Just hats off to David Bohm. I really appreciate his patience, way of putting the points, etc. Infact I ve learnt more from his say. Tx for the upload.
One have to keep in mind that K was once being groomed to be next masiah for the world and he refused that power because he knew that is was not right to play God. As I understand it, he gave up all material possessions and so call status because he knew his limits. David Bohm worked with with Einstein in his earlier years of his career so, he must have been somewhat intelligent in his right. If I am going to learn about myself, there is no better person to learn and understand then these two men. I might sound like he think he know more than the other gentleman but he definitely understood more then my parents, my past teachers, pastors who get there information from rumors and not facts. Life has so much clarity now then before I listened to these two. Thank you.
K discovered the fact that there is NO separate individual. He has had total insight. He saw through and through the “self”. The rest of us don’t see this truth. Hence, we are upset - how can he say I’m not an individual? What about “my” memories, experiences, family, wealth, etc. Buddha and K were transformed by the truth, not by their efforts
When I touch or THINGS' touching me make me feel only by the Conscious and from that I know what and I recognise and it became the content I connect with my Conscious and BECOME CONDITIONED
Space has no borders, neither it is a measurable material thing; yet we see and sense its presence with our whole being. Like- wise consciousness has no borders and it is not a material measurable thing; yet we sense its presence with our whole being.
Think his definition of consciousness is not the same as the commonly used definition in Non Dualism. Guess the way he uses the term is saying that conciousness is within the field of time. In non Dualism consciousness is the ultimate reality.
JK starts talking about senility and how maybe the degeneration of brain cells can be slowed….. and the questioner brings it to reincarnation…. Why? That is not what jk was going to talk about and he rightfully pushed back asking where is the connection. I love JK
Contents of consciousness ends only when one has a total insight into the futility of the contents,the pattern it creates ,the wheel which it forms,and the end result of suffering.When one has an insight that what one is carrying is a bundle of waste wont you throw the waste
J. K has opened my 'eyes' through his pointers. In this conversation was JK evading some of the questions from one questioner? The questioner was mostly referring to human personal memory (as individual consciousness).
Yes he was actually evading it to get questioner to pursue it mote heavily and arrive st the answer. You are right about questioner being very confused and thinking the "soul" involved brain cells that need to regenerate.
We playing a game called "individuality" and you can't affect the game,if your no longer playing in the field ,no matter how good or bad you used to be .
@Vivek Raj, yes, I agree that this seems to be the case. At the same time, there seems to be a surety in K about the possibility of a state of consciousness that is outside the boundary of the collective human consciousness. To me, this rises my question if K has had an experience in life, or maybe it was his state of consciousness from birth, that gives him that security of conviction. All of the time, when K hears his comrades in combat, so to speak, use terms like "human consciousness" or "reincarnation" (to name a few) one can notice that K is constantly aiming at a state of consciousness that he's desperately trying to clarify, or prove to be in existence, to the others around him. And so, if you can still follow my reasoning, the guy questioning K seems to come from making "his point" as much as K is coming from making his. What I do seem to notice, nevertheless, is that K is capable of understanding, and making use of an investigative effort, while the guy questioning K is coming from a far more narrow bandwidth, in his reasioning, than K seems to show up with. Isn't that hilarious? I'm enjoying this difference in levels of grasping much, between the guy questioning K on one side, and K and David Bohm on the other side. The latter is superior in his intelligence, compared to the guy questioning K, as I perceive it. What came to mind, while listening to this conversation, that since 1980, when the conversation took place, so much more groping of this subject (the stream of consciousness) has occurred. Think of Lynn McTaggart with her book "The Field" and the rise of Western gurus sharing their thoughts, plus spiritually awakened people channeling, bringing in the consciousness of beings that aren't on planet Earth, nor are they present in a physical form/realm. Not in the least, we're now arriving in an era where scientists are scratching their heads, while witnessing the visible effect of a Quantum Field, where two particles, separated from each other, show an awareness in such a way that they show a response to a motion of the other particle on distance. Resonance. Is that, maybe, how human consciousness moves through time as well? Individual human beings connected to a web of consciousness? And is it possible that the source of human consciousness isn't in the same spot as where humanity resides? When reincarnation is part of life, where is the memory in our consciousness made of? More questions to ponder 😉
He is right.K always wants people to go into the problem rather than he himself telling them.He wants all of us not to believe blindly but find out with insight.And that's what he is doing.He is not believing.He is finding out himself.A true disciple
no he is stuck in certain circle, thats why he sees Hitler and Buddha as individuals as if 1 person can do this all, thats result of believing mainstream prostitute media, which is not more then political tool to controll the conciousness of the masses, modification
No, k is simply refusing to understand his question. There is contradiction in what k is saying . If k can separate human consciousness from say animal world, why can't we separate consciousness from one human to the other ? We can, but the line that separates consciousness from one human to the other is more blurred.
A human has awarness of consciousness and it is through experience that this awareness can grow since we are in a space-time reality. Part of that awareness is in the conscious mind and part of it in the unconscious mind. Consciousness is holonomic indeed and as such it is in the implicate order. They should have started by defining what they all understand by the terms memory, awareness and consciousness. Great discussion.
When I first saw your comment, I thought “Wow”, but when I listened to the full conversation, I realised the alignment/ answer happens at 2:03:40 or so… My own personal learning : Absolute truth. Is not in Time. Not even at 1:11:11…
There is an entire series of Krishnamurti with Buddhist scholars. I was almost certain this was part of that series, but now I can’t be sure …because of the above comment from the foundation themselves. You could definitely look up that series though. It’s the same people… and very very very insightful/ powerful.
Krishna ji i think missed while explaining modification....it is clear the the content of human consciousness is complete in itself.... nothing can modify it , it menifeste in an individual and get exaggerated due to conditioning...and one menifestation can get further exaggerated by someone'd deed by their doing if exist in meterial form like by book , documentry etc...
It has an understanding to those that came out of the stream. Somehow I do not know if others are ready for a mutation until the mind is complete of experiences.
The question of how the collective consciousness gets altered - is that answered? Also, how do I know that all of this is not a trickery to get ourselves out of suffering?
