I have been in this since I was 15 and now I'm 18, just going and going nothing changed, nothing can ever change by just hearing words! The deeper inquiry, what is it? It is what I'm trying to understand 🙂
Dr.shainberg left his practice in1984 as psychoanalyst and the reason was he applied that the doctor can't help the patient tho get out of his illusion as he the doctor is also caught up in illusion. He asserted in his papers, One can be out of illusion when "observer is obseved"as j Krishnamurti said.
Now I understood why he very easily says , that thought is limited , Why he says I am whole humanity, Why he says conflict in everything Why he say its instant mutation, Jiddu I understood you Why you say no authority is required , And why you say it will mean athourity will creat more delusion , I understood why you say religion And gurus are the worst ,now I understood why any meditation technique is going to work totaly insteed it will make burden And I understood why meditation can Not give permanent peace of kind Jio jiddu you did great Job , wherever you are My thanks to you to demolish whole programming Or conditioning in just One moment of understanding ❤❤❤❤❤❤ Ab India ke log English Sikh chuke hai ,
Listen to K's talks with no Q/A are like immersing in a scintillating, cantillating, vivifying brook. But some of these "specialists" with their heavy egos and rigid modes of thinking, usually expressed in their high pitch/hefty sound, always feel like boulders interrupting and often changed the whole course of K's flow. Thanks K and friends.
You all here are judging about them with your opinions ....if you really see that then you don't have your ego to continue. Shouldn't one have some rational brain?
Min 24:45 jk says it clearly. This short ‚example‘ describes pretty good some of these greatly educated scientist. They seem to look for great breakthrough’s in their job and with that knowledge they ask question, which is recycling the past in new permutations and combinations… Why not just listen to jks words without judgement, expectations or conclusions. Listen it through until he has tied this thought/ insight together. As he likes to carry people so they enquire with him to absolutely understand it. He could sum all that up quickly but then they would be left with new theories to believe or not believe..
Boring? The monologues (which he would call discussions/inquiries rather than lectures or sermons) are not meant for entertainment. They’re meant to be a discussion between the speaker and receiver. How could you be bored if you were actively inquiring along with him?
Lì aveva novant'anni sir:J. Krishnamurti☺️, che bello. Mi è piaciuto molto quando ha pronunciato alcune paroline in italiano☺️ il suo accento era molto dolce☺️☺️☺️. Che bello ☺️.
So this is how you bring up war and nationalism in a conversation without causing a big fight.. Well played. This is the question scientists should be asked - how do we stop destroying each other? - Because that's the *really* important question.
As a World History teacher… I also captured this insight. Traditionally, nationalism isn’t a concept that is brought up until WWI, and it is always listed as one of the 4-5 major causes of the war, along with alliances -> another form, larger form of nationalism. But it’s clear it should be brought up and connected to the earliest forms of tribalism as well.
The scientists were all shocked and speechless when they heard the word Love😊. They were probably thinking why in the world this old man is incorporating the word Love into the discussion of intelligence. I just love that part. I’m so tickled. K is so intelligent. He’s got the intelligence of Love which is not limited.
Yes! The scientists were completely thrown by Krishnamurti bringing up the subject of love! They wanted to remain at the level of theory and knowledge, and so when the topic of love came up in relation to intelligence - love being the intelligence of compassion, etc - they had no answers.
I think that when K says "limited" is more in a sense of boundaries. Like, knowledge creates a psychological boundary in the brain, the "me", just like the boarders in a country, which creates division and by itself conflict with other entities outside that boundary because you'll ended up seeing them as enemies.
Exactly, that's why he said Love and Compassion have no attachment. Because attachments are a concept only known to the self, the mine and me. To use your analogy of nationalism, it would mean to lift the borders of the map and become one nation, the nation of earth. The same applies for the human being or the intelligence that animates the human experience. With no past and future, there is nothing to hold on to, there is no separation in the experience, no conflict, no division, complete harmony with that intelligence that runs the universe. Knowledge and therefore the brain, as he says, would be just a tool for that limitless love/intelligence.
1. Is there an action which is not limited? 2. What is intelligence? 3. Love is not desire. Love is not pleasure. 4. That intelligence is born out of love
This debate was wonderful, but we can perceive that Krishnamurti is talking about some things and the scientists don't seem to understand his language, although K. is very rational and logic.
Action from intelligence (love & compassion) is free from karma. Limited action (reaction due to self egoic knowledge), to past or future images invokes karma.
to the guy asking about drawing inference from "brain" to any other fuction of the brain, the causality of this inference itself, or the causal relation implying this inference is the answer, once you infer anything it generally leads to an infinite regress.
Are they trying to communicate, “how does K know his hand is hurting him” ...thus how do we know what produces pain and why it’s felt? Something points to the pain to be felt ....pain is felt when acknowledged
K- Any action born out of knowledge is limited and therefore bound to create conflict. The gentleman at the end picks up the glass of water and drinks water from it: Wait...I pick up this glass and drink water , is that limited and does it lead to conflict! 😂 20:45
Krishnamurti was always adamant about separating the type of knowledge needed to learn to use a cup of water and fill it, and inward knowledge/psychological knowledge of oneself, to relate to others, etc.
