Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
A Quiet Space | moderated by Clive Elwell

"For us, action has no significance in itself"


Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 31 in total
Wed, 01 Aug 2018 #1
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4432 posts in this forum Offline

Through this unlikely question, I find K reveals something deeply meaningful in my life:

Question: Do you not agree that man shall gain the kingdom of heaven through a life, like that of Jesus, wholly dedicated to service?

Krishnamurti: I hope you will not be shocked when I say that man will not gain the kingdom of heaven in this way.

Now, see what you are saying: “Through service I shall obtain something that I want.” Your statement implies that you do not serve completely; you are looking for a reward through service. You say, “Through righteous behavior I shall know God.” That is, you are really interested, not in righteous behavior but in knowing God, thus divorcing righteous from God. But neither through service, nor love, nor worship, nor prayer, but only in the very action of these, is there truth, God. Do you understand? When you ask, “Shall I gain the kingdom of heaven through service?” your service has no meaning because you are primarily interested in the kingdom of heaven; you are interested in getting something in return; it is a kind of barter, as much of your life is.

So when you say, “Through righteousness, through love, I shall attain, I shall realize,” you are interested in the realization, which is but an escape, a form of imitation; therefore, your love or your righteous act has no meaning. If you are kind to me because I can give you something in return, what significance has your kindness?

That is the whole process of our life – we are afraid to live. Only when someone dangles a reward before our eyes do we act, and then we act not for the sake of action itself, but in order to obtain that reward. In other words, we act for what we can get out of action. It is the same in your prayers. That is, because for us action has no significance in itself, because we think that we need encouragement in order to act rightly, we have placed before us a reward, something we desire, and we hope that enticement, that toy, will give us satisfaction. But when we act with that hope of reward, then action itself has no significance.

That is why I say that you are caught up in this process of reward and gain, this hindrance born of fear, which results in conflict. When you see this, when you become aware of this, then you will understand that life, behavior, service – everything – has significance in itself; then you do not go through life with the purpose of getting something else, because you know that action itself has intrinsic value. Then you are not merely a reformer, you are a human being, you know that life which is pliable and therefore eternal.

Second Talk at Frognerseteren

Friday, September 8, 1933

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 01 Aug 2018 #2
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4432 posts in this forum Offline

Is this what made K what he was? Is this what gave him his uniqueness? That he lived the fact that "everything has significance in itself"

This post was last updated by Clive Elwell Wed, 01 Aug 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 01 Aug 2018 #3
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 737 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Is this what made K what he was? Is this what gave him his uniqueness? That he lived the fact that "everything has significance in itself"

Is not every act of LOVE unique ?

Because of health problems I finally read my birthday present:
"Dare not Linger" from Nelson Mandela and Mandla Langa an autobiography.

Those words "everything has significance in itself"
seems also valid for his living his live and also gave him uniqueness ìn human history.

Truth will unfold itself for those who enquire their own actions and only to them and for them and to or for no one else.

This post was last updated by Wim Opdam Wed, 01 Aug 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 01 Aug 2018 #4
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4432 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
Those words "everything has significance in itself"
seems also valid for his living his live

Would you say more, Wim? in what way do you see that the concept has special siginificance for Mandela?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 01 Aug 2018 #5
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4432 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
at bottom, all based on 'fear'?

If, as is said in K's reply in *1 above, we go through life with the purpose of getting something else, then one consequence of this is we constantly live in fear, is it not? If we are all the time, or most of the time, acting in order to achieve something, then there must ba an accompanying fear of NOT achieving it. If we are all the time trying to become - and I would say we do do this - then there must be the accompanying fear of NOT becoming, no?

This really is an insane way to live, seeking a reward and being fearful, frustrated, that we do not get it.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 02 Aug 2018 #6
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 737 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Would you say more, Wim? in what way do you see that the concept has special siginificance for Mandela?

firsts of all, is it a concept or a fact and secondly did i claim it as special significance for Mandela ?

the reply #3 in its whole is:

Wim Opdam wrote:

Clive Elwell wrote:

Is this what made K what he was? Is this what gave him his uniqueness? That he lived the fact that "everything has significance in itself"

Is not every act of LOVE unique ?

Because of health problems I finally read my birthday present:
"Dare not Linger" from Nelson Mandela and Mandla Langa an autobiography.

Those words "everything has significance in itself"
seems also valid for his living his live and also gave him uniqueness ìn human history.

