Strange how most comments beneath talk about J.K. only. I think that E.Schallert does a marvelous job in this in interview. Clearly leading the conversation and making the interview as coherent as possible, which is really tough considering the subjects that are discussed. Let alone the fact that he represents the Cathloic Church with his both feet on the ground, not letting his believes interfere with the purity of the subjects around freedom and the ego. Kudos to you E.Schallert

@chileanguyfleegman1908

2 жыл бұрын

Yes, I've seen jk with different other people and Mr. Schallert has been the best one I've seen hitherto.

@Tea-tl2pv

2 жыл бұрын

And Dr David Bohm

@SaintNektarios

2 жыл бұрын

@@Tea-tl2pv And Allan W. Anderson

@papagabriola6494

2 жыл бұрын

All of the above. These are the real great thinkers - those who are accessible.

@Pravinamadoori

Жыл бұрын

💯 %agree

Two humble and wise men sharing their wisdom with us.

When I Stumbled upon these two videos in the vault I was amazed & blown away by this interview! I Got them to finally release them to the mail order catalog & webstore! Nice to see them digitalized and available anytime!

E.Schallert is blessed with clarity in expression and perception . This dialogue between two wise men is a treat.THANKS

Brother Krishnamurti was one of the most compassionate spiritual beings of this era. Infinite love and reverence to the illuminated one that speaks through us 💝 Prophets still come and go..

I've just been blown into a million pieces of light and arrived whole... This is is is is is is!!!

Brilliant, what an insightful conversation, JK is simply at his best👍

Thank you very much!!! The way Jk puts it is for us to delve deeper ourselves and he doesn't give a conclusion and urges us not to jump to conclusions. And he doesn't use metaphors which could lead one's mind astray. This is pure and raw. He doesn't explain the non physical because it cannot be explained, he just shows us how to ask the questions 🙏 So thankful for this channel🙏

@FaniRagoussi

Жыл бұрын

the Socratic method

Wow that was a great professional debate . I loved that . Thanks for that soon much . 🙏🙏🙏🇨🇦

Precious 🙏🙏❤️❤️.. Thanks for uploading

After a while u understand what life means, u start to see u as one naturaly, and love, respect, and knowledge as a we r part of. Thanks JK, kisses to all here from Brasil,

Thank you very much jk foundation

For the first time K seems to have an 'equal' to talk to. So Interesting one reaches through Intelligence ( dhyana yoga) and other through Faith! ( bhakti yoga) Two great souls!

@brunomacedo497

2 жыл бұрын

I agree and share your thoughts. but i did not know dhyana yoga and bhakti yoga. i've heard of raja yoga, is it related?

@lhommenouveau8371

Жыл бұрын

not at all... K is sooo much higher here !

@Sanjay14728

3 ай бұрын

Again you try to make an idea. See facts don't verbalize it.

So beautiful!

Excellent

Thanks.🙏🙏🙏

This content content is of enormous value in human psyche and for that matter it can be easily said by me that its value is much more than the whole youtube contents in every field so far

so very aktual now, Thank you

13:39 Unity, harmony between human beings is what is important.

Some ones try to divide and compare what is one in total. We r all in one.

🙏🏻

wow fantastic

Great conversation by both , we humans know the truth but refuse to act on it as we are paralyzed by our Identity and the convenience that comes with our identification to a class or society.

❤

🙏🙏🙏

The “wards and the streets, “ are full of people who have abruptly had the “me” eliminated..so there needs to be a process for this to happen. The Sufi’s have a process which is a polishing of the mirror of the heart..in the way that water polishes a stone. So the me remains, only it is no longer in primarily service to the self, but in service to a higher dimension. This service to a higher dimension results in the refinement of one’s being. Listening is critical..to be able to listen between the separations of silence is where the marrow is located.

@js2010ish

Жыл бұрын

What do you mean by those who had the me abruptly eliminated? By psychosis?

