Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
Experimenter's Corner | moderated by John Raica

Pages from the Book of Life


Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 283 in total
Tue, 19 May 2015 #1
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 686 posts in this forum Offline

Hopefully this new thread will not end up in a 'calendar' format, with carefully selected quotes and beautiful pictures, but rather offer some authentic pointers towards a spiritual or 'holistic' way of life. Many of them will be certainly inspired by the timeless truths of the K Teachings, but our fine readers and participants are free to bring in their own favourite insights- especially those which worked out in their own life.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 22 May 2015 #2
Thumb_de4 Dan McDermott United States 131 posts in this forum Offline

Normally I feel that I am separate from my thinking: that there is a 'me' that is quite substancial and continuous and awake (except when asleep unless I reappear in my 'dream states'). Now, in inquiring into all this,
I see that 'I' am actually not separate from 'my' thoughts; that I actually AM my thoughts and as these thoughts issue from my memories, experiences, beliefs etc., that they are limited in this way and hence so am 'I'. And this situation is not particular to me but is the situation with everyone. Everyone has this sensation of themselves being separate from their thought. So this is a universal situation. And since myself is not different qualitatively from any other 'self' (in fact doesn't actually exist separate from the 'stream' of thought', the stream of 'becoming'), the question arises: If 'I' am not separate from this movement of 'becoming', if 'I' AM this movement of 'becoming', and this 'becoming' is universal among humanity, who am I, really? When (if) the 'becoming' is gone beyond, what are we in essence?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 29 May 2015 #3
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 190 posts in this forum Offline

after all what was recently said...for my own life, I see the need of a catalyst of some sort because thinking cannot go beyond thinking, yet it tries hard ,exactly like my lawnmower cannot fly from Ireland to the north pole....well the lawnmower did not try yet..

A catalyst is triggering and participating somehow in a reaction, the result will not contain the catalyst in it...it is vital to start and help with a reaction...

before any insight, revealing, meditation, kundalini, turning on of the other process etc etc etc something (must) happens to trigger somehow, such event!

For me , I mean not as a Universal truth, yet it could be,
what is found in our unhappy lives is such a trigger; to be so called unhappy is part of a process which has a purpose to bring us from a the known to somewhere else unknown.., it is practically a mean to awake some sort of guidance for us, when I sense what it is!!

to seek for happiness is again finding for more unhappiness, yet of course from time to time some rewards do work up to a point, the analyser has its own world and so its own rewards, always containing in all cases some suffering of some sort(fear ,anxiety,more cravings etc etc etc).......when thought is touching such trigger with its dirty hands, then nothing new, radical, different and in goodness never happens..the trigger does not work.....so there is no other process turned on, shitty life..yet pretending that all is fine of course..and for some it can be yes...this demands possession and means to do all what I want, and this is going to be stolen from others of course as alone I do not even survive...

well of course here I mention suffering-sorrow as a catalyst..so far I do not see any other..if there are some I do not see them....

In what I am saying , it is then somehow sorrow which decides instead of me as an analyser where to go...as sorrow cannot be analytically solved, understood etc..it is the perfect trigger........

then at some stage,when having spent much time in this corner it can be perceived for what it is, a warning ,a signal that what I am up to is wrong, when it happens; we know sorrow because we do not listen, and we do not listen because we do not know about such warning, which can be perceived as a helper of some sort....

then each time something is wrong in my thoughts , this warning can eventually be operational,if I can sense it each time....

A question with no answer sought: let us say that I am not loony, what or who is guiding then ??

Dan ...........

This post was last updated by Daniel Paul. Fri, 29 May 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 30 May 2015 #4
Thumb_de4 Dan McDermott United States 131 posts in this forum Offline

B: The other way is easier. It gives something whereas this gives nothing.

Krishnamurti: This gives everything if you touch it.

B: But the other is easier.

Krishnamurti: You see I am terribly interested in how has the mind of Krishnamurti maintained this state of innocence?

P: You may have been an exception. Did you have a 'centre' to wipe away?

Krishnamurti: No.

I found this very interesting and have in the past: He said he never had this "center of darkness" like us and that as long as there is any "shadow of thnought" that we can not "touch" the "other". So as I have (am) more than a "shadow of thought", I have to take this "other" on faith that 'it' is there because he said so and implies that if one does not reach this in one's life, then one has really never lived. This is where the 'circus' begins. The 'search' for that which cannot' be found through 'search'; subtle, gross, etc. Like a 'Koan'. Why do I have 'faith' in what this man says is 'possible' for humanity when everything points in the opposite direction: more division, more killing, more poverty and misery etc. Do I take some part of it, his teaching, enough to buoy me along? If some person said to me :"you're problem is that you have not accepted Jesus,Allah, etc., into your heart. If you do your life will be beautiful and you will be with them after death..." Though that appeals somehow to many, it's too far out for me...but then what is this 'carrot' of the 'Other' that K speaks of that "gives everything if you touch it.." but you can't 'touch it' if you don't 'disappear'! This business gives one pause...and makes one wonder. All the traditions use 'time' to get to the 'goal'. K says 'time' is out where this is concerned in that 'time' is 'thought' and "anything that thought touches is not Real." Really quite a 'puzzle'...

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sat, 30 May 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 02 Jun 2015 #5
Thumb_de4 Dan McDermott United States 131 posts in this forum Offline

K has spoken of myself as being similar in danger to a "snake" or a "precipice". I can understand about the latter two,since my brain reacts to their danger even before I am aware of them. And I can understand intellectually that I am dangerous in the sense of my basic 'divisiveness' (me and you etc.), also my personal beliefs, pursuits, violence, competitiveness etc. but I cannot even 'imagine' how I could see myself, as I am: a relatively decent, relatively intelligent, relatively compassionate fellow as so posing a threat to humanity that my brain would recoil, as from the cliff and the snake, just from a good glimpse at me; (that which my very brain has wrought and nurtured)...so where would such an'insight',that seems so improbable, come from that would have the requisite energy to put myself (thought-time) in my proper place? As I say, I can't even imagine it....

In thinking a bit more on this, I can see how IF one saw oneself as "the World", truly saw and felt the truth of that: that one IS the World, then this situation of the 'I' would be one of 'darkness', darkness in the sense that it has cut itself off, and imprisoned the brain in a prison of its own making. And out of that alienation, with its sorrow, confusion, fear and conflict, great harm has, and is being done. Then when one has had that realisation that one is truly the world: all of humanity,i.e., the reappearance of this separative, limited 'I' in one's psyche, with all its memories, attachments, sense of 'individuality' etc. WOULD BE like a snake in the corner of the room...so how is one to see with that clarity if one is actually the world, not theoretically, but actually see and feel that one IS the world? How can one see that one is the "world" when one is still attached, when one still has a sense of one's individuality, one's 'me'ness..? You can't. You can take it on 'faith', but....

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Tue, 02 Jun 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 03 Jun 2015 #6
Thumb_de4 Dan McDermott United States 131 posts in this forum Offline

So not 'having' this deep total insight; this realisation of the Truth, "enlightenment" whatever word you want to use...not having this would be the 'root' of all man's sorrow. I have not had it and therefore I am in sorrow? Some of the voices on these forums say that they have found this state of mind, and express a kind of joy when describing their understanding, their 'freedom from the known'...I hear K saying to the ones he spoke with: " I will show it to you" but from what I see they never 'listen'...nor do I if his word:"listening" means this total revolution of the brain.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 04 Jun 2015 #7
Thumb_de4 Dan McDermott United States 131 posts in this forum Offline

I was thinking about death this morning...physical death. I wondered what the fear of that was all about. Death as I usually consider it is the ending of my taking in the sights and sounds of the world around. The ending of all my memories of all my experiences good and bad. But in the wondering about it there were also sounds coming from outside; Birds, rain, house sounds,...there was sound in my head and sound outside my head. The latter, I (my thinking) would register the outside sounds but after the immediate recognition would no longer hear them in their 'fullness' and becoming aware of this, I wondered if all the sounds outside and inside me could all have 'equal weight', not favoring one over the other but moving simply with whatever was happening, flowing along with whatever was taking place. There was a resistance to this: thought it seems does not want to 'flow', but 'flow' and 'conclude', 'flow' and 'conclude' etc. "Static" not "fluid". And it occured to me that it was the 'knower' who was afraid of 'death'. That he would no longer be here to 'experience' and 'name' and 'record' the sights and sounds of the world.... But it struck me that the irony here was that this 'knower', 'experiencer', this 'me' was already DEAD! It was made up of the past, it was the dead past of memories, fear and images... it stands in the doorway to the senses and blocks the real, the present, the always new, fresh, live, contact with the world around. And in this sense, its 'death' would not be a tragedy but a 'blessing'.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 15 Jun 2015 #8
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 190 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Thanks for your posts. I always find them interesting as I'm sure others do.

