialogue with leading twentieth century thinkers has dialogues with people from different areas such as Buddhist scholars, philosopers, artists and a Jesuit priest. This volume contains his conversations with Chogyam Trungpa RInpoche, Renee Weber, David Bohm, Jonas Salk, Walpola Rahula, Bernard Levin, Huston Smith, Iris Murdoch and Pupul Jaykar. |
|||
|
|
Re: The Ending of Timebasho said Apr 12, 2007, 1:26 AM: |
||
|
hi chaitanya- |
|||
|
|
She is black!!Chaitanya said Apr 16, 2007, 2:08 AM: |
||
|
A friend has sent this joke from Japan. She attributes it to Krishnamurti, but has not given any source. But it is interesting and I want to share it with all of you. I also shows how K. even through jokes, wanted to jolt us out of our slumber, our prejudices, our preconceived notions. “Two friends, one of them a bishop, die in a car crash. They go up to heaven and meet St. Peter. Neither of them has sinned too much, so he lets them in. And he says to them, 'If you have any special request, tell me now, and I'll see to it that it gets done.' The bishop, a religious person, asks to see God. St Peter is startled by his request and tries to dissuade him, 'Seeing God is a sensitive affair-it's very shocking. Few people can stand it. If I may advice you, please don't insist on this.' But the man is adamant and insists on his wish. Finally St Peter gives in and tells him, 'Very well, if you insist. Just don't blame me afterwards. Go that way and follow the signs: 'God'. And don't forget to come back here.' Off he goes to see God, while his friend wait with St Peter for his return. It takes ten to fifteen minutes before he returns. He is a mere shadow of himself, as pale as a ghost, and staggering about in deep shock. His friend is concerned to see him in this state and says, 'By Jove, what's happened to you? What was He like?' But the man can only moan, 'She's black.'” |
|||
|
|
Freedom From The Knowngwizazz said May 3, 2007, 1:58 AM: |
||
|
I loved this book. The idea of freedom from what is ‘thought’ to be known as if someone can really know or have ultimate knowledge of any one thing. In other words might further realization of something may be a sign of having freedom from the known? Not being stuck in any one particular thought paradigm? “Truth is a pathless land and you cannot approach it by any path whatsoever, by any religion by any sect … I am concerning myself with only one essential thing: to set man free. I desire to free him from all cages, from all fears, and not to found religions, new sects, nor to establish new theories and new philosophies … If an organization be created for this purpose it becomes a crutch, a weakness, a bondage and must cripple the individual and prevent him from growing, from establishing his uniqueness which lies in the discovery for himself of that absolute, unconditioned Truth … when you SEE this process, when you are really aware of it without opposition, without a sense of temptation, without resistance, without justifying or judging it then you will discover that the mind is capable of receiving the new and that the new is never a sensation therefore it can never be recognized, re-experienced. It is a state of being in which creativeness comes without invitation, without memory and that is reality. That which is unnameable cannot be recognised.” I imagine that Ken Wilber may have had a challenge with some of this whereas David Bohm may have been more in agreement, even though, K seemed to denounce the idea of dialogue even though he obviously participated in it. Might K say that Ken’s enclyclopedic knowledge effectively “prohibited” him from truly understanding truth and reality as K described it above? The concept of “mental self-pleasuring” comes to mind but is quickly replaced by, “Be continually open to the mystery…” . |
|||
|
|
Re: Freedom From The Knownbasho said May 4, 2007, 12:33 AM: |
||
I loved this book. this is an amazing book. it gives one many ideas to 'chew on' and to experience for ones self. it's a real wake up call, isn't it? a finger pointing at the moon, but not the moon itself. The idea of freedom from what is ‘thought’ to be known as if i'm not sure i understand what you wish to express here, so i put a comma in between the words - 'known, as if'. the following comments are based on that structure. if this is not the way you meant it, scratch the next paragraph. :) freedom that is 'from' something is not freedom, because it relies on the 'from'. freedom is a state. it is a state where thought is not. thought binds. it creates the boxes we 'live-in'. “Truth is a pathless land and you cannot approach it by any path whatsoever, by any religion by any sect” …and by extension any of the other 'isms' that