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

Are we exerting all our energy to meet the current crisis?


Displaying posts 61 - 78 of 78 in total
Fri, 15 May 2020 #61
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 545 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
Realizing that the old is memory and the new is now does not change or deny the fact that "my child spits on me, runs away from home, roams the streets with a gun." But it allows me to see the child freshly. What is going on with the child? Can there be an entirely new relationship? What is happening with me? What is this self, separated from the child? What does "my" mean with regard to this person? Can I engage this person afresh, with respect, love? Any past or future ideas only color clear discovery now, yes?

Where observation/attention is the flowering or effortless movement of life, to observe the child does not mean to ask oneself questions based on ideas - that "old is memory, now is right now" or any other idea. The effortless movement of life engenders affection, doesn'it it? Affection is not engendered by thought, questions, ideas, duty, obligation, and so on. And affection is needed in relationship. Without affection, what is relationship actually? A battle, isn't it?

Where attention is NOT the movement of affection, no amount of "right" questions can lead to "right" actions, as I see it. The future is included IN the question "Can there be an entirely new relationship". The past is included IN the question "Can there be an entirely new relationship". These questions spring from the desire to change what is into what should be. The desire to change what is, is time. Affection is not.

Action in relationship cannot be rooted in thought. No matter how good the intentions, without affection, action is divisive, conflictual, sterile. Where there is affection and attention, there is right action, the action of intelligence, as I see it. This action and intelligence are not the action of the self-centre. They are not personal. No?

This post was last updated by Huguette . Fri, 15 May 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 15 May 2020 #62
Thumb_pd Paul Dimmock United Kingdom 253 posts in this forum Offline

There is no psychological reorientation.

natarajan shivan: I am not sure about that assertion, psychological as in processes of thinking, feeling etc are not hampered, reorientation is still the word I would prefer.

Are you facing the fact that you are dead? Then assertions don’t come into it at all.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 15 May 2020 #63
Thumb_leaping_fire_frog_by_sirenofchaos natarajan shivan India 98 posts in this forum Offline

Paul Dimmock wrote:
Are you facing the fact that you are dead? Then assertions don’t come into it at all.

Not wanting to dramatize the fact, as words like 'death' could carry lot of unintended emotional energy; facing the fact of death appears to be an acceptance of a paradox, the choicelessness in taking a singular direction of movement in any given moment and at the same time not feeling bound by it.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 15 May 2020 #64
Thumb_avatar idiot ? United States 820 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
The future is included IN the question "Can there be an entirely new relationship". The past is included IN the question "Can there be an entirely new relationship". These questions spring from the desire to change what is into what should be. The desire to change what is, is time.

If you insist on reading in what is not there, you will find what is not there.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 15 May 2020 #65
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1487 posts in this forum Offline

Paul Dimmock wrote:
Are you facing the fact that you are dead?

I don't understand your use of the word "death" here...is it meant to shock? What is this 'death' you are asking us to "face"? Not physical death, not the death of the brain...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 15 May 2020 #66
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 545 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
If you insist on reading in what is not there, you will find what is not there.

I throw your statement back to you. If you insist on reading in insistence - that is, you do not examine the presumed insistence, you do not question it - and so you inevitably “see” insistence. If, without examining such questions, without looking into them, you automatically insist that there is no time implicit in these questions, then you cannot see time in them even if there is.

But I’m not insisting on anything. I could be wrong. To me, time, desire, comparison, motive are seen in such questions: because isn’t the very asking whether there can be a new relationship based on dissatisfaction with the past and desire for a better future?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 15 May 2020 #67
Thumb_pd Paul Dimmock United Kingdom 253 posts in this forum Offline

natarajan shivan: Not wanting to dramatize the fact, as words like 'death' could carry lot of unintended emotional energy; facing the fact of death appears to be an acceptance of a paradox, the choicelessness in taking a singular direction of movement in any given moment and at the same time not feeling bound by it.

Dan McDermott: I don't understand your use of the word "death" here...is it meant to shock? What is this 'death' you are asking us to "face"? Not physical death, not the death of the brain...

