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

A Blueprint of Our Lives

This topic is locked.


Displaying all 18 posts
Page 1 of 1
Mon, 21 Aug 2017 #1
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 4916 posts in this forum Offline

This is the verbatim quote from today's quote; 8/21/17. This is the way most of us live isn't it? So clearly stated there is nothing to add. Just read it, please.

Krishnamurti Quote of the Day

Stresa, Italy | 1st Public Talk, 2nd July, 1933

What, then, is the cause of conflict? Why does one suffer? Why does one have to struggle ceaselessly? To me, conflict is the impeded flow of spontaneous action, of harmonious thought and feeling. When thought and emotion are inharmonious, there is conflict in action; that is, when mind and heart are in a state of discord, they create an impediment to the expression of harmonious action, and hence conflict. Such impediment to harmonious action is caused by the desire to escape, by the continual avoidance of facing life wholly, by meeting life always with the weight of tradition - be it religious, political, or social. This incapacity to face experience in its completeness creates conflict, and the desire to escape from it.

If you consider your thoughts and the acts springing from them, you will see that where there is the desire to escape there must be the search for security; because you find conflict in life with all its actions, its affections, its thoughts, you want to escape from that conflict to a satisfactory security, to a permanency. So your whole action is based on this desire for security. But actually, there is no security in life - neither physical nor intellectual, neither emotional nor spiritual. If you feel you are secure, you can never find that living reality; yet most of you are seeking security.

This post was last updated by Jack Pine Tue, 22 Aug 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 22 Aug 2017 #2
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 226 posts in this forum Offline

Of course, there is no security in that disaster can strike at any time. But we have basic needs that it seems wise to take care of to the extent that we can. We need sufficient food, we need shelter from the elements, we need to be able to breathe, we need an environment that is not too toxic. Most of K's listeners when he talked probably had these fundamentals fairly well taken care of. But more and more, very basic survival can be threatened. Housing costs, especially for renters and for first time home buyers are soaring. Much of what passes for food is not very nutritious and may be harmful. To buy fresh, healthful fruits and vegetables is increasingly expensive while government subsidies of unhealthful foods makes them the cheapest way to get sufficient calories. Our homes and environment are often toxic from things like fire retardants in the furniture and chemical cleaning products. And so on.

So it does seem wise to attend to basic needs. Is that seeking security? In a way. You can know that all is transient and nothing is sure. Yet you can still attend to basic necessities.

What do you say?

This post was last updated by idiot ? Tue, 22 Aug 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 22 Aug 2017 #3
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 4916 posts in this forum Offline

Idiot, two people read the same thing and there are two radically different understandings taken away. I'm not saying anyone is right or wrong it's just what comes of two different understandings based on two different sets of conditionings, ie experience and knowledge.

What you have written above has, as far as I can see, absolutely no relevance to what K was trying to point out in the quote I posted.

The quote, obviously, is all about psychological security and yet you chose, for reasons best know to yourself, to focus on physical security. No one is denying that our basic needs are food, clothes and shelter.

If you would simply look at your thought process and become aware of how it is almost continually escaping from what it is and also assimilating everything that is new into the matrix of thought which is the past then you might see what K said in a different light.

I think this lack of mutual understanding of something expressed by a third party is an excellent example of why there is almost no meaningful communication between humans. Based on this apparent fact I'm not going to argue with you about this. I'm not going to try to defend my view because I'm not responsible for how you see things or how you understand things. I'm only responsible for my understanding.

This post was last updated by Jack Pine Tue, 22 Aug 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 22 Aug 2017 #4
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 226 posts in this forum Offline

Krishnamurti asks in the quote above:
Why does one suffer? Why does one have to struggle ceaselessly?

In 1933, when K asked why one suffers, most of his listeners, as I said, suffered from psychological rather than physical conditions. But more and more, if you are poor - or even if you are not so poor, you struggle physically just to survive.

I don't think K's message is only for the richest 1%. I don't think we have only to understand what K said in a quote for the time he said it. I think it is also for us to go forward and see what it has to say today. And also what it does not have to say and what we have to say.

In addition, K mentions physical, intellectual, emotional, and spiritual security. So surely it is not out of bounds to discuss physical security.

To see that rents are going up and up is what is. To see that much processed food is unhealthful is what is. To see that many household products are toxic is what is. And it is not self-centered to see that these problems affect many, many people.

It is escape to look away from this reality. K did not look away from the struggles of the poor, the struggles of survival. As the ranks of poverty grow, we too must face what is and not escape.