Well I appreciate , the point to write here is to try to say to others a quite precise experiment reproducing itself differently each time but on the same wavelength, so then it is fine...I was thinking about leaving soon, so far each time this idea came to me something, like here your words, happens, so I keep on writing...

I use that post to say that behind the word sorrow I put this: frustration, discontentment, mental suffering, boredom, sadness, depression, meaningless life, fear, anxiety, dissatisfaction, etc...so it is quite a wide spectrum...
what a job for a single word...
the word dukkha in the past times of the Buddha would have such job...but this is an old word,which is more than fine, but now the meaning is gone ...

All those words to signify that whatever I-we are up to, it is never good enough,as long as it is in the field of the analyser...

when the otherness is there ,there is none of that is what I know..such life was free of sorrow , fear, etc..and meaningful..

sorrow says: I am here to help, please leave me alone, do not touch me...etc

and I say yes that is precisely the point...and for me it is not coincidence.

Here I find too a remarkable possible more than a coincidence, that it works like physical pain up to a point...this point being : I do not know if physical pain is a catalyst too,as it is obviously a symptom...so when I am in some physical pain, I recently had gall stone so a heavy pain for 8 hours ish I tried to be aware of that..I did come to any obvious observation yet..I must precise that I am not at all a masochist :-))

the thing is that pain whether mental or physical could use the same "program", the same stream...this is more playing with logic for the moment and may be just wrong..

thanks..the other dan..

Dan ...........

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 16 Jun 2015 #9
Thumb_de4 Dan McDermott United States 131 posts in this forum Offline

The birds are so 'predictable', they awaken each morning early with seemingly the same 'enthusiasm', the same bursting energy, that flows out in their familiar, 'own', sounds (songs), they search for food endlessly and then they sleep or they are quiet. Their squabbles with one another are short and harmless...but who of us would trade our lives for that kind of 'simplicity'? That kind of 'order'? Comparitively to my mind, we are so 'different', different from all of nature. Where the maps have all been laid out long ago and here we are in this strange world, and unlike the other animals, seemingly we are alone even when we surround ourselves with others and with, money , things and religious beliefs and 'gurus'but always 'feel' that something is missing. Or do we?, do some find a satisfaction, that takes them 'through'? K. has laid the 'root' of our 'problem', in his eyes, as "self-centeredness", The 'center' of a "circle of darkness" that is my 'individual' self. That feeling of 'me'. I wonder if the birds and animals have such a notion; they don't seem to, though they have their 'territoriality', and their families and little 'tribes' but probably not the 'me and mine' against the world attitude. K.s image of this 'self' or 'selves' confined in a mental 'prison', dissatisfied, confused, seeking some sort of permanent 'happiness', security, not being able to 'break out' because he doesn't realise that the 'prison' is of his own making. It's a powerful, troubling image, but is it true? And as more people come into the world and resources diminish and no means of equitably distributing those resources is possible because of the results of this 'self-centeredness'(?) which breeds greed, corruption,fear,the situation gets more and more ugly, more painful for so many. So, if this is the case, can 'Humanity' (I) move out of, away from this as K. called it: the "stream of self-centeredness"? And is that really the root of the problem or is this just the way it's supposed, destined, fated, to go?

At this point, I think not.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Tue, 16 Jun 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 16 Jun 2015 #10
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 12 posts in this forum Offline

Is it possible to move out of the stream of self-centeredness?

Just what is this "self" that we see as the center, the problem? The "self" is thought -- the thinker. The "self" is a psychological construction by the physical brain, and not one thing more.

There is no "getting rid of" thinking and thought. Freedom is brought about through awareness, the continual awareness of what thinking is and what thinking does. With this awareness comes abandonment, which is choiceless, effortless, and so without conflict.

max

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 16 Jun 2015 #11
Thumb_de4 Dan McDermott United States 131 posts in this forum Offline

max greene wrote:
Is it possible to move out of the stream of self-centeredness?

Just what is this "self" that we see as the center, the problem? The "self" is thought -- the thinker. The "self" is a psychological construction by the physical brain, and not one thing more.

There is no "getting rid of" thinking and thought. Freedom is brought about through awareness, the continual awareness of what thinking is and what thinking does. With this awareness comes abandonment, which is choiceless, effortless, and so without conflict.

The way I see it Max and it could be wrong, is that everything you write and everything I write is written by the 'self': myself and yourself. You speak about it as if it wasn't you, that you have set it aside somehow. I can't see it that way. You may call thought, the 'self' (yourself) unnecessary, dangerous, and side with "awareness" but that to me is just another manifestation of the 'self' looking for an answer. That's how I see it. I hope your freedom is real, and if it is, it does mean that there is the possibility to go beyond...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 16 Jun 2015 #12
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 12 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
The way I see it . . . is that everything you write and everything I write is written by the 'self': myself and yourself.

If this is truly realized, and if it is realized that all that is done is done by the self, in the name of the self, and that there is no possible escape from the self, then isn't this state of realization -- awareness -- actually freedom from the self?

To be aware of something, anything, requires contact, which is unity. But awareness also infers separation -- that of which there is an awareness. Awareness, in its nature, is both unity and abandonment, which is flow and movement.

max

This post was last updated by max greene Tue, 16 Jun 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 17 Jun 2015 #13
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 190 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:

max greene wrote:

If this is truly realized, and if it is realized that all that is done is done by the self, in the name of the self, and that there is no possible escape from the self, then isn't this state of realization -- awareness -- actually freedom from the self?

That sounds right...it's the 'truly realized' part that seems, for me, to be the difficulty.

max greene wrote:
The difficulty for all of us.

hello Max and the other Dan....

without the so called self producing something very painful, unknown, perceived as a suffering so immediately rejected mentally yet this does not work at all, , without that I do not see how it would be possible to realize anything at all but only verbal and intellectual sort of ideal, since the analyser (self or whatever name) must have a dam good reason to stop itself..as for me this is what it is about....I have nothing as such against intellectual ideals but so far in my life, this brought nothing in goodness at all, never but cruel delusions and sorrows ...when something else did brought goodness..

so far I only came across experiment wise, since very young, about what is behind pain as a symptom and a catalyst to leave free in order to force the analyser to totally distrust itself WITHOUT ANY MOTIVE BEHIND, so that includes what is unconscious.The "no motive behind" is vital I explain why for me it is so, down below..

This "doing" , this defeat, implies that the usual analytical bla bla bla goes on and that for once "something " can hear it and not listen to this BS...this is one talent of sorrow as a catalyst to be able to force the analyser to sort of freeze its dictatorship, even for a second, because for a second it will be living sorrow, which is its true mental state...it is like a switch-on button that his living sorrow is, because for such "time", the analyser is not the leader of the brain....

in such moment, the analyser still is there active as usual and somehow sorrow as a catalyst plays its part in creating "something X" which allows anyone in such state to not listen to the usual analytical bla bla bla .....sorrow is then lived, it can be so ONLY if there is no desire to go beyond and even to solve it.....this includes again the unconscious..

I know that for me because since I have seen for myself the depth and strength of this unconscious, it is unconscious for the superficial analyser , I know that in most cases this unconscious had been hiding the real roots of my own deep deep pain of sorrow, the roots showed themselves by leaving sorrow alone, me is defeated...so to actually live sorrow, if it is a real doing with no intention but just somehow to leave it alone, is a "realising" factor...something else not there before ,comes into being and start functioning...the analysing system can negate itself when in pain....

If there is another way or other ways I really have nothing against that at all...but it is then possible too that there is nothing else at all to start with..but sorrow...this goes along with k words actually..it seemed quite "easy" for him..

this is what I know for me.....

but the subject is huge...here I stick to an eventual starting of another process by being defeated by sorrow which if let alone by turning on another process is allowing the discovery of what is that pain of life about....another movement has started then , what may come next is not any more in the analyser capacities anyway...

Dan ...........

This post was last updated by Daniel Paul. Wed, 17 Jun 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 18 Jun 2015 #14
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 190 posts in this forum Offline

That is, thought identified with an 'idea' has continuance as the 'I' but a thing that continues is constantly decaying, it knows birth and death. In that sense it continues , but the 'thing' that continues can never renew itself. There is renewal only when there is an 'ending'.
Say, for example, that I am worried over a problem which I am trying to solve, and I keep on worrying. What happens ? There is no renewal, is there? The problem continues day after day, week after week, year after year. But when the worrying is ended, there is a renewal, and then the problem has a different significance.