So please keep in mind that the question: 'Is not every act of LOVE unique ?' is also parttaking in 'Those words "everything has significance in itself" '

the characteristic of 'uniqueness' is the fact that it's not comparable so let us not fall into this pitfall.

At the same time there must be similarities otherwize the word 'also' would be out of order.

So the following question remains: was the live of Mandela in service for Humanity ?

In his 3 hours speach before his trial he ended:

During my lifetime I have dedicated myself to this struggle of the African people. I have fought against white domination, and I have fought against black domination. I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve. But if needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die.

the whole speach one can read on: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/apr/23/n... and ...nelsonmandela2

so is this dedication fundamentaly different from K's declaration in The Dissolution of the Order of the Star ?:

So these are some of the reasons why, after careful consideration for two years, I have made this decision. It is not from a momentary impulse. I have not been persuaded to it by anyone. I am not persuaded in such things. For two years I have been thinking about this, slowly, carefully, patiently, and I have now decided to disband the Order, as I happen to be its Head. You can form other organizations and expect someone else. With that I am not concerned, nor with creating new cages, new decorations for those cages. My only concern is to set men absolutely, unconditionally free."

So it is in the dedication and not in the means where I see the similarity.

There are lot of descriptions in the book I can quote but his programm of reconcilation where he withold his fellow human beings from the path of revence is another one.

On the day of the acceptance of his Nobel Peace Prize he was informed of the evidence that Pieter De Klerk - the man who shared the prize with - knew of the existance of "the third force" a secret service of the military, something he always denied to know of or existed.
This third force had the goal to disrupt the voting by all means and profook violence.

despite of this information / betrayal he accepted the prize.

By another attempt to profook violence by the murder of "Hani" he spoke:

" We must not let the men who worship war, and who lust after blood, precipate actions that will plunge our country into another Angola. Chis Hani was a soldier. He believed in iron discipline. He carried out instructions to the letter. He practised what he preached. Any lack of discipline is trampling on the values that Chris Hani stood for. Thosewho commit such acts serve only the interests of the assassins, and desecrete his memory. When we, as one people, act together decisevely, with discipline and determination, nothing can stop us.

to me all those acts of interventions and or witholding reactions are unique and as such "everything has significance in itself" not as a concept but as a fact.

So it is not special neither for Krishnamurti or Mandela but for every act of "Love" done through us and not by us.

it is so unfortunate that his deeper message is apparently not understood and self-interest, corruption and self-enrichment continue.

Truth will unfold itself for those who enquire their own actions and only to them and for them and to or for no one else.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 02 Aug 2018 #7
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 605 posts in this forum Offline

Clive,

I see this question of significance which you raise as FUNDAMENTAL. To me it is related to the question of “value” that we touched upon in the thread Self and Environment.

We say things like: “As adults, we realize that the real future lies in the hands of our children and grandchildren. Our first priority should be the nurturing and education of America’s youth” (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/margaret-i-cuomo...) --- implying that we need a reason to care for our children, implying that the significance of the children is that they are the future, and that the future has greater significance than the present.

We say “I love you because…..”, implying that one cannot love without a reason. I came across this on the internet: “My partner and me are doing a 30 days relationship challenge. One of the challenges we went through so far was to write 100 reasons we love each other” (https://byrslf.co/100-reasons-i-love-you-eec46e...)

And if one discovers one has a natural talent - as an athlete, artist, businessman, preacher, and so on - the self and the environment attribute value or significance to that talent … as though talent “must” be justified and exploited (in this instance, “must” indicating a personal value).

Megalomaniacal pharaohs are strutting around with their chests puffed out, spouting evil nonsense while they burn Rome. Meanwhile, children are being humiliated, starved, beaten, tortured, burned by their own parents. Meanwhile, parents and children are being raped and tortured. Meanwhile, there is drought and starvation. Meanwhile, greed is poisoning our air, earth, water and food.

In the midst of all this - as Rome burns - we are chasing fools’ dreams of winning Olympic gold, of acquiring riches, fame, admiration, adulation, power, occult knowledge and personal bliss….

Our soul ceaselessly whispers that this is not how life on Earth is supposed to be, and at times it yells out and screams that something is very wrong. The “soul” I’m talking about here is not the soul of eternal life promised by religion. It is the essence of each human being which is deeply buried under the enormous heap of consciousness, buried by our traditions of action, behaviour, relationship. What I mean by “soul” is the essence of the human being, the soul that longs for peace, love and for meaning without intellectual reason. It is the flame of discontent.