We are dead psychologically; we are composed of dead matter; the self is a dead thing - that’s the shock we have been talking about. I am not talking about facing the fact of death. I am saying that we are already dead. If you don’t like the word ‘dead’ then replace it with the word ‘nothing’ – even though that replacement brings its own difficulties. Or, another replacement, which also brings difficulties, is to use the word ‘memories’ as in, ‘I am a bundle of memories.’ We may not like to think of ourselves in these terms, whichever word we plump for, because there is always the secret suspicion that we are rather special and have more substance than this apparent reduction provides. But I want to make it clear, be honest about it; and then face the fact with the same degree of honesty and clarity. In facing this fact, all argumentation disappears.

This post was last updated by Paul Dimmock Fri, 15 May 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 15 May 2020 #68
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1487 posts in this forum Offline

Paul Dimmock wrote:
If you don’t like the word ‘dead’ then replace it with the word ‘nothing’ – even though that replacement brings its own difficulties.

Yes the 'insight' that one is 'nothing' (not-a-thing) is to say the least extraordinary (shocking). It changes one psychologically in many ways. In my case there was a grasping also that 'nothing is everything', no division. How could it be otherwise? The image/idea of death underwent a kind of transformation in me: 'Death' could not be separate from 'life'. That 'separation' was seen as a human misunderstanding...that in fact, there was only 'renewal', only creation, etc....And that 'insight' into the oneness of everything brought about a responsibility that while the 'death' of the body may be inconsequential, it made the idea of "stepping out of the stream" very 'important'. That there was 'work' to be done not for one's own 'salvation' which makes no sense, but for 'humanity'. To be 'free from the known' mattered not for oneself but for the consciousness of humanity that for whatever reason was caught, as 'me', in this 'trap'...

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Fri, 15 May 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 15 May 2020 #69
Thumb_leaping_fire_frog_by_sirenofchaos natarajan shivan India 98 posts in this forum Offline

Paul Dimmock wrote:
But I want to make it clear, be honest about it; and then face the fact with the same degree of honesty and clarity.

It looks like we are ever moving in circles, to see the fact that we are nothing psychologically, without and at the same time consciously or sub consciously creating an opposite idea that we are somehow special appears to me as an impossible, the split of the psyche is a given and we can’t work around it with an assumption of seeing the fact with honesty and clarity as you put it. We are, whether we like it or not juggling with choices of identity to which we retreat to for the lack of energy. Unless the whole psyche responds to a real crisis of being without holding back and in unison and despite doing that meet its failure, comes a breakthrough which allows the honesty and clarity we speak of in observation.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 16 May 2020 #70
Thumb_screenshot_20180710-010635 One Self United States 1731 posts in this forum Offline

I think it is not important that we admit that we are insufficient and not alive mentally. What is important is to keep in mind the fact that we are immortal. The very realization that everything including the human mind is temporary creates a new energy to deal with the issues...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 16 May 2020 #71
Thumb_pd Paul Dimmock United Kingdom 253 posts in this forum Offline

natarajan shivan: ...to see the fact that we are nothing psychologically without and at the same time consciously or sub consciously creating an opposite idea that we are somehow special appears to me as an impossible.

Then you are not seeing the fact, that's all. You are merely seeing an idea. A fact has no opposite. You can't argue with a fact.

We are dead, but there is still the movement of ideas. Those ideas are like the bubbles from a stagnant pool.

This post was last updated by Paul Dimmock Sat, 16 May 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 16 May 2020 #72
Thumb_leaping_fire_frog_by_sirenofchaos natarajan shivan India 98 posts in this forum Offline

Paul Dimmock wrote:
Then you are not seeing the fact, that's all. You are merely seeing an idea. A fact has no opposite. You can't argue with a fact.

The larger point is that, the psychological apparatus forever prevents a direct contact with the fact without keeping the escape doors open.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 16 May 2020 #73
Thumb_pd Paul Dimmock United Kingdom 253 posts in this forum Offline

natarajan shivan: The larger point is that the psychological apparatus forever prevents a direct contact with the fact...

