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

The Precipice


Displaying posts 121 - 150 of 162 in total
Sun, 24 Nov 2019 #121
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1578 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
People killed themselves when they lost great wealth after the stock market crash of 1929.

Isn't the bottom line when it comes to psychological suffering that something has happened, is happening, or could happen that I don't want to happen? That 'want' may be reasonable in the case of one's self, one's child, friend, country,etc. but that 'want' is a result of one's self,experience, knowledge, one's likes and dislikes, ones 'attachments'. The conflict between us is already there isn't it? You want one thing and someone else wants the opposite. You're attached to one belief, or country or religion or whatever, and I to something different. You can say, well that's just human nature, or that's the beauty, the 'variety' of life, but I'm saying no, thats the nature of the 'self', the self-image. That's what thinks of itself as an individual. But it's not -it's 'dividual', made up of conflicting fragments. One fragment does something that another fragment wouldn't dream of doing and both are 'feeling' that they are the 'representative of the whole: 'I'. When 'we' hurt and suffer, it is this 'I' that is hurting. We're like 'walls' with nothing behind them. We are the walls. The 'hurt',I guess, is the brain/mind trying to hold these tenuous structures together. And as you say when they're seen to be falling apart, in danger, the ignorant brain okays the killing of the body in order not to have to face whatever may be behind that carefully crafted 'wall', to 'spare' the self-image!

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sun, 24 Nov 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 24 Nov 2019 #122
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5417 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Who or what is the "identifier"?

This is a question that I have often asked myself. It seems to be an important question, because it does not appear to allow an answer. It seems to me that it is the process of identification that creates the me-entity. Thus how can there be a me-entity which does the identification?

Can it me that identification is purely a process that the mind goes through? A process set in motion by a certain pattern established in the brain cells, in the neuron connections?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 24 Nov 2019 #123
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5417 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Which is another way of saying "The observer is the observed". There is 'nothing' outside of this..

Yes. I find it clearer to put it as "the controller is the controlled".

To the extent that the mind sees this fact, does not the it cease to carry itself forward in this illusory manner? i say illusion because all becoming is based on the idea that one will become something different, something better, than what we are now. But why should the mind try to become what it is already is?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 24 Nov 2019 #124
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5417 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
Isn't that because you or I can't see ourselves as a "bundle of memories"? We think we are more, that there is a 'me' there apart from whatever is going on. Something permanent: me.

No, I was not saying that we are something more, in the sense of something greater, something more significant. I was saying that the self is more complex that is suggested by the words "a bundle of memories". Not a 'bundle', but ALL human memoriesa ALL human experience, is enfolded in the self. The word "holistic" comes to mind.

So when the self acts, it is fear trying to act on fear, desire trying to act on desire, ambition trying to act on ambition, confusion trying to act on confusion, and so on.

I could be wrong.

This post was last updated by Clive Elwell Sun, 24 Nov 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 24 Nov 2019 #125
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5417 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
In the same way, how can an image suffer?

Does an image suffer by thinking that it suffers? Is there any more reality to suffering than that?

I do recognise that there is suffering by what I would call empathy - seeing, feeling, the suffering of others, as you describe Huguette, no matter what the source of that suffering is, whether "real" or "imagined".

I don't think the fact that psychologically suffering can be felt in the body proves that it is not created by thought in the place. The psycho-somatic effect is completely accepted these days.

K often asked the people who came to him with their suffering, their sense of great loss, if they were grieving for the other, or for themselves. And if it is for ourselves, then yes, it can be rightly called 'self-pity'. Not that self pity is not painful, is not a sort of suffering in itself.

So I ask again, does an image, does the self suffer just by thinking that it suffers? Is imagined suffering not in itself suffering? After all, is it not a fact that thought does not know, it only thinks it knows?

All the "great religious teachers" talked extensively of suffering, and were perhaps motivated to do what they did by the fact of human suffering. I suggest that they felt the suffering of others, felt the great suffering of the world, without actually suffering themselves. And perhaps this distinction also exists in us, at least some of the time. i don't know. Perhaps this feeling of the suffering of the world can better described as great sadness, rather than suffering?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 24 Nov 2019 #126
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2900 posts in this forum Offline

Offline
Tom Paine wrote:

People killed themselves when they lost great wealth after the stock market crash of 1929.