Life HAS natural meaning or significance in itself, without intellectual significance. It has meaning not because of this reason or that reason. Whatever meaning or significance the intellect attributes to life, the human being did not create that reasonless meaning, just as he did not create life itself. Life simply has meaning, and to seek a meaning through reason or the intellect is to bury that meaning. That meaning simply IS, just as life simply IS. It is beyond all reason, explanation, significance the intellect puts together.

The Age of Enlightenment never was. The Dark Age of superstition and ignorance of every kind never ended. It can be otherwise but we must release our attachments. Again, not “we must” as a personal value. We must just as we must die physically. And we must die psychologically so as to live without psychological constraint, it seems to me.

The very understanding of this - of significance without intellectual cause or reason - changes psychological suffering. There is still suffering but it is seen for what it is. It is in this “greater” context - if I may use such a comparative word - context of life without division. It is within the context of the whole. It is not my personal suffering, the suffering of poor me!

Or maybe intrinsically it all cannot be otherwise. But this is not how I see it. Beyond thought and reason, I see that there is significance without explanation and that explanation conceals the natural significance. This natural significance is sacred in that it is not man-made, if I dare express myself this way.

Who knows.

This post was last updated by Huguette . Thu, 02 Aug 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 02 Aug 2018 #8
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 915 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
If we are all the time, or most of the time, acting in order to achieve something, then there must ba an accompanying fear of NOT achieving it. If we are all the time trying to become - and I would say we do do this - then there must be the accompanying fear of NOT becoming, no?

Strikes me this morning looking out on the river and the flowers and trees moving with a strong breeze that what is needed to discover in myself are the desires that lay in consciousness. You put your finger on it, that as long as there is psychologically the desire to 'become', thought/time will be present and there will be the frustration and fear that what is desired will not be realized. The thought arose that "psychologically there is nothing to get...and no-one to 'get it'."

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 02 Aug 2018 #9
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4432 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
firsts of all, is it a concept or a fact

I understand where you are coming from in this comment, Wim. For a long time I have felt there is a gap in the English language, a word missing, and we are thrown back on the word "concept" or "idea", when that it not what we mean. The closest word is "actuality", but often that does not seem to fit gramatically.

Wim Opdam wrote:
So please keep in mind that the question: 'Is not every act of LOVE unique ?' is also parttaking in 'Those words "everything has significance in itself"

I would agree, it is only in love that we seem to experience an action, a state, that is sufficient unto itself.

One never looks for more, when there is love. If we look for more, then the love has evaporated.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 02 Aug 2018 #10
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4432 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
so is this dedication fundamentaly different from K's declaration in The Dissolution of the Order of the Star ?:

I think it would be doing a disservice to both K and Madela if I was to start to compare the two. But this question arises: you ask "the following question remains: was the live of Mandela in service for Humanity?" and you quote his words: " During my lifetime I have dedicated myself to this struggle of the African people."

But K never devoted himself to the service, to the interests, of any one group of people, after the divorce with the Theosophists, did he? His stated concern was to set MANKIND unconditionally free. was it not? And that freedom was not poitical, not economic, not in a legal framework, although if that total freedom was realised, it would have its ramifications in ALL frameworks, would it not?

Is this not a fundamental difference in K's message and most other messages? More than his message, in fact - his life.

Wim, if you wish to carry on this discussion, would you start a new thread for it? It doesn't seem to really belong in this one.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 03 Aug 2018 #11
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4432 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
I see this question of significance which you raise as FUNDAMENTAL.

C: Yes, it struck me as fundamental.

We say things like: “As adults, we realize that the real future lies in the hands of our children and grandchildren. Our first priority should be the nurturing and education of America’s youth” (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/margaret-i-cuomo...) --- implying that we need a reason to care for our children, implying that the significance of the children is that they are the future, and that the future has greater significance than the present.
We say “I love you because…..”, implying that one cannot love without a reason. I came across this on the internet: “My partner and me are doing a 30 days relationship challenge. One of the challenges we went through so far was to write 100 reasons we love each other” (https://byrslf.co/100-reasons-i-love-you-eec46e…)

C: This example seems the essence of the accepted approach of our society, our age.

And if one discovers one has a natural talent - as an athlete, artist, businessman, preacher, and so on - the self and the environment attribute value or significance to that talent … as though talent “must” be justified and exploited (in this instance, “must” indicating a personal value).
Megalomaniacal pharaohs are strutting around with their chests puffed out, spouting evil nonsense while they burn Rome. Meanwhile, children are being humiliated, starved, beaten, tortured, burned by their own parents. Meanwhile, parents and children are being raped and tortured. Meanwhile, there is drought and starvation. Meanwhile, greed is poisoning our air, earth, water and food.
In the midst of all this - as Rome burns - we are chasing fools’ dreams of winning Olympic gold, of acquiring riches, fame, admiration, adulation, power, occult knowledge and personal bliss….