Ah, this discussion is similar to other talks where participants (other than Bohm) attempt to manipulate the point spoken by K around to assign the meaning into their own way of thinking about life’s purpose or knowledge. Fortunately, K is awake to these twisters and deals with it carefully to use the situation to illustrate the limitations of fragmented knowledge which is the background from which the ideas put forward by these participants are trying to impose into the subject matter being discussed. K doesn’t resort to any form of superiority in refuting the other views, but he inevitably knows what’s up immediately and therefore is not caught out. In some cases his hesitation in responding quickly is taken by the proponent as having K cornered, however he always recovers the situation with great wisdom and compassion. This intelligence that flows through his mind and is expressed eloquently obviously stems from beyond the reach of consciousness which he sees through as the psychological barriers that are common to humanity across the world as we know it. In sharing the intelligence of insight with the wider audience we are privy to the immense force inherent in the negation of what some sections of society holds as reality, and consequently true conclusions from positive psychology’s outcomes, but do not withstand the scrutiny that K applies. To the best of my knowledge, K is the sole source of insight into the mystery of ‘what is’ and with compassion invites others to join in the new brain consciousness.
I wholeheartedly agree. I’ve found it agonising to listen to this entire talk. The Indian chap keeps asking the same question in different ways, trying to get the answer his ego demands...and keeps attempting to twist what jk says. He’s not even bothering to really listen and process what jk says, before jumping in and attempting to force his opinion as the right one. How can anyone be so disrespectful and forceful to such a gentle man. Listening to such a person twist answers and attempt to trap jk...who is such a generous and lovely man...has given me quite a headache! I have 46 mins left of the video...and I’ll have to finish it...but I’ll let the headache tablet kick in first! 😂😁 It’s sad that so many people have egos that cannot cope with the concept that, whilst they ‘are’ functioning within ‘thought’....which is the illusion and the contradictory fragmented state...living in dead memories and future fantasies...they are literally part of the illusion! They don’t want to drop their attachments to who they think they are and their own ‘glorious me’ lol! I’m struggling my way through these concepts...but even I can see that until you let go of all the illusionary ideas you have about ‘I’, and remove all conflict, then you’re simply a drop in the stream of human (illusory) consciousness. Gurdjieff spoke of “switching streams” as well. That you don’t become ‘real’ until you leave the stream of ordinary mechanical mankind. It’s funny how so many people say the same thing in different ways! Don Juan in the Castaneda books spoke of emptying your ‘warehouse’ (that stores all your memories etc)...and even Jesus said to sell your ‘inventory’!!! The controllers in this world have worked hard to keep this knowledge concealed...and to fuel everything negative that impedes such learning. Right...I’ve rambled long enough lol! Back to the rest of the video! I’ve been listening to many talks repeatedly to fully absorb them...but this is one Krishnamurti talk I won’t be revisiting lol! At least it’s not just me seeing it. One commenter seemed to think it was Krishnamurti’s lack of vocabulary and an inability to get his words across! It helps if the other person is actually listening...instead of formulating his reply/rebuttal ready to jump straight in before JK has even finished his description or answer!!! Grrrr! Lots of love 🙂👍🏻💕
Degeneration..regeneration are scientific terms and are within a human consciousness of understanding. But when the questioner asks about reincarnation JK immediately feels it’s a mischievous thought trying to be imaginary. That which is not in one’s consciousness needs to be experienced that experience can only be gained when one can tap into that intelligence which is very much available but one needs to work for it.. my understanding 😅
If someone stepped out, how can they function in the world where you still have responsibilities and goals? Or is this only for the people who renounce stuff? Could K or Buddha have functioned let's say as a working professional?
Yes one can still be in the day to day modern life and they will be more efficient as they have clear perception and clarity about the whole content of conciousness and their mind is not conditioned to think that they are separate individual so they have more to offer to humanity.Thank u for great question.
The notion of stepping out of the stream, as discussed by J. Krishnamurti and exemplified by figures like the Buddha, doesn't necessarily imply renouncing responsibilities or goals. It's about a fundamental shift in one's relationship with the inner workings of the mind and the world. This transformation can be applicable to individuals across various walks of life, including those with responsibilities and professional aspirations. When someone steps out of the stream, they undergo a profound change in consciousness. They no longer approach life with the same attachment, fear, or craving. This doesn't mean they become indifferent or detached; rather, their actions arise from a place of clarity, compassion, and understanding. For individuals with responsibilities and goals in the world, this transformation can lead to a more effective and harmonious engagement with life. When actions are driven by a mind that is free from the constraints of conditioning, they are more in alignment with the greater good. The pursuit of goals becomes less about personal ambition and more about contributing positively to the world. Both J. Krishnamurti and the Buddha exemplified this shift in consciousness while engaging with the world. While their circumstances were unique, their teachings emphasize the importance of seeing things as they are, unburdened by psychological baggage. They encourage individuals to be fully present in their responsibilities, relationships, and pursuits, without being entangled in the ego's desires and fears. Could they have functioned as working professionals? It's conceivable that individuals who have undergone such profound transformations could function in various roles, but with a different quality of mind. Their actions would be driven by a deep sense of responsibility, compassion, and awareness, rather than by self-centered motives. Their presence and interactions could be transformative, inspiring others to approach life in a more meaningful and holistic manner. In essence, stepping out of the stream is not reserved solely for renunciates; it's about transforming the quality of consciousness that informs our actions and responses. It's a shift from fragmented, conditioned thinking to a more integrated, holistic way of being, which can profoundly impact how one engages with the world, including in professional contexts.
Buddha in essence steps into consciousness as the whole through understanding. When one understanding exceeds a regular relationship with consciousness as a whole then he or she steps into a greater understanding of consciousness as the whole. Then begins to communicate to consciousness and become partners with it growing it or the flow itself. Conscious whole that is operating without the total understanding then is changing without knowing only the Buddhas are responsible for the conditional change of the whole. If that makes sense.
Ultimately, all these view points , like theoretical physics, are just theories ....... We do not have the means to prove or disprove them ...... The unpleasant realities of our everyday lives constantly remind us of the madness of the Ego
Hes talking about non-local consciousness - Proven to exist decades later by science many times over. It may be that actual uniqueness of each human "soul" is the intuitive directive contained within the mind and is relativistic. That you and I are purpose made conscious. Naturally that purpose can migrate between any conscious vessel therefore purpose can be reincarnated.
JK was not living when the Unconscious was discussed at length by Cart Jung and Freud? Or perhaps JK preferred his own knowledge, since he, too, had a reputation to uphold? I am having difficulty making sense of this conversation.
