Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
General Discussion | moderated by Dev Singh

More about immortality


Displaying all 13 posts
Page 1 of 1
Wed, 15 Feb 2017 #1
Thumb_nolet Rich Nolet Canada 235 posts in this forum Offline

The Only Revolution India part 5

Q.:I would like to talk about immortality and the perfection of life as it evolves
towards the ultimate reality. From what you said the other day, you have direct
perception of what is true, and we, not knowing, only believe. We really don't
know anything about the Atman at all; we are familiar only with the word. The
symbol, for us, has become the real, and if you describe the symbol - which
you did the other day - we get frightened. But in spite of this fear we cling to it,
because we actually know nothing except what we've been taught, what the
previous teachers have said, and the weight of tradition is always with us. So,
first of all, I'd like to know for myself if there is this Reality which is permanent,
this Reality, call it by whatever name you like - Atman or soul - which
continues after death. I'm not frightened of death. I've faced the death of my
wife and several of my children, but I am concerned about this Atman as a
reality. Is there this permanent entity in me?"

K.: When we speak of permanency we mean, don't we, something that
continues in spite of the constant change around it, in spite of the experiences,
in spite of all the anxieties, sorrows and brutalities? Something that is
imperishable? First of all, how can one find out? Can it be sought out by
thought, by words? Can you find the permanent through the impermanent? Can you find that which is changeless through that which is constantly
changing - thought? Thought can give permanency to an idea, Atman or soul,
and say, ''This is the real'',because thought breeds fear of this constant
change, and out of this fear it seeks something permanent - a permanent
relationship between human beings, a permanency in love. Thought itself is
impermanent, is changing, so anything that it invents as permanent is, like
itself, non-permanent. It can cling to a memory throughout life and call that
memory permanent, and then want to know whether it will continue after
death. Thought has created this thing, given it continuity, nourished it day after
day and held on to it. This is the greatest illusion because thought lives in time,
and what it has experienced yesterday it remembers through today and
tomorrow; time is born out of this. So there is the permanency of time and the
permanency which thought has given to an idea of ultimately attaining the
truth. All this is the product of thought - the fear, time and achievement, the
everlasting becoming.
"But who is the thinker - this thinker who has all these thoughts?"
Is there a thinker at all, or only thought which puts together the thinker?
And having established him, then invents the permanent, the soul, the Atman.

Q.:Do you mean to say that I cease to exist when I don't think?"

K.: Has it ever happened to you, naturally, to find yourself in a state where
thought is totally absent? In that state are you conscious of yourself as the
thinker, the observer, the experiencer? Thought is the response of memory,
and the bundle of memories is the thinker. When there is no thought is there
the "me" at all, about whom we make so much fuss and noise? We are not
talking of a person in amnesia, or of one who is day-dreaming or controlling
thought to silence it, but of a mind that is fully awake, fully alert. If there is no
thought and no word, isn't the mind in a different dimension altogether?

Q.:Certainly there is something quite different when the self is not acting, is
not asserting itself, but this need not mean that the self does not exist - just
because it does not act.

K.: Of course it exists! The "me", the ego, the bundle of memories exists. We
see it existing only when it responds to a challenge, but it's there, perhaps
dormant or in abeyance, waiting for the next chance to respond. A greedy man
is occupied most of the time with his greed; he may have moments when it is
not active, but it is always there.

Q.:What is that living entity which expresses itself in greed?

K.: It is still greed. The two are not separate.

Q.:I understand perfectly what you call the ego, the `me', its memory, its
greed, its assertiveness, its demands of all kinds, but is there nothing else
except this ego? In the absence of this ego do you mean to say there is
oblivion?

K.:When the noise of those crows stops there is something: this something is
the chatter of the mind - the problems, worries, conflicts, even this enquiry into
what remains after death. This question can be answered only when the mind
is no longer greedy or envious. Our concern is not with what there is after the
ego ceases but rather with the ending of all the attributes of the ego. That is
really the problem - not what reality is, or if there is something permanent,
eternal - but whether the mind, which is so conditioned by the culture in which
it lives and for which it is responsible - whether such a mind can free itself and
discover.

Q.:Then how am I to begin to free myself?

K.:You can't free yourself. You are the seed of this misery, and when you ask
"how" you are asking for a method which will destroy the "you", but in the
process of destroying the "you" you are creating another "you".

Q.: If I may ask
another question, what then is immortality? Mortality is death, mortality is the
way of Life with its sorrow and pain. Man has searched everlastingly for an
immortality, a deathless state.

K.: Again, sir, you have come back to the question of something that is
timeless, which is beyond thought. What is beyond thought is innocence, and
thought, do what it will, can never touch it, for thought is always old. It is innocency, like love, that is deathless, but for that to exist the mind must be
free of the thousand yesterdays with their memories. And freedom is a state in
which there is no hate, no violence, no brutality. Without putting away all these
things how can we ask what immortality is, what love is, what truth is?

This post was last updated by Rich Nolet Wed, 15 Feb 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 15 Feb 2017 #2
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 4906 posts in this forum Offline

Jesus Rich. This may be the most fascinating and clear dialogue with K that I have ever read. Thank you for posting this.

This post was last updated by Jack Pine Wed, 15 Feb 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 15 Feb 2017 #3
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

Rich Nolet wrote:
When there is no thought is there the "me" at all, about whom we make so much fuss and noise?