What shainberg asked at the end: desire seems to be so integral in babies. My thoughts: Yes because it’s natural. I think we are meant to grow out of desire and attachment as life hits us, but we built society in a way which we don’t grow out of it at all. Desire is natural but we become consumed by it, rather than inverse.
Too bad K couldn’t just talk with Francisco Varela… K sniffed out his seriousness immediately and basically talks to him the whole time directly, with the others simply interrupting
It’s very interesting to see the so called experts continuously missing the mark. I feel there’s to many hands in the kitchen for this talk. Everyone keeps getting trapped in what seems to be letting go of what they know and accepting what’s real.
When you are in state to not becoming then you are. It means living in the now, present moment, there is the power, no past & no future, power of the now. Every other action born from past or future makes conflict! There is no psicologycal time, time is mecanical ;)
If this person is not godliness, I don't know what is. Childlike, void of ego, and eternal wisdom. Krishnamurti is more of a scientist than all the "scientists" present here.
the Scientists, they are muddying the waters, what all Scientists inevitably do, with their exactness,for little points, which is their ego, and K is trying to see things directly, and cure the problem, which is the only action that can free man, that is not limited, is Love surely.
He is not talking about functional memory/ knowledge while saying "" not registering" . He is talking about memory/knowledge which gets associated with self . The insult , praise, jealousy , image of someone(being bad/good) as something etc becomes self . And u keep repeating those thought . The next action which takes place is not based on observation but the distorted action coming out of those memories . The whole thing becomes mechanical .A computer program . The knowledge of quantum physics is not problem. The image of being quantum physicist is the problem . . The religious propaganda , ur nationality , moral teaching , culture which is another level of deep part of the illusory self is also a program making us behave in certain way like a computer .... There never is real freedom . We that we call self /observer is slave of our past , religion , culture,place which has been constructed by feedback loop of thoughts . Revolution does not take place when u say i am like this and ll get better in future . It is still a movement adding to the accumulative substance of "me/observer/self" . U simply have to negate the self . And then the revolution happens . Truth / love is already there . U dont have to walk or do something to achieve it . There is no psychological time . We have created this observer only by applying the physical concept of time/evolution to psychology . The moment psychological time stops ( trying to be something better ) u r no more .
But, K didn't agree that he is only talking about the knowledge that is associated with self. He tried to generalize it to all kinds of knowledge. But, yeah. You summed it up well. K's insight is still great for the 'self' knowledge, which breeds limited actions, which in turn breeds conflict and therefore leads to all the worldly pain and agony. Why doesn't K just stick to human biases instead of generalizing things to knowledge based on facts?
From left to right: 1. Juan L. Hancke (sorry I don't know anything about him). 2. Francisco Varela, a neuroscientist from Chile 3. Kim Bergstrom, a neurophysiologist from Finland 4. Dr David Shainberg, a psychiatrist from New York 5. Dr. David Peat, a physicist from the UK.
What I find absurd is that at the beginning of the discussion Krishnamurti gently asks the other participants to approach the questions from a less theoretical perspective, and the first question (or objection) by Varela is that Krishnamurti should not use the word brain 🧠 because no-one in the room is currently operating on an open skull in which the brain 🧠 is visible, and because some people who have used the word ‘brain’ 🧠 have developed various theories about it which may have influenced our current usage of the word !!! - As if there exists any word in any language that has never been used before by other people who have contributed to its meaning. This is why intellectual people get a bad rap sometimes. Any ordinary person when listening to Krishnamurti use the word brain 🧠 knows that he is referring to the soft tissue organ inside the skull, which is widely understood to be responsible for making sense of our sensory information, processing pain, pleasure, producing thought, memory, ideas, etc. As Krishnamurti said again and again, the word is not the thing, so we shouldn’t get tied into stupid knots by mere words. The word ‘brain’ is just a convenient term that points to what is going on inside the skull of any ordinary human being (or animal, etc). Why make it so complex?
La acción limitada se deriva del conocimiento y siempre provocará conflicto. Por ejemplo: Si soy de Argentina, acciono limitadamente a través de mi conocimiento, basado en mis tradiciones y pierdo de vista q soy un ser humano igual q todos. Esto traerá conflictos, seré tribal y seguramente estaré a favor de la guerra si mi país se siente amenazado.
Well, K, to be fair, the idea that there is already in us the innocent child or a divine aspect or K asking if there is something which is not limited is pretty much the same thing. The difference is whether or not it emerges as a result of dialogue/self investigation or whether or not it is already there. Not even K knows that for certain. It is in the end an irrelevant point. The problem lies in making additional claims regarding that unlimited aspect or believing in it and not discovering it as an actuality.