Dan: Isn't the bottom line when it comes to psychological suffering that something has happened, is happening, or could happen that I don't want to happen?

Of course, because I fear it will bring pain or deprivation ...suffering. In my grandparents day there was no welfare or food stamps . If you lost your job you might not eat. So that fear seems justified. Why do we fear losing our spouse if they ask for a divorce? We may depend on them emotionally and if they leave I fear I will suffer. Why should I suffer if my wife leaves me? I can still keep my job. I won’t starve. So what is this psychological suffering..,.this fear all about? I depend upon my skill and status as a great high school football player. It gives me a feeling of psychological security. In college I get injured in a game and can no longer play. I suffer with a feeling of great loss. Why? I still have a roof over my head and 3 meals a day. Why do I suffer? Because of fear ultimately?

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Mon, 25 Nov 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 25 Nov 2019 #127
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2900 posts in this forum Offline

So I ask again, does an image, does the self suffer just by thinking that it suffers? Is imagined suffering not in itself suffering?

Fear is painful no? Suffering is this pain isn’t it? This is a survival mechanism. In a famine my fear of starvation motivates me to act to find food. If I can’t find any i experience fear of starvation..,,suffering. If there are wild animals near where I live my fear of getting eaten by a wolf or bear motivates me to build a safe shelter. But when I have fear and cannot act then the fear becomes real suffering.,..worry anxiety etc. but didn’t it begin as a survival mechanism for primitive man? Then there’s the fear that only serves to protect my reputation or status or self image..,my self. I’m not totally clear how that fear is related to the fear that serves to protect the body. Both are experienced as pain in the body ...suffering.

There’s pain, yes, and anything that will remove this pain and return the body to a more comfortable state becomes my attachment as pain is resisted....because it’s a threat to the body’s survival.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Mon, 25 Nov 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 25 Nov 2019 #128
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1578 posts in this forum Offline

Public Talk 15th February, 1948 | Mumbai, India

So, the problem is: Does sorrow, suffering, come to an end through effort, through a thought process? You understand, I am not for the moment talking about the physiological suffering, the painful disease, but about the psychological suffering. Does that suffering come to an end through effort, through what we call the thought process? Physical pain can be overcome by effort, by searching out the causes of disease. But psychological suffering, pain, anxiety, frustration, the innumerable aches - can they be overcome by effort, by thought. So we have first to enquire what is suffering, what is effort, and what is thought. It is a very large problem to be solved in a very short time; but if you will follow it attentively, I think it is possible to understand the significance of it; and perhaps in understanding it directly we shall be able to solve it, or rather catch a momentary glimpse of that happiness which destroys this ache, this burning loneliness and pain.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 25 Nov 2019 #129
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2900 posts in this forum Offline

Re: #128

Can you share your own understanding of the excerpt Dan? Effort won’t solve the problem of suffering K is saying. We all probably know this from our own personal experiences with the issue. But why exactly is effort the wrong approach, and what is the right approach?

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 25 Nov 2019 #130
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1578 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
But why exactly is effort the wrong approach, and what is the right approach?

I see it as a very 'delicate' one. The perception has to include myself, the 'myself' that has never been in question before. When it is seen that the sufferer and the suffering are one and the same, 'you' are no longer the sufferer. 'You' as has been said are "nothing" There is only then the 'suffering' but no sufferer outside of it. And then it dissipates. Any effort establishes the duality of sufferer trying to mitigate suffering...which is the suffering. If that makes sense.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 26 Nov 2019 #131
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5417 posts in this forum Offline

The original topic in this thread was concerned with how the human race is “at a precipice”. And one (but only one) aspect of this precipice is the imminent collapse of the natural world, through climate change, through pollution, through our destructive practices – burning down the forests, huge amounts of our garbage in the ocean, the rivers, many living creatures, polluting the air so much it is unfit to breath in many major cities ........ and on and on and on.

And hardly anyone seems to see that the roots of all this lie in the human mind itself. I take it that that fact is obvious, clear, to everyone here.

