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

All one inquiry


Displaying posts 301 - 330 of 790 in total
Wed, 02 Jan 2019 #301
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5098 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote #294 :
Yes, but aren’t the behaviors you’re calling intelligence mostly (or exclusively) instinctive?

I didn't mean this, Tom, I was not referring to any particular behaviours as exhibiting intelligence. I mean the intelligence that seems to enthuse, permeate, the whole of the natural world. The order that is there, the incredible complexity yet harmony, the inter-relatedness of all things.

Tom Paine wrote:
Does a horse or a pig love their neighbor...or even their mate?

I don't know, Tom, and I don't claim to be an expert on the issue of love. Clearly if there is such a force in living things, it is not the only force at work. And if there is such a force (there is some evidence to say there is, I think), are its origins purely biological, or does it have deeper, more fundamental roots?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 02 Jan 2019 #302
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5098 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
I’ll copy the QOTD here. What K says about conditioning applies to the above assertion if we simply accept it because K supposedly said it.

Krishnamurti: "You have stopped thinking, if I may say so, when you assert that it is there."

Yes, quite right Tom. But I have found at times that some words of K, although not fully understood, have pointed towards something; something that might be revealed with some inquiry, some investigation, some musing or even discussion with others.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 02 Jan 2019 #303
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5098 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote #297 :
but we would rather go on with the suffering than to be this no-thing, than to be the "silence that precedes the motion" of thought. Which he says is what we are.

I get the impression - I could be wrong - that confusion is arising because two different meanings are being put upon the phrase "being nothing". To put it very very simply, there is the desirable state of nothingness and the undesirable state of nothingness.

Here are some words of K very relevant to this issue:

Now, to understand the state of being without strife, that state of creative existence, surely one must enquire into the whole problem of effort. That is, at present we live with effort, our whole existence is a series of struggles - struggles with our intimate friends, with our neighbours, with people across the mountains and across the seas. Until we understand this question of effort and its consequences, surely we shall not be able to fathom that creative state which is obviously not the product of effort. The painter, the poet, may make an effort in painting or writing but the impact of the beautiful comes to him only when the struggle has fully ceased. So, we have to enquire into this question of effort, what we mean by effort, by strife, the struggle to become. We mean by effort, the striving to fulfil oneself, to become. something, don't we? I am this, and I want to become that; I am not that, and I must become that. In becoming `that', there is strife, there is battle, conflict, struggle. In this struggle we are concerned inevitably with fulfilment through the gaining of an end; we seek self-fulfilment in an object, in a person, in an idea, and that demands constant battle, struggle, the effort to become, to fulfil. So, we have taken this effort as inevitable; and I wonder if it is inevitable - this struggle to become something? Why is there this struggle? Where there is the desire for fulfillment, in whatever degree and at whatever level, there must be struggle. Fulfilment is the motive, the drive behind the effort; whether it is in the big executive, the housewife, or a poor man, there is this battle to become, to fulfil, going on.

Now, why is there the desire to fulfil oneself? Obviously, the desire to fulfil, to become something, arises when there is awareness of being nothing. Because I am nothing, because I am insufficient, empty, inwardly poor, I struggle to become something; outwardly or inwardly, I struggle to fulfil myself in a person, in a thing, in an idea. So, this struggle to become arises only when there is insufficiency, when there is awareness of a void, of that emptiness within oneself. That is, effort comes into being only when there is awareness; of emptiness. To fill that void is the whole process of our existence. Being aware that we are empty, inwardly poor, we struggle either to collect things outwardly, or to cultivate inward riches. This striving, this struggling, arises from the awareness of insufficiency, and so there is a constant battle to become - which is entirely different from being. There is effort only when there is an escape from that inward void through action, through contemplation, through acquisition, through achievement, through power, and so on. That is our daily existence. I am aware of my insufficiency, my inward poverty, and I struggle to run away from it, or to fill it. This running away, avoiding, or trying to cover up the void, entails struggle, strife, effort.

Now, if one does not make an effort to run away, what happens? One lives with that loneliness, that emptiness; and in accepting that emptiness one will find that there comes a creative state which has nothing to do with strife, with effort. Effort exists only as long as we are trying to avoid that inward loneliness, emptiness; but when we look at it, observe it, when we accept what is without avoidance, we will find there comes a state of being in which all strife ceases. That state of being is creativeness, and it is not the result of strife - though many of us think that struggle is inevitable, and that we must struggle to be creative. It is only when we are creative that there is full, rich happiness; but creativeness does not come into being through effort of any kind, effort being avoidance of what is. But when there is understanding of what is, which is emptiness, inward insufficiency, when one lives with that insufficiency and understands it fully, there comes creative reality, creative intelligence, which alone brings happiness.

