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

Can we ask the right question?


Displaying posts 61 - 90 of 367 in total
Thu, 17 Jan 2019 #61
Thumb_nolet Rich Nolet Canada 328 posts in this forum Offline

Paul Dimmock wrote:
Yes, but have we had this insight? Or are we merely borrowing it from K?

I think that from here, it is up to each one of us to see by ourselves Paul. Whether one have an insight into all that or not, who can tell ?

This post was last updated by Rich Nolet Thu, 17 Jan 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 17 Jan 2019 #62
Thumb_pd Paul Dimmock United Kingdom 189 posts in this forum Offline

Rich: I think that from here it is up to each one of us to see by ourselves. Whether one have an insight into all that or not, who can tell?

Never mind who can tell. The whole point is we don't exist. There is no such thing as each one of us. You are missing a most tremendous thing.

This post was last updated by Paul Dimmock Thu, 17 Jan 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 17 Jan 2019 #63
Thumb_nolet Rich Nolet Canada 328 posts in this forum Offline

I understand. So how would you answer your question : have we had this insight? Or are we merely borrowing it from K?

This post was last updated by Rich Nolet Thu, 17 Jan 2019.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Fri, 18 Jan 2019 #64
Thumb_nolet Rich Nolet Canada 328 posts in this forum Offline

I think that we have to be careful with this statement we don't exist. It is about the psyche, for which K. uses the words the all structure of thought-time, which is the self, isn't it ? What is the state of the mind after such an insight? For sure we still have memories, knowledges in certain technical area, a name...

We can't say I have an insight or I have had an insight since insight happen out of this structure. If we make a conclusion out of an insight, this conclusion is then in the thought-time structure. If we put an end to an insight, then it is from an insight to another insight. K.point out that thought-time doesn't lead to insight; though insight can use thought.

This post was last updated by Rich Nolet Fri, 18 Jan 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 18 Jan 2019 #65
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1352 posts in this forum Offline

Rich Nolet wrote:
I think that we have to be careful with this statement we don't exist. It is about the psyche, for which K. uses the words the all structure of thought-time, which is the self, isn't it ? What is the state of the mind after such an insight? For sure we still have memories, knowledges in certain technical area, a name...

We can't say I have an insight or I have had an insight since insight happen out of this structure. If we make a conclusion out of an insight, this conclusion is then in the thought-time structure. If we put an end to an insight, then it is from an insight to another insight.

Maybe it's best Rich with this, to 'leave it alone'? I don't think that 'analysis' is of any use here except to support the 'self', and to continue the illusion that the 'I', 'me', exists and that I am more than just this "movement of memory".

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 18 Jan 2019 #66
Thumb_nolet Rich Nolet Canada 328 posts in this forum Offline

Exactly Dan.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 18 Jan 2019 #67
Thumb_pd Paul Dimmock United Kingdom 189 posts in this forum Offline

Rich: I understand. So how would you answer your question: "Have we had this insight? Or are we merely borrowing it from K?"

We are talking about an insight into the fact that we don't exist. I think that's fairly simple to answer. We exist only from what we have said or done in the past. That is, our whole psychological existence is based on the past. So what are we now as we are talking and listening to one another? Is it just one part of the past engaging with another part of the past? Is it one set of opinions bouncing off another set of opinions? That's generally how we operate, not just here but in everyday life too. That's our habit, our tradition, the way we have been educated and all the rest of it. Or, is there another way, entirely different, which comes about when the mind is completely empty? We can theorise about why the mind is not empty and also about how to make it empty; but all those theories just keep the mind topped-up.

So can we first just put the question and allow it some space to breathe and to flower: Can the mind be totally empty? That is our question, I hope. If not, it is my question alone and you are going to go off to something else. But if this is truly our question and there is no other question more important than this, then we have already effected a great change in lots of ways, especially a great change in our own relationship.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 18 Jan 2019 #68
Thumb_patricia_1_2016_copy Patricia Hemingway Australia 1913 posts in this forum Offline

Paul Dimmock wrote:
We are talking about an insight into the fact that we don't exist.