C: What can one say, Huguette? It is as you say. And it brings tears.

One could add, we live in an age where the self is glorified. Where “a stronger self” is seen as an answer to the problems of the self. And an age where greatly increasing numbers are committing suicide, or trying to.

Our soul ceaselessly whispers that this is not how life on Earth is supposed to be, and at times it yells out and screams that something is very wrong. The “soul” I’m talking about here is not the soul of eternal life promised by religion. It is the essence of each human being which is deeply buried under the enormous heap of consciousness, buried by our traditions of action, behaviour, relationship. What I mean by “soul” is the essence of the human being, the soul that longs for peace, love and for meaning without intellectual reason. It is the flame of discontent.

C: Yes, the ceaseless search that is not the search FOR something. That can be satisfied.

Life HAS natural meaning or significance in itself, without intellectual significance. It has meaning not because of this reason or that reason. Whatever meaning or significance the intellect attributes to life, the human being did not create that reasonless meaning, just as he did not create life itself.

Life simply has meaning, and to seek a meaning through reason or the intellect is to bury that meaning. That meaning simply IS, just as life simply IS. It is beyond all reason, explanation, significance the intellect puts together.

C: That is clear, Huguette. So no amount of seeking for meaning will reveal it? Even though it is because we see no real meaning for life that we give meaning to false things, which is at least a major factor of all this chaos.

The Age of Enlightenment never was. The Dark Age of superstition and ignorance of every kind never ended. It can be otherwise but we must release our attachments. Again, not “we must” as a personal value. We must just as we must die physically. And we must die psychologically so as to live without psychological constraint, it seems to me.

The very understanding of this - of significance without intellectual cause or reason - changes psychological suffering. There is still suffering but it is seen for what it is. It is in this “greater” context - if I may use such a comparative word - context of life without division. It is within the context of the whole. It is not my personal suffering, the suffering of poor me!
Or maybe intrinsically it all cannot be otherwise. But this is not how I see it. Beyond thought and reason, I see that there is significance without explanation and that explanation conceals the natural significance.

C: if I may ask, where – if where is the right word – do you see this significance?

I think it can be seen, sensed, in the natural world, in the extraordinary complexity of it, the beauty of it, the inter-relatedness of it all, the harmony of it. And it seems as soon as man interferes in that, no matter what his intentions, it goes wrong.

This natural significance is sacred in that it is not man-made, if I dare express myself this way.

C: So what can be done? Can anything be done? Or is there only the seeing of this picture as it is, and in that seeing the false significances imparted by thought evaporate?

Who knows.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 03 Aug 2018 #12
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4432 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
The thought arose that "psychologically there is nothing to get...and no-one to 'get it'."

Would you say, Dan, that the first part of this lies in the second part?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 03 Aug 2018 #13
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 915 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Dan McDermott wrote:

The thought arose that "psychologically there is nothing to get...and no-one to 'get it'."

Clive:
Would you say, Dan, that the first part of this lies in the second part?

Hi Clive

The first part refers to 'becoming' and seeing the fallacy of that. The second part refers, I think, to the 'illusion' that there is a 'someone' who is craving this 'becoming' and is in pursuit of it. Is that how you see this? I'm not clear about your question.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 03 Aug 2018 #14
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 605 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
C: if I may ask, where – if where is the right word – do you see this significance?

I think it can be seen, sensed, in the natural world, in the extraordinary complexity of it, the beauty of it, the inter-relatedness of it all, the harmony of it. And it seems as soon as man interferes in that, no matter what his intentions, it goes wrong.

I’m sorry, Clive. I'm realizing that I derailed the topic of your thread. I broadened and therefore changed the meaning of the “significance” K and his Questioner were talking about in your quote at #1. They were talking about “the significance of ACTION” and I broadened it to “the significance of THE GROUND” so to speak. The Questioner was asking what action he could take to become fulfilled, or what he could do in order to get what he wanted. He wasn’t asking about the significance of life.

We can still talk about “general” significance elsewhere, if you want.

Clive Elwell wrote:
C: So what can be done? Can anything be done? Or is there only the seeing of this picture as it is, and in that seeing the false significances imparted by thought evaporate?

It’s not clear to me what you mean. What can be done with respect to what? With respect to the intellect attributing significance or value? Or do you mean something else?