So, action as we know it is really reaction, it is a ceaseless becoming, which is the denial, the avoidance of what is; but when there is awareness of emptiness without choice, without condemnation or justification, then in that understanding of what is there is action, and this action is creative being. You will understand this if you are aware of yourself in action. Observe yourself as you are acting, not only outwardly, but see also the movement of your thought and feeling. When you are aware of this movement, you will see that the thought process, which is also feeling and action, is based on an idea of becoming. The idea of becoming arises only when there is a sense of insecurity, and that sense of insecurity comes when one is aware of the inward void. So, if you are aware of that process of thought and feeling, you will see that there is a constant battle going on, an effort to change, to modify, to alter what is. This is the effort to become, and becoming is a direct avoidance of what is. Through self-knowledge, through constant awareness, you will find that strife, battle, the conflict of becoming, leads to pain, to sorrow and ignorance. It is only if you are aware of inward. insufficiency and live with it without escape, accepting it wholly, that you will discover an extraordinary tranquillity, a tranquillity which is not put together, made up, but a tranquillity which comes with understanding of what is. Only in that state of tranquillity is there creative being.

Poona 1948 talk 6

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 03 Jan 2019 #304
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1308 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
To put it very very simply, there is the desirable state of nothingness and the undesirable state of nothingness.

Thank you for putting that up Clive. It focuses I'd say on the "undesirable" aspect:

K. "The idea of becoming arises only when there is a sense of insecurity, and that sense of insecurity comes when one is aware of the inward void."

This "inward void" is what the brain has tried to obscure and fill. The 'self-image was created to offset it. I think the "no-thing" that is being pointed to here in this discussion,is that which is 'beyond' matter, beyond the 'self', what we are in 'essence'. That which Peter suggests doesn't "mind what happens".

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Thu, 03 Jan 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 03 Jan 2019 #305
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 815 posts in this forum Offline

fortunately I can read and write again after an eye infection and I am pleased with what has been written on this topic in the meantime.

there is something I would like to bring to your attention.
there is doubt about the exact use of words in the Stamp quote by quoting it as: "supposed".
Isn't it a fact that only the recorded words are exact what is being said and before that the notes of volunteers are the source of the archive and also the editing of Rajagopal must be taken into account !

Even if it's Stamp's interpretation it is the pointing to which is important and that is something we all are doing now.

Truth will unfold itself to those who enquire their own actions.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 03 Jan 2019 #306
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1308 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
K. This striving, this struggling, arises from the awareness of insufficiency, and so there is a constant battle to become - which is entirely different from being.

Reading the quote again, I would add that we are born into the world with this 'nothingness' and the struggle to 'fill it in' starts early. There is not a question that it's the 'right' way to live. The society demands it and we then demand it of ourselves. But although the perceived "insufficiency" drives us on, it can never be totally satisfied...because that 'insufficiency', that 'nothingness' is what we truly are, not the attachments we have struggled to accumulate and maintain along the way. So if there is any way to reverse this 'direction' it seems, it has to be to stop moving in this direction of "effort" and escape. What it is that keeps us going in that direction, we have to discover in ourselves...Is it that we really don't see the extreme 'danger' of continuing down that old road? That it leads to the "precipice"? That it is the precipice?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Thu, 03 Jan 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 03 Jan 2019 #307
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2637 posts in this forum Offline

Clive: Yes, quite right Tom. But I have found at times that some words of K, although not fully understood, have pointed towards something; something that might be revealed with some inquiry, some investigation, some musing or even discussion with others.

Is it meaningful to ‘investigate’ or discuss this idea (and it is an idea only for the one who is feeling anger or fear, for example) of ‘pure being’ when I’m in conflict of one sort or another? Or might it be more meaningful to investigate the conflict...the fact...what is? Just questioning here...

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Thu, 03 Jan 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 03 Jan 2019 #308
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2637 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote #294 :
Yes, but aren’t the behaviors you’re calling intelligence mostly (or exclusively) instinctive?

I didn't mean this, Tom, I was not referring to any particular behaviours as exhibiting intelligence. I mean the intelligence that seems to enthuse, permeate, the whole of the natural world. The order that is there, the incredible complexity yet harmony, the inter-relatedness of all things.

Yes indeed, Clive. It seems that only man is out of place here, living in incredible disorder. It’s a stretch to say that this intelligence is what I actually am, though, isn’t it? Perhaps when ‘I’ cease, that intelligence IS.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 03 Jan 2019 #309
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5098 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
Isn't it a fact that only the recorded words are exact what is being said and before that the notes of volunteers are the source of the archive and also the editing of Rajagopal must be taken into account !