Surely to the earth we definitely do exist. We may desire to wish ourselves away, but the havoc humanity has created upon this beautiful planet remains. So really, fanciful arguments just do not cut it.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 18 Jan 2019 #69
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 1053 posts in this forum Offline

Paul Dimmock wrote:
So can we first just put the question and allow it some space to breathe and to flower: Can the mind be totally empty?

I think that is a wrong question to ask because the question implies becoming or being which involves time and conflict. The mind is either occupied with thought or the past or it is free to observe. The fact is that we are not free to observe. Let's stick to the fact that we are occupied with thought and not bring the opposite of "be totally empty" which is merely an idea.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 19 Jan 2019 #70
Thumb_pd Paul Dimmock United Kingdom 189 posts in this forum Offline

Patricia: Surely to the earth we definitely do exist. We may desire to wish ourselves away, but the havoc humanity has created upon this beautiful planet remains. So, really, fanciful arguments just do not cut it.

It is not about arguments; they are part of the havoc we create. Psychologically, do we exist? It is a question we are putting to ourselves.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 19 Jan 2019 #71
Thumb_pd Paul Dimmock United Kingdom 189 posts in this forum Offline

One Self: I think that is a wrong question to ask because the question implies becoming or being which involves time and conflict. The mind is either occupied with thought or the past or it is free to observe. The fact is that we are not free to observe. Let's stick to the fact that we are occupied with thought and not bring the opposite of 'totally empty' which is merely an idea.

But you yourself are making this into an idea because it is the only way we know of dealing with such questions: we answer them idealistically. If it is a fact that you are occupied with thought, then there is no problem: you stop being occupied with thought. But when it is just an idea that you are occupied with thought, when it is just received wisdom gleaned from books and other sources, then the ideas abound. It is only an empty mind that is going to be able to meet this. In an empty mind there are no ideas at all. Now, have you got such a mind? Don't just say, 'Yes,' or, 'No,' as a quick conditioned response. Let's find out. It is a question we are putting, not a statement or an argument or an intellectual position. It is a question. Let's allow the question to do its job, have its rightful place.

This post was last updated by Paul Dimmock Sat, 19 Jan 2019.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Sat, 19 Jan 2019 #72
Thumb_nolet Rich Nolet Canada 328 posts in this forum Offline

Patricia Hemingway wrote:
Surely to the earth we definitely do exist. We may desire to wish ourselves away, but the havoc humanity has created upon this beautiful planet remains. So really, fanciful arguments just do not cut it.

Yes. That's why I say that we have to be careful with such a statement as we don't exist, that we are nothing. The thought-time structure that K. talk about, which is the psyche, a bundle of memories, the past, which still operate, function, in fact exist. Until there is an insight into the all thing, that I am in fact nothing, the thought-time structure continue. And that's what we are.

This post was last updated by Rich Nolet Sat, 19 Jan 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 19 Jan 2019 #73
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1352 posts in this forum Offline

Rich Nolet wrote:
the thought-time structure continues. And that's what we are.

That sounds right.The 'problem' as I understand it is that each of these "thought-time structures" revolves around a 'center' (a personalized 'me' and 'mine') and these 'centers' or 'I's which are accumulations made up from past individual experiences create an illusion of 'individuality' responsible for the divisions and conflicts between us as well as all the great mischief in the world. But here I feel K. is saying, that 'we' are not these centers, that we actually aren't these seemingly separate, individual existences at all which are just movements of memory...There is no 'I'.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sat, 19 Jan 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 19 Jan 2019 #74
Thumb_pd Paul Dimmock United Kingdom 189 posts in this forum Offline

jamie: ...if you ask any question of ten different contributors to this forum, you are likely to get ten different answers and who knows what the truth is?

