Dear All,

Krishnamurti tells a friend "It is chance when the known and the unknown walk hand in hand". I read this statement recently in the book 'Non-Guru Guru'. Since then I have been talking to everybody about it. That has prompted me to share it with you all-- I was not in the forum for quite a long time. During the discussion with the friend he asks what would have happened to the boy (K) if was not picked up on the seashore (Adyar beach). Many of you must be knowing that boy Krishnamurti was 'discovered' on seashore at Adyar. My question is: what is the impact of the Unknown in our lives, if there is an Unknown? Now I begin to feel that when I came across K book in a library, the Unknown must have operated. Most definitely it has changed the course of my 'coarse' life even though the coarseness very much still remains in me. Can we call the Unknown the Grace?

Freedom from the known is Attention in the Unknown: Krishnamurti J

Hello Ramesh and welcome back (very much)

I remember Carlos Castaneda writing that there are three things: the known, the unknown and the unknowable.

Since there is no end to knowing (being never complete but always partial) that which has still to be conquered by knowledge is ever-expanding. Each answer reveals a new multiplicity of questions. We never get to the end of it. In this limited sense, knowledge is infinite (it has no end). Yet it is expressed in the form of the finite, discrete facts.

I feel that when K talked of the 'unknown' he did not mean that which could or will become accessible to knowledge but that which knowledge can never reach, the unknowable.

What is the mind? Is it not something that digests 'information' and reforms it? Information means that which has been given form.

Therefore the mind, as it is, cannot deal with that which has no form, it cannot touch it. There is no meeting point, at least from the side which is mind.

One cannot know that which has no form. One can build no image of it. One cannot manipulate it or express it. The mind has no use for it, cannot put it to use, though it may build an image of 'the unknown' and exploit that image.

But even then, the image built is based upon all other images and is still within the known. It is a tight circle the mind, as it is, cannot escape from, though it builds illusions of escape and lives in its illusions.

What is our relation with that which is formless? Did something called 'the unknown' tap the boy K on the shoulder, in the form of Leadbetter? Is it some unknown 'thing' that helps us to choose books or some force which guides us towards an unknown destiny? Or, we have no relationship?

How does form relate to the formless?

This post was last updated by Peng Shu Tse (account deleted) Fri, 17 Feb 2012.

Ramesh G wrote:
Krishnamurti tells a friend "It is chance when the known and the unknown walk hand in hand"

Could this be put differently as follows:

Form cannot approach the formless. From the point of view of form, if and when there is contact, it is by chance rather than by intention.

The known (the mind) may find itself walking alongside the unknown. But that mind, which is still form, would have to be in a very special state for that to happen, no?

Choicelessness may be the midwife of chance, in that case.

Silence of form would be the precondition for the birth of that contact.

This post was last updated by Peng Shu Tse (account deleted) Fri, 17 Feb 2012.

Peng Shu Tse wrote:
Hello Ramesh and welcome back (very much)

yes.
gb

We are watching, not waiting, not expecting anything to happen but watching without end. JK

Peng Shu Tse wrote:
form relate to the formless?

involution.
gb

We are watching, not waiting, not expecting anything to happen but watching without end. JK

Peng Shu Tse wrote:
Could this be put differently as follows:

sure it can Paul...please reinterpret K through the distorted perception of your conditioning...I am sure you can put it better than he..LOL:)

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

Ramesh G wrote:
the Unknown must have operated.

It reveals itself to some one.....
gb

We are watching, not waiting, not expecting anything to happen but watching without end. JK

Dear Peng,

I don't think the Unknown -- I surely don't know what it is -- operates in certain circumstances, states of mind, and conditions. I fancy It playing with most useless chaps! And that's the beauty of it. If I'm good and the Unknown operates, then what's the point of it? All we can say is It is creative and mysterious and beyond the ken of the mind.

Peng Shu Tse wrote:
But that mind, which is still form, would have to be in a very special state for that to happen, no?