From what I understood and I could be wrong; JK didn't like the term unconscious and for him it doesn't make sense. The term unconscious implies an aspect that works like consciousness and yet it isn't
Kirstin: So far as I have heard JK's many talks he does not reject the unconscious or the subconscious. He just treated as one consciousness as he is hardcore on non duality. The bottom line is other than JK no one is fundamentally interested in completely erasing the present human consciousness and there by its structure simply because who wants to give their present intellectual status, virtues, ambition, greed, pleasure, jealousy, nationalism, etc . Mind you these qualities are recorded in the collective human mind/brain since the origin of human existence.
I think Krishnamurti is very dominant in this conversation. He is not very transparent and clear about what he had said in the past as you hear the other speakers who refer to it. He is not speaking clear and he clouds the conversation and that is a pity. The other speakers cannot really follow him either because he is not coherent. In my opinion not an easy interlocutor. I have a great respect for Krishnamurti let that be clear but it is not always easy to follow him in his talkings.
@@s.muller8688 dude, your insecurity shows here. My man here has said nothing wrong. K has said opposite things in this 1 video, forget the other dialogues (which true as well). So there are 2 possible options: 1- he doesn't know what he is talking about. 2- he means something different, isn't able to convey it properly. Your comment make it seems that he is infallible which is very wrong for you to assume. Always be sceptical man, K himself say that.
The transcript on this one is pretty inaccurate. Not a big deal (for people who can just listen - which apparently is not the case for some members of this conversation :) ). Unless others will translate into other languages based on Hyderabad's not so good transcript. If that eventually happens all further translations of this will be very confusing at certain moments (quite often) throughout this discussion.
Thank you for your comment. The captions are generated by RUclips after we 'fed' the transcript to it. The archival transcript itself is very precise, but RUclips's processing less so. Nevertheless we have elected to keep it available as it may provide help to some.
@@KFoundation Weird. I went back over it this morning, the problems with the transcript start at 45:48 when the conversation gets fired up a bit more. There's a slight mistake at 31:44 where "death" is transcribed as "depth". At 45:48 "the evil that was in it" is transcribed as "even that (inaudible)" 46:31 K asks "What has changed", subtitle says, "Okay it changed" then it says "do you regret it" instead of "geographic" From here on there are more mistakes for a while. 46:51 K says "he was a violent mad man" (talking about Hitler), the transcript says "wherever violence nag me" 46:57 K: "only his, was generated" T(transcript): "only thing that has generated" Some of the inaudible parts (as by transcript) are not actually inaudible. (but maybe they were at the time the transcript was made) This is fun for me, I have a thing for accuracy and precision, I mean no disrespect. Last night it felt like I noticed many more mistakes but apparently they only start later in the discussion. And I was thinking that if someone translates into another language based on this transcription only, there will be some confusion for the non-english speaker trying to make sense of those points. There are a few more I can point out.
The best way for me to see it is subconscious communication is a whole as our awaken selves conscious selves are individuals. The subconscious is the connection to the whole. In my opinion
So if Gautama the buddha lived an enlightened life then why don't people discuss why one should step out from the present human consciousness. Mere speculation won't convince me to change the status quo. Buddha's followers like Christ's followers are indulging in worship and rituals and thereby doing the opposite.
@@kevincastelino3209 both have fundamentalist followers and believers at various developmental stages. While some see them both as guides or pointing to a path. Beyond fundamentalism and traditionalists is when it gets interesting in my opinion.
The shared human consciousness provides a foundation, but individual and collective experiences, genetics, culture, and cognitive processes contribute to the rich tapestry of emotions and behaviors observed in human beings. The existence of greed, curses, and negative emotions is a complex outcome of these multifaceted influences.
If Socrates heard this interviewer he would have lured him into a dark ally outside the marketplace where Alcibiades is lying In wait. They would then crowd his personal space and politely ask him to, “Define your terms.” While waiting for his reply they would breathe heavy in his face with hot eleusinian wine breathe until he either replied yes or was left with a layer of putrid condensation on his face then doing an about-face to find someone more interesting to exercise Socrates method too.
It seems krishnamurti is unaware that all religions have at their heart the same message ..Jesus said the same thing krishnamurti says...unless you become as a little child you cannot enter the kingdom of heaven..which he says is inside you ..as a little child meaning before they were conditioned to believe in an individual i....furthermore in the gospel of Thomas and elsewhere he makes the point unless your i is single...unless you make the two one..and similar sayings.....eg. no division between the ego and consciousness....ego is limited and although part of consciousness is not aware of that......thinks it is separate..an individual. Gary Weber no longer has this separate ego....MRI scans etc clearly show whether this part of the brain lights up and is active ...doing away with the gurus who say they are enlightened when they are not. Zen etc all say the same thing .
Those who claim to be enlightened cannot enlighten anyone else.what is the point of all these discussions.the mutation which K said cannot be giv n to any one.he knew it very well,then why he made philosophies and discuss all these
Don't understand why k is refusing to admit individual consciousness. His desire to not address traditionally held notions like reincarnation is lead in him to not dmit individuality . Its certainly not the circumstance that made Hitler what he was. Its certainly not circumstance that made Tesla a Genius while I struggle . its certainly not circumstance which made Ramanujan the way he was and I the way I am . I understand the there is common consciousness, but there also exist individual consciousness which is a subset of that common consciousness. The fact that k separates human consciousness with animals means that one can separate individual consciousness, the only difference being the lines that separate are now barely visible .
Your perspective raises valid points and reflects a nuanced understanding of the concepts surrounding individual and collective consciousness. J. Krishnamurti's teachings indeed emphasize the interconnectedness of all human consciousness, highlighting the shared psychological patterns and conditioning that influence individuals. However, it's important to acknowledge that interpretations of his philosophy can vary, and his ideas are subject to ongoing discussion and debate. Krishnamurti's focus on the commonality of human consciousness arises from his emphasis on observing the human mind without the filters of cultural, religious, or personal biases. He encourages individuals to examine the conditioning that shapes their thoughts, emotions, and behaviors. This examination, in his view, can lead to a deeper understanding of the nature of human suffering and the possibility of transformation. Krishnamurti's reluctance to address notions like reincarnation or traditional belief systems stems from his desire to encourage a direct inquiry into the nature of reality. He often advocated for questioning and exploring these matters rather than accepting them based on tradition or authority. Regarding individuality, while Krishnamurti emphasizes the shared aspects of consciousness, he also acknowledges the uniqueness of individuals. The examples you provided-Hitler, Tesla, and Ramanujan-illustrate the complexity of individual experiences and contributions. Krishnamurti's perspective can be interpreted as suggesting that while there are common psychological mechanisms at play in human consciousness, each individual's unique circumstances, genetics, and experiences contribute to their distinct expressions. Your observation about the separation of human consciousness from animals resonates with Krishnamurti's view that human consciousness has evolved to a level of self-awareness that differentiates it from the animal kingdom. This acknowledgment of a nuanced continuum within consciousness is consistent with his emphasis on deep self-awareness and the examination of conditioned thought patterns. In essence, while Krishnamurti emphasizes the shared psychological conditioning of humans, your perspective highlights the validity of individuality and its impact on experiences and abilities. Balancing these viewpoints can lead to a more comprehensive understanding of the intricate relationship between individual and collective consciousness, and how they shape human experiences and potentials.
