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

Self knowledge


Displaying all 15 posts
Page 1 of 1
Tue, 21 Jan 2020 #1
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3260 posts in this forum Offline

QOTD: Thoughts? Comments?

Public Talk 21st March, 1948 | Mumbai, India

“So, if I may suggest, it will be beneficial and worthwhile to listen and comprehend directly, without translating what is said into your particular terminology of usage of words. Most of us have accumulated knowledge, and according to that knowledge, we act. But self-knowledge is different; self-knowledge is not accumulative, residual knowledge, but it demands constant alertness, watchfulness. The moment we accumulate knowledge, it becomes a burden; and where there is a burden, a weight, travelling becomes impossible or very difficult. Whereas, self-knowledge, the knowledge of the whole total process of oneself, does not demand any previous knowledge at all. On the contrary, where there is previous knowledge, there is bound to be misunderstanding, misinterpretation, and mistranslation. It is like taking a journey: as you proceed, you begin to understand the country, the scenery. Or, you dig a well, and drink the waters of that well. Similarly, self-knowledge is not accumulative, it is a constant movement, it is knowledge from moment to moment, always living, always a discovery, always creative. It is only when there is accumulation, when there are residual remains which become memory, that knowledge is an impediment to creative living, creative being.”

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Tue, 21 Jan 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 21 Jan 2020 #2
Thumb_spock Douglas MacRae-Smith France 212 posts in this forum Offline

I have photos of myself as a young boy - but who I am now cannot be seen. I am an empty space.

Whatever fills that space must be embraced and allowed to flow.

Look, see, let go

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 21 Jan 2020 #3
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1718 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
But self-knowledge is different; self-knowledge is not accumulative, residual knowledge, but it demands constant alertness, watchfulness.

Is this energy missing because we don't perceive the gravity of our situation?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 21 Jan 2020 #4
Thumb_spock Douglas MacRae-Smith France 212 posts in this forum Offline

Habit creates actual material pathways in the brain.

Habit strengthens habit.

Apparently we can intellectually see why we might want to create new habits of awareness and acceptation - but we do probably need an extra emotional push.

Also K pointed out the dangers of formal meditation and beliefs - so there is also the reluctance to experiment with meditation.

Look, see, let go

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 21 Jan 2020 #5
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 1718 posts in this forum Offline

Douglas MacRae-Smith wrote:
Apparently we can intellectually see why we might want to create new habits of awareness and acceptation - but we do probably need an extra emotional push.

Yes and he used the metaphors of a burning house and a precipice and a dangerous snake. As Mina said when I was speculating on why thought 'went wrong', that the energy needs to go toward breaking through this consciousness of division that we find in ourselves. So where would the emotional shock come from that could bring the suggested seriousness that is needed to address our habitual psychological situation, the "constant alertness and watchfulness", that is obviously lacking?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 21 Jan 2020 #6
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3260 posts in this forum Offline

Douglas MacRae-Smith wrote:
Also K pointed out the dangers of formal meditation and beliefs - so there is also the reluctance to experiment with meditation.

What k is asking is nothing to do with formal meditation. He’s talking about watchfulness in everyday living. Like in a crowded waiting room at the doctor, at my job, with my kids when there’s a conflict at home...on the golf course when I’m losing. This is obviously not formal meditation. Well, that’s how I’m understanding him not just from this excerpt but from other talks

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Tue, 21 Jan 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 21 Jan 2020 #7
Thumb_spock Douglas MacRae-Smith France 212 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
why thought 'went wrong'

Whats gone wrong is the tipping out of balance. The domination of the analytical, sequential, interpretative vision of separate things out there. Not the fact that it exists, but the fact that it is considered as the only vision of reality.

When have we ever been invited to allow for the dissapearance of the self into mystery? Outside of formal religion, Never. And formal religion these days is for retrograde losers.

Dan McDermott wrote:
So where would the emotional shock come from

Emotional shocks are available to all - the solutions offered include drugs, analysis, hugs and all sorts of solutions to alleviate the symptoms. But have we ever been invited to transcend the self as cause and condition? Never.

Tom Paine wrote:
watchfulness in everyday living.