Freedom from the known is Attention in the Unknown: Krishnamurti J

GB, Quite possible.

Freedom from the known is Attention in the Unknown: Krishnamurti J

Maybe when the form says 'I don't know' and lives in the not-knowing state without trying to find an answer--at least for some minutes?

Peng Shu Tse wrote:
How does form relate to the formless?

Freedom from the known is Attention in the Unknown: Krishnamurti J

Ramesh G wrote:
My question is: what is the impact of the Unknown in our lives, if there is an Unknown? ... Can we call the Unknown the Grace?

Unknown being creation is unending movement and it is not ruled by cause-effect chain. This movement has order/change inherent in it and is itself beyond them.

The impact is felt/understood/described by mind rooted in time and cause-effect chain.

Can the above two questions be answered by a fragmented mind? Does it have any relationship with the unknown to make any comment about it? What is the quality of mind that can say anything about unknown?

Is unknown Grace or is it the deserving mind that makes possible the manifestation of this quality in unknown?

It is not possible to ask right questions here, but I hope that you will respond.

FLOW WITH LIFE!

Dear Sudhir, I can only say something without knowing what I'm saying. The Unknown is ever present, surrounding us, waiting to enter or has already entered, but the 'me' in us doesn't pave way for the Unknown to take the centre-stage. But the 'me', though apparently strong, is playing a losing game. If the 'me' recognizes the Unknown even dimly, it becomes eligible to be the beloved of the Unknown. Till then the 'me' is like the branch cut off from the tree, to use biblical terms.

Best and Love

Ramesh

Dr.sudhir sharma wrote:
Can the above two questions be answered by a fragmented mind? Does it have any relationship with the unknown to make any comment about it? What is the quality of mind that can say anything about unknown?

Is unknown Grace or is it the deserving mind that makes possible the manifestation of this quality in unknown?

It is not possible to ask right questions here, but I hope that you will respond.

Freedom from the known is Attention in the Unknown: Krishnamurti J

Dr.sudhir sharma wrote:
Unknown being creation is unending movement and it is not ruled by cause-effect chain. This movement has order/change inherent in it and is itself beyond them.

Yes, put this way makes sense.

I what we are terming 'the unknown' the ongoing moment of creation itself (which we are part of) then this moment itself cannot be part of the cause/effect which it unfolds. It is its own cause and its own effect.

I am tempted to say that it 'causes' cause effect, but I know that would be wrong/impertinent.

It relates to something I see with regards to time. Time that flows is measurable (to us). But time itself is immeasurable, and I think this may be what K refers to as eternity.

Eternity is 'timelessness'

Ramesh G wrote:
Can we call the Unknown the Grace?

I think it is speculation. It would end the moment I know the known completely.The problem is that we assume that we know the known completly which is false.The speculation is the result of this fallacy.It ends the moment one knows oneself.Then this distiction may not be necessary.

nothing

My question is: Do we feel that the cool breeze of the Unknown is touching us?
Have be become humble? How often do we say 'I don't know' and live in that not knowing state? Is there a miracle in life?

kamarajugadda Mallik ArjunaRao wrote:
I think it is speculation. It would end the moment I know the known completely.The problem is that we assume that we know the known completly which is false.The speculation is the result of this fallacy.It ends the moment one knows oneself.Then this distiction may not be necessary.

Freedom from the known is Attention in the Unknown: Krishnamurti J

Ramesh G wrote:
My question is: Do we feel that the cool breeze of the Unknown is touching us?
Have be become humble? How often do we say 'I don't know' and live in that not knowing state? Is there a miracle in life?