This post was last updated by Huguette . Fri, 03 Aug 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 04 Aug 2018 #15
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4432 posts in this forum Offline

It might be helpful to this inquiry to consider the question "What is action".

Here is part of a reply to a question "What is action" that was put to K around this time (Rio de Janeiro 5th talk, 1935)

"Action is the unimpeded movement of intelligence, unhindered by fear, by compulsion, by the conflict of self-protective choice"

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 04 Aug 2018 #16
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 605 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
"Action is the unimpeded movement of intelligence, unhindered by fear, by compulsion, by the conflict of self-protective choice"

This expresses the crux of it, as I see it - that right action, “righteous behaviour”, cannot be the outcome of duress. Where thought is impeded, compelled or constrained by unconscious or conscious fears, how can it be the arbiter or authority which decides what’s right and wrong, good and bad? How can fear-based significance determine right action, “righteous behaviour”? Where “action” arises out of fear, it is a 2-step process in time where first significance is attributed and then action is taken based on that “significance”. Whereas “righteous behaviour”, right action, is the first and last step.

Awareness reveals that fear is present. This “informing” is without time.

“Will” is the effort and time of thought. The “willingness to acknowledge fear is” itself right action, action without effort or time, the action of facing fear. “Willingness” is defined as follows on Google: “the quality or state of being prepared to do something; readiness” - that seems accurate to me. There is no “will” in “willingness”, no preparation, no time. This state or quality of willingness is precious ("of an object, substance, or resource: of great value; not to be wasted or treated carelessly"). It cannot be forced or prepared through time.

It is in the denial of fear, in suppressing fear, that there is effort - which is will - not in facing it. Fear arises spontaneously, without any effort by thought. Where fear arises, it is either faced or denied, suppressed.

Where there is the denial of fear, there cannot be intelligent action in relationship. Facing or acknowledging fear IS intelligent action. Is the very perception and understanding of its condition - that it is impeded by fear, that it is not the source of intelligence and that intelligent action is not the outcome of its efforts and deliberations - is this perception the action of intelligence? The first step and the last step? Action which is not based on what has come before.

There is no certainty about any of this.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 04 Aug 2018 #17
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4432 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
The first part refers to 'becoming' and seeing the fallacy of that. The second part refers, I think, to the 'illusion' that there is a 'someone' who is craving this 'becoming' and is in pursuit of it. Is that how you see this? I'm not clear about your question.

Sorry about the delay in replying, Dan. I just meant, I think, that when you wrote:

" The thought arose that "psychologically there is nothing to get...and no-one to 'get it' "

If there is no-one to get it, then the issue of being nothing to get doesn't even arise.

A memory of K's words arises - "We have to understand the thinker, not the thought".

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 04 Aug 2018 #18
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4432 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
I’m sorry, Clive. I'm realizing ......

I am sorry, Huguette, I thought I had responded to your post 14 yesterday. But I discover that somehow it was not posted. So I will post it here, now, and perhaps reply to your 16 tomorrow. Although no doubt the mind will have flowed on by then. Sorry about this confusion.

Clive Elwell wrote:
C: if I may ask, where – if where is the right word – do you see this significance?
I think it can be seen, sensed, in the natural world, in the extraordinary complexity of it, the beauty of it, the inter-relatedness of it all, the harmony of it. And it seems as soon as man interferes in that, no matter what his intentions, it goes wrong.
I’m sorry, Clive. I'm realizing that I derailed the topic of your thread. I broadened and therefore changed the meaning of the “significance” K and his Questioner were talking about in your quote at #1. They were talking about “the significance of ACTION” and I broadened it to “the significance of THE GROUND” so to speak. The Questioner was asking what action he could take to become fulfilled, or what he could do in order to get what he wanted. He wasn’t asking about the significance of life.
We can still talk about “general” significance elsewhere, if you want.

Gosh, no problem, Huguette. Let us probe this in any way possible, I had no thoughts of derailment!

And I am glad you have brought in the word “fulfilled”. In his early talks K mentions the term “fulfilment” a lot, and I wanted to examine it. It is probably not unconnected with “everything having significance in itself”. K is certainly not using the word to mean getting what one wants.

But first perhaps, I want to look at these words from the initial extract:

“But neither through service, nor love, nor worship, nor prayer, but only in the very action of these, is there truth, God. Do you understand? ”

and later:

“When you see this, when you become aware of this, then you will understand that life, behavior, service – everything – has significance in itself”

Thought comes up with a comment like "the meaning of this is that we can learn from everything", but I reject that, because this learning still seems in the realm of getting something from action.

