J. Krishnamurti - Brockwood Park 1976 - The Transformation of Man - 2 - A mechanical way of...

J. Krishnamurti - Brockwood Park 1976 - Small Group Discussion 2 - A mechanical way of living leads to disorder
Summary:
Is there psychological security at all, a sense of well-founded, deep-rooted existence?
When you hear that there is no security, is it an abstract idea or an actual fact?
My security lies in some image, a picture, a conclusion, an ideal.
The brain needs order in order to function. It finds order in mechanical process because it is trained from childhood to do so.
When the past meets the present and continues, it is one of the factors of time, bondage, fear. But when the past meets the present and I am completely aware of this moment, then it stops. Then I meet you as though for the first time.
---
This channel is managed by the Krishnamurti Foundation Trust​​, UK​, and by the Krishnamurti Foundation of America.
The role of the foundations was described by Krishnamurti when he said,​ ​'The foundations will see to it that these teachings are kept whole, are not distorted, are not made corrupt. They will not give rise to any sectarian spirit in their activities... nor create any kind of place of worship around the teachings or the person.​'​
We maintain extensive archives of Krishnamurti's original works and all four Krishnamurti foundations are actively engaged in the publication of material in various forms.
Our videos contain thousands of subtitles in more than 25 languages, translated by volunteers from all over the world. If you would like to help us with translating subtitles, please contact us at [e-mail]
For more information about J. Krishnamurti and the Krishnamurti foundations:
International Site - www.jkrishnamurti.org/
Facebook - / jk.krishnamurti
Twitter - / orgkrishnamurti
Krishnamurti Foundation Trust, UK - www.kfoundation.org/
Krishnamurti Foundation of America - www.kfa.org/
Krishnamurti Foundation of India - www.kfionline.org/
Fundación Krishnamurti Latinoamericana - www.fkla.org/
This organization is a registered charity. Registered charity number: 312865
© 1976 Krishnamurti Foundation Trust

[@letstravel5278]

Having Dr. Shainberg there was quite important. As we clearly see the Cognitive Block by Dr. Shainberg is very similar to the majority may have. This and the discussion from 1982 is worth pure gold.

[@etfeddiecrosley92]

Absolutely. And he was a so-called Professional, a Doctor, A specialist!!! And more specifically of others minds!😧😱😱😱😱

[@tripzincluded8087]

((::)) "in Grace & Gratitude"

[@kunalarora927]

24 carat gold

[@sdigitize6006]

Cognitive block is a word. But the phenomenon which offers this is morethan these words

[@thealmighty3901]

@@etfeddiecrosley92 that's dangerous

[@SacredSilence95]

I just love this Dr. Shainberg dude, it seems like he is really try to engage with the concepts, honestly. He is trying to feeling them, to observe them in that moment. Many times K had to say to the audience "are you interested? are you following? are you looking at it?". But with this man, he didnt dare to istigate him, he almost had to contain him

[@daniellearame3370]

David bohm I respect every feedback he gives he is outstanding

[@kooroshrostami27]

He is really good at anticipating the confusion and questions the viewer might have at different stages of the enquiry and clarifying in a very precise and thorough way. He helped me a lot to understand some thoughts K. brings up which seem odd at first glance but make sense after some rephrasing.

[@krox477]

He was brilliant theoretical physicist

[@kylerubedo3823]

@@kooroshrostami27very true

[@goingbeyond1284]

I felt tears in my eyes When he said Past meets the present and explained it.

[@SylusFyynch]

This Series is Awesome! Never seen Krishnamurti in this light.

[@iliashalemi2789]

The patience of Krishnamurti with Dr. Shainberg, my God! How inspiring!

[@crissuzumaki7574]

No es paciencia, es compasión

[@pallavivj79]

What an incredible conversation! To go in depth with these questions, such a joy and so much work...

[@sachinrathi020]

So pallavi will u go in more depth of these questions with me , together we may find something wonderful , free of all the conditioning, free of all the knowledge, something which is beyond time as we know of it .

[@luke125]

Bohm was an interesting character. Extremely intelligent and funny in a wry way.

[@Fibonachi.]

This is really the transformation of man 🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥

[@corpuscallosum4677]

The word "security" denotes fear, and fear/greed generate from this "I-ness", 2 sides of the same coin, one is fear of losing something, the other is to grasp for more: material, fame, other's memories that organized into knowledge.While absolute truth that K is pointing out has no center, no "I-ness", no divisions, no comparisons, no conflicts, no bickering, no wars. Learn, listen then act absolutely in our life's moving situations/ circumstances. True action in freedom Thanks K and friends.

[@maiteyailengarciacarallero8811]

☺️ Grazie

[@khimpun1346]

l love krisnamurti lectures

[@somename6571]

This is not a lecture, we are in this, togheter, investigating. - Jiddu Krishnamurti

[@renukatandon7463]

just amazing.Dr Shainberg ,innocently and truthfully reveals his innermost ....without him this conversation would have been incomplete...

[@cheri238]

🙏❤️🌎🌿🕊🎵🎶🎵 "On a group of theories, one can found a school; but on a group of values, one can found a culture, a civilization, a new way of living together among men." Ignazio Silone " I am the world, and the world is me." Thank you, Krishnamurti

[@tergekena7916]

Seeing j krishna mirti laugh at 6:24 soothes my heart

[@benalbrecht4437]

I feel you ☺️

[@k.1562]

-why are human beings sick? -time i love this end

[@OnePercentBetter]

Double answer!

