dhirendra singh wrote:
Just to add, not only religious peoples but all the peoples identified with some idea are so.

I'm not saying that it is wrong or right to read the Bible, or the Vedas, Gita, Coran and so on, but regarding religious matters, i think it is just meaningless.

As it is actually meaningless to read Marx or Marc-Aurèle or Churchill, regarding politics, or Jung, Adler and Freud regarding psychology.

This post was last updated by au b () (account deleted) Fri, 16 Mar 2012.

Patricia Hemingway wrote:
And what is that? What purpose does 'my center' serve? Is it to be nurtured - or ended?

The center has to be ended, it is not 'your' center, it is just the disorder of the self, not yours, human disorder.

And, if I may add, any feeling is not yours, but human feeling.

dhirendra singh wrote:
Just to add, not only religious peoples but all the peoples identified with some idea are so.

:)

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

au b () wrote:
So, why do people encourage and sustain tradition, dhirendra ? A mind that points out a kind or a form of corruption is not necessarily a corrupt mind. Corruption is all over the world, and that, is a fact.

Hello au b,

So here is a question: Is there any value, worth, meaning, in poetry, or in music? Or are these always a tendancy toward corruption? I am asking the question. Have been examining this for some time. I do not know the answer. Can we solve this together?

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Fri, 16 Mar 2012.

au b () wrote:
The center has to be ended, it is not 'your' center, it is just the disorder of the self, not yours, human disorder.

Can this statement 'centre is human disorder' be made by the mind before the centre has ended? On what basis is this statement made by the 'free' mind?

FLOW WITH LIFE!

Peter Kesting wrote:
So here is a question: Is there any value, worth, meaning, in poetry, or in music?

The state of the mind listening to poetry/music will count here. If it finds any value, worth, meaning after/during listening, than corruption is present.

FLOW WITH LIFE!

Peter Kesting wrote:
Is there any value, worth, meaning, in poetry, or in music? Or are these always a tendancy toward corruption?

What do you mean, Peter, by the word "corruption" ?

Do you mean a lack of authenticity ? A sense of inner poverty, of mechanical repetition, of conformity to a pattern, of imitation ?

au b () wrote:
The center has to be ended

If I may, sir, this is a wrong statement. "Has to" may be a wrong statement.

dhirendra singh wrote:
This is the question, the issue, au b.

Would you say, sirs, that self-inflation is corruption ?

au b () wrote:
Douglas MacRae-Smith wrote:

nothing anyone says can be fundamentally true
Au b asks:
Are you being relativistic, Douglas ? Do you think as many that at each one one's own truth ?

1)Pretty much any statement can be proved false

2)chacun sa verité = chacun son illusion

Look, see, let go

au b () wrote:
The center has to be ended, it is not 'your' center, it is just the disorder of the self, not yours, human disorder.

If the center is not demanding anything, not judging, why end it?

And how? Where is this center?

Look, see, let go

au b () wrote:
Peter Kesting wrote:

Is there any value, worth, meaning, in poetry, or in music? Or are these always a tendancy toward corruption?
What do you mean, Peter, by the word "corruption" ?

Do you mean a lack of authenticity ? A sense of inner poverty, of mechanical repetition, of conformity to a pattern, of imitation ?

Recommend

All of that and inflation of psychological self. Strengthening of identification. Impediments to/ movement away from clarity.

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Fri, 16 Mar 2012.

Peter Kesting wrote:
So here is a question: Is there any value, worth, meaning, in poetry, or in music? Or are these always a tendancy toward corruption? I am asking the question. Have been examining this for some time. I do not know the answer. Can we solve this together?

Maybe you should start another thread? - and expand - I cant even understand the question

Look, see, let go

Would you say that self is corruption ?

Douglas MacRae-Smith wrote:
Peter Kesting wrote:

So here is a question: Is there any value, worth, meaning, in poetry, or in music? Or are these always a tendancy toward corruption? I am asking the question. Have been examining this for some time. I do not know the answer. Can we solve this together?
Maybe you should start another thread? - and expand - I cant even understand the question

Look, see, let go

I am simply questioning occupation in/with these fields.

Music is a past time for this person. Its existence and beauty seems to be a wonder full mystery, but perhaps an illusion.