This is so, Wim, and as I have said, I have applied to the KFA to see if they can authenticate the words, if they were audio-recorded. I have received an automatic response, and am waiting to hear what they have to say on this issue.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 03 Jan 2019 #310
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5098 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
This "inward void" is what the brain has tried to obscure and fill. The 'self-image was created to offset it. I think the "no-thing" that is being pointed to here in this discussion,is that which is 'beyond' matter, beyond the 'self', what we are in 'essence'. That which Peter suggests doesn't "mind what happens".

For me, up to now, the important of this ‘nothingness’ in my enquiry has been not to be frightened of it. Not to let (the idea of) it be a distorting factor in one’s self-enquiry. And that seems to imply being open to it, even welcoming it.

Letting it reveal itself.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 03 Jan 2019 #311
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5098 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Is it meaningful to ‘investigate’ or discuss this idea (and it is an idea only for the one who is feeling anger or fear, for example) of ‘pure being’ when I’m in conflict of one sort or another? Or might it be more meaningful to investigate the conflict...the fact...what is? Just questioning here...

I am not always in conflict. My ‘being’ is made up of many things, always shifting, changing. Sometimes there is passive watchfulness, sometimes inattention, daydreaming. Sometimes there is compassion for another, sometimes reaction, dislike. Sometimes a future is imagined, and fear is felt, sometimes desire, pleasure. At times there is intense questioning, at other times a conclusion has me in its grip.

My point is I cannot always “investigate conflict”. Is it not that I can only investigate conflict when the movement of conflict is happening? (I do admit that it is a very fundamental part of the mind). I can only investigate each part as it arises. I can only be aware of ‘what is’. And I cannot predetermine what that what is will be, can I?

All these parts, all these “ what is ‘‘s ” make up my being, and your being, do they not? (Perhaps in saying this I am approaching Huguette’s perception of wholeness?). At times there is an urge to sit very quietly, with no aim in mind, just watching the movement of thought, and at times something in particular interests me greatly, and there is an urge to pursue it with vigour. I found this was the case with the words of Terence Stamp/ K.

Not that this pursuing EXCLUDES the investigation of conflict anyway. At a small gathering-dialogue recently I found myself asking this question, with great energy:

“Can we all the time move from insight to insight?”

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 03 Jan 2019 #312
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2637 posts in this forum Offline

Clive: I am not always in conflict. My ‘being’ is made up of many things, always shifting, changing

True, but conflict is always there ...perhaps in a dormant state a good deal of the time...like when I’m pursuing making money or my sports or romantic ambitions. To contemplate ‘pure being’ when my being is ‘impure’ seems like self deception, if you don’t mind me saying so. Of course I could be mistaken.

I can only investigate each part as it arises. I can only be aware of ‘what is’. And I cannot predetermine what that what is will be, can I?

That’s my point....investigating what is. Is pure being ‘what is’? Or am I investigating pure being so as to avoid what is? Is ‘what is’ confusion, conflict, desire, ambition, loneliness, frustration, anger, or ....?

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Thu, 03 Jan 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 04 Jan 2019 #313
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 815 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
This is so, Wim, and as I have said, I have applied to the KFA to see if they can authenticate the words, if they were audio-recorded. I have received an automatic response, and am waiting to hear what they have to say on this issue.

Clive, it was not so much the question whether the words used are authentic but whether they point to something actual!

knowing how the old - for recording - texts came into being, we accept it as authentic, do we realize that, do we take that into our consideration, at the same time realizing that the word is not the thing?

To me that seems the meaning of:
'I am not important, but what is said is '

Truth will unfold itself to those who enquire their own actions.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 04 Jan 2019 #314
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5098 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
To contemplate ‘pure being’ when my being is ‘impure’ seems like self deception,

I didn't myself use the term "pure being", I am not sure what meaning that phrase conveys. And I did not use the term "impure being" either. What in fact does the term "being" mean? In #303 K is quoted as saying:

"Now, to understand the state of being without strife, that state of creative existence, surely one must enquire into the whole problem of effort".

He later says:

"when we look at it, observe it, when we accept what is without avoidance, we will find there comes a state of being in which all strife ceases. That state of being is creativeness "

Is "being" there when all becoming" has ceased?

I don't know that one can say anything more about this. I can see that it, being, cannot be imagined, and it is not a thing of memory. it cannot be thought about at all. Explanations will not suffice; it seems to me that this state of being has to be directly experienced, But "experience" is not the right word, as it implies an experience-er. Experiencing is better.