[@anmluzuriaga]

we are in love with our ego, our history, our thoughts, our conclusions, our family history, that's why we cannot see or understand what Krishnamurti speaks, Krishnamurti's order implies dying to all that, and few are really willing to do that, more find that intellectually we can understand it, it is only our Ego believing that understanding Krishnamurti makes us more intelligent or spiritual, that is still ego, as long as you have opinions you have ego

[@VHRaga]

I think we can see when we speak about something mechanic, how inmidiately appears in our mind the nature of pleasure. How we go into the movement of pleasure always hoping that will not ended as something terrible, painfull or sorrow. In fact, one feels that the movement of pleasure is always wanting to never end. Which is what brings suffer.

[@manyetikmerkez]

What a patience by K. for listening that the guy who in the middle.

[@Turissss]

I strongly agree. Is hard to pass that pillow, the guy is constantly out of the scope, not understanding what is being discussed, being a stone. It is so interesting to see the difference between Dr. Bohm and Dr. Shainberg. Both have accumulated a great amount of knowledge through their careers, but Dr. Bohm has the ability to put everything aside and to look at this freshly; on the other corner you have Dr. Shainberg that can not put aside all the accumulated knowledge he has and it's constantly thinking through that knowledge, like a thick filter that doesn't allow him to instantly comprehend and see the facts of what is being discussed. This is a great example of how knowledge can dull you, intelligence isn't knowledge.

[@DemoniacLL]

@@Turissss I agree with you. But I also realized that he (Dr. Shainberg) was asking for some kind of acceptance. He was always brain-storming, it felt like some sort of inferiority (not the actual brain storming, but the need to be constantly doing it). He wanted to add something, constantly. He felt patronized (a ghost of his creation). Dr. Shainberg seemed to be using knowledge to prevent him from thinking, which is a major contradiction. I see myself in this, sometimes I hang on to complex structures of thought just to stop thinking about things, or even stopping thoughts. This is something that prevents us from being alert, aware and so on. It is clearly judging the present with memory. Which is something very mechanical, that ironically, they were talking about. Krishnamurti felt all this, so it seemed, and was very patient. Amazing, how this situation exposed his thought process. He was very dynamic. He could hold a thought without the use of memory, like water coming down from a stream, the stream doesn't hold the water but guides it. Amazing.

[@alanmegenavarro14]

if one truly know how to get to the essence of things then it's virtually impossible not to be patience or not to have compassion. For the one who truly know, has seen and is seing all the conditioning in one self wich is the same that that man shows, given that he is a human being as the other two are. And helping him, not with words but with accion, with actuallity, was the essence of that moment. For the point of that meeting was not a verbal theorical discussion.

[@Sandeep-qj3jg]

The guy is in the middle is me. I am thankful to him that he slowed down the conversation and forced them to make what they are saying more concrete.

[@luke125]

“Whether you’re going up the ladder or down the ladder your position is precarious.” - Old Zen saying

[@nicolasdelaforge7420]

That is a gem: That's what the mind is doing (going up or down a ladder, sometimes a ladder of a few steps, sometimes to the one in a Babylonian Library to the Shelf that meets the roof of the Temple) no matter what it's doing. But when we let the past meet the present, we can get off, walk the breadth of the Temple floor an breathe deeply. Sometimes let the past meet the present and meet someone there; sometimes allow your memories to embrace the one with whom you've had a wonderful life - nothing wrong with that.

[@BaBLa93]

haha i saw Krishnamurti laugh for the first time in one of these videos :D

[@Zara-um1nx]

Thank you so much ❤❤

[@b0isTAnCE]

There may be sane people all of sudden in the world. Puhaaahaa~~~. Best of k.

[@MaiteYailenGarciaCarralero]

Riascolto tutto volentieri. 😊 🙏 Grazie

[@OnePercentBetter]

48:52 and 53:41 - Priceless!!!

[@ornellamiliciani7074]

👏Meraviglioso, dice Juddi... Si potrebbe pensare che un giorno ci saranno solo persone sane al mondo... risata... Un guaio per i medici.....risata

[@ANKITKUMAR-kc2zw]

Great conversation

[@VHRaga]

Min 18:21 "Or is our objetion to see things as they are?". This really let me shock and in tears. Because our main problem is that we never want to face facts. We want to be in true but without let the path of thought. It is in our perception that all the problem begans. Because we doesn't deal with what it is but with what we want or desaire. My goodness, Kirshnaji's questions always let me in silence for several minutes.

[@sheelahpascual9208]

Krishnaji said in his First Ojai talk in 1952, “By listening 100 times to this statement, you are not going to get it; if you do, then you are mesmerized by words. It is a thing that must be experienced, that must be directly tasted, but it’s not good hovering at the edge of it”.

[@kooroshrostami27]

Yes we can follow the logic of what is being said intellectually but at the same time refuse to believe it. We're living in confusion.

[@TheSunnickey]

Thank you

[@aliquran7535]

“There is death at the end of everything.” ❤

[@ivanvega1535]

I love Dr. Shainberg because regardless of his cognitive dissonance there's the impulse to understand, to pierce through his conditioning; obviously this conditioning and lack of spiritual understanding don't let him do it. On the other hand, Bohm seems to be quick-minded, to grasp and entertain several aspects of the object of study. I wonder if he actually came to realize these things, to perceive, to see; most probably, and for that Krishnamurti deserves much gratitude. I think it only takes to have this SERIOUSNESS to end with that psychological system and content, I mean, being really into this transformation is such an important thing.