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Fri, 16 Mar 2012.

au b () wrote:
Would you say that self is corruption ?

Yes sir.

Peter Kesting wrote:
Music is a past time for this person. Its existence and beauty seems to be a a wonder full mystery, but perhaps an illusion.

Also one is interested in science and mathematics. A great deal of beauty there as well. Wonder!

Peter Kesting wrote:
Music is a past time for this person. Its existence and beauty seems to be a wonder full mystery, but perhaps an illusion.

Peter Kesting wrote:
Also one is interested in science and mathematics. A great deal of beauty there as well. Wonder!

Music is technical. Mathematics - technical. Empirical science is technical inquiry.

In all of them - if approached purely and without psychological interference(!) - there is thought in its place, which is: in the realm of the technical. Thought as measurement - and this is where measurement has purpose.

And all thought can do is measure. Think about it. Technically! :)

au b () wrote:
Would you say, sirs, that self-inflation is corruption ?

Activities of self are always in a limited field of consciousness. It can not cross its boundaries. Its activeness itself is corruption.

FLOW WITH LIFE!

Peter Kesting wrote:
Also one is interested in science and mathematics. A great deal of beauty there as well. Wonder!

Beauty in and of something is appreciated by limited consciousness. There is Beauty beyond this beauty which is enveloping everything all the time.

FLOW WITH LIFE!

au b () wrote:
Reciting so-called sacred books, poesy and so on, what is the value of it? What is the importance of it, sir ?

I meant only veda. leave all those things. somebody is doing something, do you think it has got connection with the rest of the world.JK spoke, very few people know him and does this have any connection with the rest of the world.
gb

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

This post was last updated by ganesan balachandran Sat, 17 Mar 2012.

dhirendra singh wrote:
K was very straight forward speaker,

Again in the last talk why he pointed out something sacred in india without pointing out exactly and left it as a question. even i cannot be straight forward about veda. software can be destroyed.this much only i can hint.
gb

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

dhirendra singh wrote:
I don't remember that K was ever specially reading veda or aurbindo's translation of veda.

He understood more than what Aurobindo understood, he lived them as per the understanding of it. he was completely surrounded by the ritualistic aspects of veda when he was young and as such they don't have meaning about which i too agree, but the meaning behind the verse were very much transparent to him.
gb

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

Come on Ganesan, what about letting speak K about it:

Jiddu Krishnamurti, in "The Only Revolution"- India, wrote:

A man came to see us that afternoon. He said he was a believer
in Vedanta. He spoke English very well for he had been educated
in one of the universities and had a bright, sharp intellect. He was a
lawyer, earning a great deal of money, and his keen eyes looked at
you speculatively, weighing, and somewhat anxious. He appeared
to have read a great deal, including something of western theology.
He was a middle-aged man, rather thin and tall, with the dignity of
a lawyer who had won many cases.

He said: "I have heard you talk and what you are saying is pure
Vedanta, brought up to date but of the ancient tradition." We asked
him what he meant by Vedanta. He replied: "Sir, we postulate that
there is only Brahman who creates the world and the illusion of it,
and the Atman - which is in every human being - is of that
Brahman. Man has to awaken from this everyday consciousness of
plurality and the manifest world, much as he would awaken from a
dream. Just as this dreamer creates the totality of his dream so the
individual consciousness creates the totality of the manifest world
and other people. You, sir, don't say all this but surely you mean all
this for you have been born and bred in this country and, though
you have been abroad most of your life, you are part of this ancient
tradition. India has produced you, whether you like it or not; you
are the product of India and you have an Indian mind. Your
gestures, your statue-like stillness when you talk, and your very
looks are part of this ancient heritage. Your teaching is surely the
continuation of what our ancients have taught since time
immemorial."

Let us brush aside whether the speaker is an Indian brought up
in this tradition, conditioned in this culture, and whether he is the
summation of this ancient teaching. First of all he is not an Indian,
that is to say, he does not belong to this nation or to the community
of Brahmins, though he was born in it. He denies the very tradition
with which you invest him. He denies that his teaching is the
continuity of the ancient teachings. He has not read any of the
sacred books of India or of the West because they are unnecessary
for a man who is aware of what is going on in the world - of the
behaviour of human beings with their endless theories, with the
accepted propaganda of two thousand or five thousand years which
has become the tradition, the truth, the revelation.