After a lifetime of selfcentredness, watching without the watcher is not easily slipped into. It is necessary to have some sort of experimentation with choiceless awareness in calm surroundings to just get a taste of what that might be.

Look, see, let go

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 21 Jan 2020 #8
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3260 posts in this forum Offline

Douglas MacRae-Smith wrote:
Tom Paine wrote:

watchfulness in everyday living.
After a lifetime of selfcentredness, watching without the watcher is not easily slipped into. It is necessary to have some sort of experimentation with choiceless awareness in calm surroundings to just get a taste of what that might be.

We can only understand conflict when conflict is present. If I have conflict with my wife or employer I’ll carry that with me into calm surroundings no? K talked about observing ourselves in the mirror of relationship... and most relationships are not peaceful and calm. I need to search jkrishnamutri.org for an excerpt of k speaking about that ‘mirror’

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 21 Jan 2020 #9
Thumb_spock Douglas MacRae-Smith France 212 posts in this forum Offline

In the mirror of relationship we may see the conflict which is the self.
We may see this intellectually after the fact, and thus we have an additional, hopefully useful concept to hold on to - not too tightly as this may give rise to negative self judgement.

We may see this conflict which is the self via sudden insight during the fight itself, which is compassion, and immediate release. The fight is transformed into understanding - this is a much rarer occurrence.

In calm surroundings now. Are you there? Is there conflict?
If you are there, there is conflict.

Look, see, let go

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 22 Jan 2020 #10
Thumb_avatar Manfred Kritzler Germany 86 posts in this forum Offline

Douglas: After a lifetime of selfcentredness, watching without the watcher is not easily slipped into. It is necessary to have some sort of experimentation with choiceless awareness in calm surroundings to just get a taste of what that might be.
——————
Manfred: Yes. How could we come to choiceless awareness in our daily life when we for a long time never had any idea that this is possible? For me it took some years with trying choiceless awareness in an artificial secluded environment to experience it now sometimes in action. It also was necessary for me to observe what I am doing in the moment without thinking about the next task, which was clearly done by intention and therefore a pattern.

I think this way is maybe not in accordance with what Krishnamurti said. But for myself I saw no other way. I would be strongly interested if someone is or was able to experience the freedom of choiceless awareness in his daily life without having had used a certain method before?

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Wed, 22 Jan 2020 #11
Thumb_spock Douglas MacRae-Smith France 212 posts in this forum Offline

The method would be : instead of doing Something, just for a while do Nothing.

What does this even mean? Is it possible? Be curious, find out.

K spoke of the danger of imagining that we are some kind of monk practising magical methods in order to arrive at some magical realm.
Another danger is to become some sort of Schizophrenic Philosopher, with one self detached from and observing the other. There is no self to observe, so be careful that we Don't make things worse by becoming 2 selves. There should be no effort, no goal, just openness.

If Doubt and confusion arise from this Curiosity, it just means that you are taking the experience seriously - Don't fall prey to the belief that calmness and silence is some sort of goal. (nb. Doubt is not a goal either)

Look, see, let go

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 22 Jan 2020 #12
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3260 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
the energy needs to go toward breaking through this consciousness of division that we find in ourselves.

But any effort to get this energy is perpetuating the 'me'...perpetuating division... the observer/observed split... isn't it? So where would this energy come from, as you asked yourself...see below

So where would the emotional shock come from that could bring the suggested seriousness that is needed to address our habitual psychological situation, the "constant alertness and watchfulness", that is obviously lacking?

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Wed, 22 Jan 2020.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Wed, 22 Jan 2020 #13
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3260 posts in this forum Offline

Douglas MacRae-Smith wrote:
There is no self to observe, so be careful that we Don't make things worse by becoming 2 selves.

We already ARE two selves....observer vs observed. I'm angry and I don't want to be angry...I want to change anger into non anger....'I' who am separate from anger (the two selves).

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Wed, 22 Jan 2020 #14
Thumb_spock Douglas MacRae-Smith France 212 posts in this forum Offline

Yes : No Goal. No Self. No Effort.

Unfortunately, these are all we have to work with.