Sir, we are going to find out. That's why we are here. But we have not said that we are looking for answers. We are concerned only with putting the right question. The right question contains its own truth, its own integrity; and so the right question will already contain the right answer. The right question cannot come from ten different directions at once; but, when we all want to fight over who has the best question, that is generally what happens. So this is all about whether or not we can work together as two fairly average human beings and put a question that will then take care of that side of things by doing all the work for us because it is not dependent upon on our own clever cogitations and prejudices. It may seem very arbitrary when you look at all this from outside. That is why it can only make sense when we are working together from the start and moving from there. The question that has been asked - the question of the empty mind - comes about as a direct result of everything that we have looked at so far. There have only been one or two us up to this point and now you join in. But we can easily go back over the previous ground and clarify why this question is the right question. At least, I am happy to do that; I won't speak for the others. It is very clear to me that this is the right question. I hope you will join me in exploring it a little further.

This post was last updated by Paul Dimmock Sat, 19 Jan 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 19 Jan 2019 #75
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 1053 posts in this forum Offline

Paul Dimmock wrote:

92 posts in this forum
Offline
Rich: Here is a very interesting part of a dialogue with Pupul:

K: The psyche is a bundle of memories - right? - and those memories are dead. They operate, they function, but they are the outcome of past experience which has gone. I am a movement of memories. Right? Now if I have an insight into that, there is nothing. I don't exist. (Dialogue 2, Brockwood Park, England -25 June 1983)

p- Yes, but have we had this insight? Or are we merely borrowing it from K?

Bellow I post a paragraph of what k said about the empty mind. I don't post it to support what I said earlier. Here k clearly explains what he means by an empty mind and how it can come into being. He takes you there ,the rest is up to us.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 19 Jan 2019 #76
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 1053 posts in this forum Offline

Part II - Chapter 10 - 5th Public Talk, Saanen - 19th July 1977.

To live without comparison is to remove a tremendous burden. If you remove the burden of comparison, imitation, conformity, adjustment, modification, then you are left with “what is”. Conflict arises only when you try to do something with “what is”, try to transform it, to modify it, to change it, or to suppress it, run away from it. But if you have an insight into “what is” then conflict ceases; you are left with “what is”. And what happens to “what is”? What is the state of your mind when you are looking at “what is”? What is the state of your mind when you are not escaping, not trying to transform, or deform “what is”? What is the state of that mind that is looking and has insight? The state of the mind that has insight is completely empty. It is free from escapes, free from suppression, analysis and so on. When all these burdens are taken away – because you see the absurdity of them, it is like taking away a heavy burden – there is freedom. Freedom implies an emptiness to observe. That emptiness gives you insight into violence – not the various forms of violence, but the whole nature of violence and the structure of violence; therefore there is immediate action about violence, which is to be free, completely, from all violence.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 19 Jan 2019 #77
Thumb_pd Paul Dimmock United Kingdom 189 posts in this forum Offline

One Self: K clearly explains what he means by an empty mind and how it can come into being. He takes you there, the rest is up to us.

Sir, all it means is that you are now filling your mind with what K said. You are using his explanations. But our question is all about the insight, not about the explanations. Can we put all such explanations aside, however esteemed they may be, and find out exactly what we are left with? Then it will be our own original insight and not a second-hand copy. This is a tremendous challenge because, apparently, we are so desperate to cling on to anything.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Sat, 19 Jan 2019 #78
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 1053 posts in this forum Offline

I have a question from you Paul and I want an honest answer ,the answer is yes or no(no other explanations please.) When you wrote the above had you read my post of k ? Yes or no.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 19 Jan 2019 #79
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 1053 posts in this forum Offline

Thought is divided. One part tells the other part what to do . One part assumes that it is independent by telling the other parts what to do. But the observer is the observed. Thought can't bring change the world because it is in constant conflict with itself.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 20 Jan 2019 #80
Thumb_patricia_1_2016_copy Patricia Hemingway Australia 1913 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
But here I feel K. is saying, that 'we' are not these centers, that we actually aren't these seemingly separate, individual existences at all which are just movements of memory...There is no 'I'

There is a collective human consciousness, into which each of us is born. Is that consciousness understood totally? There is no ending without understanding. K always spoke from understanding of the whole movement of thought - the whole of human consciousness.