Just this morning I read a report from the World Meteorological Organisation, saying that the level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is still increasing – not even slowing down, in spite of all the talk, all the targets set, all the international meetings and attempts at agreement on suitable action.

https://public.wmo.int/en/media/press-release/greenhouse-gas-concentrations-atmosphere-reach-yet-another-high

The article points out that the last time greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere was this high (about 3 million years ago), global average temperatures were 2 or 3 degrees C higher (4-5 degrees F) and sea levels 10-20 metres (30-60 feet) higher than now. So it seems these conditions will inevitably come about quite soon.

One might think (if one was not familiar with human nature) that the information presented in this article, and similar articles, would immediately bring about a movement away from the precipice. But in actual fact, no amount of such information, of scientific research and pronouncements, seem to have much effect on people. Mostly, we still pursue our own individualistic lives, as if we can achieve personal security in the midst of the collapse of global society. It is quite fantastic really. For some years now in my life I have, in various ways, attempted to bring the facts of the precipice to people’s attention. But, although I hesitate to draw any conclusion, more and more I see such action as futile. I am feeling that I have to put aside entirely any idea of other people acting in this matter. Including political action.

Besides, am I not just as much the problem as all the others? Not only in the impact my life style has on the planet (although relatively modest), but more fundamentally I am part of this human consciousness which is the fundamental cause of all our problems. And “being part” of it means I am contributing to it. In this light, I ask: What can I do? I do not ask this question from a stance of already knowing what to do, I ask it in all humility, not knowing the answer.

Perhaps one can look at the issue from the point of view of conflict. Human beings are in global conflict, because they are divided. The climate conferences held every year are some sort of attempt to bridge these differences and act in concert, but they have largely failed. As the UN Organisation has largely failed. Faced with imminent collapse, people still bicker. And this global division/conflict is IN ME, or rather I am part of it. So it seems the issue I have to face, the question I have to meet, is: “Can this division, this conflict, end in me?”. Such an ending may have global consequences, but in a way that is irrelevant.

This is by no means a new question for me, but it is still, surely a crucial, fundamental one; one that I have not yet solved. The question is still THERE, or rather HERE, and really is with me all the time. I am sure people here understand.

And I see that the conventional way of trying to solve psychological problems is entirely wrong. That way is for “me” to somehow act on the problem, but that very movement of the me IS the movement of division and conflict.

It is one thing to describe the problem accurately, it is quite another to actually resolve the problem. And at the moment I do not see any way forward from this realisation. And perhaps there IS no way forward, maybe one has to face fully the fact that there IS no way forward. All ‘ways forward’ only exist in thought, do they not?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 27 Nov 2019 #132
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1578 posts in this forum Offline

There may be other humanoid experiments after us. I have read that there were at least nine before us. So, we got caught in 'consumerism'. Because we could. We had the capability to 'manufacture'...Isn't it a possibility that our role here now, you and me, is to become 'free' of all that, not in order to save our species or the world, just to be free?... Our becoming 'free' could maybe lead to the next 'thing', away from greed, away from fear, hatred, misery, killing, etc? But doesn't it have to happen in us, now? There may be millions of years 'ahead'. It may seem minuscule but it may actually be quite tremendous.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Wed, 27 Nov 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 27 Nov 2019 #133
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2900 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
And I see that the conventional way of trying to solve psychological problems is entirely wrong. That way is for “me” to somehow act on the problem, but that very movement of the me IS the movement of division and conflict.

Wait! If I AM the problem, how can I act on it/myself without the insane inner division of me vs. not me? Of course if I think the problem is outside myself, I will try to do something about it. Ah...Rereading your post I see you are somewhat aware of the issue I’m raising:

Clive: “I am part of this human consciousness which is the fundamental cause of all our problems. And “being part” of it means I am contributing to it. In this light, I ask: What can I do? I do not ask this question from a stance of already knowing what to do, I ask it in all humility, not knowing the answer.”

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Wed, 27 Nov 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 27 Nov 2019 #134
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5417 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
.Isn't it a possibility that our role here now, you and me, is to become 'free' of all that, not in order to save our species or the world, just to be free?... Our becoming 'free' could maybe lead to the next 'thing', away from greed, away from fear, hatred, misery, killing, etc? But doesn't it have to happen in us, now? There may be millions of years 'ahead'. It may seem minuscule but it may actually be quite tremendous.

Yes, this seems quite possible to me also.