One is most welcome to continue to stay in the state one chose to stay with, if the endeavour is to aviod illusions, one deeds to be carefull.How does one know that there is something called the "unknown"?If some one knows it,it is in the known, and then it is not unknown any more.This state is only an indication that one does not know what actually the 'known' itself.It is not some materail knowldge,the known is some thing defferent from that.Knowing the known simply means, being aware of one's self-knowldge from moment to moment.If one is enaged with 'unknown',.. wonder if one could aviod illusions. If poetry is what is required, well, the poster has hardly any thing to say.

nothing

Ramesh G wrote:
It is chance when the known and the unknown walk hand in hand

It is experience of the great man, no body disputes.But it is an experience, to which ,even that great man hardly gave any importance.As a past record, it is most likely to creat illusion, a posion for relevetion of trueth.If it is poetry, it is good enough.

nothing

“Seeking is never born of humility.

Isn’t it?

The desire to achieve, to arrive, is part of the pride which conceals itself as seeking.” (J K)

Ramesh G wrote:
Unknown is ever present, surrounding us, waiting to enter or has already entered, but the 'me' in us doesn't pave way for the Unknown to take the centre-stage.

The 'me' by its very construction and nature knows about 'unknown' second hand. Whatever it does to get out of the way of 'unknown' would be an obstacle that will not permit later to take centre- stage. Won't you say that 'me' is helpless in this matter?

Ramesh G wrote:
But the 'me', though apparently strong, is playing a losing game. If the 'me' recognizes the Unknown even dimly, it becomes eligible to be the beloved of the Unknown.

Except by losing its existence, is there anyother way for 'me' to touch unknown, sir?

Although 'me' is surrounded from all sides by unknown, but unless it is not 'willing' to lose its existence without any compulsion, does unknown even know of its existence?

FLOW WITH LIFE!

This post was last updated by Dr.sudhir sharma Sun, 19 Feb 2012.

After reading that anecdote, these thoughts arose in my mind:
1 I have taken for granted the Teachings of K; it has become part of knowledge.
2 Maybe the Unknown has directed my life, but I'm still wallowing in the known.
3 Once the Unknown has touched someone, there's no need to observe, change etc. for all these are the operations of the known mind, though these observations, enquiries are part of the evolution (I'm aware K never believed in psychological evolution) which are to be dropped at some stage.
4 For me the moment of contact with the book of K which I took too seriously is the moment of contact with the Unknown. Maybe be I have pay attention to that moment, honour it, wonder at it. Why did one not throw away the book? Why did it matter so much?

From what K says it seems even he was wondering at the Unknown -- he doesn't claim any monopoly over it.

So it is all attention into what one doesn't know, even though the known is at the forefront.

This is just dialogue, we need not stick to any logic especially K logic. That way it can be highly creative.

Thanks

kamarajugadda Mallik ArjunaRao wrote:
It is experience of the great man, no body disputes.But it is an experience, to which ,even that great man hardly gave any importance.As a past record, it is most likely to creat illusion, a posion for relevetion of trueth.If it is poetry, it is good enough.

Freedom from the known is Attention in the Unknown: Krishnamurti J

Goutam M wrote:
Eternity is 'timelessness'

Then time itself is timelessness.

Time itself is not time-bound as creation itself is not created.

This post was last updated by Peng Shu Tse (account deleted) Sun, 19 Feb 2012.

I am taking Ramesh words as questions and working with them.

Is there something I am being touched by right now, but I have learnt to avoid it, to be insensitive to it? I do not know what it is or how to open myself to it. I feel that it must be sacred and that I are too blemished.

Mind tries to go there, to answer the question, but all that comes up is sentiment and the awareness that I can be fooling myself. So I leave the question. That door cannot be opened by thought.

The question must be answered but I can do nothing. Can I stay with that, or is it too disturbing?

And, who am I in all this? The question must be faced, must be answered, but is this 'me' the one to force it? The 'me' cannot go there, it is forbidden. The me is dropped. The question is answering itself, somewhere, moment by moment, but 'I' am not there to see it.

I am left with this. The 'me' has to face itself, fully, before the other can be faced.

I have to remove my shoes to tread on sacred ground.

I have horse shoes. They have been nailed on by experience. What use is experience to me in approaching the unknown?