S Harlem He wasn’t challenged at all..He just wants to be extraordinarily clear on his usage of words because people make it a THEORY and do not “Actually” understand anything..!
@@swamiabhedananda4147 this man was trying to understand, but K refused to consiser his point of view and go into dialogue, instead he preached the same monologue he always did... That's a shame, the man asked good questions
If you listened carefully, you’d have noticed that his challenger, the Indian chap, wasn’t even bothering to really listen to what jk was saying...there was virtually no time taken to pause and reflect on what jk was saying...he was pouncing on him before he’d finished trying to answer. It’s what you find with many people...they’re not fully listening and absorbing in an intelligent way, because half their attention is formulating their reply/rebuttal/answer, before the other person has even finished speaking! It’s an ego thing...and very common! The Indian chap wasn’t even respectfully letting JK finish his explanations or deliberations before pouncing with a deliberately and differently directed question. Take the point where he deliberately switched the question (mid-answer) to the consciousness of plants and animals...then before JK had finished dealing with that, he started asking if a stone had consciousness! That chap only wanted answers that proved his own views ‘right’...and he wanted to prove JK wrong or trip him up...and kept asking the same question in different ways, hoping to get a different answer! All he wanted to hear was that he could become this fabulous ascended master, and that he, the individual, would continue or reincarnate after death! Not everyone can let of the glorious individual ‘me’ illusion, that the ego has built up...and that ego will protect itself with all sorts of vanities and grandiose ideas, that lock themselves into the human brain. It’s almost like a parasitical overlay, imprinting thoughts onto our organism, and blocking us from our natural connections to source and the other stream (that’s just me musing aloud lol!). I think I’m saddened most by the complete disrespect and rudeness shown to such a wonderful and gentle man. That wasn’t a friendly back and forth...it was someone pouncing on half finished answers and twisting them. He was actually laying traps for JK (which he avoided lol!). The bottom line is that JK is trying to describe the indescribable....he’s trying to vocalise and put into words, concepts that can easily be misinterpreted by different understandings of language and vocabulary...it helps of course if the other person is listening intently and trying to process the words!!! You can’t always grasp the concept JK is describing at first....not until you’ve spent some time examining it and observing it. You often have eureka moments when you return and rewatch videos at a later date, and with a growing understanding that can then grasp those concepts. Some people are so absorbed in their own perspective and proving themselves ‘right’...they simply stop listening and become deaf to anything outside their deeply held beliefs! But listening to him deliberately baiting and railroading JK has made me feel rather queasy (and given me a headache). Right...I’m going to watch the remaining bit of the video...I had to pause it...I was so cross at that bombastic man! 😖
It's amazing that such an obvious observance should lead to such a long debate, especially amongst so many learned people. That conversation should have lasted about 4 seconds ..
Krishnamurti gave many interesting and insightful speeches. But... But confrontation with other thinkers clearly shows he wasn't as clever as the legend claims. Here, at 28 minute the topic, the questions clearly start overwhelming his comprehension. Possibly, he understands he doesn't know and refuses to admit it, or he doesn't understand this quite simple and logic issue supported by rational reasons. An overrated figure.
Thank you, Krishnamurti for making me free!
Just hats off to David Bohm. I really appreciate his patience, way of putting the points, etc. Infact I ve learnt more from his say. Tx for the upload.
I haven't laughed out loud without control in such a long time.....thank you for the upload! Krishnamurti modifies me without affect.
Haha! Agree
😀 what a sweet comment.
One have to keep in mind that K was once being groomed to be next masiah for the world and he refused that power because he knew that is was not right to play God. As I understand it, he gave up all material possessions and so call status because he knew his limits. David Bohm worked with with Einstein in his earlier years of his career so, he must have been somewhat intelligent in his right. If I am going to learn about myself, there is no better person to learn and understand then these two men. I might sound like he think he know more than the other gentleman but he definitely understood more then my parents, my past teachers, pastors who get there information from rumors and not facts. Life has so much clarity now then before I listened to these two. Thank you.
K discovered the fact that there is NO separate individual. He has had total insight. He saw through and through the “self”. The rest of us don’t see this truth. Hence, we are upset - how can he say I’m not an individual? What about “my” memories, experiences, family, wealth, etc.
Buddha and K were transformed by the truth, not by their efforts
That silence at the end …. We may understand or not…. But we all feel it … that Silence… phew…
The tone of the Questioner ( on individual action) also changed in that silence .. Blessed to have these talks …
Remember to like this video everyone. Its the least you can do to spread it.
❤
The only way to spread this, is stepping in to it ourselves.
Bom mesmo é ver seu entusiasmo parabéns
This talk again brings a lot & lot of questions.
When I touch or THINGS' touching me make me feel only by the Conscious and from that I know what and I recognise and it became the content I connect with my Conscious and BECOME CONDITIONED
Space has no borders, neither it is a measurable material thing; yet we see and sense its presence with our whole being. Like- wise consciousness has no borders and it is not a material measurable thing; yet we sense its presence with our whole being.
I don’t think consciousness arises within us, we arise within it.
Think his definition of consciousness is not the same as the commonly used definition in Non Dualism. Guess the way he uses the term is saying that conciousness is within the field of time. In non Dualism consciousness is the ultimate reality.
JK starts talking about senility and how maybe the degeneration of brain cells can be slowed….. and the questioner brings it to reincarnation…. Why? That is not what jk was going to talk about and he rightfully pushed back asking where is the connection.
I love JK
Contents of consciousness ends only when one has a total insight into the futility of the contents,the pattern it creates ,the wheel which it forms,and the end result of suffering.When one has an insight that what one is carrying is a bundle of waste wont you throw the waste
I does the throwing?