It's human problem and nobody can solve it through any theory, method or process. We can solve many mathematical problems but that is following up some knowledge and the whole process. We know that there is a result that's why we can solve it and we have the knowledge to solve it. But human are living thing no one can solve their problem by anything definite. But we try so hard to come to a conclusion which will make a theory but that's not gonna work. We can't function without our memeory which is the source of our knowledge and also stupidity because we have accumulated these in our whole life. But our understanding is slightly different from our knowledge and with that we can deal with the reality that may also be the result of knowledge but we need it in order to function. We will go into conflict if we analyse any particular situation and that go on cause that's the process of analyzing.
Instead of these scientists, if there was a common man involved in this discussion with much lesser knowledge, this seminar would have been much more fruitful and on track! One could have extracted more from K.
@@Sunflower_729I disagree with that… he rejected all organized religion, including Buddhism… but he never went so far to reject the core teachings of the Buddha. He rejects the connection but only because it’s in comparison and theory.
@@Sunflower_729 you misunderstand. the person you're replying to is not claiming that K is spreading the teachings of Siddartha Gautama. the person you're replying to is saying that what you're seeing in the video are the teachings of a buddha. not THE buddha, A buddha. buddha is a title, not a person.
For me its not clear. mby someone can help. If the me, the knowled ends. there is an action that can take place wich is not born from knowledge. but why it is possible that this person which has no me, can act with real intelligenc and love but still has acces to knowledge like speaking a language which is knowledge?
pumuckel378 There is knowledge, with all the content, you know now this activity have his place. We use it every time, in technical way and in relationship.- Thought is always chattering. You dont think about your tomorrow work time, but you thinking about what gonna happen tomorrow, how gonna be your day because of relation and all the rest of it. In a technical way you need to use it, but in your relation to life, to people to nature thought have no place. But he is a fuckin bastard he want to give his point of view like those scientist. When you go to work at 8oclok you don't think you do it, but you always think about what gonna happen. And K says its a big illusion, you cant know. Thought is a response of memory and he is only need to be used when you need him,(in the present moment) . But what he is create about tomorrow or he's conclusion about what happened yesterday its false, its chattering, not important, no pertinant. When you reject the division, pain, conflict or hope created by thought, you dont have any not necessary thought movement. If you see the futility of thought and what he's talking about and pay attention to him, observe him, see how he is stupid, he is always in a limited movement, when you begin to observe the movement witouth any jugement, only see the fact of yourself (your thought its you, theirs no seperation), dont stop it but see what you thinking and what fallowing the idea created by him bring in your live ( deception, pain, agony.....) you see the totality of it and then youre free, you dont play with him because he is dangerous, confuse, limited, seperator, mesure. Seeing this truth its already acting, whats come after this is silence, tranquility, calm, wich means an healthy mind. Intelligence, love, all the rest can take place only in a healthy mind.
I think everybody who listen Krishnamurti, many times, to some extent understood all these points, it is clear that, when one assumes a nature of human mind which is non-thinking then one can argue that thought limits us. However, whatever discussed above takes place in the domain of imagination, and therefore thought. You understood that, based on your imagination, thought is limited. It took place in the domain of thought, therefore what you meant by seeing is the end of a thinking process, I don't know what comes after that, I haven't seen any instance that one finds radical change onto freedom, or peace or tranquility. Of course seeing that is facing our current nature, I am not arguing against it, however why should our current nature spontaneously transforms when one is aware of it. It may give some practical insight in our lifes, a practical knowledge that is reminded over and over again, of course by usage of memory. I am not denying anything, I am honestly describing my experience, however many others relying on K's experience and some other experiences come through psychedelics. Even though one understands through deduction and inquiry that thought is limited and therefore freedom is beyond thought, that certainly does not mean that thought will seize after seeing this fact. For K. this might be true, we don't know, noone can know. For many people, it is very misleading that they keep repeating the teachings of Ks as if it is self evident to them, which I can not know but I don't believe that they are free from thought. Beyond all these, one should go to the root of the matter and ask what is the source of knowledge, (about all these concepts such as observation without judgement, or mind without thought) in this case it is either a hearsay or a mere experience, nothing beyond. Freedom is set of actions, limited to one's nature, nothing beyond.
freedom is set of actions, limited to one's nature, nothing beyond? For you freedom means ones action on his own limitation? I dont quite fallow your long message, because of my english no doubt. But what is your point? Is it possible to be free psychologically to act adequately in our lives? Whitout any disturbance of thought?
Freedom can only be defined with respect to the nature of the thing. If a thing (human) is a thinking being, then freedom can not exclude thought. One may of course object by claiming that human is not a thinking being, one can claim that man can exist without thought, man can end the thought. To all these claims I would say, my experience says the otherwise. If an action exists because of our own nature, then that action is part of the definition of the freedom. Say that thought is spontaneous action because of the relation of the mind to the external world, then freedom can not exclude thought. This may be partial freedom, with respect to the freedom of the absolute, divine nature. I agree, yet this does not show any lack of freedom, because we had defined it with relatively. I may see the futility of an action/reaction, say walking, yet I can not fly, in a way this is all I am saying. If thinking is our nature (I can not insist that it is.) we should organize our thoughts accordingly, by correcting the inadequacy in it such that one reaches adequacy, psychologically. As he said truth is a pathless land, there is no path, no methodology. One has to understand his own nature and find a way to freedom, it will be only his way.