The only 'way' into it seems to be complete negation.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 05 Jan 2019 #315
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5098 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:

Clive: To put it very very simply, there is the desirable state of nothingness and the undesirable state of nothingness.

Thank you for putting that up Clive. It focuses I'd say on the "undesirable" aspect:

Here is an excerpt from K where is the emphasis is on “nothingness” as a desirable thing. The somewhat Indian-sounding term “void” is used.

I find it interested that K seems to arrive at it without describing what it is, at all. In fact the discussion examplifies well Professor P. Krishna’s comments that K’s teaching have no content at all, they are entirely a matter of approach.

The discussion is from Commentaries on Living Series III Chapter 9, called 'The Void Within':

"I want you to speak to me of the immeasurable void," he went on. "I have had a feeling of that void, and I think I have touched the hem of it in my wanderings and meditations." Then he quoted a shloka to explain and to support his experience.

If it may be pointed out, the authority of another, however great, is no proof of the truth of your experience. Truth needs no proof by action, nor does it depend on any authority; so let's put aside all authority and tradition, and try to find out the truth of this matter for ourselves.

"That would be very difficult for me, for I am steeped in tradition - not in the tradition of the world, but in the teachings of the Gita, the Upanishads, and so on. Is it right for me to let all that go? Would that not be ingratitude on my part?"

Neither gratitude nor ingratitude are in any way involved; we are concerned with discovering the truth or the falseness of that void of which you have spoken. If you walk on the path of authority and tradition, which is knowledge you will experience only what you desire to experience, helped on by authority and tradition. It will not be a discovery; it will already be known a thing to be recognized and experienced. Authority and tradition may be wrong, they may be a comforting illusion. To discover whether that void is true or false, whether it exists or is merely another invention of the mind, the mind must be free from the net of authority and tradition.
"Can the mind ever free itself from this net?"

The mind cannot free itself, for any effort on its part to be free only weaves another net in which it will again be caught. Freedom is not an opposite; to be free is not to be free from something, it's not a state of release from bondage. The urge to be free breeds its own bondage. Freedom is a state of being which is not the outcome of the desire to be free. When the mind understands this, and sees the falseness of authority and tradition, then only does the false wither away.

"It may be that I have been induced to feel certain things by my reading, and by the thoughts based on such reading; but apart from all that, I have vaguely felt from childhood, as in a dream, the existence of this void. There has always been an intimation of it, a nostalgic feeling for it; and as I grew older, my reading of various religious books only strengthened this feeling, giving it more vitality and purpose. But I begin to realize what you mean. I have depended almost entirely on the description of the experiences of others, as given in the sacred Scriptures. This dependence I can throw off, since I now see the necessity of doing so; but can I revive that original, uncontaminated feeling for that which is beyond words?"

What is revived is not the living, the new; it is a memory, a dead thing, and you cannot put life into the dead. To revive and live on memory is to be a slave to stimulation, and a mind that depends on stimulation, conscious or unconscious, will inevitably become dull and insensitive. Revival is the perpetuation of confusion; to turn to the dead past in the moment of a living crisis is to seek a pattern of life which has its roots in decay. What you experienced as a youth, or only yesterday, is over and gone; and if you cling to the past, you prevent the quickening experience of the new.

"As I think you will realize, sir, I am really in earnest, and for me it has become an urgent necessity to understand and to be of that void. What am I to do?"

One has to empty the mind of the known; all the knowledge that one has gathered must cease to have any influence on the living mind. Knowledge is ever of the past, it is the very process of the past, and the mind must be free from this process. Recognition is part of the process of knowledge, isn't it?

"How is that?"

To recognize something, you must have known or experienced it previously, and this experience is stored up as knowledge, memory. Recognition comes out of the past. You may have experienced, once upon a time, this void, and having once experienced it, you now crave for it. The original experience came about without your pursuing it; but now you are pursuing it, and the thing that you are seeking is not the void, but the renewal of an old memory. If it is to happen again, all remembrance of it, all knowledge of it, must disappear. All search for it must cease, for search is based on the desire to experience.

"Do you really mean that I must not search it out? This seems incredible!"

The motive of search is of greater significance than the search itself. The motive pervades, guides and shapes the search. The motive of your search is the desire to experience the unknowable to know the bliss and the immensity of it. This desire has brought into being the experiencer who craves for experience. The experiencer is searching for greater, wider and more significant experience. All other experiences having lost their taste, the experiencer now longs for the void; so there is the experiencer, and the thing to be experienced. Thus conflict is set going between the two, between the pursuer and the pursued.

"This I understand very well, because it is exactly the state I am in. I now see that I am caught in a net of my own making."