The idea that there is truth, even God, in service and love seems reasonable, but in worship and prayer? I am used to seeing these things as illusory – but K is saying IN THE ACTION OF THESE there is truth, God. In fact he seems to be saying in the action of EVERYTHING there is truth. God.

I cannot say that I begin to understand this. Does anyone have anything to say? Please do not see the inquiry as being just between Huguette and I.

Now it comes to wonder if I am not approaching this inquiry by wanting to get something from it, and as long as that is there, I will be frustrated, there will be no understanding.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 04 Aug 2018 #19
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4432 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
It’s not clear to me what you mean. What can be done with respect to what? With respect to the intellect attributing significance or value? Or do you mean something else?

I had written:

"C: So what can be done? Can anything be done? Or is there only the seeing of this picture as it is, and in that seeing the false significances imparted by thought evaporate?"

Sorry, there was a typo, that last word should have been "evaporates". Does that clear things up?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 06 Aug 2018 #20
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4432 posts in this forum Offline

Dan,

A couple of weeks ago, or so, you described life as a process of endless becoming. If you cannot remember this, I will try to find it. I think we were talking about death being part of life. This "endless becoming" sounded like an insight, I think K has used the same words,

But this endless becoming could be another way of putting K's words I posted in *1 above:

"That is why I say that you are caught up in this process of reward and gain, this hindrance born of fear, which results in conflict".

Which I take to mean because we are caught up in endless becoming, we cannot live fully in the present.

Can you say something about this apparent discrepency in the the meaning of the word becoming, Dan? It is a fact that generally K is very critical of trying to become what one is not.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 07 Aug 2018 #21
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 915 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
, you described life as a process of endless becoming.

Actually Clive, I think the word that I used was "beginning", that there was no 'death', no ending, only beginnings. ( as I recall from a talk, this seemed like a revelation to K). The 'movement' in Now is only, always, an endless beginning. You can see this in nature. Not so easy to see in ourself. The most important thing that I see at this point is the inevitability (indestructibility?) of 'Me'...'Me' is the sufferer, the experiencer, the enjoyer, the discoverer, the searcher, etc. and yet this 'Me' is a tiny enclosed thing. And yet I 'feel' that I am the 'center of the world'.
What would it be like to be without the 'me'? To be empty? 'Empty' is such a negative word for the self, because it would mean its disolution but is it actually a negative ? To be empty, to be nothing? In a way, it sounds like freedom, doesn't it? We'll 'know' it in death, but can we 'be' it now?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Tue, 07 Aug 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 07 Aug 2018 #22
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 737 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
But K never devoted himself to the service, to the interests, of any one group of people, after the divorce with the Theosophists, did he? His stated concern was to set MANKIND unconditionally free. was it not? And that freedom was not poitical, not economic, not in a legal framework, although if that total freedom was realised, it would have its ramifications in ALL frameworks, would it not?

Is this not a fundamental difference in K's message and most other messages? More than his message, in fact - his life

not if one looks deeper, the struggle against 'apartheid' is also the fight against discrimination, a still present evil in the world. Moreover, M. speach is for his trial and that of K. after his liberation. M.'s 25 years in prison is his process of liberation and could then navigate through the minefield of betrayal, suspicion and work on fraternization, not only for the South Africans but as such an example for mankind.

Did you know that just before receiving his Nobel Peace Prize, he got the proof that the Klerk was actively involved in provoking violence, something he had always contradicted. In order to overcome that betrayal, you have to rise above your self and apply:

Krishnamurti quotes:
But neither through service, nor love, nor worship, nor prayer, but only in the very action of these, is there truth, God. Do you understand? ”

and:

“When you see this, when you become aware of this, then you will understand that life, behavior, service – everything – has significance in itself”

Truth will unfold itself for those who enquire their own actions and only to them and for them and to or for no one else.

This post was last updated by Wim Opdam Tue, 07 Aug 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 07 Aug 2018 #23
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4432 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote, citing K:

But neither through service, nor love, nor worship, nor prayer, but only in the very action of these, is there truth, God. Do you understand? ”

and:

“When you see this, when you become aware of this, then you will understand that life, behavior, service – everything – has significance in itself”

But Wim, I cannot see into the mind of Mandela, or of any other person come to that. I can hear his words, see his actions, but still I do not know what processes he was going through. In particular I cannot tell if for Mandela his action had signifiance in itself, or if he was acting to fulfil some goal; if he was using his action as a means to achieve something, so that does not help me to understand this issue. Come to that, even if I knew with certainty what was going on in Madela's mind, it still would not be of any use to me in my own understanding, would it?