Excellent way of summarising it.
J. K has opened my 'eyes' through his pointers. In this conversation was JK evading some of the questions from one questioner? The questioner was mostly referring to human personal memory (as individual consciousness).
No K was saying that the premise that there is an individual is wrong. Anything you create from that wrong premise will inevitably be wrong.
Listen carefully, he wasn’t evading. You as a listener are evading the fact that you are not a separate entity. You are humanity, psychologically
Yes he was actually evading it to get questioner to pursue it mote heavily and arrive st the answer. You are right about questioner being very confused and thinking the "soul" involved brain cells that need to regenerate.
27:57 of course!
We playing a game called "individuality" and you can't affect the game,if your no longer playing in the field ,no matter how good or bad you used to be .
great sit-down.
It seems that the guy questioning K about "Individual action" is trying to prove his point rather than understanding what K has to say!
Yep true.
@Vivek Raj, yes, I agree that this seems to be the case. At the same time, there seems to be a surety in K about the possibility of a state of consciousness that is outside the boundary of the collective human consciousness. To me, this rises my question if K has had an experience in life, or maybe it was his state of consciousness from birth, that gives him that security of conviction. All of the time, when K hears his comrades in combat, so to speak, use terms like "human consciousness" or "reincarnation" (to name a few) one can notice that K is constantly aiming at a state of consciousness that he's desperately trying to clarify, or prove to be in existence, to the others around him.
And so, if you can still follow my reasoning, the guy questioning K seems to come from making "his point" as much as K is coming from making his. What I do seem to notice, nevertheless, is that K is capable of understanding, and making use of an investigative effort, while the guy questioning K is coming from a far more narrow bandwidth, in his reasioning, than K seems to show up with. Isn't that hilarious? I'm enjoying this difference in levels of grasping much, between the guy questioning K on one side, and K and David Bohm on the other side. The latter is superior in his intelligence, compared to the guy questioning K, as I perceive it.
What came to mind, while listening to this conversation, that since 1980, when the conversation took place, so much more groping of this subject (the stream of consciousness) has occurred. Think of Lynn McTaggart with her book "The Field" and the rise of Western gurus sharing their thoughts, plus spiritually awakened people channeling, bringing in the consciousness of beings that aren't on planet Earth, nor are they present in a physical form/realm.
Not in the least, we're now arriving in an era where scientists are scratching their heads, while witnessing the visible effect of a Quantum Field, where two particles, separated from each other, show an awareness in such a way that they show a response to a motion of the other particle on distance. Resonance. Is that, maybe, how human consciousness moves through time as well? Individual human beings connected to a web of consciousness?
And is it possible that the source of human consciousness isn't in the same spot as where humanity resides?
When reincarnation is part of life, where is the memory in our consciousness made of? More questions to ponder 😉
He is right.K always wants people to go into the problem rather than he himself telling them.He wants all of us not to believe blindly but find out with insight.And that's what he is doing.He is not believing.He is finding out himself.A true disciple
no he is stuck in certain circle, thats why he sees Hitler and Buddha as individuals as if 1 person can do this all, thats result of believing mainstream prostitute media, which is not more then political tool to controll the conciousness of the masses,
modification
No, k is simply refusing to understand his question. There is contradiction in what k is saying .
If k can separate human consciousness from say animal world, why can't we separate consciousness from one human to the other ? We can, but the line that separates consciousness from one human to the other is more blurred.
A human has awarness of consciousness and it is through experience that this awareness can grow since we are in a space-time reality. Part of that awareness is in the conscious mind and part of it in the unconscious mind. Consciousness is holonomic indeed and as such it is in the implicate order. They should have started by defining what they all understand by the terms memory, awareness and consciousness. Great discussion.
Finally at moment 1:11:11 they all come together to an understanding of what they need clarification of
When I first saw your comment, I thought “Wow”, but when I listened to the full conversation, I realised the alignment/ answer happens at 2:03:40 or so…
My own personal learning : Absolute truth. Is not in Time. Not even at 1:11:11…
1:02:03 scot asked very good question 🔥🔥🔥🔥
Please upload next part of this conversation
This is a one-off discussion, there's no next part.
There is an entire series of Krishnamurti with Buddhist scholars. I was almost certain this was part of that series, but now I can’t be sure …because of the above comment from the foundation themselves.
You could definitely look up that series though. It’s the same people… and very very very insightful/ powerful.
If I am allowed , would you get me full playlist of this audio series ....K Foundation Trust
This is not part of a series, it's a one-off event, and as such doesn't have a playlist.
I understand. I'm not ready to accept "It is so" yet, though.
When we step out the stream of human consciousness, we enter the Stream of real intelligence.
"There is no individual", therefore "Who steps out the stream"?
physician can help the sick.sick doesnt even aware of sickness ........@@lotharbusemann2935
@@lotharbusemann2935you can say attention or awareness is no longer identified with that stream that is what they mean by a human is out of it
Krishna ji i think missed while explaining modification....it is clear the the content of human consciousness is complete in itself.... nothing can modify it , it menifeste in an individual and get exaggerated due to conditioning...and one menifestation can get further exaggerated by someone'd deed by their doing if exist in meterial form like by book , documentry etc...
I think he meant the exaggeration of a particular feature of consciousness at a particular time gets modified due to different environment.
The mind is an activity of the Body -Brain
It has an understanding to those that came out of the stream. Somehow I do not know if others are ready for a mutation until the mind is complete of experiences.
There does not exist a complete experience.
The question of how the collective consciousness gets altered - is that answered? Also, how do I know that all of this is not a trickery to get ourselves out of suffering?
Namaste 🙏 thankyou God bless 🙏 🙌 💖 ❤️ ✨️ 😊😅😮🎉🎉❤❤😂🎉😢😮😅😊all.ALL IS SHIVA
Ah, this discussion is similar to other talks where participants (other than Bohm) attempt to manipulate the point spoken by K around to assign the meaning into their own way of thinking about life’s purpose or knowledge. Fortunately, K is awake to these twisters and deals with it carefully to use the situation to illustrate the limitations of fragmented knowledge which is the background from which the ideas put forward by these participants are trying to impose into the subject matter being discussed. K doesn’t resort to any form of superiority in refuting the other views, but he inevitably knows what’s up immediately and therefore is not caught out. In some cases his hesitation in responding quickly is taken by the proponent as having K cornered, however he always recovers the situation with great wisdom and compassion. This intelligence that flows through his mind and is expressed eloquently obviously stems from beyond the reach of consciousness which he sees through as the psychological barriers that are common to humanity across the world as we know it. In sharing the intelligence of insight with the wider audience we are privy to the immense force inherent in the negation of what some sections of society holds as reality, and consequently true conclusions from positive psychology’s outcomes, but do not withstand the scrutiny that K applies. To the best of my knowledge, K is the sole source of insight into the mystery of ‘what is’ and with compassion invites others to join in the new brain consciousness.