As every seeker is, and not just the seeker after truth, God, the void, and so on. Every ambitious or covetous man who is pursuing power, position, prestige, every idealist, every worshipper of the State, every builder of a perfect Utopia - they are all caught in the same net. But if once you understand the total significance of search, will you continue to seek the void?

"I perceive the inward meaning of your question and I have already stopped seeking."

If this be a fact, then what is the state of the mind that is not seeking?

"I do not know; the whole thing is so new to me that I shall have to gather myself and observe. May I have a few minutes before we go any further?"
After a pause, he continued.

"I perceive how extraordinarily subtle it is; how difficult it is for the experiencer, the watcher, not to step in. It seems almost impossible for thought not to create the thinker; but as long as there is a thinker, an experiencer, there must obviously be separation from, and conflict with, that which is to be experienced. And you are asking, aren't you, what is the state of the mind when there is no conflict?"

Conflict exists when desire assumes the form of the experiencer and pursues that which is to be experienced; for that which is to be experienced is also put together by desire.

"Please be patient with me, and let me understand what you are saying. Desire not only builds the experiencer, the watcher, but also brings into being that which is to be experienced, the watched. So desire is the cause of the division between the experiencer and the thing to be experienced, and it is this division that sustains conflict. Now, you are asking, what is the state of the mind which is no longer in conflict, which is not driven by desire? But can this question be answered without the watcher who is watching the experience of desirelessness?"

When you are conscious of your humility, has not humility ceased? Is there virtue when you deliberately practise virtue? Such practice is the strengthening of self-centred activity, which puts an end to virtue. The moment you are aware that you are happy, you cease to be happy. What is the state of the mind which is not caught in the conflict of desire? The urge to find out is part of the desire which has brought into being the experiencer and the thing to be experienced, is it not?

"That's so. Your question was a trap for me, but I am thankful you asked it. I am seeing more of the intricate subtleties of desire."

It was not a trap, but a natural and inevitable question which you would have asked yourself in the course of your inquiry. If the mind is not extremely alert, aware, it is soon caught again in the net of its own desire.

"One final question: is it really possible for the mind to be totally free of the desire for experience, which sustains this division between the experiencer and the thing to be experienced?"

Find out, sir. When the mind is entirely free of this structure of desire, is the mind then different from the void?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 05 Jan 2019 #316
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1308 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
K. When the mind is entirely free of this structure of desire, is the mind then different from the void?

To be as "nothing' is to be free of the "structure of desire"?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 05 Jan 2019 #317
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2637 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:

To contemplate ‘pure being’ when my being is ‘impure’ seems like self deception,

Clive: I didn't myself use the term "pure being", I am not sure what meaning that phrase conveys.

I thought we were still discussing the Stamp quote....”what you are is being” or something like that. My post was a response to what you wrote in response to what I wrote in regards to that quote. I can’t go back and unravel all that was said and make some sense out of it, so it’s probably best to move on.

He(K) later says:

"when we look at it, observe it, when we accept what is without avoidance, we will find there comes a state of being in which all strife ceases. That state of being is creativeness "

Clive: Is "being" there when all becoming" has ceased?

Logically that would seem to be so. Living with ‘what is’ is perhaps what K is pointing to....no ideals...no should be or should not be....simply the unadulterated fact of being ...living with what is with no division. Of course the logical explanation is not the fact...the word is not the thing.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Sat, 05 Jan 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 05 Jan 2019 #318
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 815 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Of course the logical explanation is not the fact...the word is not the thing.

"Even to find common ground for inquiry appears to be difficult, as is shown in this excerpt:

All strife is one of relationship, an adjustment between two resistances, two individuals Resistance is a conditioning, limiting or conditioning that energy which may be called life, thought, emotion. This conditioning, this resistance, has had no beginning. It has always been, and we can see that it can be continued. There are many and complex causes for this conditioning.

This conditioning is ignorance, which can be brought to an end.

Ignorance is the unawareness of the process of conditioning, which consists of the many wants, fears, acquisitive memories, and so on.

Belief is part of ignorance. Whatever action springs from belief only further strengthens ignorance.

The craving for understanding, for happiness, the attempt to get rid of this particular quality and acquire that particular virtue, all such effort is born of ignorance, which is the result of this constant want.

So in relationship strife and conflict continue.

As long as there is want, all experience further conditions thought and emotion, thus continuing conflict.

Where there is want, experience cannot be complete, thus strengthening resistance. A belief, the result of want, is a conditioning force; experience based on any belief is limiting, however wide and large it may be.

Whatever effort the mind makes to break down its own vicious circle of ignorance must further aid the continuance of ignorance. If one does not understand the whole process of ignorance, and merely makes an effort to get rid of it, thought is still acting within the circle of ignorance.