So, yes, the physical and not only the psychological, is important.

This post was last updated by idiot ? Tue, 22 Aug 2017.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Tue, 22 Aug 2017 #5
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 226 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
If we could 'see' our actual place in the scheme of things, we wouldn't be so screwed up...but since we don't, it's every man for himself. And that 'ignorance' of what we we truly are has created the 'self-centeredness' and fear, competition, greed, etc. in us and in the societies we've created.

I'm not sure what you mean by "our actual place."

Perhaps you mean that "you are the world," that you are not different from those suffering and striving, and that by understanding the suffering and strife we can change the world and society?

This post was last updated by idiot ? Tue, 22 Aug 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 22 Aug 2017 #6
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 226 posts in this forum Offline

Krishnamurti in the quote:
...because you find conflict in life with all its actions, its affections, its thoughts, you want to escape from that conflict to a satisfactory security, to a permanency. So your whole action is based on this desire for security.

Dan McDermott wrote:
Isn't this a strange use of words?, we want to escape from life with all "its thoughts"?

Thought itself is conflict, of course, the past colliding with what is. But seeing this, we can create an ideal, an attachment to the realm of no thought. This creates a new conflict between the peace of the silent mind and the thoughts which are buzzing away creating conflict in people. If we are attached to solitary emptiness, we don't have compassion to come back and help people.

Most of us need to clarify silence, the natural stilling of thought. But for those few that do open their heart/minds, there are yet more traps and conflicts to be aware of. And one of those is attachment to freedom from thought, to the extent that it takes you into escapism, not compassionately coming back and helping people.

So here K is talking about seeking spiritual permanency and how that is an escape. Reality is the insecurity of whatever is right now.

This post was last updated by idiot ? Tue, 22 Aug 2017.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Tue, 22 Aug 2017 #7
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 4916 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Isn't this a strange use of words?, we want to escape from life with all "its thoughts"?

Dan. No I don't find that strange at all. The whole quote that I referenced seems extremely clearly and concisely put. How you see it is your business.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 22 Aug 2017 #8
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 4916 posts in this forum Offline

Idiot, do you see that you are drawing several conclusions that are pulling you away from what K originally said? Do you find comfort or security in intellectualizing about what K said instead of staying with it and seeing what he is saying about escaping and thought as it manifests in your own thinking of the moment?

It seems that so many conversations on this forum and elsewhere start with a simple fact(s) that K pointed out and end up being the seed of a long running dissertation on what someone thinks K was saying. Why complicate what is pointed out by thinking about it instead of just observing?

I'm not talking about observing as a reaction or as an ideal because K said to observe but because you see or feel the "truth" of what is being pointed out and you see it in your own thinking. You see that your thought is constantly seeking a comfort zone, a secure place for it to reside in away from the fears, anxieties and insecurities of other thoughts you are having.

It seems clear, obvious, that thinking, which is limited, can never find or create a "safe, secure" place. And the more thought strives to seek this comfort the more disorder it creates.

This post was last updated by Jack Pine Tue, 22 Aug 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 22 Aug 2017 #9
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 226 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Peter is saying 'we' are the 'light'. K. is saying, there is no 'death' that death and life are one, that we try to cling to one and fear the other. Peter speaks of 'dimensions', K doesn't use that terminology but to me what is being 'pointed at (rightly or wrongly) is that what I take as reality is not the 'whole picture'.

Whoever this Peter is, I don't understand what he is saying, perhaps because you are presenting it here very briefly. So I guess I have to leave Peter stuff aside.

Now "death" is definitely relevant to the conversation because it's the ultimate thing we try to escape from and try to seek security from. And while K does say that death and life are one, he also talks about dying into the moment. The ultimate act of insecurity! Let go of all past preconceptions and die into right now.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 22 Aug 2017 #10
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 226 posts in this forum Offline

Jack Pine wrote:
Idiot, do you see that you are drawing several conclusions that are pulling you away from what K originally said?

I am definitely expanding beyond what K said in the quote. I am saying what I am saying and K is saying what K is saying. This doesn't mean that I don't understand what K is saying. I may or may not understand him. It just means that I have something additional to say that is related.

However, I also am perfectly happy to explore with you what K is saying in the quote. So let's take it bit by bit:

The K quote:
What, then, is the cause of conflict? Why does one suffer? Why does one have to struggle ceaselessly? To me, conflict is the impeded flow of spontaneous action, of harmonious thought and feeling.