I wholeheartedly agree. I’ve found it agonising to listen to this entire talk. The Indian chap keeps asking the same question in different ways, trying to get the answer his ego demands...and keeps attempting to twist what jk says. He’s not even bothering to really listen and process what jk says, before jumping in and attempting to force his opinion as the right one. How can anyone be so disrespectful and forceful to such a gentle man.
Listening to such a person twist answers and attempt to trap jk...who is such a generous and lovely man...has given me quite a headache! I have 46 mins left of the video...and I’ll have to finish it...but I’ll let the headache tablet kick in first! 😂😁
It’s sad that so many people have egos that cannot cope with the concept that, whilst they ‘are’ functioning within ‘thought’....which is the illusion and the contradictory fragmented state...living in dead memories and future fantasies...they are literally part of the illusion! They don’t want to drop their attachments to who they think they are and their own ‘glorious me’ lol!
I’m struggling my way through these concepts...but even I can see that until you let go of all the illusionary ideas you have about ‘I’, and remove all conflict, then you’re simply a drop in the stream of human (illusory) consciousness. Gurdjieff spoke of “switching streams” as well. That you don’t become ‘real’ until you leave the stream of ordinary mechanical mankind.
It’s funny how so many people say the same thing in different ways! Don Juan in the Castaneda books spoke of emptying your ‘warehouse’ (that stores all your memories etc)...and even Jesus said to sell your ‘inventory’!!! The controllers in this world have worked hard to keep this knowledge concealed...and to fuel everything negative that impedes such learning.
Right...I’ve rambled long enough lol! Back to the rest of the video! I’ve been listening to many talks repeatedly to fully absorb them...but this is one Krishnamurti talk I won’t be revisiting lol!
At least it’s not just me seeing it. One commenter seemed to think it was Krishnamurti’s lack of vocabulary and an inability to get his words across! It helps if the other person is actually listening...instead of formulating his reply/rebuttal ready to jump straight in before JK has even finished his description or answer!!! Grrrr!
Lots of love 🙂👍🏻💕
@@trappedinroom1014Nice to hear the Don Juan connection. So true!
We of the one Self . We are Alive ❤😂😢. 🎉 Enjoy the great eternal Now
why are we all still caught in it?
Degeneration..regeneration are scientific terms and are within a human consciousness of understanding. But when the questioner asks about reincarnation JK immediately feels it’s a mischievous thought trying to be imaginary. That which is not in one’s consciousness needs to be experienced that experience can only be gained when one can tap into that intelligence which is very much available but one needs to work for it.. my understanding 😅
Could you please share the names of the people in this conversation along with David Bohm and JK?
J. Krishnamurti, David Bohm, Asit Chandmal, Scott Forbes, G. Narayan, Doris Pratt, Stephen J. Smith, Harsh Tanka, Mary Zimbalist
Omg this was hillarious
If someone stepped out, how can they function in the world where you still have responsibilities and goals? Or is this only for the people who renounce stuff? Could K or Buddha have functioned let's say as a working professional?
Yes one can still be in the day to day modern life and they will be more efficient as they have clear perception and clarity about the whole content of conciousness and their mind is not conditioned to think that they are separate individual so they have more to offer to humanity.Thank u for great question.
@@lajukumar4008
❤
The notion of stepping out of the stream, as discussed by J. Krishnamurti and exemplified by figures like the Buddha, doesn't necessarily imply renouncing responsibilities or goals. It's about a fundamental shift in one's relationship with the inner workings of the mind and the world. This transformation can be applicable to individuals across various walks of life, including those with responsibilities and professional aspirations.
When someone steps out of the stream, they undergo a profound change in consciousness. They no longer approach life with the same attachment, fear, or craving. This doesn't mean they become indifferent or detached; rather, their actions arise from a place of clarity, compassion, and understanding.
For individuals with responsibilities and goals in the world, this transformation can lead to a more effective and harmonious engagement with life. When actions are driven by a mind that is free from the constraints of conditioning, they are more in alignment with the greater good. The pursuit of goals becomes less about personal ambition and more about contributing positively to the world.
Both J. Krishnamurti and the Buddha exemplified this shift in consciousness while engaging with the world. While their circumstances were unique, their teachings emphasize the importance of seeing things as they are, unburdened by psychological baggage. They encourage individuals to be fully present in their responsibilities, relationships, and pursuits, without being entangled in the ego's desires and fears.
Could they have functioned as working professionals? It's conceivable that individuals who have undergone such profound transformations could function in various roles, but with a different quality of mind. Their actions would be driven by a deep sense of responsibility, compassion, and awareness, rather than by self-centered motives. Their presence and interactions could be transformative, inspiring others to approach life in a more meaningful and holistic manner.
In essence, stepping out of the stream is not reserved solely for renunciates; it's about transforming the quality of consciousness that informs our actions and responses. It's a shift from fragmented, conditioned thinking to a more integrated, holistic way of being, which can profoundly impact how one engages with the world, including in professional contexts.
Buddha in essence steps into consciousness as the whole through understanding. When one understanding exceeds a regular relationship with consciousness as a whole then he or she steps into a greater understanding of consciousness as the whole. Then begins to communicate to consciousness and become partners with it growing it or the flow itself. Conscious whole that is operating without the total understanding then is changing without knowing only the Buddhas are responsible for the conditional change of the whole. If that makes sense.
Wow. Have been revealed everything
Not at all
❤
The word individual means undivided. So there are none. Until there are.
Good god , this questionnaire is going from question to within a question with no actual question he wants to ask .
He is finding out himself not just believing anyone.And JK always wants us to find out ourselves.He is a true disciple
😂
Where can one get a transcript of this talk? Can’t locate on the website
You can send an email to our archivist at archives@kfoundation.org mentioning this specific event, they may able to send you a transcript.
thanks
Ultimately, all these view points , like theoretical physics, are just theories ....... We do not have the means to prove or disprove them ...... The unpleasant realities of our everyday lives constantly remind us of the madness of the Ego
Hes talking about non-local consciousness - Proven to exist decades later by science many times over. It may be that actual uniqueness of each human "soul" is the intuitive directive contained within the mind and is relativistic. That you and I are purpose made conscious. Naturally that purpose can migrate between any conscious vessel therefore purpose can be reincarnated.