In any case, I do not see any other option other than to enquire.Enquire in the broadest sense of that word, enquire into the whole of life, as K seemed to have spent his life doing. That would still be true if we knew with absolute certainty that everything was going to collapse tomorrow.

In fact that certainty seems to be becoming more and more certain - maybe not tomorrow, but in the not too distant future. And in fact is this not the way to live, as if everything IS going to end tomorrow - including myself?

I should make it clear that I am not feeling in despair, not in a state of depression about the state of the world. Why that is, is not clear! It is not that I have 'hope'.

Life must live itself through us

This post was last updated by Clive Elwell Thu, 28 Nov 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 28 Nov 2019 #135
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5417 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
Wait! If I AM the problem, how can I act on it/myself without the insane inner division of me vs. not me?

in the conventional sense of me acting on the problem - which implies effort, and the knowledge of HOW to act on the problem - clearly one cannot. Clearly that is a false approach (except for mechanical problems), an approach that has been demonstrated to fail. It MUST fail, it is not a matter of finding a different, better, approach.

But given this, what is there? Is there anything? Is there further enquiry? Or is it that at some level, the idea of 'me acting' is still active?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 28 Nov 2019 #136
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1578 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
But given this, what is there? Is there anything? Is there further enquiry?

What is this "awakening the understanding of the present"?:
From the QOTD:

"But if you truly understood the significance of the present, then you would not turn to any authority whatsoever, but being intelligent, actively conscious, you would be able to adjust yourself constantly to the movement of life.
So, if each one can understand the present, then he will discover for himself how to live intelligently and supremely. That is, by discovering and eradicating the cause of existing chaos, of human suffering, of spiritual and economic exploitation, each one will truly fulfill."

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 28 Nov 2019 #137
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2900 posts in this forum Offline

Clive: But given this, what is there? Is there anything? Is there further enquiry? Or is it that at some level, the idea of 'me acting' is still active?

If we put aside ‘me’ trying to act on the problem, we can still observe no? As long as I am acting to overcome the problem as if it’s outside or separate from me, I can’t observe

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 28 Nov 2019 #138
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1578 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
If we put aside ‘me’ trying to act on the problem, we can still observe no? As long as I am acting to overcome the problem as if it’s outside or separate from me, I can’t observe.

If 'I' am trying to "act on the problem" or if 'I' am 'wanting' anything psychologically, there has to be identification with the 'I'. There can't be what is being called an "understanding of the present" when there is that identification with the 'I'. The 'wanting' brings in the idea of a time when my action will be completed or the 'wanting' will be satisfied. 'I' will be 'free', say, in a 'future' whether of a minute or years...So is it more accurate to say a "state of observation' rather than 'I' observe? That only the state of observation can "understand the present"? The present seen through the eyes of the 'I' cannot be understood because the 'I' is the past? Does that sound right?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 28 Nov 2019 #139
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2900 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
If 'I' am trying to "act on the problem" or if 'I' am 'wanting' anything psychologically, there has to be identification with the 'I'.

Yes....and identification with 'my' problem. You also said something important above somewhere that touches on this...and I'm going from memory...'there's either concluding or observing'.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Thu, 28 Nov 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 28 Nov 2019 #140
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1578 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
.'there's either concluding or observing'.

The 'I' is the 'concluding mind',isn't it, and what is necessary to "understand the present" is the 'enquiring' mind. A mind that can adjust itself "constantly to the movement of life".

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 29 Nov 2019 #141
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5417 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
. And this global division/conflict is IN ME, or rather I am part of it. So it seems the issue I have to face, the question I have to meet, is: “Can this division, this conflict, end in me?”. Such an ending may have global consequences, but in a way that is irrelevant.

This is by no means a new question for me, but it is still, surely a crucial, fundamental one; one that I have not yet solved. The question is still THERE, or rather HERE, and really is with me all the time. I am sure people here understand.

And I see that the conventional way of trying to solve psychological problems is entirely wrong. That way is for “me” to somehow act on the problem, but that very movement of the me IS the movement of division and conflict.

So it seems to me that I face two challenges: to end conflict in myself, and to end fear in myself. I do not know 'how' to do it, and I see any attempt on my part to try to act is really the continuation of conflict. I see that the essence of conflict is this division between 'me' and 'my thoughts', my psyche. Anything I try to do merely continues this division, and hence creates more conflict.