....death as an absolute potential always present is a very "relaxing trick"..in fact death like sorrow and many other right living is producing the same "mental chemical reaction".....I mean, the state of mind where the search for a meaning to a no life is gone...it is not that it is found or not found, such question, and all search as an adult caught in suffering like we all are despite the negation of that fact , is not asked or a subject at all....the end of suffering means the birth of "something else" X...

so death I find that vital to like sorrow is....of course those are not subjects ,as this is what we fear most..bearing in mind that fear means : running away....fear is for me a no word, a poor symbol, an incomplete symbol...

if one starts being conscious that this "no word" fear, hides a running away...then inquiry can start somehow...the word fear is a huge mistake for me..

now about the problem I am trying to solve as in k's example..if the problem is deeply known it will be solved by the very seeing of its roots is what I know, meaning the analyser is not the one which does that..we already are entering here in the missing process competencies, this "world" already has a very different taste than ordinary life caught in thought....what I have observed here too is this : I feel let us say awfully down, to use more words that the usual ones...the analyser is trying to solve that, to get rid of it would be more adequate.

Often the reality was that the analyser always finds many reasons for such state awful of mind, money, work, the neighbours, society, politician, the priest, the left ,the right,death, lack of this, lack of that etc up to name everything it can remember or imagine , then it becomes an activist in some fields or a slave to the master, same energy behind ...the analyser tried to search everywhere but NEVER considered that the problem could be itself...this is an effect of the dividing analytical program, this produces too the so called completion for example, which in fact is a process of elimination directly originated from the analytical capacities...it just does its blind work in all fields including where it should never go..

anyway...what I have observed each time of crisis lived and not escaped, so again the sorrow of it must be left free without any search for anything..this is the immense difficulty of it, what I have observed is this..when the root problem related to the sorrow, the pain the awful state etc is found , not once the analyser had been able to find it, never...........
and I stay with that for now..as I have to go.....

Dan ...........

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 24 Jun 2015 #15
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 12 posts in this forum Offline

Dan,

It might be that this "other energy" is in the understanding of the limitations and the errors inherent in thinking and thought (the "self.") There is then an abandonment of thinking -- which is the "time" of entropy and becoming.

max

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 24 Jun 2015 #16
Thumb_de4 Dan McDermott United States 131 posts in this forum Offline

max greene wrote:
It might be that this "other energy" is in the understanding of the limitations and the errors inherent in thinking and thought (the "self.") There is then an abandonment of thinking -- which is the "time" of entropy and becoming.

It would seem that what is necessary for thought to no longer 'move', control, in this sphere is, as K. said somewhere, for the brain to see its own limitation; that thought can never, being the past, the known, understand the 'unknown', i.e.. That its creation of the 'self', the 'I' for its own security and continuity ultimately gives neither... But how does this take place? "Passive awareness" of the "process of becoming", K. said is all that can be done. "Passive" (not active), because anything else would be the product of our motive and our desire, thought. Where does this awareness come from? How does it arise? It obviously can't be 'taught', 'practised',or even 'invited'.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 24 Jun 2015 #17
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 12 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
. . . as K. said somewhere, for the brain to see its own limitation ... But how does this take place? "Passive awareness" . . . is all that can be done. But where does this awareness come from? How does it arise? It obviously can't be 'taught', 'practised',or even 'invited.

It seems to me that (1) the brain seeing its own limitation and (2) passive awareness are two entirely different things.

I can't see the brain as able to do anything but coordinate the activities of the body and think. But on the other hand, awareness is the present, the very present moment, as is life -- indeed, they are one and the same. So although Krishnamurti says that the brain can see its own limitation, I rather doubt that it can: thought can't see itself.

It takes awareness, and awareness (life) is always present, but it is smothered, covered over, with the brain's mechanical process of thinking -- the self. To realize this is to be free of it. How is this possible? Because we always do what we understand,

max

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 25 Jun 2015 #18
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 190 posts in this forum Offline

max greene wrote:
Dan,

It might be that this "other energy" is in the understanding of the limitations and the errors inherent in thinking and thought (the "self.") There is then an abandonment of thinking -- which is the "time" of entropy and becoming.

max

Dan McDermott wrote:
It would seem that what is necessary for thought to no longer 'move', control, in this sphere is, as K. said somewhere, for the brain to see its own limitation; that thought can never, being the past, the known, understand the 'unknown', i.e.. That its creation of the 'self', the 'I' for its own security and continuity ultimately gives neither... But how does this take place?

Max and Dan, as far as I understand something, if there is no sorrow, pain, suffering, anxiety, frustration, discontentment and so on, I do not see one single reason why the thinking process is going to change anything at all...2500 years of man's insane history shows that alas, this is a fact..apart from a few exceptions in 2500 years..but look the four noble truth of the buddha, it is about dukkha , so suffering etc and what k said about suffering too...

the thing ,for me, is that in many talks, suffering and so what is unconscious for the analyser are out of the way as it could have been k's state of the brain, but as to other participant they have not solved those problems and the talk goes on as if they dit solve suffering and all that....

Lately , I am not even sure about security and even survival instinct, as you mention security the other dan, because based on the revealing of the analysing program it could well be instead , closer to the origin , the fact that the analyser can only analyse the known...when it meets something unknown, it just can't work, because it analyses the past only, including the 1 micro second past, so this movement when the analyser does to go back to something known instead of staying with the unknown unable to analyse is translated by the analyser as a search for security and survival instinct....well now I think that I have seen that this is false..
does this change much ?

Yes absolutely....if there is no security seeking and survival instinct...we are even more in the error than we may think....

instead of that there is just a proper functioning,and we human do not function properly with at least 80% of the brain gone...

Dan ...........

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 26 Jun 2015 #19
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 190 posts in this forum Offline

Then this has brought many deep vision about my personal own roots disorder and some global vision which I do not really know about their validity; nevertheless they are in my brain..like there had been somehow unknown creation and movement within the limited even if huge perimeter of matter, creation and movement so no big bang with expansion, like the root of "me" could originally simply be the vital need to differentiate each one so each me as not obviously you, to physically differentiate one with the environment, as well as metaphysically separate each me from the environment in order to factually create the analyser ,which is a vital survival tool..like there is no evolution of species but changes and possibly was included from the very beginning the global intention behind, what the Universe would have a motive? this is not krishnamurtian by the way ..but I know that when k mention motive he only mentions analytical ones..by the way ,change, was the real meaning of the word evolution long ago..then "we" ( leaders of the actual empire) included long into that word a movement from the worse to the better.., behind was an evil plan to intellectually justify all colonisation so wars,killing,staling etc ,because of this argument: look at the universe and our evolution, there is no alternative but to fight each other, to be in competition etc etc

As well as now there is for me this involuntary questioning of security and survival instinct as roots, I am not sure any more that this is so the root...I see something behind that, so as such security and survival instinct are not root subjects...I see the simple functioning of the analyser which cannot analyse the unknown so it cannot live it at all...and instead of understanding all that it does not even try out of laziness and decides that there is a quest for security and a quest for survival at any cost...for me this is not true,but again this argument is so welcome for any power...it cut us from deep truth

Well what is fact is simply always passionate....and amazingly brings some peace with itself....like real history and not the false one we are told is in fact interesting...and a real threat to the gangsters leading the world, the real and factual history of the past 120 years still have to be written...

like I don't see how our possible ancestors, some big apes with so many missing links that it sounds much like a joke of our dear scientist slaves of the powers for money and fame ,so how our alleged ancestors would have anything to see with our insanity, not is it the alleged past where we are supposed to have spend all our time fighting each other which for someone having a bit of clue about food searching, hunting, and producing is just impossible ..cooperation and sharing was necessary the basement of societies long ago..then something got wrong and still is up to now..

when all this insanity for me is just the absence of the other process(es) not turned on which drives us mad insane as we are..

So there are at least in us two totally different processes , one analyses to create means to physically live, this process has a polarity, a duality base, which is extracting the analyser from the present in order for itself to be able to analyse; its field of competences are the means , the tools etc,

the other one is not separated from the present this on is for anything else but tools, practicality ....it does not function on memories...

both are vital and must function together which they do when both are turned on...

Dan ...........

This post was last updated by Daniel Paul. Fri, 26 Jun 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 26 Jun 2015 #20
Thumb_de4 Dan McDermott United States 131 posts in this forum Offline

This morning, upon waking, the perception right or wrong that I had was that a source of our 'sorrow' was that we have lost our connection with Nature. Somewhere back in time this connection was there and over centuries it dissipated. The 'fresh' energy that the birds and animals start each new day with seems missing. They seem to be truly "of the world", not in some romantic, sentimental way but in the way K. suggested that 'we are the world'. Perhaps it's the weight of our memories, of the past, whatever is responsible, we are like strangers here trying through other means to compensate for this loss. (of innocence?,of belonging?). With this perception,of our alienation, it seemed what is taking place within us and around us is inevitable. I guess, if this is true, that it is the result of the 'old brain' K. speaks of above. It is certainly not a matter of going back...but to have this 'connection' seems vital.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Fri, 26 Jun 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 28 Jun 2015 #21
Thumb_de4 Dan McDermott United States 131 posts in this forum Offline

richard villlar wrote:
Krishnamurti: First, why do you object if your mind chatters? If you want to 'end' chattering, then the problem starts. Duality is (introduced by?) the desire to end "what is". Why do you object to it? Noises are going on, buses are passing, crows are cawing. Let chattering go on. I am not going to resist it. I am not going to be interested in it. It is there. It means nothing.