I'm glad that some people were paying K's rent, cooking him lunch, and buying him nice clothes so he didn't have to concern himself too much with the physical. It is valid to question relevancy to those of us who must pay rent, etc. But we're leaving that aside to see what he is saying.

He's saying there can be a nice flow of spontaneous action, harmony in thought and feeling. Then along comes an impediment: conflict! This can cause suffering and struggle.

The K quote continues:
When thought and emotion are inharmonious, there is conflict in action; that is, when mind and heart are in a state of discord, they create an impediment to the expression of harmonious action, and hence conflict.

Internal conflict spills over into external conflict. Any internal disturbance ripples outward.

The K quote continues:
Such impediment to harmonious action is caused by the desire to escape, by the continual avoidance of facing life wholly, by meeting life always with the weight of tradition - be it religious, political, or social. This incapacity to face experience in its completeness creates conflict, and the desire to escape from it.

Now we arrive at the crux. Conflict is caused by wanting to escape and by not engaging fully. We had better examine this extremely carefully to see if K is right and not just assume he is. We also must consider if this is the only cause of conflict or just one of many causes.

We tend to approach circumstance with the background of our ideas about things, religious, political, social, etc. With this brain activity we are not fully present and therefore we react with only partial, fragmented involvement. Because we want to be safe and secure, we escape and look away at least partially, rather than surrendering 100% into actuality. Our partial, fragmented response is already conflict and it's application to the circumstance at hand is further conflict.

While this is all true, isn't it saying that a conflicted response is itself conflict? It still begs the question of the cause of the conflicted response. If desire to escape causes conflict, what causes desire to escape?

We have evolved to try to survive, to take care of our physical needs, haven't we? Those of our ancestors that ignored survival didn't survive and didn't have offspring. We are the progeny of those that did attend to survival, to physical security. And now we have moved our need for physical security into the psychological realm. So a response that served us well in our physical needs has now become a source of suffering in our psychological response to circumstance.

In fact, K says elsewhere that we have to NOT survive, that we must die into the moment. That means not physical death but death to all our preconceptions and ideas. Not surviving goes against gazillions of years of evolution but psychologically we must die, we must surrender all psychological security to right now, we must risk everything.

[Next paragraph of the quote will have to have its own post.]

This post was last updated by idiot ? Tue, 22 Aug 2017.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Tue, 22 Aug 2017 #11
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 4916 posts in this forum Offline

Idiot, either you understand what K said in his quote or you don't. Expounding on,thinking about, it and introducing new subjects is diluting what was said and not bringing understanding.

Would you say that you are trying to understand what K said originally by thinking about it? This appears to be the case. It's a dead end and it's a thread killer.

Personally, I'm not interested in talking about, intellectualizing about, or analyzing what K pointed out. It doesn't bring understanding or clarity. On the contrary it seems to consistently confuse the issue.

I'm out. But carry on with your theories and opinions if you feel you must.

This post was last updated by Jack Pine Tue, 22 Aug 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 22 Aug 2017 #12
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 226 posts in this forum Offline

The K quote continues:
If you consider your thoughts and the acts springing from them, you will see that where there is the desire to escape there must be the search for security;

Of course, we have all kinds of thoughts. Some of them are very practical like how to do a particular job that needs to be done. But K concerns himself especially with those thoughts, which constitute a good many, that prop up the ego and defend the individual self. Naturally, these are synonymous with the desire to escape threats to the ego and the search for security for the ego. Even when we expand our self concept to a spiritual self there is a defense and protection of this spiritual self.

All of this is division and conflict. All of this is suffering and strife.

And the actions that spring from this self-centered thought cause more division, conflict, suffering, and strife.

The K quote continues:
because you find conflict in life with all its actions, its affections, its thoughts, you want to escape from that conflict to a satisfactory security, to a permanency.

We see all this conflict and suffering and think that there must be some escape from it, there must be a way to end it permanently. Religions and gurus say there is a way. And we ourselves cannot just let the mess go on. If we really feel the violence we cannot just be complacent about it.

So we want to end conflict totally and for good. We want absolute security. We want absorption into the absolute, a permanent spiritual escape.

The K quote continues:
So your whole action is based on this desire for security.

Either we're concerned with defending the self, with ego protection, which is escape, or we're concerned with the search for the spiritual ultimate, which is also escape. We either want security for our individual self, or a spiritualized security.

The K quote continues:
But actually, there is no security in life - neither physical nor intellectual, neither emotional nor spiritual. If you feel you are secure, you can never find that living reality; yet most of you are seeking security.