JK was not living when the Unconscious was discussed at length by Cart Jung and Freud? Or perhaps JK preferred his own knowledge, since he, too, had a reputation to uphold? I am having difficulty making sense of this conversation.
From what I understood and I could be wrong; JK didn't like the term unconscious and for him it doesn't make sense. The term unconscious implies an aspect that works like consciousness and yet it isn't
But overall I agree with you, it's difficult to keep up with JK haha
Kirstin: So far as I have heard JK's many talks he does not reject the unconscious or the subconscious. He just treated as one consciousness as he is hardcore on non duality. The bottom line is other than JK no one is fundamentally interested in completely erasing the present human consciousness and there by its structure simply because who wants to give their present intellectual status, virtues, ambition, greed, pleasure, jealousy, nationalism, etc . Mind you these qualities are recorded in the collective human mind/brain since the origin of human existence.
@@kevincastelino3209
❤
❤❤
Consciousness is the Interface between the Real Intelligence and the Thought World or Sensory World.
I think Krishnamurti is very dominant in this conversation. He is not very transparent and clear about what he had said in the past as you hear the other speakers who refer to it. He is not speaking clear and he clouds the conversation and that is a pity. The other speakers cannot really follow him either because he is not coherent. In my opinion not an easy interlocutor. I have a great respect for Krishnamurti let that be clear but it is not always easy to follow him in his talkings.
@@s.muller8688 dude, your insecurity shows here. My man here has said nothing wrong. K has said opposite things in this 1 video, forget the other dialogues (which true as well). So there are 2 possible options:
1- he doesn't know what he is talking about.
2- he means something different, isn't able to convey it properly.
Your comment make it seems that he is infallible which is very wrong for you to assume. Always be sceptical man, K himself say that.
@@aman.kataria What are you talking about. It seems k is refusing to admit what he has said before. Probably for good reasons bit still
Krishnamurti is clear to those out of the stream. Others that are not can not hear. Even listening may not be because they are still in time.
The transcript on this one is pretty inaccurate. Not a big deal (for people who can just listen - which apparently is not the case for some members of this conversation :) ). Unless others will translate into other languages based on Hyderabad's not so good transcript. If that eventually happens all further translations of this will be very confusing at certain moments (quite often) throughout this discussion.
Thank you for your comment. The captions are generated by RUclips after we 'fed' the transcript to it. The archival transcript itself is very precise, but RUclips's processing less so. Nevertheless we have elected to keep it available as it may provide help to some.
@@KFoundation Weird. I went back over it this morning, the problems with the transcript start at 45:48 when the conversation gets fired up a bit more. There's a slight mistake at 31:44 where "death" is transcribed as "depth".
At 45:48 "the evil that was in it" is transcribed as "even that (inaudible)"
46:31 K asks "What has changed", subtitle says, "Okay it changed" then it says "do you regret it" instead of "geographic"
From here on there are more mistakes for a while.
46:51 K says "he was a violent mad man" (talking about Hitler), the transcript says "wherever violence nag me"
46:57 K: "only his, was generated" T(transcript): "only thing that has generated"
Some of the inaudible parts (as by transcript) are not actually inaudible. (but maybe they were at the time the transcript was made)
This is fun for me, I have a thing for accuracy and precision, I mean no disrespect. Last night it felt like I noticed many more mistakes but apparently they only start later in the discussion. And I was thinking that if someone translates into another language based on this transcription only, there will be some confusion for the non-english speaker trying to make sense of those points. There are a few more I can point out.
The best way for me to see it is subconscious communication is a whole as our awaken selves conscious selves are individuals. The subconscious is the connection to the whole. In my opinion
1:50:39
They are not starting with i dont know.. thats problem. Their knowledge is encumbrance to understanding.
At 1:7:00 they spoted what i have written
It is when the nag of conceptualization attempts to grasp the unformable and infinitely unfolding truth.
This is painful and hilarious! 😂
He says.. it is not...we don't listen... We keep talking.. what's wrong with us..?
32:45 deep
Example of the Buddha leaving the stream is given so often but how does one know that he has stepped out of the stream.
Read Buddha first....
@@QuantumHeat : Does K say that read my books FIRST...and you will know that I have stepped out.
It’s not possible. But one will be able see the quality of life the enlightened one is leading. one cannot miss that right?
So if Gautama the buddha lived an enlightened life then why don't people discuss why one should step out from the present human consciousness. Mere speculation won't convince me to change the status quo. Buddha's followers like Christ's followers are indulging in worship and rituals and thereby doing the opposite.
@@kevincastelino3209 both have fundamentalist followers and believers at various developmental stages. While some see them both as guides or pointing to a path. Beyond fundamentalism and traditionalists is when it gets interesting in my opinion.
why u not allow comments here?
Lol!
There's no soul...only brain ,heart & blood vessel.
If all human consciousness is same then why greed, curse etc .
Part of the mass hallucination,which we call "Culture"
The shared human consciousness provides a foundation, but individual and collective experiences, genetics, culture, and cognitive processes contribute to the rich tapestry of emotions and behaviors observed in human beings. The existence of greed, curses, and negative emotions is a complex outcome of these multifaceted influences.
If Socrates heard this interviewer he would have lured him into a dark ally outside the marketplace where Alcibiades is lying In wait. They would then crowd his personal space and politely ask him to, “Define your terms.” While waiting for his reply they would breathe heavy in his face with hot eleusinian wine breathe until he either replied yes or was left with a layer of putrid condensation on his face then doing an about-face to find someone more interesting to exercise Socrates method too.
around 15:00 it gets interesting
1:09:41😂😂😂😂😂
..the brain cells are the Consciousness And the brain gets hit it goes off as unconscious isn't it?
Is the man questioning K about degeneration, regeneration and reincarnation Deepak Chopra?
It seems krishnamurti is unaware that all religions have at their heart the same message ..Jesus said the same thing krishnamurti says...unless you become as a little child you cannot enter the kingdom of heaven..which he says is inside you ..as a little child meaning before they were conditioned to believe in an individual i....furthermore in the gospel of Thomas and elsewhere he makes the point unless your i is single...unless you make the two one..and similar sayings.....eg. no division between the ego and consciousness....ego is limited and although part of consciousness is not aware of that......thinks it is separate..an individual. Gary Weber no longer has this separate ego....MRI scans etc clearly show whether this part of the brain lights up and is active ...doing away with the gurus who say they are enlightened when they are not. Zen etc all say the same thing .