This is so simple sounding and so clear. Sitting this morning taking in the sights and sounds around here, thought would arise, again and again. First reactions are "oh shut up and let me just be quiet!" But then the question arises: who is it that wants this 'shutting up'? What is the resistance to this thinking (interuption),i.e? And then it's seen that the resistance is simply more thought and motivated by the 'desire' to 'be quiet'(to be something other than what one is). It also seemed that without'thinking', 'I' don't exist! (the 'I' IS thought) just the sights and the sounds do. But with the 'sounds'; upon hearing the different birds,i.e, a name, and an image of that particular bird (even if it's not in view) arise immediately.etc., etc.
And then later walking in the woods here, which I try to do a couple of times a day to keep the blood going to where it's supposed to go, thoughts would of course arise, having to do with say some financial matter and some plan would be formed and as the Other Dan says:.. "Blah, blah, blah... so after reading the conversation you just posted, which I thank you for John as usual, it was interesting to read K.'s take on all this "chattering" as "meaning nothing" and certainly not to be resisted. (the resistor is the resisted.) And thanks to you, Dan and Richard for the comments.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sun, 28 Jun 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 05 Jul 2015 #22
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 190 posts in this forum Offline

QUESTION: Can one help others by influencing them consciously?

KRISHNAJI: If you think you are wiser than anybody else, then you interfere. I would never voluntarily interfere with anybody unless they asked me to interfere and asked my advice and questioned me. Then I would give my opinion, but unasked I should never think of interfering. Why should you interfere with another? It may be his karma to walk a different path, to walk in a different direction, to have his mind differently composed from yours; and if you force him to adapt himself to you, you are doing him wrong.

QUESTION: For a practical mystic what would be the most effective way of helping others to reach Liberation? By becoming a fit channel for love and peace?

KRISHNAJI: I think the best way of helping others to reach Liberation is by reaching it yourself. If you had not reached it, and talked vaguely about it, you would soon be found out. The moment you are liberated, or struggling for Liberation, you do become a channel; but I dislike the word channel because it implies that you are acting for somebody else, and that somebody else is master over you, which personally I do not like.

QUESTION: What qualities do you consider most necessary for those who would be your disciples?

KRISHNAJI: It all depends. Suppose you went to a painter and asked him what qualities were necessary to become a painter, it would be very difficult for him to answer you. In the same way it would be difficult if you went to a musician, a composer or a writer and said: "Look here, I want to become what you are." He could only teach you the technique; he cannot give you the qualities of a great artist.

QUESTION: Do you look on the work of the World-Teacher as that of teaching individual men the way to liberation, only, or also as inspiring civilisation with new ideals in all departments -in art and religion, as well as in political and social life?

KRISHNAJI: I will explain my answer with a simile. We go into a garden and see a rose in magnificent bloom. One person who is an artist merely thinks of that rose in terms of painting; another who looks at that rose will go away and meditate; a third will translate that delight into some social activity. People approach religion in the same way as they approach that rose; it depends on the individual, on his temperament, his point of view, his idea of how best he can translate it to the outer world. For instance, say I am interested in education. I want to translate that Liberation in terms of educational ideals and to put it before young people, and children, so as to make them grow according to those ideals. Another person, seeing that Liberation, might be a keen social worker and might translate it in social terms and so help people to attain it.

QUESTION: How should suppression be used in control of the self?

KRISHNAJI: There should be no suppression. You know what happens when you kill some poison on the surface -that same poison will break out again somewhere else. If you try to cure a sore on the body without curing its real cause, it will come out somewhere else. I should never personally suppress anything, for the moment you do so it comes out in another form; but you should learn to control it and to transmute it -and translate it into activity.

QUESTION: What would you define as intelligent revolt?

KRISHNAJI: I feel every person should be in revolt because he should not mould himself to anyone's pattern. You should not mould yourselves to me any more than to somebody else. But in revolting you should be intelligent; that means that you should use the accumulation of your experience, use your intelligence as your guiding point, and revolt with that guide always in view, not just kick blindly, because that means that you are creating karma.

QUESTION: Some of those who in life are acquiring Liberation may have made certain ties which must be fulfilled, but for the younger people who have not formed such ties, would you say it meant not incurring them or incurring them in a new way?

KRISHNAJI: I have always wanted to attain Liberation; I have always wanted to come near the Buddha so that there should be no barrier between Him and myself. I let nothing interfere with that desire: I put aside all other desires; I said, I want to arrive at a certain stage as soon as I can, and anything which interferes must be set aside, must be conquered. I incurred no responsibility, which would come, in the way of my desire, and I have attained it. But do not think I mean that if you are longing to marry, longing to paint, that you should stop yourselves.

QUESTION: Is it not true that action done as duty and with detachment does not make karma?

KRISHNAJI: Yes, I think so.

QUESTION: In The Kingdom of Happiness you said it does not matter what is the degree of evolution of the individual; does that mean that at every degree of evolution one can attain Liberation?

KRISHNAJI: I am sure of it. Take a Sudra (of the lowest caste): if his desire to attain is so burning, so intense, that he throws aside everything, he will attain.

QUESTION: Do you mean by Liberation only a degree or stage of Liberation? Is it union with the Manifested Deity or with the Absolute?

KRISHNAJI: To me Liberation means, as I said yesterday, the destruction of the separate self, because it is the separate self, the self that is so dominant in each one that creates karma that binds. Once you have destroyed that self you are liberated and it does not matter whether you belong to the Manifested or to the Unmanifested, whether you belong to this house or that house, to this stage or that stage, for these are only technical terms.

QUESTION: If Liberation is the cessation of self, why do you associate happiness with it any more than unhappiness?

KRISHNAJI: 'Where the idea to live is a mistake and the idea not to live is an error...' You can call it happiness or unhappiness -Nirvana, Kailas, Heaven- until we find a word that everyone understands.

Early Writings
EERDE GATHERING 1927, QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
Eerde, Holland, 1927

Dan ...........

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 05 Jul 2015 #23
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 686 posts in this forum Offline

K SEEN THROUGH THE GLASSES OF ALDOUS HUXLEY

A FOREWORD TO "THE FIRST AND LAST FREEDOM"

MAN IS AN amphibian who lives simultaneously in two worlds - the given and the homemade, the world of matter, life and consciousness and the world of symbols. In our thinking we make use of a great variety of symbol-systems - linguistic, mathematical, pictorial, musical, ritualistic. Without such symbol-systems we should have no art, no science, no law, no philosophy, not so much as the rudiments of civilization: in other words, we should be animals. Symbols, then, are indispensable. But symbols - as the history of our own and every other age makes so abundantly clear - can also be fatal. Consider, for example, the domain of science on the one hand, the domain of politics and religion on the other. Thinking in terms of, and acting in response to, one set of symbols, we have come, in some small measure, to understand and control the elementary forces of nature. Thinking in terms of and acting in response to, another set of symbols, we use these forces as instruments of mass murder and collective suicide. In the first case the explanatory symbols were well chosen, carefully analysed and progressively adapted to the emergent facts of physical existence. in the second case symbols originally ill-chosen were never subjected to thoroughgoing analysis and never re-formulated so as to harmonize with the emergent facts of human existence. Worse still, these misleading symbols were everywhere treated with a wholly unwarranted respect, as though, in some mysterious way, they were more real than the realities to which they referred. In the contexts of religion and politics, words are not regarded as standing, rather inadequately, for things and events; on the contrary, things and events are regarded as particular illustrations of words. Up to the present symbols have been used realistically only in those fields which we do not feel to be supremely important. In every situation involving our deeper impulses we have insisted on using symbols, not merely unrealistically, but idolatrously, even insanely. The result is that we have been able to commit, in cold blood and over long periods of time, acts of which the brutes are capable only for brief moments and at the frantic height of rage, desire or fear. Because they use and worship symbols, men can become idealists; and, being idealists, they can transform the animal’s intermittent greed into the grandiose imperialisms of a Rhodes or a J. P. Morgan; the animal’s intermittent love of bullying into Stalinism or the Spanish Inquisition; the animal’s intermittent attachment to its territory into the calculated frenzies of nationalism. Happily, they can also transform the animal’s intermittent kindliness into the lifelong charity of an Elizabeth Fry or a Vincent de Paul; the animal’s intermittent devotion to its mate and its young into that reasoned and persistent co-operation which, up to the present, has proved strong enough to save the world from the consequences of the other, the disastrous kind of idealism.