So what is one to do, discerning that whatever action, whatever effort one makes only strengthens ignorance? The very desire to break through the circle of ignorance is still part of ignorance. Then what is one to do?

Now, is this an all-important, vital question to you? If it is, then you will see that there is no direct, positive answer. For positive answers can only bring about further effort, which but strengthens the process of ignorance. So there is only a negative approach, which is to be integrally aware of the process of fear or ignorance. This awareness is not an effort to overcome, to destroy or to find a substitute, but is a stillness of neither acceptance nor denial, an integral quietness of no choice. This awareness breaks the circle of ignorance from within, as it were, without strengthening it.

Questioner: How can one know for certain whether the mind is unconditioned, because there is a possibility of illusion there?

Krishnamurti: Do not let us be concerned about the certainty of an unconditioned mind, but rather be aware of the limitations of thought-emotion.

Questioner: There is a real difference between being unaware of our conditioning and imagining that we are unconditioned.

Krishnamurti: Surely that is obvious. To inquire into the unconditioned state when one's mind is limited is so utterly futile. We have to be concerned with those causes which hold thought-emotion in bondage.

Questioner: We know there is reality and unreality, and from the unreal we must move to the real.

Krishnamurti: Surely that is another form of conditioning. How do you know that there is the real?

Questioner: Because it is there.

Krishnamurti: You have stopped thinking, if I may say so, when you assert that it is there.

Questioner: I think we realize continually that we are conditioned, because we are always suffering and in conflict.

Krishnamurti: So conflict, suffering, the strain of relationship, indicates a conditioning. There may be many causes for conditioning, but are you aware of at least one of them?

Questioner: Fear and desire are the causes of limiting.

Krishnamurti: When you make that statement are you conscious that, in your life, fear and desire cause strife, misery?

When you say that fear is conditioning your life, are you aware of that fear? Or is it because you have read of it, or heard me talk about it, that you repeat, "Fear is conditioning"? Fear cannot exist by itself, but only in relation to something.

Now when you say you are conscious of fear, is it caused by something outside of yourself, or is it within you? One is afraid of an accident, or of the neighbour, or of some immediate relation, or of some psychological reaction, and so on. In some cases it is the outward things of life which are making us afraid, and if we can free ourselves from them, we think that we shall be without fear.

Can you free yourself from your neighbour? You may be able to escape from a particular neighbour, but wherever you are, you are always in relation with someone. You may be able to create an illusion into which you can withdraw, or build a wall between your neighbour and yourself, and thereby protect yourself. You may separate yourself through social division, through virtues, beliefs, acquisitions, and so free yourself from your neighbour. But this is not freedom.

Then there is the fear of contagious diseases, accidents, and so forth, against which one takes natural precautions, without unduly exaggerating them.

The will to survive, the will to be satisfied, the will to continue - this is the very root cause of fear.

Do you know this to be so? If you do, then what do you mean by "knowing"? Do you know this merely intellectually, as a word-picture, or are you aware of it integrally, emotionally?

You know of fear as a reaction when your resistance is weakened; when the walls of your self-protection have been broken into, then you are conscious of fear and your immediate reaction is to patch up again those walls, to strengthen them so as to be secure"

Ommen 3rd Public Talk 4th August, 1937

Truth will unfold itself to those who enquire their own actions.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 05 Jan 2019 #319
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2637 posts in this forum Offline

Wim quoting K.

“So what is one to do, discerning that whatever action, whatever effort one makes only strengthens ignorance? The very desire to break through the circle of ignorance is still part of ignorance. Then what is one to do?

Now, is this an all-important, vital question to you? If it is, then you will see that there is no direct, positive answer. For positive answers can only bring about further effort, which but strengthens the process of ignorance. So there is only a negative approach, which is to be integrally aware of the process of fear or ignorance.”

Thanks for sharing this whole excerpt Wim. It touches directly on what we’ve been discussing a lot on the forum.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 05 Jan 2019 #320
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5098 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
To be as "nothing' is to be free of the "structure of desire"?

Surely. To be nothing must imply being free of all becoming, and it is desire that wants to become. And this continual desiring, coupled with ignorance (lack of understanding) keeps the self going.

The self is the very antithesis of "nothing", isn't it? It is always "something"

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 09 Jan 2019 #321
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5098 posts in this forum Offline

https://www.livescience.com/64394-virus-finding...

Well, here is a new scientific theory about thought taking the wrong turn, or even the very origins of thought. It started as a virus!