To such a man who denies totally and completely the
acceptance of the word, the symbol with its conditioning, to him
truth is not a secondhand affair. If you had listened to him, sir, he
has from the very beginning said that any acceptance of authority
is the very denial of truth, and he has insisted that one must be
outside all culture, tradition and social morality. If you had
listened, then you would not say that he is an Indian or that he is
continuing the ancient tradition in modern language. He totally
denies the past, its teachers, its interpreters, its theories and its
formulas.

Truth is never in the past. The truth of the past is the ashes of
memory; memory is of time, and in the dead ashes of yesterday
there is no truth. Truth is a living thing, not within the field of time.
So, having brushed all that aside, we can now take up the
central issue of Brahman, which you postulate. Surely, sir, the very
assertion is a theory invented by an imaginative mind - whether it
be Shankara or the modern scholarly theologian. You can
experience a theory and say that it is so, but that is like a man who
has been brought up and conditioned in the Catholic world having
visions of Christ. Ob- viously such visions are the projection of his
own conditioning; and those who have been brought up in the
tradition of Krishna have experiences and visions born of their
culture. So experience does not prove a thing. To recognise the
vision as Krishna or Christ is the outcome of conditioned
knowledge; therefore it is not real at all but a fancy, a myth,
strengthened through experience and utterly invalid. Why do you
want a theory at all, and why do you postulate any belief? This
constant assertion of belief is an indication of fear - fear of
everyday life, fear of sorrow, fear of death and of the utter
meaninglessness of life. Seeing all this you invent a theory and the
more cunning and erudite the theory the more weight it has. And
after two thousand or ten thousand years of propaganda that theory
invariably and foolishly becomes "the truth".

But if you do not postulate any dogma, then you are face to face
with what actually is. The "what is", is thought, pleasure, sorrow
and the fear of death. When you understand the structure of your
daily living - with its competition, greed, ambition and the search
for power - then you will see not only the absurdity of theories,
saviours and gurus, but you may find an ending to sorrow, an
ending to the whole structure which thought has put together.
The penetration into and the understanding of this structure is
meditation. Then you will see that the world is not an illusion but a
terrible reality which man, in his relationship with his fellow man,
has constructed. It is this which has to be understood and not your
theories of Vedanta, with the rituals and all the paraphernalia of
organized religion.

When man is free, without any motive of fear, of envy or of
sorrow, then only is the mind naturally peaceful and still. Then it
can see not only the truth in daily life from moment to moment but
also go beyond all perception; and therefore there is the ending of
the observer and the observed, and duality ceases.
But beyond all this, and not related to this struggle, this vanity
and despair, there is - and this is not a theory - a stream that has no
beginning and no end; a measureless movement that the mind can
never capture.

When you hear this, sir, obviously you are going to make a
theory of it, and if you like this new theory you will propagate it.
But what you propagate is not the truth. The truth is only when you
are free from the ache, anxiety and aggression which now fill your
heart and mind. When you see all this and when you come upon
that benediction called love, then you will know the truth of what
is being said.

That being said, and brushing aside K who is absolutely not an authority,
I pointed out that "understanding is not a revelation, it has to be undertaken" (#130).

Veda being a "revealed" text, it is a thing for lazy minds, or minds who want to believe, the minds of the tradition. So, either one is a consommator of religious traditional texts, created by others in the ancient times, either one is an actor of real understanding for and within oneself, into the present, but the two don't seem to be very conciliable, as far as I see it.

There are indeed two distinct positions: tradition, which is repeating and conforming, or true understanding, which comes about from real alone inquiry, and seeing by oneself things as they actually are, not through the words of another whether it is the Veda tradition or the "K tradition", but difficult of saying that, as it sounds quite difficult, absurd or impossible (at least for a sane mind) to make a tradition of what K has said without entering into inner conflict, contrarily to the Veda which is explicitely a revealed tradition, involving organized religions, theories, concepts and dogmas, and all the rest of the interpretative following process that the mind is so accustomed to, right ?