[@kooroshrostami27]

Yes, he can follow the logic that psychological security is a fallacy, but refuses to let it go. I think it is very good to have him there because this is really the common cognitive dissonance which people have all the time.

[@patrickbinford590]

Bohm is more used, here, to K's "language" than Dr Shainberg. After all, as a physicist, Bohm got intrigued by first seeing a book of K's in the late 50s in London wherein K (Krishnamurti) talked about the observer being the observed: that was the quantum physics phenomenon, that the scientist cannot help through observation affecting the observed.

[@emanuellopez8578]

​@@patrickbinford590true, that's why I think is unfair for Dr shainberg to be there, is rather unlikely he understands anything what they are saying except superficially ofc.

[@WEBALON12]

Three amazing men

[@keshavmalpani6610]

The ending 😂😂 "Time" is the answer and also its time to end this, krishnamurthi's partly hidden coy smile says so much

[@sarc1740]

At the beginning I got desperate with Dr Shainberg interventions, but all is teaching, because my dayli life is majority lived like Dr Shainberg participations (erratic & desconnected), JK & Dr Bohm werent patient, they only showed their compation to him and to the rest of humanity

[@makarandnidhalkar7139]

yes.. I also thought him as an irritating person but then I found myself in the same position somehow..

[@kooroshrostami27]

We should not disregard the fact that without Shainberg these talks would have been much faster and some questions may not have come up. Shainberg is clearly not following at times and also mentally blocked, but being in that state he asked a lot of questions which viewers who are in the same state of confusion might have.

[@jenniferlee5871]

K says “ there may be sane people all over the world” and this threatens a psychologists security. Then they all laugh. They know what’s going on and see the humor on our insecurity. Nice

[@bradhaaf4749]

We need an AI Krishna to give 90%+ of humanity this same therapy session... would rather watch a conversation between intellectuals yet this accidental therapy session highlights the difficulty moving forward as a society with an individual who wants to meet the present, never mind those that don't. I fear the past and find it hard to meet the future while existing in the past. AI bringing disorder to the past and order to the future is my security lol

[@tuquansing5606]

Since we are changing every moment, therefore when we see each other is only a past memory or image for each other unless we can erase those image, we are not living in the moment.

[@husseinmohamed8428]

Pure love

[@tookie36]

1745 love when he notices and calls out that the guy is viewing the discussion from a rational framework instead of searching through realtime experience

[@nicolasdelaforge7420]

(Maybe someone can help here): as I listen to K's talks, I'm never sure if he ever refers to the 'Atman': you wake up one morning, and before you become aware of your surroundings, before you note anything at all, or reconnect with the room you've slept in, before you see any object in the room, before any thought arises, you are in this 'consciousness watching consciousness'. It's the most magnificent state that I've known. Now, some practices or insights (as K's 'instantaneous seing' which whites out the past and brings about the pure (mystical) encounter, do not reference the Atman. Then you have a third approach, where nothing exists in meditation. And the fourth, based on Dogen's notions (also Vasistha) based on our mutual arising. What does it mean that there are so many mystical 'States'. What does it mean that they're all Trance States? Simply that they abandon the linguistic- thinking state which is the commonized, mechanical state?

[@Sunil-zv3gv]

34:48 -35:26 ✨beautiful✨

[@lividus8678]

Krishnamurti has got to the end of philosophy. I think if you understand what he’s trying to say you don’t need to learn about philosophy anymore. He’s trying to make you find out by yourself, is the only way to find out. Because there are no words to explain exactly, because the whole point is not an idea, or a thought, or a word.

[@VicSC]

21:20 I think this dialogue is very relevant these days that life is threatened by a pandemic and people search for security in toilet paper causing shortages in stores... Just like the title says: A mechanical way of living leads to disorder.

[@emanuellopez8578]

I think everything that Krishnamurti had said is extremely relevant now, we have the chances of living an entirely mechanical life and the chances to not do so, we have more traps and more information to not falling into

[@kooroshrostami27]

Goes both ways rly, the mechanical way of living is also the result of disorder. There is a deep sense of sorrow, neediness, insufficiency, existential insecurity to begin with. The brain then seeks to escape that and find order and security in mechanism. This attempt to find security is delusional, since the mechanism in itself is impermanent. Too old for the job, getting disabled, old age, and even if nothing disturbs it for a longer while, boredom is inevitable. One way or another the delusional mechanical order gets disturbed. It doesn't solve the underlying problem of sorrow in the slightest. It's like a dysfunctional escapism. Like drinking to numb the pain for the time being, it increases the disorder in the long run.

[@jayadityag7670]

Nowadays Ai come into being, and this actually makes more sense, I am doing software dev for 3 yrs and ChatGpt came along, and we were frightened because "I" or the "Me" don't get money and thus security in life both physiologically and biologically. So people identification takes place when u identify with the mechanical process which gives u respect or blah anything the "Me" wants.

[@krox477]

Technically all engineers want automate themselves out of the equation so that humans can do more creative stuff

[@kenstephens7747]

Security and complete security are two different things, and we therefore will prefer more over less as a natural process. Where we mess up is translating whatever lack we may have into exaggerated feelings of insecurity, where if we demand the complete security discussed in the talk we will become disappointed. This results from the neurosis that accompanies the act of placing too much weight on the future, to not utilize insights to better promote our satisfaction as would be sensible, but to dwell on negativity and lack and become subject to the wrath of our own self-judgement.

