r/Krishnamurti

I’m thinking of going to Brockwood park and I’m doing some research. I was wondering about rules about dress code and phones/devices. also any overall info would be great

The energy has seemed to have dried up and gone. I suppose I could take it as a mirror showing my motivation or desire for an end result.

In fact for me personally it was the greatest intellectual bypass.

Stupendous bypass!

Sirs... c'mon sirs

I am not saying for all of us, I just don't know. But if maybe it is for you, then it is kind of perfect.

Keep it up.

What does it means?

I listen to a sound

But I listen to also things without sound

Inward thinking with music, past conversations, and words

I listen to them but they have no sound at all

How?

What is the root meaning of sound?

The Best meaning I came up is a sensation between the hears

But what about the inward sound?

This difference made me question this

If both are receive by me. And I’m giving them the same name, but one does not equal the other. Something is wrong with the meaning of it.

I think sound is not just noise. I think sound is a reactive shapeless alert system

It doesn’t have a fixed shape. It can’t. It changes itself from noise into "inward noise"

It travels through the boundaries of what’s possible to hear and what’s possible to hear it through.

This whatever thing has the ability to be active with sound and without it.

So what is it?

It comes when someone is talking to you. Sound inside you. Then it comes when you are thinking.

Now the gold question is

How do I know that I’m listening?

I pay attention to this word "know”

It can only come when you are already know something

So the mechanism to deal with the known is with memory, remembering

Wait a second

So this means that I need to remember to listen?

I don’t think so

Imagine if someone needs to remember to listen? That person would be living in a non present world.

That person would need to be living in full illusions worlds, all made by the brain, all made by memories.

So listening is never possible with the known.

Because to listen with the known you have to use your thinking to make you think that you are listening.

Look at the delay

So then I see this

And I went into what is listening without knowing?

Without knowing is like I’m in a classroom for the very first time. All eager to listen to the lecture without having any prior knowledge or memory of it.

It is like you are listening to something genuinely new to you.

This requires me to drop all my memories, all my knowledge, everything I know.

So you can drop something and still pick it up again later

Now that I listen without knowing, I’m fully present here to listen

So what this means?

Listening without knowing how to listen is the closest thing to true listening

There are no filters, no discernible actions towards the message

The signal just arrives to you clean

This can be done by going into a forest or the outside and you listen to birds, airplanes sounds. There’s no filter. Because the sound is what is.

So what world would this be if people listen without knowing how to listen? If they listen without using their memories to corrupt the message?

Who are you if you listen "without knowing"?

The funny thing here is that listening without knowing is something outside of time. It doesn’t have a start nor an end. It is timeless. Not bound by material processes.

"Sorrow is part of our self-interest, is part of our egotistic self-centred activity. I cry for another, for my son, brother, mother – why? Because I have lost something that I am attached to, lost something which gave me companionship, comfort, etc. And with that ending of that person I realise how utterly empty my life is, or how lonely my life is, and then I cry. And there are many, many thousands of people ready to comfort me, and I slip very easily into that network, into the trap of comfort. There is the comfort of God, which is an image put together by thought, or the comfort of some illusory concept, idea, but it gives me comfort and that is all I care. But I never question the very urge, the desire for comfort, whether there is any comfort at all.⁠"

⁠

⁠

J. Krishnamurti⁠

Bombay (Mumbai) 1985 - Public Talk 3 - Sorrow is part of our self-centred activity⁠

bbbbb

A couple months ago, I heard someone tell a story of a pilot who'd died in a crash on a nearby lake, in a training exercise during WWII. They had worked on the lake when drought exposed part of the propeller and fuselage that'd remained hidden all these years.

He talked about what was known of the pilot. He had come back from many successful, daring missions abroad to train new pilots at home. They talked about what good things people said of his character, of how he'd signed up immediately to protect his community. He began to break down as he told of his young age, only 23 years old when he died on the lake. The story teller apologized and had to take a break.

The idea of this self-sacrifice for the greater good was too much for them, they said. Their own brother was also 23, they relayed, as they became overwhelmed by emotion. Several people tried to comfort him, moved by the apparent sympathy for someone who'd died some +80 years ago. In a few moments they had talked themselves through to somewhere more comfortable and were able to continue.

And now we are asking if this wasn't all self-pity and questioning comfort. So he wasn't really crying for the young man who died in the 1940's: he was reacting to his sentiment. His body felt sorrow relaying the story, from fear of his own death and attachments. From that discomfort his brain predicted sorrow, and then the tears flowed. For at least several minutes.

