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

A Religious Life


Displaying all 11 posts
Page 1 of 1
Wed, 19 Sep 2018 #1
Thumb_an_immovable_mountain Vikram P India 42 posts in this forum Offline

K has been observed to use a phrase “the religious life” as the crème de la crème of the many topics he has spoken about or discussed. He has occasionally been observed to take up this topic usually on the last day of some meetings. He has sometimes used that phrase interchangeably with another phrase; “creation”.

Most lovers of wisdom and students/friends of K are usually busy with a familiar phrase in K literature, “order”. One can see and understand why this demand for order is so close to home; considering most live in disorder at all levels of their existence and order is the most sought after palliative for the mess. Obviously this order is perceived as a tool; as a means to an end, something that can be used to have one up over everybody and everything else.

But K being K; the genius musician that he is; has asked a few times (only a few times as the audience for such music is minuscule since it requires an understanding of the notes which is rare) “all right, so you have order, what then?! Even a cook has order in his kitchen! What then?!”

Even this simple demand of bringing order in one’s life seems like a mirage to people who have been working on it all their lives. One doesn’t need any proof as this problem is evident in most of us as well as all around us. One sees the fall/fail of these people all the time.

So one asks, is order separate than a religious life? Is it a standalone? Can a pursuit of order without the foundation of a religious life come to fruition? Or is order a natural outcome and a perfume of a religious life weaved into all levels of the human? An orderly human is one who is now functioning from a life that is religious; in the correct meaning of that word, isn’t it?

Then; what is this crazy neurotic pursuit to bring about order and to end conflict and fragmentation; that almost everyone is pursuing in their own ways? Whether it is the K way or any other way, and evidently there are thousands of them. All of them seem to have this ‘belief’ ‘expectation’ and ‘hope’; that they will be able to either achieve or stumble unto it without the accountability and price of a religious life. Is this another expression of the wrong turn of humanity? Translating the same principles of materialism into their pursuit of bringing about order and being free from disorder.

The core hidden motive it seems is to achieve this order without the accountability of a religious life. Without the willingness to pay a price for such order. Wishing to ‘achieve’ it on the sly so to say; or by some cunning or by a stroke of ‘luck’. To keep 'all this' and also want 'that'. Can the highly precious jewel of order be achieved by such means? Can it be a flower off ulterior motives? Can order come about without a purge or is that purge In itself; order? Now is that purge also a religious life? Of pure creation? A purge of everything that's man's creation....EVERYTHING!

This post was last updated by Vikram P Wed, 19 Sep 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 20 Sep 2018 #2
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4957 posts in this forum Offline

Vikram P wrote:
Can a pursuit of order without the foundation of a religious life come to fruition?

K has used the word “order” in several ways, I have observed. He has pointed out the simple necessity of keeping one’s room in order, so one knows where things are. He said mathematics was order. And he has referred to “The order of the grave”

In your post you refer to the pursuit of order ( I am not saying that you said that you are advocating this). But I am asking is order something that can be pursued? – I am referring to psychological order here (which might be considered to incorporate so-called spiritual order). We pursue things because the present is unsatisfactory in some way, don’t we? And what we pursue is a reaction to what is, the idea created as an opposite to what is. So generally “order” is a concept created out of the fact of disorder, and pursued.

So pursuit is an indication of disorder. The term “incompleteness” comes to mind. Disorder is incompleteness. I don’t know if introducing this term is a help to the inquiry.

The very pursuit of completeness creates the sense of incompleteness, does it not? The very pursuit of order is creating disorder.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 20 Sep 2018 #3
Thumb_an_immovable_mountain Vikram P India 42 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
K has used the word “order” in several ways, I have observed. He has pointed out the simple necessity of keeping one’s room in order, so one knows where things are. He said mathematics was order. And he has referred to “The order of the grave”

At this time i am not very much interested in what K said. I am looking at things without K and once i look on my own; then if i feel i need to or wish to; i might match or rather verify my findings with what K is saying.

Clive Elwell wrote:
In your post you refer to the pursuit of order ( I am not saying that you said that you are advocating this).