dimension our lives. the 'known' for us is whatever is in memory, our philosophies, traditions etc. these are our 'paths'. they are 'paths' created by thought. thought is memory, expressed as words, images etc. memory is the past. the past is our known. this is the box we live in and that is why we are in conflict. we approach the what-is, reality, with what we know - the past. ultimate knowledge, presupposes a limit or else how would one 'know' it is ultimate. thought is the limit, it compares what it 'knows' to its most immediate 'knowing'. that most-immediate-knowing, is still the past. so our reality is always structured by the past (and coincidentally, why 'my reality' is not 'your reality' and that is the cause of conflict). we play this mind game and call it 'life'. freedom is - when the game stops. “when you SEE this process, when you are really aware of it without opposition, without a sense of temptation, without resistance, without justifying or judging it then you will discover that the mind is capable of receiving the new and that the new is never a sensation therefore it can never be recognized, re-experienced.” In other words might further realization of something may be a sign of having how is 'further realization' accomplished? where 'further' is 'more'. 'more realization' than what? more than what 'realization' was previously. this is a thought process of comparing and then concluding - more. the comparing is from the position of the 'known'. “when you SEE this process, when you are really aware of it without opposition, without a sense of temptation, without resistance, without justifying or judging it then you will discover that the mind is capable of receiving the new…” Not being stuck in any one particular thought paradigm? how about not being stuck in any thought paradigm? “I desire to free him from all cages, from all fears, and not to found religions, new sects, nor to establish new theories and new philosophies … If an organization be created for this purpose it becomes a crutch, a weakness, a bondage and must cripple the individual and prevent him from growing, from establishing his uniqueness which lies in the discovery for himself of that absolute, unconditioned Truth” I imagine that Ken Wilber may have had a challenge with some of this whereas i get the sense that dialog to J.K. was when the participants in the dialog participated without relying on any preconceptions, theories, traditions, belief systems as filters through which an idea was examined. the idea to be examined was the thing of the moment , all egos 'put aside'. where 'ego' is what we 'think' we are. this 'what-we-are' is always in a defensive posture. we protect these ideas that dimension us as - something-apart. it is from this place that we 'listen' but that listening is tainted, in the sense that - i hear what i want to hear, i hear what supports my idea of 'me'. Might K say that Ken’s enclyclopedic knowledge effectively “prohibited” him from He might also say that we're all in the same boat. Ken is not in it by himself. Not by a longshot. :) The concept of “mental self-pleasuring” comes to mind but is quickly replaced “Be continually open to the mystery…” is a “concept of “mental self-pleasuring””. There is nothing to be 'open to', unless, by that you mean being free from the thoughts that make up the 'me'. And if this is the case then one is not 'knowing' this to be the case. with the 'knowing' of it one is back in the same old soup. “It is a state of being in which creativeness comes without invitation, without memory and that is reality. That which is unnameable cannot be recognised.” ………………………………. “Truth is a pathless land and you cannot approach it by any path whatsoever, by any religion by any sect … I am concerning myself with only one essential thing: to set man free. I desire to free him from all cages, from all fears, and not to found religions, new sects, nor to establish new theories and new philosophies … If an organization be created for this purpose it becomes a crutch, a weakness, a bondage and must cripple the individual and prevent him from growing, from establishing his uniqueness which lies in the discovery for himself of that absolute, unconditioned Truth … when you SEE this process, when you are really aware of it without opposition, without a sense of temptation, without resistance, without justifying or judging it then you will discover that the mind is capable of receiving the new and that the new is never a sensation therefore it can never be recognized, re-experienced. It is a state of being in which creativeness comes without invitation, without memory and that is reality. That which is unnameable cannot be recognised.” |
|||