Dear friend, people claim what they want. but their is no reject or acceptance of someting. K put importance to explain how thought which is the psychological time is in desorder and constant conflict. When you talk about "respect of the human nature", how we can respect it if we cannot see what is all about clearly. How you can understant, respect your own nature, yourself, the real nature of thought if there is distortion on your perception? If you have a little bit observed yourself, your thought, this is someting mervellous, he always moving in some direction. And it's obviously affect human nature. So K talk about the nature of that tool which become so dull because of our education. So he try to find out true discussion if is it possible to end the influence of environement in our mind, because at the end of this old residues of time, memory, there is someting new. And that's "new" can use thought with order. Then, when we end the influence who create in our mind the useless movement of thought in time, which is an energy waste process. When you dont waste your energy, you can use it to move forwar, go beyond the limitation of yourself witch is the result of environement. The limitation is born from fear, fear is the result of thought, remembrence, witch create division between the present and the past or futur. This sate of confusion prevent our mind to be still, quite, calm. What K try to find out is; if it is possible to have a thought who can fonction intelligentely, creatively out of time influence. He call it earliyer creative thought, but he stop to use the world "thought" for this sate because it's all together a different state then a time bounded mind. So he dont call it, there is this sate if the process of thinking is understood. So you dont organise your thought, but your life, the only field where action have value. But this is not a state you see and percieve thought because of a little description of someone, and you try to cut them off or wipe it out, controll them. In those term this is not possible, you need to work hard, put order in your life, in every thought, if there is no order you can forget what K says. Because is merely a game and nothing serious. Is why this quiteness of the mind born from the order you put in your life with all your attention, attentively observe yourself whitout choise. You paid a choiseless attention to what is, you discerne the false. You can go beyond only if you see the falsness of thought in time, and if you touch the beauty of the tought free from influence, he is more acuite and shape. Like Zulfikar in muslim cultir, the snake, kundalini, 3 eye in indian culture and egyptian, love for Mevlana: is the new who comes after death. The self which is the illusion created by environnement, when it's comes to end there is the intelligence of love which is universal. This creative thinking is facinated all civilisation, and K give you for nothing, no need money or someting for him. Why he do that? What he want to show us to give us that thing with all that carefull talk discussion or book. :) I dunno dude, can you call it love? Are you love? Is there love in your mind dude? :)
I see here almost all the people here have accepted K as an authority with which K was against! So, Mustn't one stop giving compliments , judgements etc.?
If you are interested in joining the network of volunteers responsible for translating Krishnamurti videos, you can get in touch at digital@kfoundation.org
They keep talking in their own terms, they aren't really into the dialogue and that's why after an hour no one could go really deep, this seminar is more like a "how not to have a dialogue". Jk may be or not be wrong of what he is exposing but at least try to understand what he's talking if not you're just listen to your own words like a loop of the self image.
This is SO confusing. K says “brain is a fact”. But brain and nerves and all such were discovered by science as an observation of the external world. Essentially, theories. Theories can be very very good estimations of reality but by definition and also in practice, they are not the truth. So, it makes no sense K saying brain is a fact. If he means psyche - our senses, experiences, memories and emotions etc are all facts then I understand. But then he lumps “brain” in there, brain which has been a theory developed for centuries.
![Chris Langan - The Interview THEY Didn't Want You To See - CTMU [Full Version; Timestamps]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/9miVG2xT5jY/mqdefault.jpg)
I am 19 year old watching this. I found something precious to inquire..
I have been in this since I was 15 and now I'm 18, just going and going nothing changed, nothing can ever change by just hearing words! The deeper inquiry, what is it? It is what I'm trying to understand 🙂
As havd we friend.
There is a feeling of no time when I listen such discussions on constant topics 🌊 thank you
Dr.shainberg left his practice in1984 as psychoanalyst and the reason was he applied that the doctor can't help the patient tho get out of his illusion as he the doctor is also caught up in illusion. He asserted in his papers, One can be out of illusion when "observer is obseved"as j Krishnamurti said.
Watching him reveals a lot...somehow the videos themselves even explain the questions raised ...quite wonderfully haha
Are you from India ????