Who is saying ‘forever’? It is only thought that operates in terms of forever. Can the entire psychological apparatus fall apart right now and right here in the middle of this dialogue? Of course it can. Otherwise it is just a lot of theoretical nonsense we are spouting. If there is such a thing as psychological apparatus than that apparatus is composed of many fragments. Anything that is fragmentary falls apart in the face of unlimited energy. That’s what our whole question is about.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 16 May 2020 #74
Thumb_leaping_fire_frog_by_sirenofchaos natarajan shivan India 98 posts in this forum Offline

Paul Dimmock wrote:
Who is saying ‘forever’? It is only thought that operates in terms of forever.

Taking psychological apparatus as it is and on it's own, it is hinted that escape is its mode of operation, unless of course the actuality of experiencing invalidates it.

Paul Dimmock wrote:
Can the entire psychological apparatus fall apart right now and right here in the middle of this dialogue? Of course it can. Otherwise it is just a lot of theoretical nonsense we are spouting. If there is such a thing as psychological apparatus than that apparatus is composed of many fragments. Anything that is fragmentary falls apart in the face of unlimited energy.

To me it appears that if we hold K’s teachings as a body of knowledge and internalize it, we seek to discover its elements intellectually. Knowingly or unknowingly, we get to believe in a method where there is not any, other than an understanding and therefore a natural pointer. And most of the times, it is the sensing of a methodical approach as subtle force in operation that dissuades people from dialogue.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 16 May 2020 #75
Thumb_pd Paul Dimmock United Kingdom 253 posts in this forum Offline

natarajan shivan: To me it appears that if we hold K’s teachings as a body of knowledge and internalize it, we seek to discover its elements intellectually. Knowingly or unknowingly, we get to believe in a method where there is not any, other than an understanding and therefore a natural pointer. And most of the times, it is the sensing of a methodical approach as subtle force in operation that dissuades people from dialogue.

Sir, if you are detecting a methodological approach, that’s the easiest thing to face up to and cast aside because the other person is merely speaking from a formula. So you cut through the formula. That’s all. A methodical approach, on the other hand, may simply mean that we are going step by step, careful not to race ahead of one another.

This post was last updated by Paul Dimmock Sat, 16 May 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 17 May 2020 #76
Thumb_001 Sean Hen Spain 959 posts in this forum Offline

idiot ? wrote:
Realizing that the old is memory and the new is now does not change or deny the fact that "my child spits on me, runs away from home, roams the streets with a gun." But it allows me to see the child freshly.

I see things very much the same and would say that "freshness" is absolutely key to K's teachings. It seems clear that we do not, in general, have a sense of freshness or newness in our lives. Whether it's walking past the same tree we see every day and never really noticing what it looks like or reading a message here and passing it through our filter of what we understand the teachings to be, we are stuck in the past. I would say that this is observable every day. In the example of the child displaying worrying behaviour above, seeing the situation with freshness, as if from the outside, may be very helpful.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 17 May 2020 #77
Thumb_leaping_fire_frog_by_sirenofchaos natarajan shivan India 98 posts in this forum Offline

Paul Dimmock wrote:
A methodical approach, on the other hand, may simply mean that we are going step by step, careful not to race ahead of one another.

Even the ask for not racing ahead is of a tall order, usually the parties in dialogue due to the fact of their personal histories are generally out of sync, and though they may appear to be listening, ‘listening’ or ‘awareness’ which truly means as the dialogue is progressing, the quality of it matures from that of taking in information TO a taking of full responsibility for the present ongoing event and being able to sustain that responsibility past that event with a direction. A logical step by step arriving to that requires not only the co-operation of psyche which is subjected to a lot of history and past hurts and having a split in itself with various layers but also a real time experiential understanding. I am not against the contention of ‘we need to start somewhere’ but am against the borrowed conviction from K or whomever that that indeed is the way. We copy the styles, the phrases and even the attitudes.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 17 May 2020 #78
Thumb_pd Paul Dimmock United Kingdom 253 posts in this forum Offline

natarajan shivan: I am not against the contention of ‘we need to start somewhere’ but am against the borrowed conviction from K or whomever that that indeed is the way. We copy the styles, the phrases and even the attitudes.

It may not be copying; it may just be common sense. But start where you like; I'll follow you in.

This post was last updated by Paul Dimmock Sun, 17 May 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 61 - 78 of 78 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.)