Kinda messed up when you think about it? That even talking about another persons death, a stranger or a loved one, we only think of ourself?

I could never say to this person, "hey, this is your own selfish pity, knock it off." But I do think there is something to watch in sorrow myself here.

⁠

⁠

I have spent the last few days trying to understand what this word truly means

The root meaning of the word is to seek after

But what am seeking after?

Do I inquiring into something trying to find the answer?

Before inquiring do I need to know or have a sense of what I’m going to find?

Well that’s not inquiring truly.

That’s programmatic questioning

So I went deep and deeper

I spent all day, searching for an answer, why?

Because there has to be a true meaning of inquiring that it is undeniably true.

So what is it?

Then I realized something.

What if inquiring truly means to question something not hoping to have an answer?

Or to search for something not knowing what you will find

What kind of mental state is that?

Is that mental state even possible?

That’s when I realized it

Inquiring means the search for what’s not there, the questioning without not knowing.

But the questions that hit me was

How can you know what you don’t know?

How can you use what you know to find what you don’t know?

You can find what you know by remembering. Simple.

But how can you find what you don’t know?

Do you use the mental state of knowing to look for what you don’t know?

See the inequality

Any mathematical equation will tell you that 2 does not equal 3

So if you want to dive into what you don’t know, you need to have a "don’t know” mind.

Drop all your knowledge, forget who you are, put it aside. Act like a baby who just came to this world.

Then you will enter into the field of the unknown.

From there you question what you don’t know.

"You know, the clever people, the intellectuals have examined all this, the outward processes; they have examined the churches, the beliefs, the dogmas, the saviours, and after examining, they are in despair; and out of despair they have a philosophy to accept the immediate, and to live as completely in the immediate as possible, in the now. I don’t mean that at all. That, any materialistic, any shallow person can do. That’s very easy, not to think about tomorrow, but to live completely today. That’s what most of us do, unfortunately. We don’t have to be very clever. We live for today. That today is extended into many tomorrows. I don’t mean that at all. I mean to die, to deny ambition totally, completely and immediately. That is, to die psychologically to the social structure so that your mind is never caught in time, in ambition to be something or not to be."

https://kfoundation.org/transcript/public-talk-1-london-5-june-1962/

Interesting comparison to the modern "in the now" guru movement.

To live in the now or to die psychologically? I suppose some will argue that to live in the now is to die to the past/future in the same sense, so why is a distinction apparently drawn here? Can I not be relatively in the "now" and yet still carry in my unconcious time, the social structure, ambition..?

K says, “Be aware,” & also says, “There is no center or self,” & “self is an illusion.”

If there is no self or center, then who is interested in being aware? Doesn’t it feel like attaching one more thought to another thought?

I’ve spent a lot of time reflecting on Krishnamurti, and, to be honest, I’ve come to a controversial conclusion. While his message was about freedom from authority, isn’t it ironic that he became an authority himself, with books, talks, and institutions? Could his rejection of being a guru have been a clever way to draw people in, reverse psychology, perhaps? I’m not saying this lightly, but could he have been, in some sense, a grifter? Would love to hear everyone’s thoughts—am I missing something?

Can anyone explain what j k meant by the observer is the observed

He made me realised that the cause of psychological suffering is thought that has divided itself as a me and my thoughts. Sufficient viewing of his videos really help

I see so many people in society trying to reach for something

And I look at them and I feel like they are going to path that has an end

And of course I ended up being right

The fulfillment happens but then it is not enough

Like someone who’s trying to reach a level

They get it the level and realize there’s no level

All of this things J Krisnamurti has been talking about it for years

K has realized this since he was almost 20 or 30 years.

And this is bizarre and also scary for K

He was living in a world in which he was the only one who truly understood life and was eager to dive into it without having chains of knowledge preventing further exploration into it

At the same time, this should serve as a warning to all of us who are in this journey

You are going to feel more isolated then ever because there is not a lot of people who are eager to explore life like you are

Is K basically just asking us to remember that our brains are not ours alone? Like, I feel like he appeals to objectivity, in a way; like, we take our brains very personally, but when you think about it: yeah! There is an element of all this that has literally nothing to [do] with my preferences, my desires, ect. It's just... the brain; ya know? Our brain.