And the same for K - I might suspect that what distinguished him from others was that his actions had significance in themselves; that might be intriguing, it might even prod me into questioning - but still I have the work of coming upon such action myself, if such a thing is possible. It is clear that any sort of imitation is not pure action, and comparison is deadening.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 07 Aug 2018 #24
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4432 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Actually Clive, I think the word that I used was "beginning", that there was no 'death', no ending, only beginnings.

C: Oh, I see, I should have checked back through your posts – sorry about that Dan, Now I have to doubt if K ever said such a thing, as I had thought.

“Endless beginning”, that I have an inkling of. Not of course that it can be merely an idea, something stored in memory and taken to be true. Obviously its nature is that it must be endlessly discovered, afresh. And that implies an endless ending, psychological dying.

( as I recall from a talk, this seemed like a revelation to K). The 'movement' in Now is only, always, an endless beginning. You can see this in nature. Not so easy to see in ourself. The most important thing that I see at this point is the inevitability (indestructibility?) of 'Me'...'Me' is the sufferer,

C: Yes. But every time that the me starts up, it does not see that is the root of suffering, does it? It carries the implication that it is the root of pleasure, of understanding, that it can solve problems, although it is actually the creator of problems. Why does it not see this as an absolute fact, and so ‘give up’ completely? This raises another question which I will not voice here, as I would like to focus on the original quote.

the experiencer, the enjoyer, the discoverer, the searcher, etc. and yet this 'Me' is a tiny enclosed thing. And yet I 'feel' that I am the 'center of the world'.

C: It is odd, isn’t it.

What would it be like to be without the 'me'? To be empty? 'Empty' is such a negative word for the self, because it would mean its disolution but is it actually a negative ? To be empty, to be nothing?

C: But isn’t the self the very denial of emptiness, nothingness? Doesn’t it arise as a reaction to the fact thought is transient, and it doesn’t WANT to be transient, because transience appears to be insecurity?

But the transience of thought is a fact. Permanence is not a fact.

In a way, it sounds like freedom, doesn't it? We'll 'know' it in death,

C: Well, I don’t know about that.

but can we 'be' it now?

C: To find out thought must be still, must abdicate, no?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 08 Aug 2018 #25
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 915 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
C: To find out thought must be still, must abdicate, no?

Otherwise it's just the 'stream' for us.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 08 Aug 2018 #26
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 737 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
But Wim, I cannot see into the mind of Mandela, or of any other person come to that. I can hear his words, see his actions, but still I do not know what processes he was going through.

But Clive, i see what is going through my mind and know that i maybe wrong in my interpretation and still see the possibility, the beauty of the similarity, the uniqueness of there doing what they did, the same way as enjoying the flight of a bird or glittering of the sun through the leaves of the trees.

Clive Elwell wrote:
but still I have the work of coming upon such action myself, if such a thing is possible. 

Would that not introduce time ?
Seeing this came to me, not I came to the seeing, it was surprising

Clive Elwell wrote:
t is clear that any sort of imitation is not pure action, and comparison is deadening.

that is obvious.

Truth will unfold itself for those who enquire their own actions and only to them and for them and to or for no one else.

This post was last updated by Wim Opdam Wed, 08 Aug 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 08 Aug 2018 #27
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 915 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
To find out thought must be still, must abdicate, no?

"Abdicate" is a good word in relation to the 'thinker/thought'..as in 'abdicate the throne'. But in order for that to happen, the awareness of what thought is, how it is in the 'wrong place' and the misery and suffering that it has caused would have to be acknowledged by it as clearly as if it were the proverbial poisonous 'snake'. 'It' would rather constantly reform itself than simply be still. And yet as long as it 'moves' (creating the 'thinker') the poison will be there, no matter how and in what it cloaks itself. It is the 'valuer', the image maker. Whatever is given 'value', the house, the money, the flag, the country, the family, the knowledge,(the skin color?) has to then be 'defended' because whatever has been singled out as 'valuable', has to be 'identified with' and when it is challenged (literally or potentially ) it has to be defended because it is now a part of the 'illusory' self. Any 'image' it creates of itself no matter how lofty, will inevitably eventually be challenged and there will be conflict. K. put it something like I can be "disturbed when I am asleep or when I am holding on to something"...it is the psychological holding on to anything that needs our attention, I'd say, and any disturbance will indicate that 'holding on' is taking place and at that point, I suppose we can either let that thing go immediately through the awareness that thought has placed a value on it (become identified with it) or we can 'escape' from it and 'suffer' until time dissipates the disturbance.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Wed, 08 Aug 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 08 Aug 2018 #28
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 605 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
I might suspect that what distinguished [K] from others was that his actions had significance in themselves [...] but still I have the work of coming upon such action myself