One has to go the second page from this link.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 12 Jan 2019 #322
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5098 posts in this forum Offline

We touched upon the question what does it mean to be "nothing" or "empty". In the following quote K draws a distinction between nothingness and emptiness:

So, in that quality of mind, time has come to an end. Thought is not projecting anything, therefore there are no visions, no gods, no – nothing. That nothingness is not emptiness. That nothingness is the creative flowering of life, of total life. That is the very essence of something that is unnameable.

This is from the end of the 4th talk at Madras 1973. The talks continues, and ends:

But the mind cannot come to it with any kind of will, with any kind of desire, through any kind of ritual, slogans, mantrams and Ramas and Sitas and god knows what else. It can only come when you lead a righteous life, now, not tomorrow, every day of your life. When there is no friction between you and another, that is, when you have relationship with another, not through your images of it, but relationship, and when you have this immense feeling of compassion, love, that is beauty, when that is there as a root, as a tree has its root deep in earth, unless your feet are firmly in there, unshakable, then in that... out of that grows the beauty of silence which is not cultivable, which is timeless and therefore something beyond all words.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 31 Jan 2019 #323
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5098 posts in this forum Offline

Action is an endless movement which has no beginning and no end and which is not controlled by cause and effect. Action is of everything - the action of the sea, of the mango seed becoming the mango tree, and so on. But the human mind is not a seed and therefore, through its action it becomes only a modified reproduction of what it was. In our life there is the constant pressure of circumstances and although the circumstances are always changing they are ever shaping our lives. What was, is not: what is, can be broken. So can we not sense, feel, this enormous action of life which ranges from the movement of the little worm in the earth to the sweep of the infinite heavens? If you really want to know what this extraordinary thing is, this action, then you must go through it, you must break through the barrier of this action in time. Then you will know it, then with that feeling you can act, you can go to your job and do all the things that are recognizable within the field of time. But from within the recognizable field of time you cannot find the other. Do what you will, through the petty you will never find the immeasurable.

If you once really saw the truth of this - that a mind functioning within the field of time can never understand the Eternal, which is outside of time, if you really saw that, felt it, then you would see that a mind which speculates about love and divides it up as carnal, profane, divine or sacred can never find the other. But if you can feel this astonishing action - the movement of the stars, the forests, the rivers, the ocean, the ways of the animals and of human beings; if you could know the beauty of a tender leaf in spring, the feeling of rain as it drops from the heavens; then with that immense feeling you can act within the field of recognition, within the field of time. But action within the field of time can never lead to the other. If you really understand that, not verbally, intellectually, if you really feel the significance of it, grasp it, see the extraordinary beauty and loveliness of it, then you will see that the will has no place in this at all. All action born of will is essentially self-centred, egocentric, but such action will disappear totally when you have understood it fully, when you have really felt yourself moving in it, with your mind wholly in it. Then you can see that there is no necessity for will at all; there is a quite different movement. The will then is like a knotted piece of rope, it can be undone. That will can be lost; but the other cannot be lost, it cannot be increased or decreased.

So, if you are listening with your whole being, learning with your whole being, which means feeling deeply, not merely listening to words intellectually, then you will feel the extraordinary movement of learning, of God - not the God made by the hand or by the mind, not the God of the temple, mosque or church, but this endless immeasurable thing, the Timeless. Then you will see that we can live with astonishing peace in this world; then there is no such thing as temptation, no such thing as virtue, because virtue is merely a thing of society. The man who understands all this, who lives it, is orderly, inwardly at rest; his action is entirely different, much more effective, easier and clearer, because there is no inward confusion, contradiction.

So, a mind that holds to conclusions is never humble. A man who has learnt is carrying the burden of his knowledge, but a man who is learning has no burden and therefore he can go to the top of the mountain. As two human beings, you and I have talked of something which cannot be captured through words; but by listening to each other, exploring it, understanding it, we have found something extraordinary, something that is imperishable. Life reduced to the "me' clinging to life is perishable, but if you can see that extraordinary Life from the beginning to the end, if once you have gone into it, felt it, drunk at its fountain, then you can live an ordinary life with utter newness, you can really live. The respectable man is not living, he is already dead; and life is not a thing to be invited by the dead. Life is to be entered and forgotten - because there is no"me' to remember the living of that life. It is only when the mind is in a state of complete humility, when it has no purpose for its own little existence, when it does not move from a point to a point, from experience to experience, from knowledge to knowledge - only such a mind which is totally, completely, wholly not-seeking, knows the infinite beginning and the infinite end of existence.