[@arqueldelacruz7673]

That's what we need to survive 😅

[@hajeradli3464]

🙏❤️

[@ramongomez8849]

🙏🏻

[@DPLS77]

I understand why Dr. Shainberg cannot see the fact that there is no psychological security in anything. Let me explain with an example. If your job is secure would you be searching for another job? No. If your job wasn't secure obviously you would search for a job that is secure. In other words, we don't search for security unless we feel insecure. Dr. Shainberg says his security is in his career, his family, his possessions etc. Those things make him feel psychologically secure, if they didn't, then what businesses would he have with any of that? Those things bring him psychological security but when you think about it they don't bring any real security. Him or his wife may file for divorce, he could be fired or laid off, an economic depression can happen, or as K humorously puts it suddenly everyone may become sane. So when K asks Dr. Shainberg "Do you see the fact that there is no psychological security in ANYTHING?" Shainberg says he does not see that and of course he does not because that would mean he has to admit to himself that the security he's been holding onto is false. It is as if his own brain does not want him to see through the illusion.

[@kooroshrostami27]

What Böhm is pointing out repeatedly is that even if you create some illusion of psychological security just like you have described for Dr. Shainberg, there is still insecurity going on in that. A part of you senses that it really isn't that secure due to obvious reasons, anything could happen at any time, accident, disease, his wife losing her affection, whatever. Deep down we know thus. So we repress every information that may threaten this (deceptive) security, we avoid thinking about it by disrupting such doubtful thoughts or dull the brain with mechanical routine. So there are mechanisms of self deception and denial going on, which are testimony to the fact that there is no actual psychological security, if there were such, you wouldn't need for all those defense mechanisms like self-deception, escape, repression.

[@OnePercentBetter]

33:42 Bohm has a giggle

[@francescovitale7548]

❤

[@preethikrao]

🙏🏼🙏🏼

[@tjentalman]

44:30+ One if the reasons the brain may not realize the flaw it has made is becuase of the conditioning factors of the environment and relief from negative thought as well as the neuroplastic changes that occur simply from thinking and functioning in the same "mechanical" way. That is probably be only a few of the many reasons that the brain gets stuck in this rut.

[@robertopuccianti8498]

🙏💚🌻

[@alexandruconstantin9719]

❤🤝❤🙏

[@abiodunafuwape7667]

Can one see the image of security which becomes a conclusion in ones mind; therefore, limits and stagnates the infinite capacity and perpetuation of our neural connections?

[@anilthapa5631]

Is it hope or hoping against hope. If I give up security I will have to destroy I.....now that is tough.

[@MaiteYailenGarciaCarralero]

😊 🙏

[@davidjames1815]

Consciousness as thinking, thought, and any memory based knowledge and experience says, "It's this way, but I want it to be that way. I have this, but I'd rather have that."...and so on. And that is the activity of fear itself. So, "I", the preferences of "I", and all knowledge of "I" in its totality is itself the manifestation of fear, the creator of every fear and the responder/reactor TO every fear. So, the brain sees the environment and reacts to the environment and says, "Here's a problem that requires a solution to that problem." So the mind has produced a question and goes to work to create the answer. It comes up w what it considers a solution and then w mouth, hands, and feet in tow alters or modifies the envitonment to jostle out and manifest the physical solution into the outer field where all of us meet and interact w one another. Not everyone likes that solution and at some point the originator of the solution sees that the previous solution again needs to be adjusted, fixed, modified, and so on. So, outer conflict is created in every direction, yet no lasting satisfaction or contentment is ever reached. So, the consciousness creates the environment which it finds itself in and the environment is never endingly adjusted by consciousness as an activity of assuaging its desires, fears, & preferences. In this unending process humankind has finally come down to the present day, in 2024, where the environment has been artificially created by consciousness to become impossibly ramified to a pinpoint and problems everywhere are reaching a crescendo. Whereas if ppl had understood and then had been able to DO what K suggested, a great many would have resolved their inner disquiet and division. And a substantial amount of today's ramified sociopolitical and psychospiritual nightmare would never have come into being. So, in that regard, K was some sort of sage or wiseman, though he refused every title of honor or pedastalizing. We might never know how much worse things might have become had he never been born. The key is: Can I simply look at things as they are inside myself and outwardly and directly understand that w/o putting any of my baggage or positions into that looking? And realize a completely fantastic type of intelligence which has nothing to do w knowledge from memory no matter what that knowledge is or where it comes from? It may be that only certain rare individuals are ever going to actualize that. Maybe these individuals, as they arise in life, here and there, act as anchors for consciousness. If so, humankind will be dead meat the second these beings stop being born into this world. It is my wush that ppl stop chasing the impossible dream and start realizing the beauty of defying one's own fears and preferences to come out into the open field of things as they are and stop the endless fiddling w of reality. The universe is already complete, it does not require our assistance. All so called technological progress has been made necessary by the collective lunacy of mankind and should never have been needed from the 1st. All of our solutions are dooming us as a species and its time to stop...😮

[@vediamocosa2876]

Il passato che incontra il futuro, basta quindi smetterla di riproporre il passato nel futuro perché ogni attimo e' fresco e senza aspettativa

[@yacovmitchenko1490]