Min 10:32 "each other" la traduzione che rende il senso correttamente è "gli uni dagli altri" e non "da noi stessi" come è indicato attualmente.

✋Multumesc!❤

@user-jd1hy9bg1d

4 жыл бұрын

Cu placere ^_^. Krishnamurti e briliant ! Be a light unto self :)

What's real What's not Is reality just objective physicality Or is it really shared subjectivity If you see what I see And we agree It's real If you sense what I sense And we have consensus It's real Now imagine an earth without you and me Or any of our kind With a mind inclined to find Would the ground and all around cease to be Or would the only thing missing be What we call reality

@brunomacedo497

2 жыл бұрын

i dont get the "with a mind inclined to find" is it to find something? is it truth? The what that the mind you say is incline to find. i dont get it

When they talk is like jazz... and in extreme moment grindcore ...

Can I have subtitles of this video? please,🙏🙏🙏

@KFoundation

3 жыл бұрын

To enable subtitles, click on the small cog wheel on the bottom right of the video, and select 'Subtitles/CC'

Is there something more important than what I want?

Remove the labeling process of everything seen

7:42 Religion is not unifying. By it very nature and the definitions of its beliefs , is dualistic. I believe this, you don’t. We are different ; a part. That’s not right.

“Choicelessly aware” Of course JK was right, in that the main job of organized Religion is to separate man from him/herself, and each other.

Min 8:55, nella traduzione va inserita la parola "prima". La traduzione corretta, a mio parere, è così: "...prima che possa pensare di essere religioso". Mi sbaglio?

@KFoundation

9 ай бұрын

Thank you @maurizioa5968, you are quite right, we've fixed it now.

@maurizioa5968

9 ай бұрын

​@@KFoundationGrazie a voi. La traduzione è buona, con qualche piccola imprecisione. Per esempio al Min 19:23 va aggiunta nella traduzione la parola "troppe" a "conversazioni" ( "too much conversaton" l'espressione del Rev. Schallert), il senso della frase cambia. Grazie ancora e scusate.

@KFoundation

9 ай бұрын

Hi @@maurizioa5968 - if you might be interested in volunteering to help us translating videos from English into Italian, then please feel free to get in touch at digital@kfoundation.org

@maurizioa5968

9 ай бұрын

​@@KFoundationPurtroppo non ho abbastanza tempo per collaborare e il vostro traduttore è bravo anche se non capisco alcune imprecisioni che sembrano banali. Per esempio : al Min. 2:45 JK usa le espressioni inglesi " most religions" e "most cultures" che vengono tradotte in "religioni" e "culture" anziché, come si dovrebbe correttamente scrivere, " la maggior parte delle religioni" e " la maggior parte delle culture". Sono dettagli, ma importanti, se si vuole essere fedeli al testo. Grazie ancora e se in futuro avrò più disponibilità di tempo, vi contatterò.

Min.19:38 la parola corretta è "Se" e non "Sè".

48:30

For me 32:43

We are really human that has to have control over god and angels and demons (god, angels, and demons=your brain, a robot god/angels/demons entity i must add) ;) when you as a human has power over your own mind, youre free, and you never do anything bad. Its your human consciousness that rules over yourself. Your ego is your own overlord. Why hasnt anybody else understood this. Im not smart it took me only 50 years lol

@brunomacedo497

2 жыл бұрын

its hard to get. i can read what you say and understand it for a second, then its just words.... takes energy right..