And yet division, fear, conflict, MUST end in me. It has to actually happen, not just talk about it. I cannot assume that this is impossible. I cannot assume anything. Is this an example of K's "impossible question"?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 29 Nov 2019 #142
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5417 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
If we put aside ‘me’ trying to act on the problem, we can still observe no? As long as I am acting to overcome the problem as if it’s outside or separate from me, I can’t observe

This is true, and highly relevant. I felt the necessity of bringing in awareness, observation, into the problem, but I did not want to do it in an artificial, enforced way. It had to arise naturally.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 29 Nov 2019 #143
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1578 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
And yet division, fear, conflict, MUST end in me. It has to actually happen, not just talk about it.

End when? At some future time? Is that desire any different than any other? The desire to be free of conflict? 'Becoming' free of conflict?... is it that we're are totally conditioned to believe that there must be some 'desire', some intention, or effort or how would change ever take place? 'Something' must be done i.e.. I don't know...as you have said the "controller is the controlled". Is it not, that the desire for the end to psychological conflict, fear, etc. is conflict, is fear?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sat, 30 Nov 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 30 Nov 2019 #144
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5417 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
End when? At some future time?

Obviously this is not the question. One sees the destructive nature of conflict, both in oneself, and in the world around us. it has absolutely no virtue, I would say.It only spawns suffering. It brings no understanding, and as Tom points out, while there is conflict, there can be no observation, no passive awareness. Seeing all this, it seems a natural response to ask if conflict can end.

Dan McDermott wrote:
Is that desire any different than any other?

But is it a desire? if it is a desire, then it like all other desires, I agree. But is being led to seeing the necessity for conflict to end a desire? At any moment such a desire may arise, as a reaction to the suffering of conflict, but I feel the process I describe above is not desire.

Dan McDermott wrote:
. is it that we're are totally conditioned to believe that there must be some 'desire', some intention, or effort or how would change ever take place?

Yes, this is very strong conditioning indeed. It is such a strong movement, reaction, that it appears almost instinctual.

Dan McDermott wrote:
Is it not, that the desire for the end to psychological conflict, fear, etc. is conflict, is fear?

how does the fear come in, Dan? I have been enquiring into ending both conflict and fear, and I have been asking myself what is the relationship between the two?

Here is an interesting quote from Steven Harrison:

Thought and language have expanded this subject-object relationship into a psychological world where a created "me" strives to avoid the actuality of its non-existence. This psychological reality is the basis of great conflict, but the conflict is concept, just as the "me" is.

Is conflict merely concept? It is always between concepts, certainly, but it seems to have a certain reality
.

The quote is from the book "The question to life's answers". I may post some more excerpts from it

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 30 Nov 2019 #145
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1578 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
And yet division, fear, conflict, MUST end in me. It has to actually happen, not just talk about it.

I take your question as a mirror of my situation and then see what the response is. In this case, my question is, is the one asking or making the statement about "conflict must end in me", the actual cause of the conflict itself? Is it the 'movement' of thought creating images which is the problem itself: no thought = no fear? Can thought no matter how it twists and turns, ever bring about 'silence' or must it simply cease? There is nothing that can 'make' it cease. It must cease itself. As has been said it is fear, it's negative images are fear...but its 'positive' images are pleasure and there is no resistance to them, is there? But they are one and the same process aren't they and welcoming one and denying the other is the crux of the 'problem', isn't it. It is the 'movement of thought itself that must end, isn't it?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 30 Nov 2019 #146
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 2900 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
In this case, my question is, is the one asking or making the statement about "conflict must end in me", the actual cause of the conflict itself? Is it the 'movement' of thought creating images which is the problem itself: no thought = no fear? Can thought no matter how it twists and turns, ever bring about 'silence' or must it simply cease?

The one asking the question is time, no? And time is division. Looking into this now...

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 30 Nov 2019 #147
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1578 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
The one asking the question is time, no? And time is division.