In saying, “still I have the work of coming upon such action myself”, is the mind in the process of fragmenting --- myself from the work, myself from such action, “now” from “eventually”, etc.? Isn't fragmentation (if that's what it is) the mental activity of measuring, ascribing value, comparing --- ascribing value to “action which has significance in itself” and to action which does not, comparing myself who does not act without preconceived significance against one who does, measuring myself as falling short or being deficient, and so on?

When I ascribe value, when I measure, compare, etc., I am introducing, continuing or reinforcing inner contradictions. And as we realize I think, contradiction is the root of misery.

Doesn't the realization of all this (if it is realized) hinge on awareness? Awareness alone reveals this whole complicated process - the process of fear, desire, measuring, comparing, evaluating, fragmentation, contradiction, time. Awareness alone - not thought - reveals the misery caused by this process. Is there more to be "done" than to face what awareness reveals? Isn’t that a sticking point?

The mind is afraid just to face the fact of fear, to "just" remain with the misery. It apparently still prefers the “action” of effort and conclusion, even though it appears to realize that such “action” is destructive, toxic, repetitive, uncreative, and ultimately does not bring about the desired change.

Isn't the mind (me, you) conditioned to think that "action" is the outcome of a plan or decision, of resoluteness, effort, authority, physical or mental movement? And it is conditioned to think that awareness is “doing nothing”, that awareness is NOT action, isn't it?

I think that awareness IS action. It might take time by the clock (or not) for the germination or flowering of the action of awareness but, inwardly, there is not the psychological fragmentation or movement of time. In awareness, there is no attribution of significance. The passage of time by the clock or calendar is not used as a measure of success. There is no comparing of "now" against "before", or of "eventually" against "now".

To fully face the fact of fear and not turn away from it when all my life I have been avoiding fear is a hugely significant action, isn’t it? To face the fact is not insignificant. It is noteworthy, it is not repetition or modification of "old" action. It is significant in itself, beyond the word.

All my life, I (the mind) have been avoiding fear through occupation and effort, including through intellectualization. Awareness reveals it, doesn’t it? Fear is THERE so awareness reveals it. Avoidance is there so awareness reveals it. I realize that whether I face it or not, fear is still THERE and it acts violently, cruelly, aggressively, divisively. I also see that escaping through pleasure brings its own fears, exacerbates problems and suffering. Pleasure distracts from fear but fear is still THERE. I see the chaos produced by fear and I see there is no escape from fear, and still I try to escape. So I ask myself: can I look at fear as “this extraordinary jewel” and not run away from it, not explain it, not rationalize it, and so on?

K said, “That may be the causation of fear, the becoming.” Is that it? Obviously, psychological becoming involves psychological time. I can become a carpenter through calendar time. That is not psychological becoming. Is it that I condemn psychological time in theory but am unaware of its movements, i.e. of “manufacturing” it? Is it that I don’t have the patience to stay with it? Is it that I am not willing to face fear without some sort of assurance that it will have a “good result”?

I have no answers in mind to these questions and I'm not expecting any definitive answers.

This post was last updated by Huguette . Thu, 09 Aug 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 09 Aug 2018 #29
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4432 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Otherwise it's just the 'stream' for us.

Yes, I think so. I don't see any other possibilities. There is an absoluteness about this.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 09 Aug 2018 #30
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4432 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
here is no certainty about any of this

That at least is understood, Huguette. There is no certainty, no surety whatsoever. And I am looking into this issue – which you yourself said is FUNDAMENTAL – very slowly and carefully indeed. My starting point is that I do not know this “everything has significance in itself”. I only know that my action always has an eye on the future, on what I might gain from it – from the most trivial concern with my comfort, to what might be term the search for truth.

And I see, as I said in my last mail, that, as I am fundamentally conditioned that way, I am likely to approach the inquiry by wanting to get something from it, and as long as that is there, I will be frustrated, there will be no understanding. One can only be watchful of this, and in the watching, learn – not try to escape from the fact.

So what is the relationship of this action, to me? Is it action that I perform? Is it action that is somehow ‘in me’? That manifests in me?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 31 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.)