Will it go on being able to save the world? The question cannot be answered. All we can say is that, with the idealists of nationalism holding the A-bomb, the odds in favour of the idealists of co-operation and charity have sharply declined. Even the best cookery book is no substitute for even the worst dinner. The fact seems sufficiently obvious. And yet, throughout the ages, the most profound philosophers, the most learned and acute theologians have constantly fallen into the error of identifying their purely verbal constructions with facts, or into the yet more enormous error of imagining that symbols are somehow more real than what they stand for. Their word-worship did not go without protest. ”Only the spirit,” said St. Paul, ”gives life; the letter kills.” ”And why,” asks Eckhart, ”why do you prate of God? Whatever you say of God is untrue.” At the other end of the world the author of one of the Mahayana sutras affirmed that ”the truth was never preached by the Buddha, seeing that you have to realize it within yourself”.

Such utterances were felt to be profoundly subversive, and respectable people ignored them. The strange idolatrous over-estimation of words and emblems continued unchecked. Religions declined; but the old habit of formulating creeds and imposing belief in dogmas persisted even among the atheists. In recent years logicians and semanticists have carried out a very thorough analysis of the symbols, in terms of which men do their thinking. Linguistics has become a science, and one may even study a subject to which the late Benjamin Whorf gave the name of meta-linguistics. All this is greatly to the good; but it is not enough. Logic and semantics, linguistics and meta-linguistics - these are purely intellectual disciplines. They analyse the various ways, correct and incorrect, meaningful and meaningless, in which words can be related to things, processes and events. But they offer no guidance, in regard to the much more fundamental problem of the relationship of man in his psychophysical totality, on the one hand, and his two worlds, of data and of symbols, on the other. In every region and at every period of history, the problem has been repeatedly solved by individual men and women. Even when they spoke or wrote, these individuals created no systems - for they knew that every system is a standing temptation to take symbols too seriously, to pay more attention to words than to the realities for which the words are supposed to stand. Their aim was never to offer ready-made explanations and panaceas; it was to induce people to diagnose and cure their own ills, to get them to go to the place where man’s problem and its solution present themselves directly to experience.

In this volume of selections from the writings and recorded talks of Krishnamurti, the reader will find a clear contemporary statement of the fundamental human problem, together with an invitation to solve it in the only way in which it can be solved - for and by himself. The collective solutions, to which so many so desperately pin their faith, are never adequate. ”To understand the misery and confusion that exist within ourselves, and so in the world, we must first find clarity within ourselves, and that clarity comes about through right thinking. This clarity is not to be organized, for it cannot be exchanged with another. Organized group thought is merely repetitive. Clarity is not the result of verbal assertion, but of intense self-awareness and right thinking. Right thinking is not the outcome of or mere cultivation of the intellect, nor is it conformity to pattern, however worthy and noble. Right thinking comes with self-knowledge. Without understanding yourself you have no basis for thought; without self-knowledge, what you think is not true.”

This fundamental theme is developed by Krishnamurti in passage after passage. ‘’There is hope in men, not in society, not in systems, organized religious systems, but in you and in me.” Organized religions, with their mediators, their sacred books, their dogmas, their hierarchies and rituals, offer only a false solution to the basic problem. ”When you quote the Bhagavad Gita, or the Bible, or some Chinese Sacred Book, surely you are merely repeating, are you not? And what you are repeating is not the truth. It is a lie, for truth cannot be repeated.” A lie can be extended, propounded and repeated, but not truth; and when you repeat truth, it ceases to be truth, and therefore sacred books are unimportant. It is through self-knowledge, not through belief in somebody else’s symbols, that a man comes to the eternal reality, in which his being is grounded. Belief in the complete adequacy and superlative value of any given symbol system leads not to liberation, but to history, to more of the same old disasters. ”Belief inevitably separates. If you have a belief, or when you seek security in your particular belief, you become separated from those who seek security in some other form of belief. All organized beliefs are based on separation, though they may preach brotherhood.”

The man who has successfully solved the problem of his relations with the two worlds of data and symbols, is a man who has no beliefs. With regard to the problems of practical life he entertains a series of working hypotheses, which serve his purposes, but are taken no more seriously than any other kind of tool or instrument. With regard to his fellow beings and to the reality in which they are grounded, he has the direct experiences of love and insight. It is to protect himself from beliefs that Krishnamurti has ”not read any sacred literature, neither the Bhagavad Gita nor the Upanishads”. The rest of us do not even read sacred literature; we read our favourite newspapers, magazines and detective stories. This means that we approach the crisis of our times, not with love and insight, but ”with formulas, with systems” - and pretty poor formulas and systems at that. But ”men of good will should not have formulas; for formulas lead, inevitably, only to ”blind thinking”. Addiction to formulas is almost universal. Inevitably so; for ”our system of upbringing is based upon what to think, not on how to think”. We are brought up as believing and practising members of some organization - the Communist or the Christian, the Moslem, the Hindu, the Buddhist, the Freudian. Consequently ”you respond to the challenge, which is always new, according to an old pattern; and therefore your response has no corresponding validity, newness, freshness. If you respond as a Catholic or a Communist, you are responding - are you not? - according to a patterned thought. Therefore your response has no significance. And has not the Hindu, the Mussulman, the Buddhist, the Christian created this problem? As the new religion is the worship of the State, so the old religion was the worship of an idea.” If you respond to a challenge according to the old conditioning, your response will not enable you to understand the new challenge. Therefore what ”one has to do, in order to meet the new challenge, is to strip oneself completely, denude oneself entirely of the background and meet the challenge anew”. In other words symbols should never be raised to the rank of dogmas, nor should any system be regarded as more than a provisional convenience. Belief in formulas and action in accordance with these beliefs cannot bring us to a solution of our problem. ”It is only through creative understanding of ourselves that there can be a creative world, a happy world, a world in which ideas do not exist.” A world in which ideas do not exist would be a happy world, because it would be a world without the powerful conditioning forces which compel men to undertake inappropriate action, a world without the hallowed dogmas in terms of which the worst crimes are justified, the greatest follies elaborately rationalized.

An education that teaches us not how but what to think is an education that calls for a governing class of pastors and masters. But ”the very idea of leading somebody is antisocial and anti-spiritual”. To the man who exercises it, leadership brings gratification of the craving for power; to those who are led, it brings the gratification of the desire for certainty and security. The guru provides a kind of dope. But, it may be asked, ”What are you doing? Are you not acting as our guru?” ”Surely,” Krishnamurti answers, ”I am not acting as your guru, because, first of all, I am not giving you any gratification. I am not telling you what you should do from moment to moment, or from day to day, but I am just pointing out something to you; you can take it or leave it, depending on you, not on me. I do not demand a thing from you, neither your worship, nor your flattery, nor your insults, nor your gods. I say,” This is a fact; take it or leave it. And most of you will leave it, for the obvious reason that you do not find gratification in it.”