This post was last updated by Patricia Hemingway Sun, 20 Jan 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 20 Jan 2019 #81
Thumb_pd Paul Dimmock United Kingdom 189 posts in this forum Offline

One Self: I have a question for you and I want an honest answer... When you wrote the above had you read my quote from K?

Yes, of course. But I am not interested in K. I have come here to enquire with you. I want to meet you. So why are you putting K between us? I also want an honest answer.

This post was last updated by Paul Dimmock Sun, 20 Jan 2019.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Sun, 20 Jan 2019 #82
Thumb_patricia_1_2016_copy Patricia Hemingway Australia 1913 posts in this forum Offline

" You then realise that you are alone and you have to be alone if you seek Truth."

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Sun, 20 Jan 2019 #83
Thumb_kr Ken D United States 34 posts in this forum Offline

Patricia Hemingway wrote:
" You then realise that you are alone and you have to be alone if you seek Truth."

"It has occurred to me, brother, that wisdom may not be the end of everything. Goodness and kindliness are, perhaps, beyond wisdom." James Stephens

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 20 Jan 2019 #84
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 1053 posts in this forum Offline

Do you really think that we have been inquiring in here? Inquiring together implies having the same mind with the same intensity at the same level. Is that even possible in these kind of back and forth which is not even alive? I am here to learn only from Krishnamurti and related topics. We don't know anything and There is nothing we can learn or teach each other except grammar or spelling . Apart from that you asked can the mind be completely empty? Have you stopped comparing ? Does not that question imply altering "what is"? The desire to alter what is breeds conflict.

And there is no K who can come between any two people. What comes between two people is the image that they have constructed of k in their minds. I have no image of K what so ever. Do you have an image of k which you try to avoid in here?

Paul Dimmock wrote:
, of course. But I am not interested in K. I have come here to enquire with you. I want to meet you. So why are you putting K between us? I also want an honest answer.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 20 Jan 2019 #85
Thumb_nolet Rich Nolet Canada 328 posts in this forum Offline

One Self, it is true that we can't teach or learn from each other, though we have a lot to learn from K., from his unique discovery. We maybe discuss all that to challenge our thinking, because we also have to learn to think by ourselves, to challenge our minds, to be free.

Concerning your statement about altering what is, I would say that transformation, mutation propose by K. is not about to alter what is , exactly as you say, but to understand what is and go beyond; a total transformation, a radical mutation of the mind. That is what is propose by K.

This post was last updated by Rich Nolet Sun, 20 Jan 2019.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Sun, 20 Jan 2019 #86
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5492 posts in this forum Offline

One Self wrote:
I am here to learn only from Krishnamurti and related topics.

This is the statement of a follower, a disciple, a true believer. To be free is to not accept any explanation from anyone but rather to find out for ourselves. Each of us are the sum total of our conditioning. Can the conditioned brain see or understand anything apart from that conditioning?

K was pointing the way but some have stopped to worship the finger that points the way.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 20 Jan 2019 #87
Thumb_nolet Rich Nolet Canada 328 posts in this forum Offline

Jack Pine wrote:
To be free is to not accept any explanation from anyone but rather to find out for ourselves. Each of us are the sum total of our conditioning. Can the conditioned brain see or understand anything apart from that conditioning? K was pointing the way but some have stopped to worship the finger that points the way.

That is so true Jack. K. point this out all his life, so that we don't worship him and be a light to oneself. We are the teacher and the teach. We have to find out for ouselves, by ourselves. And then, if we live the truth , then it is his own action, which only can bring about a transformation of what is.