The post is an attempt to bring forth to one's/people/we/us; to bring our focus into the current state/the factual state of all of us; that we have apparently taken upon ourselves the grand and lofty goal of looking into ‘order’ and freedom of disorder. The post is an attempt to expose; that irrespective of our verbal and intellectual claims as having the god given right to fix this situation and proceeding with the confidence that “we have it down” and the conviction that we are qualified to look into these matters…….that irrespective of all that; we are failing miserably! As evident. The reason it seems is that behind all the disguises; the “pursuit” is going on. This is the actual state of affairs irrespective of everything else. The undercurrent of all our efforts in these matters; sublime or mundane (i am including everything). So the post is attempting to make clear or bring into focus the actual state of affairs behind the many facades. Also the post goes into many other issues such as a religious life and our discrepancies regarding it.

So you are actually reading the post in a 180 degrees difference; completely opposite than what it is trying to say. Hope this clarifies.

Everything in your comment AFTER the highlighted words above is not applicable...obviously, right? So there is no need to address them.

This post was last updated by Vikram P Thu, 20 Sep 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 21 Sep 2018 #4
Thumb_an_immovable_mountain Vikram P India 42 posts in this forum Offline

Love doesn’t burn as light in the house and gatherings of everyone

the glance of the beautiful one doesn’t cut the heart of everyone;
only the fortunate get sacrificed.

Love takes the boat to the middle of the raging storms.

This post was last updated by Vikram P Fri, 21 Sep 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 21 Sep 2018 #5
Thumb_an_immovable_mountain Vikram P India 42 posts in this forum Offline

Addendum to the above response to Clive:

When i said "At this time i am not very much interested in what K said. I am looking at things without K and once i look on my own; then if i feel i need to or wish to; i might match or rather verify my findings with what K is saying."-----I actually meant i am not interested in any half-baked/incorrect opinions on what K said, or opinions that are extracts. Furthermore; i am not interested in parroting K but looking and investigating without his help; as he hmself emphasized for more than 60 years. Having done my due diligence i can then compare/verify the findings as in comparing notes by two scientists.

And in response to your interpretation of what K said, one doesn't need K to point out that one has to keep the "room in order" and the original post is highlighting or dealing with 'order' with a capital 'O'. And as mentioned in the OP and highlighted by K; even that order in the room is rather small affair in relation to A RELIGIOUS LIFE.

This post was last updated by Vikram P Fri, 21 Sep 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 22 Sep 2018 #6
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 4957 posts in this forum Offline

Vikram P wrote:
Furthermore; i am not interested in parroting K but looking and investigating without his help

Let us first of all clarify somewhat the relationship between this forum – all the Kinfonet forums - and Krishmurti’s words. Kinfonet stands for The KRISHNAMURTI Information Network. That is, it is designed and run by and for people who ARE interested in K’s words, and I presume find some relevance in them to their own inquiry, into understanding of themselves and the world, as I do. In my experience the contributers to "A Quiet Space" are well aware of the dangers of merely parroting K.

So I suggest, Vikram, that you ask yourself if you are not on the wrong forum. If you want to start a forum yourself that investigates without any reference to Krishnamurti, that sounds like an excellent idea; let me know if you do it and I will join. But I insist people on this forum are not to be criticised for referring to K’s words.

So I hope that is clear.

Vikram P wrote:
--I actually meant i am not interested in any half-baked/incorrect opinions on what K said, or opinions that are extracts.

It is right to questions opinions, but it seems to me, Vikram, you are not concerned with your OWN opinions. These are not questioned, you present them as absolute facts. And perhaps this is the way that you see them. Inquiry, questioning, does not get very far if it is only an analysing of the imagined motives of others; if it is only a matter of criticising other people, does it? That is what the world is full of, criticising and castigating others. But surely real inquiry only starts with the questioning of oneself; one’s own opinions, WHY one has opinions at all, why one makes assumptions about the motives of others, one’s own tendencies, one’s habitual behaviour, one’s bias, why one feels a need to attack others - ALL the movements of one’s mind, in fact.

Surely it is essential to question all images - the images one creates about others, and the images one has formed about oneself? Perhaps this is the start of "the religious life"?

This post was last updated by Clive Elwell Sat, 22 Sep 2018.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Sat, 22 Sep 2018 #7
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1199 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
Surely it is essential to question all images - the images one creates about others, and the images one has formed about oneself? Perhaps this is the start of "the religious life"?

The start and the finish?

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Sat, 22 Sep 2018 #8
Thumb_an_immovable_mountain Vikram P India 42 posts in this forum Offline

Clive et al.,
Is this your contribution to the topic? See how hard it is to focus if there is a challenge? Do you see the reactions? The fear? Anyways:

Clive Elwell wrote:
So I hope that is clear.