What is it precisely that Krishnamurti offers? What is it that we can take if we wish, but in all probability shall prefer to leave? It is not, as we have seen, a system of belief, a catalogue of dogmas, a set of ready-made notions and ideals. It is not leadership, not mediation, not spiritual direction, not even example. It is not ritual, not a church, not a code, not uplift or any form of inspirational twaddle. Is it, perhaps, self-discipline? No; for self-discipline is not, as a matter of brute fact, the way in which our problem can be solved. In order to find the solution, the mind must open itself to reality, must confront the givenness of the outer and inner worlds without preconceptions or restrictions. (God’s service is perfect freedom. Conversely, perfect freedom is the service of God.) In becoming disciplined, the mind undergoes no radical change; it is the old self, but ”tethered, held in control”. Self-discipline joins the list of things which Krishnamurti does not offer. Can it be, then, that what he offers is prayer? Again, the reply is in the negative. ”Prayer may bring you the answer you seek; but that answer may come from your unconscious, or from the general reservoir, the storehouse of all your demands. The answer is not the still voice of God.” Consider, Krishnamurti goes on, ”what happens when you pray. By constant repetition of certain phrases, and by controlling your thoughts, the mind becomes quiet, doesn’t it? At least, the conscious mind becomes quiet. You kneel as the Christians do, or you sit as the Hindus do, and you repeat and repeat, and through that repetition the mind becomes quiet. In that quietness there is the intimation of something. That intimation of something, for which you have prayed, may be from the unconscious, or it may be the response of your memories. But, surely, it is not the voice of reality; for the voice of reality must come to you; it cannot be appealed to, you cannot pray to it. You cannot entice it into your little cage by doing puja, bhajan and all the rest of it, by offering it flowers, by placating it, by suppressing yourself or emulating others. Once you have learned the trick of quietening the mind, through the repetition of words, and of receiving hints in that quietness, the danger is - unless you are fully alert as to whence those hints come - that you will be caught, and then prayer becomes a substitute for the search for Truth. That which you ask for you get; but it is not the truth. If you want, and if you petition, you will receive, but you will pay for it in the end.” From prayer we pass to yoga, and yoga, we find, is another of the things which Krishnamurti does not offer. For yoga is concentration, and concentration is exclusion. ”You build a wall of resistance by concentration on a thought which you have chosen, and you try to ward off all the others.” What is commonly called meditation is merely ”the cultivation of resistance, of exclusive concentration on an idea of our choice”. But what makes you choose? ”What makes you say this is good, true, noble, and the rest is not? Obviously the choice is based on pleasure, reward or achievement; or it is merely a reaction of one’s conditioning or tradition. Why do you choose at all? Why not examine every thought? When you are interested in the many, why choose one? Why not examine every interest? Instead of creating resistance, why not go into each interest as it arises, and not merely concentrate on one idea, one interest? After all, you are made up of many interests, you have many masks, consciously and unconsciously. Why choose one and discard all the others, in combating which you spend all your energies, thereby creating resistance, conflict and friction. Whereas if you consider every thought as it arises - every thought, not just a few thoughts - then there is no exclusion. But it is an arduous thing to examine every thought. Because, as you are looking at one thought, another slips in. But if you are aware without domination or justification, you will see that, by merely looking at that thought, no other thought intrudes. It is only when you condemn, compare, approximate, that other thoughts enter in.” ”Judge not that ye be not judged.” The gospel precept applies to our dealings with ourselves no less than to our dealings with others. Where there is judgement, where there is comparison and condemnation, openness of mind is absent; there can be no freedom from the tyranny of symbols and systems, no escape from the past and the environment. Introspection with a predetermined purpose, self-examination within the framework of some traditional code, some set of hallowed postulates - these do not, these cannot help us. There is a transcendent spontaneity of life, a ‘creative Reality’, as Krishnamurti calls it, which reveals itself as immanent only when the perceiver’s mind is in a state of ‘alert passivity’, of ‘choiceless awareness’. Judgement and comparison commit us irrevocably to duality. Only choiceless awareness can lead to non-duality, to the reconciliation of opposites in a total understanding and a total love. Ama et fac quod vis. If you love, you may do what you will. But if you start by doing what you will, or by doing what you don’t will in obedience to some traditional system or notions, ideals and prohibitions, you will never love.

The liberating process must begin with the choiceless awareness of what you will and of your reactions to the symbol-system which tells you that you ought, or ought not, to will it. Through this choiceless awareness, as it penetrates the successive layers of the ego and its associated subconscious, will come love and understanding, but of another order than that with which we are ordinarily familiar. This choiceless awareness - at every moment and in all the circumstances of life - is the only effective meditation. All other forms of yoga lead either to the blind thinking which results from self-discipline, or to some kind of self-induced rapture, some form of false samadhi. The true liberation is ”an inner freedom of creative Reality”. This ”is not a gift; it is to be discovered and experienced. It is not an acquisition to be gathered to yourself to glorify yourself. It is a state of being, as silence, in which there is no becoming, in which there is completeness. This creativeness may not necessarily seek expression; it is not a talent that demands outward manifestation. You need not be a great artist or have an audience; if you seek these, you will miss the inward Reality. It is neither a gift, nor is it the outcome of talent; it is to be found, this imperishable treasure, where thought frees itself from lust, ill will and ignorance, where thought frees itself from worldliness and personal craving to be. It is to be experienced through right thinking and meditation.” Choiceless self-awareness will bring us to the creative Reality which underlies all our destructive make-believes, to the tranquil wisdom which is always there, in spite of ignorance, in spite of the knowledge which is merely ignorance in another form. Knowledge is an affair of symbols and is, all too often, a hindrance to wisdom, to the uncovering of the self from moment to moment. A mind that has come to the stillness of wisdom ”shall know being, shall know what it is to love. Love is neither personal nor impersonal. Love is love, not to be defined or described by the mind as exclusive or inclusive. Love is its own eternity; it is the real, the supreme, the immeasurable.” ALDOUS HUXLEY

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 05 Jul 2015 #24
Thumb_de4 Dan McDermott United States 131 posts in this forum Offline

John:

Thank you for posting this Aldous Huxley foreword, (he came to my grammar school in New York when I was eight years old and read a poem to our class!)
Following my thoughts this morning and finding difficulty to keep them in view, the word "arduous" came up (it had been recently talked about on another forum)...so I read with interest this:

K: " Why do you choose at all? Why not examine every thought? When you are interested in the many, why choose one? Why not examine every interest? Instead of creating resistance, why not go into each interest as it arises, and not merely concentrate on one idea, one interest? After all, you are made up of many interests, you have many masks, consciously and unconsciously. Why choose one and discard all the others, in combating which you spend all your energies, thereby creating resistance, conflict and friction. Whereas if you consider every thought as it arises - every thought, not just a few thoughts - then there is no exclusion. But it is an arduous thing to examine every thought. Because, as you are looking at one thought, another slips in. But if you are aware without domination or justification, you will see that, by merely looking at that thought, no other thought intrudes. It is only when you condemn, compare, approximate, that other thoughts enter in.”

'THE FIRST AND LAST FREEDOM'

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Mon, 06 Jul 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 06 Jul 2015 #25
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 190 posts in this forum Offline

Public Talk, March 7th, 1948 | Mumbai, India

Aren't you under the belief that your thoughts are separate from yourself? This very question implies that, doesn't it? - that there is the controller and the controlled, the observer and the observed. Now, do we know this process to be a fact, that there is the observer and the observed, the controller and the controlled? Is this separation real? It is real in the sense that we are indulging in it. But is it not a trick of the mind? Please, in this question a great deal is involved, so don't accept or deny, don't defend or put aside what I am suggesting. Most of you believe that the thinker is separate, the higher self, the Atman, the watcher, dominating the lower self, and so on. Why is there this separation? Isn't this separation still within the field of the mind? When you say the thinker is the Atman, the watcher, and the thoughts are separate, surely that is still within the field of the mind.

Now, is it not that the mind, the thinker, has separated himself from his thoughts in order to give himself permanency? Because he can always modify his thoughts, he can always change his thoughts, put a new frame around them, while he remains apart and therefore gives himself permanency. But without the thoughts, the thinker is not. He may separate himself from his thoughts, but if he ceases to think, he no longer exists, does he? So, this separation of the thinker from his thoughts is a trick of the thinker to give himself security, permanency. That is, the mind perceives that thoughts are transient, and therefore it adopts the cunning trick of saying that it is the thinker apart from its thoughts, it is the Atman, the watcher, apart from action, from thought. But, if you observe the process very closely, putting aside all your acquired knowledge of what others have said, however great, then you will see that the observer is the observed, that the thinker is the thought. There is no thinker apart from thought; however widely, deeply and extensively he may separate himself or build a wall between himself and his thoughts, the thinker is still within the field of his thinking. Therefore, the thinker is the thought; so when you ask, `How can thought be controlled?', you are putting a wrong question.

When the thinker begins to control his thoughts, he does so merely to give himself continuity, or because he finds his thoughts are painful to him. Therefore, he wants to modify his thoughts, while he remains permanent behind the screen of words and thoughts. When once you admit that, which is true, then your disciplines, your pursuit of the higher, your meditations, your controls, all collapse. That is, if you are willing to look at the obvious fact that the thinker is the thought, and when you become fully aware of that fact, then you no longer think in terms of dominating, modifying, controlling, or canalizing your thoughts. Then the thought becomes important, and not the thinker. The emphasis then is not on the controller and how to control, but the thought which is controlled becomes important in itself. Understanding the thought process is the beginning of meditation, which is self-knowledge. Without self-knowledge, there is no meditation; and meditation of the heart is understanding. To understand, you cannot be tethered to any belief.

Dan ...........

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 07 Jul 2015 #26
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 686 posts in this forum Offline

KRISHNAMURTI TO HIMSELF : ON THE ('PSYCHOLOGICAL' ?) FUTURE OF MANKIND

One wonders what is the future of mankind ? This 'future' is ( a modified continuation of?) what we are now. You see on television endless entertainment from morning until late in the night ; the entertainment of sport - thirty, forty thousand people watching a few people in the arena and shouting themselves hoarse. Or you watch some ceremony being performed in a great cathedral, and that too is a form of entertainment, a sentimental, romantic experience, a sensation of religiosity. Watching all this in different parts of the world, watching the human mind being occupied with (striving to earn a livelihood plus?) amusement, entertainment, sport, one must inevitably ask, if one is in any way concerned: what is the future (of human consciousness?) ? Probably you haven't given it much thought about (our collective) destiny, the result of our present way of life - as we said earlier, this 'future' is what you are now. If there is no t a deep change that is demanding your attention, your care, your affection – if there is not a fundamental change, then the future is ( already obvious in ?) what we are doing every day of our life in the present. One must enquire carefully into this word 'change'. Perhaps a better phrasing is : 'the ending of what is'. The ending, not the movement of changing 'what is' to 'what should be'. ( However?) when desire enters into the act of the ending, that desire becomes the cause of ending. Where there is a cause there is a motive and so there is no real ending at all.

