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

sorrow


Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 106 in total
Mon, 27 Dec 2010 #1
Thumb_arg25 anand ramagoud India 23 posts in this forum Offline

Is there a division in sorrow ?

Truth is not 'what is', but the understanding of 'what is'opens the door to the truth.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 27 Dec 2010 #2
Thumb_avatar Ravi Seth India 1573 posts in this forum Offline

anand ramagoud wrote:
Is there a division in sorrow ?

division is sorrow

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Mon, 27 Dec 2010 #3
Thumb_1507053_1_ Jayaraj Kapila Kulasinghe Sri Lanka 1208 posts in this forum Offline

Ravi Seth wrote:
Is there a division in sorrow ?

Can sorrow exist by itself? Does it not exist in relation to something?

This post was last updated by Jayaraj Kapila Kulasinghe Mon, 27 Dec 2010.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 27 Dec 2010 #4
Thumb_avatar Ravi Seth India 1573 posts in this forum Offline

Kapila Kulasinghe wrote:
Can sorrow exist by itself? Does it not exist in relation to something?

Definitely it exists in relation to something and division means two.... separateness!!.... me and my sorrow... without division sorrow isn't there.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 27 Dec 2010 #5
Thumb_arg25 anand ramagoud India 23 posts in this forum Offline

Sir, I think we need to go a little slow here. When a loved one dies, I mean 'loved', there is intense pain, one goes into a shock, there is no seperation there. When there is no movement of escape from sorrow then love is. If I move away from it or try to escape from it, there is fragmentation, there is division, isn't it ? The point is the escape or moving away comes in a little later, when thought enters, isn't it ?

Truth is not 'what is', but the understanding of 'what is'opens the door to the truth.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 27 Dec 2010 #6
Thumb_arg25 anand ramagoud India 23 posts in this forum Offline

Sir, life is relationship, its not possible to live in isolation. when there is no division between me & sorrow does it not men that I am sorrow ?

Truth is not 'what is', but the understanding of 'what is'opens the door to the truth.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 27 Dec 2010 #7
Thumb_stringio nick carter United States 777 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

anand ramagoud wrote:
Sir, life is relationship, its not possible to live in isolation. when there is no division between me & sorrow does it not men that I am sorrow ?

How can there be relationship without division, separation? Relationship is the way separate things interact, be it cooperatively or in conflict.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 27 Dec 2010 #8
Thumb_stringio nick carter United States 777 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

anand ramagoud wrote:
Sir, life is relationship, its not possible to live in isolation. when there is no division between me & sorrow does it not men that I am sorrow ?

How can there be relationship without division, separation? Relationship is the way separate things interact, be it cooperatively or in conflict.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 27 Dec 2010 #9
Thumb_avatar Om Dadhich India 9 posts in this forum Offline

anand ramagoud wrote:
Sir, life is relationship, its not possible to live in isolation. when there is no division between me & sorrow does it not men that I am sorrow ?

Very true anandji, when no division between me and sorrow, then I am sorrow.So no division is only requirement to become sorrow.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 27 Dec 2010 #10
Thumb_avatar Om Dadhich India 9 posts in this forum Offline

nick carter wrote:
How can there be relationship without division, separation? Relationship is the way separate things interact, be it cooperatively or in conflict.

Very true sir
Interesting point sir, Without division how can be any relation? It is obvious.Then should I end all relation to end division?Or should I maintain division to maintain relation?This is the question I am asking to myself.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 27 Dec 2010 #11
Thumb_stringio nick carter United States 777 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Om Dadhich wrote:
Then should I end all relation to end division?Or should I maintain division to maintain relation?

These questions may be meaningless because "I", the one who would end or maintain division is thought, and thought can neither end or maintain itself.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 27 Dec 2010 #12
Thumb_avatar Om Dadhich India 9 posts in this forum Offline

nick carter wrote:
These questions may be meaningless because "I", the one who would end or maintain division is thought, and thought can neither end or maintain itself.

Again it appear true.Then what should I do?Everything is meaningless.Thought is always division.Then what to do?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 27 Dec 2010 #13
Thumb_stringio nick carter United States 777 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Om Dadhich wrote:
Again it appear true.Then what should I do?Everything is meaningless.Thought is always division.Then what to do?

There's nothing to be done, and if something happens, it has nothing to do with you.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 27 Dec 2010 #14
Thumb_avatar Om Dadhich India 9 posts in this forum Offline

nick carter wrote:
There's nothing to be done, and if something happens, it has nothing to do with you.