It doesn't seem like it is clear to you and some others so I will make a humble attempt to see if we can make it clearer.

Clive Elwell wrote:
Let us first of all clarify somewhat the relationship between this forum – all the Kinfonet forums - and Krishmurti’s words.

That’s what we are doing; since you brought it up

Clive Elwell wrote:
Kinfonet stands for The KRISHNAMURTI Information Network. That is, it is designed and run by and for people who ARE interested in K’s words, and I presume find some relevance in them to their own inquiry, into understanding of themselves and the world, as I do.

Textbook predictable undertones in the statement. Yes we are all aware of that.
That presumption might or might not be be correct in case of others, in my case it definitely is.

Clive Elwell wrote:
In my experience the contributers to "A Quiet Space" are well aware of the dangers of merely parroting K.

I question and doubt that. It certainly doesn’t seem like it. In fact the contrary is evident from the evidence presented as/in their posting and comments. In fact I am exploring this and welcome and invite you to explore this with me. Have those "dangers" been understood as ideas or have they been understood as facts? Has the understanding translated into conduct? One doubts it has.

Clive Elwell wrote:
So I suggest, Vikram, that you ask yourself if you are not on the wrong forum.

I most certainly am in the right forum but I wonder if you are; are you? It is obvious you think you are; but are you actually? Have you asked this question?

Clive Elwell wrote:
If you want to start a forum yourself that investigates without any reference to Krishnamurti, that sounds like an excellent idea; let me know if you do it and I will join

Textbook predictable undertones in the statement. Is this a threat or a demand to shut up? Are you afraid of me Clive? If you want me not to post or speak let me know and you won’t hear me anymore.

Clive Elwell wrote:
But I insist people on this forum are not to be criticised for referring to K’s words.

Again, the criticism is of the parroting and not of the person as i mentioned in the past in other posts. Furthermore referring is usually accompanied by citations and verbatim quoted words; not paraphrases. Certainly not paraphrases that are grossly distorted. (BTW your other blog titled “the brain is infinite" is a good example of lack of citation, paraphrasing and distorting K’ words. I am waiting for your response to explore that.)**** Continuing; In the event such problems are pointed out by me or by anyone else then the person to whom it is pointed (if they are a normal and reasonable person) will first thank me or anyone that points out and then will make the initiative to look into the error that is being pointed out, either on their own or together. And any normal and reasonable person will then come and share their findings after looking into the error. If the error is substantiated then a profuse apology and a very warm thanks should be given to the person that pointed out that error. If it is proved that it wasn’t an error then the person that point's out gets clarified and gives the same apology and thanks. Now this would be in tune with K’s character and his teachings or for that matter with normal “humans”.

On the other hand when all this doesn’t happen and instead an altruistic motive and action or rather an obligated action is taken as criticism; then obviously that person or those persons are as far away from K and his teachings as possible; obviously. Not to mention; they haven’t even began in their so called "inquiry". They are petty and competitive people who are predisposed to violence as they are feeling threatened and perceiving a threat where there is none. Even if there is undue criticism; and obviously there is none, but even if there is; even then; the provider of that criticism/s should be thanked as he or she has provided a very clear mirror in which you can see your reactions/refelctions. So it is a win-win situation for the criticized, right? Now can you/we handle this? Which is certainly in tune with K’s messages.

Clive Elwell wrote:
It is right to questions opinions, but it seems to me, Vikram, you are not concerned with your OWN opinions. These are not questioned, you present them as absolute facts. And perhaps this is the way that you see them.

Not at all and quite the contrary; "my opinions" (as you call it) are in black and white postings waiting for the attention of you or anyone else; to be questioned or to be proven wrong. Will you or someone else meet me there and do that? Does anyone here; in the least; have the focus to do that? Much less the expertise? Or are people afraid of meeting me in case they are proved wrong once more? So their images are trembling and afraid to be be broken aren't they? Then thank me for showing you that, if that is the case! If that is not the case then then please correct my errors, if any!

Clive Elwell wrote:
Inquiry, questioning, does not get very far if it is only an analysing of the imagined motives of others; if it is only a matter of criticising other people, does it? That is what the world is full of, criticising and castigating others. But surely real inquiry only starts with the questioning of oneself; one’s own opinions, WHY one has opinions at all, why one makes assumptions about the motives of others, one’s own tendencies, one’s habitual behaviour, one’s bias, why one feels a need to attack others - ALL the movements of one’s mind, in fact.