Thanks for this piece of info. It helped me in a very weird manner which I don't want to reveal 😊
@@empressofemptinesse5605❤️🙏🏽
Now I understood why he very easily says , that thought is limited ,
Why he says I am whole humanity,
Why he says conflict in everything
Why he say its instant mutation,
Jiddu I understood you
Why you say no authority is required , And why you say it will mean athourity will creat more delusion ,
I understood why you say religion And gurus are the worst ,now I understood why any meditation technique is going to work totaly insteed it will make burden And I understood why meditation can Not give permanent peace of kind
Jio jiddu you did great Job , wherever you are My thanks to you to demolish whole programming Or conditioning in just One moment of understanding
❤❤❤❤❤❤
Ab India ke log English Sikh chuke hai ,
Thank you jiddu krishnamurti ❤
I love Krishnamurti and he is super intelligent and funny. I wish I could've met him
Me too ☺️ wish I had a chance to ask him some questions. I have a bundle of them..still seeking answers
Listen to K's talks with no Q/A are like immersing in a scintillating, cantillating, vivifying brook. But some of these "specialists" with their heavy egos and rigid modes of thinking, usually expressed in their high pitch/hefty sound, always feel like boulders interrupting and often changed the whole course of K's flow. Thanks K and friends.
you are right, they are so damn identified ! you get that perception by looking at them and the way there body language is.
absolutely correct
you’re absolutely right. I noticed it too. K has a calm soul.
You all here are judging about them with your opinions ....if you really see that then you don't have your ego to continue. Shouldn't one have some rational brain?
Min 24:45 jk says it clearly. This short ‚example‘ describes pretty good some of these greatly educated scientist. They seem to look for great breakthrough’s in their job and with that knowledge they ask question, which is recycling the past in new permutations and combinations…
Why not just listen to jks words without judgement, expectations or conclusions. Listen it through until he has tied this thought/ insight together. As he likes to carry people so they enquire with him to absolutely understand it. He could sum all that up quickly but then they would be left with new theories to believe or not believe..
15:21 At that point, those scientist minds couldn´t deal with that very simple fact. Amazing.
These discussions are so lively and help to clarify doubts one may have. Other times his monologue can get quite boring.
True
Boring? The monologues (which he would call discussions/inquiries rather than lectures or sermons) are not meant for entertainment. They’re meant to be a discussion between the speaker and receiver. How could you be bored if you were actively inquiring along with him?
Lì aveva novant'anni sir:J. Krishnamurti☺️, che bello. Mi è piaciuto molto quando ha pronunciato alcune paroline in italiano☺️ il suo accento era molto dolce☺️☺️☺️. Che bello ☺️.
Thank you J. Krishnamurti 🙏
So this is how you bring up war and nationalism in a conversation without causing a big fight.. Well played. This is the question scientists should be asked - how do we stop destroying each other? - Because that's the *really* important question.
As a World History teacher… I also captured this insight. Traditionally, nationalism isn’t a concept that is brought up until WWI, and it is always listed as one of the 4-5 major causes of the war, along with alliances -> another form, larger form of nationalism. But it’s clear it should be brought up and connected to the earliest forms of tribalism as well.
The scientists were all shocked and speechless when they heard the word Love😊. They were probably thinking why in the world this old man is incorporating the word Love into the discussion of intelligence. I just love that part. I’m so tickled. K is so intelligent. He’s got the intelligence of Love which is not limited.
Yes! The scientists were completely thrown by Krishnamurti bringing up the subject of love! They wanted to remain at the level of theory and knowledge, and so when the topic of love came up in relation to intelligence - love being the intelligence of compassion, etc - they had no answers.
Did you also notice that K's presence and choice of words changed when he began to talk about Love?
Tickled is the right word.
Hang in there Krishnamurti.
Gracias por subir este material 🙏
I think that when K says "limited" is more in a sense of boundaries. Like, knowledge creates a psychological boundary in the brain, the "me", just like the boarders in a country, which creates division and by itself conflict with other entities outside that boundary because you'll ended up seeing them as enemies.
Exactly, that's why he said Love and Compassion have no attachment. Because attachments are a concept only known to the self, the mine and me. To use your analogy of nationalism, it would mean to lift the borders of the map and become one nation, the nation of earth. The same applies for the human being or the intelligence that animates the human experience. With no past and future, there is nothing to hold on to, there is no separation in the experience, no conflict, no division, complete harmony with that intelligence that runs the universe. Knowledge and therefore the brain, as he says, would be just a tool for that limitless love/intelligence.
Deep
Amazing!!
A very intellectual conversation to arrive at something which is not intellectual. :)
1. Is there an action which is not limited?
2. What is intelligence?
3. Love is not desire. Love is not pleasure.
4. That intelligence is born out of love
This debate was wonderful, but we can perceive that Krishnamurti is talking about some things and the scientists don't seem to understand his language, although K. is very rational and logic.
great talk
Excellent discussion
13:25 Bloody hell! They are giving me pain and it is not only in my brain but all over my body. 😭
Action from intelligence (love & compassion) is free from karma. Limited action (reaction due to self egoic knowledge), to past or future images invokes karma.
to the guy asking about drawing inference from "brain" to any other fuction of the brain, the causality of this inference itself, or the causal relation implying this inference is the answer, once you infer anything it generally leads to an infinite regress.
Are they trying to communicate, “how does K know his hand is hurting him” ...thus how do we know what produces pain and why it’s felt? Something points to the pain to be felt ....pain is felt when acknowledged
Awesome👍
K- Any action born out of knowledge is limited and therefore bound to create conflict.