Love this discussion. At certain moments it felt like Dr. Shainberg was the kid to whom the other two were pointing things out. I'm tempted to use the word "instructing", but that's not quite right, as "instructing" suggests more conditioning. He's heavily conditioned - yet still comes across as child-like and extremely receptive. A fresh addition to the two who are more sober. So "why don't we change"? A challenging question. As much as I love Krishnamurti, simply discussing the matter, going deeply they way they have, won't work. Because it remains intellectual, even though Krishnamurti would have us "see it" non-intellectually. The point is that the brain is so heavily conditioned, we have all sorts of pre-rational (or perhaps irrational) tendencies of which we're not even aware. In fact, we may not even be aware of how often we make arguments and reason on the basis of those pre-rational tendencies, which the latter use to justify themselves. We pride ourselves on being rational, but we're not primarily so. More often than not, the pre-rational (or irrational) wears a rational mask. So what's my point? My basic point is that Krishnamurti's rational approach won't work because we're not fundamentally rational. Very few can be transformed by an exercise in rationality, however subtle and penetrating. Simply having an earnest discussion as these gentleman are having doesn't go nearly far enough; it doesn't reach beyond the intellectual level, regardless of Krishnamurti's intentions. Perhaps some irrational element contributes to the fact that we constantly construct concepts and abstractions and don't actually "see" things as they are. In other words, one aspect of irrationality is that we think we see; we don't see actually. And that "thinking-we-see" may prevent seeing. But this understanding alone changes nothing. The conditioning is too thick and heavy, much of which we're not even aware of. Krishnamurti was brilliant, and he may have been enlightened. But he doesn't reach the heart; he only reaches the head. You have to reach the heart, for in that way transformation becomes possible.

[@PSiHoOo1991]

Well, your point is based on a concept of fundamental (I)rationality which is exactly that what you mentioned in sentences before: a pre-rational tendency which wants to justify itself. I hope you will not look at this as an attack on projection of yourself (ego, knowledge, past etc.), but an observation of oneself. Devision between rationality and irationality is just one of the delusions of fragmented mind and an indicator that one still doesn't see wholeness of reality, coz it still creates conflict. Being rational simply means being able to perceive wholness of reality, being able to see things as they really are, while being irrational means that someone perceives reality from a limited point of view of its core fragment (me). But irational is still part of the rational and its not different from the rational, depending on the perspective one could say that the truth is irrational (pure perception of life which is beyond static knowledge, beyond memory) Now the whole point of this conceptual nonsense ( J.K would call it that if you don't see it ,if you don't live it) is that one should realise that every judgment is a belief, a concept, an idea, a fragment (people are fundamentally irational) and conclusion is just the projected outcome of that idea ( therefore it wont work). But to avoid this purely dry rationalization I ll tell you something which is live, personal and a fact (it happened, its happening, its true). I was a seeker of knowledge, my whole life was seeking for truth which at that time I mistook for knowledge. Knowledge of one self and world Im part of. I was regarded from my parents and school as an intellectual prodigy, a boy with razor sharp mind, and that became my identity, a projection of myself which created a lot of insecurities which consequently led to hardships in relationships of any kind, which are In essence hardships of everyone's life. Because of that I went on journeys in nature, studied psychology, anthropology and ultimately philosophy. I also learned some spiritual practises from the east. I red many books (from Plato, Stoics, Christian philosphers to Kant, Hegel, Sartre etc.), I experienced many things, from trivial everyday worries to personal family tragedies, from "falling in love" to the joy of perceiving sunrise or little ant colonies xD. From ecstasy of intense contemplation to the inner peace of deep meditation. The point is that somewhere along the road ( I don't even remember when or where it happened) I realized no matter who much knowledge and experience I get nothing is enough, so I stoped seeking, I stoped rationalizing within the framework of duality and started perceiving the movements of my thoughts and emotions. It si true that intellect is not enough to get out of framework of duality of fragmentation, but at least in my case, its also true that intellectual curiosity started the whole process of spiritual growth which enabled me to break out of preestablished conditionig. You see, intellect is just a part of our whole cognisense and it only exists as a fragment in our minds. In reality our intellect is never separated from our emotions, intuition and rest of the whole existential cognisense. These are just different moments of the same motion which our fragmented minds put into static, different categories. So if you look it from that perspective you can see that there is no reason for someone not to be "triggered" to "perceive" by any of this seemingly separated moments. Because perception in it self is just the totality of them all. I also wanna mention that me personally listened to Sadguru, Alan Watts, Osho and many others "mystics" and "gurus" but no one striked me as hard and clear as J.K. Beacuse of his intellectual approach everything is so simple and clear( at least to me XD). I know without a doubt that what that man has seen Is the same thing I see, and in some cases even more which enabled me to broaden my horizons. I know that he sees love and beauty of the world as a freedom of conditioning, of the past, as negation of tradions, negations of religions and nationalities, negation of fragmentation, of limited identities or in other words: death of the ego. Its true that all of these things are more or less teached by other masters, but I never needed a master, a teacher, a guru, I needed to realize it by myself, by discarding all knowledge, all masters. Nevertheless, all that wouldn't be possible if i didn't have friends which pushed my intelectual inquiry and thats exactly how I see Jiddu Krishnamurti. I see him as a friend of mine and whole humanity, so if no one else's, he definitely reached my heart :). Anyways, Ive rumbled for too long, peace out xD p.s english is not my first language, so keep that in mind xD

[@jokerbatman6177]