It's good, nothing to do.But, this time I am typing words.I always do this or that, thinking if or but.Then doing is continue.What about this continues doing?Should this doing be continue?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 27 Dec 2010 #15
Thumb_stringio nick carter United States 777 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Om Dadhich wrote:
I always do this or that, thinking if or but.Then doing is continue.What about this continues doing?Should this doing be continue?

Living is doing. The question is whether one can end dualistic consciousness, the cause of suffering, and the standard answer is that there is no method, no means, nothing it can do to bring about its cessation.

This post was last updated by nick carter (account deleted) Tue, 28 Dec 2010.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 28 Dec 2010 #16
Thumb_avatar Ravi Seth India 1573 posts in this forum Offline

anand ramagoud wrote:
Sir, life is relationship, its not possible to live in isolation. when there is no division between me & sorrow does it not men that I am sorrow ?

where is sorrow then? sorrow is no where,but in division sorrow is.... naming is sorrow.... naming is moment away from what is...it is division. Whatever that state before naming is , it is not sorrow since sorrow is naming...the thought.. which comes after the shock.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Wed, 29 Dec 2010 #17
Thumb_arg25 anand ramagoud India 23 posts in this forum Offline

Sir, as we understand thought is divisive, the moment thought enters there is resistance & we try various ways to escape from it. What I am stating is that, one is in a state of complete shock in the death of a loved one, isn't it sir ? At this point there is no seperation, no movement of escape from sorrow, you are it, which is what love is, which means, sorrow has in it no quality of division. The division comes later when thought enters.

Truth is not 'what is', but the understanding of 'what is'opens the door to the truth.

This post was last updated by anand ramagoud Wed, 29 Dec 2010.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 29 Dec 2010 #18
Thumb_1507053_1_ Jayaraj Kapila Kulasinghe Sri Lanka 1208 posts in this forum Offline

anand ramagoud wrote:
in a state of complete shock

In a state of shock the self may be in abeyance.No? And then with thought there is sorrow.That is there is a reference.I having lost something. Now if we remain with the sorrow completely,that is if we touch it,merge with it, which means if there is looking without any division then is there recognition as sorrow? Therefore can there be sorrow then?Which means in an undivided state can there be sorrow? Does it not drop away as there is no recognition to hold it? I think Ravi said this.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 29 Dec 2010 #19
Thumb_avatar Ravi Seth India 1573 posts in this forum Offline

anand ramagoud wrote:
Sir, as we understand thought is divisive, the moment thought enters there is resistance & we try various ways to escape from it. What I am stating is that, one is in a state of complete shock in the death of a loved one, isn't it sir ? At this point there is no seperation, no movement of escape from sorrow, you are it, which is what love is, which means, sorrow has in it no quality of division. The division comes later when thought enters.

I am paraphrasing your statement.Kindly see if it is same or not.If not, kindly elaborate why?

Sir, as we understand thought is divisive, the moment thought enters it is an escape. What I am stating is that, one is in a state of complete shock in the death of a loved one, isn't it sir ? At this point there is no seperation, no movement of escape from shock, you are it which means, shock has in it no quality of division. The division comes later when thought enters.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Wed, 29 Dec 2010 #20
Thumb_arg25 anand ramagoud India 23 posts in this forum Offline

Sir, I think I will refer this to the third empire.
And here it is

Krishnamurti: When there is no movement of escape from sorrow then love is. Passion is the flame of sorrow and that flame can only be awakened when there is no escape, no resistance. Which means what? - Which means, sorrow has in it no quality of division.

Truth is not 'what is', but the understanding of 'what is'opens the door to the truth.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 29 Dec 2010 #21
Thumb_avatar Ravi Seth India 1573 posts in this forum Offline

anand ramagoud wrote:
Sir, I think I will refer this to the third empire. And here it is

Krishnamurti: When there is no movement of escape from sorrow then love is. Passion is the flame of sorrow and that flame can only be awakened when there is no escape, no resistance. Which means what? - Which means, sorrow has in it no quality of division.

when you have all the answers respected Anand Ramagoud ji Maharaj, why to make us scratch our head for the answer?

I have all ready a center in the name and body of this man called ravi seth and do not want to load it with another center ( as if one was not enough) with the name of 'k'.

Read 'k' between the lines and not verbatim dear Ramagoud and you will not need any 'k' for umpiring, not that i be seen as disrespectful to the great man.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 29 Dec 2010 #22
Thumb_stringio nick carter United States 777 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Kapila Kulasinghe wrote:
In a state of shock the self may be in abeyance.No?