Dr.sudhir sharma wrote:

Beauty in and of something is appreciated by limited consciousness. There is Beauty beyond this beauty which is enveloping everything all the time.

I think what I am looking at here has to do with esthetics. There is the beautiful and the ugly.There is also the deeper, perhaps beyond all of that. In the beautiful and the ugly there is programing both in the long time, in genetics, evolved structure, and in ones life time experience. In the deeper, perhaps, what is there is not beauty, but beyond that, love only. Still there is on this on this level where we also live our relation to the beautiful and the ugly. This includes good tasting food, sexuality, poetry, the beauty of nature, art, music, also literature, theatre, and scientific insight, the deeper nature of nature, and more. There is judging here and going toward and avoiding, and ego involvment.

How in each moment to put all of these in their proper place and keep self out.

But I don't think one can simply ignore the existance of any of it.

So I go off to do a bit of music today and watch everything that happens. I hope all of us involved will rightly relate to it all and enjoy the event. .

Enjoyment, also part of this field.

In any case there will be the mirror.

:)

au b () wrote:
Surely, sir, the very
assertion is a theory invented by an imaginative mind - whether it
be Shankara or the modern scholarly theologian. You can
experience a theory and say that it is so, but that is like a man who
has been brought up and conditioned in the Catholic world having
visions of Christ. Ob- viously such visions are the projection of his
own conditioning;

Where do scientific theories fit into all of this? (evolution, relativity, etc.) I am not chalenging anything here, just putting the question. I'm wondering how people here see this.

Peter Kesting wrote:
How in each moment to put all of these in their proper place and keep self out.

If one is asking this question, then there is no option but to stay with the observing the activities of self that judges/categorizes/chooses etc. The question signifies that understanding of the functioning of the mind is not ripe/mature enough to keep the self out.

FLOW WITH LIFE!

ganesan balachandran wrote:
He understood more than what Aurobindo understood, he lived them as per the understanding of it. he was completely surrounded by the ritualistic aspects of veda when he was young and as such they don't have meaning about which i too agree, but the meaning behind the verse were very much transparent to him.

K: Ask them. All the men on one side, all the women on the other! (Laughs) God, you still are Indians, aren't you!

Q: (Inaudible)

K: Tomorrow, or when we next meet, you're all sit mixed up! (Laughs) Right? Not all the men on this side (laughs), like the zoo! When shall we meet again? You arrange it. I don't know - you tell me.

Q: There's a children's talk in between.

K: Yes. You arrange it and tell me.

Is that enough for today?

Q: Yes.

K: Bombardment. (Gap) ...great many scientists, a great many blah, blah, blah, blah - right? - I talk to ministers, prime ministers, all that rot, and they kind of say to me, 'Oh, I want to learn a great deal from you'. The next moment they're telling about Rig Veda! (Laughs)

That's enough.

I don't know

K:, I want to know what it means to die. Ask that question yourself, sitting there and ask it. What does it mean to die? The end of everything that you have known, right? Your attachments, your bank account, if you have a bank account, you can't take it with you; you lose your job, you lose your wife, children, everything comes to an end. Right? Now, can you end everything now? - your attachments - you understand? - end your pooja, your gods, your rituals, your knowledge, your attachments and all the sacred learning in the Vedas, in the Upanishads, all that comes to an end. Right? So can you die to all that now? You understand what I am saying? You follow? Take one thing: can you die voluntarily to your attachments without any effort? That's what is going to happen when you die. You don't argue with death and say please give me two more days. Can you end your attachment now, today? That's it! Because you are afraid to be lonely, you are afraid what might happen if you free yourself from attachment and so on. So, fear dictates. Now, can you end fear? We went into it the other day.

I don't know

This post was last updated by dhirendra singh Sun, 18 Mar 2012.

K:So thought creates the thinker, the censor, the observer. And is it possible to think without the censor? Do you understand? Is it possible to observe without the observer? Don't agree or disagree, sirs. Please, you have to find out. One direct experience of your own is worth more than all the books put together. If you can find out for yourself what is true, you can burn all the Vedas, the Upanishads, the Gita, and the Bible; they are not worth looking at.

I don't know

This post was last updated by dhirendra singh Sun, 18 Mar 2012.