"Why don't we change?" What jk is saying will only be penetrating if you see it what he is saying and not mere listening of words and just by listening and idealizing that we are conditioned nothing is going to happen, we don't change bcz there is something present in us that wants to protect itself so it(self)plays all the tricks and games that these things are good and fine but of no use for me ,you say that bcz deep down you don't want to see it bcz if you will see it everything that you have accumulated so far will go to pieces and that thing called self will be in danger bcz there will be no security from anything and you will be all alone. Whatever you are doing in your day to day life even in the simplest thing (from eating to going to shop or meeting anyone)what you are seeking ultimately is peace or order whatever you can call it but your daily experience tells that these things can give temporary relief and peace but eventually it gets repetitious bcz we make images, thought from our experience and knowledge and these ingredients of these images are past and then we act accordingly to these images which are past and also expect from others to act and behave according to those images so we do all the time mechanical work ,mechanical bcz as we put an input or information into the machine and that machine works accordingly to that information (image in our case) throughout and since it is machine it never gets bored bcz it design to work according to that information but we humans are not machine and cannot function that way so we gets bored or gets dissatisfied in our work and therefore changes our work and do some other mechanical work and so on ( that's just changing the outer structure of machine with same internal working) and even if we gets aware of our images and see that these are the main cause of our disorder and conflict what we do is just changes our images or just refine it which is just again upgrade of software of machine and so we does not end these images therefore conflict remains and this never stops bcz we are teached that "me" is all important and give that "me" whatever he wants but eventually that " me" also wants order but since that me is in disorder all the thought, images and whatever he will do will be also brings disorder ,so seeing all this that this "me " can never give whatever iam ultimately seeking all it does brings pain and sorrow ultimately and whatever it does ultimately brings us to same state of pain etc so by seeing this totally that this "me" is utterly useless we comes in state of total order and in that state "me" gets dissolved and we see that there is wholeness in that total order and we are not an individuals. Problem comes when one just reads as an abstraction or as idea and not goes into enquiry in his or her self as there are blocks of ignorance present due to conditioning to prevents us from to enquire .

[@yacovmitchenko1490]

@@PSiHoOo1991 Regarding your statement that there is no division between rationality and the "pre-rational", may be correct in a way. Ultimately, there is no division. Yet consider what you are saying. For example, one's deep-seated anger against people (of which one may not be aware) may be coloring the person's arguments, which have a kind of logic to them. Would you say that that anger partakes of rationality? What place has that unconscious anger in relation to rationality? Or take it several steps further: Are wars and rationality indivisible? One could say that wars, although they appear to be the product of selfishness or irrationality, nonetheless are indivisible from rationality, depending on one's perspective.

[@kooroshrostami27]

Well, you are basically saying that the evolution of self deception is too deep for anyone to penetrate (Your points about the subconscious irrational essentially dominating the rational, using it as a tool for self-confirmation and concealing the hidden intentions which determine our judgements and beliefs, etc.). But K. in the next parts of this talk questions altogether whether there is a subconscious. He says it is all conscious from the beginning and we only repress certain content by virtue of habit. K. also suggests that this process isn't necessary but rather the result of an image-making-process, and that this image-making-process is the result of the parent initially enforcing an image upon the child. If one takes this seriously (admittedly this rly goes against our numerous schools of psychology), then it follows that this machinery of self deception could be defeated. If self deception is genetically programmed on the other hand, then ofc there is nothing we can do about it.

[@Sanjay14728]

I am watching jk and I follow the same mechanical disorder now also. Because I want security by solving problems.

[@arqueldelacruz7673]

But why are we not aware of it ? 🤔

[@abiodunafuwape7667]

Can one recognize their ego? Jiddu Krishnamurti said, "the ego is nearly impenetrable."

[@alessandrocpica]

Nearly is not absolute

[@krox477]

You're most of time acting from ego

[@KishoreKumar-cq7xm]

Living Brain (Inside Skull) is Frightened , Why ? Quite interesting self propagating sustained mechanism of fear - escape. 😇

[@sylviagung1007]

The "real security" is the self without any kind or feeling of "my" attached to ... maybe... the pure self or real self or the original self or the lost sheep...? Then do I understand what it is? It is maybe that because I don't understand what this is, I am chasing after all sorts of things outside and fall into illusions for it. ...

[@ravikantdhankhar8042]

6.23s jk nailed it

[@TheGeorgakopoulos]

yes, it may not be total security, but there can be possible security or less possible security and so on.

[@tjentalman]

you have come to a conclusion that helps you not look at it further. when you think you know you stop searching.

[@tjentalman]

we have determined that the mind is limited by countless variables yet we trust thought to drag us around

[@kooroshrostami27]

But you see security implies permanence. If I have food now and perhaps tomorrow, nobody would call that security. If I knew I had food permanently, that would be security. But the fact is that all things are impermanent, since you never know what is going to happen. That rly makes it fundamentally insecurity. Hence, the desire for security stems from confusion. The one who seeks security in anything has a false conception of the entire thing, this perceived security in itself is insecurity. We go on with our lives with this delusion, alright I have my wife, my house, my job, I am secure, but if we are being honest, there is always a subtle but very deep anxiety involved because we know deep down that eventually we are going to lose all of them, an accident, a crisis, disease, old age, whatever it is.

[@krox477]

Most of us we find security in money which are created by humans

[@krox477]

Insurance companies exploit this idea

[@blisswomb]

Is there anyone who can help to answer my questions about life? Who so ever is managing jiddu sir organisation?