Actually, Krishnamurti misses Schallert's point that we must have that harmony already in some sense. If it were otherwise, we wouldn't be able to see confusion AS CONFUSION. We'd be trapped, since there's nothing in or about thought that can liberate us, thought being inherently fragmentary. But you see: we must have a capacity (perhaps intelligence, if you will) that can spot the confusion involved in thought; we cannot be ONLY thought for that reason. Otherwise there'd be no way out; we wouldn't be able to see our confusion at all, or engage in the sort of inquiry these gentleman are engaged in. Another thing I found strange: Krishnamurti asked us to imagine that we have no concepts, no dogma, no religion, nothing - as though we were blank slates. Then he asks: how am I to live rightly, how am I to be good? This is nonsense, because if we had no concepts/ideas at all, this question wouldn't arise. We would simply BE. In other words, to have concepts already implies a culture, a way of living in which that particular language was learned. In light of speaking a certain language, whether you're aware of it or not, you have certain predispositions, certain tendencies. Language of necessity implies a lack of objectivity right off the bat, a certain slant on reality, and therefore only a partial view - perhaps not even that, but a partial construction of what we take to be reality. The sticky part of this dialogue is that these gentlemen are using language (the activity of thought) to explore ways in which dualities may come to an end. But the thing about language is that it will of necessity perpetuate or sustain duality. For example, the duality between perception and thinking. The way Krishnamurti proceeds, there's a clear difference between perception and thinking - perception liberates, while thinking (in the psychological sense) leads to more chaos. What Krishnamurti misses is that by introducing these distinctions, he's perpetuating duality, even though that may not be his intention. In other words, while Krishnamurti may want us to to get beyond a mere intellectual grasp of what he's suggesting, the effect of what he does still doesn't get people beyond the intellectual realm. Without his being aware, his careful examinations actually reinforce the intellect - which is dualistic in nature. The only way to get at a sense of wholeness is to remain in silent meditation. You cannot get to that wholeness through language, however carefully and thoughtfully used, because by nature it sustains and perpetuates duality. At best, language necessarily distorts what may have originally been an insight, turning it into an idea. So whatever Krishnamurti says is still within the realm of ideas. The mind inevitably asks: how is one to perceive? Krishnamurti says: "Don't ask how." But that doesn't get us anywhere. Since perception is out of our control (for it isn't a matter of will or ego), since we can do nothing to SEE, then we literally can do nothing to bring it about - which means, there's no point in talking about it. It either happens or it doesn't. Finished.

@lhommenouveau8371

Жыл бұрын

k didn't miss it.. you should listen again

Painfull to watch interviewers trying to keep up but not understand anything. It.s because few ppl can ever escape subjectivity, while JK is pure objectivity

The interviewer is talking non stop and resists jk trying very hard to understand but .

@lhommenouveau8371

Жыл бұрын

exactly..

E schallert is so full of words that he couldn't listen to what krishna's saying. If you throw away your words its so simple to realize the truth.

@brunomacedo497

2 жыл бұрын

i didn't see it like that. i saw the other guy being very atemptive and really understanding what the main guy said. quite often one would antecipate what other would be saying. it seemed to me that both understood what they were talking about. The "correcting" of words, was their way of making available to each other the realization that they were both talking about the same thing. That being said, i think also that the other guy knew long before the main guy that they both were talking about the same thing. When both realized together what they were doing, they started using words that would try to make the knowledge more 'easy' 'available' to the public (they said a fantastic term 'choicessly aware' wich they agreed together, that meant something that they both knew and thought was better put that way). And also the main guy was implying hipocrisi in the other guys atitude, probabli because of the main guy's thought on religions as institutions of segregation.. and the other guy was very religious right? seemed like a priest. great vid, great guys

@Godzillacock

Жыл бұрын

I would strongly disagree with you

Krishnamurti states: “I” is the content of my consciousness. Stop this content. But how can you stop it if I do not see that "I" is my consciousness. There is me and (I will underline "AND") my consciousness.

@vorhangleiste

5 жыл бұрын

There is no you. It´s an illusion. But that´s a big pill to swallow. It doesn´t hurt though.

@MrStudennt

5 жыл бұрын

@@vorhangleiste You know that a person has binocular vision, right? We can define further or closer to be the subject from us, right? If there is no center, how is the distance determined? You can not deny the sensation of distance is a fact. It is not illusory.