The twentieth century has had a tremendous lot of changes produced by two devastating wars, the 'dialectical materialism', and the technological world which has brought about a great many changes, and when the computers (eventually) take over (the routine chores ?) what is going to happen to our human minds? When this whole industry of entertainment takes over, when the young people, the students, the children, are constantly instigated to pleasure, to romantic sensuality, the (deeper meaning of such words as ) restraint and austerity are pushed away, never even given a thought. You probably won't even listen to what the (spiritual ?) implications of austerity are. When you have been brought up from childhood to escape from yourself through entertainment and the psychologists saying that you must express everything you feel and that any form of restraint is leading to various forms of neuroticism, you naturally enter more and more into the world of sports, amusement, entertainment, all 'helping' you to escape from ( the actuality of?) what you are. The understanding of the nature of what you are, without any reactions to what you discover you are, is the beginning of austerity. The awareness, of every thought, every feeling, like watching a bird in flight - that ( free) watching brings about an extraordinary sense of austerity (sobriety?) that goes beyond all the fooling around with this ideas of self- improvement and self-fulfilment. In this watching there is ( an inner sense of?) great freedom and in that freedom there dignity of austerity. But ( unfortunately?) if you said all this to a 'modern' group of students or children, they would probably look out of the window in boredom because the ( temporal consciousness of the modern ?) world is bent on (biased by?) its own pursuit of pleasure.

It appears that man has always escaped from what he is, from where he is going, from ( fundamental questions as?) What all this is about ? – the ( meaning of the?) universe, of our daily life, of the dying and the beginning. It is strange that we have never realized that however much we may ( succeed to?) escape from ourselves, however much we may wander away consciously, deliberately or unconsciously, subtly, the ( deeper existential?) conflicts (brought by the pursuit of ?) pleasure, the pain, fear and so on are always there. And they ultimately dominate ( the temporal consciousness?) . You may try to push them away deliberately with an act of will but they surface again. And ( the instinctual seeking of) pleasure is one of the factors that predominate; it too has the same conflicts, the same pain, the same boredom. The weariness of pleasure and the fret is part of this turmoil of our life. You can't escape it, my friend. You can't escape from this deep unfathomed ( existential) turmoil unless there is a careful attention, a diligent watching of the whole 'movement of thought' and the 'self'. You may say all this is perhaps unnecessary. But if you do not pay attention to this the future of mankind is not only going to be more destructive, more intolerable but without much significance. All this is not a depressing point of view, it is actually so. What you 'are' (inwardly) now is what you 'will be' in the coming days. You can't avoid it. It is as definite as the sun rising and setting. This is the ( time-bound) share of all man, of all humanity unless each one of us change to something that is not projected by thought.

This post was last updated by John Raica Tue, 07 Jul 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 07 Jul 2015 #27
Thumb_de4 Dan McDermott United States 131 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
K:"This is the ( time-bound) share of all man, of all humanity unless each one of us change to something that is not projected by thought".

If what we are in essence is this 'awareness', passive awareness, choiceless awareness etc., how did we get so far from that, so lost in our 'individuality'? So full of ourselves that there is so little 'space' from which to see ourselves? It must start as children when we were compared and measured against each other (changing now in some parts of the world into how 'special' each child is.) I think that the 'space' to see (watch) ourselves comes through 'meditation'.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Tue, 07 Jul 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 08 Jul 2015 #28
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 190 posts in this forum Offline

krishnamurti:
It appears that man has always escaped from what he is, from where he is going, from What all this is about ? – of the universe, of our daily life, of the dying and the beginning. It is strange that we have never realized that however much we may escape from ourselves, however much we may wander away consciously, deliberately or unconsciously, subtly, the conflicts , pleasure, the pain, fear and so on are always there. And they ultimately dominate .

You may try to push them away deliberately with an act of will but they surface again. And pleasure is one of the factors that predominate; it too has the same conflicts, the same pain, the same boredom. The weariness of pleasure and the fret is part of this turmoil of our life. You can't escape it, my friend. You can't escape from this deep unfathomed turmoil unless there is a careful attention, a diligent watching of the whole 'movement of thought' and the 'self'. You may say all this is perhaps unnecessary. But if you do not pay attention to this the future of mankind is not only going to be more destructive, more intolerable but without much significance. All this is not a depressing point of view, it is actually so. What you 'are' now is what you 'will be' in the coming days. You can't avoid it. It is as definite as the sun rising and setting. This is the share of all man, of all humanity unless each one of us change to something that is not projected by thought.

Dan McDermott wrote:
If what we are in essence is this 'awareness', passive awareness, choiceless awareness etc., how did we get so far from that, so lost in our 'individuality'? So full of ourselves that there is so little 'space' from which to see ourselves? It must start as children when we were compared and measured against each other (changing now in some parts of the world into how 'special' each child is.) I think that the 'space' to see (watch) ourselves comes through 'meditation'.

I think that without an unbearable trigger, the analyser has not one reason to even mediate,whatever you mean yourself by that word..

We have tons of triggers to be honest...but this implies to stop running away from what we are....what life is whether we like it or not..

yes indeed as a child , we tend to reproduce the same pattern we were put into, and could well have refused but did not,apart from exceptions..here I globally mean the false competition organised by the leading thieves..with the plain support of the flock, both playing the same game ,as k mentioned on the above quote, to escape from ourselves.

Escaping being the root of fear, fear is one of those words which says nothing for me..a non word...that was clever to make people talk or think about fear when there is no real meaning behind..

John Raica wrote:

paul daniel wrote:

again, it implies, clearly, something else than thought..

Indeed, Dan, it requires the clarity and objectivity of direct perception. In this case, thought can just confirm the accuracy of what has been 'seen'- like 'yes, it does make sense' but then, it just stops there. So this quality of such insightful perception has to be integrated in our everyday life- and all thought can do here is...to abstain from any mental action except when it is really necessary

thought as it seems to me cannot unless there is an event of some sort for that..

Such insightful perception rather seems to integrate itself , if and when something proper is done for such happening to take place by itself...would not you say so ??

So the analyser has some work to do, no one will tell him what it is and how to do it..yet it is more than worthy to talk about , so k decided to do so.

As Soon as I am "conscious", the analyser is concerned..

the analyser is feeling a void whatever it does and reach, this is painful

well that a point to star with...then pain overwhelmed anyone if let alone..

this has the property to freeze the usual thinking ,still there but something in me is there now that makes me not listen to my own thoughts...

this something I can't say what it is...

etc..

a new journey has already started..the analyser keeps going on, bit by bit it is forced to question itself...in the case I am mentioning, it is not searching..

cheers..

Dan ...........

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 08 Jul 2015 #29
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 686 posts in this forum Offline

KRISHNAMURTI IN DIALOGUE WITH HIMSELF: ON TIME

IT IS THE second day of a spring morning. There is a scent in the air of many flowers and the sky is blue, dotted with passing clouds. The beauty of such a morning is timeless. It isn't just this morning: it is the morning of the whole world. You sit quietly far from everything and look at the blue sky, feel the whole earth, the purity and the loveliness of everything that lives and moves on this earth - except man of course.

K: Man is what he is now after many thousands of centuries of ( evolution in) time. His 'future' is what he is now unless there is a deep abiding mutation of his whole 'psyche' (psychological structure?) . Time has become extraordinarily important to man, to all of us - if you had no time you couldn't put things together to bring about a house; you must have time to lay brick upon brick. You must have time to go from here to where you want to go, but we also think that we need a 'psychological' time, the ( subjective continuity in ? ) 'time' of what has one been, modified now and continuing in the future. Man inwardly pins his hopes ( personal expectations?) on time; - one is 'this', but one hopes will become 'that'. In the physical world one can understand that time is necessary to travel, to reach to the desired place. The desired place is the future. There, (organising one's life in terms of?) time seems not only necessary but must exist. And this same movement (mentality?) is extended in the world of the psyche. But is there ( a time of) psychological becoming at all? The religions, the evolutionary books, have informed us that we need time to change (inwardly) from 'what (one) is' to 'what ( one) should be'. And there is a certain ( amount of) pleasure and pain in inwardly becoming 'non-violent' when one is 'violent' (greedy, self-centred, fearful?) , and that it needs an enormous amount of time. And perhaps that is one of the ( psycho-) miseries of man – when that fulfilment, that hope, is not achieved, is not come by easily. Is there actually 'time' in the (inner) 'psychological' world - is the divisive (mentality?) of man that has brought about conflict? After all, ideologies have existed perhaps as long as man can remember. And, like belief or faith, they separate man from man. And this ( mentality of?) separation comes about through time. The 'me', the I, the ego, the person, from the family to the group, to the tribe, to the nation. One wonders if these tribalistic divisions can ever be bridged over. Evolution ( of mankind) has separate groups, so time, knowledge, experience, definite conclusions, will never bring about a global relationship, a global mind.