I found the QOTD (8th public talk Mumbai 1948) really interesting as regards our problem of 'time'. That it is simply the wrong approach. It cannot bring about freedom or transformation:

"... And that is the problem: That man should be transformed, not just a few. Christ, Buddha, and others have not transformed the world, because the wave of destruction is always sweeping over mankind; and the questioner says, 'Have you a different way of solving this problem? If not, you will be like the rest of the teachers. A few may come out of the chaos, the confusion, but the majority will be swallowed up, destroyed'. You understand the problem, don't you? That is, the few who escape from the burning house hope to draw others from the fire; but since the vast majority are doomed to burn, many who are burning invent the theory of the process of time: in the next life it will be alright. So, they look to time as a means of transformation. That is the problem, is it not? A few of us may be out of this chaos, but the vast majority are held in the net of time, in the net of becoming, in the net of sorrow; and can they be transformed? Can they leave the burning house instantaneously, completely? If not, the wave of confusion, the wave of misery, is continuously covering them up, continuously destroying them. That is the problem, isn't it?"

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 30 Nov 2019 #148
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 5417 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
It is the 'movement of thought itself that must end, isn't it?

My enquiry into this took me to the following - or rather the following just appeared in the mind this morning:

At the moment of trying to act on conflict, or on fear, or to attempt any action psychologically – which means action on “myself” - (or rather the concept of myself) – there must be be the assumption that myself exists. That is, there must be separation. (or rather the assumption of separation). There is the me that tries to act, and the me that is acted upon, and so inevitable conflict. It is not that there is 'right action' and 'wrong action'.

Such action is assumption, rather than reflecting some actuality. The process is inherently flawed. And of cause any attempt to “de-flaw” it only continues the basic illusion.

I suggest that the seeing of this is true action?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 30 Nov 2019 #149
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1578 posts in this forum Offline

Clive Elwell wrote:
It is not that there is 'right action' and 'wrong action'.

If it is true that the "house is burning" as K. says, then there is only one "action" that is 'right' and that is getting out. No? Anything else will result in you and me being "doomed to burn", as most of us will. So what is that 'instantaneous action' that eludes the 'net of time' and keeps us from being caught up again and again in the chaos, the'wave of destruction'and misery?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sat, 30 Nov 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 01 Dec 2019 #150
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 775 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
If it is true that the "house is burning" as K. says, then there is only one "action" that is 'right' and that is getting out. No? Anything else will result in you and me being "doomed to burn", as most of us will. So what is that 'instantaneous action' that eludes the 'net of time' and keeps us from being caught up again and again in the chaos, the'wave of destruction'and misery?

Why do you say, “IF it is true”? Don’t we see it? Doubt is necessary but can’t we say that it is so? Isn’t it clear?

Where it is seen that it IS true - physically and/or psychologically - does the question of right and wrong action arise? One acts, one does, one lives or dies. It is not a desired result which matters but action. The rightness of action is not measured by its desired result. Janusz Korczak (2nd quote below) acted, maybe rightly, maybe wrongly. He and the children died and, as I see it, it was right action.

“...if you could leave desire alone, either to wither away - just leave it alone - that is the very essence of a mind which is not in conflict.”

For the full extract, see:
https://jkrishnamurti.org/content/what-signific...
What significance has desire? Public Talk 7 London, England - 16 May 1961

From Wikipedia:

Janusz Korczak ... was a Polish-Jewish educator, children's author, and pedagogue ….. After spending many years working as director of an orphanage in Warsaw, he refused sanctuary repeatedly and stayed with his orphans when the entire population of the institution was sent by the Nazis from the Ghetto to the Treblinka extermination camp, during the Grossaktion Warschau of 1942.

On 5 or 6 August 1942, German soldiers came to collect the 192 orphans ... and about one dozen staff members to transport them to the Treblinka extermination camp. Korczak had been offered sanctuary on the "Aryan side" by the Polish underground organization Zegota, but turned it down repeatedly, saying that he could not abandon his children. On 5 August, he again refused offers of sanctuary, insisting that he would go with the children.
The children were dressed in their best clothes, and each carried a blue knapsack and a favorite book or toy. Joshua Perle, an eyewitness ..., described the procession of Korczak and the children through the Ghetto...:
"Janusz Korczak was marching, his head bent forward, holding the hand of a child, without a hat, a leather belt around his waist, and wearing high boots. A few nurses were followed by two hundred children, dressed in clean and meticulously cared for clothes, as they were being carried to the altar."
...
He boarded the trains with the children and was never heard from again.

This post was last updated by Huguette . Sun, 01 Dec 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 121 - 150 of 162 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.)