@vorhangleiste

5 жыл бұрын

@@MrStudennt I admit, my comment was rather stupid, but let me try to explain. If everything were an illusion, absolutely nothing would exist. No universe, no KZread, no content that could become an illusion. I´m also not saying that there is no matter at all, that´s a different question (e.g. Hans Peter Dürr, Heisenberg etc.). So we say matter is a fact as well as the distance between matter, which can be meausured with instruments or the own sensation. Of course a distance is defined through a point A and B. So the center would be A or B (or C as other perspective, who sees both points). But this is not what I meant. If I look at an old friend and see all her qualities, the good and the bad ones, all her habits and so on, then I only see this things. This is an image, me and her and the whole society created through ideas. So I only see my image of her and nothing else. I can see the body and the distance, but my mind says that´s my old friend. Which is a thought, an idea. To really see something, I have to observe without any image or thought. But one only can do that, if there is nothing between me and her, no image, no idea of distance, no thought at all - no center. Still i´m not talking about the body. Just the „I“, which is an illusion. And if I accept, maybe just for 5 minutes, that I am just the image of all ideas and therefore nothing (that´s the big pill) there would be nothing between me and her and the whole cosmos (point C). Energy is required, to do so. In physics the vacuum is the source, for the mind the word would be silence. I wish you all the best and please don´t believe the things „I“ said.

@MrStudennt

5 жыл бұрын

@@vorhangleiste Thank you for answering, for some reason I do not come across people who take this seriously. You said, "that I am just the image of all ideas and therefore nothing." You really see it or perceive it as a creed. And here it is if you really see it. You had the experience when you were separated from the image. Those. the observer was different from the observed. Now, if what you say is not a creed, you see an observer of the image (for example, an image about your enemy) and he(observer ) is an image. What prevents the mind from seeing this? What personally hindered you once?

@vorhangleiste

5 жыл бұрын

@@MrStudennt Well, the mind prevents itself and it´s identifications. My football club is the best, you are the enemy, my nation is better than yours and so on. My idea is right and your idea is the most stupid thing (I dont mean you now). I believe in (almost) nothing anymore. My process hasn´t finished yet. But I rather die than go back. I was living with my lets call it Ego or self for about 40 years. I listened to K and heard something very true, without understanding a thing. Because how can I show the mind, that the mind is the problem? I started to meditate, tried Yoga and the whole stuff and was feeling slightly better, but still full of problems. Then a few weeks ago I had an argument with my sister about a very stupid thing. I was very angry, but I learned to observe myself during that anger (I am sure you find a way to practice anger). Observation without the observer means you are that anger. You can´t resist, you are full of it - no division. Then, a moment later, the observer starts to tell me she, my sister, who i love, is the most stupid thing that lives on this earth. And my mind was working a lot to tell me, that I am right. But I still was observing, without judging, and I felt physical pain to watch at that horrible thing inside me. Not an easy thing to do. Then I saw it. It was the image that I am always right and everybody else is always wrong. Language has its limitations here, but you know when you see it yourself. How can you let this go. It is all you have ever been? Well, understand it with your blood, then you see the whole mind is full of these images. Which are illusions. I did let the image go and an enormous amount of energy and peace entered my mind, which is silence. Now, the last weeks I am watching the Ego, which is still there, like the worst enemy. I am in a peaceful state of silence now (still, not completely) so I can recognice it immideatly when it appears. I go to the root of it, „look at it“ and it disappears. How the Ego took place in the human mind at the first place is also a different question, but if you are able to clear your mind from anger and fear and so on you are able to find out by yourself. Then you start to meditate. Like I did with this comment. It´s fun.

I think he learned english in england But he aducated himself by himself.

@scullyfbi4196

2 жыл бұрын

Auto didactic

The idea that culture isn't an effective way to shape the mind would appear to be in violent conflict with the reality of the current state of affairs in the US. The exploitation of cultural differences are tearing the fabric of our society apart at the seems. With a colossal dose of cognitive dissonance.

@citizenenak

3 жыл бұрын

Incidentally the guests are coming from two entirely different perspectives with respect to the individual.