This post was last updated by Rich Nolet Sun, 20 Jan 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 21 Jan 2019 #88
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1352 posts in this forum Offline

I think this excerpt that was put up in another forum addresses this subject of an 'empty mind':

It is quite difficult, I think, to differentiate between the collective and the individual, and to discover where the collective ends and the individual begins; also to see the significance of the collective, and to find out whether it is at all possible ever to be free from the collective so as to bring about the totality of the individual. I do not know if you have thought about this problem at all, but it seems to me that it is one of the fundamental issues confronting the world, especially at the present time when so much emphasis is being laid on the collective. Not only in the Communistic countries, but also in the Capitalistic world where welfare states are being created, as in England, more and more significance is being given to the collective; there are collective farms and co-operatives in various forms, and looking at all this one wonders where the individual comes into the picture, and whether there is an individual at all.
Are you an individual? You have a particular name, a private bank account, a separate house, certain facial and psychological differentiations, but are you an individual? I think it is very important to go into this, because it is only when there is the incorruptibility of the individual, which I shall discuss presently, that there is a possibility of something totally new taking place. That implies finding out for oneself where the collective ends, if it ends at all, and where the individual begins, which involves the whole problem of time. This is quite a complex subject, and being complex, one must attack it simply, directly, not in a roundabout way, and if I may I would like to go into it this morning.
Please, if I may suggest, observe your own thinking as I am talking and do not merely listen with approval or disapproval to what is being said. If you are merely listening with approval or disapproval, with a superficial intellectual outlook, then this talk and the talks that have taken place will be utterly useless. Whereas, if one is capable of observing the functioning of one's own mind as I am describing it, then that very observation does bring about an astonishing action which is not imposed or compelled.
I think it is very important for each one of us to find out where the collective ends and where the individual begins. Or, though modified by temperament, personal idiosyncrasies, and so on, is the whole of our thinking, our being, the collective? The collective is the conglomeration of various conditionings brought about by social action and reaction, by the influences of education, by religious beliefs, dogmas, tenets, and all the rest of it. This whole heterogeneous process is the collective, and if you examine, look at yourself, you will see that everything you think, your beliefs or non-belief, your ideals or opposition to ideals, your efforts, your envies, your urges, your sense of social responsibility - all that is the result of the collective. If you are a pacifist, your pacificism is the result of a particular conditioning.
So, if we look at ourselves, it is astonishing to see how completely we are the collective. After all, in the Western world, where Christianity has existed for so many centuries, you are brought up in that particular conditioning. You are educated either as a Catholic or a Protestant, with all the divisions of Protestantism. And once you are educated as a Christian, as a Hindu, or whatever it be, believ- ing in all kinds of stuff - hell, damnation, purgatory, the only Saviour, original sin, and innumerable other beliefs - , by that you are conditioned, and though you may deviate, the residue of that conditioning is there in the unconscious. You are forever afraid of hell, or of not believing in a particular Saviour, and so on.
So, as one looks at this extraordinary phenomenon, it seems rather absurd to call oneself an individual. You may have individual tastes, your name and your face may be quite different from those of another, but the very process of your thinking is entirely the result of the collective. The racial instincts, the traditions, the moral values, the extraordinary worship of success, the desire for power, position, wealth, which breeds violence - surely, all that is the result of the collective, inherited through centuries. And from all this conglomeration is it possible to extricate the individual? Or is it utterly impossible? If we are at all serious in the matter of bringing about a radical change, a revolution, isn't it very important to consider this point fundamentally? Because it is only for the man who is an individual in the sense in which I am using that word, who is not contaminated by the collective, who is entirely alone, not lonely, but completely alone inwardly - it is only for such an individual that reality comes into being.
To put it differently, we start our lives with assumptions, with postulates: that there is or there is not God, that there is heaven, hell, that there must be a certain form of relationship, morality, that a particular ideology must prevail, and so on. With these assumptions, which are the product of the collective, we build a structure which we call education, which we call religion, and we create a society in which rugged individualism is either rampant or controlled. This society is based on the assumption that it is inevitable and necessary to have competition, that there must be ambition, envy. And is it possible not to build on any assumption, but to build as we inquire, as we discover? If the discovery is that of somebody else, then we immediately enter the field of the collective, which is the field of authority; but if each one of us starts with freedom from assumptions, from all postulates, then you and I will build a totally different society, and it seems to me that this is one of the most fundamental issues at the present time.
Now, seeing this whole process, not only at the conscious level, but at the unconscious level as well - the unconscious being also the residue of the collective - , is it possible to extricate from it the individual? Which means, is it possible to think at all if thinking is stripped of the collective? Is not all your thinking collective? If you are educated as a Catholic, a Methodist, a Baptist, or what you will, your thinking is the result of the collective, conscious or unconscious; your thinking is the result of memory, and memory is the collective. This is rather complex, and one must go into it rather slowly, neither agreeing nor disagreeing; we are trying to find out.
When we say there is freedom of thought, it seems to me such utter nonsense, because, as you and I think, thinking is the reaction of memory, and memory is the outcome of the collective, the collective being Christian, Hindu, and all the rest of it. So, there can never be freedom of thought as long as thinking is based on memory. Please, this is not mere logic. Don't brush it aside that way, saying, Oh well, this is just intellectual logic'. It isn't. It happens to be logical, but I am describing a fact. As long as thought is the reaction of memory, which is the residue of the collective, the mind must function in the field of time, time being the continuation of memory as yesterday, today and to- morrow. For such a mind there is always death, corruptibility and fear, and however much it may seek something incorruptible, beyond time, it can never find it, because its thought is the result of time, of memory, of the collective.