So the question is: is there a possibility of bringing about a change in the actuality of what ( one) 'is', totally disregarding the ( wishful thinking?) movement of time? Is there a possibility of changing ( one's inner heritage of?) violence - can ( greed?) envy, with all its implications, be changed without ( thinking in terms of?) time being involved at all- to radically end 'envy' without time? This 'ending' has no time.

Q : Why do you say, sir, that time is unnecessary for change?

K : Let us together find out what is the truth of the matter, together having a dialogue to explore into this matter. It is the ( generally accepted) tradition that time is necessary for any change. That is correct about the physical time, the time necessary to gain a physical skill, but here we are considering whether the ( human) 'psyche' can ( through will?) reach a 'higher' state of consciousness. That is the whole movement (mentality?) of measurement, comparison. What does ( a radical inner?) ) 'change' imply? We live inwardly in disorder, confused, uncertain, constantly seeking rewards and avoiding punishments. We want to be secure, yet everything we do seems to bring about insecurity. This, and more, brings about disorder in our daily life. We have this constant ( psycho-) urge to move away from ( an unsatisfactory reality of?) "what (one) is", to become something other, rather than the understanding of "what is" and the causes of disorder.'

Q : That I understand, we do 'escape' from (facing?) "what is". We never consider diligently, what is happening now in each one of us. If we have a great deal of pain, psychologically, inwardly, we never look at it carefully. We want immediately to erase it, to find some consolation. And always there is this (instinctive ?) struggle to reach a state where there is no pain, where there is ( inner peace and?) no disorder. But the very attempt to bring about order seems to bring about other problems. So, you are saying, sir, that time is not a factor of change? I am not sure I really understand it.

K : Let us ask the question: is there a ( possibility for a?) timeless (time-free?) perception of that "which is"? That is, to look at "what is" without all the accumulated memories, words, reactions - to look at that feeling, at that reaction of (say for instance) , 'envy'. To observe this feeling without the 'actor' ('controller'?) who is ( impersonating?) all the remembrance of things that have happened before. Time is not merely the (chronological interval between the?) rising of the sun and the setting, or yesterday, today and tomorrow. ( Inwardly, the movement of?) time is much more complicated, more intricate, subtle. And to really understand the nature and the depth of time one has to meditate upon whether in the field of the 'psyche' time has a stop, whether (this thought projected?) time, really, actually, can ever come to an end? That is really the question : whether the continuity of the psyche is a reality or the desperate hope of man to cling to something that will give him some sort of security, comfort. When you look at the heavens, the planets and the unimaginable number of stars, can that ( immensity of the?) universe be understood by the time-bound mind ( by our temporal consciousness?) ? Is time necessary to see instantly that which is always true? One should really 'hold it in your mind', not 'think about it', but just observe the whole (inner) movement of 'time', which is really the movement of thought. Thought and time are not two different things : Time is (the creation of?) thought and thought is (the creation of) time. To put it differently, is there the actual 'ending of thought'? That is, the 'ending of knowledge'? Knowledge is time, thought is time, and we are asking whether this

accumulating ( and updating?) process of ( psycho-) knowledge, gathering more and more information, pursuing more and more the intricacies of one's existence, can end? Can ( the psychological content of?) thought, which is after all the essence of the 'psyche', the fears, the pleasures, the anxieties, the loneliness, the sorrow and this self-centred activity of selfishness, can all that come to an end? When death comes there is the ( compulsory?) ending of all that. But we are not talking about (that) death, the final ending, but whether we can actually perceive that ( the psychological component of?) thought, time, have an ending. Our knowledge after all is the ( result of a constant ?) accumulation ( updating, processing?) through time of our various ( personal and collective) experiences, the recording of various incidents, happenings, and so on; this recording is naturally stored in the brain, this recording is the essence of 'time' ( our temporal consciousness?) . Can we find out when this recording (and usage?) of knowledge is necessary, and whether the 'psychological ' recording is necessary at all? When one is ( feeling) insulted or psychologically hurt by a word, by a gesture, by an action, why should that 'hurt' be recorded? Is it possible not to record the flattery or the insult so that the 'psyche' (the mind?) is never cluttered up, so that it has vast space (inwardly) , and the ( identified?) 'psyche' that we are conscious of as the "me", which again is put together by thought and time, comes to an end?

We are always afraid of something that we have not previously experienced. But you can't 'experience' ( have a personal experience of?) truth. To 'experience' (truth personally ?) there must be the 'experiencer' ( a self-consciousness?) . The 'experiencer' is the result of time, accumulated memory, knowledge and so on. As we said at the beginning, ( understanding the inner process of?) 'time' demands quick, watchful, attentive understanding. In our daily life can one live without 'time', inwardly? The roots of Heaven are not in time and thought.'

Q : Sir, your various statements about 'time' and 'thought' seem now, while I am listening to you, so simple, so clear, and perhaps for a second or two there is the ending and stopping of 'time'. But when I go back to my ordinary routine, the weariness and the boredom of it all, even pleasure becomes rather wearisome - when I go back I will pick up the old threads. It seems so extraordinarily difficult to let go of the threads and look, without reaction, at the way of time. But I am beginning to understand that there is a possibility of 'not recording', if I may use your words. I realize I 'am' the record. I have been programmed to (thinking of) being this or that. One can see that fairly easily and perhaps put all that aside. But the ending of thought and the intricacies of time need a great deal of observation, a great deal of investigation. But you are really saying; just watch without any reaction, give total attention to the ordinary things of life and there discover the possibility of ending time and thought. Thank you indeed for this interesting talk.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 14 Jul 2015 #30
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 686 posts in this forum Offline

KRISHNAMURTI TO HIMSELF : ON (HOLISTIC) EDUCATION

We came to this house ( in ojai) which was recently built and with the cleanliness that houses in towns don't have. There were lots of flowers, a place in which to be deeply, inwardly, quiet, not just vegetate.

Silence is a great benediction, it cleanses the brain, gives vitality to it, and this silence builds up a great unpolluted energy, untouched by thought. It is the ( total) energy (of the brain) that has incalculable capacity, skills. And this is a place where the brain, being very active, can be silent. That very intense activity of the brain has the quality and the depth and the beauty of silence. (Holistic ?) education is the cultivation of the whole brain, not one part of it; it is a cultivation of the (whole?) human being. (Such) a school should teach both science and religion. Science really means the cultivation of (the field of?) knowledge, and this has given us the innumerable small things for an easier way of life in which human beings need not struggle endlessly but it has also given us the modern ( techno-?) deity, the computer.

Human beings look to science to bring about peace in the world, but it has failed, just as the politicians have failed to give them total security and peace. And the essence of a religious way of life is inner freedom, to have no conflict, psychologically, inwardly. With such freedom the brain becomes holistic, not fragmented in itself. Freedom also means love, compassion, and there is no freedom if there is not intelligence. If there is some ( cooperating ?) peace among a few people, then those few, not necessarily ( the self-selected?) 'elite', will employ all their skill to bring about a different world, where religion and science can go together. Religion is a form of ( inward?) science : to go beyond (the limitations of?) knowledge and to comprehend the nature and immensity of the human mind and heart. But this ( inward) immensity has nothing whatsoever to do with any 'organized' religion.

A ( holistically oriented ?) school is a place for learning the art of living. This art is the greatest, it surpasses all other arts for this art touches the entire human being, not one part of him, however pleasant that may be. And in a school of this kind, if the educator is committed to this as an actuality of daily life (s)he can actually try to find out in the human brain a way of living that is not caught in problems, strife, conflict and pain. And (such an) educator could also instil in the students' ( beyond the scholastic) acquisition of knowledge this freedom from knowledge (absolutely necessary ?) to understand 'that' which is eternal, which is timeless. Knowledge is of time, and ( a religious mind?) is free from the bondage of time. It seems so urgent and important that we bring about a new generation, even half a dozen people in the world would make a vast difference. But this (new) educator needs (to go through self-?) education (since) this is the greatest vocation in the world.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 283 in total
To quote a portion of this post in your reply, first select the text and then click this "Quote" link.

(N.B. Be sure to insert an empty line between the quoted text and your reply.)