The gentleman at the end picks up the glass of water and drinks water from it: Wait...I pick up this glass and drink water , is that limited and does it lead to conflict! 😂 20:45
Funny :,D
That's biological-instinct not knowledge!
Krishnamurti was always adamant about separating the type of knowledge needed to learn to use a cup of water and fill it, and inward knowledge/psychological knowledge of oneself, to relate to others, etc.
@@ashwayujaaithal876 well he could pick it up again and drink 20 liters, your argument is lost
What shainberg asked at the end: desire seems to be so integral in babies. My thoughts: Yes because it’s natural. I think we are meant to grow out of desire and attachment as life hits us, but we built society in a way which we don’t grow out of it at all. Desire is natural but we become consumed by it, rather than inverse.
any chance of posting the scientists full names? would just like to read up on their backgrounds a little bit.
Matti Bergstrom, Juan L. Hancke, David Peat, David Shainberg, Francisco Varela
Thanks so much, very prompt!
Too bad K couldn’t just talk with Francisco Varela… K sniffed out his seriousness immediately and basically talks to him the whole time directly, with the others simply interrupting
It’s very interesting to see the so called experts continuously missing the mark. I feel there’s to many hands in the kitchen for this talk. Everyone keeps getting trapped in what seems to be letting go of what they know and accepting what’s real.
When you are in state to not becoming then you are. It means living in the now, present moment, there is the power, no past & no future, power of the now. Every other action born from past or future makes conflict! There is no psicologycal time, time is mecanical ;)
All the docs he had talk with jump like lil kids when in conversation with him..That out to tell a lot about a person.
If this person is not godliness, I don't know what is. Childlike, void of ego, and eternal wisdom. Krishnamurti is more of a scientist than all the "scientists" present here.
the Scientists, they are muddying the waters, what all Scientists inevitably do, with their exactness,for little points, which is their ego, and K is trying to see things directly, and cure the problem, which is the only action that can free man, that is not limited, is Love surely.
He is not talking about functional memory/ knowledge while saying "" not registering" . He is talking about memory/knowledge which gets associated with self . The insult , praise, jealousy , image of someone(being bad/good) as something etc becomes self . And u keep repeating those thought . The next action which takes place is not based on observation but the distorted action coming out of those memories . The whole thing becomes mechanical .A computer program . The knowledge of quantum physics is not problem. The image of being quantum physicist is the problem . . The religious propaganda , ur nationality , moral teaching , culture which is another level of deep part of the illusory self is also a program making us behave in certain way like a computer .... There never is real freedom . We that we call self /observer is slave of our past , religion , culture,place which has been constructed by feedback loop of thoughts . Revolution does not take place when u say i am like this and ll get better in future . It is still a movement adding to the accumulative substance of "me/observer/self" . U simply have to negate the self . And then the revolution happens . Truth / love is already there . U dont have to walk or do something to achieve it . There is no psychological time . We have created this observer only by applying the physical concept of time/evolution to psychology . The moment psychological time stops ( trying to be something better ) u r no more .
But, K didn't agree that he is only talking about the knowledge that is associated with self. He tried to generalize it to all kinds of knowledge.
But, yeah. You summed it up well. K's insight is still great for the 'self' knowledge, which breeds limited actions, which in turn breeds conflict and therefore leads to all the worldly pain and agony.
Why doesn't K just stick to human biases instead of generalizing things to knowledge based on facts?
Perfectly said
Yup the words scientist has all sort of images attached to it
I am not a scientist,I am human Being
❤🙏
Can you tell me the name of all these scientist, please?
From left to right: 1. Juan L. Hancke (sorry I don't know anything about him). 2. Francisco Varela, a neuroscientist from Chile 3. Kim Bergstrom, a neurophysiologist from Finland 4. Dr David Shainberg, a psychiatrist from New York 5. Dr. David Peat, a physicist from the UK.
What I find absurd is that at the beginning of the discussion Krishnamurti gently asks the other participants to approach the questions from a less theoretical perspective, and the first question (or objection) by Varela is that Krishnamurti should not use the word brain 🧠 because no-one in the room is currently operating on an open skull in which the brain 🧠 is visible, and because some people who have used the word ‘brain’ 🧠 have developed various theories about it which may have influenced our current usage of the word !!! - As if there exists any word in any language that has never been used before by other people who have contributed to its meaning.
This is why intellectual people get a bad rap sometimes. Any ordinary person when listening to Krishnamurti use the word brain 🧠 knows that he is referring to the soft tissue organ inside the skull, which is widely understood to be responsible for making sense of our sensory information, processing pain, pleasure, producing thought, memory, ideas, etc. As Krishnamurti said again and again, the word is not the thing, so we shouldn’t get tied into stupid knots by mere words. The word ‘brain’ is just a convenient term that points to what is going on inside the skull of any ordinary human being (or animal, etc). Why make it so complex?