So, can a mind whose thought is the result of the collective, whose thought is the collective, extricate itself from all that? Which means, can the mind know the timeless, the incorruptible, that which is alone, which is not influenced by any society? Don't assert or deny, don't say,
I have had an experience of it' - all that has no meaning, because this is really an extraordinarily complex question. We can see that there will always be corruption as long as the mind is functioning in the collective. It may invent a better code of morality, bring about more social reforms, but all that is within the collective influence, and therefore corruptible. Surely, to find out if there is a state which is not corruptible, which is timeless, which is immortal, the mind must be totally free from the collective; and if there is total freedom from the collective, will the individual be anti-collective? Or will he not be anti-collective, but will function at a totally different level which the collective may reject? Are you following all this?
The problem is, can the mind ever go beyond the collective? If there is no possibility of going beyond the collective, then we must be content with decorating the collective, opening up windows in the prison, installing better lights, more bathrooms, and so on. That is what the world is concerned with, which it calls progress, a higher standard of living. I am not against a higher standard of living, that would be silly, especially if one comes from India where one sees starvation as it is never seen in any other part of the world except perhaps in China, where people have half a meal a day and not even that, where there is sorrow suffering, disease, and the incapacity to revolt because they are starved. So, no intelligent man can be against a higher standard of living; but if that is all, then life is merely materialistic. Then suffering is inevitable; then ambition, competition, antagonism, ruthless efficiency, war, and the whole structure of the modern world, with occasional witch-hunting and social reform, is perfectly all right. But if one begins to inquire into the problem of sorrow - sorrow as death, sorrow as frustration, sorrow as the darkness of ignorance - , then one must question this whole structure, not just parts of it, not just the army, or the government, in order to bring about a particular reform. Either one must accept this society in its entirety, or one must reject it completely - reject it, not in the sense of running away from it, but finding out its significance.
So, if there is no possibility for the mind to extricate itself from this prison of the collective, then the mind can only go back and reform the prison. But to me there is such a possibility, because to struggle everlastingly in the prison would be to stupid. And how is the mind to extricate itself from this heterogeneous mass of values and contradictions, pursuits and urges? Until you do that, there is no individuality. You may call yourself an individual, you may say you have a soul, a higher self, but those are all inventions of the mind which is still part of the collective.
One can see what is happening in the world. A new group of the collective is denying that there is a soul, that there is immortality, permanency, that Jesus is the only Saviour, and all the rest of it. Seeing this whole conglomeration of assertions and counter-assertions, the inevitable question arises, is it possible for the mind to disentangle itself from it? That is, can there be freedom from time, time as memory, the memory which is the product of any particular culture, civilization, or conditioning? Can the mind be free from all this memory? Not the memory of how to build a bridge, or the structure of the atom, or the way to one's house; that is factual memory, and without it one would be insane, or in a state of amnesia. But can the mind be free from psychological memory? Surely, it can be free only when it is not seeking security. After all, as I was saying yesterday afternoon, as long as the mind is seeking security, whether in a bank account, in a religion, or in various forms of social action and relationship, there must be violence. The man who has much breeds violence; but the man who sees the much and becomes a hermit, he also breeds violence, because he is seeking security, not in the world, but in ideas.
The problem is, then, can the mind be free from memory, not the memory of information, of knowledge, of facts, but the collective memory which has accrued through centuries of belief? If you put that question to yourself with full attention and do not wait for me to answer, because there is no answer, then you will see that as long as your mind is seeking security in any form, you belong to the collective, to the memory of many centuries. And not to seek security is astonishingly difficult, because one may reject the collective, but develop a collective of one's own experience. Do you understand? I may reject society with all its corruption, with its collective ambition, greed, competitiveness; but having rejected it, I have experiences, and every experience leaves a residue. That residue also becomes the collective, because I have collected it; it becomes my security, which I give to my son, to my neighbour, so I again create the collective in a different pattern.
Is it possible for the mind to be totally free from the memory of the collective? That means being free from envy, from competitiveness, from ambition, from dependence, from this everlasting search for the permanent as a means to be secure; and when there is that freedom, only then is there the individual. Then a totally different state of mind and being exists. Then there is no possibility of corruption, of time, and for such a mind, which may be called individual or some other name, reality comes into being. You cannot go after reality; if you do it becomes your security, therefore it is utterly false, meaningless, like your pursuing money, ambition, fulfilment. Reality must come to you; and it cannot come to you as long as there is the corruption of the collective. That is why the mind must be completely alone, uninfluenced, uncontaminated, therefore free of time, and only then that which is measureless, timeless, comes into being.
[cut]
I hope that you are not being mesmerized by me. Please, what I am saying has meaning, I am not saying it casually. You listen with silence. If that silence is merely the result of being overpowered by another personality, or by ideas, then it is utterly valueless. But if your silence is the natural outcome of your attention in observing your own thoughts, your own mind, then you are not being mesmerized, you are not being hypnotized. Then you do not create a new collective, a new following, a new leader - which is a horror, it has no meaning and is most destructive. If you are really alert, inwardly observant, you will find that these talks will have been worthwhile, because they will have revealed the functioning of your own mind. Then you have nothing to learn from another, therefore there is no teacher, no disciple, no following. The totality of all this is in your own conscious- ness, and one who describes that consciousness does not constitute a leader. You don't worship a map, or the telephone, or the blackboard on which something is written. So this is not the creation of a new group, a new leader, a new following, at least, not for me. If you create it, it is your own misery. But if you observe your own mind, which is what the blackboard says, then such observation leads to an extraordinary discovery, and that discovery brings its own action.
Ojai 1955 talk 8