There must be letting go of everything, holding on to nothing. We grasp at the wind. It slips away anyway.

This right here, right now, alone is. This now is the only reality. Some safe past or future is only a tale you tell yourself. The extraordinary is right now, in fullness, in energy.

This post was last updated by idiot ? Tue, 22 Aug 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 22 Aug 2017 #13
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 226 posts in this forum Offline

Jack Pine wrote:
Personally, I'm not interested in talking about, intellectualizing about, or analyzing what K pointed out. It doesn't bring understanding or clarity. On the contrary it seems to consistently confuse the issue. I'm out.

If you do not wish to dialogue, you certainly do not have to be here.

If you do not want to discuss K and clarify to the degree that you can, why are you here? Do you think there is any role for dialogue? If so, what?

To me this is not intellectual. You're welcome to feel that what I say is intellectual or erroneous or whatever. But so far all you have done is say, this a wonderful K quote, anything anyone else says about it is besides the point, how you interpret it is your business but for God's sake don't share any of that with any of us. To me, dialogue is sharing. It may clarify. It may cloud. But hopefully we can be kind to each other and explore together.

Personally I think it's great if we have different viewpoints. I don't want to live in a world of all clones. I love variety and diversity. I welcome your view. Even if it is to say: here's a K quote that is brilliant, now don't say anything about it.

This post was last updated by idiot ? Tue, 22 Aug 2017.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 2 readers
Back to Top
Tue, 22 Aug 2017 #14
Thumb_stringio Brian Smith United Kingdom 212 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Idiot? I can't be bothered to argue with you. It's too tiresome. You should adhere to the perameters of the debate that was set up and decided upon. A discussion should be like when you mark out the lines on a tennis court. They were clearly implicit/explicit - one or the other, maybe both.
Coincidentally I'd like to play tennis more often. I've stopped now because sadly there's usually something wrong with the markings on my side of the court - even when I change ends.

This post was last updated by Brian Smith (account deleted) Tue, 22 Aug 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 22 Aug 2017 #15
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 226 posts in this forum Offline

Brian Smith wrote:
Idiot? I can't be bothered to argue with you. You should adhere to the perameters of the debate. A discussion should be like when you mark out the lines on a tennis court.

Thank you for not arguing with me. I don't wish to argue with you or anyone.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean about how a discussion should be. Perhaps you mean that I should ask more questions the way K did rather than make statements? I appreciate that his style of dialogue was a more invitational one. Clearly, I'm not K. I could certainly phrase my viewpoints as questions but they would still be what they are. I don't think posing them as questions would fool anyone or make them more palatable. I am expressing a view but am absolutely open to it being questioned in any way, in part or in full.

I've been long winded in this thread because I was told that I was diverging from the quote. So I dealt at length with the quote. Then, apparently that wasn't satisfactory either.

It seems very common to have ideas about how dialogue should be and to be disappointed about how dialogue turns out. I've definitely been disappointed with dialogues, especially live ones with big groups. I've felt that in those, no ideas get investigated thoroughly and before someone gets very far, he or she is interrupted and things go off on a different tangent. So I can understand dissatisfaction with dialogue. But I also know that dialogue includes awareness of that dissatisfaction and my expectations that created that dissatisfaction.

I don't know about marking out tennis courts and what that means. Boundaries? My hope is that together we are investigating the unbounded.

This post was last updated by idiot ? Tue, 22 Aug 2017.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Tue, 22 Aug 2017 #16
Thumb_stringio Brian Smith United Kingdom 212 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

I'm sorry Idiot? I was being ironic. Apparently that's what us English people are supposed to be. Please read my post again with that information and you'll see I'm not being critical.
I was agreeing that a thread should be able to veer off in any direction and not be tired to restrictions laid down at the beginning, otherwise what's the point of it all? Love your posts.

This post was last updated by Brian Smith (account deleted) Tue, 22 Aug 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 22 Aug 2017 #17
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 226 posts in this forum Offline

Brian Smith wrote:
I'm sorry Idiot? I was being ironic.

Well, I did get the part about changing sides of the tennis court and thought that was funny. But apparently the rest of it went over my head. Thank you for clarifying.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 22 Aug 2017 #18
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 4916 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
If you do not wish to dialogue, you certainly do not have to be here.

And you are through "dialoging" on this thread. You obviously don't have a clue about what K was saying in the quote. And all the words, theories, opinions, excuses, side tracts and anything else you can come up with is not only irrelevant to the quote it is a distraction to others who might fully appreciate it as I did.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying all 18 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.)