Limited action leads to conflict what does conflict mean in this context can anyone explain or give example
La acción limitada se deriva del conocimiento y siempre provocará conflicto. Por ejemplo: Si soy de Argentina, acciono limitadamente a través de mi conocimiento, basado en mis tradiciones y pierdo de vista q soy un ser humano igual q todos. Esto traerá conflictos, seré tribal y seguramente estaré a favor de la guerra si mi país se siente amenazado.
🙏🏻
If this was second day of discussion then how the same color dress?
Well, K, to be fair, the idea that there is already in us the innocent child or a divine aspect or K asking if there is something which is not limited is pretty much the same thing. The difference is whether or not it emerges as a result of dialogue/self investigation or whether or not it is already there. Not even K knows that for certain. It is in the end an irrelevant point. The problem lies in making additional claims regarding that unlimited aspect or believing in it and not discovering it as an actuality.
It's human problem and nobody can solve it through any theory, method or process. We can solve many mathematical problems but that is following up some knowledge and the whole process. We know that there is a result that's why we can solve it and we have the knowledge to solve it. But human are living thing no one can solve their problem by anything definite. But we try so hard to come to a conclusion which will make a theory but that's not gonna work. We can't function without our memeory which is the source of our knowledge and also stupidity because we have accumulated these in our whole life. But our understanding is slightly different from our knowledge and with that we can deal with the reality that may also be the result of knowledge but we need it in order to function. We will go into conflict if we analyse any particular situation and that go on cause that's the process of analyzing.
Instead of these scientists, if there was a common man involved in this discussion with much lesser knowledge, this seminar would have been much more fruitful and on track! One could have extracted more from K.
THE TEACHINGS OF A BUDDHA!!!
he refused buddha teaching too
@@Sunflower_729I disagree with that… he rejected all organized religion, including Buddhism… but he never went so far to reject the core teachings of the Buddha. He rejects the connection but only because it’s in comparison and theory.
@@Sunflower_729 you misunderstand. the person you're replying to is not claiming that K is spreading the teachings of Siddartha Gautama. the person you're replying to is saying that what you're seeing in the video are the teachings of a buddha. not THE buddha, A buddha. buddha is a title, not a person.
For me its not clear. mby someone can help. If the me, the knowled ends. there is an action that can take place wich is not born from knowledge. but why it is possible that this person which has no me, can act with real intelligenc and love but still has acces to knowledge like speaking a language which is knowledge?
pumuckel378 There is knowledge, with all the content, you know now this activity have his place. We use it every time, in technical way and in relationship.- Thought is always chattering. You dont think about your tomorrow work time, but you thinking about what gonna happen tomorrow, how gonna be your day because of relation and all the rest of it. In a technical way you need to use it, but in your relation to life, to people to nature thought have no place. But he is a fuckin bastard he want to give his point of view like those scientist.
When you go to work at 8oclok you don't think you do it, but you always think about what gonna happen. And K says its a big illusion, you cant know. Thought is a response of memory and he is only need to be used when you need him,(in the present moment) . But what he is create about tomorrow or he's conclusion about what happened yesterday its false, its chattering, not important, no pertinant.
When you reject the division, pain, conflict or hope created by thought, you dont have any not necessary thought movement. If you see the futility of thought and what he's talking about and pay attention to him, observe him, see how he is stupid, he is always in a limited movement, when you begin to observe the movement witouth any jugement, only see the fact of yourself (your thought its you, theirs no seperation), dont stop it but see what you thinking and what fallowing the idea created by him bring in your live ( deception, pain, agony.....) you see the totality of it and then youre free, you dont play with him because he is dangerous, confuse, limited, seperator, mesure.
Seeing this truth its already acting, whats come after this is silence, tranquility, calm, wich means an healthy mind. Intelligence, love, all the rest can take place only in a healthy mind.
I think everybody who listen Krishnamurti, many times, to some extent understood all these points, it is clear that, when one assumes a nature of human mind which is non-thinking then one can argue that thought limits us. However, whatever discussed above takes place in the domain of imagination, and therefore thought. You understood that, based on your imagination, thought is limited. It took place in the domain of thought, therefore what you meant by seeing is the end of a thinking process, I don't know what comes after that, I haven't seen any instance that one finds radical change onto freedom, or peace or tranquility. Of course seeing that is facing our current nature, I am not arguing against it, however why should our current nature spontaneously transforms when one is aware of it. It may give some practical insight in our lifes, a practical knowledge that is reminded over and over again, of course by usage of memory.
I am not denying anything, I am honestly describing my experience, however many others relying on K's experience and some other experiences come through psychedelics.
Even though one understands through deduction and inquiry that thought is limited and therefore freedom is beyond thought, that certainly does not mean that thought will seize after seeing this fact. For K. this might be true, we don't know, noone can know.
For many people, it is very misleading that they keep repeating the teachings of Ks as if it is self evident to them, which I can not know but I don't believe that they are free from thought.
Beyond all these, one should go to the root of the matter and ask what is the source of knowledge, (about all these concepts such as observation without judgement, or mind without thought) in this case it is either a hearsay or a mere experience, nothing beyond.