No thought => no thinker, no "me" => no death

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 15 Feb 2017 #4
Thumb_001 Sean Hen Spain 576 posts in this forum Offline

Hello Rich and all. Yes, a very interesting dialogue. K said, "What is beyond thought is innocence ... " There's not much innocence around really, is there?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 15 Feb 2017 #5
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

Sean Hen wrote:
K said, "What is beyond thought is innocence ... " There's not much innocence around really, is there?

Of course so ... we live in a world totally directed/driven by thought ...

btw the word 'innocence' comes from a Latin root 'nocere' which means 'to harm' ... so 'innocence' is the unability to harm ... and of course in this world, humans do much harm: to nature, to animals, to each others, even to those we say we 'love' ...

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 15 Feb 2017 #6
Thumb_001 Sean Hen Spain 576 posts in this forum Offline

Jean Gatti wrote:
Of course so ... we live in a world totally directed/driven by thought ...

Are you driven by thought Jean?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 15 Feb 2017 #7
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

Sean Hen wrote:
Are you driven by thought Jean?

This is not the right question to ask ... the right question would rather be : What does it mean to be driven by thought ? What does it mean to have goals ? etc ... Do we see clearly what this implies ?

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 15 Feb 2017 #8
Thumb_nolet Rich Nolet Canada 235 posts in this forum Offline

Sean Hen wrote:
Hello Rich and all. Yes, a very interesting dialogue. K said, "What is beyond thought is innocence ... " There's not much innocence around really, is there ?

Hi Sean. I think that an insight into the whole of this dialogue and the observation of ourselves that corroborate what is being said , what it is pointing to, is what make it possible to understand what is going on at the deepest level of our being . And isn't it what is important ? Excuse my poor choice of words, but, you see what I mean ?

This post was last updated by Rich Nolet Wed, 15 Feb 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 15 Feb 2017 #9
Thumb_nolet Rich Nolet Canada 235 posts in this forum Offline

Jean Gatti wrote:
This is not the right question to ask ... the right question would rather be : What does it mean to be driven by thought ? What does it mean to have goals ? etc ... Do we see clearly what this implies ?

This sounds more on the intellectual analysis side. Isn't seeing and analysing two different things ? Is it at all necessary to analyse when one see the landscape in front of our eyes ?

This post was last updated by Rich Nolet Wed, 15 Feb 2017.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Wed, 15 Feb 2017 #10
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 408 posts in this forum Offline

#5:

Jean Gatti wrote:
we live in a world totally directed/driven by thought ...

Jean,

Respectfully, do we live IN this world, or WE ARE “the world we live in”? As long as I am calculating, corrupt, pretentious, ideological, devious, envious, fearful, violent, desirous, greedy, and so on - then “what I am” is what the world is, no? If I am devious, corrupt, violent, etc., how can the world not be devious, corrupt and violent? As long as I am the world, there is no innocent me living IN the world. Is there?

So ARE we - AM I - the world, or is it that “others” are the world and innocent me is stuck living in a world driven by thought?

Am I free of thought’s authority? If I am FREE then is it still accurate to say that I am living in a world driven by thought, that I am that world? Of course, physically, I live in the world, on this planet. But it is not the physical world that is being talked of here, is it? We’re talking about living in the world of relationships, in the world of our daily intersecting lives, aren’t we?

And if I am NOT free of authority, greed, compulsion, fear, and so on, then isn't the inner condition all that matters, rather than the condition of the external world?

This post was last updated by Huguette . Wed, 15 Feb 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 15 Feb 2017 #11
Thumb_nolet Rich Nolet Canada 235 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette #10

Hi Huguette. Good points. I would like to add some thoughts, if I may say.

Anyting exist in isolation. We are all related in some way. This is society. And society , the inter-relationship between all of us is our existence, if one can put it that way. Yes the only possible fundamental revolution can only begin inwardly, which bring about a new world of relationship, with a totaly different quality.

A quote from K. in that sense.

K.:In bringing about a radical change in the human being, in you, you are naturally bringing about a radical change in the structure and the nature of society. I think it must be very clearly understood, that the human mind, with all its complexity, its intricate work, is part of this external world. The `you' is the world and, in bringing about a fundamental revolution - neither Communist, nor socialist, but a totally different kind of revolution, within the very structure and nature of the psyche, of yourself - you will bring about a social revolution. It must begin, not outwardly but inwardly, because the outer is the result of our private, inner life.

Talks with American Students
J. Krishnamurti Talks with American Students, Chapter 1 1st Talk at the University of Puerto Rico, San Juan 10th September, 1968

This post was last updated by Rich Nolet Wed, 15 Feb 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 15 Feb 2017 #12
Thumb_001 Sean Hen Spain 576 posts in this forum Offline

Rich Nolet wrote:
Hi Sean. I think that an insight into the whole of this dialogue and the observation of ourselves that corroborate what is being said , what it is pointing to, is what make it possible to understand what is going on at the deepest level of our being . And isn't it what is important ? Excuse my poor choice of words, but, you see what I mean ?

Hi Rich. Yes, I think I see what you mean. We can see the truth of what Krishnamurti says because we can see it going on in ourselves.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 15 Feb 2017 #13
Thumb_001 Sean Hen Spain 576 posts in this forum Offline

Jean Gatti wrote:
This is not the right question to ask ... the right question would rather be : What does it mean to be driven by thought ? What does it mean to have goals ? etc ... Do we see clearly what this implies ?

But Jean, surely Krishnamurti is throwing some light on what is going on in all of us and inviting us to become more aware of this through observation.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying all 13 posts
Page 1 of 1
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.)