This post was last updated by Peng Shu Tse (account deleted) Sun, 19 Feb 2012.

Dear Ramesh,

The observations made in the posting #21 are note worthy.Thanks.

nothing

Can we be innocent of time, innocent of our previous moment's mistakes? I maybe blemished but still I can quest for the sacred without the idea of blemish.

K's aim, I think, is to push us out of time.

Dear Peng,

I am not countering, just expressing my feelings, thoughts.

Thanks

Peng Shu Tse wrote:
I feel that it must be sacred and that I are too blemished.

Freedom from the known is Attention in the Unknown: Krishnamurti J

about the unknown, it could be indeed this:

99,9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
9999999999999999999999999999999......%....and yet, this being in the infinite, this counting is wrong:)

I like the "idea"!.

Dan.

Ramesh G wrote:
4 For me the moment of contact with the book of K which I took too seriously is the moment of contact with the Unknown. Maybe be I have pay attention to that moment, honour it, wonder at it. Why did one not throw away the book? Why did it matter so much?

The following was extracted from an interview of Saral Bohm by Javier Gómez Rodríguez in September 2004. It is essentially the same, though in a more conversational style, as Saral’s remembrance speech at the tribute for David held at The Krishnamurti Centre, Brockwood Park, in April 2005.
It was either in 1959 or the beginning of the 1960s that they first met. It was probably in the Spring of 1960. This is what happened.

«David used to talk to me about his work, about the more philosophical ideas, because I, though not a scientist, was interested in that. He always made it understandable because he was such a good teacher. So I knew that in Quantum Theory, which was the main thing he was working on, there was this question that you can’t separate the observing instrument and that which is being observed. And one day we were in the public library in Bristol. (It’s so strange when you think about how things happen.) They had a very good philosophy section. There were all sorts of books, books by Gurdjieff and Ouspensky and other people like that;
Dave was going through all these things. And I picked up a book off the shelf and it fell open to a page and I read the sentence “the observer is he observed”. So I passedit to Dave and said: “Well, Dave, this must be something to do with Quantum Theory.”

And he just read the whole book through right there and then. He read very quickly; he could do speed reading. He couldn’t stand it that I to k such a long time to read anything. He also had a sort of photographic mind; he saw wholes, he saw hings as a whole. And he was absolutely fascinated by this book, The First and Last Freedom.Dave was very, very anxious to see if there were any more books. They had the three Commentaries on Living, so he took those home from the library. He said I should also read The First and Last Freedom, so he borrowed that as well.»

With K, there's quite a few examples of the Unknown tapping fairly ordinary people on the shoulder ... :-)

T

This post was last updated by B Teulada (account deleted) Mon, 20 Feb 2012.

All knowledge ends with 'I don't know', all knowledge begins with 'I don't know', in 'I don't know' is the ending and the beginning. What is the quality of energy in the sate of the mind that says 'I don't know'? What is the relationship between the energy of 'I don't know' and the energy of the unknown? Surely, the unknown cannot be devoid of energy.

This post was last updated by Gokul Gopisetti Mon, 20 Feb 2012.

Ramesh G wrote:
I maybe blemished but still I can quest for the sacred without the idea of blemish.

Thank you Ramesh. Yes, two thoughts may arise, even simultaneously:

I am blemished and cannot look.

I am blemished and must look.

Mind faces that paradox.

And the mind that has not quested for the sacred has not ever faced this paradox and therefore never asks the question: Can the "I am blemished" be dropped?

If the idea of blemish is dropped, maybe the sacred is already there. I don't know, but it seems so.

Gokul Gopisetti wrote:
All knowledge ends with 'I don't know',..

This can be only a state devoid of all ideas/images.

Gokul Gopisetti wrote:
all knowledge begins with 'I don't know',..

This is the mind verbally desiring to accumulate ideas/images.

Gokul Gopisetti wrote:
in 'I don't know' is the ending and the beginning.

Can you make this clearer, please?

FLOW WITH LIFE!