Freedom is set of actions, limited to one's nature, nothing beyond.
freedom is set of actions, limited to one's nature, nothing beyond?
For you freedom means ones action on his own limitation?
I dont quite fallow your long message, because of my english no doubt. But what is your point? Is it possible to be free psychologically to act adequately in our lives? Whitout any disturbance of thought?
Freedom can only be defined with respect to the nature of the thing. If a thing (human) is a thinking being, then freedom can not exclude thought. One may of course object by claiming that human is not a thinking being, one can claim that man can exist without thought, man can end the thought. To all these claims I would say, my experience says the otherwise.
If an action exists because of our own nature, then that action is part of the definition of the freedom. Say that thought is spontaneous action because of the relation of the mind to the external world, then freedom can not exclude thought. This may be partial freedom, with respect to the freedom of the absolute, divine nature. I agree, yet this does not show any lack of freedom, because we had defined it with relatively.
I may see the futility of an action/reaction, say walking, yet I can not fly, in a way this is all I am saying.
If thinking is our nature (I can not insist that it is.) we should organize our thoughts accordingly, by correcting the inadequacy in it such that one reaches adequacy, psychologically.
As he said truth is a pathless land, there is no path, no methodology. One has to understand his own nature and find a way to freedom, it will be only his way.
Dear friend, people claim what they want. but their is no reject or acceptance of someting. K put importance to explain how thought which is the psychological time is in desorder and constant conflict. When you talk about "respect of the human nature", how we can respect it if we cannot see what is all about clearly. How you can understant, respect your own nature, yourself, the real nature of thought if there is distortion on your perception?
If you have a little bit observed yourself, your thought, this is someting mervellous, he always moving in some direction. And it's obviously affect human nature. So K talk about the nature of that tool which become so dull because of our education. So he try to find out true discussion if is it possible to end the influence of environement in our mind, because at the end of this old residues of time, memory, there is someting new. And that's "new" can use thought with order. Then, when we end the influence who create in our mind the useless movement of thought in time, which is an energy waste process. When you dont waste your energy, you can use it to move forwar, go beyond the limitation of yourself witch is the result of environement. The limitation is born from fear, fear is the result of thought, remembrence, witch create division between the present and the past or futur. This sate of confusion prevent our mind to be still, quite, calm.
What K try to find out is; if it is possible to have a thought who can fonction intelligentely, creatively out of time influence. He call it earliyer creative thought, but he stop to use the world "thought" for this sate because it's all together a different state then a time bounded mind. So he dont call it, there is this sate if the process of thinking is understood. So you dont organise your thought, but your life, the only field where action have value.
But this is not a state you see and percieve thought because of a little description of someone, and you try to cut them off or wipe it out, controll them. In those term this is not possible, you need to work hard, put order in your life, in every thought, if there is no order you can forget what K says. Because is merely a game and nothing serious.
Is why this quiteness of the mind born from the order you put in your life with all your attention, attentively observe yourself whitout choise. You paid a choiseless attention to what is, you discerne the false. You can go beyond only if you see the falsness of thought in time, and if you touch the beauty of the tought free from influence, he is more acuite and shape. Like Zulfikar in muslim cultir, the snake, kundalini, 3 eye in indian culture and egyptian, love for Mevlana: is the new who comes after death. The self which is the illusion created by environnement, when it's comes to end there is the intelligence of love which is universal. This creative thinking is facinated all civilisation, and K give you for nothing, no need money or someting for him. Why he do that? What he want to show us to give us that thing with all that carefull talk discussion or book. :) I dunno dude, can you call it love? Are you love? Is there love in your mind dude? :)
35:41 k:I question that
S:i know you question that
Too funny🤣😝
It's intersting that sientist do not grasp essence 🙂
I see here almost all the people here have accepted K as an authority with which K was against! So, Mustn't one stop giving compliments , judgements etc.?
33:06
K's way of expressing is not always so refined.
help me translate into Vietnamese.🙏
If you are interested in joining the network of volunteers responsible for translating Krishnamurti videos, you can get in touch at digital@kfoundation.org
Last words
They keep talking in their own terms, they aren't really into the dialogue and that's why after an hour no one could go really deep, this seminar is more like a "how not to have a dialogue".
Jk may be or not be wrong of what he is exposing but at least try to understand what he's talking if not you're just listen to your own words like a loop of the self image.
That one scientist explaining to the others that don't understand. xdd
This is SO confusing. K says “brain is a fact”. But brain and nerves and all such were discovered by science as an observation of the external world. Essentially, theories. Theories can be very very good estimations of reality but by definition and also in practice, they are not the truth. So, it makes no sense K saying brain is a fact. If he means psyche - our senses, experiences, memories and emotions etc are all facts then I understand. But then he lumps “brain” in there, brain which has been a theory developed for centuries.
Messy conversation!
It's not onley you division yourself from other, you ar, the and, division from yourself
...
51:44