[@yacovmitchenko1490]

I admire Krishnamurti and he speaks truth most of the time. He also tends to speak in extremes - all or nothing. He says "We have no love" while i say "We have love, but there are selfish elements; it's impure, limited." The fact of the matter is that we can genuinely care for people, even though we may be attached to them, or have vested interests. There are shades of grey; we're complicated, multi-faceted. He focuses too much on our negative aspects. It's fine to acknowledge and go into them, provided one is willing to admit we have redeeming qualities, however limited - including the capacity to inquire, to examine our psyche. Moreover, he keeps stating that we are memory, anger, and so on, not mentioning the fact that we're not only those since we can observe them coming and going. If we were only memory or anger, we couldn't begin to examine those; we'd be trapped. He neglects to point out that in addition to being anger, we are also the intelligence that can inquire into anger. We are not merely our egoistic tendencies. My approach toward memory is nuanced. While it's true that being dominated by memory is an obstructing factor (where love is concerned), it can also serve love. Imagine for a moment that you couldn't remember your beloved, due to an accident or brain damage. Not only would you fail to recognize your beloved; your love for that person would be effectively gone. That person would be a stranger. Perhaps not quite a stranger; you might still be instinctively drawn to him/her, though the love would be undeveloped, due to a lack of personal history. Or alternatively, memory can play the following role (in a different context): part of the history, for example, is that the beloved once had saved your life by donating one of her organs to you. So you remember that, the memory of which enhances your love for that person. In other words, a shared history can be both limiting (constricting) AND a source of richness, depending on what that history is and/or how it's approached. Or consider it this way. You love someone and have been physically apart from that person for, say, a week. That person went on a business trip to Chicago, while you're sitting in your sofa in Florida. So you remember that person; you recall him/her frequently. Clearly love and memory are playing off of each other; they are intimately connected. You remember so-and-so as you do precisely because you love the person; love spurs on the memory, the recollection. Were you not in love, you would probably not remember him/her, or at least would think of that individual rarely or infrequently. The point is that memory is not merely functional; it gives love a sense of direction. Question: how do you know you love him/her without memory (of that person)? You can be wholly immersed in the moment, to the point that an egoistic sense of identity is not. But that doesn't mean the whole past is wiped out, nor should it be that way. You're perfectly aware of what you and your partner did a year ago, and that memory, as a part of a story, can be truly beautiful and a contributing factor to the love you have now. Yet memory can become rotten too; yes, it can prevent one from living fully in the present. However, not necessarily. Let's look at memory in a different context. A judge or jury wouldn't, in the manner of Krishnamurti, say of someone found guilty: "But we're not meeting him now; our decision is based on what he did in the past; we're tethered to the past; we have no relationship to what he is NOW." Do you see what I'm driving at? It's not merely a pragmatic point I'm making. In a very real sense, the past actually MATTERS where our relationships are concerned. People respond to us in part, quite naturally, on the basis of our past acts. If we're open-minded and generous, we see that a person can change; a person isn't bound by the past. But still the past matters - and it matters with regards to love as well. I have often heard Krishnamurti claiming that we're the rest of humanity, all basically, essentially the same. Well - yes and no. He would make out the differences to be superficial or just minor variations. This is where I disagree. Sure, we all suffer hardships, we all experience sorrow and anxiety at some point, we're born alone and we die alone, we all fall ill and die eventually. However, degree and context matter. The fact is that some people are much happier than others, or some are much more miserable than others. The situation of a person who loves his job, who has a beautiful caring wife, and many material comforts is very different from the situation of a homeless person or someone living in a 3rd world country. The latter may be fortunate to get just one decent meal a day. My point is that this gap is not minor; it's a yawning chasm. Although the one with a great job and beautiful wife suffers, his suffering cannot be compared with that of one about whom no one cares and who winds up dying in the gutter. Another point of contention with Krishnamurti. Traditional gurus have long made the claim (among them Ramana Maharshi) that we need to remove the obscurations and the Self is naturally there. Krishnamurti calls this a theory merely, and goes about negation only. It's a commendable approach for the rigorous few, but it won't work for the majority of seekers. It's not enough to state what one takes to be true; one must be sensitive to the individual needs of the seeker. In other words, one must see where the seeker is emotionally, and find a way that most resonates with him/her if progress is to be made. Most people need the reassurance that the Self is already there; without that assurance, that hope, they won't proceed. That's just the way it is; you can't simply fault them for lacking in seriousness. That's why, as a teacher, Ramana was more effective in a way: for he considered where the student was psychologically and emotionally. His approach was multi-faceted.

[@kooroshrostami27]

We are memory anger etc. If memory, anger etc. are not, there is no "we". According to K intelligence belongs to the mind, the mind is universal. So intelligence is only when there is no "we". The difference between a homeless and a person with house, wife and job may seem much larger than it actually is. The latter may be depressed and the homeless may be physically on the brink of death, but inside he may feel more happy than the other who is depressed. Who is to say? Either way, we are always at a loss. There is always something we strive for, and the root of all striving is the sense of being at a loss, if you think about it. When K. mentions love, I don't think he is talking about erotic love between man and woman. That love is obviously selfish. He is talking about compassion, which is rly not fixated on a specific person, not possessive and not clinging. In Greek or Latin there used to be different words for the different meanings of love, in English there is only the word "love", which makes things confusing. You would not have to remember a person in order to feel compassion for him or her. Also, when an act of charity has selfish elements to it, then the selfless motive is usually feigned. Would you really care about your beloved if he or her wouldn't give you a sense of security? You may not. Our motives may be purely selfish and we may lie to ourselves about this fact and repress it.