Those who claim to be enlightened cannot enlighten anyone else.what is the point of all these discussions.the mutation which K said cannot be giv n to any one.he knew it very well,then why he made philosophies and discuss all these
Where has Lord Buddha Gone?
Don't understand why k is refusing to admit individual consciousness. His desire to not address traditionally held notions like reincarnation is lead in him to not dmit individuality .
Its certainly not the circumstance that made Hitler what he was. Its certainly not circumstance that made Tesla a Genius while I struggle . its certainly not circumstance which made Ramanujan the way he was and I the way I am .
I understand the there is common consciousness, but there also exist individual consciousness which is a subset of that common consciousness.
The fact that k separates human consciousness with animals means that one can separate individual consciousness, the only difference being the lines that separate are now barely visible .
Your perspective raises valid points and reflects a nuanced understanding of the concepts surrounding individual and collective consciousness. J. Krishnamurti's teachings indeed emphasize the interconnectedness of all human consciousness, highlighting the shared psychological patterns and conditioning that influence individuals. However, it's important to acknowledge that interpretations of his philosophy can vary, and his ideas are subject to ongoing discussion and debate.
Krishnamurti's focus on the commonality of human consciousness arises from his emphasis on observing the human mind without the filters of cultural, religious, or personal biases. He encourages individuals to examine the conditioning that shapes their thoughts, emotions, and behaviors. This examination, in his view, can lead to a deeper understanding of the nature of human suffering and the possibility of transformation.
Krishnamurti's reluctance to address notions like reincarnation or traditional belief systems stems from his desire to encourage a direct inquiry into the nature of reality. He often advocated for questioning and exploring these matters rather than accepting them based on tradition or authority.
Regarding individuality, while Krishnamurti emphasizes the shared aspects of consciousness, he also acknowledges the uniqueness of individuals. The examples you provided-Hitler, Tesla, and Ramanujan-illustrate the complexity of individual experiences and contributions. Krishnamurti's perspective can be interpreted as suggesting that while there are common psychological mechanisms at play in human consciousness, each individual's unique circumstances, genetics, and experiences contribute to their distinct expressions.
Your observation about the separation of human consciousness from animals resonates with Krishnamurti's view that human consciousness has evolved to a level of self-awareness that differentiates it from the animal kingdom. This acknowledgment of a nuanced continuum within consciousness is consistent with his emphasis on deep self-awareness and the examination of conditioned thought patterns.
In essence, while Krishnamurti emphasizes the shared psychological conditioning of humans, your perspective highlights the validity of individuality and its impact on experiences and abilities. Balancing these viewpoints can lead to a more comprehensive understanding of the intricate relationship between individual and collective consciousness, and how they shape human experiences and potentials.
First time I heard Krishnamurti challenged
S Harlem He wasn’t challenged at all..He just wants to be extraordinarily clear on his usage of words because people make it a THEORY and do not “Actually” understand anything..!
@@swamiabhedananda4147 this man was trying to understand, but K refused to consiser his point of view and go into dialogue, instead he preached the same monologue he always did... That's a shame, the man asked good questions
If you listened carefully, you’d have noticed that his challenger, the Indian chap, wasn’t even bothering to really listen to what jk was saying...there was virtually no time taken to pause and reflect on what jk was saying...he was pouncing on him before he’d finished trying to answer.
It’s what you find with many people...they’re not fully listening and absorbing in an intelligent way, because half their attention is formulating their reply/rebuttal/answer, before the other person has even finished speaking! It’s an ego thing...and very common!
The Indian chap wasn’t even respectfully letting JK finish his explanations or deliberations before pouncing with a deliberately and differently directed question. Take the point where he deliberately switched the question (mid-answer) to the consciousness of plants and animals...then before JK had finished dealing with that, he started asking if a stone had consciousness!
That chap only wanted answers that proved his own views ‘right’...and he wanted to prove JK wrong or trip him up...and kept asking the same question in different ways, hoping to get a different answer! All he wanted to hear was that he could become this fabulous ascended master, and that he, the individual, would continue or reincarnate after death!
Not everyone can let of the glorious individual ‘me’ illusion, that the ego has built up...and that ego will protect itself with all sorts of vanities and grandiose ideas, that lock themselves into the human brain. It’s almost like a parasitical overlay, imprinting thoughts onto our organism, and blocking us from our natural connections to source and the other stream (that’s just me musing aloud lol!).
I think I’m saddened most by the complete disrespect and rudeness shown to such a wonderful and gentle man. That wasn’t a friendly back and forth...it was someone pouncing on half finished answers and twisting them. He was actually laying traps for JK (which he avoided lol!).
The bottom line is that JK is trying to describe the indescribable....he’s trying to vocalise and put into words, concepts that can easily be misinterpreted by different understandings of language and vocabulary...it helps of course if the other person is listening intently and trying to process the words!!!
You can’t always grasp the concept JK is describing at first....not until you’ve spent some time examining it and observing it. You often have eureka moments when you return and rewatch videos at a later date, and with a growing understanding that can then grasp those concepts.
Some people are so absorbed in their own perspective and proving themselves ‘right’...they simply stop listening and become deaf to anything outside their deeply held beliefs! But listening to him deliberately baiting and railroading JK has made me feel rather queasy (and given me a headache).
Right...I’m going to watch the remaining bit of the video...I had to pause it...I was so cross at that bombastic man! 😖
It's amazing that such an obvious observance should lead to such a long debate, especially amongst so many learned people.
That conversation should have lasted about 4 seconds
..
@@trappedinroom1014 I had many Eureka moments..
It is easy to ascertain that the speaker is talking to living bricks...
1:21:23 Budhha
There is no God or Soul or Spirit or Spirituality or Holy Spirit or Atma or brahma or creator or Brahman etc
Dr. B...OHM
Krishnamurti gave many interesting and insightful speeches. But...
But confrontation with other thinkers clearly shows he wasn't as clever as the legend claims.
Here, at 28 minute the topic, the questions clearly start overwhelming his comprehension.
Possibly, he understands he doesn't know and refuses to admit it, or he doesn't understand this quite simple and logic issue supported by rational reasons.
An overrated figure.
There is no consciousness..