Look, see, let go

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 22 Jan 2020 #15
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3260 posts in this forum Offline

I may start a new thread with this excerpt which is one of the clearest on what, for me, is the core of the teaching. I'm not sure if it touches on what we're discussing in this thread or not. But I want to throw it out there. This is from the book 'The Urgency of Change'. Jkrishnamurti.org provided no other source:

Questioner: I have read a great deal of philosophy, psychology, religion and politics, all of which to a greater or lesser degree are concerned with human relationships. I have also read your books which all deal with thought and ideas, and somehow I’m fed up with it all. I have swum in an ocean of words, and wherever I go there are more words – and actions derived from those words are offered to me: advice, exhortations, promises, theories, analyses, remedies. Of course one sets all these aside – you yourself have really done so; but for most of those who have read you, or heard you, what you say is just words. There may be people for whom all this is more than words, for whom it is utterly real, but I’m talking about the rest of us. I’d like to go beyond the word, beyond the idea, and live in total relationship to all things. For after all, that is life. You have said that one has to be a teacher and a pupil to oneself. Can I live in the greatest simplicity, without principles, beliefs, and ideals? Can I live freely, knowing that I am enslaved by the world? Crises don’t knock on the door before they appear: challenges of everyday life are there before you are aware of them. Knowing all this, having been involved in many of these things, chasing various phantoms, I ask myself how I can live rightly and with love, clarity and effortless joy. I’m not asking how to live, but to live: the how denies the actual living itself. The nobility of life is not practising nobility.

Krishnamurti: After stating all this, where are you? Do you really want to live with benediction, with love? If you do, then where is the problem?

Questioner: I do want to, but that doesn’t get me anywhere. I’ve wanted to live that way for years, but I can’t.

Krishnamurti: So though you deny the ideal, the belief, the directive, you are very subtly and deviously asking the same thing which everybody asks: this is the conflict between the “what is” and the “what should be”.

Questioner: Even without the “what should be”, I see that the “what is” is hideous. To deceive myself into not seeing it would be much worse still.

Krishnamurti: If you see “what is” then you see the universe, and denying “what is” is the origin of conflict. The beauty of the universe is in the “what is; and to live with “what is” without effort is virtue.

Questioner: The “what is” also includes confusion, violence, every form of human aberration. To live with that is what you call virtue. But isn’t it callousness and insanity? Perfection doesn’t consist simply in dropping all ideals! Life itself demands that I live it beautifully, like the eagle in the sky: to live the miracle of life with anything less than total beauty is unacceptable.

Krishnamurti: Then live it!

Questioner: I can’t, and I don’t.

Krishnamurti: If you can’t, then live in confusion; don’t battle with it. Knowing the whole misery of it, live with it: that is “what is”. And to live with it without conflict frees us from it.

Questioner: Are you saying that our only fault is to be self-critical?

Krishnamurti: Not at all. You are not sufficiently critical. You go only so far in your self-criticism. The very entity that criticizes must be criticized, must be examined. If the examination is comparative, examination by yardstick, then that yardstick is the ideal. If there is no yardstick at all – in other words, if there is no mind that is always comparing and measuring – you can observe the “what is”, and then the “what is” is no longer the same.

Questioner: I observe myself without a yardstick, and I’m still ugly.

Krishnamurti: All examination means there is a yardstick. But is it possible to observe so that there is only observation, seeing, and nothing else – so that there is only perception without a perceiver?

Questioner: What do you mean?

Krishnamurti: There is looking. The assessment of the looking is interference, distortion in the looking: that is not looking; instead it is evaluation of looking – the two are as different as chalk and cheese. Is there a perception of yourself without distortion, only an absolute perception of yourself as you are?

Questioner: Yes.

Krishnamurti: In that perception is there ugliness?

Questioner: There is no ugliness in the perception, only in what is perceived.

Krishnamurti: The way you perceive is what you are. Righteousness is in purely looking, which is attention without the distortion of measure and idea. You came to enquire how to live beautifully, with love. To look without distortion is love, and the action of that perception is the action of virtue. That clarity of perception will act all the time in living. That is living like the eagle in the sky; that is living beauty and living love.

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Wed, 22 Jan 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying all 15 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.)