Bombay 1958 November 30, 1958

http://jiddu-krishnamurti.net/en/1958/1958-11-30-jiddu-krishnamurti-2nd-public-talk

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 02 Feb 2019 #324
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5098 posts in this forum Offline

I wonder if anyone can help me understand what K means by the following:

Now, if you can move from freedom, then you will discover the most extraordinary things of the mind, and then you will find that the mind itself is the total reality. It is not that there is a reality to which the mind goes, but the mind itself, that extraordinary thing when there is no contradiction within itself, when there is no anxiety, no fear, no desire to be successful - then that mind itself is that which is Eternal, Unnameable. But to speculate about the Eternal without understanding the whole process of the mind is just childish play.

Ii is from 1958, Madras talk 2. I know in his earlier years K used the term "Reality" to mean some extra-ordinary state, whereas later he used the word - with a lower case 'r' - to mean "that which is created by thought". In this quote there is a lower case r, and as you see he goes on to use the words "Unnameable" and "Eternal" with upper case initial letters.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 04 Feb 2019 #325
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5098 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
I wonder if anyone can help me understand what K means by the following:

So, is no one willing to take a stab at this?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 04 Feb 2019 #326
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1308 posts in this forum Offline

Every living thing on earth has its own reality. From the microbe to the plant to the worm to the human. The 'earth' itself has its own reality as it circles its sun as does every planet in the universe circling their own suns. Also the suns have theirs as they circle their suns. And make up the the individual galaxies of stars which have their own realities. All the galaxies in the universe have their own reality...all these 'subjective' realities are included in the reality of the One, God, the Nameless.

K: if you can move from freedom, then you will discover the most extraordinary things of the mind, and then you will find that the mind itself is the total reality. It is not that there is a reality to which the mind goes, but the mind itself, that extraordinary thing when there is no contradiction within itself, when there is no anxiety, no fear, no desire to be successful - then that mind itself is that which is Eternal, Unnameable.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 05 Feb 2019 #327
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2637 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
So, is no one willing to take a stab at this?

Perhaps a mind that is imbued with intelligence. That is one with intelligence. Obviously not the mind of man that has created the world crisis.....the 'house which is on fire'. In the excerpt he talks of understanding the whole process of the mind, and here he's obviously talking about the ordinary human consciousness....the conditioning of the ordinary mind,. How am I to understand that.....I who AM that?

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Tue, 05 Feb 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 06 Feb 2019 #328
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5098 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Every living thing on earth has its own reality.

I find it hard to understand this, how you are using the word "reality" here, Dan. Also you seems to be saying that planets and stars and galaxies are living things. I am not saying that they are not, I don't know, but I don't think this would be accepted by many scientists.

In post 324 above I breifly describe the two ways K seemed to use the term reality. Are you introducing a third, distinct meaning here?

Without any real hope of clarity (so "real" there means not false), I turn to dictionary definitions:

1 : the quality or state of being real
2a(1) : a real event, entity, or state of affairs

eg: his dream became a reality

(2) : the totality of real things and events

eg trying to escape from reality

(2) is especially interesting, I am finding, because it talks of the TOTALITY of things and events. But you seem to be saying, Dan, that things have their OWN reality. Is this a separate reality? And when you talk, for example, of the reality of worms, does each worm have its own reality? or do all worms share a reality?

One more question comes, before I finish - are you using the word reality as being synonomous with "consciousness"?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 06 Feb 2019 #329
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5098 posts in this forum Offline

And which of the following words bests desribes 'reality':
fixed
ever-changing
constant
?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 06 Feb 2019 #330
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1308 posts in this forum Offline

What is 'real' for you Clive is different for me. We each have a 'separate' reality in the sense of the events of our lives, a different consciousness.... Same with the worm, a different reality depending on its circumstances, its environment, its obstacles ...totally unique in each case....Aren't planets, stars 'alive' , growing, moving changing 'entities? All with their own circumstances, lifespans, events...? And within the myriad realities, are they all part of the 'one' Reality, the 'absolute' Reality? We can't 'know' that but it seems logical...Also as 'life' has to be broadly considered to include things that we don't think of in that way, like planets, suns, etc so does the way we consider time as not just on one 'scale' but many. (great book on this: Maurice Nicoll's 'Living Time') Very rich....I would say the "best description" for me of reality is that it is ever-changing on its own level but that all realities are a part of an unnameable, unchangeable, unmovable, eternal 'Reality'.

But just considering our plight here as humans, that K. has brought the idea that our realities, seemingly 'individual' are false...based as they are on the past: the 'I' or 'me' is a construction of the past. And that beyond that 'illusion' of a permanent entity, the self, that there is another 'reality' for man beyond that. Where the seeming separation between 'myself' and the 'other' disappears. A 'truer' reality?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Thu, 07 Feb 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 301 - 330 of 790 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.)