Precisely; does one see it? Has it translated into daily living or is it a theory?

Clive Elwell wrote:
Surely it is essential to question all images - the images one creates about others, and the images one has formed about oneself? Perhaps this is the start of "the religious life"?

Perhaps it is a start; but certainly not the best start. Now; are you folks doing it or merely stating it? I hope y'all are doing it; for your sake.

This post was last updated by Vikram P Sat, 22 Sep 2018.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Sat, 22 Sep 2018 #9
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 674 posts in this forum Offline

Vikram,

You say much but nothing of substance, nothing interesting or thought-provoking (Google definition: stimulating careful consideration or attention) in terms of relationship, action, fear, suffering, the condition of man. You’re entertaining yourself, it seems to me.

Insight or self-understanding comes from looking inwardly, not from looking outwardly. Can’t you (and I) look into these vital matters - look inwardly - with others rather than judge or grade them?

It's not my intention to hurt you.

This post was last updated by Huguette . Sat, 22 Sep 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 22 Sep 2018 #10
Thumb_an_immovable_mountain Vikram P India 42 posts in this forum Offline

Huquette,

As I have mentioned in the past; if you cannot contribute to the topic it is best not to post. I have said this to you and to others, don’t be a petty individual; which is what you are showing yourself to be; among other things; every time you focus on the individual rather than the topic. But it is hard to be free from reactions isn’t it?

Huguette . wrote:
You say much

I say so much my saying so little, isn’t it wonderful?

Huguette . wrote:
nothing interesting or thought-provoking

Thank you for the compliment that i am not Parroting! It has never my intent to interest or provoke other’s thoughts so I guess this is a confirmation to me I have done well. As I had said to Dan; people’s; and that includes your; appreciation or criticism has no value for me so I will not strive to secure either of them. You can take those and do whatever you want with it.

Besides, my thoughts begin at a note/octave where most people's end; and i don't expect you to see or hear what they are saying. If you get a chance see if you can find out and then come back and compare note and then you will find out how much you didn't see. For god's sake walk the walk!

Huguette . wrote:
in terms of relationship, action, fear, suffering, the condition of man.

Those are some matters; out of many; that I am attempting to look; while you are busy looking at ME. Maybe if you stop looking at me and meet me on these issues, then you might prove that you are not merely talking but walking the walk; eh?

Huguette . wrote:
You’re entertaining yourself, it seems to me.

What seems to you is most likely YOU. Your standards and your images; that are a product of your own lens. Your actions/words have not indicated a freedom from those so I am not too concerned on your opinions.

Huguette . wrote:
Insight or self-understanding comes from looking inwardly, not from looking outwardly. Can’t you (and I) look into these vital matters - look inwardly - with others rather than judge or grade them?

Precisely; why don’t you stop? Read your comments and see that you are doing exactly the same things and stop, rather easy isn’t it?

Huguette . wrote:
It's not my intention to hurt you.

You flatter yourself in this statement; just like you flatter yourself when you said/think that you are entitled to have your thoughts provoked by others (which is the undertone of your very first statement), but as I was saying; you flatter yourself when you think you have the capacity to hurt me. I seriously doubt that you have that potency. However you are free to keep trying as you have tried in this comment and your comments in the past in another thread. As I said it to Dan; such conduct is expected, predictable and not a surprise. After you sort out your problems then perhaps you can meet me on the topic of a religious life and discuss what was said (if you understand it).

This post was last updated by Vikram P Sat, 22 Sep 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 22 Sep 2018 #11
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 674 posts in this forum Offline

Vikram P wrote:
As I have mentioned in the past; if you cannot contribute to the topic it is best not to post.

You are not the judge who decides if I or anyone else "contributes" to any topic. You yourself participate in other's threads. There is no proprietary license or right here.

Nonetheless, if you are asking me not to post on any threads that you initiate, I can do that.

Vikram P wrote:
I say so much my saying so little

Yes, a lot of words and no substance.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying all 11 posts
Page 1 of 1
To quote a portion of this post in your reply, first select the text and then click this "Quote" link.

(N.B. Be sure to insert an empty line between the quoted text and your reply.)