[@Rockstargamesfanatic]

I believe in a different talk he states and clarifies that all this (mechanical) knowledge we have acquired isn’t useless, we need it in order to go about our everyday lives, the problem lies when we begin to attach ourselves to our ideas or our ideas begin to define us. If you are a responsible person you’ll do everything you need to do for your family, for the fact that you are responsible, and you’ll go about taking care of your responsibilities without attaching yourself to ideas that you may begin to believe define you. Like job title, status, etc. In regards to your comment about receiving the organ and feeling more love for them, I believe that arises out of selfishness, you received something from someone that will benefit you and because of that, you feel more love towards them, it’s not the love krishnamurti speaks of, the love he speaks of has no competition, no selfish desires, no comparison, it’s unconditional, that love should have already been there for it to be true, not after or because you received something from the other person. Also the homeless man or the 3rd world country are experiencing such hardships because of the things that thought has created such as : money, nationalism, greed.

[@Yeshua-Ben-YAHO]

The root cause of the fragmentation is Attachment.

[@davidjames1815]

It isn't that the car, the wife, the iridium ring isn't real in the sense of being something we can interact w and enjoy, it's that we confuse "having" (and having is a delusion) as the proof of and desire of lasting security. And we focus our mental energy on the object of our desires rather than on the fact of life in its entirety being inwardly and outwardly fleeting. So there's NO ROCK upon which to build one's houae. There's NO HOUSE to begin with😮...In that sense there can be no security and fear is the seeking after of security. This is the driving force behind the seeking after of security. Just the wise shant confuse the wife, the car, the children, the jewelry as somehow any kind of permanent or lasting refuge. If we do, we will remain in a house that is on fire and never exit that burning house. In the total realization that security is a falsehood, that it simply exists no more than the tooth fairy exists, then in that realization is found actual total security, which is the final ending of the seeking after of security and the seeking after of the ending of all psychospiritual fear in a being. As a necessity within that realization, the false sense of any permanently abiding "self" will naturally then exist no more as the prime driving force of life. Just think how different you will have to be just to exist in any heaven worth going to in the first place. So, you still must die. As a 30 yr old right now today, that 4th grader in the photo album that was once you is dead and gone forever. That's not you anymore. So look at it😮

[@sdigitize6006]

Except J K rest two going by words. When JK speak its seeing a flower but Dr is a disturbance when opens mouth.

[@Inquiring_Together]

good stuff lol

[@michaelpryzdia6233]

It is as if Shainberg was incapable of taking part in the same dialogue with K and Bohm -- lost in his thoughts, unable to listen. I am told that he wanted to play the role of HCE (Here Comes Everybody) -- pretending to play the role of the "common viewer." But you really have to wonder . . . to what extent is he pretending? It just might be that Shainberg did not have to pretend at all -- he really was incapable of understanding what K and Bohm were talking about. The sad thing is that after K died, Shainberg shared in print "the shortcomings of K's teaching" -- he felt that K was trapped in a "philosophical approach/method"; this is a case of "the kettle calling the pot black" if there ever was one!! The amount of patience that K and Bohm demonstrated toward Shainberg in these dialogues is immense!!! If Shainberg was acting, he was a GREAT actor; if he was not acting, then that is a clue that the "common viewer" really does need to listen/live with a lot more awareness -- otherwise we are "lost."

[@aliveli-hq6zk]

Do you actually see it? J. Krishnamurti

[@grampa-gaming]

It’s amazing such potential yet so far from understanding 40 years make a lot of difference

[@OldSkool249]

Boxcutter Pazzy

[@kenstephens7747]

Having these two neophytes struggle so much with this is interesting, but I" not sure now many of these I'm going to be able to watch. All the years that they claim they have studied this material has still left their egos pretty intact, still clinging to the absurd idea that the self can be objectified, and then claiming the illusion that they have created is "fragmented." Burn the traditional books guys and pay closer attention, although JK could do much better at clarifying things and not just watch them wallow in their confusion with flailing arms. Just understanding the fact that the self is pure subjectivity would be a big start, we are not things, we are not memories, we are not fearful projections of ourselves in the future, we are the viewer watching all this on TV. The self is the observer in the present moment.

[@Fibonachi.]

K's humour 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

[@mauricealeph3750]

Poor Sheinberg Going Crazy...,Just don't follow the speed of K's wisdom.

[@kooroshrostami27]

Yeah kind of peculiar, since he has studied the human psyche, and rly the entire talk is about the human psyche, yet he is constantly misunderstanding.

[@passionbonsai88]

Thanks to Dr .Shainberg he is represented us pretty well sometimes. most of the time he was wy more intelligent. Dr Bohm is so great but useless in a way coz he is too smart . Him and Krishna ji seems to be in same boat ⛵

[@RandomTryHard]

If only he could stop trying to be right.

[@starseeding4725]

This Shainberg is typcal narcis manipulator but remains under level in this conversation. Imposing other talk as a point to center himself. When J D ask him he repeats and fantasye on anwser to satisfy security called dr.Shainberg 😅But they keep shadowin him,pleasent to watch.

[@kooroshrostami27]

Well, he seems eager to say something interesting and important whilst constantly misunderstanding stuff, he should probably shut up more and listen, but narcisstic? That's a bit harsh, don't you think?

[@nikhil-kumar69]

❤