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Mon, 21 Jan 2019 #89
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 1053 posts in this forum Offline

Jack Pine wrote:
I am here to learn only from Krishnamurti and related topics.

This is the statement of a follower, a disciple, a true believer.

You worship yourself jack . You can't understand Krishnamurti. If you could you would have by now. Leave the teachings and continue worshiping yourself. Don't live with conflict .k is not for you. All you do is twist the teachings.

.

Rich Nolet wrote:
but to understand what is and go beyond; a total transformation, a radical mutation of the mind. That is what is propose by K.

The whole problem starts when one thinks that he can go beyond "what is"

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 21 Jan 2019 #90
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 5492 posts in this forum Offline

Patricia Hemingway wrote:
" You then realise that you are alone and you have to be alone if you seek Truth."

A thing most of us live in fear of; being alone. Our whole society is based on activities to avoid, escape and otherwise vanquish being alone.

There is a Christian church here in Ojai that has a large sign, a banter, outside saying: BELIEVE BELONG BECOME. Which translates to the past, present and future. A slogan without the understanding, possibly, of how all of this is invented by and related to thought. Will these three goals, if attained, end their suffering or perpetuate suffering?

This post was last updated by Jack Pine Mon, 21 Jan 2019.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Displaying posts 61 - 90 of 367 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.)