In a state of shock the self has lost its bearings and is temporarily unable to gather its wits, but it's just a glitch. Eventually, it pulls itself together and reconfigures to the new situation.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 29 Dec 2010 #23
Thumb_arg25 anand ramagoud India 23 posts in this forum Offline

Sir, truth and reality are perceived differently from diverse points of view, and that no single point of view is the complete truth.

Truth is not 'what is', but the understanding of 'what is'opens the door to the truth.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 29 Dec 2010 #24
Thumb_img001 Sudhir Sharma India 1989 posts in this forum Offline

Kapila Kulasinghe wrote:
Now if we remain with the sorrow completely,...

This step is intellectually understood by every one who has read or listened to K, Kapila, but how many of us remain with the sorrow? If the sorrow is not deep, then activities of the "self" start quickly as escape from sorrow is the norm. If the roots of sorrow go deep, then the self is numbed in to silence and that is not staying with sorrow. The chattering is bound to start in due time.

The fact is that we do not remain with sorrow. This means that sorrow is going to be my companion for the rest of my life. I am not asking you to show me a way to end this sorrow as the discussion will have only intellectual significance for me and that will change nothing.

Instead of showing me a way to end sorrow, can you tell me the single most important reason that stops/hinders my staying with sorrow? What actually had changed in you that made staying with sorrow possible for you? - Regards.

FLOW WITH LIFE!

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 29 Dec 2010 #25
Thumb_avatar Om Dadhich India 9 posts in this forum Offline

Is there a division in sorrow ?

division is sorrow

when there is no division between me & sorrow does it not men that I am sorrow ?

where is sorrow then? sorrow is no where,but in division sorrow

What actually had changed in you that made staying with sorrow possible for you? -**

Still, is there anyone who have sorrow?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 30 Dec 2010 #26
Thumb_1507053_1_ Jayaraj Kapila Kulasinghe Sri Lanka 1208 posts in this forum Offline

Anand,

Sorrow is the outcome of fear,desire,suffering etc, isn't it? Loss & so on which is still connected to desire.Now K didn't say love can exist with suffering or sorrow.He did say passion is born out of sorrow,suffering.Born out of if we remain fully with it, not that passion is sorrow or suffering.

Sorrow is an energy which has been put together by the divisive nature of the mind.Obviously-because sorrow is about something,due to something isn't it? And without any division when sorrow is given complete attention then out of sorrow passion is born K said.

Please correct Anand if this appears incorrect to you.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 30 Dec 2010 #27
Thumb_1507053_1_ Jayaraj Kapila Kulasinghe Sri Lanka 1208 posts in this forum Offline

nick carter wrote:
but it's just a glitch. Eventually, it pulls itself together and reconfigures to the new situation.

This seems to be what takes place.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 30 Dec 2010 #28
Thumb_1507053_1_ Jayaraj Kapila Kulasinghe Sri Lanka 1208 posts in this forum Offline

Dr.sudhir sharma wrote:
If the roots of sorrow go deep, then the self is numbed in to silence and that is not staying with sorrow.

I think so too Dr.This appears to be a state of paralysis in which the self is temporarily immobilized.

Dr.sudhir sharma wrote:
What actually had changed in you that made staying with sorrow possible for you?

We keep on changing our object of desire.When one is taken away we move on to another.I can only say that it's the seeing with conviction that changing the object of desire brings us to the same predicament again & again which has made it possible for me to look without escaping.Seeing that escaping though it is momentarily dazzling with the new object of desire, with fresh hopes & so on is in actual fact stagnation.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 30 Dec 2010 #29
Thumb_img001 Sudhir Sharma India 1989 posts in this forum Offline

Kapila Kulasinghe wrote:
seeing with conviction...

Kapila, dictionary definition of 'conviction' is a firm, fixed belief. Are you using it in this sense? If 'yes', then what about the incompatibility of "seeing" with "belief"?

Kapila Kulasinghe wrote:
I can only say that it's the seeing with conviction that changing the object of desire brings us to the same predicament again & again which has made it possible for me to look without escaping.Seeing that escaping though it is momentarily dazzling with the new object of desire, with fresh hopes & so on is in actual fact stagnation

You are saying that "seeing" is responsible for your understanding in this matter, Kapila. With no offence intended, can you clarify/explain that your understanding about sorrow is not coming from an "experience" stored in the memory?

FLOW WITH LIFE!

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 30 Dec 2010 #30
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

Sorrow is always due to something or some things that happened in the past. The past cannot be changed in any way, and so sorrow means clinging to a past that cannot be changed. Why do we do this? Would it be correct to say that if there were no Self, there would be no sorrow?

I believe Krishnamurti remarked somewhere that there is a lot of self-pity in sorrow.

max

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 106 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.)